It’ll Still be Politics as Usual Under Obama

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

A black president – it happened. Anyone who didn’t feel a twinge of emotion as Barack and his beautiful family came out to greet the crowds in that Chicago park officially has a heart of stone. In many ways it was a profound moment in history: the end to the centuries of white supremacism that has moved from slavery to Jim Crow to the still-existing economic exploitation – progress within what was all along referred to as “civilization.”

There on stage was the soon-to-be most powerful man in the world, the son of a Kenyan farmer and a single white mother from Kansas, beaming from ear to ear. It was as improbable as it was moving. And we should never forget the slaves who revolted against their masters and the civil rights activists who were shot dead in the 1960s; it was their sacrifices that furrowed the rocky path to this epochal moment. It was imagining their incredulity at such progress that really made the loins quiver on that night.

But Obama’s got a lot on his shoulders now. If you hear his supporters talking about his presidency, you might be forgiven for thinking Obama was the messiah, the untouchable Second Coming of Christ, who will cleanse us from the sulphureous scent of Hades, or George W. Bush, as he is more commonly known around the world.

And it’s a nice change for a world that has become accustomed to being ruled by nutcases. When Bush was elected I was 17, so most of my adult life has been lived with the most powerful man in the world as an unadulterated force for violence and pain. Whatever Obama becomes, at least he’s not mad, or stupid.

But I’m not holding out much hope about the next four years. Not because of Obama. I think he is probably an upright, nice guy. Certainly his writing seems to be sensitive and thoughtful. But what people don’t seem to understand as they undertake the flights of hope-infused rhetoric is that the president, while powerful, is often merely a vector in a vast tapestry of powerful forces that govern government policy. No matter how good, nice or genial he is, he is being pushed by decidedly malicious influences from all sides.

Most crucially, state power is nearly indistinguishable from big-business interest, limiting what a democratically elected leader can do. Essentially they are beholden to what Noam Chomsky has called “private tyrannies”: corporations and big money. They are private tyrannies because they have no democratic input and are driven by one sole motivation: profit.

This was revealed in stark terms with the financial bailout of the world’s biggest investment banks, where money was redistributed upward with no stipulations that the capital be used for loans, resulting in vast amounts going to shareholders, not the attested “stimulus.”

But while this was a particularly egregious case that has admittedly elected anger across the political spectrum, the same thing happens all the time behind closed doors. It’s how state capitalism works. There is a revolving door between big business and government in policy-formation and personnel. Dick Cheney went from the board of Halliburton to the executive branch of government like an oily fish, and will probably go back the other way. And look who benefited in Iraq.

Every superpower through history has sought to dominate lesser powers and make them pliant to their own economic interests. This has happened whether the superpower has been communist, socialist, capitalist, Nazi, whatever. The common denominator to all superpowers is that they have extraordinary amounts of power, and power by its nature will try to dominate. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides expressed this timeless maxim most baldly in his History of the Peloponnesian War. “Since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power,” said the Athenians to the Melians. “While the strong do what they can, the weak must suffer what they will.”

That fundamental dynamic has not altered since his time and probably never will. So essentially in the two-party system the individual leader is irrelevant to the real big picture. Be it Barack Obama, or Tony Blair or George W. Bush, the empire and power structure will continue to run unimpeded, with only variations in style. Political scientist Robert A. Dahl famously called this system polyarchy: a competitive elite ruling the rest of us.

That doesn’t mean that Barack Obama has tweaked his opinions to get into office, it means he couldn’t have gotten there if he believed anything different. As Comment Factory writer Laurence Witherington pointed out, it’s hypocritical of people to say that Obama is going against his principles; in fact, Obama has been consistent in his support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the war in Lebanon in 2006.

And there’s more too. If we can stretch our memories, we should remember that Obama suggested he would bomb the sovereign nation of Pakistan during his primary campaign, he has said he is against Iran enriching uranium even for energy purposes even though Israel is not part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and he has proposed a surge in Afghanistan. He has also most egregiously gone in front of the vile outfit AIPAC and said Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, a position even hardened Likudniks like Ariel Sharon would gasp at.

Real change this election season didn’t begin and end with Obama. The Green Party had the first all-people-of-color ticket in history, as well as the first all-female ticket too. But how many people have heard of presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney or vice presidential candidate Rosa Clemente? They were given a complete media blackout because they posed a real threat to the corporatocracy that runs American politics. The change they proposed wasn’t a cosmetic retouching of an imperial system, but the overhaul of a democratic system, which is saturated in private dollars that aren’t given altruistically by lobbyists, but are seen as an investment, like treating the federal government as a hedge fund.

Ralph Nader was another who provided a real alternative, but was ignored. Without the corporate backing he received one percent of the vote.

Maligned by both the “left” and “right” in the U.S. mainstream, he is one of the most principled individuals in politics. Here is his verdict on Obama: “Well, obviously we all congratulate Barack Obama. We wish him well.”

But the precursor to his election has not been very encouraging, and he has repeatedly taken up the positions of the corporate supremacists, not just his latest vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, but a whole string of votes and policy positions. He opposes single-payer health insurance. Well, the HMOs and the insurance companies do, too. He wants a bigger military budget. So does the military-industrial complex. His idea of a living wage on his Web site is $9.50 an hour by 2011. That would make it less than it was in 1968, adjusted for inflation.

He matched McCain in the third debate — belligerency for belligerency — toward Russia, toward Iran, more soldiers in Afghanistan, supporting the Israeli military repression and occupation and blockade of Gaza and the West Bank. And virtually nothing about 100 million poor people in this country. That’s why I really fault him; that he played the Clinton linguistic game by talking constantly about the middle class and not mentioning the word “poor.”

And we expect more of him. And I don’t think he has a public philosophy of where corporations must operate in this country. How? Under what rule of law? Under what regulation? Under what vulnerability to litigation in the courts? He’s proud of tort reform, supports the nuclear industry, supports the coal industry. So we’re really talking about just more of the same, in terms of the corporate domination of Washington.

I detected no concern, no quaking of concern, among the drug industry, oil, gas industry, nuclear, coal industry, Wall Street, over his probable election in the last few weeks. Usually, when they’re really worried about a politician, they will issue warnings. But Barack Obama has raised far more money than John McCain from Wall Street interests, corporate interests and, above all, corporate lawyers. And the question to be asked is, why are they investing so much in Barack Obama? Because they believe he’s their man. So, prepare to be disappointed, but keep your hope up.

Until people like Nader, and Bob Barr on the other side, are able to stretch the narrow political spectrum in the U.S., and likewise around the world, we will never be able to hope for change and not in the back of our minds think that in fact nothing ever changes.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

Veterans’ Health Care Under Bush a Disgrace

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

It’s hard to think of a more nauseating spectacle than George W. Bush – draft dodging, chicken hawk extraordinaire – turning on his lachrymal glands for U.S. veterans. But as the country drew together on Nov. 11 for the annual national holiday to honor their fighting men and women, there was the commander in chief waxing unlyrically about the “inspiration” he has gotten from the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, his wide-eyes and rictus smile belying his solemn tone.

The media reported his words conscientiously but failed to add the apposite context, which as usual is important. Because not only did Bush and his cronies do the obvious and send the young men and women into harm’s way for a completely pointless war that has cost 4,192 American and over a million Iraqi souls to date, this “War President” has also overseen the calculated destruction of the thin safety net that helps veterans as they cope with the health problems brought on by war.

In 2005, only two years into the war in Iraq, Bush was widely condemned for his budget for veterans’ health care that fell well short of maintaining the levels of the years before, bearing in mind the huge numbers of new soldiers that were returning from war. In that year not only did Bush try to double the co-payment that veterans would pay for prescription drugs, he also proposed a flat $250 new fee for some veterans to use the health care. Even Republican Sen. Daniel K. Akaka warned at the time that this could put 192,000 people out of the veterans’ health care system because of the price hike. Later in 2005 it was revealed that the Bush administration had left a $1 billion shortage for veterans’ health care that had to be plugged by emergency supplemental funds voted for by Congress again.

In 2006, with discretionary spending apparently needing to be cut to deal with the massive deficit, the White House predicted a 16 percent cut in veterans’ health care, despite the increasing numbers of veterans needing the services. In that budget year Congress had to add another $2.7 billion to emergency funding to the Veterans Association on top of Bush’s budget.

Under the current Bush plan being touted, even though the number of soldiers needing treatment in veterans’ health care has been rising about 5 percent per year, in 2009 the budget would be cut again and kept at this smaller number until 2012. The hope is Obama will find a way around these disgraceful estimates and reevaluate the priorities of an administration that has lost any bearings they once had.

The effect of turning veterans’ health care from the most important of government responsibilities into an expendable superfluity has had painful consequences for the veterans of the U.S. Vast numbers of soldiers are returning with mental health problems ranging from schizophrenia to post-traumatic stress disorder, but a study in the American Journal of Public Health estimated that in 2004, 1.8 million veterans were without health insurance, constituting 12 percent of all uninsured people in the U.S. The number of uninsured grew by 290,000 from 2000, Bush’s first year, to 2004, two years into his “war on terror.”

This year the Bush administration was even employing lawyers to fight a case that insists that mental health should be included in health care provisions for veterans. You did read that right: The Bush administration somehow doesn’t think mental health qualifies as a health issue.

On Veterans Day, Bush unsurprisingly didn’t mention his squalid record on looking after the veterans of his wars of ideology:

“I am committed to making sure that today’s veterans get all the health care and support they need from the federal government for agreeing to serve in a time of danger,” he said.

And the headlines read: “Bush praises veterans on Veterans Day,” when they should have been, “Bush praises veterans on Veterans Day, while destroying their health care.”

There are many ironies to Bush’s tenure: some, like his IQ, are comical; some, like this one, are just tragic. Despite the Republican Party’s insistence that they are the party of patriotism and strength and “country first,” over the last eight years they have treated the veterans of their wars like every other group that infringes on their ability to stuff cash into the pockets of their rich friends. McCain’s plan was even worse than Bush’s: he wanted to privatize veterans’ health care, turn it into a market-oriented trust. Just imagine what would have happened during the financial crisis if this had happened. It’s time to fight the Republicans on their own turf and say the patent truth: they just really don’t care about vets or anyone else who isn’t rolling in money.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

Blame It On the Lame Duck

By SARAH N. LYNCH, Correspondent

Senator John McCain can take solace in one thing when he thinks back on his recent electoral defeat: Senator Barack Obama’s win does not really say that much about John McCain. Instead, Obama’s resounding victory was a referendum on President George W. Bush.

Shortly after NBC projected Sen. Obama the winner of the evening, people from around the world poured into the streets. They were excited to be witnessing a piece of history as voters overwhelmingly elected the nation’s first black president. But more importantly, they wanted to let the current administration know their true feelings.

The people are tired of this unjust and inhuman war that was spawn on a lie. They are struggling beneath the crushing weight of the economy that has come crashing down on them thanks to the lax regulations that let Wall Street cannibalize itself. They are sick of the United States using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit.

The crowds that gathered on Election Night were a stunning sight. They cheered in Kenya, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, New York City and Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

Here in Washington, a large crowd stood in front of the White House – not because it represents Obama’s future home for the next four years, but because they wanted to send Bush a message.

Yes, those crowded rejected John McCain, but it was not personal. Sure, it didn’t help that McCain ran a God-awful campaign.

He failed to vet Sarah Palin and wound up isolating independent voters and even some staunch conservatives who felt she was unqualified for higher office. He then yet again failed to vet Joe the Plumber, thrusting the man into the national spotlight for his criticism of Obama’s tax policy before he eventually discovered that Joe doesn’t even pay the taxes he owes now.

McCain resorted to petty arguments over why Obama was not fit for the presidency. He ran too many negative ads. His reaction to the collapse on Wall Street was chaotic and embarrassing to the GOP.

But none of that really mattered in the end. The truth is, no Republican had a chance of winning this election. George W. Bush’s disastrous policies have essentially left the Republicans with a large scarlet A on their chests.

Just ask John Sununu or Elizabeth Dole. They were both casualties of war. They finally lost their seats thanks to Bush, who hijacked his party eight years ago thanks to a stolen election in Florida.

John McCain should know this better than anyone. And although Palin was definitely the wrong pick, his aides should stop putting so much blame on her for their loss and instead direct their anger toward the right person: our lame-duck president.

That means that now, more than ever before, is the time for John McCain to truly be the maverick he claims to be. It means he must publicly reject the Bush legacy, call for his fellow GOP colleagues to do the same and steal his party back.

Only then can the Republicans hope to pick up the pieces and regain the confidence of the public.

Sarah N. Lynch can be reached at sarahnlynch@gmail.com.

Tanking Economy? How About Tanking McCain Campaign?

By SARAH N. LYNCH, Correspondent

Remember when the Twin Towers crumbled and President Bush sat there in a grade school classroom, engrossed in a copy of “My Pet Goat”? It didn’t instill much confidence that he could lead in a time of chaos.

Well, these past few weeks have been the equivalent of a financial 9/11, only this time, the companies on Wall Street did it to themselves. But this time around, the American people got the benefit of previewing how our presidential nominees might respond to such a gargantuan crisis.

So far, it appears McCain is batting zero for zero. And if Obama plays his hand right, he may just have a shot of drowning out the Palin-mania that has swept over conservatives across the country and win this election.

McCain has admitted before that economics are not his strong suit, which is problematic enough. He demonstrated that about two weeks ago when he called for the firing of Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Chris Cox, when in fact a president does not even have the power to fire an SEC chairman. He also made a huge gaffe by claiming the “fundamentals of the economy are strong” at a time when Wall Street’s largest banks were falling to their knees. He made matters worse later when he said he was referring to the American people, demonstrating that he doesn’t really know the definition of “fundamentals.”

If that seemed like a bad move, it only got worse when he pulled a John Kerry and “flip-flopped” his positions, both on the bailout of AIG and the dramatic change in his policy position, to suddenly call for more regulation of the financial industry.

But perhaps his biggest public relations nightmare may come from the people he has chosen to advise him on economic policy – one of the biggest bull’s-eyes on McCain’s back that Obama can shoot at if he wants to win this debate.

Most notably of course is Phil Gramm, a former senator and fellow “de-regulator.” He’s the one who made the big mistake of calling Americans a “nation of whiners” caught up in a mere “mental recession.”

Phil Gramm is the man behind much of the deregulation of the banking and over-the-counter derivatives industries. In particular comes to mind the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, a piece of legislation tucked into an appropriations bill that essentially carved much of the multitrillion dollar “swaps” industry outside the reach of any federal regulator.

That bill is perhaps most infamous for creating the “Enron loophole” that helped the company escape regulation. But it’s now becoming equally infamous for exempting many other types of derivatives including credit default swaps. Credit default swaps are essentially bond insurance that one company will issue for a premium to another company as protection in case a borrower can’t cough up the funds. These financial instruments are traded in secret, off regulated exchanges and outside the reach of the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Unlike regulated exchanges, they don’t have the backing of a centralized clearing house to protect companies from default.

Credit default swaps were behind the collapse of AIG, which issued these insurance-like instruments to protect against toxic mortgage-backed securities, but couldn’t pay up when many of those debts went bad. And now, the very man who de-regulated them could become the next treasury secretary if McCain has his way.

Yes, things didn’t seem like they could get worse for the McCain campaign on the economy in recent weeks as company after company continued to collapse. The possibilities for attack by the Obama campaign seemed endless.

And then, it did.

Catastrophes on Wall Street got worse, and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson told Congressional leaders he needed them to give him the power to spend up to $700 billion to buy the illiquid assets that were poisoning Wall Street. He didn’t want the plan to have a shred of oversight, and both Democrats and Republicans cried foul.

In a very theatrical move, the former de-regulator announced he planned to suspend his campaign and flee to Washington where he hoped to help push through the passage of Henry Paulson’s unprecedented $700 billion bailout plan. He even threatened to boycott the debate for good measure.

But Murphy’s Law decided to follow him along for the ride.

He arrived right when a deal had been announced and sat in a meeting with President Bush where he offered few words. And then, after previously expressing cautious support for the plan, his own party turned sour and staged a coup.

Democrats pointed fingers at McCain, claiming he was to blame for the failure. He pushed back, telling reporters he was working the phones to get the plan back on track. (But he still showed up to the debate, and did not return to Capitol Hill).

After a long and tedious weekend, progress appeared to be made. Republican House leaders seemed more likely to support the plan. McCain’s chief Republican strategist Steve Schmidt even gave McCain credit on Meet the Press for saving the bailout by claiming he was critical to helping win more votes on the Republican side of the aisle.

Perhaps McCain was starting to turn things around. Maybe his connections to Phil Gramm would not seem so bad now. Perhaps suspending the campaign had done some good.

Then, the unthinkable happened. The bailout failed.

Its stunning defeat has made McCain appear the fool.

And the only person who could be more foolish than McCain right now is Obama, if he doesn’t take advantage of this opportunity to kill his opponent when he’s at his lowest point in this campaign.

Sarah N. Lynch can be reached at sarahnlynch@gmail.com.

Nightmare on Wall Street

By EUGENE MULERO, Correspondent

Last week, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said her office was getting tons of calls from her constituents, begging her not to bailout Wall Street’s titans.

“… in general, we got to make sure we don’t walk away from this thing, and we don’t handout a blank check to (the) CEOs and CFOs who got us into this mess. People are telling me, ‘Barbara, use your authority to make sure this isn’t a disastrous boondoggle’,” Boxer told me outside the Senate chamber.

This also was the concern from the conservatives. Sen. Jeff Session, R-Ala., said to me, before he met with the Treasury Secretary: “Let’s read the documents they are proposing. Congress can’t rubber-stamp a proposal. Our inherent duty is of protecting the Treasury. I think Congress needs a reasonable time to review this before we rubber-stamp a matter of this huge nature. And by the tens of thousands, constituents actually contacted their members of Congress, objecting to Secretary Paulson’s proposal.”

In House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s now-famous speech on Monday, she reminded her colleagues that the White House had fooled them before—and rash actions, especially when a potential Great Depression 2.0 hung in the balance—was not the best way to proceed this time around.

So-called conservative mainstream media pundits who support Paulson’s proposal, criticized Pelosi. However, they forget Americans are still wondering why the Bush administration still hasn’t captured Osama bin Laden, allowed the NSA to eavesdrop on citizens and are pissed off about $3-plus for a gallon of gas (if there’s even gas available in some places around the country). And, most of them don’t cry because a CEO went from earning $1.1 billion annually, to a measly $500 million.

Oh, not to mention, three out of every four Americans do not support President Bush.
After all that, is it any mystery why voters called their lawmakers to oppose approving the largest golden parachute ever – $700 billion – for some of the richest men in the world, who caused this financial meltdown in the first place?

Economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University said it best. Last Sunday on 60 Minutes he told Scott Pelley that Paulson’s “proposal is to take on to American taxpayers the millions of bad mortgages – toxic mortgages – that no one on Wall Street wants to take. When they announced that plan the champagne bottle corks were popping on Wall Street. You know, they finally found the sucker to take on these assets; no one in the private sector would touch these private mortgages.”

Pelley asked, “Who’s the sucker?”

“The American taxpayer,” Stiglitz responded.

Eugene Mulero may be reached at Eugene.Mulero@gmail.com.

Adventure at the RNC March

BY MATT KENNARD, CORRESPONDENT

The RNC march was a pretty standard affair. There were lots of people snaking around downtown St. Paul telling everyone how George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are terrorists—all true, but when you’ve walked for two hours, you’ve heard it all before.

Things got interesting when the police blocked off the bridges dividing St. Paul at the end of the demo. They had submachine guns and big sticks in their hands wearing full riot gear. The people they stopped moving were your usual anti-war types, apart from one disabled guy in a wheelchair who buzzed around telling everyone they were anti-American and should go back to Iran. He told me London had become Islamic, and all the rest. He was like a comedy character Will Ferrell had come up with, zipping around haranguing the protesters and telling the riot police what a great job they were doing.

It was all a bit of fun, but his screeching voice and chubby face really upset a lot of the protesters who were trying to concentrate on taking on the police-industrial complex. They didn’t look too happy themselves as they sweltered in 40 lbs of riot gear.

Basically, you realize that what happens in the Xcel Energy Center, the site of this year’s RNC, is all boilerplate ludicrousness. Nothing of consequence will happen there in the grand scheme. They will continue to perpetuate war and injustice; while the people outside are the ones who can change not the debate, but the terms of debate.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

Success Found Where Politicians Rove

By EUGENE MULERO, Correspondent

Two years ago, I stood in the back of a lavish master-planned community for retirees in Sun Lakes, Arizona, to report on a visit by John McCain. The affair was supposed to be a chance for Maverick to address local resident concerns regarding a nearby airport and the likelihood of increased noise pollution.

Instead, the audience appeared fascinated with McCain’s presence and lobbed softball questions at him that centered around the senator’s next bid for the White House. The palpable excitement in the air quickly evaporated when the late Democratic governor from Montana, Thomas Judge, who was living in Sun Lakes, confronted McCain about his decision to seek the support of his one-time rival, George W. Bush.

Judge tried to torment the senator with the reminder that it was Bush and his campaign staffers who smeared Maverick’s name in the 2000 primary. Judge referred to: “little black charm” — McCain’s adopted daughter, which became a talking point in the Bush camp to persuade South Carolinans to vote for Bushworld, not Maverickland.

McCain grinned while Judge spoke, as if he expected such feedback. He then thanked Judge and said, “With all due respect governor, I don’t hold grudges. I’ve learned that the hard way.”

He answered a few more easy ones, before he signed copies of his latest book for the true believers.

That moment showcased a new John McCain. The McCain of the past — the old man with the bad temper — was gone. This McCain was forgiving, caring and ready to move on.

And that’s why I think he hired Steve Schmidt, or as his friends call him, “Schmidty,” to strategize his campaign against Barack Obama. In their epilogue to “Boy Genius: Karl Rove, the Architect of George W. Bush’s Remarkable Political Triumphs,” the writers end with the notion that perhaps Karl Rove will go on to mastermind the candidacy of another presidential hopeful:

“It already appears that Rove will have first pick from among a large stable of eager Republican presidential candidates in 2008, a potential list that includes Jeb Bush, Bill Frist, Rudy Giuliani, and two Pennsylvanians, Tom Ridge and Senator Rick Santorum.”

McCain bringing Schmidt on board was a significant move — a power play if you will — given that Schmidt is Karl Rove’s protégé; a man walking in the footprints of the Boy Genius who got Bush in the White House.

I’m amazed that it actually comes down to a line from “The Godfather”: “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” Yet, that’s what Maverick has done — aligned himself with the Boy Genius he once publicly despised.

With so much talk about how historic this election is, the (mainstream) media still doesn’t seem ready to challenge the candidates. Even New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, when he spoke at National Journal’s office earlier this summer, criticized the media for not telling the public where these candidates stand on issues and who’s working for them. There’s no doubt Rove is controlling the McCain campaign, yet, with few exceptions (Jonathan Adler, among them) hardly anybody is reporting this story.

Schmidt, just like Rove in 2000, is already relying on the politics of race to win this election for Team McCain. And this is what many Americans expected — McCain and the Republicans asking us: Who’s afraid of a big black man?

The McCain camp believes the reason Obama and McCain are tied in the polls is because Obama is African-American. They might be correct, only because there’s no other reason to explain why the candidates are tied. Obama has been nearly flawless in the general election. He is looking to succeed a lame-duck president with historically low approval ratings, and his opponent, who was never seen as the party’s favorite, supports an unpopular war.

A Quinnipiac University Poll released July 29 shows that it’s not hard to find the voters afraid of a big black man in the White House. According to the results, Obama lacked the support of white Gen X blue collar men — the newest NASCAR dads. This demographic is sitting comfortably in the McCain camp. While Maverick has to fight to keep them there, Obama has to draw them to him, which seems to be easier said than done.

Evidence of the Rovian influence is becoming more obvious by the day. McCain has begun to compare Obama to Paris Hilton and is telling the public Obama is inexperienced about Washington, he’s naïve on foreign affairs and he’s African-American.

Unfortunately, to many voters from red states, that last point is a trump card.

“This election is about Senator Obama’s fitness to be president of the United States,” Peter Brown, associate director of the Quinnipiac Poll, said last month at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast in D.C. “From Senator McCain’s point of view he has no choice, if he wants to win, but to convince the American people that Senator Obama is not fit to be president of the United States. And you don’t do that running a positive campaign.”

The potential is that we may live, once again, in Karl Rove’s America. You’d think that would make news. But through Schmidt, Boy Genius Rove has McCain, and the world, on a string.

Eugene Mulero may be reached at Eugene.Mulero@gmail.com.