"Rob McKenna: Crappy Lawyer or Total Dick?" (Or both)

David Goldstein:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for a sitting attorney general, but what McKenna and his staffers did to me last Thursday suggests something much, much worse. It appears that he attempted to use his office to bully and intimidate a working member of the press, to deny me my statutory and constitutional right to do my job, and perhaps even to provoke me into a physical confrontation that they could use as grounds for my arrest and prosecution (all I needed to do was shove back the staffer who grabbed my shoulders or the security guard who repeatedly bumped me while blocking my way, and it's my word against the AG's as to who assaulted whom). It was an arrogant, arbitrary, and illegal abuse of his office that displayed a total disrespect for the law. MORE...

(Updated) "Run, Dennis, Run! (Just Not in the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, 9th, or 10th)"

UPDATE: Politico links to the Seattle Times story that features a quote from Dwight Pelz: "Dem chief: Kucinich a 'narcissist'."
Kucinich speaks at Seattle Hempfest on Saturday, Aug. 20, 2011. (Joshua Trujillo/seattlepi.com)

Goldy:

One of the best hours on my old 710-KIRO radio show was the night Kucinich came into the studio and took questions from callers. He was terrific, parrying critics, graciously thanking supporters, and displaying a deep knowledge and understanding of the issues. Make fun of Kucinich all you want, but by comparison Reichert or Herrera Beutler would come off as the lightweights they truly are. They'd likely win, but they'd stumble and struggle in the process.

And who knows? Lightning may strike. But even if not, at least Kucinich would force Republicans to spend a little money in a district they'd otherwise take for granted.

So yeah: run, Dennis, run. As long as it's in a Republican district where you'd do Democrats more good than harm. MORE...

WA: "The Bullshit Budget Debate"

Goldy (The Stranger):

Two quick comments on the Seattle Times editorial board's latest call for legislators to balance the state budget by slashing pension benefits for state workers: 1) The Blethens can't manage their own fucking pension, let alone advise others; and 2) The editors' insistence that slashing pensions sets our state on a "sustainable path" suggests that they are either idiots or liars.

The only reform that can possibly set our state budget on a sustainable path is tax reform. We've been slashing spending for years, and still the budget gap grows. Not even an economic recovery can set things right again, because in the long run we have a tax structure that over-relies on taxing a base—the sale of goods—that has been steadily shrinking as a portion of the overall economy for more than a half-century. And as state revenue shrinks as a portion of the state economy, so does its ability to meet demand for state services at a constant level. It's simple math.

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have a debate over pensions and other priorities and reform, but until we're willing to put revenue back on the table, the entire budget debate is bullshit.

Howie P.S.: Sometimes political issues are just this simple to understand.

Goldy on Rep. McDermott on Obama's SOTU: "Obama Was a Monster Tonight"

Goldy (David Goldstein):

Squeezed into a loud bar, feebly attempting to out-duel Cienna with live-Slog witticisms, it was hard to get a good feel for President Obama's State of the Union speech last night. But US Representative Jim McDermott (D-The Part of Seattle I Don't Live In), sitting (and often standing) in the House chamber, got a firsthand look at the president in battle mode, and he came away quite impressed.

"Obama was a monster tonight," McDermott told me by phone about an hour after the speech. "By far and away, this was the best speech I've ever heard him give." Really.

No doubt McDermott is as partisan as they come, and he can be prone to fits of enthusiasm, but this was about as bubbly and effusive as I've ever heard him. Throughout the interview, McDermott literally giggled with delight at the thought of taking on Mitt Romney as the nominee, let alone his old foe Newt Gingrich. "They're trying not look scared," McDermott said of his Republican colleagues, "but they're looking at an unmitigated disaster." MORE...

"Goldy's Guide to Being Political Without Being an Asshole"

David Goldstein:

So you wanna make a difference, huh? You're young, you're strong, you're entering your intellectual prime, and you're just itching to stand up to the arrogant gray-hairs of your parents' generation—who, admittedly, royally screwed things up—and set our nation right again. You want to end injustice, end poverty, end pollution, end the wars, and push the powers that be toward smarter, fairer, and more sustainable policies. In other words, like generations of politically conscious students before you, you want to change the world.

Well, here's a novel idea: You could fucking vote! MORE...

Howie P.S.: Here's the money quote:

According to data compiled by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University (yes, they stupidly felt the need to spell out the acronym CIRCLE), only 21.3 percent of eligible voters age 18 to 24 bothered to vote in the 2010 midterm election... you know, the election that filled Congress with racist, fascist, science-denying teabagging lunatics.

"Goldy to The Stranger": Gamechanger for Seatttle Politics?

Goldy (on the left) in action @ a "Health Care Celebration"in March of this year.

Joel Connelly:

Among Northwest scribes he is the equal only of Dan Savage in "f" bombs and first-person references, and now David Goldstein (aka Goldy) of the Horsesass.org website is joining Savage at The Stranger.

It was announced late Friday that Goldstein will be a full-time news writer at the Capitol Hill-based newspaper and website starting next month. No reference was made to the future of Horsesass.org.

Goldstein, a Philadelphia product, broke into Washington politics with a ballot initiative that sought to designate professional initiative promoter Tim Eyman as the rear end of a horse. MORE...

Howie P.S.: With McGinn's election, The Stranger established itself firmly as a major player in Seattle politics. Therefore, my answer is "Yes!" This gives David a great platform, (and a regular paycheck!).

Goldy: "my real post-election reaction"

David Goldstein (SLOG):

I've had my bit of fun this morning over at HA (we'll see how long it takes for my trolls to realize I'm just quoting Sharron Angle), so I thought I'd post my real post-election reaction here on Slog, the gist of it being that if you're looking for meaning in yesterday's election, don't.

Shit happens. Or more specifically, a shitty economy. MORE...

Howie P.S.: I must be pretty stupid. I took his earlier post seriously.

Some photos from Sunday's Health Care "Celebration" in South Park

NO, not that South Park.

"In which Goldy plays the AG’s office and the media"

David Goldstein:

I couldn’t make it down there myself, but I’m told a healthy media contingent showed up to watch the protesters drop off petitions at the Attorney General’s office, presumably on the off chance that there might be a little drama.

I’d say that was well played on my part, but, you know, one can only go to that particular well so many times.

When several thousand health care reform backers packed into Westlake Park last September the rally earned relatively little media coverage and absolutely zero ink in the Seattle Times. Yet when maybe a hundred or so Teabaggers gathered on a street corner to mark the anniversary of their so-called “movement,” the Times deemed that worthy of a reporter, a photographer and twenty column inches.

Why? Media bias, of course, though not necessarily of the kind you might think.

Yeah, sure, our media’s corporate owners are biased toward the right-wing agenda and away from ours, but outside of, say, Fox News and handful of other ridiculously partisan media outlets, that only explains a small part of the disproportionate coverage the Teabaggers have enjoyed. No, what the media is really institutionally biased toward is a good story. And the angry, crazy, froth-at-mouth Teabaggers are nothing if not a good story.

Peacefully dropping off a bunch of petitions on the other hand, not so much… not at least unless you’re Tim Eyman prancing about in a rented costume, and spouting off his usual anti-tax/anti-government sound bites. But up the ante a little — provoke the AG’s office into ordering a lockdown, for example — and voila… three TV cameras show up. You know, just in case.

Am I proud that it took turning up the angry rhetoric a couple notches to spark some attention? Not particularly, but neither am I ashamed. I’ve been at this too long not to know how this game is played.

In my emails today with AG communications director Janelle Guthrie, she wrote: “It doesn’t have to be as ugly and contentious as you seem to like to make it. Reasonable people can have reasonable discussions.”

Yeah, well, reasonable people can have reasonable discussions, but apparently, if you want the media to pay attention, it does unfortunately have to be a little ugly and contentious. After all, my long time readers know that at my core, I’m a policy wonk who often digresses into lengthy, technical policy discussions, only to be completely ignored by the legacy press. But break a bit of dirty muckraking — or vaguely threaten to vaguely threaten a public disturbance — and that catches the media’s attention.

I’m a smart critic, an entertaining writer and a damn fine analyst with long track record of getting stuff right, but honestly, I know what my main role is: publicly saying the things respectable folk wish they could publicly say, if they weren’t so cautious and polite. That’s why folks read me, because I’m willing to call a spade a fuckin’ spade. And there’s something naturally cathartic in that.

But like I said, one can only go to that particular well so many times before it runs dry, and if I’m the only person around here expressing any real emotion, the media will continue to largely ignore our side of the story while heaping outsized coverage on the handful of loud, angry wingnuts across the street.

And for those in the media who take issue with my assessment of what it takes to manipulate you, well, actions speak louder than words. (Or at least, actions would speak louder than words, if only there was anybody around to report on them.)

"Don’t just decriminalize marijuana… legalize it" (with video)

David Goldstein (HA Seattle), with video (04:13):

The Washington State Bar Association has endorsed a bill that would decriminalize simple marijuana possession, reducing the maximum punishment from the current $1000 fine and 90 days in jail, to a $100 ticket.

Well… um… yawn.

It’s not that I don’t support the WSBA’s resolution, it’s just that it’s hard to get excited about a half-measure that’s at least twenty years behind the times, and fails to take full advantage of a budget crisis that could force legislators to take a new and creative look at our state’s antiquated drug policies. For as I’ve previously argued, it’s time to fully legalize marijuana, and sell it through our state stores.

Other states may be further along the political path toward de facto legalization, but no other state, with the exception of my native Pennsylvania, has a more robust system already in place for effectively executing it. Washington already heavily regulates the in-state manufacture of wine, beer and distilled spirits, and maintains an extensive statewide network of retail stores and distribution centers for the sole purpose of operating its exclusive monopoly on the retail sale of liquor. A similar monopoly on the legal sale of marijuana would not only be easily implemented, but highly profitable for taxpayers and state farmers alike.

At an estimated street value of over $1 billion a year, marijuana is already Washington’s number two cash crop, second only to apples, and consistently ranking us among the top five pot-producing states. By legalizing and regulating a crop that is already being grown, the state could impose standards of consistency and quality on the product, and by setting prices as the only legal buyer for the crop, farmers could be assured a stable, legal income for their efforts.

And considering the existing federal ban on marijuana, and the federal government’s constitutional authority over interstate commerce, Washington’s State Stores, by necessity, would initially only be able to buy and sell state-grown product, thus nurturing a nascent hemp industry that would eventually produce a valuable export commodity once the ban is lifted nationally, perhaps even dominating the market.

According to the Office of Financial Management, decriminalizing marijuana could save state and local authorities as much as $16 million a year in law enforcement resources. But regulated growing, and a State Store monopoly, could contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to state and local coffers, with plenty left over to dramatically expand our treatment and prevention programs.

As Lee has extensively documented here on HA, our nation’s war on pot is an abject failure. It’s time for our nation to accept the reality that tens of millions of Americans choose to enjoy the recreational use of marijuana. And what better place to start than here in Washington state?

"Suzie, there you go again!" (video)

David Goldstein, video (01:25).

Howie P.S.: Suzie claims she has made political contributions to "some Democrats and and to some Republicans." FACT: All her contributions were to Republicans.

Fine, but don't lie to us about it.

"Suzie Huckabee" (with video)

Tube3HA, video (02 :17).

Howie P.S.: As David Goldsrein points out, Hutchison is free to support whoever she likes, it's the blatant lying that should concern King County voters. What else is she being dishonest about when she states her positions?

Political compromise: a Public Option “option”

David Goldstein:

There’s a political compromise brewing in the US Senate over several conservative Democratic senators’ opposition to the a public option, a possible “option” clause that would allow states like Nebraska or North Dakota to opt out of the national public option… I mean, if they really want to. And as always, McJoan at Daily Kos gets to the heart of the issue:

In terms of national policy, is this necessarily a good idea? Probably not, when you’ve got crazy secessionists like Rick Perry in governorships. The thought of all those Texans not having access to care is a problem. On the other hand, how many governors ended up sending back those stimulus checks? How many governors, state legislators, or even Senators of Nebraska or North Dakota or Arkansas are going to be willing to stand in front of their constituents and tell them that the rest of the country has access to a government option for their healthcare. Have at it, Ben Nelson.

Yeah, probably not a great policy idea, but if that’s what it takes to get a real public option passed for the rest of us, I agree with Joan: have at it, Ben Nelson.

Goldy asks Dean: "Is the public option a “slippery slope” to single-payer?" (with audio)

David Goldstein, with audio (01:04), link below:

It was hot last night at Seattle’s Town Hall, both literally and figuratively. Outside, advocates of a single-payer healthcare system were chanting and leafleting. Inside, as Gov. Howard Dean spoke about healthcare reform, the crowd was only slightly less boisterous.

Though friendly and receptive as Gov. Dean took the podium, when it came time to take questions from the audience it quickly became apparent that the many of those inside shared the sentiments of those on the street, with some of the questioners filibustering their opportunity at the mic to take an uncompromising stance in favor of single-payer, and opposed to anything less. It was apparently a familiar scene for Gov. Dean, who had just arrived from a similar engagement in Portland, OR, where several single-payer advocates had to be removed from the audience after disrupting the proceedings.

Gov. Dean, a licensed physician and former presidential candidate and DNC Chair, is on tour promoting his new book “Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform,” but for many true believers, Gov. Dean’s prescription—take a public option and call me in a decade—isn’t real enough. What plays out is the sorta classic confrontation between idealism and pragmatism that so often undermines reforms coming from either end of the ideological spectrum, leaving those in the mushy middle so firmly in control. And it’s the kinda confrontation that the insurance industry and big pharma are counting on to stave off reform for another generation.

As Gov. Dean repeated throughout the Q&A, he’d personally prefer a single-payer system, as it’s the only reform that can guarantee universal coverage while quickly providing the level of savings needed to get our healthcare costs under control. But as he also repeated, polling consistently shows that the general public just isn’t there yet, let alone the laggards in Congress, so while single-payer shouldn’t necessarily be taken off the table, it would be unrealistic to expect it to move any further… at this point in time.

And here’s where that confrontation between idealism and pragmatism really comes into play. Public option opponents on the left dismiss the proposal as mere half-measures, while public option opponents on the right attack it as a slippery slope to single-payer. And they’re both right. The question is, will the lack of enthusiasm for the public option from idealists on the left ultimately play into the hands of the pragmatists on the right in their efforts to scuttle any substantive reforms at all?

As I’ve argued before, the public option is a slippery slope to single-payer, if implemented and executed correctly. Now some might characterize this admission as cynical and dishonest, but good policy done right is inherently a slippery slope toward better policy. As it should be. And it’s a slope we slide down only with the approval of a majority of voters.

So after he finished signing books I asked Gov. Dean whether he believed the public option would be a slippery slope to single-payer. I wanted him to say yes, and I sensed that he wanted to say yes as well. But he’s too smart for that… and too pragmatic. Instead, he enunciated what I think is the most rhetorically effective response I’ve ever heard to the right’s slippery slope argument, a response that totally undermines their objection, even without denying it:

This will be the change that the American people want at the pace that they want it. So the opponents have no right to make that argument. The Republican ability to make that argument assumes that they know better than the American people, that they’re so smart that the American people have no right to make up their own mind.

That’s what this bill is about. This bill is not about whether to have a single-payer or a public option or a private system; this bill is about whether the American people get to choose for themselves, or whether congressmen take it upon themselves to override the will of the American people and do something different. It’s a straight up vote between whether you’re in favor of the health insurance industry, or whether you’re in favor of your constituency. Everybody’s going to have to make that vote, and we’ll be watching.

The same could be said to the uncompromising advocates of a single-payer system.

I may not live to see the bottom, but I still believe that the public option will ultimately set us down that slippery slope to single-payer, and my sense is that many of its proponents believe the same, whether for pragmatic reasons, they’re willing to publicly say so or not. If given the choice, many Americans will flock to the public option, and if private insurers simply aren’t able to compete, I’m alright with that.

It is ironic, after all, that those who insist there is no fundamental right to basic health care, also tend to be those who insist that there is a fundamental right to selling private health insurance.

Of course, there isn’t. And if the single-payer advocates can be as patient as they are passionate, I’m confident the American people will ultimately prove them right.

Howie P.S.: Dean's short answer can be translated to "yes" if that's what the population wants. As Howard Dean's Unofficial #1 Fan in Seattle, I feel guilty for not going Friday night. But Goldy has given us a great report.

Howie comments...on "The Passion of Joel" (Connelly)

My comment on Goldy's post, "The Passion of the Joel":

In the fashion of many here, let me preface my own comment by saying many of you seem to be morons. My comment is that from the point of view of political strategy, I think it would be immensely helpful if there was more discussion in the media and blogosphere of Susie’s positions on the issues, and/or her unwillingness to share them with us.

Connelly: Don't drag Hutchison "through the mud"

Joel Connelly takes on "some" liberal bloggers that would be (Goldy and Erica Barnett) for making an issue of her religious practices and accuses the "militant secularists" of sexism, name-calling, guilt by association, broad-brush smears and demeaning sarcasm. Joel's advice to the anti-Hutchison campaigners:

Nor should Hutchison get dragged through the mud over a discrimination suit -- later settled -- that she filed against KIRO-TV after it demoted her and a younger person was brought in to host the evening news.

Instead, we should ask a question she didn't answer at Thursday's debate: Will Hutchison try to change (read dismantle) King County's urban growth boundaries? Will the Building Industry Association of Washington find in her a willing ally? Hutchison has excoriated the county's Critical Areas ordinance as a scourge on rural residents. "It tells citizens who own land how they will use it," she told a Bellevue debate on Thursday.

Howie P.S.: As one who has publicly chided the local media (not Joel!) for their under-reporting on this race, I feel some responsibility to chime in here: I think Joel's advice is wise. There is plenty to talk about Susan on the secular issues. In Goldy's defense, he did post "Susan Hutchison: “I oppose legal abortion” --a legitimate political issue, but not one central to the King County Executive job, as far as I can tell. For evidence of Goldy's interest in Hutchison's religous views, see "Is Susan Hutchison a “wedge” candidate?"

Goldy: "He's baack (on KIRO)...too!"

Michael Hood (BlatherWatch):

David Goldstein will fill in for Dave Ross (KIRO m-f, 9a-12p) Feb. 25-29; and March 3-6. Goldy says he'll bring his drive time propaganda to the masses, "while wiping my liberal stink all over Dori’s microphone."

"Dori monson cohort is passed over in KIRO massacre"

Michael Hood (BlatherWatch):

"This has got Dori's fingerprints all over it," says one KIRO-ite.

"It stinks," writes another. "He finally won."

The post-massacre KIRO weekend skedge is out and wonder of wonders: The Angel of Death passed over Phil, the news junkie's door! Besides the gardening Cisco and the cookin' Tom Douglas, the only local talk show left on the weekend is The News Junkie, the little show that does no harm, has neither listeners, nor point of view; but does have the tremendous advantage of being hosted by Phil Vandevort, the longtime producer for conservative Dori Monson, the self-proclaimed "King of Seattle Talk Radio."

David Goldstein, Bryan Styble, and Carl Jeffers and the support hours that go with them were eliminated Wednesday.

The Dori Monson Clause that retained Phil kinda blows a hole in the out-of-their-hands, "budgetary concerns" explanation they gave for laying off all these people.

It kinda blows...

"Dori has been after Goldy's hide for a year," says a newsie; "He's pushes his weight around, always has -- I don't know whether he got Goldy fired, but for sure if Phil's $300 a week job was saved, Dori was behind it."

Dori (whose name is a girl's name) stopped speaking or acknowledging Goldy's presence a few months ago.

KIRO staffers agree: Dori can be a real prick. "All this reminds me of the bad old Entercom days when you felt like you had to kiss his ass to keep your job."

This means a big loss of employment for the horrifically underpaid Board ops too. That's probably the reason Dustin Hornby walked. We'll be interested in hearing more about that.

It's only weekends, we know. But KIRO's closing them down for fledgling local talent is the end of an era. There is effectively no way for a talk host in this town to get started.

We'll probably pass on The Mutual Fund Show, and we can only listen to Bob Brinker once a week.

But take it from us: NPR is where it's at on weekends: in case you haven't already been driven away from KIRO. check out the weekend fare on KUOW.

Here's the Saturday line-up (except they don't say who will be in the former Carl Jeffers spot at 10p or on the overnight -- can't wait to find out!):

6am – 9am KIRO Morning News
9am- 10am The Mutual Fund Show
10am – 1pm In the Garden w/Cisco Morris
1pm to 4pm Bob Brinker Show
4pm-7pm In the Kitchen w/Tom Douglas
7pm-10pm Best of TBTL

Doesn't get much more exciting on Sunday:

6am -9am KIRO Morning News
9am- 10am Meet the Press
10am- 1pm Handel on the Law
1pm- 4pm Bob Brinker Show
4pm-7pm The News Junkie
7pm-8pm CBS News Weekend Round-up
8pm-9pm Meet the Press (Repeat)
9pm-Midnite Leo LaPorte – The Tech Guy
Midnite to 4am Bob Brinker (Repeat)

Howie P.S.: One word always pops in my head when Monson's name is mentioned: "ass."

"Obamelot?"

David Goldstein (Goldy):

So, the Seattle Times has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Big deal. Next week they’ll also endorse Sen. John McCain on the Republican side. If the Times really embraces the kind of change they believe Obama represents, they wouldn’t endorse anybody for the Republican nomination, least of all a warmonger whose idea of straight talk is promising crowds “there will be other wars.”

Personally, I doubt many Washington state Democrats are looking to the op-ed pages for advice on who to caucus for on February 9, but if they are, I’m guessing the most influential endorsement of the primary season may have come today in the New York Times, and I’m not talking about an unsigned editorial. No, the big news following Obama’s impressive 29-point rout of Hillary Clinton in yesterday’s South Carolina primary was the moving op-ed column written by Caroline Kennedy, “A President Like My Father“:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

[…] I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

I suppose I might have a reputation for being a hard-edged cynic, but my eyes actually teared up a bit when I first read Kennedy’s words. I so desperately want to believe what she believes, that Obama really does have that “special ability” to inspire and to lead and to bring us back together as a nation. I fully understand her father was just a man, as flawed as any, but that doesn’t diminish President Kennedy’s impact as a leader, however symbolic, and I too long for a president who can inspire me the way so many of my parent’s generation were inspired by him.

As both a liberal and an American, I have long felt cheated by history… robbed of a promising future by a handful of assassins’ bullets. Had President Kennedy lived to complete his terms, might we have avoided the mistakes that led to an all out involvement in Vietnam, a war that divided our nation and drained us of precious blood and treasure? Had Bobby Kennedy survived to win the White House, would American liberalism have survived to finally achieve the vision of economic justice and security first enunciated by FDR, and wouldn’t Americans have retained the faith in government that carried us through the Great Depression and World War II, rather than seeing that faith shattered by the betrayal that was Watergate? Had Martin Luther King Jr. lived to guide our nation to the Promised Land, rather than just glimpsing it from some far-off mountain top, would the Republican Party have been free to so ruthlessly exploit Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” to advance their selfish, conservative agenda?

My critics like to characterize me as some wide-eyed, lefty moonbat, but I’m nothing more or less than a 1970’s-era centrist who has been radicalized in style if not in substance by a decades-long, right-wing campaign to defile the proud legacy of American liberalism, and to brand its adherents as idiots, ideologues, traitors and worse. The radicalized middle from which I come did not lightly seize on unbridled partisanship as our political weapon of choice, but that is the weapon that has been used to cudgel us into submission for far too long. That the fierceness of the netroots and the new progressive movement to which it belongs frightens the political and media establishment, is understandable, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that our aggressive rhetoric and tactics have not played a significant role in our recent electoral victories. Only now that a netroots-powered Democratic majority is on the verge of seizing unchallenged control of the federal government, do we hear a renewed call for bipartisanship… and that is why I wince every time I hear Obama echoing their frame.

When Obama talks about reaching his hand across the aisle, the cynic in me envisions the other side leaping at the opportunity to lop it off. When Obama talks about bipartisanship, I fear it means willingly sacrificing the very political advantages we have fought so hard to achieve. It’s not that I don’t trust Obama, it’s just that I don’t trust the Republican leadership to reciprocate in kind… not these Republicans… not the party that so joyously swiftboated a war hero, and took a man who left three limbs on the battlefield and morphed him into Osama bin Laden. Hardened by decades of partisan, political war, I admit to finding a certain degree of solace in the more calculating nature of Hilary Clinton — the very same quality that appears to turn off so many other voters. Better to be calculating than naive.

That said, I want to believe, like Caroline Kennedy, in the promise of Obama. I want a president who I don’t simply admire, but one who I find truly inspirational. I want my eyes to fill with tears, not at the thought of what might have been, but what can be. And not since Mario Cuomo ended his flirtation with a White House bid back in 1991 have I found a presidential candidate who offers me this hope.

Tomorrow, Sen. Ted Kennedy will appear with his niece at a rally in Washington D.C., to announce his endorsement of Barack Obama, and to personally pass the torch of Camelot on to a new generation. No doubt the right will take the opportunity to vilify Sen. Kennedy in the hope that some of their ridicule might rub off on the man he supports, but in doing so they perilously dismiss the power of symbolism, for even Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” was a reference to Camelot, and an attempt to co-opt the aura of the Kennedy era as his own.

Perhaps Camelot was always only a dream, but that doesn’t mean it can’t someday come true. Tomorrow, Barack Obama, surrounded by his beautiful wife and young children, standing beside the daughter and brother of the fallen king, has an unprecedented opportunity to rekindle this dream in the hearts of Americans.

It is an opportunity to restore the faith of even hardened cynics like me.

Howie P.S.: I love Goldy, but I wish he would examine Obama's record of success in achieving progressive improvements by working with members of the opposition to build legislative majorities in Illinois and the U.S. Senate, rather than looking inward to his distrust of "Republican leadership." Obama won't need to work with the more venal leadership; he can forge working relationships with willing individual Republicans, as he has done in the past. My message to Goldy: "Yes, we can!"

Barack Obama

"Bush in Bellevue"

The Stranger (Eli Sanders):

The President Stumps for GOP Congressman Dave Reichert, Democratic Challenger Profits--As President Bush paid a fundraising visit to Bellevue on August 27, three telling scenes unfolded. The first, and the most closely watched, took place inside the Bellevue Hyatt, where Bush was the big draw for a $1,000-a-plate (and $10,000-a-photo-with-the-president) event designed to fill up the campaign coffers of Republican Congressman Dave Reichert.

Most significant about this fundraiser was the fact that Reichert allowed it to happen at all. After being attacked repeatedly in his 2004 reelection race for his support of the president's unpopular Iraq war strategy, Reichert could have declined the Bush visit, scored some political points in a moderate district that he won by only 3 percent last November, and helped out his own long-running efforts to cast himself as an independent thinker.

Instead, he hugged Bush at the fundraiser, posed for yet another picture with the president (adding to the Democratic stash of Bush-Reichert photos that's sure to get lots of airtime next fall), and allowed the man with the 32 percent approval rating to describe him as the right guy for the job.

"He's tough when he needs to be, compassionate when he needs to be," Bush said, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Why risk being praised and financially supported by the same president who a lot of up-for-election congressional Republicans are trying to distance themselves from this year? Reichert seems to have concluded that in the long run, the money matters more than the moment itself.

The Bellevue fundraiser reportedly took in between $250,000 and $500,000. If the past is any guide, some of that cash will go to the state Republican Party, some will be used to cover the cost of the event itself, and the rest will be used by Reichert to buy lots of airtime next fall—airtime that will be filled with campaign commercials designed to cultivate his image as an independent, while ignoring the Bellevue event and his indebtedness to Bush.

A few blocks away from the Bush-Reichert event, liberal blogger David Goldstein was in a conference room at the Bellevue Westin watching some political counterprogramming by Democrat Darcy Burner and doing a few money calculations of his own.

Burner, who is trying for a second run against Reichert, was sitting on a low dais with a panel of Iraq experts, speaking about the problems of Bush's war strategy for a webcast "Town Hall Meeting." As Burner discussed the need for a "responsible exit plan for Iraq," Goldstein did some math. Taking the low estimate of Reichert's haul from the Bush fundraiser ($250,000), and subtracting the state party's cut and the cost of putting on the event, he figured Reichert's campaign might net around $100,000. That, Goldstein pointed out gleefully, was about the same amount that Burner had raised through a counterfundraiser she'd launched with the help of some of the nation's top liberal bloggers.

Goldstein called the response from the liberal blogosphere "unprecedented." Burner spokesman Sandeep Kaushik told me, "We're very pleased." While the Reichert event in Bellevue reportedly drew about 300 people, Burner's online appeal drew over 3,000 contributors from around the country who had given a total of $122,000 as of August 28.

Burner's online haul offered a telling indicator of which liberal blogs currently have the most money clout. By Goldstein's calculations, links from the hugely popular blog DailyKos led to around $40,000 in donations to Burner—the most of any blog participating in her fundraiser. The blog Eschaton was second, delivering about $25,000. And Goldstein's blog, HorsesAss, was fifth, bringing in about $5,000.

The counterfundraiser also served as another body check to Burner's opponent in the Democratic primary, state senator Rodney Tom. While Burner was raking in the online donations, at one point at a rate of $100 a minute, Tom was reduced to joining the protest outside the Bush event—nice symbolism, perhaps, but not very lucrative.

Those Bush protesters, who numbered in the hundreds on a warm Monday afternoon, created the last important scene from the president's visit. As Bush's motorcade whisked him into the Hyatt, the demonstrators held aloft signs celebrating the resignation that morning of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and called for the heads of Dick Cheney and Bush next. The dominant theme of the protest, however, was fury at the continuing cost of the Iraq war—a reminder to both Reichert and Burner, as if they needed another, that the coming campaign, like the last one, is probably going to revolve largely around a single, volatile issue that is unlikely to be resolved to anyone's satisfaction by next November.