In what is likely to prove an academic exercise, President Bush followed through on a threat and vetoed the recently passed 2008 Farm Bill. The $307 billion bill, officially titled the "Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008," extends many of the incentive and subsidy programs established in the 2002 Farm Bill in an era of rising food prices and farming incomes. The president cited both in his veto message to Congress.

At a time of high food prices and record farm income, this bill lacks program reform and fiscal discipline. It continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase. It is inconsistent with our objectives in international trade negotiations, which include securing greater market access for American farmers and ranchers. It would needlessly expand the size and scope of government. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates that fundamental commitment. [...]

At a time when net farm income is projected to increase by more than $28 billion in 1 year, the American taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize that group of farmers who have adjusted gross incomes of up to $1.5 million. When commodity prices are at record highs, it is irresponsible to increase government subsidy rates for 15 crops, subsidize additional crops, and provide payments that further distort markets.

But farm bills are politically popular, especially in election years, and this year's bill passed both Houses of Congress by veto-proof margins. Congress is expected to override the president's veto almost as soon as it receives the president's message.

Hillary Clinton was asked by the AP whether she would consider taking the battle over Florida's and Michigan's delegates all the way to Denver.

The presidential candidate said Wednesday, "Yes I will. I will, because I feel very strongly about this."

She made the comments in the Sunshine State, where both she and Barack Obama are campaigning. If you'll remember, Florida and Michigan had their delegates yanked after going against party rules and voting early. Clinton took both states, but Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.

The Democratic National Committee meets late next week and they'll discuss the matter of what to do with those up in the air delegates.

Remember when Clinton insider Terry McAuliffe said Hillary would probably drop out in early June? Yeah, I didn't believe him either.

In this hotly contested primary season, one which features Hillary Clinton locked in mortal combat with arithmetic and John McCain battling out from under a frantic GOP dogpile, the speculation has turned to the so-called "Veepstakes," with Democratic speculation focused around a "Dream Ticket" of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But where does that leave McCain?

His choice of a VP is going to be a tough one, because he needs to balance out his ticket with someone even more conservative than he is to satisfy his base, but his age will make the Veep a lightning rod for scrutiny in the general election.

Satire website The Onion has a novel solution:

WASHINGTON-Presidential hopefuls John McCain (R-AZ), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) announced Monday their plans to form what many Beltway observers have already dubbed the "2008 Nightmare Ticket," a calculated move that political analysts say offers voters the worst of both worlds.

...The candidates said they had not yet decided who would fill the offices of president, vice president, and a new post the nominees are calling "the middle president."

Given the crop McCain has to choose from, this might be the best he can do.

We're down to the final 3 contests of the Democratic race for the nomination: Puerto Rico (June 1), Montana, and South Dakota (both on June 3). A total of 86 pledged delegates will be decided pending the outcome.

Hillary Clinton won Kentucky by 35 percentage points to net a total of 23 delegates. She also won by a total of roughly 150,000 votes.

Barack Obama won Oregon by 18 percentage points to net a total of 10 delegates (with 94% of precincts reporting). He won by a total of roughly 102,000 votes.

By nearly every count, with last night's additions, Obama has now earned a majority of all pledged delegates. There are 3253 total pledged delegates in the contest, and Obama has guaranteed that when the final primary results are tallied on June 3, he will have won a majority of those delegates selected via the vote. That is true whether or not one includes Florida and Michigan delegate totals (however one might allocate them).

There are 795 Democratic Superdelegates. According to Real Clear Politics, Obama now leads Clinton in this category by 27: 306 to 279. The reason the pledged delegate threshold is important, is that many superdelegates are on record as saying that they will not go against the final winner in pledged delegates.

Lastly, for the very contentious popular vote tallies, we must tackle the issue of how to come to an agreed upon number. These numbers vary widely depending on how or whether you tally Florida, Michigan, and all the states that held caucuses. To my mind the whole question is rather beside the point, since, as it stands, the Democratic primary is a hodgepodge of contests whose main purpose is to give us a winner in terms of delegates, not individual votes. Whether we should amend this process for future races is another matter.

Kos makes what I think are the right points about this issue in a post that can be read here.

Ever hear of the Decemberists? No, not the soldiers who rose up against the Czar in Russia back in 1825. I'm talking about the folksy, indie rock band from Portland, darlings of the music press, recipients of the prestigious Colbert-bump and Barack Obama's opening act at a very well attended rally in that city this past Sunday. 75,000 attended the event, which news organizations universally hailed as "big" or "huge".

Media Research Center's Robert Knight (not the basketball coach) wants it known, the Decemberists contributed to the size of that crowd. In an article for NewsBusters Knight wrote, "Unmentioned in national reporting was the fact that Obama was preceded by a rare, 45-minute free concert by actual rock stars The Decemberists. The Portland-based band has drawn rave reviews from Rolling Stone magazine, which gave their 2005 album Picaresque four and a half stars (out of five), and another four and a half stars for 2007's The Crane Wife."

So how much of that tidal wave of humanity was there to see Barack Obama, and how much was there to see the Decemberists? Before you answer, you must also hear testimony about the pristine weather, and you simply must hear the genius of Decemberists' principle songwriter Colin Meloy...

Chuck Hagel may be crossed off John McCain's Christmas card list. Lately the Republican senator from Nebraska is letting no opportunity go by to heap praise on Barack Obama.

What's worse, Hagel (who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee) is now taking issue with McCain's recent criticism of Obama's promise to engage with Iran. McCain painted Obama as an appeaser, which Hagel says is a woeful -- and all too common -- tactic employed by the GOP. Hagel insisted engagement is the way to maintain peace.

Hagel then offered a wry tweak of his GOP colleague. "I am confident that if Obama is elected president that is the approach we will take. And my friend John McCain said some other things about that. We'll see, but in my opinion it has to be done. It is essential." ...

"If you engage a world power or a rival, it doesn't mean you agree with them or subscribe with what they believe or you support them in any way," he said. "What it does tell you is that you've got a problem you need to resolve. And you've got to understand the other side and the other side has got to understand you."

Hagel also criticized the press on Obama's behalf, urging reporters to focus on important policy issues and "not just why Barack [doesn't] wear flag pins on his lapel."
As Sam Stein put it, "Chuck Hagel is quickly becoming Barack Obama's answer to Joe Lieberman."

In case you missed the news, Senator Edward Kennedy has been diagnosed with a grave illness, and a great many people, myself included, are understandably distraught over this. Our thoughts and prayers are with the senator, his family, and friends.

As with any public figure, there are going to be many people with strong opinions, both for and against Senator Kennedy. In politics, there is an unusual and potent mix of intellect and emotion that magnifies these feelings. I'm sure he would be the first to appreciate the vigorous debates he has inspired, and will inspire in the future.

However, when an event occurs that transcends politics, such as the tragic announcement about the Senator's condition, I would ask everyone to be respectful of each other in our comments section, and if you are unable to lend your support to his grieving admirers, then perhaps save it for a day when the wound is not so fresh. I promise to extend the same compassion if the situation is ever reversed.

It's pretty simple, really: Talking to enemies isn't appeasement.



As Chuck Hagel said today, John McCain is smarter than the silly stuff that keeps coming out of his mouth.

h/t: Andrew Sullivan.

One of our devoted readers, Mr. Sandy Clark, sent me a very good question this morning:

When Hillary does end her candidacy, does she get back the $22 million she has set aside for the General Election to offset her debt?

Clinton's campaign is now an estimated $20 million dollars in the hole. Some commentators speculated that she might be staying in the race so that she could raise money to help re-pay it. Given that she has not managed to bring her debt down following Indiana and North Carolina, it seems fair to say that this theory has been something of a stretch.

So, back to Mr. Clark's point. Clinton has received a lot of criticism for allocating much of the early money she raised for the general election.

Perhaps unsubtly stoking the fires in the U.S. presidential race, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has addressed a letter to U.N. General Secretary Ban Ki-moon declaring the Islamic Republic's desire to open a new round of talks with the West on a broad range of issues from democracy building in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America to nuclear disarmament to illegal immigration. Iran is proposing the talks as a means of gaining international legitimacy as the Bush Administration and the European Union put the final touches on a new package of incentives aimed at getting Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program. Iran's proposal pointedly does not mention suspension of the controversial program.

Talks with Iran have been a major issue in the presidential race in the past week. The presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, has said that he favors talking with America's enemies and has pledged to meet unconditionally with the heads of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba. Republican nominee Sen. John McCain rejects that notion as a mark of Obama's, "inexperience and reckless judgment," on foreign policy matters. President Bush kicked off the controversy when he remarked to Israel's parliament last week that those who would engage in negotiations with terrorists groups like Hamas and their state sponsor Iran were offering, "the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." Obama and prominent Democrats bristled at the description, which they interpreted as a direct shot at the Democratic candidate. Iran's offer of negotiations being made public at this time seems intended to keep the controversy alive in hopes of influencing the presidential race.