Capital gains

An increase in capital gains taxes? Blech; goodbye, crossover votes!

Why raise it when the government brings in more when it's lower?

Obama says he would look at raising it for purposes of fairness. Now he's talking about hedge fund managers and what they make. Good sound bite about them paying from a lower tax bracket than their secretaries. Is that true? If so, it's a great argument. I like that line, too, about "taking out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and grandchildren."

Obama says collections may go up or may note, depending on what happens on Wall Street. "Pay as you go?" That's downright conservative -- or, at least, it used to be.

Hillary says we need an economy that "works for everyone." She's casting tax increases in terms of "smart investments," including green energy jobs and -- of course -- "good union jobs." (We are in Pennsylvania, after all!) A chicken in every pot! By jove, it's a New DEAL!

McCain and taxes

Here we go with the general election issue, taxes!! Too bad he flubbed that sound bite. That's embarrassing.

"Read my lips?" Stephey, get your own sound bites!! This is ridiculous. Hillary goes first, and she says that she will roll back the Bush tax cuts, no matter the economy next year, because she is convinced that it will not "detrimentally affect" people's wallets. That's an unfortunate adverb. No middle class tax increases of any kind, she said it! Now, define middle class.

Obama makes the commitment and raises Clinton one: He will move a tax cut for the middle class and for seniors earning less than $50,000. Populism + middle class tax cut = a tough road for the Republican campaign.

Whoo hoo! Obama gets a gold star for the phrase, "lobbyists and special interests writing these laws." That's how it's done, folks.

Iran

WATCH OUT! Should it be the policy of the U.S. to treat an attack on Israel as an attack on the U.S., Stephey asks?

First, it should be the policy of the U.S. to keep nukes away from Iran, offering them "carrots and sticks," Obama says, adding that it should be their belief that it will take "no options off the table" when it comes to them using or getting nukes against Israel. An attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one whose security we consider paramount, one that I would ... take appropriate actions," he said. That is one of the strongest statements he's made on the subject. (I wonder when he'll get asked about Carter meeting with Hamas?)

Hillary says that we are in a very dangerous position with Iran, and she proposes a "security agreement" in the area vis-a-vis Iran. Hmm, a NATO-type deal? What are the prerequisites for membership? What if the leadership of those countries change? What if the provisions of the agreement change? What if someone backs out?

She's using "massive retaliation" a lot ... "We cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear power," she says. "Security umbrella:" Interesting. Lots to talk about there.

Iraq

You knew it was coming, and here it is. Is Hillary going to stick to her plan to withdraw a brigade or two a month? Hillary answers ... that she sticks to her 60-day plan to "begin withdrawing" and that she will withdraw slowly because it is dangerous. Isn't she saying she knows better than military commanders, Gibson asks? No, she says (but she is), turning the question into a response about the U.S.'s standing in the world. "We don't know what will happen if we withdraw, but we do know what will happen if we remain mired in Iraq," she says.

Obama is asked about the date that David Plouffe gave, the 16-month commitment. He says that the president should set the mission, which the military should carry out. This is a better tack, in my opinion, on this question than Hillary took. "I will always listen to the commanders on the ground," he says, and that's an important statement to make. He leaves the door open to "taking into consideration the adjustments" that commanders may suggest, but "the buck stops with me."

Cheeeeesy

What's with these cheesy transition quotes and the goofy voiceover?

The American Flag

Obama is asked by a regular Pennsylvanian about whether he "believes in the American flag." This is an important moment, because nearly everyone who has heard his name has heard the rumors that he doesn't support the flag, he doesn't wear the politician uniform -- i.e., the flag lapel pin. He recounts his familiar phrase that his story would only be possible in America. He says he will fight for issues that are good for Americans, and that's how he shows his patriotism. I'm not sure how well this explanation works, because I think most people think that it's not a big deal to wear a pin. But he's right about it being "a manufactured issue."

Who is William Ayers? And why is Stephanopoulos asking about his relationship with Obama? Obama says it's another example of a manufactured issue. He's having to back away from someone no one has ever heard of. Good line about him being eight years old when this happened. Obama is good at this; he says he's also good friends with Coburn, one of the most conservative members of the Senate. Stephanopoulos, that question is stuipd. Stop trying to be Chris Mathews.

Hillary is broad, as usual, but she's obviously prepared to talk about Ayers and his relationship with Obama. Was this prepped by her campaign and Stephanopoulos, the former press secretary for Bill Clinton? Hillary isn't even credible when she says things like, "I know Sen. Obama is a good man," but then brings up how "everyone else" will be asking about it. Republicans shouldn't even run anyone for president? Goodbye, potential crossover votes! And people wonder why she's polarizing!

ZING! Obama says that Bill Clinton pardoned two other members of the "Weather Underground." He says that he's taken "some pretty good" punches from Hillary. He is so good in debate. She's just hoping to keep it close.

Fourth question

I didn't really understand the question Stephanopoulos asked. Was it about errors? Once again, Obama takes the high road, saying that it's a "mistake" to "obsess" about the errors, like his about bitterness and Hillary's about Bosnia.

(That reminds me: Hillary acknowledged in her response that 1) she knew what she said about Bosnia was wrong when she said it, and 2) she acnkowledged about people are bitter! Hello??)

More Wright

I missed the third question -- putting the baby to bed -- but I heard what was said, and this question actually leads into the next one. It's hilarious that Hillary Clinton takes Obama to task for the Wright statements when she herself has made statements that don't mesh with the truth -- i.e., the Bosnia issue that "Tom" brings up. Once again, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander when it comes to the Clintons. Hillary said that "everything" should be subject to exploration when it comes to a presidential campaign, yet she and her husband have not opened all the documents about her involvement in his administration to public scrutiny. More double standard doubletalk from a Clinton.

Jeremiah Wright

Why are we back on Jeremiah Wright again? Are there no other issues that Pennsylvanians care about?

Out of the gate, Obama reiterates that he never heard the comments that were brought up that caused the recent furor, then he pivots to talking about the work the church has done over the past 30 years. (By the way, if you didn't see Obama's speech on race, you have to see it. It was tremendous, a watershed moment in American history that history will recount as such. Invest the time so that you can tell your grandkids about it!)

I'm sick of Jeremiah Wright. He's not an issue in this campaign. Charlie Gibson, so far, you're demonstrating why evening cable news is increasingly irrelevant.

Oh boy, now Gibson is getting Clinton into this mess again. "'He would not have been my pastor,'" he said she said. Do you think 8,000 people should have walked out, he asked? OOoooh! Good one! Clinton says that she was asked a personal question and she gave a personal answer, which, of course, is not an answer to the question Gibson asked.

Here it is

Well, that didn't take long. Barack Obama, did you really mean what you said about people being bitter? He's been well prepped for this, but it still doesn't sound right. Now he's talking about wedge issues. There's the "frustration" word again. That's a good strategy, to substitute a new word for the old one.

Ugh, "I'm the granddaughter of a factory worker from Scranton." Blech. Clinton is back on the bitterness bandwagon. I think it's funny how she's all over Obama for the bitterness comment, but it was just a couple of weeks ago when she made that completely erroneous statement about Bosnia. So she's allowed to "misremember" and "misspeak," but Obama is vilified for his slip? Typical Clinton double standard.

Oh, no ... I didn't know George Stephanopoulos is involved here. Blech again. He shouldn't be there since he worked in the first Clinton Administration. This is interesting, getting her on the record on whether Obama can beat McCain. She's making the question about McCain, but she said that he can win, "Yes, yes, yes, but I think I can do a better job." There you go, superdelegates. Let's see if that matches what you've been told by the Clinton campaign behind closed doors. Any superdelegates out there, post in comments and let us know!

Obama says directly that he thinks Hillary can win but, of course, he thinks he's the better candidate. I think it's a mistake to repeat Clinton's charges against him about being "elitist." Just say that she's made charges, but don't repeat them. You are trying to play the word substitution game, remember? You're not doing yourself any favors by repeating it. He's taking the high road by recounting his thoughts to defend her when she made the famous "making cookies" comment in 1992. That is well done. There is the frustration word again. I'd like to have a word count on that when this is all over. I might look for that when a transcript is released.

Hillary is making a mistake by hammering on the issue again. Just make the point, and move on. She still hasn't mastered that concept. Apparently, getting booed at the manufacturing meeting the other day wasn't enough to convince her of it. Hillary would be a better candidate if she would just learn what is enough, and what is too much. Make the point, and move on. Otherwise, you look -- dare I say it? -- bitter.

Vice president

Charlie Gibson, who wrote these questions? This is the biggest waste of time, asking them why each won't commit to choosing the other for VP. (Oh, Chelsea is there. Maybe they should ask her about the Monica deal. I forgot -- it's none of our business, right, Chelsea?)

Anyway, this question is second only to that dumb question that Des Moines Register editor asked the candidates about their New Year's resolutions. Useless! Although bringing up the original wording of the Constitution is a nice touch. I'm surprised Obama didn't do more with that, since he's a constitutional law scholar.

Democratic debate in Philly

I'll be live blogging the debate tonight ... I'm a little late getting going because I had to wrestle my eight-month-old into her PJs. She's not a fan of getting into her clothes!

Opening statements: Obama obviously is going to try to substitute the word "frustrated" for the dreaded "bitter" he used in his much-maligned private statements in California. I'm sure we'll hear more about this later -- unfortunately. Overall, as Obama's oratories go, this one was one of his weaker offerings.

For her part, Hillary Clinton was unremarkable, which is par for the course with her. Nothing new, nothing surprising, nothing exciting; just vanilla bean here.

Reid: Democratic race will end 'very soon'

You might have read this post on Monday about the behind-the-scenes preparations Democratic Party leaders are making to confront Hillary Clinton about her continued pursuit of the presidential nomination.

The story, which originally appeared in a Scottish newspaper, noted that congressional leaders are the engines driving the reality train, and that party leaders had chosen Jimmy Carter and Al Gore as its engineers.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Source and lent the story some credibility:

Reid said he believed the Democratic nomination "is all going to be over very soon," and he contended that "it has been healthy for our party."

It was unclear what Reid meant by the comment; there was no mention in the Politico story about a follow-up question.

Maybe Campbell Brown has moved from CNN to the Politico ...

Gas prices

The price of light sweet crude oil is now over $113 a barrel.

This has been an issue in the presidential campaign, but only to the extent that the candidates have paid lip service to the idea of "energy independence" and "reducing our dependence on foreign oil" and casting blame for high gasoline prices. It's not clear what those phrases mean -- or, more importantly, how any of the candidates, once president, would get an "energy independence" agenda through Congress.

What is clear is that there seems to be no end in sight to the astronomical increase in the price of oil, and it's beginning to affect everything else in the market, from food costs to airline tickets.

And it could get much, much worse:

If peak oil theorists are correct, crude oil at $100 per barrel would seem ridiculously cheap. Rapidly rising oil demand from the developing world coupled with shrinking supplies would likely produce an oil spike of epic proportions.

Meanwhile, OPEC continues to refuse to increase production:

"Current OPEC production at more than 32 million barrels per day will be sufficient to both meet demand growth and contribute to further stockbuilds," the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said in its latest Monthly Oil Market Report.

There are plenty of things the United States can be doing to deal with this crisis. Conservation is one important side of the equation, but new drilling is the other.

It's time to put our foot down with this madness before it destroys our economy.

The biggest child-welfare case in American history?

I just want to say a word about the latest stories coming out about the investigation into the polygamous sect in Texas. You no doubt have heard about the 416 children who were taken from the retreat belonging to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on April 3. Salacious details, including reports of a "marriage bed" found in the sect's temple and believed to have been used to consummate "spiritual marriages" between adult men and underage girls, have kept this story on the front pages.

But the women of the sect have gone on the offensive, beginning to talk to the media this weekend about their concerns for the treatment of their children -- many of whom are very young -- as the investigation continues.

While I believe Texas officials did the right thing by initiating the investigation, raiding the compound and removing the women and children as the investigation continues, details of this story have me concerned for the children all over again:

Of the 139 women who voluntarily left the compound with their children since an April 3 raid, only those with children 4 or younger were allowed to continue staying with them Monday, said Marissa Gonzales, spokeswoman for the state Children's Protective Services agency. She did not know how many women stayed ...

On Monday night, about three dozen women, many of them mothers, sobbed and held onto each other outside a log cabin on the sect's ranch, recounting the way police officers encircled them in a room and told them that they could not stay.

One woman, Marie, said the women weren't allowed to say goodbye to their crying children.

"They said, 'your children are ours,'" said the sobbing 32-year-old whose three sons are aged 9, 7 and 5 and who would not give her last name. "We could not even ask a question."

Attorneys began meeting with the women over the weekend. She said it was vital that the mothers be represented by lawyers. Otherwise, they could lose their children — "what we call kind of the death penalty of family law cases," she said.

A church lawyer, Rod Parker, said the 60 or so men remaining on the 1,700-acre (688-hectare) ranch have offered to leave the compound if the state would allow the women and children to return to the place with child welfare monitors. But the state Children's Protective Services agency said it had not yet seen the offer and had no comment on it.

Read the rest of the story, and you'll find that the state of Texas is having a difficult time just organizing the lawyers to represent these children and their mothers, so it's unlikely that they are capable of caring for these kids in an atmosphere completely unknown to them -- and especially without their mothers -- in a way that is not damaging to the children's psyche.

The offer by the church men to leave the compound to allow for the women and children to return -- even with child welfare monitors -- seems to be a reasonable offer and one that Texas officials cannot afford to ignore.

But at the very least, it is unconscionable to separate these children, especially the ones ages 10 and under, from their mothers. Texas officials are inspiring no confidence with this move. Whatever is revealed about the compound, there is one constant, and that is that children need their mothers, even when they are raised in unconventional circumstances that are unfamiliar and even incomprehensible to the rest of us.

This case is destined to provide landmark rulings about where the freedom of religion ends and the reach of the government begins. But as the lawyers hash it out and judges try to make sense of all the testimony, legal precedents and constitutional challenges, these little boys and girls will need reassurances that things will be OK.

They will need their mothers.

Sex offenders and the presidential campaign

It won't be an issue during this presidential campaign, but it should be: What is this country going to do with the growing number of sex offenders, both violent and "nonviolent?"

As awareness and enforcement of sex crimes picks up, so does the prison population. There's been talk about mental health counseling and behavior modification programs for "nonviolent" sex offenders, but as you'll see in a moment, the effectiveness of those diversionary programs, as defined by the successful release of an offender back into society without a repeat offense, is sketchy, at best.

Yes, I know that this is a state issue. But I also know that there is a security component to it. Presidential candidates could provide leadership on this issue by using their platforms to talk with the nation's governors about how the federal government can be good partners with the states as they grapple with this worsening problem -- and I would bet that better funding of law enforcement, courts and corrections facilities would be at the top of the governors' wish lists.

With that said, I give you this story about 49-year-old Freddie Johnson, who was recently picked up in New York City for groping a woman on the subway.

Johnson has served time in prison for persistent sexual abuse and has been labeled by district attorney staff as a "recidivist transit grinder."

Nothing remarkable yet. But then again, I haven't yet told you that the arrest mentioned above was Johnson's 53rd collar.

Yes, you read that right: Johnson has been arrested 53 times for groping women on the subway.

Johnson, a registered sex offender, has been convicted at least twice of persistent sexual abuse within the last decade, prosecutors said. And he has a lengthy rap sheet, with 30 arrests for sex abuse, 13 for jostling and two for grand larceny, police said.

He was released from prison on March 25 after serving four years for persistent sexual abuse, according to correctional records. The state attorney general's office had argued that the 49-year-old should be confined under the state's civil commitment law for sex offenders, which went into effect last year, because he was at risk for repeat offenses.

But a Manhattan Supreme Court Judge disagreed and instead placed Johnson on strict court-ordered supervision and electronic monitoring.

Whether he should have been confined speaks to a larger issue about what authorities should do with criminals who are habitual offenders, but aren't violent.

For the rest, check out the story at the link above.

What do you think?

Caption contest

OK, folks, I know there are some witty readers out there just looking for a place to share their sarcasm. Far be it from me to deny you an opportunity to put your talents to good use! So ...

I give you the First Edition of the Clarion Caller Blog Caption Contest. I'll give you a picture, you give me a caption, and we'll acknowledge the winner in a future post.

Today's offering comes to us from the Associated Press:

Yeah, I thought I would give you an easy one for the first round. :)

Take your shots in comments!

'It's Obama, stupid'

That's the headline under which a Scottish newspaper (aptly called 'The Scotsman') reports that it's just a matter of time until "Democrat grandees" Jimmy Carter and Al Gore team up to deliver the bad news to Hillary Clinton: For the good of the party, it's time to drop out.

The story notes that the recent string of missteps and mistakes by the Clinton campaign, beginning with the "I-was-nearly-shot-to-death-by-a-sniper-in-Bosnia" flap and including the conflict-of-interest concerns surrounding demoted former strategist Mark Penn, have simply put too many holes in the hull of the Good Ship Hillary for it to remain seaworthy, and if Clinton can't -- or won't -- see it, party fathers are now ready to point it out to her.

Combined with reports that the campaign is now too short on money to even pay the bills for campaign events, "These issues have undermined Clinton's claim to be more 'electable,' with her own stormy campaign contrasting with the disciplined control of Obama's organisation," the story notes.

As for how Hillary will be confronted:

A number of options are being considered by the higher echelons of the Democrats, but they fall roughly into two categories. One is for Carter and Gore to go to Clinton privately and ask her to step down. The other is for both men to appear in public and endorse Obama -– a move which would see a majority of superdelegates go with them.

And if Clinton still refuses to drop out and insists on maintaining her death grip on the superdelegate theory, party leaders seem willing to arrange an early showdown:

The campaign to force Clinton to make an early exit is being masterminded in Congress, home to the most influential of the superdelegates. Senate Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have called on superdelegates to hold an unofficial congress in early June to anoint a winner, rather than waiting for the convention in Denver.

Once again, everything for Hillary Clinton rides on a win in Pennsylvania. But as she's shown before, most recently with Ws in her self-described firewall states of Texas and Ohio, she's often at her best when her back's against the wall.

... In other words, watch out, Obama.

Read the rest of the Scotsman story here.

Monday head-scratcher

Welcome to Monday! There's nothing like starting the week off with a good laugh (or cry, depending on how you look at it).

This photo comes to us courtesy of columnist and pundit Rich Galen, who got it from a Foreign Service officer in Iraq:

The prevailing theory of this photo, Galen explains, is that someone called to order a going-away cake for Suzanne with the instructions that it be inscribed: "'Best Wishes Suzanne,' and underneath that 'We Will Miss You.'"

Oh boy.

Wow ...

If I thought Hillary Clinton was bad on the abortion question, I should have waited for Barack Obama's answer.

Whew.

It's amazing to me that someone as eloquent and intelligent as Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton, as a matter of fact) can become a verbal puddle when asked a simple question about abortion. The question couldn't have been simpler: Do you believe that life begins at conception? The answer is either yes, I do, or no, I don't. Anything between these responses is not an answer.

To his credit, Newsweek editor Jon Meachem asked Obama the follow-up that Campbell Brown missed with Clinton: If you don't believe that life begins at conception, then where does it begin?

Obama dodged the question and spent somewhere between 60 and 90 very uncomfortable seconds blubbering and stuttering through an unintelligible sentence that bore no resemblance to a coherent thought.

I guess this is what happens to politicians when they try to square head knowledge -- that life cannot begin at any time other than conception -- with political reality -- acknowledging it would alienate powerful supporters that both candidates need.

It's unfortunate that in a setting wherein both candidates talked about finding "common ground" on abortion, neither one would acknowledge even the most basic (and scientifically irrefutable) premise about it.

Author Michael Gershon made an excellent point in CNN's debriefing following the forum when he said that although abortion is a religious issue for many Americans, there are many more who see it through lenses of human rights and human dignity. Neither candidate, he said, acknowledged this reality or had much to offer regarding non-religious concerns about abortion.

Gershon is right, and he demonstrated why there can be no "common ground" between two groups when one is firmly on the land and the another is in the middle of the ocean, continuing to drift away.