Do people still listen to Rush Limbaugh?  I hope not.

The political process grinds on.  I’m glad the candidates can be so peachy about the inevitable unity of their party come November while they do everything possible to rip it to pieces before then.

Some party.

We are approaching that point in the primary process where Obama-Clinton and Clinton-Obama tickets will be considered and dissected by pundits, supporters, and haters of all stripes. This is good. I’m tired of hearing about extra-political nonsense like Jeremiah Wright’s rants and nightmares of Bosnian snipers.

Andrew Sullivan makes the first meaningful contribution to the debate that I’ve read, campaigning for Obama-Clinton. While I credit my own potentially pro-Obama position with Sullivan’s larger argument concerning America’s image and its symbolism, I’m unconvinced that he is the clear candidate, as Sullivan seems to suggest.

He notes that Obama has had difficulty registering with white working class women, Hispanics, and Reagan democrats.  Unfortunately for him, these are much more representative of the party’s base and focus than the well-educated, enthusiastic youth movement that propels him forwards.  The idea that the opinions of major states like Ohio and Pennsylvania can be swept aside just because of some delegate count is strategically absurd.  I live in Chicago.  I don’t think there is any more Obama’d area in the country, but nothing feels won or finished.

In short: the winner has yet to be declared.

More importantly, though, the idea of teaming up opponents, even cut throat enemies, has terrific precedence in improving a party candidate’s electability and in function and policy of its cabinet.  Sullivan cites Team of Rivals as the example to follow, and he couldn’t be more correct.  The decision to appointed divided views on the same cabinet might have seemed counterintuitive at a time when the nation was physically divided, but it was a stroke of genius by Lincoln.

The question is, at what point is it a political gimmick, and at what point is it a strategic decision?  JFK and Johnson may have won the election, but Johnson was a complete outsider in the Kennedy court.  If Clinton is vice president, will she be allowed to voice her opinions and contribute to an Obama administration, or will she be sidelined to enjoy her obscure post?  (The big question there is, where does Bill’s ego fit in?)  If Obama is a vice president, will Clinton and her team bring him in and help him earn the kind of experience he is most often criticized for not having?  Will he be allowed to enter the dialogue and be ready to make a run in 2012 or 2016, depending?

I fear that we will see them come together at some point, but there will be nothing of the unifying action Obama claims to represent.  I fear it because I think, desperate to revitalize themselves more in symbol than in substance, the democrats will push for electability, and leave any thoughts of serving their country instead of their party on the convention floor.

Mr. Timothy Noah of Slate.com recently channeled Kevin Bacon and

invited the public to connect, “six degrees”-style, one or more of the remaining three major presidential candidates to der Führer und Reichskanzler himself, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945).

The result was a veritable seminar in 20th-century American politicians, philanthropists, European royalty, and Nazis. As well as excellent pointers on efficient methodologies in degree-separation model building – including the renowned fortress-hub tactic!

Mr. Noah is joking, of course, but hopefully there will be no rigmarole like that about Mr. Obama’s middle name.

In other news: Chelsea Clinton was recently playing quite different games in Philadelphia and Portland. Like commenter John Curious from San Francisco, I am left wondering

…did somebody try to grab Ed Rendell’s ass, too?

Oh for the halcyon days when the pub was a scene of political discussion and action.

I think that Andrew Sullivan has put forth the best reason for support Obama, which he explored at length in a cover story the The Atlantic a few months ago. The babyboomers have been destructive and they have to go. Is the next generation (what are we calling it?) going to fare any better? There’s no guarantee, but it’s hard to imagine it failing any worse.

Famous last words?

Regardless, Hillary and McCain do represent a mentality that has driven this country into the ground culturally and politically. It’s a me-me-me focus that is out of touch with everyone who isn’t just like me-me-me. Instead of thinking forward, it’s mired in a fantasy present that the activism of the 60s didn’t deliver and the poll-based-politics of today continue to imagine. It seems to me like a parent who, failing during the crucial years and watching his or her children spin off the deep in their teen years has decided to forcibly re-enter the scene in their 20s and tell them to open up so the airplane can deliver its cargo of applesauce.

We don’t need to be fed anymore, and that’s the bottom line. It’s time we start cooking.

…that being said, I have a feeling somebody that survived North Vietnamese torture camps can probably cook a hearty meal on a low budget.