I think Hillary needs to up the ante. Forget about polite harrumping about health care and Iraq and Rev. Wright. Let's settle this once and for all with a genuine slammin' TLC match to see who claims the nomination, no holds barred.

What's TLC? you might ask. As well you should. TLC refers not to how Hillary treats overseas campaign donors, but rather Tables-Ladders-Chairs, a wrestling format in which contestants use the props to grab a championship belt suspended above the ring.

That would be political theater of the highest order and the greatest pay-per-view event ever, to see Hillary "Bill Crusher" Clinton battle Barack "The Hawaiian Weatherman" Obama in for the Democratic nomination. Let's stop playing nice and get out the heavy equipment so they can really pummel each other in glee.

Now doesn't that sound more realistic than ANOTHER debate?

First, some history.

Lena and I were classmates at Mission High School in Texas, Class of 1976. She was the student council president, I was the newspaper editor -- teen-age obsessions that immediately pegged our career arcs. She had a great political astuteness and drive from a very young age, and attended American Legion Auxiliary's Girls State and Girls Nation program, quite an honor. The photo belows shows her in action leading a Student Council meeting.

After we graduated, she went to the University of Texas in Austin, I went east to Princeton, and our paths rarely touched from there. She rode a political rocket for the next 15 years while I yo-yo'd up and down in journalism. We saw each other the last time at our 10th high school reunion in 1986. Friends in Texas kept me informed of her career through press clips (named a Best Legislator by Texas Monthly, the publication that was my career goal) and campaign materials. I even have a letter from her from February 1991, after she became the Texas Railroad Commissioner. I saved that and everything else in a Lena file.

Her downfall in 1992, when political opponents revealed she had lied about graduating from UT, is well documented. That got her on the cover of Texas Monthly, as well as a profile in Mirabella magazine, for which a reporter contacted me. She sucked it up and kept living, and didn't hide.

The abrupt end of her political career is the great imponderable of politics, along with her early death. Had that transcript scandal never happened, I could reasonably see her winning the accolades as the history-making presidential candidate this year -- first woman, first Hispanic, name the permutation. Her skills were that sharp. The 1992 Democratic speech, which I never saw in those pre-Internet days, was the logical launching pad for service in the Clinton Administration. The future had no limits, until her own limitations became visible.

In 2001, the Class of 1976 had its 25th reunion. Many of us gathered at a classmate's home in McAllen, east of Mission. Lena was already sick by then and we called her in Austin. We passed the phone around to catch up on news and give her our wishes for a speedy recovery. That was the last time I spoke with Lena. She did not attend the 30th reunion in 2006 but, as always, her huge, LBJ-like spirit hovered around us.

After I got the text message last night with the news, I wrote back my first thought, "She hung on for a long time."

From the Governor's office:

Texas Governor Rick Perry directed that flags be flown at half-staff in memory of former Texas Railroad Commissioner and State Representative Lena Guerrero. He also issued the following statement:

"Lena Guerrero was a bright, passionate woman who worked hard to represent the interests of her constituents both as a representative and as Railroad Commissioner. We served together in the Texas House of Representatives, and I came to know and admire her both as an esteemed colleague and a friend. Her fellow Democrats were surprised at our friendship and her endorsement of my candidacy, but she was the sort of person who placed loyalty and principle ahead of politics."

"Our state is a better place for her time spent in it and she will be greatly missed. Anita and I extend our deepest sympathies and prayers to her family during this time of great loss."

If only Pope Benedict XVI had been around to see it! Perhaps Chabad is planning a repeat performance to get in on the excitement already building at Park East Synagogue, where the Pope will drop by for some Abrahamic shmoozing on Friday.

The Times turned down the ad for various moronic reasons, which Harris explains here:

Here’s the written explanation from Tom Bartunek, president of New York Times Radio and general manager of WQXR:

”In my judgement several elements of this spot are outside our bounds of acceptability. First, the opening line— `Imagine you had fifteen seconds to find shelter from an oncoming missile’—does not make clear that the potential target of the missile is not our listening area, and as a consequence, runs the risk of raising anxiety in a misleading way. Second, the description of the missiles as arriving `day or night’ and `daily’ is also subject to challenge as being misleading, at least to the degree that reasonable people might be troubled by the absence of any acknowledgement of reciprocal Israeli military actions. Finally, in my judgement the `countdown’ device and the general tone of the message do not meet our guidelines for decorum.”

WQXR joins Ms. Magazine in the proud ranks of principled, progressive media outlets that refuse to demean themselves by accepting certain types of filthy Jewish advertising. As I wrote during the Ms. dustup in January, I'm happy to offer the AJC alternative media outlets for its thoughtful ads. If the AJC moves them to another outlet, I will be sure to offer that station (and its many fine, upscale advertisers) my support. So, David Harris, here's your new radio schedule:

-- 97.9 La Mega. Popular Spanish-language station, lots of bus ads of guys with dollar bills coming out of their ears. Why, they give away $1,000 cada hora!

--77 WABC. With a lineup that includes Curtis Sliwa, Rush Limbaugh, Paul Harvey, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, Harris could play the ad in heavy rotation and get a sympathetic demographic every time.

-- Air America. Oh, why not? Let's see if Air America will accept filthy Jewish lucre.

-- Sports Radio 66 WFAN. This is a great match. Sports! Jews! The competitive spirit! Jews have been world-class athletes since at least the time when David whupped Goliath in the rock-slinging contest. Let's go to the videotape for Israel!

I'm sure the American Jewish Committee will get a lot of value from this media buy, using stations that will surely appreciate its business more than WQXR.

And what about WQXR? The AJC's absence won't cause any pain. The Radio Station of the New York Times will probably just run more of those lugubrious ads for Riverside Memorial Chapel. After all, what could the Times possibly find objectionable about ads involving dead Jews?

'SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!"

Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system. I feel better now.

Of the three, The Omega Man had the biggest impact on me when I saw it as a 13 year old in 1971 at the venerable Border Theatre in Mission, Texas. Everything in the movie dazzled me, from the eerie, empty streets of Los Angeles to the extreme irony of Heston, as sole survivor scientist Robert Neville mouthing the words to "Woodstock" as he watches it in a theater. What really gripped my imagination? Hint: what would most appeal to a 13 year old curious about the many-splendored possibilities between a man and woman?

I'll have to find the movie and give it another viewing to see how well it holds up.

Any other Heston sci-fi fans out there? What's your favorite scene or line?

Jackson plays the farmer Lazarus (more than a little symbolism in that name), embittered by the end of his marriage, who finally gets back to his true calling of blues musician through his friendship with trailer-park strumpet Ricci. In watching Jackson play and the plot unfold against the background of sinners trying to get right with God, I was struck by the movie's spiritual connection to Robert Duvall's Oscar winning Tender Mercies, from 1983. While Tender Mercies got great reviews and rewards, Black Snake Moan was considered exploitative dreck by some reviewers.

But it's not. I'll tell you why.

I could see Mac and Lazarus on a rural porch, dusk in Texas or Tennessee, guitars in hand, swapping tales of juke joints and pool halls, tearing a music hall apart on Saturday night then scrambling to get to church on time.

It's that kind of movie, one to think about.

Hillary Clinton walked into a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review conference room last Tuesday to meet with some of the newspaper's editors and reporters and declared, "It was so counterintuitive, I just thought it would be fun to do."

The room erupted in laughter. Her remark defused what could have been a confrontational meeting.

More than that, it said something about the New York senator and former first lady who hopes to be America's next president.

Maybe I'll take another look at Hillary. If Scaife can, I can, too.

It's obvious to me: McCain is going to go for a fusion ticket with Lieberman as VP. Unless he decides to go really innovative with Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana or some other innovative choice, McCain has made his choice. Get ready for an old-fashioned White House seder with all the fixins!

Also spracht Kesher Talk.

Now, Meir Soloveichik has a long and riveting article in Commentary on the image and use of the menorah. He writes,

But if the menorah has indeed been returned, and if the defeat wrought by Titus has been reversed, why then do observant Jews continue to mourn what Titus brought about? Why does the ninth of Av, which embodies the twin ideas of exile and dispersion, need to be observed at all?

In answering this question we need to examine the enigmatic image of the menorah more closely, and revisit a mystery that has confounded many over the centuries.

It's well worth printing and reading.

The second factor appeared yesterday when Ralph Nader '55 announced he was throwing his fuel-efficient hat into the ring once again.

Now if only Donald Rumsfeld '54 would get involved as an advisor to John McCain, the orange-and-black coloration would be complete . . .

I can't definitely vouch for the religious heritage of other speakers, but some of them sure sound and look MOTish to me: Logan Levkoff, Dr. Helen Fisher, Scott Barry Kauffman, Dr. Susan Block, actor/director Paul Thomas, Dr. Judy Kuriansky and Steven Hirsch, co-founder of Vivid Entertainment, whose contract performers will be appearing at Sex Week events.

This sounds like lots of fun, worth a Kesher Talk field trip up I-95 for in-depth reporting.

Teachers, parents and students at the school, which is mostly Hispanic and black, were equally taken aback by the sight of their new leader: A member of the Chabad-Lubavitch sect of Hasidic Judaism with a beard, a black hat and a velvet yarmulke.

“The talk was, ‘You’re not going to believe who’s running the show,’ ” said Lisa DeBonis, now an assistant principal. . .

Mr. Waronker, 39, a former public school teacher, was in the first graduating class of the New York City Leadership Academy, which Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg created in 2003 to groom promising principal candidates. Considered one of the stars, he was among the last to get a job, as school officials deemed him “not a fit” in a city where the tensions between blacks and Hasidic Jews that erupted in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in 1991 are not forgotten.

Think about that "not forgotten." What is that supposed to mean? Who's not forgetting, and what are the implications of memory? That blacks and Hasidic Jews are in a state of eternal warfare?

The story really gets priceless when Gootman interviews a parent:

In fact, one parent, Angie Vazquez, 37, acknowledged that her upbringing had led her to wonder: “Wow, we’re going to have a Jewish person, what’s going to happen? Are the kids going to have to pay for lunch?”

Let's deconstruct what's going on here.

I wonder how the premise would play out in a Jewish or white neighborhood if a minority principal came in. Would the Times go all googly-eyed that the principal succeeded, or would we get a story more along the lines of, "Facing waves of hostility from the racist swine -- many of them Jewish -- who have long treated the school as a bastion of elitist achievements, the new principal remade the school with a bracing dose of multicultural celebration and a grudging acknowledgement of the evils of white privilege."

Honestly, that's the way the story would play.

Well, look who's blogging! Yeah, I know. I have been really burned out. I do plan to get back in the saddle eventually. Maybe even soon.

But I had to stop in and deliver a Super Tuesday report. Most of it is up at Pajamas Media (scroll down), including video from the John McCain rally this morning in Rockefeller Plaza. Part of McCain's speech, plus short interviews with several supporters.

alt="JMC-Rudy.jpg"/>

Jim:

.....But it's not as though it's in the Dems' interest to have Republicans voting in their primary--presumably the opposite is true.

Ben:

Mathematically, it would be very much in their interest, although neither side chooses to think mathematically. (mostly because to be in politics you have to get so psychologically vested in "your guy".)

THe problem is this: Republican primary voters are a subset, Democrat primary voters are a subset. Performance in a vote among a non-random subset does not predict performace in the general vote. A mathematician named Kenneth Arrow actually won a Nobel for figuring out, basically, that no election system is perfect, and all can give skewed results.

For example, let's assume an election in which all 100% of the people will vote in both elections, and in the primary, 50% will vote in the Republican Primary and 50% in the Democrat primary. Let us assume also that even though this is the case, people may switch parties and vote for the opposite in the General election, if it is a preferred candidate.

Let us assume 4 candidates:

A is acceptable to 80% of Democrat Primary Voters and 0% of Republican Voters
B is acceptable to 60% of Democrat Primary Voters and 30% of Republican Voters
C is acceptable to 40% of Democrate Primary Voters and 50% of Republicans.
D is acceptable to 0% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans.

In this scenario, A and D win the primary, and then A wins the general... BUT... had their been no primary, B and C would have been closely matched, with A and D being less popular in a 4-way election. B would beat candidate D in a general election, and C would beat A. Logically, it is in the republicans best interest to nominate C, and the democrats B, in the primaries!

The only way to do this is to get the other side to vote in your primary.

Arrow showed that any system can lead to paradox results, where the winner is someone the majority of voters would not prefer. (A McCain victory in the primary would be exactly that). He went on to suggest a few interesting alternates to our way of voting, including the idea of having everyone allocate points to any and all candidates they liked, with the winner being the one with the highest point score. The paradox there was that the overall winner could be someone whom no one ranked "best"- simply being "good enough" to enough people would win.

Jim:

There's thinking mathematically, and there's also thinking strategically. The scenario I had in mind was Republicans maliciously voting for the less electable Democrat, or vice versa. So in your example, Dems might vote for B because he's more electable, but Republicans would cross over and vote for A, giving A the nomination but assuring a Republican winner in the general election.

Mary:

Just imagine the worst possible results if both sides did that - instead of Mc Cain vs. Obama, or Romney vs. Clinton we'd have Ron Paul vs. Dennis Kucinich. Everybody loses.

The tactic of "maliciously voting" is a perfect example of how an organized campaign of rabid partisanship could destroy a democracy - or at least cripple it for four years.

Ezzie:

More likely, we'd end up with an Independent like Bloomberg.

Jim:

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating that tactic, just explaining why I thought Democrats wouldn't necessarily want Republicans voting in their primary. But I wouldn't be so alarmist about it--attempts at collective voting are pretty tough to pull off.

Mary:

Sure. But I was just going to say that I didn't think Jim was trying to advocate the tactic of 'maliciously voting'. If he was, he probably wouldn't have called it 'maliciously voting' :-)

Ezzie's idea that rabid partisanship, taken to extremes, could empower an independent candidate is appealing.

Rich:

I am not sure but some leftist group tried to do this earlier this year. They were encouraging Democrats to switch and vote in the Republican primary for Romney to take votes from McCain who they saw as there biggest threat against Hillary

Judith:

That's funny. Some Republicans in states where their vote wouldn't make a difference advocated voting for Hillary, because they see her as easier to beat than Obama.

Does anybody remember all the vote-swapping schemes of 2000? And then there are the people living in their own reality-bubble who think voting in Hillary or Obama for four years will somehow disgust the electorate enough so they will want a conservative the next time around, or it will have a salutory effect on the conservative movement for some reason. As one commenter pointed out, Jimmy Carter only served one term and we are still trying to clean up the messes he made.

The problem with this stuff is that you can't predict its effects that far out. I think you need chaos theory to deal with it, which will only tell you that you can't predict this stuff that far out.

Now I remember why I stopped blogging. I am doing this instead of my Hebrew homework.