The Straw:

The Democratic Bactrian camel's back may have been broken with the Obama gaff this week. Sen. Clinton has pounced, suddenly becoming a "two guns in every pot" candidate, after having been an advocate of stronger anti-gun legislation over the years. (See today's New York Times' story.)

At this point it's hard to imagine how either of these candidates could join later this summer to become the Democratic dream team. McCain may have just won the election, and the right to be blamed for what very well could be the coming economic catastrophe.

The truly humorous part of this story is that Senators Clinton and McCain are calling Senator Obama an "elitist." There's a phrase for that—it has to do with a pot and a kettle.

More Corruption in the Bush Administration:

The Washington Post reports on housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson, the man in charge of the Bush administration's policy to increase housing during Bush's tenure. Jackson spent $100,000 of taxpayers' money on oil paintings of himself and four other HUD secretaries. He spent $7 million on an auditorium and cafeteria at HUD headquarters. He ignored warning within his own department about the impending crisis, and he traveled around with his own retinue of body guards and a personal chef. Now he's leaving office under a cloud and investigation.

When the coach doesn't pay attention (or even understand the game), the players are likely to perform poorly at best.

The Republican "Man behind the Throne":

Kate Zernike reports in today's New York Times on Charlie Black, the quintessential power behind the throne guy in the Republican party. Black is the guy who is guiding straight talking, anti-establishment McCain through the quagmire of lobbyist controlled Republican party politics.

You might find it interesting that Charlie Black is one of the best connected lobbyists in Washington, whose firm is owned by Burson-Marsteller, the firm that Mark Penn, until recently Hillary Clinton's chief adviser, works for.

So now maybe you'll stop sneering at the cynics who ask, "If this is a two-party democracy, where's the second party?"

Zernike reports that

Mr. Black has worked for some of the city’s most controversial clients (Jonas Savimbi, Philip Morris, Blackwater) and with the baddest boys of Republican politics (he cut his teeth on Jesse Helms’s campaigns, and was a mentor to Lee Atwater).

A Sign of the Times:

You know the economy is really hurting when you lose your job and you can't find another even after months of searching AND the best connections the country has to offer. Today's New York Times reports that months after leaving office former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, despite his close connections with George W. Bush, including loyalty that seemed to know no bounds, still can't find a job. Maybe President Bush assumes loyalty flows in only one direction. You'd think papa Bush could find something for this Harvard Law School grad. But then if you consider how he handled his last job, would you want this lawyer representing you?

Frank Rich Explains American's Bury Your Head in the Sand Iraqi Stance:

Frank Rich writes in today's New York Times that Americans not only disapprove of our involvement in Iraq, we don't want to even think about it. If you want to guarantee a movie's failure or a TV program's immediate flop, Rich argues, just mention Iraq.

We are so disinterested, that Gen. Petraeus could show up before congress and answer the question about when the war would be over by stating that it would be concluded when America's "national interest" was satisfied.

When I was a kid, on holidays my mother would bake two pies. Which did I want, she would ask, the apple or the cherry. "Yes," I invariably answered. And I always wanted to eat cake.

What the great man said four years ago today: "This has been tough weeks in that country." — George W. Bush, Washinton, D. C., April 13, woo4, primetime press conference regarding Iraq.

China v. Tibet:

Matthew Forney, former bureau chief for Time magazine, comments in today's New York Times' Op-Ed pages about the Chinese people's view on Tibet:

Educated young Chinese are therefore the biggest beneficiaries of policies that have brought China more peace and prosperity than at any time in the past thousand years. They can’t imagine why Tibetans would turn up their noses at rising incomes and the promise of a more prosperous future. The loss of a homeland just doesn’t compute as a valid concern.

Some years ago, a Chinese-American friend of mine explained that the average person in China viewed Tibetans in a fashion similar to the way white Americans viewed African-Americans and Hispanics. I won't use the language he used. Let's just say it was considerably less than flattering.

Americans are prone to think of Chinese as one homogeneous lump of people, sharing beliefs language and racial characteristics (if there is such a thing). But the truth is that China is made up of many peoples, and they are as prone to racial bigotry and other forms of bias as the rest of us.

Forney concludes his piece by warning that those who attend the Olympic games this summer and expect to find sympathy for Tibetans among the young are likely in for a shock. In all probability, young educated Chinese city dewellers view the West's support of the Dali Lama as little more than a wedge in service of western jealousy over the rapid rise of the Chinese economy. For well over a century, until 1948, the west exploited China mercilessly, in the Chinese view, lacking opium to exploit the country with, is simply now trying to exploit a moral high ground which the Chinese believe does not exist. After all, as Forney reports and the Chinese are quick to point out, they are treating the Tibetans better than white Europeans ever treated Native Americans and black Africans. Or for that matter, even the Irish.