Postmodern Conservative.

Obama/Clinton Bottom Line

She needs to do better than that. Lost, lost in the thickets of her Iraq policy. She somehow escaped having to cop to her Iran policy -- something that should make liberal democrats shudder -- and got off the hook way easy on Bill. In order to seem authoritative, Hillary Clinton must revert reflexively to her two preprogrammed modes: Tilda Swinton and Evil Clown.

Barack Obama, by contrast, has two very different modes of authority. The first, on display when he gives stump speeches, is emotional, therapeutic, galvanic, charismatic. The second is Romney-esque -- in the weeds, pragmatic, occasionally diffusive, hesitant to go for the Mortal Kombat kill.

When he combines these two modes in the same sequence -- rarely, but effectively -- Clinton looks redundant, small, brittle, dare I say...narrow-minded. Beholden. A creature of a machine long dedicated to the task of cranking out creatures. A candidate for aging women who want to twist the knife and in that twist finally kill something that has haunted them always and purge the fear and the guilt of making a bad bet on a Faustian bargain. A woman for whom losing is not just losing but a rebuttal against the entire premise of her existence.

The burden of proof is on her, now. If she were anyone else this would have been over a long time ago, and that it isn't is a testament to her preternatural staying power -- but also to her sad and unnerving determination to master the universe by sheer drilling power, whatever the cost, whatever damage to her reputation, whatever weight of contempt weighs down on her from across the nation.

Against this grim visage, Obama seems like a revelation. That the policy daylight between both Dem candidates is as wide as an ant's leg throws into the sharpest possible relief how broad is the gulf between their persons. My taste for Hillary Clinton is clear. I retain my deep concerns about therapeutic politics under Obama. But tonight has served mainly to reinforce all standing prejudices: Clinton augurs an era when therapeutic politics will be practiced by a person long since incapable of genuinely sharing her soul, and Obama augurs, at worst, a therapeutic politics practiced by someone whose soul people line up for blocks to share. I am no sucker, but I recognize a crying desire when I see one. It's obvious what Democrats long for -- half policy, half passion. There's little love here for the policy, but the passion badly needs an outlet that renovates our ability to trust one another in the practice of bearing witness and engaging in politics. Hillary Clinton will never afford that. Barack Obama will.

The backstory on this post weaves through the liveblogging at AmSpec. Basic thought for the whole election so far:

One thing you can say about Romney and Obama, they ain't repressed.

Consolation for Huckabites

Go to the main Google page and click on "I'm Feeling Lucky" after you type in

find Chuck Norris

Thanx FMAD.

And Despite It All...

Ambinder's right that McCain won it in the first half.

Would Romney Make a Good Commander-in-Chief?

He ran companies where people lost their jobs? This is McCain's opening answer? This has been a wretched twenty minutes for McCain. When he is good, he is very, very good, and when he is bad, he is horrid.

McCain at His Worst

The Timetable Smear. Rather than saying something uncivil, I'll defer to Phil Klein.

Romney Errs

Yes, Bush kept us safe. That is very important. And he did try on Social Security. That is somewhat less important but still big. But that doesn't negate or disprove what Noonan alleged. And sweet Jesus, Iraq did not walk up to Bush and trip him in the middle of his humble domestic agenda. Whatever you think about it. But of course this plays with the base. But then of course that plays to McCain again. Oops. The challenge of running to the right of Bush while also running against him continues.

His slap about McCain's timetable myth is fair, though.

Spending, Immigration

We shouldn't just grow military spending because. But Romney's dead right to zero in on the two-thirds of the budget that's spiraling, sprawling entitlements. Whether or not McCain has come to Jesus or not on taxes is really a minor point relative to Romney's, which should be everyone's, point of emphasis.

Huckabee's immigration policy is okay, but the fence should be 18 weeks, not 18 months. Raise legal immigration quotas and control the border.

The Great Heresy

Huckabee admits what we all know: a lot of people will spend their rebates on stupid stuff. And then starts talking about traffic again. He has a point, but....

At least he's not name-checking the Industrial Revolution as the turning point in the war against property rights. Sigh.

Debate So Far

I like commonsense measures against climate change. I like federalism even better. And I'm glad McCain won't do a treaty without parity for India and China. Romney was right -- more right -- to back away from Bush's record. Would McCain govern as a federalist? I hope so, and would hold him to it. Huckabee, by the way, is also giving props to federalism. It's amazing what an honest and diligent application of this principle can do for a government and a party. (Doesn't solve foreign affairs, though.)

Romney's big problem tonight so far: he won't stop wonking out. He's so sharp, but McCain cuts through all the data with jokes about Ahhhnold.

Also: Andrew concurs with my brutal judgment of Rudy. He will badly damage a McCain Presidency. But unlike Andrew I think he'd greatly contribute to his general electability.

Somewhat Dark Pre-Debate Thoughts

I like a big tent. I am a reasonable man. Sometimes, from a mainstream/ movement conservative perspective, I am unreasonably reasonable -- soft on amnesty, willing to settle for state-by-state abortion law, uninterested in cutting taxes while spending rises uncontrolled. So I do not fear or loathe John McCain. Nor do I love him. I like him. I don't care if he gets real mad sometimes. I'm willing to give him a fair shake, and I support him outright on at least a handful of semi-controversial positions.

But I do not like Rudy Giuliani. I admire his capacity to bring a City Gone Wild to heel. But he represents a wing of the Republican party whose slogan is Sex at Home, Violence Abroad. I do not want his foreign policy team getting within ten acres of either of President John McCain's ears. And I do not want him or Arnold Schwarzenegger or Lindsay "If you're for sovereignty, shut up 'cause you're racist" Graham functioning as a Rockefeller Republican cabal in a McCain White House. The more opportunist neocons -- not everyone, but you only need a few -- will fit in just fine. Arnold suits Cullyfornia just fine. And Rudy fit New York like a tight leather glove. But the best of McCain -- his willingness to mercilessly buck blockheaded party pressure -- seems to me probably lax when it comes to the pet social projects of white wine Republicans and in danger of failing him when it comes to costly military adventurism abroad.

Note: I'm not a dogmatist when it comes to plain old military adventurism. The US can and should poke and prod around the world when it's in our political (read: not only economic or humanitarian) interest to do so. What the US shouldn't do is incite general war in the world's most volatile region, or do other countries' dirty work, or get caught in situations where the only way not to fail is to pump in the trillions and clench the jaw. The US should avoid costly nation-building as well as costly institution-building. Adding new countries to NATO is sure to be a great deal more trouble for a great deal less payoff, especially when those countries are already in deeply integrated informal or formal alliances with the US (Israel, Japan, Australia). I've written before about the pathologies gripping NATO, an organization which is expanding, come to think of it, like Arnold Schwarzenegger's face at the end of Total Recall, and for exactly the same reason: the environment has transformed radically, and, under duress, the body freaks out.

I could go on, but the point is clear. The worst elements of Bushism could persist under a McCain administration, and what really concerns me is that, with a battery of socially liberal Republicans behind him, McCain could actually expand and consolidate a Bushist consensus stripped of all the tacky religion stuff and the torture. Why would this happen? Because the people want it. There's a reason why McCain appeals to moderates, and a reason why people dissatisfied with our progress in Iraq would still do it again in Iran and people worried about the economy will still vote for the guy whose qualifications as a businessman begin and end with his patriotic personal history. They're not stupid, though they are often inconsistent, and all the big trends in this country point toward a desire for more personal security, more personal freedom, and more bureaucratic nationalism. We want leaders in whom we can place so much trust that we can engage in our trivial pursuits without worrying there's some political duty out there that we're negligently ignoring. Disconnect is our right! Cheer the troops at the Super Bowl, agree not to punish our therapeutic peccadillos, work hard, earn entertainment, buy carbon-offset indulgences, God Bless America!

99% of this isn't McCain's fault. McCain comes from a generation in which this whole way of thinking was just a gleam in its eye. But an array of libertarian neocons who indulged and chafed under Bush's faith-based administration have been waiting for their ship to come in now for a long time, and they know McCain is a naval officer at heart. I don't want to destroy John McCain. I don't want anyone else to. I'm thrilled to ponder his ability to prevent Hillary Clinton from ever attaining higher office. And I don't think it's in conservatives' best interests to start a civil war. People who claim they'd rather stay home than vote for McCain are being ridiculous. That said, his campaign -- and the prospect of his candidacy -- open up serious problems for the future of the Republican Party, and I suspect, after all, that what I'm deeming 'problems' are actually, for a majority or near-majority of Americans, actually exciting opportunities. What seem like contradictions are actually just options now. We can go socially liberal and politically hawk at the same time, remember. We can go and go and go. Until the pink police state arrives. And maybe then we can beat China at its own game. We'll need 400 million more non-citizen immigrants, but hey -- we're working on that.