Like Dangling Crack In Front of an Idiot

Starring: Pam Grier, Antonio Fargas

The content of Foxy Brown makes it sound daring and edgy. The movie touches on racism, explicit drug use, prostitution, murder, betrayal by a family member, forced heroin use, rape and castration.

Foxy Brown begins with a homage to James Bond, with an afro-clad Pam Grier cavorting in silhouette while caressing a gun. The promise is something of a playful romp - James Bond could not be described as hardcore or edgy and is, instead, something of a superhero.

Maybe that is what Foxy Brown aspired to be, but if so it wasn't quite over the top enough. Foxy's motivations (revenge for the murder of her undercover narc boyfriend by The Man) is too straightforward and earnest. Worse, while Bond is never as much as rumpled by the bad guys, Foxy spends a lot of the movie being brutalized. The result is a movie that is fucking dark, but doesn't act like it.

Part of the problem is that some of the movie is so terrible as to be funny. The plot centers around whores-as-protection-for-narcotics-pushers, is at least partially to blame. A madame uses her women to bribe judges and other influential people to go easy on those who purchase the protection. The story is not treated with any sense of seriousness and the villains are so one-dimensional and pathetic it is hard to see them as menacing (even as they do horrible things). Like the Bond movies, Foxy Brown is only as good as its villain - and that is not very good at all.

That's not to say that the movie is without pleasures. Blaxploitation great Antonio Fargas (who later became famous as Huggybear of Starksy and Hutch) excels in a small but critical role as Foxy's dipshit brother who finds himself in debt to organized crime. The opening scene, in which Fargas tries to string out conversation with cops at a late night diner knowing that as soon as they leave waiting thugs will break him in half, effectively combines humor and pathos. Fargas also plays, convincingly 1) amorality, 2) drug addiction, 3) intelligence. Not the easiest combination.

And, while the movie doesn't do her justice, Pam Grier exudes that indescribable bit of magical star power that few possess. Her performance isn't deep but it is full of life and charisma.

Overall: Adequate but interesting.

Good to Watch: With people who are not bothered by violence and/or nudity.

Would I watch it again? Possibly. The tone was strange, but this is the type of flick that might grow on me.

RIP.

• I want to say something clever, witty or poignant about the Hindenburg-like failure of the open boob project, but have little to say. I haven't followed the drama closely and all I can do is shake my head and think what the hell was he thinking?
  
• I've had something of a paradigm shift about a number of topics (most notably feminism). It goes like this: I have been thinking about how some quasi-lefties were duped about the Iraq war. Basically, there were some quasi-legitimate progressive and humanitarian reasons to invade Iraq. The thing, though, is that once George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are citing a progressive or humanitarian reason for doing anything, anyone who legitimately supports that position should be on guard to ensure that they are not being used (because god knows, we know that they are neither progressive nor human). The paradigm shift is that I realized that something that had bothered me in some feminist discourse - the immediate rejection of, or failure to engage with arguments that seemed to have some legitimacy - may actually be a Reverse Iraq Dupe situation wherein even if the arguments are legitimate, the use of the argument is pretextual. If the arguments are not offered in good faith, maybe it's right not to directly address them, or even reject them out of hand.
  
• For example, imagine a guy suggesting strangers grope women's breasts and citing sexual repression. Repression is a bad thing, no? But, like Cheney and Iraq, the key is not the badness of Hussein/Repression, the problem is when you muster forces to do something cataclysmically dumb about it.

Brinks gives lousy rewards.

She mathematically can't beat or even catch up with Obama. The most miraculous projections (her winning 60 percent of the vote in every remaining State) still leave her 50-75 pledged delegates behind.

The only way she can win now is by destroying Obama. She has to attack enough to convince the Superdelgates that he could not beat McCain. We've already seen some ugly tactics (but some of them may be overblown).

So, the thought goes, she should be encouraged to drop out before she damages our candidate and hands the election to the Republicans.

I admit, I've had that urge. But I realize it has come out of fear; the fear that like Kerry and Dukakis, Obama is not up for the task of the Republican smear machine.

If Clinton can sink him, it's better that we know it now.

I don't think she will be able too. I think he will emerge as a tougher, more skilled campaigner. I think he will have developed a reasonably compelling answer for every skeleton in his closet and all of those skeletons will be old news and thus the media will ignore them.

(Consider Hillary Clinton attacking Obama for a land-deal. But Whitewater is old news, and there was probably nothing there so the media ignores it. Even if Obama wanted too, it would be hard to revive it. By the time McCain gets a chance to use Clinton's attacks, they'll have faded away and be equally difficult to bring back to life).

Obama is a better debater because he had to face down Clinton 20 times. He's a better fundraiser because he faced her powerful and 'inevitable' campaign. For a lot of Democrats, I worry, the transition from the primary to the general election is like going from single A to the majors. Obama may find the opposite; that after Clinton, a dance with McCain would be like Albert Pujols feasting on triple-A pitching.

I don't like Clinton's tactics. I think it would have spoken well for her if she withdrew after her victories (allowing her to bow out honorably on a positive note), but I don't think she actually hurts the party by staying in. Hell, it might even help.

Some of you may remember my love for covers of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah. Well, I ganked this download site from a comment in dimethirwen's journal (there are other links in that entry that I haven't explored yet, so this could be a goldmine).

Anyway, I fully encourage everyone to go.

I tend to prefer the song with a bit of passion. Often I like restraint, but this is one, to me, that there is a danger of under performing (I couldn't even get through the Dresden Doll's live version before giving up on it), and no matter how hard you belt it out, it's hard to overdo it.

Right now I'm enjoying Allison Crowe's version. I also like Imogen Heap's somewhat acapella (save for a few editing tricks where she appears to sing with herself) version. It sounds, appropriately, raw. Kathryn Williams version is also beautiful, simple, and breathtaking.

Poll #1149888
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

Who do you support for President of the remaining candidates?

How satisfied (0 = not at all, 5 = amazingly) are you with your candidate?

Has Barak Obama's campaign been sexist?

Has Hillary Clinton's campaign been racist/anti-muslim?

Who would be your dream candidate?

Needs to learn to denounce and reject.

( Edited to add: my rage )

One of the strangest things about livejournal is when an anonymous quasi-sock-puppet journal adds me and I look around and I see most of the rest of what they've added is pornographic in nature.

I know I have talked about sex in this journal, but it seems like the last place someone would go for kink:

• I almost never mention my own sex life, and I certainly don't provide details.
  
• I almost never post pictures, and if I did I would make the worst cam-bunny ever.
  
• When I do talk about sex it is almost always in the form of cultural analysis. Even that is rare.

My conclusion: a lot of people must get off on Barak Obama.

A lot of Democrats have been freaking out about having a long primary battle. The fear is that it prevents them from campaigning against John McCain and allows him to rift the holes in his coalition and lob attacks at them.

I don't think that is true. In fact, I think it might be a good thing if the primary battle goes all the way to the convention (or close) as long as the pledged delegate winner wins.

Advantages:

1. Less time for Republicans to smear the winner. This might not matter much with Clinton, who has been smeared for the past fifteen years. But for Obama, he wouldn't face unified attack until only two months were left in the election.

2. The Democratic primary sucks the air out of McCain's message. At the point McCain has to be accused of fucking a lobbyist or be caught in an outright lie to even get on television. Almost every show, save for Fox news (and, from what I've understood, even them) is 75 percent Democratic coverage. Why? It's news!

3. It increases Democratic interest. The base is motivated. Last month Obama raised a record $36 million in a month. This month, Clinton raised around $35 million and Obama may have raised between $50-60 million. That isn't big money donors: it's apparently mostly coming from small donors. Small donors tend to reflect passionate voters. Obama's crowds also indicate a lot of passion (and it is worth remembering not to underestimate how passionately many voters feel about the Clinton campaign).

4. Democrats may have to campaign and build general election campaign infrastructure in fifty states and assorted territories (and whatever D.C. is). The Democratic party hasn't been organized as a national party in a long time. One of the things Howard Dean is trying to do is build up dormant organizations in Red States. With some effort and luck, that infrastructure/ground game will result in a few purple states turning blue and a few red states turning purple. Even if it isn't that powerful, it could revitalize State and local parties which will produce more and better lower level candidates to feed into national office (When I lived in Houston, I was surprised that it never felt as conservative as I thought - in fact, it felt pretty blue. So I'm not surprised that the Texas campaign appears to be reviving the Texas democratic party by bringing in a bunch of new voters and allowing local politicians to know where to look for votes).

5. The Democrats get better! Obama looks stronger in debates. Clinton is improving her grass roots organization and learning to focus on small donors. Competition is forcing both of them to improve their games, so whomever emerges will be better prepared for the general election.

6. McCain, screaming from the sidelines while his own voters mock him, looks feeble and weak.

All and all, I don't mind a long primary.

The 2000 election was a twin tragedy. Not only did Gore 'lose' but the John McCain of 2000 was one of the most thrilling and compelling political figures I had seen. He seemed honest and courageous, and had one of the most impressive biographies.

Either Gore or McCain would have been immeasurably better then George W. Bush.

I never thought I would register as a Republican, but I did - so I could vote in the California Republican primary for John McCain (which tells you closed primaries aren't that closed to people who plan). It was not a vote to sabotage Bush - or at least it wasn't only a vote to sabotage Bush; I genuinely liked McCain and felt he would make a decent, honorable president.

Now, whenever I see him on television I think of Greek tragedies. He is a larger then life heroic figure. He survived five and a half years of the worst torture imaginable and every day had the option, if he gave in, to be released. He simply refused and insisted that the first POW captured should be the first released. (He got 'special' treatment, in the form of even more brutal torture, because he father was the US naval commander).

John McCain is, in the truest and deepest sense, a hero.

But he also has a heroes ego and a heroes weakness. While he held out against torture, he caved to the most extreme elements of his party with relative ease. He even flip-flopped on an issue which imagine he would ever change his mind: torture. In a party of psychopaths and sadists he was one of the few with the courage to say that torture was wrong. That changed, however, because of political expediency.

I am sympathetic. I can't imagine how much the past seven years must have angered John McCain. He was the better, more substantiative candidate then Bush. He also was more bipartisan and more authentically conservative (he really does have a good record on spending and a conservative record on abortion).

Bush was inferior in every way: a coward born with a silver spoon who didn't know squat and slandered him with vicious lies including racist attacks against his daughter.

McCain decided to play the game.

I am reminded of another Republican war hero I admired - Bob Dole. Dole was funny, and competent. He was a genuine military hero with an impressive record of public service and bipartisanship. But in the waning days of a losing campaign he growled to a crowd something along the lines of "you want Reagan, damnit, I can be Reagan." It was, in a way, the ultimate surrender. He realized that, for all his accomplishments, and for all his service, to a small but critical group of kooks in his party, it would never be enough.

Despite his efforts to bribe them by twisting around his positions and pretending he agrees with them on some issues, McCain will learn the same thing.

Sadly, he's already sold his soul.

But every time I see him on television, I think of the man, and the President, he could have been.

[Exchange with Heather right now:

Me: "McCain is a very appealing Republican candidate, but he could have been a better one... but they wouldn't have them."

Heather: "THEY DON'T DESERVE HIM."

To which I agreed].

The Democratic nomination is broadly between two people whose policies are shockingly similar. There are a few of us who find an important enough distinction so as to favor one over another (I favor Obama, as much as anything, for his opposition to the Iraq war contrasted with Clinton's support, while at least one of my livejournal friends prefers Clinton's health care policy).

It's no surprise, then, that the contest has degenerated into decision making based on non-policy meta narratives such as 'electability,' 'change,' 'experience,' 'hope,' 'solutions,' etc. To some degree, these types of appeals are inherently silly. 'Change,' as Clinton notes, in and of itself, is pretty useless. Dubya changed a whole lot. Similarly, as Obama likes to point out Donald Rumsfield and Dick Cheney had a boatload of 'experience.'

So the critical issue right now for a lot of voters, and probably the only way to get anything useful out of these debates, is to look at whether the candidate has the right kind of the trait they tout.

The Flap

Today there is a flap over what should be a minor issue: a Drudge Report special report about the release of a picture of Barak Obama dressed in traditional Kenyan garb.

Is this a dogwhistle? Not yet. But it is designed to be the worst kind of political attack: to lay the groundwork to smear Obama by claiming he is a Muslim (and therefore scccccaaaaaaaarrrrry. Oooooooh). This kind of release is what leads to dogwhistles (if, later in this campaign, you hear McCain talking about Obama's 'unusual background' you'll know to what he is alluding).

Now Drudge is not terribly reliable. He's made his name as the release point of the worst of Republican opposition research. On default, I would assume that anything published on his site was leaked by the RNC. So when he said that he got it from the Clinton campaign, it's worth taking with a grain of salt.

All the Clinton campaign had to do was deny it. Instead they released a laughable/pathetic excuse for a denial.

NOT COOL.

Later they all but admitted they did it.

Why Does it Matter?

This exchange undermines Clinton's positive meta-narratives (that because she is tough and experienced she is the better candidate to compete against the Republicans) while at the same time buoying one of Obama's big weaknesses (that he isn't tough enough to take on smears).

One of the frustrating things about politics is that a lot of things that shouldn't matter, do. It didn't mean anything that Mike Dukakis looked funny in a tank, that Bob Dole looked old, or that John Kerry looked funny on a surfboard. It is only marginally 'meaningful' that George Herbert Walker Bush didn't know the cost of a gallon of milk.

But all of them lost campaigns because they couldn't manage the media.

The bedrock of Hillary Clinton's 'experience' claim is the implied claim that she has the right kind of experience: the experience to take on the right-wing noise machine. That she survived all the crap thrown against her (she is 'vetted') is a major part of her argument. Similarly, that she is willing to wallow in the mud, gouge out eyes, etc. is her meta-narrative.

That's not a bad thing. Hell, I don't like her and find it appealing. But that argument fails if she does more damage to herself then to her opponent. I like the idea of an attack dog, but it would help if her attacks were deft and didn't bite her in the ass.

Similarly, the suggestion that Obama's 'inexperience' in this area is a weakness would be augmented if he responded to attacks badly. He hasn't. Instead he looks tough, firm and willing to respond forcefully to attacks.

This is a complete tactical disaster.

Soon, I'm going to have to indulge my love in movies by watching more of them. It's been a while.

(I also realized, during the earlier montage, that there are a lot of Best Pictures I have never seen).

Her: You need to have a conversation with your people.
Me: ?
Her: Your people. White people. About wearing flip-flips in the winter. Why do they do that? When I was at Princeton* they used to do that. Sometimes your people would even wear flip flops and shorts. I mean, it was Princeton, so they did lots of egregious shit… like oppress me.

Why do white people wear flip-flops in the winter?

__________________
*Don’t hate her too much for dropping the P-bomb

From feministe.

Normally I try to stay out of the actual critical issues of the day and prefer to sit on the sidelines mocking the participants. But on this, I feel like I have some fucking expertise.

In law school, in Virginia, I would wear shorts and flip flops in the snow. People looked at me like I was crazy. Hell, the former Green Beret with PTSD who rarely talked and everyone thought was crazy actually commented on how freakin' nuts I was.

Anyway, now that I have established my credentials as a crazy white guy who wears flip flops and shorts in the snow around less-crazy non-white people, allow me to tell you why I did it:

I was lazy and I hated tying my shoes.

The end.

I'm watching bloggingheads.tv and am being sort of driven nuts by Jonathan Chait's apparent belief that the McCain of 2000-2004 is the 'real' McCain while this McCain is the fake one.

The thing is, I don't. You don't. No one except McCain knows. Hell, he might not even know.

One of the major problems with politics, and I admit that I am cribbing a little bit from Crashing the Gate, is that there is this professional class of political handlers that act as the airbrush and silicone tits of politics. Sure, establishment politicians might look like they're bearing it all, but everyone looking has this sinking suspicion that it's all just one impressive layer of bullshit.

Taken to an extreme and you'll get Mitt Romney - someone who seems to have only the core principles that happen to be useful to win the next election. When he thought he might be able to nab a Senate seat, he ran to the left of TED KENNEDY on gay rights. When he thinks he can be President, now it's no more abortions and dude-on-dude action.

Hillary Clinton has a little of that too. At first she was a hawk, and then she tried to be a dove. She's tried to be nice and above the fray, and tried to play up her ability to street fight. She's focused on experience, and then on change. Now she's no actual Romney - her positions are rarely mutually exclusive. She, at least now (when desperation is setting in) has been putting in the effort to tie all of the assertions to her world view. She's an exceptionally skilled politician who doesn't skimp on the hard work needed to make those sorts of transitions.

Even Edwards has a little bit of it. When he ran for the Senate, he initially campaigned as a moderate, DLC style Democrat. He voted for the Iraq war. While he always seemed sympathetic to poverty related issues, his current populist message is relatively new.

I don't say this as an insult to either Edwards or Clinton. I think it is almost inevitable ... and that is pretty damn sad.

This is what people mean, I think, when they complain about Washington insiders. The term is vague and hard to pin down sometimes, but I think, more then anything it means someone who seems inauthentic because their public persona changes too quickly over time. When politicians say that their opinions are not poll-driven or focus-tested, it is a rebuke, as much as anything, to the professional class of political handlers and fixers.

(It is worth noting, as an aside, that the fixers have an incentive to have candidates make radical changes. If you're an adviser and you say to Hillary Clinton "Iowa was a fluke, just continue doing what you're doing" how much credit do you get if she turns it around? None. But if you say "my polling data says you'd do best if you go to rallies in clown suits and speak only in gibberish" and she wins, everyone will have little choice but to credit the clown suits and the gibberish and declare you a genius. And, of course, the next time she is in trouble, the next adviser will have her answer all questions in biblical verses. Eventually voters will remember her as that crazy woman who was in a clown suit one moment and answering only in biblical verses the next).

Now I'm for Obama. But this post isn't all that much about that. It's about the phenomenon that he and Huckabee are riding. Because while I hope Obama is authentic, and what we are seeing is the 'real' him, I'm also glad that he hasn't been in Washington for twenty years and we aren't on Obama version forty-seven.

coraljune: Where is the political commentary! (I mean, Huckabee?? What the hell is going on?!) Last night I was watching the results, then turned to my friends page confident there'd be a contribution from you to make it all make sense. Then I figured maybe it was just too soon, but I felt sure there'd be something by morning. You want a topic, Mike? Iowa!! There's your freakin' topic.

THE DEMOCRATS

I'm not at all surprised by Obama's win. The conventional wisdom was the bigger the turnout, the better he would do. Obama had surprising support among independants and Republicans and seems to have the ability to expand the party.

No matter how you slice this, Clinton is toast. Any result with Obama in first (particularly by a wide margin) would have been a disaster for her. While I agree, to some extent, with Mickey Kaus' rumination that Clinton might need Edwards to finish at least second to stay in the race, but I still think third, for her, is terrible.

She has a lot of ways to lose the nomination. Her best bet is to try to maintain some of her national lead for Super Tuesday. In order to do so, she needs the anti-Clinton/change vote to be split between Edwards and Obama. This is tricky, though, because Edwards doesn't have a lot of money so unless he gains some momentum quickly, he might be gone.

One-on-one against either Edwards or Clinton, Obama has a major advantage. Against Clinton he is 1) more likable 2) the change candidate 3) the more comfortable politician. Against Edwards, he 1) has substantially more money and 2) a message more able to appeal to broader swathes of the electorate.

Because of the money issue, I'm not sure Edwards has any chance of winning the nomination, and I think Clinton's chances are pretty minimal. New Hampshire is not a good state for her, so she's looking at another probable third place finish. At that point her lead in the national polls is likely to have evaporated.

THE REPUBLICANS

Here is what I said about Huckabee in October:

The two Republicans who most scare me in a general election, Huckabee and McCain, both are being rejected by their party for the very reasons they strike me as scary (their ability to appeal to moderates and independents and their willingness to try policies not invented by Ronald Reagan).

A few days later I said about Mike Huckabee in October:

One of the reasons Huckabee makes me nervous is the very reason the Republican establishment is turning on him: he can run as an economic moderate and a social conservative. I think that message has an incredibly broad potential audience, but it probably would shatter the Republican establishment.

I still think all of that is true. Huckabee is a fascinating candidate. I was joking with Heather that after Edwards, he might be the strongest economic populist in the election (including the Democrats). My gut instinct is that his economic policies as governor were substantially to the left of what Bill Clinton did as governor.

Huckabee makes a strange sort of sense: a lot of the hard-core christian footsoldiers of the Republican party were never married to the idea of trickle down economics. They cared a lot more about cultural values and abortion. But a lot of them are anti-poverty.

After he won last night, Huckabee said he felt no need to conceed health care or the environment or the fight against poverty to Democrats as issues. That is a bold and visionary strategy by a Republican.

The funny thing is, as a candidate, Huckabee is the strongest politician they have. He is a great speaker, he is funny, he is smart and he comes off as a nice guy. While he doesn't have a lot of money yet, I suspect he will in the next month or so.

I see Huckabee as, by far, the most dangerous Republican candidate in the general election. That said, I think it would be hard for any Republican to win. And Huckabee does have some weaknesses: he can be batshitfuckinginsane (although he hides it well), and, I think if he wins the Republican nomination he completely fractures the Republican coalition (sadly, that could be just what they need).

OTHER THOUGHTS

1. Rudy Giuliani might be the biggest loser. He got some godaweful number of votes. I know he pulled out, but Ron Paul lapped him three times over. The more the people of Iowa saw of him, the worse he looked.

2. Hillary Clinton is the second biggest loser, but at least, unlike Rudy, she has a chance at coming back.

3. McCain was the happiest 4th place finisher of all time. He has a good shot at winning New Hampshire and making it a two person race with Huckabee. If that happens, the Republican Establishment will probably dig a grave and jump in, just so it can roll over.

4. Romney really seems like the worst major party candidate of my lifetime. I hope he wins the Republican nomination. I'd LOVE to go against him in the general election.

In the closing days of the campaign in Iowa, Barak Obama is being criticized on the left for campaigning from the right, particularly because of the following statement:

""I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats. We've done that in 2004 and 2000. 47 percent of the country on one side, 47 percent of the country on the other . . . We don't need another one of those elections." (source)

This dovetails with several other areas in which Obama has come under fire from the left (Paul Krugman has seemed to be out on a mission against him). The big ones: Obama said we need to 'save' social security (which gives credit to a Republican frame that is not terribly accurate - social security does not need saving) and health insurance (Obama is against mandates requiring everyone to purchase health insurance).

The funny thing is, more then not, I'm with Obama on these things. I think when he rants about starting off 'with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats' he's not proscribing Lieberman like capitulation, but is dealing from a position of strength and arguing that Democrats have to be able to go to the other side's home field and sell their policies. It is a dearth of ambition that goes into a campaign like this and presumes the redstate/bluestate divide is set in stone and is willing to do battle over the same six 'swing states.'

I also think it is a legitimate criticism of his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton. Her high unfavorability ratings would almost definitively prevent her from aggressively appealing to a supermajority of the country.

On the particulars I am split - I disagree with Obama that social security faces a 'crisis' and think his rhetoric on the manner is unfortunate (although I think his policy solution is elegant), but I agree with him on health care mandates. Not only would they be likely to kill a bill entirely, but the costs of such mandates fall most heavily on the poor. I agree with Obama that the solution is not to require people to pay for healthcare but to make healthcare affordable - and once that happens, people will buy it on their own.

As someone who has argued for more partisanship, I am discouraged by the response to Obama. Superficially too many of the critics make similar arguments to ones I have made, but I feel they fail to distinguish either between (a) rhetoric versus policy and more importantly (b) compromise versus persuasion.

Okay, y'all. It is six hours, 13 minutes and 24 seconds until I get my bar exam results. Knowing that is not healthy or sane. I am completely going crazy and need distration now.

Thus, I am opening up anonymous comments. They can be anything (well, anything that is not mean/hurtful) - confessions, comments, questions, jokes, links - but please comment with something that will amuse and distract me. The comments need not be anonymous (it's just an option).

Go.

The Writers Guild of America has put out a nice youtube clip making their case for the strike.

Go them.

I've mentioned that the Republican candidates that make me nervous in a general election campaign are McCain and Huckabee. One of the reasons Huckabee makes me nervous is the very reason the Republican establishment is turning on him: he can run as an economic moderate and a social conservative. I think that message has an incredibly broad potential audience, but it probably would shatter the Republican establishment.

Basically, Republicans face a problem: their core beliefs are relatively unpopular. Most people do not support tax cuts to the wealthy. Most people don't want to cut entitlement programs. Most people are in some squishy middle on abortion in which some 'reasonable' regulations are okay, but nothing more, etc. Democrats tend to have a strong policy advantage in elections, but Republicans have been effective at using lies and smears to attack their character.

Still the most effective Republican campaigns also include divergences from the Republican core. Bush himself ran as a 'compassionate' conservative and signed laws providing for substantial federal funding for education and prescription drugs for seniors, and has fought for a path for citizenship for illegal immigrants. Those positions were unpopular with the base but were widely popular with the general population.

To win the general election, Republicans would need to nominate someone with some sort of similar issue upon which they have credibility. For Huckabee, it is focusing on reducing the effects of poverty on children. For McCain it is fighting for campaign finance reform. But the very reason they are dangerous general election opponents is the reason they are being shredded in the Republican primaries.

It is such an interesting campaign right now.