THE DALY SHOW

If You’re Joining Me In Ireland, Then A Must Read

LAS VEGAS, NV (February 17, 2008) – For those of you joining us in Ireland in June, I have a book for you to read.

The opening sentence in the book The Pope’s Children is this. “Ireland has arrived.” And boy has it ever.

The Pope’s Children is written by Irishman David McWilliams, a social commentator and keen observer who has an economic background. This book is a must-read for anyone thinking about living, vacationing, working, or investing in Ireland. If you have no connection to Ireland but you want to see how a country goes from Third World status to economic elite in twenty years, this is an eye-opener.My good friend Trina Vargo recommended this book. Trina is President of the U.S. Ireland Alliance, a non-profit that promotes Ireland in the United States. Trina is trying to show today’s Ireland to Americans who still think the Emerald Isle is golf, green beer, and leprechauns. Ireland is an economic power that blends the traditions of Ireland with the modern day world, namely America. David McWilliams explains it perfectly. I understand why Trina wanted me to read it. After you read this book, some of you may want to think about moving there since Ireland is hip, cool, and it has the world’s lowest tax rates bar none.

The title of the book comes from the visit to Ireland in 1979 by Pope John Paul, which was, coincidentally, the height of the Irish baby boom. And those Irish babies are today’s Irish elite.

As I read the first part of the book, however, I came up with some other titles. The first was The United States of Ireland. The second was The French Are Right. Ireland, it seemed, has become America. Their culture is now fast-paced, SUV-driving, win at any cost, more Evangelical and Protestant while being less Catholic, long hours of work and play, American Idol dreams, fatter yet joining more health clubs, obsessed with buying land but not concerned about going into debt, and voting in far fewer numbers. McWilliams comically paints a picture of a fat, short Irishman struggling to climb into his SUV.

But as I read further, McWilliams pointed out that many of the Pope’s Children have remained true to Irish culture blending the old with the new. For instance, the number of schools teaching in the Gaelic language went from 25 to 200 from the time the Pope’s Children were born until today: a 900 % increase, according to McWilliams.

The new Irish have also achieved the sweetest revenge. Once the Brits’ minions, they are now the owners of some of London’s priciest real estate, conquering Great Britain, so to speak, without a bomb or sniper needed, just brains, desire, and a handshake.

McWilliams has done a clever job of labeling The Pope’s Children into sub-categories. Terms like Kell’s Angels, Robo Patty, Decklander, the hybrid Hi-Co for Hibernian and Cosmopolitan are apparently the new vocabulary at Irish parties much like DINKS (double income no kids) YUPPIES (young upwardly mobile persons) were in the 1980s America. Obviously, McWilliams’ labeling has not offended too many Irish, because this book is selling like crazy in Ireland. I met an Irish caddie working in the U.S. on the LPGA Tour and he raved about the book and the talk it’s creating in Ireland.

Americans can learn from this book and from the Irish. So many Irish have lived or worked outside of Ireland. Remember, until the mid 1990s Ireland’s biggest export was their people. Today many Irish have returned using their world experience to make their country and their companies better. While only five percent of Americans, according to McWilliams, carry a passport. (I had heard it was 20%. Either way, Americans are collectively myopic and insular compared to the Irish. I remember many great dinner conversations with Irish friends who knew as much or more about American politics than most Americans. And most of the Irish are not fans of George W. Bush.)

McWilliams is more than an observer of Irish culture. He skillfully explains the economic smarts and luck of the Irish. The smarts come from their materialistic impersonation of Americans and the issuing of credit to the Irish masses. The luck comes from Germany and its older population of wealthy pensioners. McWilliams creates two fictional characters, Udo and Gisela, to explain the couple looking for a safe investment for their pension. The safe investment is Ireland. And because there are so many Udo’s and Gisela’s, the money flows into Ireland for business ventures, land acquisitions worldwide and, oh by the way, Mercedes. Sales of Mercedes in Ireland have grown ten-fold since the mid-1990s. McWilliams says one way to continue the Irish boom is to cryogenically freeze Udo and Gisela.

The best lesson from The Pope’s Children is a lesson all countries can heed. One factor that has led to the growth in Ireland was the vote to drop from the Irish Constitution the call for a re-unification of the entire island. That is gone. As McWilliams writes, “Partition was accepted and the British majority in the northeast of the country was told they had won.” Maybe you could send this book to friends in Israel and Palestine or in Iraq.

Some disclosure here. I am very proud to be an American. I am also as proud to be an American of Irish descent.

The Pope’s Children is not in American bookstores. The best place to get the book, thanks to Trina, is at www.kennys.ie.

The Media and Education: More Lunch Talk with Alexander

LAS VEGAS, NV (February 13, 2008) –John Alexander is an author and a PhD. Yet he was apologizing about talking too much during our recent lunch. The reason was my endless questions. After all, he has more letters after his name and his book has more footnotes than mine.

Needless to say, what a great lunch. It’s been nearly two weeks and our conversation still has me thinking.

One of my primary questions to someone like John is this: name two sources of information you’d recommend that balance each other. John’s choices: Aljazeera , the free website the Middle East television network; and Debka, a subscription website that has sources within the Israeli Mossad. I would concur. If there’s a tricky issue in the Middle East, hit both sites. Middle East Media Research Institute is another good one, too.

John kindly read my book. In an email, he told me to look at the chapter in his book on the American media. I already had read that chapter and I suggest you read his entire book, Winning The War, whether you’re in the military or not.

His book, despite the title, is not a treatise on using excessive military power. It’s just the opposite. It’s how to use our smarts – with non-lethal weapons — and make the world a better place. As I noted in a previous post, he also explores what the future world will look like while consulting for U.S. Special Forces. Among the changes, John sees the decline of the nation-state with people having more allegiance to religion or ideas and not geography.

For the most part, John and I see eye-to-eye on the media. However, his view of the media, from his military and academic background, forced me, at times, to defend the media, of which I am, in a cursory way, still a part.

Still, I followed my own advice: always understand the bias and experience of the person who is offering you opinions and findings. John’s experience and bias are far different – and deeper — than mine. He’s not only studied war, but he’s led troops in war in Vietnam. He writes, “The emotional rush, and later mental anguish that follows, when you look your adversary in the eye and kill him, cannot be conveyed by any medium of reporting.”

For example, concerning the invasion of Iraq, John contends that the media could be accused of treason by pre-empting the executive branch by leaking plans, or by getting the adversary to overreact, or just taking advantage of lack security.

For me, looking at this as a news purist, the government needs media scrutiny. After all, the media represents the people, too. However, it’s hard to defend the media when reporters and photographers are waiting on the shoreline as troops come ashore on a sneak attack and the reporting is more about creating TV and entertainment than educating or informing us. So much for news purity.

John also mentions that the media has an agenda. As an absolute, I disagree with him. I think he gives the media, overall, too much credit. To me, the media’s main goal is to get ratings by delivering big stories that people will talk about. Many reports are, in my opinion, misinterpreted as some form of conspiracy or media bias, but usually the offending words or phrases are unconscious or unthinking mistakes. In my years in the media, I don’t recall any reporter with an overt mission to deliberately undermine a government or government agency: to get a big story, yes, but not ruin government.

Still, some members of the media have an ax to grind. Was David Shuster of MSNBC showing disdain for the Clintons with his “pimp-out” remark about Chelsea? I don’t know. Frankly, a lot of candidates and their protective campaigns can piss off reporters in the field who just might want a quote or sound-bite to fill time or space. Related to that, most of us working in the media, particularly those of us in front of the camera, have an ego and a yearning to be lauded publicly.

This need for ratings and publicity has led to the media being manipulated by the government and the military, too. The media was gung-ho to go to war. Some would say too gung-ho. In fact, you could draw a conclusion that the war led to higher TV ratings and even sales for companies like GE which owns NBC News. Later, The New York Times held stories about alleged misuse of the surveillance laws until after the 2004 elections, allowing some to claim the Times helped in Mr. Bush’s re-election.

I’m not pointing a finger either way. You can look at suspicions in both directions. Frankly, there is so much chaos in the media to have a concerted effort to undermine the military or a war. The media, as my friend, Irish journalist Mark Little wrote, are like a bunch of school children begging for attention.

And let’s give kudos to both sides here. The imbedding of the media with troops during the invasion of Iraq was brilliant. John, based on his book, agrees. We saw war up-front in all of its glory and gore. Plus, let’s not forget the scores of media personnel killed in combat zones.

I look at the debates between the media and military in the same light we see most American conflicts: the battle of the common good versus the individual. Certainly freedom of the press has been a foundation for our country and we can see today how the lack of press freedom has deterred developing countries. Conversely our enemies, namely Islamic extremists, have used our freedoms against us.

So, with freedom comes responsibility. And the media has opted, instead, for profits. Don’t get me wrong: I understand. We live in a capitalistic society. Media capitalists have brought us many new technologies. (I also think the big media companies are trying to keep out the smaller and blogger media, but that’s another story.) Plus, these media companies have market research which says the majority of Americans want to be entertained. It makes no financial sense to educate the public when entertainment brings profits.

So in essence if you believe in the free-market, the problem lies with us. And this is where I agree with John without question. In his chapter on the media, he ties the problems in the media to education, or better yet, our diminishing education.  Here’s my take: the media fails to hire experts as reporters. It’s too expensive. 

John’s take: ”Gone are the days when reporters truly specialized in the issues that they covered.” He says it seems that the editors for our reporters when choosing credible sources of information are Lexus and Nexus and Google. “It is a matter of how an Internet search engine prioritizes information that determines what the investigator will see and in what order.”

He goes on to say that most Americans vote on “near-term solutions based on symptoms” and “do not comprehend the importance of history.” 

How does this trend in the media tie to education?  For too many years the education system refused to allow experts to teach unless they had a teaching degree.  That, fortunately, is changing.  I’m not blaming all teachers; there’s plenty of blame to go around with parents who don’t emphasize the importance of education and politicians who refuse to recognize education’s value years and decades after they leave office.

We see the results of this thinking too often. A recent story mentioned an American Idol finalist thought Europe was a country. Even worse, most Americans cannot find Iraq on a map. And think about the media coverage this week: it revolved around the Congressional hearings on baseball doping.

Susan Jacoby, the author of The American Age of Unreason, was spurred to write her book when she overheard two men speaking. One of them didn’t know what happened at Pearl Harbor, while the other one explained it was where the Vietnamese attacked the United States.

Furthermore, numerous studies show how American kids are failing at math and science. As our society ages, there will be fewer workers with the skills to create new technologies. We will be beholden to the innovations of other countries – something we haven’t endured for more than a century.

There is no one in the presidential race that’s talking – loudly — about worker re-education. All we hear is how we need to protect American workers. That’s protectionism and a sure-fire way to have a much deeper recession. Mitt Romney, forgetting lessons from his MBA, won the GOP primary in Michigan by promising he would bring back the jobs. Give John McCain credit; he lost Michigan because he discussed education for workers who lose their jobs.

Here’s something to think about. Many Christian Right extremists will shudder at this since it comes from Darwin, who said, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”  (Special thanks to John Ray’s Heritage Tidbits for pointing out this quote.)   Because of our education woes, we Americans are not as responsive to change in the world.

Remember this when you’re listening to the candidates who are trying to find minor distinguishing points between themselves. Make them talk about your future and your kids’ futures. Repeat this mantra. It’s all about the education.

And what you can do on a person level? Become intellectually curious. First, read non-fiction books. I listen to books on tape in the car. Force yourself to read a book for at least a half-hour a day. A word of warning: avoid the cable-yakkers’ books. Find experts to read.

Second, seek and listen to smart people. I’m a smarter and a more interesting person because of my lunch with John Alexander.

Third, when you have a conversation with someone who is passionate about their topic, listen, ask questions, and learn as if they’re talking to you about the Clemens-McNamee hearings.

Fourth, travel and meet new people who are not like you.

Fifth, watch TV discriminately. TV News offers immediacy and emotion, but not the in-depth knowledge on important topics.

Wrong About Mitt? I Wasn’t Even Close

PITTSBURGH, PA (February 8, 2008) – Mitt’s out. So is my prediction.

On New Years Eve, I made my four year prediction for the presidential elections. I had done alright for the past five elections. But now I won’t even make the playoffs. I predicted Mitt and Hillary.

To be honest, I think the Hillary pick is in jeopardy, too: more on that in a later post.

So, where did I goof?

First, I failed to see the widespread mistrust of Mormons. The Wall Street Journal today had a poll that showed nearly half of the voters polled wouldn’t trust a Mormon to be president. Voting for a black or a woman was far more appealing.

My failure: I live in Las Vegas with a large community of Mormons. It’s not uncommon to have Mormons as friends here. I’m Catholic and yet I’ve been to numerous functions at LDS Churches. I’ve witnessed the kindness of LDS Church members to those less fortunate. And I’ve admired their efforts to “take care” of their own.

Am I saying every Mormon is perfect? No, they have their scoundrels, too. In fact, Utah has more scams than most states, according to the Utah Secretary of State’s office. The reason appears to be Mormons easily being taking advantage of by other unscrupulous Mormons who use the LDS card.

Ironically, a Mormon businessman once told me he hates doing business with his “own” because they figure they can get a much better deal or “something for nothing”. That doesn’t sound Mormon to me; it sounds more like human nature. The Scots, the Irish, and the Jews have all been accused of working any angle for deal.

The problem for the Mormons and Mitt Romney is that Mormons are not prevalent in other regions of the country. I simply forgot what homogenous life is like in New England – other than Massachusetts — and The South. At various times working and living in both regions, I heard the term “the land of steady habits” many times. And like voters in all regions, they vote on emotion – not facts.

And since that’s the case, Mitt and the Mormon hierarchy need to understand what the perceptions of their faith are. They’re too secretive. What’s behind that clean, perfect veneer. Mitt’s hair, like mine, won’t move in a hurricane-like wind. Mormon women are beautiful, but, as I heard someone say in Las Vegas, they’re “Stepford beautiful.”

A woman friend was the bride’s maid in a Mormon wedding for her best friend. But because she wasn’t Mormon she had to stand outside in her expensive dress while the ceremony took place in the temple. I’m OK with whatever the LDS Church does, but if they want to become more mainstream, they need to open up.

Despite my Catholic upbringing, I have a more egalitarian (others would say pessimistic) view of organized religion. I think all religions have elements of kookiness. In Catholicism, we drink the blood of Jesus. Think about the effect that could have on a kid, yet many of us don’t since it’s just cheap altar wine. However, those expressions of faith symbolize bigger themes, like the rewards of a good life in the here-after, that are the basis for keeping order in society.

Do I think a Mormon can become president? At some point, yes we might see an LDS President. But it will take time. The Mormon Church and Mitt Romney have some work to do to get their message out – or changed.

In fact, I think he needs to drop the Mormon message or make others realize it’s not a special religion – except to those who espouse it.

Clearly, Romney failed with his Mormon speech – the one that was supposed to elevate him to JFK status. As I mentioned in a previous post, David Brooks, the New York Times’ conservative columnist, said Romney failed to use religion to unify people; instead, he created a division between those of faith and those who don’t. Unlike the three remaining candidates, he showed little effort to reach across divisions. But he has those qualities. How else would he have become Governor of Catholic Massachusetts?

But there’s more to Romney’s defeats and more to my lack of perception than his religion.

The second reason is the GOP doesn’t go for upstarts. They are truly the corporate party. In the GOP, you climb the latter of experience slowly. Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bob Dole: they all had to run for President or pay their dues in the party before they could get the nomination.

Romney realizes that. He bowed out yesterday and vowed to work for the party. What better way to get to know a good Mormon: have him work with you.

Third, even most Republicans are fed up with George Bush. And clearly, Romney ran like he was George W. Bush. He was in favor of the war without much questioning its significance. He also favored permanent tax cuts while never mentioning spending cuts or any clue to fiscal responsibility.

Which leads to point number four: Romney ran a lousy campaign. Like Al Gore did in 2000, Romney was never himself. He tried to be Ronald Reagan or some composite of what the factions of the GOP like. In the end, he had a split personality and a fractured candidacy.

If he ran like he did as Governor of Massachusetts, he might have pissed off the far right-wingers, but pleased enough of the business Republicans. It worked for McCain. And like John Kerry did in 2004, Romney failed to explain the nuances of his stands. That’s no easy task. It’s nearly impossible for a candidate from Massachusetts to win the presidency. You try to appeal to national, conservative voter after dealing with a far more liberal constituency in a state that my good friend and Bay State native Jake The Weasel calls The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

Fifth, good business sense doesn’t mean good political sense. Romney is clearly a good business manager. Technically, he’s what we need in the White House – a tactician that can unemotionally look at the economy and create a sound plan. But Romney was seen as one of the guys on Wall Street; and right now those guys don’t look so bright or ethical in light of the financial debacle from the mortgage industry.

Clearly, I misread America and thought they would be looking for a manager after eight years of a myopic ideologue. I guess we want a more flexible ideologue – if you look at the three remaining contenders.

Sixth, Mitt’s wealth turned folks off. He made some brilliant moves in 2007 when he skirted federal fundraising laws and raised millions through state organizations he formed. Then he spent, as he says, some of his kids’ inheritance to keep the campaign running. Yet, most people don’t think that loss of money put a dent into the family portfolio to cause any family angst.

Next, what is going wrong with my Hillary pick.

The End Of The Nation State?

LAS VEGAS, NV (February 4, 2008) – Saturday night at a fundraiser for St. Rose Dominican Hospital, a ten year old girl was introduced to the crowd. She confidently approached the microphone and sang “God Bless America.” She was fabulous. She had a child’s voice, but there was something different. Her voice had soul. There was a slight raspy tenor to the high pitched quality.

My wife Teri had just returned from the ladies room as the young lady finished her stirring rendition to a rousing applause. “That was amazing,” I said. But Teri said, “Not as amazing as what I just saw.”

She was standing in the back of the room when the little girl began to sing. Standing on each side of her were two men. One was Hispanic; the other Asian. Both of them had their right hand on their chest in full patriot posed engaged in the words of “God Bless America.”

I thought about this the next day while waiting for the Super Bowl. Fox Sports and the NFL collaborated on a project to bring more attention to the Declaration of Independence. They used some of the football heroes and others, like the wife of the late NFL player and Army Ranger Pat Tillman as well as Patriots Linebacker Teddy Bruschi who is of Filipino and Italian descent, to read the Declaration.

It was quite moving. This five-minute piece showed a very stirring vision of America as the true melting pot.

I’m always a little suspicious, though, of large expressions of patriotism or the braggadocio we Americans sometimes bellow. For instance, I was annoyed with the flag-wavers who deemed Actor Tim Robbins unpatriotic when he opposed the war in Iraq a few years back and made sure he didn’t attend the ceremonies for the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Are a lot of these vocal patriots trying to hang onto something that they feel is slipping away? Many of them see “their America” changing as we become more brown than white. But I also believe the majority of these folks just want the words from the Declaration to be handed down for anyone who follows – no matter the ethnic make-up.

Things are changing.

I was given a glimpse of the future at an incredible lunch a few days before. My lunch guest was John Alexander, a PhD who has done a lot of research looking ahead.

He writes “The nation state is a failing concept with limited utility and great liability.”

Dr. Alexander is not predicting the end of the United States. But he explains in one of his works: “While nations will remain the macro-organization of choice in the near future, social restructuring based on beliefs, ethnicity, and other interpersonal relationships will increase.”

Dr. Alexander has written a number of books, including Winning The War: Advanced Weapons, Strategies and Concepts For the Post 9/11 World. I’m reading that now, but I finished one of his reports, The Changing Nature of Warfare, The Factors Mediating Future Conflict, and Implications for Special Operation Forces, published in April, 2006, which I just quoted from in the previous paragraph.

(I’ll have more on Dr. Alexander and our lunch in future postings. He was also just interviewed for a segment on 60 Minutes.)

He cites Samuel Huntington’s book, Who We Are, that points out many people no longer see themselves as hyphen Americans – Italian-Americans, Irish-American, and African Americans. Now people see themselves more as ampersands (&), meaning they are both African and American or both Muslim and American. That will lead to personal conflicts and “divided loyalties”.

Dr. Alexander says it’s already happening. He points to the terrorist bombers in England in 2005; they were Muslim but they were British citizens and some British-born.

I think we’re seeing something similar on a smaller and less violent scale in America today. Look at the presidential race. We have, in my estimation, boiled it down to four candidates that most Americans think are able to reach across different beliefs and ethnicities: Clinton; Obama; McCain; and Romney.

Look at the issues that are ripping apart both political parties. Democrats and Republicans are split within their ranks on two of the issues that involve our connection to the rest of the world — immigration and free-trade.

Allegiances are changing even faster when you consider the Internet and Information Age that has connected so many people in different geographic areas.

In ten or twenty years, I wonder how that Asian and Hispanic, who stood so patriotically for “God Bless America”, will see themselves as a Republican or Democrat or hyphen or an ampersand.

Super Bowl Correlation to World Economy

LAS VEGAS, NV (February 4, 2008) – If anyone can honestly look at the Super Bowl, it’s me. I’m both a Giants and a Patriots fan due to my Connecticut roots.

Although happy for the Giants and Eli, I regretted not witnessing an historic 19-0 season for Brady and Coach Bill Belichick.

The best team won yesterday. The Giants were stronger on the offensive and defensive lines. The Giants defense shut down Tom Brady and his overmatched, over-aged, or season-weary offensive line. The game was really no surprise when you look at the Pats performance – that appeared to decline – as the season ended and the playoffs began.

Still, the Super Bowl, or any athletic championship for that matter, doesn’t necessarily go to the best team for that season. Many times, it goes to the team that is hottest during the playoffs. Yesterday was no different.

However, there are some economic lessons from this game that parallel today’s world outside the NFL.

The first lesson is teamwork. The Giants had a number of heroes. But the main heroes were the defense that stopped the league’s greatest offense.

Sure, offensively Eli came of age – especially in that last drive. But the key play in that final drive came from a second string receiver David Tyree who also caught a touchdown pass earlier. After Eli magically escaped a drive-ending sack, he whirled and threw a prayer that Tyree barely caught with his hands tangled with Pats Safety Rodney Harrison. Somehow Tyree caught the ball against his helmet while Harrison bent him backwards.

Tyree had a lackluster regular season and, frankly, most Giants fans will say he has failed to play to his potential. Yesterday probably ended those feelings. The point is this about Tyree: a team attitude, hard work, and a little magic usually make a winner in sports or business.

The second lesson is the quick change of power and fortunes. The Giants began the season 0-2 and yet won the Super Bowl. This is a testament to the NFL system and its salary cap which allows a fair “business playing field”, giving each team a reasonable chance to make it to the Super Bowl each year.

The economic comparison: look at the many countries that are now on the economic upswing while the American economy seems stagnant right now. That’s a testament to the spread of capitalism or at least some forms of it worldwide and the Information Age. The Economist, in the January 26 issue in an article “The World’s Silver Lining”, piles on further. These emerging market countries are growing and seem to be getting the equivalent of years and years of first round draft picks. These countries have a larger percentage of economically active adults; in America many of our adults are aging.

The Patriots looked old compared to the Giants yesterday — which leads to another lesson: creative destruction. That’s the economic theory espoused by Joseph Schumpeter. I mentioned this in a previous blog about Alan Greenspan’s new book. In short, destroying inefficient and unprofitable businesses and industries leads to the creation of better ones.

You can bet that Pats’ Coach Belichick will blow-up parts of that team. Some defensive names like Bruschi, Vrabel, Seau, and Harrison might be gone. On the offensive side expect some new linemen to protect Brady better. Sure, there may be some mainstay names that exit. Fans might not like it. But Belichick and Brady – not to mention owner Robert Kraft – want to go back and win the Super Bowl.

How the Patriots bounce back next year will determine their legacy. If they return to the Super Bowl, they’ll be the first team to do that in more than 20 years. And lately, the team that loses the Super Bowl has a horrible season following the Super Bowl loss.

Democratic Deal?

LAS VEGAS, NV (January 31, 2008) – I have no inside information. This is based on observations through the media.

It seems that Hillary and Barack have made a deal. They are the Democratic ticket. Who will be on top (no pun intended) will still be decided through the primaries and possibly until the Democratic Convention?

I wouldn’t have said that a few days ago. I was under the impression these two Democrats hate each other. And there was the belief that a ticket with a woman and a black man would be way too vulnerable to Republican onslaughts and white, male voters.

But here’s what changed my mind.

First, when John Edwards dropped out he didn’t endorse anyone. He could have tried to be king/queen maker at the convention with his delegates. Instead, he said he was stepping out of the way to let history happen. My read: he knows that he has little power because Barack and Hillary have reached an agreement.

Second, John McCain became the clear GOP front-runner. Democrats saw their path to the White House slipping away with John McCain, a moderate, as opposed to a Christian Right Huckabee or a religious minority Romney. McCain can clearly be competitive, and possibly beat, either Democrat. But McCain apparently cannot beat them both.

Third, Barack and Hillary were different characters in tonight’s Democratic debate. Sure, they took some jabs at each other, but they were civil and conciliatory – almost sappy. The enemies were not each other, but John McCain and President Bush.

Fourth, Wolf Blitzer even asked about them being the Dream Ticket.  You can look at their lack of denials and read into them yourself.

Fifth, neither Barack or Hillary want to be the person who might make history while denying another version of history.  Why not remove that historical fear by making history with a winning ticket of a black and a woman?

Sixth, the issues they disagree on are really quite minor.  Drivers licenses for immigrants is really a subset of the overall immigration issue which they’re both pretty close on.  And on Iraq; no matter how much they want troops out, if either of them reaches the Oval Office they’ll learn that pulling out troops is impossible and would destroy our economy.

My guess is this. They’ve agreed to keep fighting, but agreed that the loser will be the VP candidate.

We’ll see.

But remember this.  Carville, a Democrat, and Matlin, a Republican, mated and had two normal kids.  Why not two Democrats just getting along?