OBAMA ADMINISTRATION / PROP 8 THE MUSICAL

It's been too long, I know.

So the Obama administration is filling out nicely. I think Hillary's a good choice for Secretary of State -she already has the relationships with many of the world leaders she'll be meeting with which allows her to hit the ground running. She'll be locked into doing Obama's bidding as his diplomatic face (the job has less policy creating power than even senator) so there's no worry she'll go rogue. Great choice. I just wonder if there's a place for Wes Clark in there somewhere he would have made a great Secretary of Defense -maybe Gates is just a place-holder? Richardson as Sec of Commerce is great too. All in all I'm impressed with everyone so far. Folks need to stop carping on the man before he's even sworn in.

In other news: I'm probably the last person to see this, but it's damn funny and has some pretty heavy hitters in it.

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

WHAT IS THIS?

Oh wait -I know I know! Correct me if I'm mistaken but it looks like it's a presidential press conference with a president who knows what the F$%k he's talking about and can actually string a sentence together!

I'd forgotten what that looked like.

Aaaahhh.

HALLELUJAH! / OH NO!

President Barack Hussein Obama.



Wow.

Just wow.

It's still settling-in how significant this is.

I was reading headlines from foreign newspapers yesterday and the overwhelming feeling from the rest of the world seems to be a huge sigh of relief. As though the rest of the world is thinking "Oh thank God, America is back". After all we are in many ways like the world's big-brother (one of them at least -the favorite one?) and I don't mean that in an Orwellian way -that's how the Bush administration sees it- I mean it more literally. The last 8 years must seem like the first time you see your big brother do something that horribly embarrasses you.

The margin of victory for Obama has proven to the world that we weren't irretrievably lost, just ill for a time, and that the very freedoms we champion allow for the possibility that unsavory elements can rise to power. Let us take that lesson to heart, as we did after the McCarthy era, and be vigilant against it.

The sentiment domestically has come to be that finally we can begin the new millennium.

*********************************************************************

Sadly, here in California the tears of joy were mixed with tears of anguish as the bigoted proposition 8, which bans gay marriage and overturns a state supreme court decision interpreting the California constitution to allow and protect it, passed.

The haters after several tries finally figured out that they couldn't simply pass the ban in CA via statute, and they were right -any statute that discriminates against a classification of people and denies them rights available and protected for other people can't withstand judicial scrutiny without a compelling (dire) or at least important reason -and no, offense to a religious moral code doesn't qualify. Therefore they had to amend the state constitution because amending the constitution means that the statute becomes a part of the constitution and therefore cannot -by definition- be unconstitutional.

Interesting too the historical timeline of the "enlightenment" of these troglodytes: First they passed the federal Defense Of Marriage Act which has only stood for as long as it has because the majority on the SCOTUS has refused to take up the issue. The reason for that is that the precedent is so clear that if they did take up the issue they would either have to allow gays to marry or ignore the entire history of Equal Rights Jurisprudence in this country which would tar their legacy forever and make them look like idiots for antiquity. As long as they can the majority 5 jackbooted thugs on the SCOTUS will therefore ignore the issue.

The bigots however realized that their days are numbered (and a look at the poll results this week confirms the writing on the wall: overwhelmingly voters under 35 voted NO.) so they began working toward a federal Constitutional amendment. The problem is that the Founders were too smart for them and made it exceedingly difficult to change the Constitution without overwhelming support. The Federal Constitution cannot be amended unless 2/3rds of BOTH houses pass the amendment and it is then ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Interestingly, the bigots having grasped the enormity of their task, suddenly embraced federalism and opined that it is an issue best left to the individual states.

Which brings us to today: The bigots have now passed a constitutional amendment to the California constitution banning gay marriage which means that the measure cannot be stricken down as unconstitutional.

But not so fast.

A few lawsuits have been initiated against the validity of the initiative and they appear pretty solid. I have to admit that I was pretty shocked at first to find out that the state constitution could be amended so easily -by a simple majority vote on a ballot initiative. The founders warned against a "pure" democracy because it could lead to a tyranny of the majority, and therefore placed protections for the minority into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A simple majority is too easy to achieve and amending a constitution shouldn't be so easy.

However is appears that my concern has already been addressed: The California constitution CAN be amended via the initiative process for little stuff, but NOT for things that would majorly change the underlying principles under which it was organized. Major changes to the underlying principles of the CA constitution must pass by 2/3 in both state houses AND THEN they can go before the voters. Protecting the rights of minorities is a major principle under which the CA constitution was organized therefore simply putting it on the ballot is improper.

Moreover prop 8 bypasses the Courts and therefore deprives them of performing their essential function of protecting those same minority rights. This is a MAJOR change in the way the courts and the government function in CA and therefore cannot be determined by a ballot initiative which only requires a simple majority.

Additionally I think the CA Supreme Court is going to be a little pissed that their decision was given an end-around by a bunch of out of state religious and in-state wingnut groups and will have a serious desire to slap them back and strike it down. And BTW we need to have a serious discussion in this state about whether we want to continue to allow out-of-state groups to meddle in our state affairs with their money.

So the good news is that this isn't over -not by a long shot, and Jerry Brown the CA Attorney General has stated that the marriages that were performed before the ban are still legal and valid.

**********************************************************************************

Back to the WOW!

ALASKAN RAPE KIT SALE

MAD CRUMPIN'

This is funny as hell:


Unbelievable McCain Vs. Obama Dance-Off - Watch more free videos

THE GRAMPY CAMPAIGN IN 30 SECONDS

I'm pretty forgiving about slips of the tongue -but COME ON! This is quintessential gramps (courtesy TPM):

IT'S STARTED ALREADY

It's started already.

Did you think that Obama's chances were pretty well settled by now? Think again:

WINFIELD, W.Va. -- Three Putnam County voters say electronic voting machines changed their votes from Democrats to Republicans when they cast early ballots last week.

This is the second West Virginia county where voters have reported this problem. Last week, three voters in Jackson County told The Charleston Gazette their electronic vote for "Barack Obama" kept flipping to "John McCain".

In both counties, Republicans are responsible for overseeing elections. Both county clerks said the problem is isolated.

They also blamed voters for not being more careful.

"People make mistakes more than machines," said Jackson County Clerk Jeff Waybright.

Shelba Ketchum, a 69-year-old nurse retired from Thomas Memorial Hospital, described what happened Friday at the Putnam County Courthouse in Winfield.

"I pushed buttons and they all came up Republican," she said. "I hit Obama and it switched to McCain. I am really concerned about that. If McCain wins, there was something wrong with the machines.

"I asked them for a printout of my votes," Ketchum said. "But they said it was in the machine and I could not get it. I did not feel right when I left the courthouse. My son felt the same way.

"I heard from some other people they also had trouble. But no one in there knew how to fix it," said Ketchum, who is not related to Menis Ketchum, a Democratic Supreme Court candidate.

Ketchum's son, Chris, said he had the same problem. And Bobbi Oates of Scott Depot said her vote for incumbent Democratic Sen. John D. Rockefeller was switched to GOP opponent Jay Wolfe.

"I touched the one I wanted, Rockefeller, and the machine put a checkmark on the Republican instead," Oates said of her experience Thursday.

She said she caught the mistake, called over a worker in the county clerk's office and was able to correct her vote. But she worries other voters may not catch such a mistake.

(MORE)

Oh sure this could just be an anomoly and maybe I'm just being paranoid. The point is that we can't ever rest. Can't ever take a breath. We have to completely destroy the ideology that created the mess we're now in or it will rise again. The election, even if we're successful, is just the beginning.

MISSING OSCAR PETERSON

I love this video for so many reasons. Enjoy:

3-AND-OUT

A few observations from the final debate last night:

1. How great are those snap-polls? Used to be that the narrative re who won the debates was fashioned by the commentary from the pundits afterward. Kerry was slaughtered this way in 2004 -it didn't matter how people'd orignally perceived the debate the "opinion-makers" plowed on with their narrative anyway. The snap polls are a beautiful way to bitch-slap the chatterers back into reality, and it's a riot watching them fumble all over themselves back-pedaling from their declarations in the immediate aftermath as the snap-polls come in.
2. McCain is now 0-3 -when's the last time you even heard of that in a presidential race?
3. Debate prep 101 -let your WORDS make your arguments, and try to communicate as little non-verbally as possible. No one scores positive points for their reactions to the other guy's points as he's saying them. Textbook display last night -Grampy's eye-rolling, grimacing, and huffing made him look like the asshole he is.
4. Last night had to be a grand-slam, slam-dunk, game-changing smack-down or other mixed sports metaphors for Gramps, and it definitively was not.
5. Putting quotes around "health of the mother" probably wasn't a very smart move.
6. Don't set yourself up by asking your opponent to give "one, just one" example of anything, because if he does give one, just one, you look like a dork. McCain asked for one example when Obama bucked his party leaders and he gave three. Oops.
7. Joe the Plumber -it appears is a Republican plant. I expect to hear more of this in the coming days but suffice it to say that even if he's legit and McCain was just using him as a bullsh*t story it was a miserable failure. Maybe they should have asked Bob the Builder instead -oh wait his slogan is "Can we fix it? YES WE CAN!" bad idea, nevermind.

This isn't over folks. Can't let up, gotta keep the pressure on -and not just until the election -until the change we need happens and is chiseled into the American statutory framework. Think the GOP is just going to roll-over and let Obama skate once he's in the door? Think again. Look what happened to Clinton from the moment he assumed office. Can't rest. VIGILANCE!

CLARIFICATION (?)

I feel I should clarify my last post, because I re-read it and I think it could appear that while I think same sex marriages should be legal I somehow don't think they are valid. Personally and emotionally to the spouses and their friends, and legally in society they are valid in every way, and anything that adds more love and stability to the world cannot IMHO be invalid.

I was merely trying to point out that that the folks on the political right want to have it both ways -they want to use church doctrine to make secular civil law but would never allow secular civil law to determine church doctrine so their arguments are false.

I.e. I can comfortably assert that if the government were for some reason to ban the Catholic Church (or Mormon or Baptist or whichever) from marrying its parishioners, they'd still do so and recognize the marriages irrespective of the civil law. The Catholic Church e.g. sees marriage as a Sacrament that is both coexisting and separate from the civil contract, and will sanctify marriages based on their own principles regardless what the civil law says. Other churches may or may not consider same sex marriages a sacrament based on their own doctrine, but that is irrelevant to the issue here -which, make no mistake, is one of civil rights.

Therefore talk about "saving" marriage as an "institution" is legerdemain. The religious beliefs are not under attack and can be held regardless what the law says, and yet they want their religious beliefs to substitute for the law in this one instance, regardless whether it tramples the civil rights of others and thus contradicts the civil law.

Finally, I have to say that I find the fact that it's so easy to change the constitution of a state unsettling. There are two ways to change the CA constitution 1) if 2/3 of the state legislature propose an initiative, or 2) if a ballot initiative receives a majority vote. Doesn't that seem contrary to the protections of the minority embodied in the federal Bill of Rights because the Founders feared just such a tyranny of the majority? Scary.

Anyhow I hope the above clears up my position.


OTS: Here's some humor courtesy of the dailyKos:

"John, would you please go in the kitchen and fix me a ham sandwich?"

"Let me say this, Cindy. I know how to fix a ham sandwich, and I will fix a ham sandwich when I'm elected president. For starters, I know where the kitchen is and I know how to find it. I know where the plates are. I know where the bread is, and I will be the one to pull out the right number of slices and place them on the plate in such a way that the mustard can be spread. Yes, my friends, I know where the mustard is and as president I will have a plan to spread it effectively. I know this stuff because I am a maverick. I can do it and I will do it. Let's talk about lettuce. My opponent is inexperienced on this issue. I've been around long enough to know about Romaine, butter, iceberg, bib, Boston and celtuce, as well as loose greens like mesclun. But I promise you this: I will fight every day against the advancing red tide of commie cabbage and I'm not afraid to use force if necessary. I know how to lead this nation in these dangerous leafy times, my friends. Now, I see the yellow light on my lectern is blinking, but if I may for a moment address another critical issue facing this country today, and that is the thickness of domestic pre-packaged ham slices. When I was a POW, we didn’t have ham, my friends, or even a chair..."

"Oh fer god's sake, never mind. I'll have the butler do it."

TWO CENTS (AGAIN)

It's reared its ugly head again. Coincidentally (yeah right) the "religious right" has raised the "same sex marriage" issue during a presidential election year. Now you and I know that the real reason for this is to put a fire under the asses of the fundies to get them to the polls so they'll vote for the republican for president, but others may actually think this is an issue on its own, so I'd like to summarize a few points I blogged in 2004 -the last time the "govt.-out-of-your-life-conservatives" decided to shove government into the lives of some.

1. As far as the government is concerned ALL marriages are technically "civil unions". The separation of Church and state in the 1st amendment prevents any other possible arrangement. The fact that the title "marriage" has survived to name the bundle of rights governments protect is due to "tradition" (habit) and (in)convenience. The title however does not change the nature of what it is -a protection of a bundle of civil and legal rights granted to honor/encourage monogamy. Constitutionally, all civil and legal rights must be granted and protected equally for all and for the government to deny them to anyone based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality or sexual orientation is invideous discrimination and cannot stand. Personally, I think government should get out of the business of "marriage" all together and simply call ALL marriages "civil unions" regardless the gender of the couples.

2. I believe that last sentence to be true because (and here we go) I believe that "Marriage" is a *religious* institution. For this reason marriage needs neither to be "saved" nor "protected" because it stands irrespective of the actions of government. My Catholic faith teaches that "marriage" is the union of one man and one woman into "one flesh" and that the union and is granted/sanctified by God. That doctrine is simply unaffected by whether or not civil authorities decide to grant same sex couples civil and legal rights. Moreover, our constitution makes it impossible for the govt. to determine how churches define marriage. My wife and I got both a license from the state and a certificate from the Catholic Church, however the former was not dependent on the latter and the latter cannot be compelled by the former. Governments can no more force churches to perform or recognize same sex marriages than churches could force governments to enforce church doctrine. Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's". Separation. of Church. and State.

3. Voting down a legislative measure that would allow discrimination is completely consistent with my faith because it is preventing an action not initiating one. Here in California the latest incarnation of this fad is Proposition 8 which was originally called the "California Marriage Protection Act" but was more accurately renamed "Eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry" by Attorney General Jerry Brown to reflect the fact that the California Supreme Court has held that same couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. This measure would change the California constitution, in contravention of the Court's decision to recognize the right, to divest that right only for certain individuals, therefore voting "no" on it doesn't establish any right or action that hadn't already been granted or done -i.e. it doesn't "sanctify" the court's decision because the court was merely reaffirming the state constitution.

Let's be clear -the only reason the gay-bashing crowd have proceeded in this manner is because if a measure is proposed as a mere statute, it must be "tested" against the constitution (federal and state -the federal is the "floor" so states can grant more rights than the federal constitution, but they cannot grant less). If it is determined to be unconstitutional it must be stricken down. Any measure added to the constitution however becomes a part of it and by definition cannot be unconstitutional.

A lot of money has been poured into the "Yes on 8" campaign and a lot of lies and deception have been alleged by that group to further their cause -let's hope the people of California aren't as stupid as they were when they were conned into enacting the 3-strikes law. (but that's another story. )

IT'S THE IDEOLOGY STUPID

Sweet music reported by the NYT yesterday:

"Strategists for both parties say Republican House and Senate candidates are being hurt by the dip in support for Senator John McCain at the top of the ticket, frustrating Republicans who had initially viewed Mr. McCain as a strong asset who could appeal to independents and even moderate Democrats and protect Republicans in a tough year."

This is after the shunning that guppies have given W for the last year ("Bush? Bush who?").

Why?

Because the ideology these buffoons subscribe to is bankrupt, phony, immoral and unpatriotic, and they know it and can't find a rock low enough under which to hide.

Let me reveal one of my core beliefs (which I'm having trouble putting into a succinct maxim --any ideas?): You're going to pay somewhere along the "line".

Somewhere in the normal arc of a person's life -you (we) will be forced to contribute financially to that persons well being. Think about it, these are just some of the ways you'll have to pay (depending on the person's life-path):

pre-natal care
neo-natal care
SCHIP
Preschool
school
juvenile detention/treatment facilities
college scholarships/grants/subsidies
military/medical/veteran/funereal
govt. backed loans
hospitals
drug treatment
occupational therapy
Psychiatric facilities
disaster relief
food banks
increased health insurance premiums to offset non-prevention and indigents
business/agricultural/ tax subsidies
arrest /prosecution
prison
social security
medicaid/medicare
burial/cremation

This is just a cursory list and doesn't even take into account infrastructure costs to get us all around. At some point on the continuum whether we like ot or not, we will collectively pay for one or more of the above. I.e. somewhere along the line you're going to pay -even if it's just to dispose of a person's corpse.

Any ideology which ignores this fact is to put it politely -kidding itself. (putting it impolitely requires too many expletives for this page's sensibilities). Even if you claim we as a people shouldn't be paying for "those (insert your favorite sin/epithet here)" because of their life choices, we will. Some of these services can of course be privatized but without government support they are only available to those who by hook or crook can afford them -and it's nearly guaranteed that those who can afford them "on their own" are able to do so because of the labor/sacrifice/charity of those who couldn't.

Moreover, economically it's more efficient to pay for them preventively than as a solution to a crisis when the costs are exponentially more.

Now don't misunderstand me -I'm not saying that those whose industry or ingenuity has made them money don't deserve it or that all should have the same level of services -that would be communism. I'm saying that in a society in which we've decided that all people are created equal and in which we've agreed that all have inalienable rights we have a moral and logical imperative to ensure that the above services are available to all regardless of their income, and any idiology that seeks to redistribute wealth by depriving some of access to the above is not only doomed to failure, but selfish unpatriotic and should be criminal.

We now see the results of this ideology daily as headlines, and try as they may they can't hide from it anymore.

Anyone who decries the inevitability of taxes and the providing of these of services is therefore not only a hypocrite, but a traitor. We are the government. Ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, therefore if you hate "government" you necessarily hate We the People.

The Republicans are finally being called on this and that's why it doesn't matter who is at the top of their pyramid -it's toxic and they can't escape it anymore.

SHE WANTS TO PLAY?

She wants to play?

Fine, let's play:

HE ASKED FOR IT

Grampy is getting desperate:

• The Alaskan Bimbo is parroting anew the William Ayers bullsh*t.
• The introductory speaker at her rally in FL dropped the Hussein-bomb today
• Bill Kristol tries to reintroduce the Reverend Wright lies. Asshole.

So Ok. that's the way Grampy wants to react to his numbers circling the drain? It's not as if he doesn't have a past that warrants questioning. So here we go:

I STAND CORRECTED

I stand corrected! I don't think that any reasonable interpretation of the debate last night could come to the conclusion that Sarah Palin won.

The short version is this: yes she was better than expected but, unfortunately for her, so was Biden, which means that on balance Obama wins, because it wasn't a game-changer, so Grampy continues his slide without anything intervening to prevent it.

The longer version is that Biden masterfully threaded the needle. As I last posted, Biden needed to follow Andrew Halcro's advice and respectfully ignore her. He played it exactly right and made his performance all about attacking McCain. She clearly didn't answer the majority of the questions -and even said outright that she wouldn't! In a debate!

Her performance consisted solely of giving speeches parroting talking points and peppered with attacks on Biden and Obama too obviously fashioned by her handlers. This meant that she (unsurprisingly) was unable to answer not only the questions put to her, but the major implied question of the night (and indeed the whole race for her): could she be president? Even the most positive reviews have to answer no to that question, and her performance did nothing to convince anyone otherwise.

Therefore, since Biden had a clear and facile command of the facts and was to all perceptions speaking from his OWN mind, the victory goes to Obama. Last night had to be a game-changer for McCain and it wasn't.

WHY SARAH PALIN WILL "WIN" THE DEBATE

Jed Lewison of the Jed Report and the Huffington Post has a nice compilation of past debate moments from Sarah Palin that should send a chill down the spine of any Democrats feeling that Biden will "wipe the floor" with her:



In the accompanying article he quotes Andrew Halcro, an Alaska legislator who has debated Palin a few dozen times, saying that Palin is the master of the non-answer. I.e. when she's asked a question, she generally answers the question by saying how important the issue is and giving examples of why it's important but not anything about where she stands on the issue. If you think back, that's what she's done with every interview so far. The problem has been that, in a one-on-one interview, it doesn't generally fly -interviewers bristle when they ask a question that they've worked hard to prepare and the interviewee sluffs it off and talks about something irrelevant.

A debate structure is different however, because the moderator is less likely to call her on it (and in fact the campaign has been laying the groundwork for that all month, with their whining about "gotcha" questions and the like) and the time constraints structure the responses more so that she'll be able to use her response time to great scattershot effect by lobbing major attacks and filling up the rest of the time with folksy non-answers and soundbytes, forcing Biden to use more of his response time to answer her attacks and less time to answer the questions himself. In the end if she merely doesn't completely expolde, she wins because the expectations game has lowered the bar to such an extent that she only needs to be perceived as having the ability to complete a sentence, and regardless the opinion you have of her you have to admit -particularly with the evidence above- that she can at least do that.

So that leaves Biden with an unexpectedly narrow path to victory. The only way to defeat her in this scenario is, as Katie Couric revealed, to make her answer the question -or somehow point out that she's not. This is difficult because saying it outright will ensure he's labeled as a bully.

I agree with Halcro that Biden needs to "ignore Palin in a respectful manner on the stage and answer the questions as though he were alone" but my take is that he needs not only to give thorough succinct answers but purposely go overtime. When he's inevitably wrangled by the moderator he should say something like - "well you've asked a complicated question and I want to make sure I give a thorough answer" or "do I have time? -I want to make sure I answer your question". Moreover he should point out as much as possible that he's in fact answering the question e.g. "the answer to your question is...", "good question I'd like to answer it by...", and "does that answer your question?" etc. This will contrast that she's not answering the questions and reveal her weaknesses.

Don't think for a second that the image that has come out of her as a bumbler in the last month is accidental -this is exactly the same tactic they used in 2004 when Kerry was expected to destroy Bush in the debates. They down played Bush and propped up Kerry so much that all Bush had to do was not completely blow it to be declared the winner. It's classic rope-a-dope.

Finally -Biden has the ability to turn on the charm a himself and can level quite a backhanded compliment when he wants to. Let's hope he times it right and gets the quote of the night.

MY TAKE

HOPE FOR THE REPUBLIC

Thank God that there are still a few honest members of Congress:



from CSPANjunkie.org via Eschaton

Kick her some cash if you can.

Adding -what exactly is this "700 billion dollars" figure based on? As far as I can figure it's pure conjecture amounting to nothing more than their asking for it. Why not as someone on the news said 75 billion with more to come if they need it and can justify it?

The reason is that the sober alternative presented by Rep. Kaptur above fails to accomplish their objective -breaking the government. As Grover Norquist is fond of splathering they want to shrink government to the size where they can drown it in the bathtub. They're running out of time to do that however so they're trying the nuclear option which will destroy any attempt to do anything that might actually help the American People.

This is a terrorist act. They simply don't get that we are the government and that any action that impacts us so dreadfully should be seen as a declaration of war. They should be tried for treason and put in f**king jail to rot.

UPDATE -OH DEAR ME

So it appears that Grampy's campaign manager didn't just receive money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -but did so AS RECENTLY AS LAST MONTH. Worse -it seems that they were compiling a secret cash stash about which the FEC might want to have a word with them.

No matter, the rest of the media will turn over and resume their nap.

OH DEAR

This is a huge story. It should completely obliterate the McLame campaign, but it won't because the MSM won't give it the attention it deserves. Meanwhile the Double-Talk express chuggs along to 1600 Pennsylvania ave.

To wit:

Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CHARLES DUHIGG
Published: September 21, 2008

Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

Scared yet?

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

This is the most straight forward explanation of the subprime mortgage crisis and its ramifications and implications that I've seen yet. It's pretty funny too -or would be if it weren't true. Whoever wrote this has my eternal gratitude!

Without any further ado we present: The Subprime Primer! (press the "plus" sign under the "down-arrow" menu on the right if you can't read the text)

CDO Powerpoint SubPrime Primer - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: CDO Powerpoint SubPrime Primer

So tell me that this doesn't need to be regulated?

It always floors me when you hear some (inevitably republican or "independent") jagoff criticize government practices or the administration of government programs by saying some tripe like "you wouldn't see that in the business world -a company like that (the government) would be drummed out of the market! harumph harumph."

Now we're (i.e. the taxpayers via the cavalry actions of the govt.) on the hook for the incompetence and thievery in the corporate world anyway -so what's the goddamn difference?!?!?!

Can we finally put that canard to rest as pure unadulterated horsesh*t? If anything it's WORSE in the corporate world. There are few enough regulations on competency and fewer all the time. Sarbanes-Oxley was a start -but it's easily gamed (BTW check McCain's record of voting on regulation -and please tell your relatives not to sue me if you then jump out the window given his latest "stance"), and the entire corporate sphere is ruled by the "take your piece and CYA" golden rule. Of course the markets are melting down -it's not like you couldn't see it coming.

Next time one of your "independent" or "libertarian" (i.e. republican who wants to keep his porn collection) friends loads this line of crap on you, tell em to STFU.

UPDATE -MCCAIN IS WORSE

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks "more of the same" isn't a strong enough message for Obama to campaign on -Frank Rich of the NYT agrees:

"This election is still about the fierce urgency of change before it’s too late. But in framing this debate, it isn’t enough for Obama to keep presenting McCain as simply a third Bush term. Any invocation of the despised president — like Iraq — invites voters to stop listening. Meanwhile, before our eyes, McCain is turning over the keys to his administration to ideologues and a running mate to Bush’s right.

As Republicans know best, fear does work. If Obama is to convey just what’s at stake, he must slice through the campaign’s lipstick jungle and show Americans the real perils that lie around the bend."

(OP attempts to break arm by patting self on back).

TIME TO OPEN UP A CAN OF WHOOP-ASS

Sarah Palin keeps telling her Bridge to Nowhere lies. Testament to the fact that these people really don't give a sh*t w/r they're caught in bold faced lies or not. As long as they're heard they'll stick for some people.

In her one unbelievably softball interview with Charlie Gibson she dodged every question and recited the GOP talking points that had been fed to her like a good parrot.

When she was asked about the single most important element of the Bush foreign policy "the Bush doctrine" (preemption) she demonstrated utter ignorance. "You mean his world-view?" The right are now trying to play it off as insignificant because "ordinary americans don't know what it means". This "she's just like us" crap is unbelieveably stupid -are ordinary americans competing to be leader of the free world? I'd rather have someone who is not like me but is able to handle the job in office.

Grampy has put out some of the most sleazy election materials ever, and is sticking by them. He continues to lie about Obama's words, plans for policy, and record and has yet to be truly slammed for it by anyone.

This is how they're going to campaign, and chastising them for it is like telling your dog how much better you are than him because you poop in a toilet -while there's still the stink of a load on the floor.

The rumbles in the netroots seem to be wondering when the hell Obama's going to slap the bejesus out of gramps (figuratively of course) -and rightfully so since he has yet to level a serious attack. His latest ad faulting grampy for not knowing how to send email or use a computer is a lame-assed attempt to show out of touch he is. Not good enough. "out of touch" isn't a strong enough message, and for that matter neither is "more of the same" because the glass-half-full folks will continue in their haze thinking "oh well, at least it's not worse".

Obama's camp needs to take a lesson from the nightly news magazine shows:

One thing 20/20 48 hours and Dateline NBC know how to do is pull in viewers via what I call the "watch this story because your life may depend on it" stories. Ever notice how they all have at least one story that is tagged as such? (inevitably it's the last story of the night) Disease warnings, terror alerts (something the republicans used to incredible advantage) Safety warnings, etc. all compel the viewer to watch.

Obama needs not only to warn about more of the same -he needs to show that McCain would be much worse. He doesn't have to lie or slander to do it either. He can do it by emphasizing the truth.

1. McCain has said that he doesn't mind if we stay in Iraq for 50-100 years.
2. He says there'll be more wars.
3. He's used agressive tones toward bigger enemies (Russia, Iran)
4. He says the fundamentals of the american economy are sound -and therefore implies and outright states he'll continue Bush economic policy -Bush had the Clinton surplus to work with (destroy). If McCain does it, from where does he start? From the current state of the economy -therefore the effect will be MUCH WORSE.
5. McCain is an even bigger believer in privitization than Bush - he doesn't believe in public education and wants to deregulate business even further.
6. He is a 72-year-old 4 time survivor of the most deadly form of skin cancer, yet his running mate has displayed a profound ignorance about even the most elementary domestic and foreign policies.
7. He isn't just a "maverick" but all through his life has had documented incidents showing him to be a tempermental "loose cannon" and he's not likely to mellow as he continues to advance in age.

You think McCain would be more of the same? Think again -he's much worse.

McCain needs to be punched in the face with his own words/policies with no mercy. High-minded above the fray policy debates aren't going to do it. People have to be made to feel that if they vote for McCain they'll be dooming the country. That's no exaggeration.

How you campaigned isn't going to mean a damn thing if you lose.

THE CHOICE IS STILL CLEAR

Never before has the choice we face in a presidential election been so clearly defined:

• Do we want to continue dumping 10 billion a month in Iraq with no forseeable exit, or do we want to withdraw our troops and use the money here?
  
• Do we want to address the healthcare needs of our citizens or continue to allow private corporations decide who gets to be healthy?
  
• Do we want to continue to let only the wealthiest among us benefit from the tax code, or do we want to reduce the tax load for the majority of us and make the wealthy pay more of their fair share?
  
• Do we want to lead the way in transforming the energy economy of the world, or do we want to bolster a dying industry for it's own short term benefit?
  

And finally,

• Do we want to keep the party in power whose policies have wrought failure catastrophe and ruin to the country for the last 8 years, or do we at long last want to say that we've had enough?
  

It's not as though I'm making any novel statements here, but I feel that this election has become so muddied that people feel that the choices are somehow closer than they are. They're actually still pretty stark.

Grampy and the Bim ("this fall on ABC!") have obviously noticed the above themselves and seen that when the choices are clearly defined -they lose, and so have resorted to obfuscating the truth and stealing Obama's message by telling a series of shockingly (to everyone apparently save the journalists ignoring them) bold-faced lies.

Will people be sharp enough and committed enough to sift through them and see the scam that's being pulled on them in plain sight? I honestly don't know.

THE SARAH PALIN NO COMMENT WATCH CLOCK

Courtesy of The Jed Report, this blog now features the Sarah Palin No-Comment Watch Clock!

Apparently the latest line from the republicowards is that, gosh, Sarah's just not ready to talk to the press yet.

And yet this is the person whom they feel is ready to lead the free world in the event that a 72-year-old 4-time cancer survivor for some reason can't fulfill his duties as President of the United States (all 50 of them) .

But, gee, she's just not ready to tackle talking to reporters yet. That might actually require her to do something like, oh I don't know, answer questions.

The clock at left tracks the time betwen their naming her the nominee and her first interview.

IT'S DONE

Even the truncated GOP convention was too long. The 3-day parade of sociopaths was particularly galling this year, perhaps because of the sheer number of bold faced lies that was crapped on the country without even blinking an eye.

That’s it really –they’re sociopaths: no conscience, no empathy, no humility, no humanity. Nada.

My wife and I are relatively recent fans of the Showtime Dexter series (ah the wonders of “On-demand”) and consequently the series of books by Jeff Lindsay. For the uninitiated: the protagonist Dexter is a serial killer who has been trained by his Cop father to use his sickness for “good” i.e. he only kills the most despicable criminals –and never the innocent. (Interesting quandary for anti-death penalty folks like me –good thing it’s only fiction) .

Dexter describes himself as a broken person incapable of any kind of human emotion, but who, after years of practice has been able to teach himself the proper appearance of emotion. Eg. He cannot feel compassion but he can fake it so that people don’t suspect.

My Friends ;-) that is what we just finished witnessing –an orgiastic exultation of sociopathy dedicated to the proposition that all rich whites are created equal and the rest of us are to be either utilized for their aggrandizement or destroyed. Looking into the eyes of the speakers, from W on down, revealed nothing but cold calculation. They’ll say whatever they need to say to grasp the reins of executive power –but only because those reins harness the greatest revenue-generating mechanism ever known to humankind. They don’t care a rat’s ass about governing, they don’t really even know what the term means other than “you have to do what I say” and in their case “do what I say” means “give me your money”, all the while complaining about taxes.

The irony that they’re using government to take even more money from the public to shove into the private is completely lost because seeing irony requires some understanding that hypocrisy is wrong, and like Dexter, they’re simply lacking that faculty.

Those cheering in the audience and across the nation are either equally broken, or too stupid to be able to discern after 8 years of ruin rained down upon them from these jackals, that they’ve been had. Examples of both were abundant on the TV this week: from the people who actually booed-down the Iraq and Afghanistan vets who protested inside the hall last night (shouting “USA! USA!” to even more palpable irony) to the dopey delegate who was, “gosh, just soo excited because Sarah Palin is a mother.” (BTW can we call sexism here? Can you imagine what the response would be if any male candidate for political office actually had the temerity to list the fact that he was a father as a resume qualification? He’d be laughed out of the race.)

Finally, what was on display and what has taken over their cult is a declaration that war is sacrosanct. No one dare question it or any thing that happens as a result of it. It is the trump card of all trump cards and it wipes clean any indiscretion –no matter how outrageous. The very idea that they were shameless enough to show a video praising our attack of Iraq as a response to 9/11 proves my theory. They’re simply broken beyond repair and they will suffer a long slow march into ignominy.

< /screed>.

STEPPING FORWARD?

p>

Portrayal Of Obama As Snob Hailed As Step Forward For Blacks

These guys are so good I wonder how long it'll be until "legitimate" news organizations start mistakenly citing them as sources.

TIME FOR SOME CAMPAIGNIN'

My Uncle forwarded this to me from jib-jab.

Time for Some Campaignin' | Funny Jokes at JibJab

RANDOM MUSINGS

So I was flipping my channels on my Sirius radio this morning and I stopped on the “Sirius Left” channel which was broadcasting one Lynn Samuels. I listened for a few minutes and came to the not so shocking conclusion that small but vocal portions of the electorate are just plain f**king nuts.

Listening to Ms. Samuels it became clear that she is a Hillary Clinton supporter who simply cannot come to grips with the fact that Hillary won't be the nominee, and that this has sent her off the deep end. Her sheer vitriol toward Obama and her utter sycophantic worship of all things Clinton was jarring, and what was even more disturbing was that caller after caller was ready to throw in the towel because Hillary is not the nominee, and if not support McCain, completely bash Obama based on nothing other than bitterness. It was adolescent and puerile, and because these people are supposedly on the same "side" I am, embarrassing.

It illustrated perfectly the difference between those whose political passions are based in stances on the issues and belief in policy, and those whose politics are a reflection of their own personalities and egos. Both parties are rife with both types and there are probably many points on the spectrum between these two poles, though I've seen more of the latter type on the right. In fact you could say that it's just this kind of "play my way or I'm taking my ball and going home" paradigm that has defiled the country for the last 7 1/2 years.

The Neocon cabal that hijacked the GOP could give a rat's ass about conservative values or idiology but did whatever the hell they wanted to do and only pandered to the "true believers" as insurance that they'd be able to stay in for long enough to complete as much of their objective as possible. And the objective was simple -money. It was all a giant cash grab. Sign on and we'll cut you in. Stand in our way and we'll eliminate you. Real conservatives believe in reducing government restraining spending and keeping their noses out of other peoples' business. These folks did the exact opposite in every area of endeavor and because they'd bought the press they were able to distract the public away from their having done so. It was all about them -their investments, their businesses, their rights, and f**k anybody who dared challenge them -whether from their own side or the opposition. You were either on their bus or under it.

That's the same attitude that I heard from Samuels and her callers. If they don't get their piece of the pie served their way they'd just as soon shit on it. It's no surprise though -look at the candidate they follow: she was willing to repeatedly bash a fellow candidate from her own party and praise the candidate from the opposition party for her own political gain. Didn’t matter that if she lost she’d have screwed the issues she alleged to support. Didn’t matter that she’d not bothered to actually wage a coherent campaign –damn it people had better give her what she wanted or they’d pay. Thank God she didn’t succeed. Moreover, it’s not as if this was some sort of new attitude she had –she behaved the same way with her healthcare plan during her husband’s administration and it blew up in her face then too.

Now –just as I’d predicted- the gramps campaign are using her idiotic slagging and lies verbatim in their ads, and her zombies are insisting that they get…what exactly? It’s insanity.

* * *

Speaking of insanity: I was at the gym the other day behind the Orange Curtain (this is a local expression referring to the fact that that Orange County next to LA is infamously conservative and mocking it as similar to the Berlin Wall.), and unsurprisingly FOXNews was on in the locker-room. The “discussion” centered on how somehow making fun of Gramps’ not knowing how many houses he owns is an attack on his wife because, poor thing, it’s not her fault that she’s rich. “Oh Waaah”, I said and some old guy –obviously only hearing my tone and not my comment and thinking he’d find a sympathetic ear said “What the hell does it matter how many houses he owns” and I said something like “well gee, I think it matters a hell of a lot seeing as though the housing market’s gone to hell in a handbasket and a rising number of folks can’t pay their mortgages”. To which he replied –well “it’s really gonna be screwed if that n----- gets in there.”

Yep, he actually said it.

I looked him in the eye and said “what did you just say?” and he looked a bit surprised, and then rattled off a litany about how Putin was going to push “that boy” around just the same way as [Khrushchev] did Kennedy and began shuffling out the door going on about how he’d trained to fight those “commies and g**ks” to which I replied “yeah I’m sure you did you f***ing racist”, and he was gone.

Reminds me that while we have a great deal to be proud of as a nation at this moment, we still have a lot of work to do. This guy actually thought it was OK to say the n-word to a total stranger in a public place.

SO IT'S BIDEN

Well I admit that I'm slightly disappointed that it's not Wes Clark, but I don't think he was ever seriously in the running.

It's been said that the first rule of picking a Vice President is "don't f**k it up" and it's pretty clear that Obama hasn't done that here. He could have done much worse.

Biden's a good choice for many reasons -perhaps the most important being that he can serve as an experienced guide for Obama through the entrenched ways of the beltway without overshadowing him. In this respect he's sort of the Anti-Cheney: an experienced politician and legislator but one for whom (unlike Cheney) there will be no fears of a "shadow presidency".

Biden's also a great surrogate: while he has a pretty fierce attack-dog mode, he's definitely not a loose cannon (to mix matephors). I.e. he can snark it up with the best of them but isn't likely to naively go too far, and will be able to say many of the things that need to be said for the campaign to suceed but which it would be impolitic for Obama himself to say.

In addition, being from Delaware, Biden shores up Obama's cred with businesses (most corporations in the US are incorporated in Delaware -for tax and other business-friendly reasons.) without necessarily being seen as a stooge for corporate america -Biden has perhaps the lowest net worth of any Senator.

And finally, it's pretty clear that Biden's foreign policy experience will strengthen the ticket as well.

Already the grampy mobile has released an "atack ad" showing a quote from Biden saying he "would be honored to run with or against McCain because the country would be better off"

Um... idiots at the Grampy campaign -"honored to run with or against" means that in either case Biden is on the ticket and therefore he's saying that the country would be better off ...with Biden. Just saying. I know you guys are desperate to climb out from under the "I don't know how many houses I own" rock that has crashed down on you all -but you might try actually thinking about quotes before you trot them out?

DEVASTATION

Bush to tour areas of the country destroyed by his presidency:



Sometimes you just have to stand in awe of The Onion

TEAM WHAT?

The Jed Report found this from a Republican blogger -who, understandably, didn't emphasize it (though to be fair he did point it out). A little "unintentional" editorializing from the Mineapolis Star Tribune?

THE HITS KEEP COMING

Newsflash: I was actually ready to cut grampy some slack on one in what has come to be an assembly line of geography gaffes.

I really was because, to be brutally honest, if I'd been given a pop-quiz I would have failed the "Czech Republic/Slovakia question" too. I know, I know "...but a sitting senator who touts his foreign policy cred should have known this!" But really I can't muster much outrage about goofing a reference to a nation not currently in the world spotlight -particularly since it was Czechoslovakia for so long.

However just when I raise my fingers before dropping them on the keys to pen a "y'know what I don't get?" column gramps saves me the trouble by screwing up even worse -and with a set of nations that everyone is watching.

Still reeling from the Maliki smack-down in endorsing Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq in 16 months the old fart tried desperately to deflect a question about it and came up with this little gem:

Asked by ABC's Diane Sawyer Monday morning whether the "the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent," McCain responded:

"I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border," said McCain, R-Ariz., said on "Good Morning America."

Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Afghanistan and Pakistan do.

Ok this is getting downright dangerous -he admits he doesn't understand economics, he changes his positions on domestic issues daily has deep ties to an industry that is only now imploding due its having rotted from the inside with corruption and incompetence and now can't understand basic geographic facts about nations in which we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars and stretching our military to the breaking point?

Gee, but he's an affable and avuncular old fellow. Serves great barbecue -just ask the press.

OH THIS IS TOO RICH

I've been too depressed lately to really blog on the FISA disaster. It's just too dark a day for America that the Congress (with the notable help of many Democrats including my own Senator Feinstein) actually passed a law that both allows the executive branch to warrantlessly wiretap American citizens calls abroad whether they're suspected of any wrongdoing of any kind or not, and immunizes a past executive branch spying program that neither the American public nor even many of the senators voting on the damn bill knows anything about. Not the end of the world but certainly royal bitch-slapping of the 4th amendment. Glen Greenwald has the best coverage/take on the subject.

But if you wanted a full out belly laugh to relieve the depression here's a story (courtesy Americablog) that'll fill the bill: Apparently grampy's a bigamist.

You read that right -he wasn't divorced from his first wife when he married his second.

(PC ALERT!!!!!) I guess that's the power of rich poontang. < /mysogeny>

Do you want an even bigger laugh? Picture what the news cycle for the last year would have been like if this had been done by any democrat!!

iokyar fidelis.

R.I.P. GEORGE CARLIN

I woke up this morning to find out that George Carlin died last night of a heart attack. This hits me harder than I thought it would.

As Jon Stewart once said, listening to Class Clown was a right of passage. Stewart's about my age, and for boys growing up in the 70's Carlin was a god, a grownup who actually said all the things you'd said among your friends but were told never to say by your parents and certainly never heard anywhere else. What's more, he did it with an intelligence and wit that was absent from other current and later comedians who had the cursing without the intelligence. I think that's why my mom didn't mind that I listened to them. I could practically recite verbatim whole routines at 9 or 10, in fact it's not a stretch to say that my early fascination with language was greatly influenced by equal parts of Monty Python's Flying Circus, and Carlin's albums.

I had all of Carlin's early albums and played them till they were scratched and crackly. AM/FM, Occupation Foole, Class Clown, Toledo Window Box, An Evening With Wally Londo, and On the Road. I lost a bit of interest in the 80's partly because financial constraints no longer allowed me to purchase his albums, but also I think in hindsight because his career slipped a bit then. His albums started to seem a bit formulaic -a few rants about "the man", a few drug references, and a few bizarre non-sequiturs, but without the soul or wit that his earlier material had. His television specials also diminished and at times seemed a bit awkward because it appeared that he felt that he had to guild his punchlines with mugging. In later interviews he referred to a period where he "lost himself" as a comedian and one surmises that that's what he meant. I believe that this period was also when the drugs took over his life both physically and financially. This would have been from about the mid to late '80's through the early '90's and included the albums "Playin' With Your Head", and "What Am I Doing In New Jersey"?

He came back with a vengeance in the 90s sparked in part by the Tipper Gore PMRC debacle with the aptly named "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" and never slipped again (IMO).

In 2000 my Constitutional Law professor played the "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" to my class and I have to say that (beside the fact that it seemed so tame after all the years of controversy) it was a sheer delight to watch and hear the reactions of kids (by kids I mean early 20's ;-) ) who had actually never heard the routine before. They couldn't quite grasp what the fuss had been all about. Carlin would have been proud.

I can't begin to explain the profound sadness I feel at his passing -particularly at such a young age. 71 is barely retirement age now. He leaves behind a body of work that is unsurpassed in its scope, prolificness, wit and laughing out loud humor as well as its quintessential example of linguistic balance -in that sense it's no exaggeration to place Carlin as one of the modern Shakespearean torch bearers.

Wonder if he got his "two minute warning"?

"Now, you might be wondering why I would even suggest that someone can affect the manner and style of his death. Well, it's because of a mysterious and little-known stage of dying, the two-minute warning. Most people are not aware of it, but it does exist. Just as in football, two minutes before you die you receive an audible warning: "Two minutes! Get your shit together!" And the reason most people don't know about it is because the only ones who hear it are dead two minutes later. They never get a chance to tell us.

But such a warning does exist, and I suggest that when it comes, you use your two minutes to entertain and go out big. If nothing else, deliver a two-minute speech. Pick a subject you feel passionate about, and just start talking. Begin low-key, but, with mounting passion, build to a rousing climax. Finally, in the last few seconds, scream at those around you, "If these words are not the truth, may God strike me dead!" He will. Then simply slump forward and fall to the floor. Believe me, from that moment on, people will pay more attention to you."

-From "Napalm and Silly Putty" (though orignially featured on "On the Road")

SHOCKING

At last the scandal unfolds and the horrifying Michelle Obama "Whitey" video actually surfaces!



How can Obama possibly survive this shameful display!!!

Actually -hat tip to my college classmate Chris Harcum who sent this -he's an actor, acting teacher, playwright and jack of all theatrical trades in New York.

HERE'S A WIERD THEORY

Steve Rosenbaum forcasts in the Huffington Post :

"At some point in mid August, John McCain will announce that he has decided that he can not accept his party's nomination for president. The reason will be health-related, and that may turn out to be the truth. Anyone who's seen him on stage these days knows he looks like he's about to keel over. And anyone who's been on a presidential campaign knows the physical demands are grueling and can be a challenge for a young man.

But excuses or facts hardly matters. He won't be accepting his party's nomination.

The reasons are simple. He can't win. Now that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee -- the polls all show that McCain's pro-war stance and Bush endorsement make him a lost cause in November. That combined with soft stand on litmus test conservative issues make him an unpopular candidate among the base. I know some Democrats that think the Republicans are planning to let McCain lose and 'sit this one out' so that they can hang the democrats with a bad economy and a war that is a morass. But that just isn't how they play. They play to win every hand"

This is ridiculous in the extreme and Rosenbaum needs to put down the crack-pipe. he's forgetting one very important thing: There's no way McCain's going to step aside after carrying all that neocon water in both 2000 and 2004. This is McCain's third presidential run and he's finally gotten the nomination and now the Republicans will ask him to stand down? If you believe that I have a lovely piece of real estate that connects Brooklyn and Manhattan that I'd like to showcase for you.

I can't cite any evidence other than conjecture, but I'd bet that there were promises exchanged and deals made for his not tearing Bush a new orifice when Bush attacked his wife and kids in 2000 with the push-polls, etc. in SC. McCain was probably intimidated and browbeaten into submission by the VRWC tanks, who had just come off an enormous victory with the impeachment and subsequent (and previous) sliming of the Clintons, and had the money and boots on the ground to hammer McCain mercilessly.

Moreover they probably threatened to withold any $upport so that even if he kept on he'd be left on his own twi$ting in the wind.

The republicans have settled on McCain and are now suffering from buyer's remorse, but swapping McCain with a newer model will only weaken them further and infuriate the voters who supported McCain.

I mean -who will disguntled Hillaroids vote for? ;-)

It would be sad if McCain weren't such an asshole. Just when he's finally ready to take his turn, he's too old and feeble to be able to make a decent run at it? Sad. Well, not really. But wait there's more:

"There are a whole list of Republicans who in many ways are more likely to energize the Republican base. One thing is certain -- there are candidates that will play to the core issues in ways that McCain simply can't.

Here's a list of names. Some you know, some you don't. But each of them knows their name is in play. Among them --

Condoleezza Rice (Secretary of State)
Colin Powell (fmr Sec. of State)
Marilyn Musgrave (Colorado Congresswoman)
Mitt Romney (fmr Massachusetts Governor)
Mike Huckabee (fmr Governor of Arkansas)
Charlie Crist (Florida Governor)
Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota Governor)
Bobby Jindal (Louisiana Governor)
Mark Sanford: (Governor of South Carolina)
John Thune (Senator from South Dakota)
Dick Lugar (Senator from Indiana)
Chuck Hagel (Senator from Nebraska)
Michael Bloomberg (NYC Mayor)

Ok, go ahead knock them down. One by one. See if you can really remove ALL these names from a list of candidates that are more likely to give Obama a run for his money."

Oh please give me a slightly challenging task. Lets start with the simplest ones:

Marilyn Musgrave (Colorado Congresswoman)
Mark Sanford: (Governor of South Carolina)
John Thune (Senator from South Dakota)
Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota Governor)

Say it with me now :1, 2, 3 -WHO???

Dude, this is a national election and probably the only one that 90% of the electorate ever pay attention to. What's the number one problem that people cite when questioning Obama's "electability"? No not his race -it's that he's too unknown and needs to introduce himself to the American people more. He's already been doing that for 18 months and his hard work has paid off with the nomination of his party over the toughest democratic political machine in decades. Does anyone honestly think that a republican party in shambles can introduce an unknown candidate with slightly over 4 months to go and beat the brightest and most quickly ascending political star from either party in over 30 years and stand a scintilla of a chance? There simply isn't time. Political junkies might know these folks names but the rest of America doesn't know them from anyone else at the mall and they're not going to vote for a stranger.

Charlie Crist (Florida Governor)

The guy who took over from Jeb? Nah. Plus -see above (and below).

Condoleezza Rice (Secretary of State)
Colin Powell (fmr Sec. of State)

Both of these folks have hitched their wagons to the Bush train and have derailed themselves in the process. True, in a vacuum both are intelligent and capable leaders, but they're even more tainted by the Iraq War than McCain is because they were members of the team that constructed it from thin air. McCain even knows he has to distance himself from their like or he'll lose -what makes anyone think they'll stand any more of a chance than him? Powell completely shot his credibility after he took the plunge and lied to the UN saying that some trailers really mobile WMD plants. It's too easy to shoot him down (figuratively speaking. NEXT!

Mitt Romney (fmr Massachusetts Governor)
Mike Huckabee (fmr Governor of Arkansas)

Once again say it with me: 1,2,3 LUH-HOO-SUH-HERS!! These jokers couldn't even beat MCCAIN!! And guess what guys -there are no do-overs in politics. NEXT!


Bobby Jindal (Louisiana Governor)

Often cited as a possible McCain running-mate, and I REEEEEEELY hope he is because he's a loon. A Catholic whose gone to the dark side, he actually claims that he's performed an exorcism (somehow forgetting something all catholics know -you have to be an ordained priest to perform an exorcism). Moreover (and sorry folks hate to get dirty) but while finally after years of hard struggle we've managed to nominate a black candidate, do you really think we're ready to elect a former hindu of East Indian descent? I could be wrong, but guess what I'm thinking? Also see above. (who?)

Dick Lugar (Senator from Indiana)
Chuck Hagel (Senator from Nebraska)

Both these guys are even more moderate than McCain -and they're TRUE moderates. So much so that they're often pariahs in their own party. These guys are just to the left of Joe Lieberman who still has the balls to call himself a democrat though technically he's a CFL (Connecticut For Lieberman) party senator who openly rejected his former party's nominee. But I digress. These guys won't be any more palatable to the guppy base -and certainly not to the fundies. Lugar even has co sponsored legislation with Obama and is unlikely to want to contest against him. Hagel's not much different.

Which leaves us with Mikey-boy.

Michael Bloomberg (NYC Mayor)

Another true moderate, and an interresting choice if he decided to take it on -but that's the rub. He's not stupid -why crucify yourself on the alter of "also-ran" for a party that is imploding? You'd have to be nuts like Jindal. And oh one other small thing HE'S NO LONGER A REPUBLICAN.

So there it is -another theory laid to waste. Grampy's their old man like it or not, (and I LOVE it) and Rosenbaum's daydream is simply Republican porn.

BACK TO BUSINESS

And now that the primaries are over here's a reminder of what it's all really about:



Sweet dreams.

HIGHLIGHT REEL

Kieth Olberman has put together a great collection of highlights from the primary season:

IT'S DONE/ MCSAME GAMES

I'm a little late on this but here's (courtesy TPM) the video of Hillary's concession speech:



The blogosphere is on fire with reactions ranging from brilliant to "why was it AGAIN all about her?"

I think it was a fine speech and she hit all the right marks - Oh sure, she went a little dead-eyed when she was talking-up Obama, but I'll give the woman a break, she is human after all and it can't have been an easy speech to give.

In other news:

I've discovered (although I can't have been the first) a new drinking game! The first requirement is the toughest -you actually have to watch one of Grampy's speeches. But assuming you can do that without doing an Elvis on your TV -take a drink every time McSame says "my Friends" or some variant. Don't plan on driving afterward.

BTW if you really want some positive therapy when you get too down in the dumps re the state of the fall election and the ramifications for the country -watch McSame's town hall meetings with the sound muted. What you'll see is a wandering, shuffling almost limping, hunchbacked, very old white guy, who somehow thinks he actually stands a chance to be elected president. And it only makes you feel more warm and fuzzy knowing that this idiot actually wants to stand on the same stage as Obama and do this 10 TIMES!

Here -give it a try:



-remember to mute the sound unless you have a bottle of Jameson's (none of that protestant Bushmills shite) close by. Slainte!

AND NOW THE REAL NEWS

John Stewart delivers the best post contest wrap up. (of course he does -he's the only pundit with more than space between his ears -well if you don't count Olberman )

SAVOR IT

BTW -in case anyone's wondering: I'm open to playing starting QB for the 49ers next fall.

OH AND BTW

NO. I don't want her as VP. Too much baggage, and after the campaign she's run why throw her a bone? She doesn't guarantee victory any more than anyone else because any democrats who won't vote for the democratic candidate after 8 years of hell are undependable anyway. She brings more damage than help after this campaign and already the republicans are using her lines against Obama.

Here's a question for all those (and that includes you Senator Feinstein) who insist that Hillary should be on the ticket: shouldn't she endorse him first?

HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL

Will tonight be the night? Will she finally concede?

The news is all over the map from claims that she'll make a concession speech from New York tonight to the Clinton campaign itself still saying that they're in it to win it. She's got a tough decision to make as I think this really is her last best chance to exit gracefully and with any chance of preserving her career and her husband's legacy -both of which have been bruised if not broken by her incompetent campaign.

She can choose to stay and fight it out destroying herself and the party in the process and all but ensuring a president John Sidney McCain III, or she can show courage and stand down and put the country before her ambitions. I'm not optimistic.

In other news: you want to talk about a real dream ticket?

I was a Clark man from way back as I've said before and I was really bummed that he came out for Clinton though I understood why, but the case gets stronger and stronger for him on the ticket with Obama.

"Clark opposed the war, is unambiguous in his support for progressive values, has credibility and relationships with foreign leaders, and has “won a war using multi-lateral strategies with zero American casualties.” (I’d certainly like to hear some exploration this fall of the differences in the military’s planning and execution in Kosovo vs. Iraq.)

I’d just add that Clark does not have any obvious personal baggage — folks went looking for dirt in ‘04 and didn’t come up with anything. And, obviously, he comes with the kind of national security bona fides that are unrivaled by any political figure in the country.

As for the “unifying” factor, I think it’s also fair to say that Clark is definitely considered a Clinton loyalist. If the Obama campaign wanted to send a signal about bringing the camps together, Clark would appear to largely fit the bill."

With Clark on the ticket there'd be next to no argument that Obama couldn't be Commander In Chief. Now I'm not naive -I know there are down sides. For starters, he's another white male and therefore offers little to women other than his progressive values. Also he's been in Washington for a long time and so might detract from Obama's message of change. Also he's been publicly critical of Obama in the past, but I think that could be easily spun as his having been loyal to Clinton "in the trenches" as it were.

Still I think his positives outweigh the negatives and hope he's seriously being considered -and seriously considering- the VP spot.

IT'S OFFICIAL -THE PATRIOTS WON THE SUPERBOWL!

The Jed Report has a good analysis of all of this

"The Obama campaign is going to need be ready to push back against the Clinton popular vote nonsense even harder. I keep on saying this, but the key reason why the popular vote isn't meaningful is simply that every state has a different mechanism for selecting delegates. You can't just total up all these different contests with different rules and call it democratic."

but I'd like to add an analogy: The Patriots apparently won the Superbowl

If you add up the scores from the World Series (which the Red socks won BTW) the last Celtics game and the Superbowl -the New England team clearly had more points than the Giants and therefore were the Superbowl winner.


In other news:

Pelosi says that the superdelegates need to declare by next week or she Dean and Reid will step in.

Don't know what they'll do exactly but it's encouraging. I have to go back on my previous post and say that Clinton's now clearly insane.

Taking this to the convention will ensure the democrats lose in the fall. It's never worked before -the party undecided by their convention inevitably loses. '64, '68, '80. Every time the party that was undecided by the convention lost.

Hillary has obviously decided (rightly or wrongly) that it's now or never -the irony is that the more she presses on the more she ensures it'll be never.

MOVE ON'S LATEST

Pretty funny.

THE REAL GRAMPS

Here's a short film by Robert Greenwald to give you a picture just who we're up against. Remember that at this time in 2000 W was a blithering idiot -but one that everyone (but me) wanted to have a beer with. Not like that "wooden elitest lying snob" Al Gore. And remember too that McCain back then was the Manchurian Candidate who's wife had a drug problem and who allegedly had an illigitimate black child (according to the South Carolina "push-polls") 4 years later he was campaigning for the man whose campaign had made those allegations against him. Now he wants to be president. ROTFLMAOPMP.

Here's gramps in all his twistedness:


But Hillary thinks he's "passed the Commander in Chief threshold".

And speaking of Hillary -here's Olberman with a classic "Special Comment":


Bye Hills, wish it was fun.

...AND NOW THE PLUGS.

A friend I worked with about 15+ years ago has blossomed into an incredible singer/songwriter!

She's currently (among other things) working on a project called "52 songs in 52 weeks" where she composes a new song each week and then puts the video up on YouTube. At the end of the year she'll pick the best 12 or so and record an album.

Now, "how" you ask "does this fit into the scope of your blog?" Watch her latest "Rooftops of Babylon" (week 14):





Most of her songs aren't overtly political -but this one seemed like a great match.

You can find out more here, and here, and you can buy her album here or here

She's pretty amazing so help support her!

DEBUNKING MORE CANARDS

Let's debunk the barrage of lies, starting with the latest:

1. Obama's "white" problem

This is one of the most insidious and nasty dog-whistle attacks to come down the pike. Let's be honest "white, working class", "white rural" and "hard-working white" are all synonyms for the same thing -uneducated white redneck bigots. This is the narrow demographic who won't vote for Obama. What the media and the Clinton campaign want you to believe however is that they are representative of the larger demographic of white non college educated voters across the country, and this just hasn't played out in the numbers.

Where has it played out? Appalachia.

All of the states where Obama has had a "problem" are in that area of the country. north western PA, Southeastern OH, all of WV -in fact it stretches from northern AL to southwestern NY. Josh Marshall has more about who has settled in that area of the country as does Jonathan Tilove.

Moreover this whole area of discussion has focused on the false idea that ALL of the people who voted for Clinton in the primaries in those states will not vote for Obama in the general election which is unlikely -particularly if Clinton makes good on her promise and stands behind him once he's the nominee.

Obama has won "white" majorities in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Virginia -and in the second whitest state in the union- Vermont, he won 60% of the "white working class" vote. He doesn't have a "white" problem -he has an Appalachia problem -minuscule in comparison to the insinuation Clinton, the MSM and the Republicans are making.

That the media is fueling this story is predictable as they thrive on controversy real or manufactured ("You provide the prose poems, I'll provide the war") and I don't even begrudge the republicans for using this line of attack (ignorant whites are after all their base) but for the Clinton campaign to advance this argument is not only desperate but despicable.



2. Obama is "elitist"

An "ist" is one who subscribes to an "ism". Elitism means one who believes in the elevation of the elite and in this context is generally taken to mean that one believes in the superiority and or advancement of the rights and privileges of that elite.

For Obama to be "elitist" then, he would have to espouse the belief that the wealthy, privileged and educated deserve to be placed above everyone else. I defy anyone to cite any quote from Obama where he advances this view. Even if we twist his "bitter-gate" words to mean what his opponents want them to mean -they can't be made to mean that he believes the above.

Is Obama "elite"? That's another question. Harvard Law School, editor of the Harvard Law Review, Law Professor, Illinois State Senator, United States Senator, Keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Yes. The man is elite. But one can be elite without being "elitist"



3. Obama's "Wright" problem will hurt him in the fall.

Perhaps, but while the results of the fall remain to be seen, here's the latest poll saying that Bush is a bigger problem for Gramps than Wright is for Obama.

Additionally, Grampy doesn't want to go down the controversial pastor road what with calling Rod Parsley his "Spiritual guide" and with his courting John "the Catholic Church is the Great Whore of revelation" Hagee, and all. Just sayin'.

Although I note with amusement that Hagee has now attempted to apologise -not in any meaningful way like to the Pope, but to Bill Donohue of the Catholic league. That's kinda' like Usameh Bin Laden apologising to the American Nazi Party for calling America the "Great Satan".