BESTSALVIA.INFO

I’ve been trying different ways to awaken folks to the new stories. In December I had Will Richardson skype in and talk about the New Face of Learning. I brought around 20 people in and also had another half dozen linked via Polycom. The intent was simply begin conversations. On Tuesday, we had part 2. This time Darren Kuropatwa stopped by via Skype and talked about the things he’s done and is doing in his classroom. I’m going to assume most reading this know who Darren is but if you don’t, you really need to listen to the podcast. Given the fact that we broke a record for high temperature (16C or 62F) the turnout of about 15 in total wasn’t bad. Darren was truly impressive. His natural, humble and pedagogical sound approach made for very compelling listening. We began about 5:30 and finished near 8:00 with Darren sharing for about an hour. I was pretty tired and wished I hadn’t scheduled this but after spending the time with Darren and listening to the discussion that followed, I was energized. Darren based all his talk on his wiki. You can follow along if you like. The recording is just over an hour of Darren’s presentation. Time: 1:09 Size: 33MB (sorry)

Technorati Tags: change, conversations, prairiesouth, darrenkuropatwa

Is Voter Turnout Better Than Ever? Why 30 percent is considered a good showing. By Michelle Tsai Voter turnout has been impressive so far in this year's primaries and caucuses. In New Hampshire, a bit more than half of eligible voters cast ballots for a presidential candidate; in Florida and South Carolina, the figure was roughly one-third. Observers say anything more than 30 percent at the primaries on Super Tuesday would be considered a high turnout, but those standards still seem pretty low in absolute terms. Have Americans always been so lazy about going to the polls? Yes and no; we go when it really, really counts. Turnout was highest for presidential elections in the 19th century and has since fallen. Nevertheless, in recent times we've voted in large numbers under special circumstances: if the race is tight or if important issues like war and the economy are at stake. The practice of conducting primary elections wasn't around during the high-turnout era of the 1800s. Primaries came into widespread use in the 1970s, with participation declining up through the 1990s. In general, the turnout in these contests has always been lower than in general elections, though active participation in the former can augur high numbers on the first Tuesday in November. In the latter half of the 1800s, participation in general elections often hovered around 80 percent of eligible voters. Note that eligible voters back then were a smaller group of the population—white men who weren't convicted criminals. The corrupt political machines in cities like New York and Chicago encouraged turnout with more explicit incentives: They handed out jobs, food, alcohol, and health care to cooperative citizens. (Politicians could keep tabs on who voted for which candidate because ballots weren't secret until the end of the century.) In addition, a number of exciting presidential races in the 19th century resulted in high turnout. In 1828, large numbers of Americans headed for the polls in judgment of Andrew Jackson's brand-new Democratic Party, four years after he'd lost an election despite winning the popular vote. In 1860, the country's internal division over slavery urged many to vote—and helped elect Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. In 1896, farmers in the South and Midwest were motivated to vote because they were suffering from the effects of deflation and wanted relief from the new government. Voter turnout in the 20th century typically ranged from 50 percent to 60 percent, with some dips and peaks along the way. Numbers jumped in the midst of the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal brought poor people and minorities into the Democratic Party. Turnout fell after World War II, then exceeded 60 percent during much of the 1950s and 1960s. (At the time, New York and California were both battleground states.) Participation dropped again in the 1970s and 1980s, likely because Americans had grown cynical about politics after the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal. Given how turnout has climbed in the past few elections and how close this year's presidential race is, some experts believe 65 percent of eligible voters will make it to the polls on Nov. 4. (That would take us closer to the 70 percent and higher turnouts common in Western European countries.)

Sept. 4: Family research council president Tony Perkins discusses the impact of recent GOP scandals on voter turnout.  Which GOP candidate can reclaim moral high ground? (MSNBC)

For whatever reason, there is some sort of conventional wisdom that, in 2006, Nancy Boyda "didn't win, the district, Ryun lost the district." That quote comes from Duke University's David Rohde, and here is the Wichita Eagle's comment on Boyda's choice not to accept DCCC support:

This will make 2008 not only a retest of her grassroots campaign style and a referendum on her already controversial record, but also a test of the theory that she didn’t so much win in November as Jim Ryun lost -- because his conservative base stayed home.

With just a day left to mail in ballots, Oregon’s high-priced referral campaigns are looking at very low voter turnout.

The following is a podcast recording of a speech given by Barack Obama in the St. John Basketball Arena on the campus of Ohio State University at 11:30 am on February 27, 2008. It begins at the moment Senator Obama enters the arena to the soundtrack of U2, and ends as I walk out of the arena after the speech with the sound of Stevie Wonder’s “Signed, Sealed, Delivered I’m Yours” playing in the background.

The following is a text transcript of the portion of Barack Obama’s speech following his many obligatory introductory thanks:

Well, we have had a wonderful few days campaigning all across Ohio. We had a terrific debate last night in Cleveland. We’ve got a couple of good strong Democrats on stage; looking forward, one of us, to a general election. It made me think about the work that has gone into this campaign. It’s now over a year old. It’s been more than a year since I stood on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, the city where Abraham Lincoln served for many years before he went to Washington, where I served before I became a United States Senator. I stood on the steps of this old state capitol and I announced this unlikely journey to change America.

And I have to say that at the time there were a lot of people who said, “Why are you running this time? You’re a relatively young man. Why are you running so soon? You can afford to wait.” That’s what they said. And I had to explain to them that I’m not running because of some long-held ambition. I know that people were looking through my Kindergarten papers, but that’s not why I decided to run. I’m not running because I think it’s somehow owed to me. I am running because of what Dr. King called “the fierce urgency of now,” because I believe that there is such a thing as being too late. That hour is almost upon us.

We are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. Our planet is in peril. The dream that so many generations have fought for is slowly slipping away. You see it everywhere you go: people are working harder just to get by. It’s harder to save. It’s harder to retire. People have never paid more for gas at the pump or for college education, paying their electricity bills. Our health care system is broken: we have 47 million people without health insurance, and if you’ve got health insurance you’ve seen your copayments and deductibles and premiums going up and up and up every single year. People are at risk of losing their homes. Our education system, despite the slogans, leaves millions of children behind, unable to complete in this new global economy. What I realized was that in such circumstances, we can’t afford to wait. We can’t wait to fix our schools. We cannot wait to fix our health care system. We cannot wait to deal with issues like global warming. We cannot wait to make college affordable. We cannot wait to bring to this war in Iraq to a close. We cannot wait. We cannot wait.

What I realized was that the size of these challenges had outstripped the capacity of a broken and divided politics to solve, and I was convinced that the American people were desperate, were hungry for a new direction, a new kind of politics; were interested in a politics that wasn’t about tearing each other down but was about lifting the country up. A politics that was not about spin and PR, but about was about straight talk and honesty and conversation with the American people.

In other words, I was betting on you. I was betting on you because — some of you know I now live in Chicago, but I didn’t originally grow up in Chicago. I moved there after college because I wanted to work at a grassroots level and I got a job as an organizer with a group of churches who were trying to deal with the devastation of steel plants that had closed. So for three years I worked setting up job training programs and trying to bring economic development to communities that had fallen on really hard times. And it was the best education I ever had, because it taught me that ordinary people can do extraordinary things when they’re given the chance. It taught me that change doesn’t happen from the top down; it happens from the bottom up. And so I continue to be convinced that Americans are a decent people and a generous people, willing to work hard and sacrifice on behalf of future generations. And if we could just get together and get beyond the divisions that have plagued us for so long, if we could come together black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, young, old, rich, poor: if we could come together to challenge the special interests that have come to dominate Washington, but also to challenge ourselves to be better, better parents, better neighbors, better citizens, then there would be no problem we could not solve and no destiny we could not fulfill. That was the bet that I was making over one year ago.

And after traveling all across this country, after visiting VFW halls and diners and schools and work sites, after talking to tens of thousands of people and shaking thousands of hands and kissing hundreds of babies and eating hundreds of chicken dinners, I am here to report to you Buckeyes that my bet has paid off. My faith in the American people has been vindicated because everywhere I go, people tell me, “Yes, we want a new direction. Yes, we want to move in a direction of change. Yes, we can. We are ready to stand up and turn the page and write a new chapter in American history.”

Yes, we can.

I haven’t seen this kind of enthusiasm in my lifetime, the interest people are paying to elections. They’re going to rallies and they’re watching debates and they’re reading position papers. Young people voting in record numbers, which reminds me: Everybody here, I want to make sure everybody here understands there will be early voting in Ohio, so everybody can leave this rally and go cast your ballot today. Don’t wait until March 4th. We want you to vote now. I won’t tell you who to vote for, but do go out and cast your ballot. And if I’m making any sense, then you might consider voting for me. You just might. I see that marching band: you guys are still high school, right? So the Seniors, you might be able to vote. If you’re not a Senior, go tell your parents to vote!

So there’s been enormous enthusiasm and record turnout in all these states. I would like to take all the credit for it. I would like to say I’m completely responsible, but let’s face it: part of the reason everybody’s so excited is we’re going to be selecting a president come November and no matter what else happens when you walk into that polling place, the name “George W. Bush” will not be on the ballot! We’re pretty excited about that: no Bush. No Bush. The name of my cousin Dick Cheney will not be on the ballot. People are excited about that also. You know, when the news came out that Cheney and I had a distant relation in common, that was embarrassing. When they do these genealogical surveys, you want to be related to somebody cool! Dick Cheney? That’s a letdown. But that’s OK: his name won’t be on the ballot, which means that the failed surveys of the last seven years — the Katrina, the wiretaps, the Scooter Libby Justice, the Brownie incompetence, the Karl Rove politics — all that will be over next year.

But that’s not the only reason that you’re here. You know, being against something? That’s easy. You’re here because you want to be for something. You want to feel like we can still solve big problems in this country, and we’ve got some big problems to solve. I was down in Cincinnati a few days ago. I had a meeting with four middle-aged women. They’re all about the age of my mother when she passed away, so they reminded me of her. Two of them were looking after aging parents. Two of them were looking after disabled children. Two of them were out of work. One of them was on medical leave. All of them were struggling with health care, with child care, with just paying the bills. All of them were not even thinking about trying to save for retirement because they could barely keep up right now. And one of the women said to me during the conversation, “I played by the rules. All of us have here. We always figured we’d live a middle-class life. We never expected we’d be where we are today. We never expected to find ourselves in this situation.”

I think that speaks for so much of America. A lot of people here, I bet, because everywhere I go I meet people who are struggling with health care, don’t have it or have gone into bankruptcy or dipping into their savings because someone got sick. All throughout Ohio I meet people who’ve worked twenty years in a plant and suddenly the job gets shipped overseas, the equipment gets unbolted and shipped out to Mexico or China. They lose not just their job but their health care, their pension. They’re trying to make ends meet on seven-buck-an-hour jobs at the local fast food joint. All across this state, all across this country I meet teachers who are having to dig into their own pockets to buy school supplies because the schools are underfunded. [Looking at a pointing woman] I guess you’re a teacher! So you know what I’m talking about. All across this country I meet people who are at risk of having their homes foreclosed, not because they did anything wrong but because they got deceived into some predatory loan because there was no oversight by the government over the last several years.

All across this country I meet veterans, veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who are proud of their service and rightfully so, because they have done everything that’s been asked of them. They have performed magnificently in these recent conflicts. But you know, they think about the buddies they’ve left behind who are still there. They question the wisdom of a mission that has cost us so dearly in blood and treasure. Sometimes at the rope line after rallies like this one, I meet the parents of a fallen warrior. A mother in Green Bay gave me this bracelet for son Ryan who at the age of 20 was killed in a roadside bomb. I have to hug these parents as they weep silently. Those are the stories I’m hearing all across this country. Stories of hardship. Stories of struggle.

And so people desperately want to see something new. They want change. And I tell people that I would not be running if I weren’t confident that we could bring about this change, and that I could lead this country in a better direction. But I also tell people that I can’t do it by myself. Remember, change doesn’t happen from the top down. You have to believe. You have to demand and insist and work for and organize towards a different America. You have to be ready for change. And if you are ready for change then we can go and tell the lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over, because they have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drive out the voices of the American people while I am President of the United States of America.

If you are ready for change, then we can stop talking about the outrage of 47 million people without health insurance and start doing something about it. I’ve put forward a plan that says everybody will have the same health care if they want it that I have as a member of Congress, that you can’t be excluded for pre-existing conditions, we’ll negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available prices. If you’re 25 or younger you can stay on your parents’ health insurance. If you’ve got health insurance, we’re going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2500 per family per year. And we will not wait 20 years from now to do it or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president of the United States of America.

If you’re ready for change, then we can start having an economy that’s fair again. You know, I believe in business. I believe in capitalism, the free market, entrepreneurship — I believe in all those things. Most Americans do. Nobody expects to get a free lunch. Everybody knows they’ve got to work hard. But when a CEO is making more in 10 minutes than ordinary workers make in an entire year, and the CEO is getting the tax break, and the workers are left with nothing, and if the company goes into bankruptcy, the workers lose their pension and the CEO is still getting a bonus and a golden parachute, something is wrong and something’s got to change. It’s not fair.

And so I’ve been very clear about my economic agenda. We are going to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. We’re going to give those tax breaks to companies that invest right here in Ohio and in the United States of America. We are going to make sure that we have a tax code that’s fair. We’re going to roll back those Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and give them to hard-working Americans who deserve it, making $75,000 a year or less. $1,000 to offset your payroll tax per family. If you’re a senior citizen making $50,000 a year or less, you shouldn’t have to pay taxes on your Social Security. We’re going to give an additional mortgage deduction to people who live in modest homes if you don’t itemize it on your payroll tax and save them a little bit of money and make it easier for them if interest rates go up. We’re going to put forward a home foreclosure prevention fund to help bridge the gap for people who’ve been making their payments but who through no fault of their own have found themselves at risk of losing their home. We are going to have trade deals that work for all of America. I believe in trade, but I want labor standards and environmental standards that don’t undercut U.S. workers. And I want safety standards so our kids aren’t chewing on toys with lead-based paint of them.

We’re going to invest in infrastructure. If we can spend $12 Billion a month in Iraq, we can spend some money right here in Ohio rebuilding our roads and bridges, putting people back to work and making our economy more competitive. And I won’t raise the minimum wage every ten years; I’ll raise it to keep pace with inflation because if you work in this country, you should not be poor, and that is a goal that I will set when I am president of the United States of America.

If you’re ready for change, we can start providing every child the best education this country has to offer from the day that child is born to the day that child graduates from college. You know, the problem is not that we don’t know what to do. The problem is that we just give lip service to caring about every child. Actually, we’re not thinking about every child. A child in the inner city of Cleveland? “Ah, that child doesn’t look like me. That’s somebody else’s problem.” A kid in the barrio in South Texas? “Well that kid’s the son of an immigrant. I’m not worried about him. That’s not my problem.” Young girl in Appalachia? “Well, you know, those folks, you know, they’re far away. It’s not our problem.” Let me tell you something: every child is our responsibility! Every child deserves a chance! Every child is our child. Every child. And so we are going to make sure that every child can get early childhood education so that they are prepared for school. And I won’t just talk about how great teachers are; I will reward them for their greatness by giving them higher salaries, and giving them more support.

And I want the highest standards in our classrooms. Young guys, you are going to have to compete with kids in China and India. There are no shortcuts. You’re going to have to work harder than you’ve ever worked in your lives. You’ve got to take school seriously. And so we’re going to have high standards. But I don’t want those high standards measured by just one high-stakes test because I don’t want teachers teaching to the test. I want our kids to learn art and music and science and literature and poetry and civics.

And I don’t know about you, but I want to make college affordable for everybody. So we’re going to have a $4,000 tuition credit, every student, every year. But students are going to have to give something back. You’re going to have to provide some community service. You’re going to have to work in a homeless shelter or veterans’ home, or join the Peace Corps. We’ll invest in you, you invest in America, together we will march this country forward if you’re ready for change.

If you’re ready for change we’re going to have an energy policy that makes sense, because our current energy policy does not make sense. I read in the paper today we may see $4 a gallon gas. We are sending a billion dollars a day to foreign nations and we’re melting the polar ice caps in the bargain. And it doesn’t have to be if we’ve got a president who can communicate a sense of urgency about a smart energy policy. It would start with capping greenhouse gases that are causing global warming. That would generate billions of dollars that we could invest in solar and wind and biodiesel. We can put people to work building solar panels. Put people to work building wind turbines. Put people to work developing alternative energy. Put people to work making buildings more energy efficient, creating a green economy that drives economic growth for the 21st Century. We can raise fuel efficiency standards on cars. If we did it just to 40 miles per gallon we would save the equivalent of all the oil we import from the Persian Gulf. Imagine what that would do for our economy, for our environment and for our national security. And that’s how we will bring gas prices down, by using less gas. And by the way, when I made that proposal I didn’t do it in front of some environmental group. I did it in Detroit in front of the automakers. I told them we have to change our ways. I have to admit that the room was really quiet. Nobody clapped. But that’s OK, because part of what we need from the next president is somebody who will not just tell you what they think you want to hear but will tell you what you need to hear, will tell you the truth. That’s why I’m running, to be that president.

If you are ready for change, we can have a foreign policy that makes sense. I said last night in the debate: as commander in chief my job will be to keep you safe, and I will do whatever is required. I will not hesitate to strike against those who would do us harm. And that means that starts with maintaining the strongest military on Earth. And that means making sure our troops are properly trained, and properly equipped, and on proper rotations so they’re getting the proper rest. And it means that when they come home, they are treated properly. No more homeless veterans. No more begging for disability payments. No more waiting for hours to get into the VA. Our veterans have earned their dignity and their respect. They’ve earned it. They’ve earned the honor that we accord them.

But making sure that I keep you safe also means using our military wisely. The war in Iraq was unwise. It was an unwise war. It has cost us billions, soon a trillion or more dollars. Thousands of precious lives. It distracted us from the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, a war that needed to be fought. It fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment. It was an unwise war, and that is why I opposed it in 2002, and that’s why I’ll bring this war to a close in 2009. I will bring our troops home.

But I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into war. I want to put an end to the politics of fear that uses 9-11 as a way to scare up votes rather than a way to bring the country together against a common challenge and a common enemy. I want to usher in a new era of American diplomacy. I said very early in this campaign I would meet not just with our friends but with our enemies, not just with leaders we liked but leaders we didn’t. And I was criticized for saying this. Senator Clinton, folks in Washington said, “You can’t do that!” I said, “Yes, I can.” Because I remember what John F. Kennedy said. He said, “We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.” Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries and tell them where America stands. That’s what I intend to do when I’m president of the United States.

That will allow me to go before the world community and say, “America’s back. America’s back. We are ready to lead.” And yes, we will lead militarily. We will lead going after terrorists. But we will also lead in creating a new era of nuclear non-proliferation, working to create treaties to reduce stockpiles of nuclear arms around the world. We will also lead in bringing an end to climate change. We will lead in helping poor countries deal with the devastation of HIV/AIDS. We will lead in bringing an end to the genocide in Darfur. That’s leadership.

And we will lead by having the highest standards, by setting an example of human rights and civil rights, due process and rule of law, which is why I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. And we will end torture and rendition because you will have elected a president who has taught the Constitution and believes in the Constitution and will obey the Constitution of the United States of America.

All these things are possible if you are ready for change. But you can’t just sit back and wait for it. You’ve got to want it. You’ve got to work for it. You’ve got to go out and vote for it. There are people who are now saying, “Well, Obama may talk a good game, but he hasn’t been in Washington long enough.” That’s what they’ll tell you. And I’ve got to remind them, to remind them that I know they want to season and stew me a little while longer, boil all the hope out of me, but the American people understand we don’t need the same old folks doing the same old things, playing the same old games over and over again. We need something different. People want a new direction.

Some were arguing that, “Well, Obama may not stand up that well against the Republicans. They’re so tough! They’re so mean!” Well, let me tell you something. I revere and honor the service of John McCain to this country. He is a genuine American hero. He deserves our respect and our gratitude. But I have to say that when it comes to policy, John McCain is looking backwards. He’s tied to the failed policies of George Bush. He’s not going to bring about change. I heard Senator McCain said this morning — I guess he had gotten this from watching the debate last night, or at least his staff had — he said this morning he had news for me: Al Qaeda is in Iraq! Remember Russert was asking us during the debate, “hypothetically, if you started bringing people out and the Iraqi government told you to just go ahead and leave, would you still potentially, blah blah,” this big hypothetical, and so I said, “I would always reserve the right to go in and strike against Al Qaeda if they were in Iraq.” So you know, this is how politics works. McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying, “Well, let me give you some news, Barack! Al Qaeda is in Iraq!” Like I wasn’t reading the papers. Like I didn’t know what was going on. I say, well first of all, I do know that Al Qaeda is in Iraq and that’s why I’ve said we should continue to strike Al Qaeda targets. But I have some news for John McCain! And that is that there was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq! I’ve got some news for John McCain: he took us into a war along with George Bush that should never have been authorized and should have never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9-11: that would be Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that is stronger now than at any time since 2001. I’ve been paying attention, John McCain. That’s the news. So John McCain may say he’d like to follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but so far all he’s done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that’s cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars and that I intend to bring to an end so that we can actually start going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place. That’s the news, John McCain.

I respect John McCain, but he’s tied to the politics of the past. We are about the policies of the future. He’s the party of yesterday. We want to be the party of tomorrow. That’s why I’m running for president of the United States of America.

Which brings me to the last point that people seem to be making. Senator Clinton’s been making this quite a bit lately. It’s an argument about hope. The argument goes something like this: “Oh, Obama talks about hope all the time.” Now, now it is true I do talk about hope quite a bit, and understandably because if you think about it the odds of me standing here are very slim. I was born to a teenage mom and my father left when I was two. So my grandparents and my mother helped raise me and they didn’t have a lot. They didn’t have money, they didn’t have fame or fortune. They could give me love, they could give me an education, and they gave me hope. They gave me hope, so I talk about hope a lot. We have “hope” on our signs and I gave a speech at the Boston convention about hope and I wrote a book called “The Audacity of Hope.” But now the argument, it goes something like this: “Oh, he talks about hope all the time. He’s so naive. He’s peddling false hopes. He needs a reality check. He doesn’t see the world clearly. He doesn’t know how tough and difficult things are. He’s talking all the time, but he doesn’t know what it takes to get things done.” The implication is, if you talk about hope you must be naive, you must have your head up in the clouds somewhere. You know, you’re just strolling along waiting for good things to happen to you! I just kind of stumbled into running for president! That’s the implication. Huh.

But you know, that’s not what hope is. Hope is not blind optimism. Hope is not ignorance of the challenges we face. You know and I know how difficult it is going to be to bring about change. You know, people have been talking about the people who come to these rallies: “Oh, they’re so romantic! They’re just infatuated. They all have these rose-colored glasses.” There are a bunch of folks out here, I’ll bet, who have gone through some tough times and are going through some tough times right now. You know life can be hard. You’ve lived hard. You’ve seen hard. You may have lost a job. You may not have health care right now. You may have seen a loved one who is struggling, on the brink of losing their home. You know there’s nothing romantic.

People know how hard it is to change. I know it. It’s not going to be easy to provide health care to everybody. If it was easy, it would have already been done. It’s not going to be easy to change our energy policy. Exxon Mobil made $11 Billion last quarter; they’re not going to want to give up all those profits. It’s not easy to alleviate poverty that’s built up over generations. It’s not easy to fix our schools because it doesn’t just mean more money in the schools, it’s also going to require change in attitudes. Our parents are going to have to parent better. You’re going to have to put away the TV set, turn off the video games, instill a sense of excellence in your children. Those things take time. I know how hard it is. I’ve seen how easily this country is divided, how we can be pitted against each other, how politicians can scapegoat people who are “not like us”. You know, Muslims or immigrants or gay people, trying to pit us against each other, to find reason to blame each other.

I know how hard it is to change our political culture, but I also know this: that nothing worthwhile in this country has ever happened except when somebody somewhere was willing to hope. That’s how this country was founded: a group of patriots declaring independence against the mighty British Empire. Nobody gave them a chance. But they had hope. That’s how slaves and abolitionists resisted that wicked system and our new president charted a course that we would not remain half slave and half free. Hope. That is how the greatest generation defeated Hitler and fascism and lifted itself up out of the Great Depression. Hope. That is how women won the right to vote. That is how workers won the right to organize. That is how young people traveled down south in the sixties, and they marched, and they sat in, and some went to jail, and some got beaten, and some died for freedom’s cause. That’s what hope is. That’s what hope is.

That is what hope is: imagining and then fighting for, then struggling for, that which did not seem possible before. And that is the opportunity we have right now. That’s the chance we have right now in this election, if you vote, if you are willing to go forward. There is a moment in the life of every generation when that spirit of hope has to come through, when we cast aside the fear and the doubt, where we don’t accept what the cynics tell us we have to accept, when we instead reach for what is possible, when we insist that the next generation deserves the same chance that somebody gave us, when we demand that we keep the American dream alive. For those who still hunger for justice, still thirst for opportunity, when we decide to come together, arm in arm, and remake this country block by block, county by county, state by state, this is our moment. This is our time. And if you will stand with me, and if you will vote for me and if you will organize with me and march with me and fight alongside me, then I promise you this: we will not just win Ohio, we will win this nomination, we will win the general election and then you and I together, we will change this country and we will change the world. Thank you, Ohio, and God bless you.

Share This

Stepping through the doors at the High Noon Saloon on Saturday night the music scene in Madison materialized and completely justified its existence. Having spent the previous hours witnessing The Hold Steady and The Heartless Bastards entertain across town to a sold out crowd, I arrived fully expecting a lackluster turnout at the High Noon Saloon.

I misjudged the rabidness of Madison music fans, and, as I looked around I was happy to see plenty of other folks I recognized from the show across town. In addition, it was almost impossible to shake the extreme excitement I had just previously enjoyed and wrote about here, but settling in with my group of friends as Califone started their set I realized my amazing night was about to enjoy the perfect encore.

My affection for Califone’s Roots and Crowns began a serious backtrack through their catalogue and provided a perfect starting point (albeit a very tardy one) to their music which has since blossomed into discovering some of my favorite music over the course of the last year. By their second song of the evening, “Spider’s House” the chatter amongst the crowd disappeared and allowed the band to flourish and really own the venue.

Combining elements of experimentation to the uniqueness of their sound the band can, at times, seem to stray off into the distance. That distance however always provides an underlying current guiding the song gently back to shore. If you listen closely you can certainly hear the direction and the changes and cues to other band members of the decision to head back into the song. Being able to pick up on and enjoy those interactions and witness the band begin, stray, and then return through various songs was definitely a highlight.

In a complete opposite direction of straightforwardness, “The Orchids” provided a graceful come down to experimenting and tinkering. A definite highlight of Roots and Crowns relayed the same during the concert. Overall, the concert was exactly what I was hoping for and won’t miss an opportunity to see the group the next time they swing through town.

There are a handful of dates remaining on this tour, but we’re already looking forward to their upcoming set at the Pitchfork Music Festival on Saturday, July 14th.

Myspace: Califone
MP3: Califone - Spider’s House
MP3:Califone - The Orchids
MP3:Califone - Wingbone
MP3:Califone - Slowness
MP3:Califone - One
MP3:Califone - No Expectations (Rolling Stones)
MP3:Califone - For The Turnstiles (Neil Young)

My Video Blog

As I was leaving LimmudLA last month, I was given three boxes of food to take to SOVA to feed the homeless.

Figuring that I was only a canceled credit card away from being homeless, I appropriated the food and put it to a holy purpose — me.

After all, as Rodney Dangerfield pointed out, what have the homeless ever done for Israel?

I’ve eaten most of those three boxes. I gave away a half box of food I didn’t want to SOVA. Now all I’ve got left from my haul are five packages (four cups per) of Cocoa Krispies.

I’ll sell them to you cheap.

Maybe I’ll give them away for Shaloch Manoat (gifts) on Purim.

JConnectLA (they have the best and holiest Jewish singles events in town) hosts Rabbi Shmuley Boteach for a Shabbaton but it cost $100.

I tried to figure out how to do the thing on the cheap. I could host another fundraiser on my site or I could strip down to my tzitzit on my webcam in exchange for paypal donations or I could rob the homeless bums on Pico or I could hold up a shul at shacharit and raid the pushker (charity box)…

I decide to do nothing.

Then two hours before the Sabbath Friday, I email JConnectLA to see if I could get a press pass to their distinguished event.

I leave my request to the last minute knowing they won’t have time to answer it and turn me down.

I tire of rejection.

I find a shul. I welcome in Shabbat. I pray. I read. I look around. There’s about 200 people and nobody I want to talk to who would also want to talk to me right now.

I walk home. I try to swagger. I try to flex and unflex my muscles. I try not to cough too hard or spit too much. I tell myself that the day of redemption is nigh and I will soon be a prophet with honor in my own ‘hood.

My glorious Shabbat dinner? Quaker Granola Oats & Honey for the third time today.

I promise a friend I’ll show up at 9 p.m. for Rabbi Boteach’s lecture but as that time approaches, I languish in my hovel. I’m still getting over my cold. I don’t feel like walking a long way alone in the dark. Maybe the gangbangers won’t fear my blog like they used to and hold me up on the mistaken notion that I have the big bucks rather than the big influence.

I know if I go I’ll get all over-stimulated and see all my friends and I’ll get giddy and say something stupid and will forever close off another avenue for my Jewish expression.

I stay home and have a good wallow before stumbling into a troubled sleep.

I hear later that Rabbi Boteach spoke three times Friday night. He challenged the audience. He said that if God is running the world, that seems like bad news because the world is filled with lawless bloodshed, such as the attack on the yeshiva Thursday that murdered eight.

Saturday morning it’s back to shul. Every time I shake hands, my right elbow stings.

Carpal tunnel. Tennis elbow. Moral degeneration.

The ol’ HIV acting up again.

I get a quick nap and then make the long march to the Crowne Plaza to catch Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in full cry.

He’s brilliant. He’s mesmerizing. He’s hysterical.

He talks about married couples getting too comfortable with the each other to the point they even use the same bathroom at the same time.

"Can you imagine people dating using the bathroom at the same time? ‘Here, come in, and we’ll get the started while I finish off.’"

Rabbi Boteach says Judaism is dead in Pico/Robertson. We’re an overly-regulated Baal Teshuva (penitents rather than those Orthodox from birth) community too afraid of breaking petty rules to serve God with joy. "We haven’t sung one song this Shabbat. Not one song from the heart."

It’s the most religious shuls that talk the most during prayer, he says. The Baal Teshuva shuls are the quietest. Penitents fear being caught outside the rules.

A woman asks the rabbi, "How does the rav feel about pre-marital sex?"

"Rav?" Shmuley wondered. "Who’s the rav? I’m Shmuley."

The woman said she became religious so she could get married and yet she’s still unmarried and it’s hard to be chaste.

Rabbi Boteach that most people come to Orthodox Judaism because they’re lonely. Their lives are broken. They are promised that Orthodox Judaism can fix what is wrong with them, make them happier, get them married, and give them a good family life.

Then much of the time that doesn’t happen and people get angry and frustrated.

Rabbi Shumley says to live Judaism with joy. Be honest when dating. It’s our flaws that open up room for us to love each other.

He reads the questions that were emailed for him. "Why are Jewish women such ballbusters?"

"Why are Jewish men such wimps?"

"I’m dating a stripper. She’s kind and she loves Israel. Please know that if you’re judging her, you’re judging me too."

Rabbi Boteach talks about the importance of dignity. He doesn’t advise the guy to dump the stripper, just to encourage her into a different profession.

I feel like I know who wrote that stripper email.

I go up to a friend and ask him. He says yes.

He says he was inspired by my interview with the deaf porn star (Savannah Jane, raised an Orthodox Jew, educated as a social worker) to look her up and take her out.

After Boteach’s talk, I chat with Larry Greenfield, the executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

I freeload off the third meal. I wasn’t going to eat anything but there’s chocolate and strawberries and mango. I must make a donation Monday.

Better yet, I’ll guilt-trip my friend who encouraged me to go to make a donation for me.

I love to be righteous on other people’s dimes.

Friend says March 10: "I made a $100 donation to jconnect…and u didn’t even have to guilt-trip me."

Why is it that whenever I start talking to a girl at some Jewish singles event, somebody comes up to her and warns her about me. That I’m a predator. A shark. A pick-up artist.

One Friday night at Stephen S. Wise temple ten years ago, I left this girl for five minutes to go to the bathroom and when I came back, she said half a dozen people had come up to her to warn her against me.

"What did they say?" I asked.

"That you’re the male version of a whore."

I don’t know why my love for Torah gets misinterpreted this way. Yeah, I’ve played around, but that was a long time ago. I’m a different man now. I’m older, fatter and greyer. Men and women no longer find me so ravishing.

I volunteer to take JConnect’s leftover food to SOVA but my reputation has proceeded me.

I’m no longer trusted with women or food!

I should talk to the rabbi and ask him why do I talk to women more before I have sex with them?

I want to think of sex as opening up intimacy.

I first lived with a woman in Orlando, FL, in 1993.

I told Orthodox Rabbi Y. A. that we might marry.

"You’re going about things the wrong way," he said.

A few months in to our relationship, I came back from the library with a book on birth order and I was telling her all about it with great excitement. She was the oldest. I was the youngest. It was a great combination for a relationship because eldests tend to competitive and organized and responsible while youngests are playfull and rebellious.

"I tried to talk to you about that when we first met," she said, "but all you wanted to do was screw."

I run into a kid who gave me such a stern presumptuous and unsolicited dressing down via email shortly after we met a few months ago that I banished him forever from my life.

It’s Shabbat. He meant well.

We shake hands.

Why the heck am I kicking people out of my life? I don’t have enough friends. He’s a good bloke. We share common values. He’s funny. We know people in common.

But who the heck is this punk to give me some mussar lecture?

Maybe I’m mad because he was right. Too painful. Must reject him. Don’t want to look at self straight in the mirror. Want to keep looking in fun-house mirror, all distorted through my cam narcissism.

I must stop discussing these private matters on my blog. Must act like a mature adult. Must let people feel safe around me. Must stop acting like a creep. Must be dignified.

Mustn’t grumble.

Mustn’t talk so much about self.

Show how much I’m suffering because of Thursday’s attack on the yeshiva.

OK. Done. Let’s talk about me.

I don’t want to pretend I’m only a holy man. I am also a man of flesh and blood.

I was finishing off the shemoneh esreh (Judaism’s central prayer). My friend finished.

"What’s new?" I ask.

"I was in the Philippines for a week."

"Sex vacation?"

"No."

"Business or pleasure?"

"Business. I got three massages. No happy endings."

"Dating?"

"No."

"Have you read The Game by Neil Strauss?"

"That might help someone who’s 20. I’ve got 25 years of patterns. I’m not going to change. You have to treat women like s— on your first dates or they put you in the friend category. I always treat women nicely and they always treat me like a friend. Nice guys are only good for friends."

There’s a 90-minute wait until mincha and the third meal.

I get so bored I pick up a prayer book and study it closely. I sit in the corner like a loser while all around me people have good conversations.

I talk to an old lady. "I bet I know someone in Australia who you know," she says.

"I left there over 30 years ago."

"Andrew Peacock (former leader of Australia’s conservative party)."

"Andrew Peacock? I know him. How do you know Andrew Peacock?"

"He used to date my friend Shirley McLaine. He wanted to marry her but she didn’t want to move to Australia and he didn’t want to leave Australia. He’s a lovely man."

At the third meal, Rabbi Boteach recognizes me. "We met at a strange place," he says.

Yep. It was Dr. Susan Block’s Speakeasy in 2000. She dressed all conservative for him but her place was still covered with pictures of naked people.

"So what’s the deal with Luke Ford?" Rabbi Boteach asks.

Ahh, my name. He remembers my name! It’s the sweetest sound in the world to me.

I want to bond with Rabbi Boteach like I’ve wanted to bond with Dennis Prager and Rabbi Elazar Muskin and Rabbi Steven Weil and all the other father figures who’ve rejected me.

Daaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddddddyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

Who will be my daddy? God, Torah and Orthodox Judaism are wonderful but they’re a little too abstract to be effective father figures for me.

I look around the Shabbaton and see married people who are younger than me and they have kids and mortgages and all I have is my pathetic blog/cam & pony show.

At least I’m in touch with my emotions and I’ve had enough therapy to articulate them even if I’m too lazy to shape them for constructive purposes.

"I believe in the same things you believe," I tell the rabbi. "I just try to write as honestly as I can every day. I don’t try to push values."

Thank God! Who’d want Luke Ford pushing values? Maybe your enemy’s values. Best way to discredit someone.

In his final lecture, Rabbi Boteach tells us not to live in fear and to run towards the light.

I charge out of the Shabbaton all fired up. I got a lot of good stuff and it didn’t cost me anything!

At the corner of Pico/Robertson, I see a white walk sign. I forget my fears and charge across the street at the same time as a crazy woman driver turns into me.

I scream sh’ma yisrael (in my head).

I think I might be writing this blog entry from the next world. Things are much much better here.

Here’s a video from the Jewish Journal: "Consul General Yaakov Dayan of Israel in Los Angeles responds to the shooting at a Jerusalem yeshiva and a Palestinian protest taking place on Wilshire Blvd. in front of its office. Also speaking: Los Angeles City Councilman Jack Weiss, Rev. Billy Ingram, Rabbi Daniel Bouskila. Video by Jay Firestone."

Karmel Melamed writes for the Jewish Journal:

The theme from the movie "Rocky" blasted through the main sanctuary at the Nessah Synagogue on Thursday March 6th with nearly 600 local Iranian Jews who came to witness a heated debate between author and television personality Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and syndicated Jewish radio talk show host Dennis Prager. Their debate focused on Boteach’s newest book "The Broken American Male". Boteach’s argument was that American men nowadays don’t pay as much attention to the emotional needs of their wives and children. Instead he argued American men spend too much time watching sports on TV and porn on the Internet. He also said American men are often too caught up with making money and less focused on making the family work– a reason why some marriages fail and some children may not want to be at home. Prager argued that the problem may not lie with American men but perhaps with American society where the roles of men and women have been blurred since the feminist movement of the 1960s’ and 1970s’.

While I personally did not favor the arguments of either side, I was impressed with the large turnout of mostly younger Iranian Jewish professionals. You could even say Prager and Boteach were treated like celebrities by those in attendance as small groups huddled around them before and after the debate. Boteach had previously spoken at Nessah and has many fans in the community considering the fact that his father is an Iranian Jew. Prior to the debate, some in attendance enjoyed Sushi and Saki while mingling– after all, this was yet another opportunity for young Jewish singles to meet one another!

To listen to our podcast featuring Boteach and Prager’s views of young Iranian American Jews here.

From my March 14, 2000 Lukeford.com archives:

I got to meet one of my heroes, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, this evening. He wrote the bestseller "Kosher Sex" along with about ten other books. He was on a special Sunday night edition of the Dr. Susan Block show.

Last year when Rabbi Boteach visited Dr. Block’s show, he was accompanied by many esteemed members of the Orthodox community, including the rabbi of Young Israel of Beverly Hills who about fainted when he saw the sexually explicit art work at Suzy’s Speakeasy.

This year Rabbi Boteach was disappointed that Dr. Block had not replaced the sexy art with Jewish art. The rabbi received an angry letter from a Los Angeles religious Jew who wrote, in effect, that the rabbi could be forgiven for going once by mistake to Dr. Block’s show, but to go a second time was to sin.

Rabbi Boteach said that all of America’s orthodox rabbis had taken up a collection to send him on a book tour to Baghdad. He’s highly controversial among religious Jews for his frank talk about sex, for watering down Judaism, and for promoting himself. Humility is a big deal among the very religious.

An excerpt of Rabbi Boteach’s book "Kosher Sex’ was published in the English edition of Playboy magazine, to the great consternation of religious Jews around the world who view Playboy as sinful.

At 6:50PM, I walked upHope Street in downtown Los Angeles to find Rabbi Boteach and his coterie (including his Los Angeles host Alon Carmel, president of matchnet.com) standing outside. Rabbi Boteach smoked a cigar. He was very friendly, interested in my book and in my conversion to Judaism.

I told him that the nationally syndicated talkshow host Dennis Prager had a great influence on me. Prager also had a profound affect on Rabbi Boteach. They have been friends for a long time. I believe that Boteach brought Prager to Oxford University in 1990 to debate an atheist on the God question for Boteach’s L’Chaim [To Life] Society.

Dr. Suzy’s hubby Max brings us inside. Dr. Block said she had just talked to Prager on the phone. He’s researching his next book on male sexuality. Suzy knows of Dennis, but she does not know Dennis. She has never been on his show or he on hers.

Rabbi Boteach was watching Dennis Prager Thursday night on Larry King Live debate in favor of California’s Proposition 22, which defines marriage as taking place between a man and a woman. Watching the debate with Rabbi Boteach was his homosexual brother.

After his last appearance on Dr. Block’s show, Rabbi Boteach published an article on the experience.

Rabbi Boteach recently debated Larry Flynt on TV. Though they competely disagreed, they got along personally. Rabbi Boteach was touched by Flynt’s affection for his wife, his former nurse. The rabbi challenged Flynt to a public debate in Los Angeles which will take place March 24 at a yet to be decided location.

Seeing firsthand Larry’s affection for his wife, Rabbi Boteach realized that Larry was just in porno "to make an honest buck." Rabbi Boteach thought Larry would be hanging out with one of his models.

Rabbi Boteach’s wife Debbie, hails from Sydney, Australia. I grew up in Cooranbong, two hours drive outside of Sydney.

Dr. Block told the rabbi about her feud with radio talkshow host Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Dr. Laura called Block a "psuedo-professional porn queen."

Unfortunately the batteries on my tape recorder had run low, so I missed ten minutes of the banter between Suzy and Shmuley before the show.

Right after Dr. Block started the show, Rabbi Boteach took control.

From his ten years hosting the radio show "Religion on the Line," Dennis Prager remembers how it was alway the rabbis who talked the most.

Shmuley asked Suzy, a Jew, what she had done to commemorate her mother’s passing. Suzy’s dad died years ago. At the time of the death of her mother, Dr. Block sent a note to Shmuley who replied in part by listing the different Jewish rituals she should perform, including having someone say kaddish for her mom.

Suzy talked about inheriting much of her mom’s furniture.

Suzy: "I feel that her spirit is more here than ever… She was an artist. She never got to see this place, but I think she would’ve really liked it. I built this place to impress her while she was alive, and now to honor her [that she is dead]."

Rabbi: "Was this your first experience of loss?"

Suzy: "No, no, but it might be the biggest loss… My husband Max is now my mommy and daddy."

Rabbi: "My brother is one of the biggest suppliers of guns and uzis… If you want to blow up your neighbor."

This brother was in the audience tonight with his wife. Along with a few other members of the audience, he wore a yarmulka (skull cap).

Max: "My father was one of the great gun dealers."

Suzy: "The Christian Right wants to hang the Ten Commandments up in every school. Rabbi Boteach wants to hang them up in every single bar."

Rabbi: "And in every bedroom."

They’re referring to Rabbi Boteach’s new book "The Ten Commandments of Dating."

Rabbi: "This is the only interview with a rabbi where the interviewer is wearing a rabbi’s hat. You’re wearing a streimel."

That’s a hat made of fur.

Suzy: "I have four of these. Last time I wore my blue one… I’ll just curl my little payos [sidelocks worn by religious Jewish men] down my side."

Rabbi: "Back in your Speakeasy, I see that since last time I’ve had absolutely no influence on you whatever."

Suzy: "Oh no, there is more Judaica."

Rabbi: "But the [pornographic] pictures are all still here."

Suzy: "Oh yeah, I like to mix it up. This exhibit is called "Erotic Art of the Apocalypse," so you’ll notice quite a few religious themes."

Rabbi: "Well, luckily, we Jews don’t have an Apocalypse. That means there can’t be an erotic art of the Apocalypse. We don’t believe the world is going to end in a big boom."

Suzy: "Apocalypse can also mean revelation."

Rabbi: "Looking at the word revelation, it takes concealment for there also to be revelation. You first need something covered."

Suzy: "I covered up for you rabbi."

Indeed she did. Suzy is dressed far more conservatively than normal. The first time he arrived, Rabbi Boteach asked Dr. Block, all concerned, that she was going to stay modest.

Normally Suzy dresses seductively for her shows, and does them from a bed. That is where Suzy interviewed me.

Rabbi: "God bless you. I argued with you last time that in order for there to be real revelation in sex, you first need concealment. Modesty leads to intimacy. That curtain which covers the body and says, ‘I have a secret to tell you, and I am only going to tell you.’"

Suzy: "Absolutey. And the secret is the word little. A little curtain. I believe in concealment. I call it teasing. Women need to be teased because it makes us come around and men need to be teased because it makes you slow down. But I think you make people wait too long, rabbi."

Rabbi: "They always say rabbis are too quick.

"Look, the biggest thing missing from modern relationships is curiosity. We know so much about each other. This is the age of the spotlight. Our relationships are being drowned in the din of light. We are suffering from too much light… The idea of incremental revelation so people are teased.

"We’re living in an age where men watch tampon commercials on TV and women know that their men have been test subjects for Viagra… What is their left to discover?"

Suzy: "The American people know that Bob Dole has been a test subject for Viagra."

Rabbi: "I have no problem with that because he is a devoted husband. And Viagra between married couples is a wonderful thing. But I see a loss of curiosity. The old joke - how do you know who’s married at a restaurant - it’s the couple who aren’t even talking to each other. Because they think they know everything about each other already. There is no arc of renewal and part of modesty is to allow renewal."

Suzy: "I believe in marriage. I’m married and monogamous. I think that people who are not monogamous can love each other. I have great respect for swingers. Marriages that have stayed together for decades… Many of them are ethical good people."

Rabbi: "Let me ask you a question. You’re married to your husband. Do you belong to your husband?"

Suzy: "Yes and he belongs to me."

Rabbi: "Well, if marriage is about belonging… Interdependency. The secret of a great marriage is two becoming one flesh while remaining two. Because when you morph into each other too quickly, there is no curiosity left. You’re a puzzle that’s been solved. You’re a mountain that’s been climbed. There’s nothing left to discover. How can someone be a swinger and say ‘I still belong to someone?’

"I make the argument in my new book that every marriage has two fundamental components - primacy and exclusivity. "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt." God says, if you want to be in a relationship with Me, then I have to come first.’ If a man comes to a woman and says, ‘I love you but my mother will always have to come before you.’ Or ‘I love you but my job will always precede you.’ I don’t think a lot of women will feel flattered.

"Americans think that what they want most is freedom… Not true. We will give up our freedom for a noble cause. We all want to be unique. If you’re not the one and the only to someone you are not unique.

"Throughout history people have wanted to be famous. As long as you have a camera on me, Susan, I’ll keep on talking… Alexander the Great brought chroniclers along with him on his campaigns. People wanted to be famous for their achievements. This is the first generation in history that wants to be famous for their character flaws. So you have 50 women going on national TV who want to become famous as golddiggers…

"People today are so desperate for attention that they are willing to lose their dignity for attention.

Rabbi: "Who enjoys sex today? The average length of sex between married couples is seven and a half minutes. It takes longer to smoke the cigarette after… When I tell men about the seven and a half minutes, they look at me and say ‘Who are those supermen?’

"Why do people enjoy pornography? Because they are sensually challenged. They can’t enjoy the feel and the aroma and the sound of sex. They only enjoy the site. Most men are more interested in watching two strangers do it on a big screen than doing it with their wives.

"In Talmudic times, women were not allowed to sing for me because the female voice was so seductive and erotic. That’s been lost to us today. Most men complain their wives talk to much. The only time they enjoy the feminine voice is when they pay for it as part of a sleazy industry called phone sex.

"In sex, two strangers are trying to connect. Two people that don’t have any blood ties… So God gave five sticky points called the five senses. Five points of connection. Sex is a celebration of the senses. Now, when Jews make love as part of Kosher Sex, they use visual attraction to create the first connecting point but then they turn the lights off. And as the eyes close and the clothes peel away, what’s left is a sensate experience. Now that the lights are off, we’re alive to the sounds and scents of lovemaking.

"Today women feel inhibited in bed because they feel evaluated and judged. Falling in love connotes an experience whereby I am washed away by a tidal wave of emotion. At one time, a woman would take off her clothes and you couldn’t help but be aroused. Today men are all Supreme Court justices in bed. They judge whether their wives curves are sufficiently round, if their weight is sufficiently low, their hair sufficiently bouncy. And the women know they are in the presence of a judge, so they freeze up. 72% of American housewives undress with the lights off or in the bathroom because they are ashamed of their bodies."

Suzy: "Speaking of sensual experiences, have some whisky. I hear that you never turn down a whisky."

Rabbi: "I never turn down a free whisky."

They say Hebrew blessings over the drink. The first one in memory of Dr. Block’s mom Rachel.

They sip their whisky.

Rabbi: "January 2000, that was a good month."

Suzy: "We’re coming up on Purim which celebrates Esther, a great Jewish heroine. And very sexual. She participated in a beauty contest… She won."

Rabbi: "Today, in the Miss America pageants, they all go to gyms. It’s visual. They’re trying to look great. These women were probably plump. All the women immersed themselves in oils so they would be soft. Men today want thin women because to the eyes, thin is in. But to the sense of touch, meat is neat.

"When the lights go off, what is more pleasurable? To make love to a ribcage and a bag of bones, or to someone who has a bit of flesh. Women should eat more.

"Long ago, men used to make love with their hands. They used to feel their wives. They didn’t need directions in the bedroom. Today women have become traffic cops in bed. They give directions. They’re like air traffic controllers. Turn left!

"Today, in the bedroom, communication is verbal rather than experiential. That’s why Bill Clinton’s such a sexy guy. People wonder why the most powerful man in the world didn’t choose more beautiful women? Because he’s a sensual guy. He looks at the total woman. He likes them zaftig.

"With Monica, they were having phone sex. Can you imagine how flattering it is to a woman when a man loves your voice and your feel? What do women want? They want to feel good about themselves."

Suzy: "I fell in love with my husband through phone sex. We had phone sex before we had real sex."

Rabbi: "Before you guys studied Jewish texts?"

Max, Suzy’s hubby: "I had the same rabbi who did Sammy Davis Jr."

Rabbi: "This is the celebrity rabbi?

"Saint Augustine called the Jews ‘carnal Israel.’"

Suzy: "Yeah, he had plenty of sex before his conversion."

Monday night, I watched Rabbi Boteach speak at Cafe Olam, held at the Sephardic synagogue on Wilshire Blvd in Los Angeles. The rabbi asked all the women if they needed a man? About four raised their hands. Then he asked the women if they needed a phone, and most of them agreed.

Rabbi: "They’re prepared to acknowledge dependency on a piece of plastic but not on a human person. And why? Because AT&T is always there. Reliable. Men are not."

Lynne writes: When a man lowers the lights to keep a woman from seeing his diseased genitalia, it is easily confused with a gentlemanly gesture to preserve our modesty and ease our anxiety over feeling "evaluated and judged." No non-whore in the real world says, "Yo, baby, turn the light back on, I need to have a look at your dick first." We’re just grateful not to have our flaws on display, because we’re convinced that, any second, the guy is going to say, "Your labia are asymmetrical," laugh and leave. (Or. worse, call us up in a day or two and say they’re no longer interested because our thighs are too heavy or that horrid bump on our nose really turns them off…) Anyone who knows he or she is infected with an incurable disease owes it to their partner to disclose it, bring a condom and offer to wear it, porn star or not. Anyone who doesn’t is a common boor but for a porn star to behave this way is unprofessional. With all the guys that want the job, can’t we work with male performers who pay attention to their health? When I direct a porn movie, I can tell who to do what with whom in bed. When I’m having private sex with a man, I don’t want to be calling the shots (what a great video metaphor), I want a man to make love to me.

I didn’t realize there were Jewish nunneries (since when were YOU Catholic?). I am so flattered, you wanting me kept safe from wolves and temptation. If only I could make the choice of exclusivity in that Catholic sense — married to God, celibate to man, belonging to Luke. How about two of three? I belong to you, Luke. One reason I was so surprised that XXX would put himself in the position he did was that surely he couldn’t have failed to notice that I belong to you.

Lukey, what would be the problem if we saw movies we both liked with no arguments afterwards? That it might lead to sex for hours on end? Why does that horrify you so? It sounds like it would make the real Rabbi very happy. Surely you, the ultimate enigma, could keep me from getting bored. Why do I want to touch you so badly I want to cry? Why do I try so hard to avoid disturbing you with "issues" that I forget other men might actually feign the passion I remind myself you cannot show?

The only conclusion that I can come to, my friend, and I’m sure the Rabbi would agree, is that you are Looney Tunes. "I will never make love in the flesh again, I will only worship Luke from afar" may not be a workable position for me to take, but "I won’t have sex with someone unless I know them and love them as I do Luke" may be tenable. That maintains the primacy, exclusivity and belonging with very little effort on your part. I will also try hard not to bore you. YYY says it is good for you to go out with women who have nothing to do with porno just for you to keep your perspective on the world. Still I am happy that you will not be getting together with any Jewish childhood sweethearts while you are in Australia. I entertained the thought of NJG doing ballet in the nude. It was delightful.

No, my final lesson is not to "trust no one." This isn’t the "X-Files" or even the "XXX-Files." I know that as a Jew you need never forgive me for making a mistake (nor never let me forget I made it). My lesson is that, if Luke will let me, to love and trust him more than ever, because he has taken such special care of my heart for so long.

In a December 3 washingtonpost.com online chat, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz asserted that a November 29 Postarticle about discredited rumors that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) attended a madrassa as a child "was [not] well executed" and "failed to make ... clear" that the madrassa "charge is bogus." Similarly, as Talking Points Memo reporter-blogger Greg Sargent noted, in his November 30 "Media Notes" column, Kurtz wrote: "I can't understand why the story didn't mention that the official at the Indonesian elementary school alleged to have been a madrassa -- according to an unsourced story in the conservative online magazine Insight -- had told CNN it had always been a public school and not a religious school." By contrast, on the December 2 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Kurtz noted criticism of the article by "liberal bloggers" but did not note the substance of the criticism and said, "Washington Post editors say this [article] was actually intended to knock down the rumors." Similarly, according to Sargent, Post reporter Perry Bacon Jr., who wrote the November 29 article, told Sargent that he thought the article made "clear" that Obama "is a Christian"; and the Post's Peter Baker and Lois Romano have also defended the article as, sufficiently, in Romano's words, "chronicl[ing] his denials."

As Media Matters for Americanoted, in the November 29 front-page article on how Obama "has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10," Bacon reported that an "early rumor about Obama's faith came from Insight, a conservative online magazine. The Insight article said Obama had 'spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia' " [emphasis in original]. But rather than citing the investigative reports by CNN, the Associated Press, and ABC News conclusively debunking the smear, or providing his own reporting on whether the school Obama attended was, in fact, a madrassa, Bacon reported only that "Obama denied the rumor."

Following the article's publication, according to Sargent, Bacon responded to Sargent's criticism of the article by stating:

I thought the facts that 1. these falsehoods persist and 2. Obama make mentions of his time living in a Muslim country on the campaign trail as part of his foreign policy were both worth remarking. I think the story makes clear, including in the candidate's own words, he is a Christian.

During a November 29 washingtonpost.com online chat, a reader asked Romano, "Why is The Post perpetuating these unfair attacks?" Romano replied:

We are getting many questions of our story on Obama today. I'll try to address this as best I can. These are always very difficult decisions -- how to address something that people are talking about, that has clearly become a factor in the race, without taking a position. Part of our job is to acknowledge that there is a discussion going on and to fact check and lay out the facts. The Internet has complicated this responsibility because there is so much garbage and falsehoods out there. This discussion has reached a high pitch on the Internet and our editors decided it was in the readers interest to address it. I have heard people say that they won't support Sen. Obama because they read he doesn't put [h]is hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. He has denied this -- so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.

As far as the headline -- probably not the best.

Later, replying to another reader's assertion that the Post's inclusion of the discredited madrassa rumor "without clearly stating it isn't true is a disservice to journalism," Romano stated: "But we do chronicle his denials."

In a November 30 post on the Post's "The Trail" blog, Baker further defended the November 29 madrassa story, claiming, "Any reasonable reading of the story makes clear they are not true. ... And yet the bloggers seem to think readers are so stupid they will actually think the Post is saying the opposite." From Baker's post:

The Post ran a story on the front page this week on the whispers about Obama's supposed Muslim faith even though he is a Christian. The reporter wrote the story because a voter in Iowa told him that Obama is a Muslim and he was struck that people remain so ill informed. That sort of misinformation has been common out there and, as the story showed, spread by some people in an attempt to taint Obama. But somehow a story intended to debunk the false claims, trace their origin and explore the challenge they present the campaign in trying to quash them spawned a furious eruption among liberal bloggers accusing the Post of spreading the rumors.

Any reasonable reading of the story makes clear they are not true. Right there in the second paragraph, it says Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ in Chicago. In other words, a Christian, not a Muslim. And yet the bloggers seem to think readers are so stupid they will actually think the Post is saying the opposite. The story's obvious intent is to clarify, which it did. If people are misinformed about a key aspect of a major presidential candidate to his detriment, then journalism performs a service by addressing misinformation. And if foes are using unfounded rumors to damage a candidate, especially in a subterranean way, then journalism should expose that. Critics can reasonably debate this or that wording in the story, but certainly the intent is clear no matter how much it is distorted on the Web.

By contrast, in his December 3 online chat, Kurtz asserted that "Post editors say they were trying to knock down the Obama-is-a-Muslim rumor, but I don't believe the piece was well executed. It didn't read like a debunking piece." Kurtz continued:

There was too much about Obama "denying" or "disputing" allegations rather than just branding them false. This was particularly true in the case of the madrassa he allegedly attended as a child. That charge is bogus, as a CNN interview with a top official at the Indonesian school demonstrated, and the Post story failed to make that clear, in my view.

As Sargent noted, Kurtz similarly wrote in his November 30 column: "I can't understand why the story didn't mention that the official at the Indonesian elementary school alleged to have been a madrassa -- according to an unsourced story in the conservative online magazine Insight -- had told CNN it had always been a public school and not a religious school."

During the December 2 edition of Reliable Sources, which he hosts, Kurtz noted Baker's assertion that the article "spawned a furious eruption among liberal bloggers accusing The Post of spreading the rumors." But during the broadcast, Kurtz never noted the substance of the "liberal" criticism of the article: that the article reported only the madrassa rumors and the Obama campaign's denial, but not the numerous news reports thoroughly debunking the rumor. Nor did Kurtz express similar sentiment that the article was not "well executed."

In her December 2 column, Post ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote, "Next week: The Obama story that's burning up the Internet."

From Kurtz's December 3 washingtonpost.com online chat:

San Diego: The Washington Post's Lois Romano said Thursday in defense of the Post's coverage of the "Obama whisper campaign": "How to address something that people are talking about, that clearly has become a factor in the race, without taking a position. Part of our job is to acknowledge that there is a discussion going on and to fact-check and lay out the facts. The Internet has complicated this responsibility because there is so much garbage and falsehood out there."

Do you agree that it is part of your job to acknowledge there's a "discussion" going on regarding every rumor, smear, overt falsehood or piece of propaganda -- without commenting on the veracity of the claims -- as The Post did in the Obama incident? In other words, the fact that someone did in fact say something and created interest in the statement on the Internet is more newsworthy then someone saying something false and creating interest in the statement on the Internet?

washingtonpost.com: Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him (Post, Nov. 29)

Howard Kurtz: No, of course not. But it's always a subject of journalistic debate as to when a rumor or smear has gained enough currency that a newspaper should weigh in and debunk it, even at the risk of spreading the original trash. I had debates in this newsroom many times about wanting to knock down some of the Clinton scandal rumors that were gaining currency in tabloids or British papers, and that was before the Internet was the force that it is today.

Post editors say they were trying to knock down the Obama-is-a-Muslim rumor, but I don't believe the piece was well executed. It didn't read like a debunking piece. There was too much about Obama "denying" or "disputing" allegations rather than just branding them false. This was particularly true in the case of the madrassa he allegedly attended as a child. That charge is bogus, as a CNN interview with a top official at the Indonesian school demonstrated, and the Post story failed to make that clear, in my view.

From Romano's November 29 online chat:

Obama and "the rumors": Lois: I object to today's story in The Post talking about the "rumors" floating around that Obama is Muslim. It is simply inaccurate and poor reporting to call them rumors. They are false claims. Obama is not a Muslim; calling them rumors gives them credence. In fact, even using the phrase "Obama's Muslim ties" is debatable. Having a stepfather who did "occasionally attend services" at a mosque and having a Muslim grandfather who lived on the other side of the world are pretty slim "ties." Why is The Post perpetuating these unfair attacks?

washingtonpost.com: Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him (Post, Nov. 29)

Lois Romano: We are getting many questions of our story on Obama today. I'll try to address this as best I can. These are always very difficult decisions -- how to address something that people are talking about, that has clearly become a factor in the race, without taking a position. Part of our job is to acknowledge that there is a discussion going on and to fact check and lay out the facts. The Internet has complicated this responsibility because there is so much garbage and falsehoods out there. This discussion has reached a high pitch on the Internet and our editors decided it was in the readers interest to address it. I have heard people say that they won't support Sen. Obama because they read he doesn't put [h]is hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. He has denied this -- so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.

As far as the headline -- probably not the best.

[...]

Anonymous:"...how to address something that people are talking about, that has clearly become a factor in the race, without taking a position..." But Lois, you should take a position. Not only has he denied it, but every legitimate report says it isn't true. I assume you take a position on the earth being round, because it is verifiable. Obama is verifiably not a Muslim ... if only because he denies that he is.

It isn't a question of fair and balanced when there isn't any serious foundation to the report. For The Post to perpetuate it without clearly stating it isn't true is a disservice to journalism, your readers and a U.S. senator. Let's not even get into the question of the fact that it isn't a crime to be a Muslim and run for office -- which isn't the Obama story at all.

Lois Romano: But we do chronicle his denials.

From the December 2 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:

KURTZ: I got to break in here. You two can take this outside, hopefully without guns.

Now, Washington Post taking some heat this week for a front-page story. The headline -- if we can put it up -- "Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him." The story said that the Democratic candidate has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim and attended a madrassa as a child. Obama aides sharply disputed the initial story suggesting that he was a Muslim.

Keli Goff, is it news to try to explore and investigate the source of these rumors?

KELI GOFF (political analyst): Sure. On the front pages though, I don't know that that was necessarily necessary. And I think that what some critics take issue with in this particular piece is the fact that it somewhat gave credence -- the lede and the headline seemed to somewhat validate some of these rumors.

For instance, CNN did a story on this, you know, back in January, and the headline was really simple -- it said: "CNN Debunks False Rumors about Obama Attending Madrassa." And that's not exactly what this headline does. It gives some sort of validity by putting it on the front page and exploring it as a legitimate criticism.

KURTZ: Right. And just to elaborate, CNN interviewed the top official at the school that was alleged to have been a madrassa. This is when he was in elementary school, when Obama was in elementary school. And he denied that it had ever been anything other than public school.

BLANQUITA CULLUM (conservative radio host): But Howard, what it raises -- OK, you can have all kinds of issues coming out -- it raises, where is the "yuck" factor? Where is the perception that we really question issues?

For example, how much will we tolerate whether they had mistresses, whether they had, you know, Rose law firms, all of that kind of scandal. Where is the real bias? Is the real bias that we are concerned truly about a candidate if they reportedly, allegedly, have a Muslim background? And the question is: How is that going to affect the turnout of the vote?

KURTZ: All right. Washington Post editors say this was actually intended to knock down the rumors.

Peter Baker, a reporter defending the piece by his colleague, Perry Bacon, said, "Somehow a story intended to debunk the false claims, trace their origin and explore the challenge they present in the campaign in trying to quash them spawned a furious eruption among liberal bloggers accusing the Post of spreading the rumors."

Let me move on now to Oprah Winfrey. I was up in New Hampshire this week and this got a lot of attention, Oprah at a campaign for Obama. Let's roll some of the tape.

[begin video clip]

JULIE CHEN (CBS News anchor): Oprah is so accessible. She's on the air every day. I mean, that's -- like who doesn't love Oprah?

[...]

DANA BASH (CNN congressional correspondent): She actually is somebody who has the ability to move mountains and change minds.

[...]

DAN ABRAMS (MSNBC host): Realistically, Clinton is a far more formidable force than Oprah. Yes, she's enormously successful and influential, and I know this is heresy. But I don't know that she will actually lead people to pull the lever for Obama.

[end video clip]

KURTZ: Keli Goff, I've got about half a minute. Why was it such big news that an African-American talk show host in Chicago would stump for an African-American candidate from Chicago?

GOFF: Because Oprah's not a celebrity; she's a brand. I mean, it's nice that people like Barbra Streisand or Ben Affleck, you know, want to share their political thoughts, but at the end of the day, people are paying them to be entertainers and to entertain them.

People look to Oprah not to entertain them, but to give her guidance on everything from what to wear, what to read, and possibly who to vote for. She's in a league of her own.

KURTZ: A huge story.

CULLUM: However, the problem is -- I mean, I agree with you on that, Keli, but the problem is, if they start trying to tie in things like this perception of where his religion lies, where his loyalty lies, does that backfire on Oprah? I have a tendency to think that she can bring in a percentage of the base that will not normally vote, but it's going to be iffy. It could backfire on her.

KURTZ: Well, Barbra Streisand endorsing Hillary Clinton, that didn't seem to be anywhere nearly as big a story.

Keli Goff, Blanquita Cullum, thanks very much for batting these issues around with us this morning.

During the November 28 CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate, YouTube questioner Tyler Overman asked: "I have a quick question for those of you who would call yourselves Christian conservatives. The death penalty: What would Jesus do?" After former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee responded by defending his support for the death penalty but failing to say anything about "[w]hat ... Jesus [would] do" regarding the death penalty, debate moderator and CNN host Anderson Cooper pressed: "I do have to, though, press the question, which -- the question was ... [w]hat would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?" Huckabee then replied: "Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do." Following the debate, Cooper asserted that Huckabee's reply was "certainly, probably one of the best answers you could possibly come up to, to that question" -- despite the fact that Huckabee, who has repeatedly invoked Jesus Christ and Christianity to explain his position on matters of public policy, did not answer Overman's question and Cooper's own follow-up.

While Huckabee -- who did not object during the debate to the "what would Jesus do" question -- did not say what he thought Jesus would do with regard to the death penalty, he routinely uses his faith and Jesus to talk about public policy matters. For example:

• On the "Issues" page of his presidential campaign website, the first "issue" listed is "Faith and Politics." On that page, Huckabee states, "My faith is my life -- it defines me. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives." Huckabee continues: "My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth."

• In a November 17 interview, Huckabee told the National Journal (subscription required) that he's finding "younger Christians and faith groups want to know that you're going to address poverty and the environment and energy independence," adding, "They want us to broaden our issues, consistent with the Gospels. Jesus talked a lot about poverty."

• In a November 27 CNN.com article, CNN chief national correspondent John King wrote that "Huckabee is anything but uncomfortable about faith-based politics, often discussing his faith, and making it a central theme of his new Iowa TV ad." In that ad, titled "Believe," Huckabee replays a portion of his October 20 speech to the Values Voter Summit, in which he said: "Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics, not now, not ever." The ad also displays text reading, "Christian Leader," and notes that Huckabee supports the "Human Life Amendment," a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban abortion.

• In a November 28 article, the Associated Press noted that, as governor, Huckabee "opposed a Republican lawmaker's efforts in 2005 to require proof of legal status when applying for state services that aren't federally mandated and proof of citizenship when registering to vote." In defending his vote, the AP reported that Huckabee "derided the bill as un-American and un-Christian and said the bill's sponsor drank a different 'Jesus juice.' "

In addition, in their reports on the debate, numerous media outlets highlighted Huckabee's response to the "what would Jesus do" question without noting that Huckabee did not actually answer the question:

• The Washington Post's Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz wrote on November 29: "There were moments of levity, often provided by Huckabee, whose best line of the night was in answer to a question about what Jesus would do about the death penalty," adding that Huckabee's answer prompted "laughter on the stage and in the audience."

• In their November 29 article, The New York Times' Michael Cooper and Marc Santora listed Huckabee's answer as one of the "high points" of the debate.

• In their November 29 report on the debate, Bloomberg's Catherine Dodge and Kristin Jensen wrote that Huckabee's answer "got one of the biggest laughs of the night."

• ABC News' Jake Tapper asserted in a November 28 ABCNews.com article that Huckabee's answer was one of "several fun YouTube moments," writing that "Huckabee, a Baptist minister before he entered political life, responded with characteristic wit and deft political awareness."

• In a November 29 post on CBSNews.com blog Couric & Co., senior political editor Vaughn Ververs wrote that Huckabee gave "thoughtful and eloquent answers to questions about immigration, taxes, the death penalty and the bible, which for an ordained Baptist minister is a familiar subject." Ververs also asserted that Huckabee delivered "the best punch lines," citing, his response to the "what would Jesus do" question.

From CNN's November 28 broadcast of the CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate:

OVERMAN: Hi, this is Tyler Overman from Memphis, Tennessee, and I have a quick question for those of you who would call yourselves Christian conservatives. The death penalty: What would Jesus do?

COOPER: Governor Huckabee?

HUCKABEE: You know, one of the toughest challenges that I ever faced as a governor was carrying out the death penalty. I did it more than any other governor ever had to do it in my state. As I look on this stage, I'm pretty sure that I'm the only person on this stage that's ever had to actually do it.

Let me tell you, it was the toughest decision I ever made as a human being. I read every page of every document of every case that ever came before me, because it was the one decision that came to my desk that, once I made it, was irrevocable.

Every other decision, somebody else could go back and overturn, could fix if it was a mistake. That was one that was irrevocable.

I believe there is a place for a death penalty. Some crimes are so heinous, so horrible that the only response that we, as a civilized nation, have for a most uncivil action is not only to try to deter that person from ever committing that crime again, but also as a warning to others that some crimes truly are beyond any other capacity for us to fix.

Now, having said that, there are those who say, "How can you be pro-life and believe in the death penalty?"

Because there's a real difference between the process of adjudication, where a person is deemed guilty after a thorough judicial process and is put to death by all of us, as citizens, under a law, as opposed to an individual making a decision to terminate a life that has never been deemed guilty because the life never was given a chance to even exist.

COOPER: Governor?

HUCKABEE: That's the fundamental difference.

COOPER: I do have to, though, press the question, which -- the question was, from the viewer, was: What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?

HUCKABEE: Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do.

COOPER: Congressman Tancredo: 30 seconds.

From the November 28 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:

COOPER: Jamal [Simmons, president of New Future Communications], one of the questions that we asked was, "What would Jesus do?" -- or I should say -- one of the YouTube viewers asked was what would Jesus do on capital punishment. Here's what Mike Huckabee said.

[begin video clip]

QUESTIONER: Hi, this is Tyler Overman from Memphis, Tennessee, and I have a quick question for those of you who would call yourselves Christian conservatives. The death penalty: What would Jesus do?

HUCKABEE: You know, one of the toughest things as a governor was carrying out the death penalty.

[...]

COOPER: [T]he question was, from the viewer, was: What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?

HUCKABEE: Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do.

[end video clip]

COOPER: Jamal, certainly, probably one of the best answers you could possibly come up to, to that question. How do you think Mike Huckabee did tonight?

From the November 17 National Journalarticle:

NJ: Do you believe, as some who look at the turnout in Republican primaries believe, that the most important group is likely to be Christian conservative voters?

Huckabee: I kind of hope that's true. Christian conservatives aren't necessarily as predictable as maybe they were 20 years ago. Then there were one or two issues. But what I'm finding is, younger Christians and faith groups want to know that you're going to address poverty and the environment and energy independence. They want us to broaden our issues, consistent with the Gospels. Jesus talked a lot about poverty. I know that makes some Republicans incredibly uncomfortable, a lot of the people who don't like me.

NJ: Why?

Huckabee: Because they want to keep it focused on one or two things. They want me to just be an anti-abortionist rather than a pro-lifer. I'm not going to just condescend to an extremely narrow understanding of what life means, because I think I would then be untrue to my own conscience.

On August 29, MSNBC twice re-aired a segment from the August 28 edition of Live with Dan Abrams, in which MSNBC host Tucker Carlson asserted, "Having sex in a public men's room is outrageous. It's also really common. I've been bothered in men's rooms." Carlson continued, "I got bothered in Georgetown Park," in Washington, D.C., "when I was in high school." As Media Matters for Americanoted, when Abrams asked how Carlson responded to being "bothered," Carlson said: "I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and ... hit him against the stall with his head, actually." However, while both August 29 re-airings did include Carlson's claim that he had been "bothered in men's rooms," neither broadcast aired the portion in which Carlson claimed that he "went back with someone" and "hit him against the stall with his head." Both re-airings did include a portion of the segment in which Carlson asserted, "I'm not anti-gay in the slightest."

During the 9 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live, anchor Amy Robach introduced the Abrams/Carlson clip -- which did not include Carlson's claim to have assaulted the person who "bothered" him -- as follows: "Prominent Republicans have been quick to distance themselves from Idaho Senator Larry Craig following his arrest for lewd behavior in a men's bathroom. ... More than ever, the party of traditional values has to worry about hypocrisy. Dan Abrams talked about it with Tucker Carlson and [MSNBC's Morning Joe host] Joe Scarborough last night on MSNBC." After the clip ended, Robach plugged Abrams' show: "Well, you can catch Live with Dan Abrams weeknights at 9 p.m. Eastern here on MSNBC."

During the subsequent re-airing of the clip on MSNBC Live, anchor Monica Novotny introduced the video clip by asserting, "Craig's denials are drawing some comparisons to another famous D.C. sex scandal -- the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. Senator Craig had quite a bit to say about that back in the '90s." Novotny added, "Just a word of warning here, you may find out a little more about Tucker, well, than you ever wanted to know," apparently referring to Carlson's assertion that he'd "been bothered in men's rooms." However, despite that reference, the 4-minute and 35-second clip Novotny aired ended before Carlson claimed to have assaulted the person who "bothered" him. Novotny also ended the segment by plugging Abrams' show, asserting, "And you can catch Dan tonight at 9 on Live with Dan Abrams right here on MSNBC."

As Media Mattersnoted, Carlson issued the following statement through an MSNBC spokeswoman:

Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.

Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.

From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the August 29 edition of MSNBC Live:

ROBACH: Prominent Republicans have been quick to distance themselves from Idaho Senator Larry Craig following his arrest for lewd behavior in a men's bathroom. Craig denies he did anything wrong and says he is quote, "not gay." But still GOP officials are assessing the damage this has done to their party's image. More than ever, the party of traditional values has to worry about hypocrisy. Dan Abrams talked about it with Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough last night on MSNBC.

[begin video clip]

ABRAMS: I want to play this piece of sound from Larry Craig on Meet the Press, back in 1999, talking about Bill Clinton.

CRAIG [video clip]: I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure resolution, and it's a slap on the wrist. It's a "bad boy Bill Clinton, you're a naughty boy." The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy. I'm going to speak out for the citizens in my state, who, in the majority, think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.

[laughter]

ABRAMS: I can't listen to that enough!

CARLSON: It's too good.

ABRAMS: I could listen to that again --

CARLSON: It's too good.

ABRAMS: -- and again and again and again!

[laughter]

ABRAMS: Joe Scarborough, I guess the question, though, is -- on a somewhat serious note -- is you have, you know, you have him out there in 1999, preaching about Bill Clinton being a naughty boy, and you've got these other scandals, it seems, as of late. You got [Rep. David] Vitter [R-LA]; you got [former Rep. Mark] Foley [R-FL] -- and there's a lot of talk about hypocrisy, about the fact that you've got these pro-family value Republicans being accused or pleading guilty o