Diary of an Obssessive Progressive

SHAMELESS CAPITALISM

2011-06-03T09:57:00.000-07:00

A CAUSE TO CELEBRATE? YES.

2011-05-03T10:25:00.000-07:00

Everyone has a 9/11 connection. Whether having known someone who died that day, watching it unfold on scene, or watching it unfold thousands of miles away, it has scarred us all.

The man who facilitated that and at least two other attacks on the US abroad has been killed.

The question has arisen: is it wrong to celebrate that fact? My answer is no.

What are we celebrating exactly? It is short-sighted to simply focus on the death or even the manner of death because it diminishes the significance of that death, which is that a person who was the sworn enemy of this country and vowed to continue killing innocent people until we capitulated and conformed to his narrow vision is no more. That is no small event because he had in fact killed thousands of innocents and had proven willing and capable of killing more. This is the quintessential definition of evil.

There is no shame in celebrating the end of an evil.

Moreover there is no shame in celebrating the end of a threat to our national security. Sure, it is not the only threat, and there are hundreds if not thousands of others that are focused upon us constantly, but unless you're willing to say that the death of this man has *not* reduced the threat, or has elevated it significantly and permanently (and I'm not), you have to come to the conclusion that we are safer with him gone.

Could we have captured him and tried him in court? Well, let's follow that to the end: assuming that we could simply have caught and held him prisoner (and I think that is a huge assumption -perhaps too huge to be reasonable), what would we have then done? Put him on trial? Putting aside the expense and time that would have taken -all the time keeping the threat alive if not amplifying it- In the highly unlikely event that he was found not guilty what would we do? Our own laws would dictate that we release him. Release a sworn enemy to go and perpetrate more atrocities against us. If he were found guilty what then? We would put him to death, right? OK what if we kept him incarcerated? Wouldn't that create an instant cause/target for his followers to attack us to free him?

So even assuming we could capture him it would to have led to either the same or an unacceptably dangerous result.

So we did the right thing here, and for that reason, as well as the reasons above. We have cause to celebrate.

But is that really what the people in the streets are celebrating? Some perhaps, but I think what has caused the knee-jerk reaction some have had against the celebrations is the gut feeling that the public celebrations are unseemly. I think the cause of that gut feeling is that what many seem to be celebrating is both detached from the cold reality and enduring scars of the atrocities this man caused, and other darker ideas: Blind nationalism, and chauvinism.

The idea that we were able to end both a threat and an evil is separate and irrelevant idea to the idea that we as a nation are superior. The chants of "USA! USA!" and the wrapping ourselves in flags broadcast around the world are embarrassing because they trivialize the true cause for celebration and reduce the support for our cause from our allies as well as inflame our enemies.

Should we celebrate this man's death? Yes, but not as evidence of our superiority. That evidence has been presented in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Syria and Libya.

Perhaps instead we should be chanting "Democracy! Democracy!"

18 days

2011-02-11T12:18:00.000-08:00

SURELY YOU’RE NOT SERIOUS

2009-09-19T10:44:00.000-07:00

Let me get this straight Senator Baucus: So if you’ve been dropped from your insurance company because of a “pre-existing condition” (which can be anything the insurance company decides it is) you can sign up for a “high risk” insurance plan, but you have to be uninsured for six months before you’re allowed to do so? The high risk plan would only cover 65% of your treatment and that’s AFTER the $6000 deductible?

And you’re required to pay for that insurance or pay an “excise tax” of up to $3800 dollars if you make 3 times the Federal Poverty Limit (FPL) ($22,050 for a family of 4 in 2009) ?

I don’t understand. You’re diagnosed with a lethal illness e.g.. Your insurance company determines it was caused by a preexisting condition and therefore drops you. You are *required* to wait six months to sign up for the new “high risk” insurance (and let’s be real- what else are you going to get now?) which will only cover 65% of your treatment after the 6k deductible because you’re *required* to have insurance or be fined?

Nope, stating it another way doesn’t help.

And this is to be administered by the ever so trustworthy private insurance companies?

So Senator –when they said we needed healthcare reform or health insurance reform YOU apparently thought they meant that the insurance companies were shouldering too much of the burden?

This is what is known as getting you coming and (quite literally) going.

Let me put this as simply as possible. Insurance is good. Insurance for a profit is bad.

When an insurance company’s reason for being is to make a profit, by definition they must provide their service at the lowest possible cost, as all other businesses do. If you can do it for less, you can take home more. That’s automatic incentive to not cover sick people and only healthy people. That is the *exact opposite* of what insurance is –that is, a mechanism to spread losses throughout a larger pool of resources.

The Swiss have already figured this out. It is ILLEGAL for private health insurance companies to turn a profit in Switzerland for basic coverage (“Cadillac plans” can make a profit)

Um...is there someone more intelligent there that we might be able to speak to about this?

A FEW THOUGHTS ON HEALTHCARE REFORM

2009-08-12T15:06:00.000-07:00

By now it’s common knowledge that the latest wave of “protesters” to show up at town hall meetings with Congress members has been proven to be an industry-funded and pundit organized exploitation of the panic and hysteria felt by right wing extremists and other ignoramuses. These “protesters” are overwhelmingly white conservatives, and their consensus (whether their own or the expressed ones of their pundit masters) is predominantly that President Obama is trying to dismantle their America and/or that they want their country back. The “black affairs” correspondent on John Stewart said this last night in jest, but I mean it in all seriousness –That’s exactly what we’re trying to do: dismantle America as they know it.

To clarify, think about what America they’re really (under all the patriotic bullshit) talking about. These are the same people who opposed the Civil Rights Act, the same people who benefited unjustly from the labor of minorities and the poor until labor unions, the same people who opposed aid to the elderly so that they didn’t simply rot after a lifetime of work, and the same people who actually think that the fact that their current skyrocketing healthcare costs have nothing to do with the poor and uninsured resorting to default, ER care, or both.

Do we want to dismantle an America that persists in injustice? Where all are not in fact treated as equal regardless what the documents the founders created say? Where the rights and indeed the lives of the people are dictated by the ledgers of industry? Where the politics of an issue trumps the substance or utility of it? Do we want to dismantle that? You’re goddamned right we do. That’s called progress. That’s called becoming a “more perfect union”. And, newsflash to the idiots –as long as we draw breath that old America is never coming back.

To those who ask “why should I have to pay for healthcare for [the poor, the already sick, the undocumented, etc]?” I say –are you actually stupid enough to think you’re not paying for healthcare for them already?

Let me reintroduce you to one of my Eternal Truths: You can ignore, demean or hate the poor/sick/immigrants/elderly/minorities/disabled/children all you want but you’ll be paying for them somewhere along the line whether you want to or not. Somewhere along the arc of their lives we, that is society, will have to devote resources to their welfare. Somewhere in the time period between and including the medical services rendered post-conception to the disposing of their corpses, we’ll have to pay.

This rule applies to most issues, but follow me as it applies to healthcare: under the current system, people with no health insurance (and even some *with* it) are forced to wait until their health is in dire condition or an emergency arises before they seek treatment. This automatically means that they require MORE treatment and more complex treatment than they would have had if they’d sought treatment sooner. This in turn means that healthcare professionals have to devote more man-hours and more expensive treatments to those with an inability to pay. What do you think happens when the patients eventually default after being presented with the bill? Do the providers and insurance companies keep costs the same or do they spread the loss by raising prices/premiums? If you guessed the latter, give yourself a gold star.

Over time this results in higher premiums, rationing healthcare for those WITH insurance (based on lovely fictions like “preexisting conditions” or “cost/benefit ratio”), and even a greater risk of illness/infection to the healthy population as more people forgo treatment because they can’t afford it, and nonetheless continue to live and circulate among us.

Folks, this is that serious. It’s life or death, and not just for the uninsured, but for all of us.

Social-ism in it’s literal (non political) definition is the idea that benefits to society are valued over Capital –that is, the financial benefits to industry. The opposite is Capital-ism –the idea that money made from/for industry is valued over benefit to society. In that context, healthcare is one of the few areas where your old OP is an out and out Socialist.

Insurance on its own is a great and non-political idea. The idea that the loss suffered by individuals is easier borne over a larger pool of resources is the only logical system in a modern democratic society because of the above “rule”. In other words –since we all will bear the burden in some form of the losses of others, the most efficient and fair way of dealing with them is through the spreading of the risk/loss through the larger population. (“many hands make work light”).

When insurance becomes subject to capitalism however –that is when its rason d’etre becomes to make a profit, the resulting benefit to society is crippled, and in many cases destroyed. Decisions are made not based on what the most equitable and just way to spread the loss is, but whether the reduction in profits is worth it. The result is the current situation in which we find ourselves.

…and still there are those who are allegedly so passionate that we remain on the same course that they’ll shout down or even threaten violence to anyone who dares to try to discuss alternatives. Who are these people? What do they stand to gain from maintaining the status quo?

The Evil vs. Stupid question continues.

EXAM CRAMMING

2009-06-12T11:25:00.000-07:00

A friend is studying for her US citizenship exam. Ever the gentleman, I offered a few nuggets of wisdom gleaned from the last 8 years to help her understanding of the current United States:

1. it's OK to torture people to try to get them to confess to connections that don't exist.

2. the First Amendment only applies to Republicans -all others must stay in their designated "free-speech zones"

3. Government is BAAAAD! Therefore the only people we should hire to do the actual governing should be completely incapable of doing it -thus proving that Government is BAAAD!

4. The United States Constitution is an inviolable and sacred document...unless you're reeeeeallly scared.

5. IOKIYAR (A.K.A. the 28th Amendment).

6.If a Republican president does it, it's privileged. If a Democratic president does it, it's criminal.

7. Individual liberties are nice, but are trumped by the "free market".

And finally:

8. It is your patriotic duty to question the actions of your government and demand accountability...unless you're a Democrat, or the actions in question happened more than 6 months ago.

Class dismissed.

BREAKING THE CODE

2009-05-28T10:26:00.000-07:00

Hoo Boy! The code-words are flying around DC and the cable news channels like a food fight in a frat-house!

The nomination of Sonia (even her name is code –more below) Sotomayor to the SCOTUS has all the GOPosaurs in high lingo mode cranking out the wink-winks to their troglodyte base so they’ll know SHE’S BAAAAAAD!

As a public service to the more educated I, your humble scribe, have compiled a (by no means complete) list of phrases you’ll hear in the coming nomination “battle” and their TRUE meanings.

I use the term “battle” loosely, because it’s an all but foregone conclusion she’ll be confirmed, as enough Repubs have said they’ll vote for her that she’ll likely get 70 or so votes, and even if they vote in lock-step the seating of Al Franken will have given the Dems a 60-vote lock by then. The real purpose of these phrases (and indeed the entire fight) are to stir up the fundies so that they’ll empty their pockets to “combat them evil libruls” another day.

In no particular order:

Empathy: As I commented the other day, though the actual meaning of this is more akin to “putting yourself in another’s shoes”, the right use it to mean “using ones emotions to decide an issue rather than reason and precedent” which is only an OK thing to do if you’re a republican-leaning justice deciding favorably to republicans. (see “Judicial Activism”, see also Bush v. Gore)
Intellectual Lightweight or “not an Intellectual Heavyweight": This is code for “minority”. This woman graduated 2nd in her class at Princeton and was President of the Yale Law Review. Therefore she’s in the top 1% of the top 1% academically. Therefore (according to republican lore) she must have been given those honors because of Affirmative Action and like policies over some more intelligent white person whom she surpassed because of preference to her race.
Temperament or Aggressive: Female. They wouldn’t dare accuse a male nominee of the same “tendencies”. According to them any woman who shows even the slightest trace of strength or mettle is an aggressive ball-busting lesbian trying to make up for the fact that she’s not a man. Which leads to…
Emotions: Histrionics. Whenever you hear cons use this word in reference to judges its code for “hey she’s a woman –they’re too unstable to be judges!" Pure misogyny.
“Maria”: This is rich. Former Governor and failed presidential hopeful turned FOXNews host Mike Huckabee recently referred to her as “Maria Sotomayor” –yeah because all them dang Messican names soundsa’ same don’t they Merv, er, Mike? Carmen Guadalupe Marisol Maria -whassa dang differunce? This just shows how deeply ingrained the racism is on the right. You’re a talk show host Mike. Her name is Sonia –you might want to take the time to learn the names of the people you’re talking about or at least put them in the teleprompter?
Judicial Activism: While the right-wing noise machine claim this means “legislating from the bench” what it really means is “deciding in any way unfavorably to conservative causes –even when following iron-clad precedent”. Let’s be clear: Bush v. Gore was the most precedent-ignoring, lower court superseding decision in American History. Even the SCOTUS itself said that it was a one-time-deal and should never be used as precedent (which tells you that they knew EXACTLY what they were doing and were embarrassed about it), but do you ever hear the parrots on the right refer to that as Judicial Activism? Of course not –that’s only used to refer to (perceived) liberal judges deciding in accordance with precedent which is unfavorable to conservatives.
Stare Decisis: This is the term referring to the legal tradition of judges deciding cases based on decisions of prior case-law. E.g. according to precedent. Lower courts are beholden to higher court decisions unless they can come up with some compelling reason to break with precedent and decide differently. To Republicans however this term only applies (as above) to decisions in accordance with republican orthodoxy. E.g. Roe v. Wade is precedent from the highest court in the land but “bad law” according to GOP mouthpieces (oddly they can never explain WHY it’s “bad law” –probably because the only reason is that is contradicts their tightly held beliefs) and therefore any decision weakening Roe can safely ignore Stare Decisis. In Sotomayor’s case –the “Connecticut Firefighter case” was one where not only did she not write anything relating to the case (not the opinion, not a concurring opinion, nothing) but she merely signed on to the majority opinion of the court which followed both SCOTUS precedent (see Crosson, Adarand) as well as the precedent of her own circuit . Text book example of Stare Decisis -but that’s unacceptable to the cons when it tilts against them. Which leads us to…
Reverse Racism: Minority. This is the most ridiculous and base assertion of them all. “Reverse Racism” necessarily implies that a) there IS racism, and b) that it is the provenance of whites so that there can be a “backlash” against it from minorities –but according to them racism doesn’t exist, and if it does whites are just as likely the target as minorities. Pretzel logic. Racism is racism no matter who it comes from or is directed to right? And since there is no racism what are they so worried about? This is just more code for “minority”.

This list is as I said by no means exhaustive and I’ll update it when new terms come up, but I hope it serves as a basic glossary to use when viewing the next few months of the cable news circus.

Adding: I know I know, it's been a long time in betweeen posts, sorry! Nothing like a good ol SCOTUS nomination to stir up yer ol OP's typin' fingers! See here, here, here, here, and here for precedent!

2009-01-24T10:17:00.000-08:00

President Barack Hussein Obama. President Barack Hussein Obama.

I never get tired of saying it.

For the last 8 years, every time I heard the word "president" in a newscast I cringed and tigntened for what followed. It wasn't until I had the same conditioned response the other night and then felt an enormous wave of release when I realized that they were talking about Obama that I even realized I'd been doing it.

It's wonderful to be genuinely curious to hear what the president has to say again.

I was telling my wife that one of my desires in the next ten years is to go to Europe and that that felt all but impossible until now. I had paraniod flashes that I'd be snatched off the street unless I spoke with a non-american accent. Silly, I know, but now that fear is gone (and I'm sure the risk, however actually low it was, is lessened).

The inauaguration speech was perfect. Humble. Realistic. Directly pointed at the failures of the Bush administration without actually insulting Bush as he sat there (Bush looked beautifully uncomfortable though). And inspiring. I've never felt that. Ever. The first president I remember being conscious of is Nixon. Carter was fine and did a few good things but was uninspiring. Then the hell of the Reagan years. Bush I who was reagan without the personality. Clinton who made you feel good and in retrospect was a good leader for his time, but still not inspiring. And then Bush II who made the Reagan years seem tame.

I don't know what'll happen to Obama, but I know that the country (me included) is in his corner more than any president in my lifetime.

And that's before I even take into acount the historical significance of his election to the office.

It took someone like him to break that barrier.

2009-01-10T10:26:00.000-08:00

Boy oh boy was I wrong.

However, contrary to the majority of politicians, I am willing to admit it and apologise.

I was laboring under the misaprehension that the fact that we just elected an all but ironclad Democratic majority to the Senate and House meant that the Democratic leadership might actually take it as a sign that they could at last grow a pair and assert themselves -or at least back up something -anything- they assert.

Apparently they are still perfectly willing to roll over and take a "f**k you byatch" from even the most ridiculous locally elected executives.

It never fails to stun me how weak the Democratic leadership can be. So Burris is now the junior senator from Illinois and the Democratic leadership looks like the same bunch of round-heeled milquetoasts they always do.

Understand, for me it was never about Burris' qualifications. I'm sure he was plenty qualified, it's just that there was the appearance of impropriety in his selection. Moreover, Reid's attempt at digging his heels in made him look even more weak when he caved. Too hasty a decision AND a crappy example. No leadership. Just because you're next in line doesn't mean you can lead.

NEW YEAR SAME OLD PROBLEMS

2009-01-03T10:05:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year!

Here's hoping that yours (and please God OURS) is a more happy healthy and prosperous one than any of the last eight.

So long has passed and there are so many issues to address that I guess I'll attempt a scattershot drive-by. Here goes:

BLAGO-GATE

Well gee the euphoria of one Chicago politician's ascendancy sure was drowned out for a moment by the ascendancy to scandal of another wasn't it? Can you believe this guy? It never ceases to amaze me how the phrase "appearance of impropriety" is completely lost on some public figures. I mean, OK, let's assume for a thinly-stretched moment that Blagojevich was doing nothing legally wrong and that he wasn't really trying to sell Barack Obama's vacated senate seat to the highest bidder -wouldn't you want to make damn sure that you couldn't EVER be misinterpreted as doing so? Wouldn't you want to do everything possible to appear to be open and honest and to fend off any possibility of a federal investigation? Now look at the charges against Blago? WTF? I guess these guys who do this kind of stuff really are that stupid.

And the latest twist is that he still actually thinks that anyone will let him appoint Obama's successor. Unbelievable. So he simply pretends that his selection of Roland Burris will be honored and that that's that? Burris talks as though it's a done-deal and he's already the senator? What the hell are these guys thinking?

Article I Section 5 of the Constitution reads: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members". That last "and Qualifications" pretty much puts the nail in Burris' senatorial coffin doesn't it? I.e. if the senate decides that the taint of the Bagojevich scandal disqualifies Burris' appointment, what text are they going to use to refite it?

And why oh why would Burris let himself be appointed under these circumstances? Doesn't he realize that if he hitches his career to the Blago train that he's committing political suicide? Either he doesn't really care or greed has made him stupid.

The legal challenges are just warming up so pop some popcorn and find a comfy-chair.

THE ECONOMY

Oh boy.

Well gee that Wall street bailout package Congress rushed to pass worked great didn't it? Apparently they weren't really trying to save the banks -just the bankers. No oversight. Read that again. No oversight. None. Nothing to say how the money was supposed to be spent. No guidelines. No restrictions. Nada. Great.

And now they want to bail out the automakers? HA!

The housing market isn't improving any. Unemployment is at its worst since the 80's. The stock market has lost almost 6000 points since last year. (I've never been so happy to be too poor to be a part of the investment class!)

Obama seems really ready to push this stimulus package hard. I guess the idea is to do the Bush stimulus the right way? I.e. more tax cuts but this time for the "right" people.

I'm honestly conflicted about this: in the short run it might give the intended boost -but things are so tight that I have a hard time imagining that unless it's a huge chunk of change that it'll do more than make a few weeks easier for the majority of paycheck-to-paycheck folks.

In addition I've been hearing (and am starting to believe) that tax cuts (even for the middle-class) have a negligible effect on the economy because what really drives the economy is not how much money the government takes or doesn't take, but wages, jobs and GDP etc. none of which tax cuts or even raises helps. In fact you can make a pretty decent argument that RAISING taxes is better in the long run for wages because if companies have to pay x amount of money to employees (with the assumption that a percentage will go the govt.) and taxes go up the companies have to pay more to offset the taxes so that the take home pay is the same and so over time the general salary for the job raises. Conversely, if you cut taxes, the employer is paying the same but the employee takes home more, and the employer doesn't have to raise the employees wage so that over time wages stagnate.

If the government really wants to goose the economy it should make health care universal to alleviate the expense from individual families and corporations and spread the resources over a larger pool (as Obama is planning on doing) and make raising the minimum wage to a livable (not luxurious, but livable) wage.

Both of these could be done without tinkering with the tax code which frankly needs merely to be rolled back to where it was before Bush took office and then left alone. My humble two cents.

ARE WE STILL AT WAR?

Gee weren't we supposed to be at war on two fronts or something? Seems like we've gotten so caught up in the wave of change that's coming that we've forgotten that ghastly fact. The nightly news is all but bereft of coverage and frankly I can't remember when the last time was that I saw a news story on either Iraq or Afghanistan on any of the major three networks. Maybe I'm just missing them but I'm a news junkie so what does that tell you?

Spoke with a friend over the holidays on leave from one of those fronts and he said (albeit in a tight-lipped manner) that things are getting better over there. That's good news, really. I just hope that means we can leave now. It's not like we could use the money or anything.

The inauguration can't be over soon enough IMO we need to new pols to get to work.

Cheers, you lot. -OP

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION / PROP 8 THE MUSICAL

2008-12-05T16:41:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-11-08T11:30:00.000-08:00

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!

2008-11-06T08:31:00.000-08:00

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

2008-10-31T08:52:00.000-07:00

MAD CRUMPIN'

2008-10-23T22:13:00.001-07:00

This is funny as hell:

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

THE GRAMPY CAMPAIGN IN 30 SECONDS

2008-10-21T22:32:00.000-07:00

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

IT'S STARTED ALREADY

2008-10-20T10:08:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-20T07:33:00.000-07:00

I love this video for so many reasons. Enjoy:

3-AND-OUT

2008-10-16T08:47:00.000-07:00

A few observations from the final debate last night:

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.
McCain is now 0-3 -when's the last time you even heard of that in a presidential race?
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.
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.
Putting quotes around "health of the mother" probably wasn't a very smart move.
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.
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 (?)

2008-10-14T07:30:00.000-07:00

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)

2008-10-10T07:37:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-09T09:23:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-07T08:38:00.000-07:00

She wants to play?

Fine, let's play:

HE ASKED FOR IT

2008-10-06T18:22:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-03T12:44:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-01T08:47:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-25T20:12:00.001-07:00

HOPE FOR THE REPUBLIC

2008-09-24T07:16:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-24T07:05:00.001-07:00

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

2008-09-22T08:35:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-09-17T08:42:00.000-07:00

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

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

2008-09-15T10:07:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-12T16:36:00.000-07:00

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.

McCain has said that he doesn't mind if we stay in Iraq for 50-100 years.
He says there'll be more wars.
He's used agressive tones toward bigger enemies (Russia, Iran)
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.
McCain is an even bigger believer in privitization than Bush - he doesn't believe in public education and wants to deregulate business even further.
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.
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

2008-09-09T09:20:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-07T07:38:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-05T13:21:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-09-05T09:18:00.001-07:00

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'

2008-08-27T10:06:00.000-07:00

My Uncle forwarded this to me from jib-jab.

Time for Some Campaignin' | Funny Jokes at JibJab

RANDOM MUSINGS

2008-08-26T15:57:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-23T09:08:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-03T07:58:00.000-07:00

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

Sometimes you just have to stand in awe of The Onion

TEAM WHAT?

2008-07-25T09:09:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-21T10:30:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-11T09:51:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-23T07:02:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-19T20:03:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-16T14:39:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-12T09:48:00.001-07:00

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

Sweet dreams.

HIGHLIGHT REEL

2008-06-12T07:08:00.001-07:00

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

IT'S DONE/ MCSAME GAMES

2008-06-09T08:20:00.001-07:00

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

2008-06-05T07:21:00.001-07:00

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

2008-06-04T09:12:00.000-07:00

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

OH AND BTW

2008-06-03T14:30:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-03T13:04:00.001-07:00

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!

2008-05-29T12:15:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-27T12:01:00.000-07:00

Pretty funny.

THE REAL GRAMPS

2008-05-24T19:14:00.001-07:00

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.

2008-05-15T13:49:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-15T08:40:00.000-07:00

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".

THE RIGHT HORSE AFTER ALL

2008-05-15T08:37:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I guess I backed the right horse after all. -Here's John Edwards from last night:

Gooooorre? Al Goooooore? Where aaaarrrrre yoooouuuu?

LIVE FROM NY, THE NARRATIVE HAS CHANGED!

2008-05-11T08:02:00.000-07:00

Well, if this doesn't convince you that the story has changed I don't know what will:

TWO MINUTE WARNING

2008-05-09T12:12:00.000-07:00

I'm fond of football analogies, and here, courtesy of M.S. Bellows is a good one:

"I know that sports cliches get old, but Clinton has portrayed herself as Rocky, battered but unbowed. (She forgets that after Rocky and Apollo Creed batter themselves insensible, Rocky loses.) Bill Clinton has said that if Obama didn’t want to get hit, he shouldn’t have suited up. They're right that sports are a good analogy; they've just got the game's situation wrong:

It’s late in the fourth quarter; maybe a minute to go. Obama is up by three touchdowns. All he really needs to do is drop to a knee four times to run the clock out, and he wins. The police are restraining the fans from coming onto the field; the announcers are naming the production staff. But Clinton doesn’t believe it’s over. She believes she still can win – after all, it’s not mathematically impossible for her to score on a Hail Mary, kick the extra point, successfully recover an onside kick, then do it all twice more, all in one minute. It’s never been done, but it theoretically could be.

And then she does what all inferior quarterbacks do under pressure: she tries that Hail Mary pass – today’s letter, trying to salvage a lopsided delegate count from Michigan – but, under pressure, she isn’t paying attention to fundamentals any more. She isn’t watching for the secondary receiver; she isn’t using her peripheral vision; she isn’t making a firm plant before releasing the ball; she throws away Latino and Asian and black votes by repeatedly emphasizing the importance of "the white electorate"; she isn’t even running SpellCheck on important documents. There’s not enough time! There’s not enough time! The candidate herself repeats her staffers' racist blunders; the important "open letter" is issued to thousands of media outlets with two typographical errors. The ball leaves the quarterback’s hand with a slight wobble ... the defender wants to end the game, and his eyes and his reflexes are sharp ....

Or we can return to Clinton's Rocky analogy. There's a reason fights have referees, and fighters have trainers who are authorized to throw in the towel: the boxer who's high on adrenaline and dizzy from being pummeled doesn't always realize how badly she's being beaten or how much she stands to lose by continuing. In some fights, when the fighter won't quit but should, it's completely proper -- humane for the fighter, and healthy for the sport itself -- for someone to stop the fight. Not because they're afraid of the fight continuing, but because they see, even if the fighter doesn't, that it's actually already over."

Personally, I still think all the fuss about Hillary's current blusters is overblown. She does know it's over - but she's not going to come out and say so until she's had a chance to try to get out of the debt hole she's dug herself. She'll probably stay in until after West Virginia and Kentucky on May 20th which will allow her to walk away a "winner" and fundraise in the meantime, hoping to cancel some of the debt.

So far she hasn't said anything since Tuesday that hurts Obama -and she could if she wanted to. The Florida and Michigan stuff is just a position that she can't reverse now without looking completely stupid, and the "white voters" stuff while it is stupid works more for Obama the against (those who won't vote for Obama in the general won't vote for a Democrat anyway). The talk about WV and KY as the "next test" is boilerplate political rhetoric which again does no damage to the nominee.

All in all if you examine the comments of Hillary since Tuesday there's nothing that really is attacking Obama.

NOTES FROM THE SMACK DOWN

2008-05-07T09:38:00.000-07:00

-WOW! Just wow. Last night was better than I'd imagined. I'd put Clinton winning Indiana at about 6 points any less than that and she would have lost any ability to keep making the argument that she's still viable. 2 points??? That's just unbelieveable. That's a statistical tie, particularly with Obama's comfortable double digits in North Carolina.

The speeches told the story too. His was definitely about moving to the next stage whereas hers had nary a mention of Obama and was more about thanking everyone who'd worked so hard on her campaign. On MSNBC wacko Pat Buchannan called it "valedictory". Watch:

Any time you see someone thanking their family, you know you're at the end. Even the Oscar(tm) winners save their families for last. Well, second to last -they always seem to have to address their final words to "all those hopefuls out there" or some such rot. In politics the last line of a speech is always about "American Ideals", or whatever.

In other news: you're finally starting to see the supers start to trickle (please let it be a flood soon) to Obama.

George McGovern switched from Hillary to Obama today, and (drumroll please) Wes Clark reportedly called Clinton last night to urge her to drop out.

I have to say that last comes as a HUGE relief. I was genuinely bummed when Clark got behind Clinton -though realistically it made sense: He was their big military brass and skippered the Kosovo campaign brilliantly. I had hoped he would run himself and was solidly in his camp at one time because I (mistakenly) thought that the only way you could beat the Repubs on National Security was to run a military man against them -not just a war hero, but a general who'd had something to say in shaping policy. Clark was not just a smart General, but a good manager -and anyone who can shepard a military conflict with no deaths is a leader to be reckoned with.

So anyway it reconfirms my faith in him that he sees the writing on the wall. Loyalty is a good thing but not at the price of ceding the nation to the GOP for another 4 years.

Optimistically I think she may drop out by weeks end, but realistically she'll probably stay in until May 20th because that'll give her easy wins in West Virginia and Kentucky (very few of those crackers would be caught dead voting for a black man -even the democrats) which will also allow her to fundraise a bit to offset the 11+ million of her own money she's dropped into her campaign.

Now don't be surprised if she (or her minions) talk tough until then, but I really don't think she's stupid -she sees the writing too. I'll wager that you see a marked softening in tone from her toward Obama. A sure sign that she recognizes he's the nominee.

UNBEF%^&INGLIEVEABLE!!!!!

2008-05-06T16:01:00.000-07:00

The script for the Clinton camp has kicked into gear and continues to befuddle and mystify.

Right now Terry McCauliffe is daring to say that they were down 15 points in Indiana a few weeks ago. WTF?!?!?!

In Indiana?!?!

Here's the standard Clintonian script on election night:

1. Grossly deflate their past numbers in states she was favored to win. (15 points down my a$$! She's always been favored to win that state!!!)

2. Talk up how this set of races is a make or break situation for Obama (even though he's already made it and broken her)

3. When she wins states she was favored to win claim that it was an improbable come from behind victory. (even though she wins by less of a margin than was forcast)

4. Pretend that the margin which she loses in the states where she loses is better than expected because it wasn't a complete rout. (even though it's pretty close to what the pre-election polls predicted and gains her nothing)

5. Repeat the above ad-nauseum until the MSM starts citing it as CW.

AAAAARRRGGGGHHHH!!

I think I know why Elvis became such a big fan of shooting TVs.

IN, NC, LIVE COVERAGE

2008-05-06T15:53:00.000-07:00

This is a great experiment. Here is the MSNBC live coverage of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries:

HILLPOCRISY?

2008-05-06T08:46:00.000-07:00

Here's a thought for the day:

How many times will Hillary Clinton accuse Barack Obama of saying something she's already said?

So far we have:

NAFTA-gate
"Going negative"
The "associations" with the Weather Underground figures
Having "ties" to controversial religious figures
Talking about the potential use or nonuse of Nuclear Weapons by the US.
Guns
Elitism (I'm not going to link to that -just think about it)
And now the Teamsters

In fact, it's getting to the point that when you hear Hillary accuse Obama of saying something you can pretty much guess that she's already said it herself.

Can we be done now please?

UPDATE II: VETTY-VETTY-VET-VET

2008-05-05T14:36:00.000-07:00

Carl Bernstein in a piece shaming Hillary for having attacked Obama using guilt-by-association on his "ties" with Weather Underground member William Ayers, puts some more meat on the bones of Hillary's own ties to controversial 60's figures. Apparently she only gives her work with the Oakland lawfirm (Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein) which defended the Black Panthers a single line in her bio "Living History".

This is not to say that her associations with "communists" mean anything -they don't (I mean really dude, that's sooooo 50-years-ago.), but that it's appalling that she would attack Obama with that weapon when his "ties" pale in comparison to hers. It's like grabbing the blade of a sword and trying to bludgeon someone with the handle.

And once again: has this been "vetted"? NO.

UPDATE: VET THIS

2008-05-05T13:34:00.000-07:00

The other day I posted a piece about how I don't get how the Hillary camp can make the arguments either that she's been vetted --or that "vetting" even matters in regard to how the republicreeps will proceed in the fall.

As if on cue comes this piece in Slate magazine which should fan the flames of freeperdom. Apparently there are numerous rumors posited in a new book "Clinton in Exile" by Carol Felsenthal that Bill Jeff (as Carlin called him) has far from repented since the salad days of the mediocre Ms. M. In fact there are several accounts that BJC (oh the irony) has been tooling about with some bachelor buddies on their private jets in search of "cigar-boxes".

To be fair the piece in Slate makes it plain that the book over all is pretty boring and poorly sourced. But guess what? It doesn't matter how poorly sourced they are or w/r these rumors are true or not -the GOPbots will click into overdrive and they'll be wall to wall over the "info"-stream.

The result? "Ladies and Gentlemen the 44th President of the United States: John Sidney McCain III. "

So a) being "vetted" is illusory at best and b) as John Avrosis says these allegations have certainly not been vetted.

...Sorry to interrupt -you may now return to singing "Gas Tax Holiday" Carols.

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BARACK

2008-05-02T14:34:00.000-07:00

Even better than Baracky the Movie!

(YouTube video)

Brilliant!

YOU KNOW WHAT I DON'T GET?

2008-04-30T14:52:00.000-07:00

This notion advanced by Hillaroids that she's somehow been "vetted" and that that somehow makes her bulletproof from the GOP smear-machine.

On her own already she has :

The Tigress of Tuzla flap
Claiming to have brought Peace to Northern Ireland
the Beer and a shot episode (only wasn't a "scandal" because it's still the primaries -wait til the GOP gets ahold of it)
Her Iraq war vote
Her Iran war vote ("Kyle Amendment" my ass)

But people seem to think that all of the 90's crap will somehow be ignored because it's been done before. Yeah. Right.

Of course the GOP will completely lay off of Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, File-gate, Sandy Berger, et al. because they wouldn't DARE beat those dead horses would they? And that's without even uttering the dreaded "M-word".

Have you been missing Gennifer Flowers? Me neither, but guess who's poised to make a stunning comeback? Did you think Paula Jones was gone for good? Guess again! Every attack that Bill ever weathered will be excreted right back up and shat on Hillary. And what's more -the spectre of a "co presidency" will be the new rallying cry for the trog base and shined up and hung around her neck.

People argue that because they've already tried it that they won't again -why not? It's already researched, formatted, packaged, shrink-wrapped and ready to go at their conventions (e.g. CPAC)

But wait -there's more!

So far Obama has been pretty low key against Hillary about this, but do you think that the GOP will lay off of the "Hillary worked for Commies" angle? Me neither!!! What about the "Bill pardoned two Weather Underground members" angle? Fat chance!! Mark Rich? Get out of town!!

They're psychotic -they don't care that it's been done before they'll just keep pounding away at it w/r it works or not. They have nothing to lose.

UPDATE: Oh, and I'm sure this will be completely ignored.

OBAMA DUMPS WRIGHT

2008-04-30T13:29:00.000-07:00

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright has resurfaced and is making a tour-de-force across the pundi-sphere, starting with an appearance on Bill Moyers and culminating in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington.

During the NPC speech Wright said that Obama was only distancing himself from Wright because was a politician and saying what politicians say. This set Obama off and in a press conference Tuesday he broke decisively with Reverend Wright saying:

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church, has built a wonderful conversation. They are a wonderful people and what attracted me has always been the ministries reach beyond church walls. But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions, that the U.S. government is involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Louis Farrakhan represents one of the greatest voices of the 21st century, when he equates the United States' wartime effort with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me, they rightfully offend all Americans, and they should be denounced. That is what I am doing very clearly and unequivocally here today."

Obama also said that he's (Wright's) not the same man he thought he knew for 20 years, but it still hasn't stopped the Hillaroids and even some of the media from tarring Obama with Wright because he was a member of the church for 20 years.

The major flaw in the "what was he (Obama) doing there for 20 years?" argument is the assumption that Wright has remained the same person for the entire period. But let's look at (part of) Wright's NPC speech:

I found his smirking and preening at the press club truly odd behavior for the venue. I am one of the few who actually went back and viewed the entire sermons from which the controversial clips were culled and he didn't seem to be acting that way even then. His demeanor at the press club seemed to be rudely dismissive and disrespectful of the entire body of those who'd asked him to speak at THEIR venue.

Why speak there then? If you hold the national press in such high disregard why bless them with your presence? His entire "performance" as Obama put it was for his "fans" who were obviously liberally sprinkled throughout the hall as indicated by the racket they made. I understand that that's how some African-Americans behave in their churches and I celebrate them for it -but giving a public speach as a guest is another matter. E.g. when you're invited to someone's home as a guest you don't invite your buddies over and start playing poker in the middle of the living room. Examining the video of the speech you can notice a few times when even his supporters seemed uncomfortable.

All of this is to say that perhaps Obama is right and that Wright is not or is no longer the same person he was 20 years ago or for 20 years. Whether this is because of medication, advanced age, mental illness or just plain change we can't know without more. I'd be interested in hearing from a few of his (other) congregants to find out if they've noticed any change in him.

I also think it's highly suspect that Wright makes himself into the spokesman for the entire "black church" (whatever that is -blacks follow as many denominations as whites or anyone else) through his claiming that the attacks on Obama using his sermons are not in fact attacks on Obama or on him but on the "black church". This is an attempt to paint the attacks on his controversial stances simply as racism and that is, at best, intellectually dishonest.

Finally, I think Obama has put himself in a win-win situation with his response: He's completely deflated any notion that he might secretly share Wright's more controversial views (except perhaps for the most die hard Hillaroids or Obamahaters) and if Wright comes back at him he'll only be seen as a victim.

LETS PUT THIS BS TO BED

2008-04-23T22:26:00.000-07:00

Can we please get rid of the new canard that has arisen -particularly in the wake of the PA primary (which has somehow ridiculously become the template for the state of the entire democratic campaign) that Barack Obama has a "problem" with "white, working class voters"?

If this is true then why did Obama win

Alaska
Colorado
Connecticut
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Minnesota
Nebraska
North Dakota
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin and
Wyoming?

(this list leaves out a few states mostly in the south that he has won but which have larger minority populations)

Just wondering. Is it just that Obama only has a problem with "white, working class voters" in the states where Clinton is favored to win? Or is it (heavens no!) simply more bullsh*t manufactured to keep the race more "interesting" for the media.

NAME THAT POLITICIAN

2008-04-23T12:16:00.000-07:00

August 2nd, 2007:

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," [politician] said. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

April 22nd, 2008:

"[Iran's] use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States, which personally I believe would prevent it from happening. And that we would try to help the other countries that might be intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran because they were a nuclear power, avoid that fate by creating this new security umbrella."

and:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel]." "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,"

...but that's not a blanket statement of course.

I'll give you a hint: it's neither John McCain nor Barack Obama.

WOW, IT FINALLY HAPPENED

2008-04-21T11:25:00.000-07:00

I just knew that the Hillary campaign was saving something to dump today as the last message before the PA primary tomorrow. Here is the ad that is Hillary's last-ditch stand:

(YouTube video)

Is that what it's finally come to? Usameh Bin-Laden? She has to invoke Bin-Laden? How utterly tragic. Here's the woman who has been running for president unofficially for the last 8 years and officially for a year and a quarter. She had nearly instant frontrunner status that lasted for nearly a year but since Obama won Iowa has plunged so far and so fast that now in a desperate last convulsion of negativity she pulls the ultimate fearmongering card? Wow.

To be honest though I've been bagging on Hillary a lot lately I never really thought she'd go this far.

And hasn't she basically run out this "ready on day one" meme by now? She wasn't even ready on Super Tuesday. Her campaign is run into the ground and running at a deficit, she praises McCain over Obama, she says how honored she is to be in the race with Obama one day and the very next day is shaming him, and now she finally uses the same vile fear-mongering Rovian atacks that gave us an 8-year Bush presidency? Is that how she's ready?

At one time I actually thought that the democratic ticket would be strong no matter who was the nominee. The field of candidates seemed equally strong -particularly the top 3. How deluded that thought was. I used to say that she wasn't my favorite, but that if she was the nominee I'd proudly vote for her in November. Then after a few of her antics I said that I wouldn't prefer it, but that if she was the nominee I'd march in lockstep and vote for her as a loyal democrat. Then after more I said that "well I hope she's not the nominee but if she is I guess I'll hold my nose and vote for her" (though in private in a few brash rants I threatened to sit out the election in November but I didn't really mean it.)

Now I honestly don't know what I'll do if she somehow pulls it out. I have ranted nonstop about the fearmongering tactics of the Bush cabal and how there used to be something to the idea that there were some things that were worse than death. FDR said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, and I took him literally. For the last few years I've used this as my "signature line" in emails and online: "In slightly over 200 years we've gone from "Give me liberty or give me death" to "Give up your liberty or you'll die". BushCo have turned the country so into a bunch of simpering terror pansies and the discourse into the black and white McCarthy-ite "you're with us or with the terrorists" tripe that passes for politics that I have to restrain myself nightly from tossing my TV out the window just to try to find out what's going on in the world. How can I countenance a candidate from my own party that uses the same dog-whistle scaring tactics as the people I've despised for the last 8 years? How can I rationalize that enough to vote for them?

Here is what should be the Obama camp's next ad:

(YouTube video)

V.O. "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message"

It's gotten so bad that one of the people responsible for bringing us the Bush years to begin with has come out for Obama.

I can only hope Pennsylvanians bring their garlic and holy water to the polls with them and put this woman to rest (politically speaking of course - can never be too careful on the "internets") for good. Otherwise I'll be in a serious funk until this thing's decided (and god forbid maybe afterward)

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED BABY!

2008-04-17T16:38:00.000-07:00

Just like Maddow said today:

Iraq to Open Oil-Field Bidding
Big Companies to Compete for Exploration, Production Rights

By Jonathan
Stearns and Glen Carey
Bloomberg News
Thursday, April 17, 2008; Page D06

Iraq will open at least six major oil and natural-gas fields for exploration and production in the first bidding for licenses since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Iraq, which pre-qualified international oil companies this week for the bidding, will open the southern fields of Rumaila North, Rumaila South, West Qurna and Zubair for exploration, Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said in an interview in Brussels yesterday. In the north, international oil companies will be invited to develop the Kirkuk oil field and the Akkaz gas field.

"At least six giant fields will be included, including some gas fields," Shahristani said. "There will be other bid rounds next year, and more companies will be qualified as we go along."

[...]

Iraq pre-qualified 35 of 120 U.S., European and Asian companies that submitted documents between Jan. 9 and Feb. 18 to participate in the licensing round, Oil Ministry spokesman Asim Jihad said Monday.

Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, and Europe's two biggest, Royal Dutch Shell and BP, were among the 35, as were ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Total. Others included Russia's Gazprom, the world's largest natural-gas producer, and Lukoil, the Russian oil producer with the most overseas assets. Mitsubishi and Inpex Holding of Japan and China's Sinochem were also accepted.

Pre-qualified.

4000+ US troops, 90K documented civilian deaths (that's just the documented ones), 30k+ "official" wounded, civil war, instability in the region, torture, destroyed US credibility in the world so that Exxon, Shell, Chevron, Philips, and BP could be pre-qualified.

There's a special ring in Hell reserved for them.

MCBUSH

2008-04-15T14:33:00.000-07:00

This is a great new ad from Progressive Media USA, the group formed to carry on the mission of the Campaign to Defend America -who created the "McSame" ad that ran in Ohio.

More please.

MCCAIN'S "TROLLOP" IS A PLAGIARIST

2008-04-15T09:37:00.000-07:00

Apparently Grandpa's wife (I don't call her "grandma" as she's his second wife and nearly 20 years younger) whom he has been documented affectionately calling a "trollop" and a "c--t" has posted several "McCain family recipes" at his website which she has stolen from the food network.

Oddly, the recipes have now been removed from Gramps' website and replaced with "page cannot be found".

It's Ok though, she can just hang on to his walker as he continues his free ride from the press.

BARACK-Y THE MOVIE

2008-04-15T07:10:00.000-07:00

Pretty funny.

Adding: Obama seems to be riding out the latest wave of hypocritical bullsh*t from both the other republican candidates.

This "elitist and out of touch" stuff is amazing. The republicans dust it off every election and it still packs a powerful punch even though it's been debunked over and over. We'll see in a few days if it really does any damage this time. There are several factors working against its effectiveness this time around.

First is simply Obama's own life story. A child of a Black man and a white midwestern woman born in 1960 would not have been raised in the lap of luxury - and Obama wasn't, though he doesn't lay any claims to having been poor. Having risen from middle class to the editor of the Harvard Law Review without any "legacy" help is astounding. Afterward he decided not to take the big-bucks Wall Street route but went to work as a civil rights lawyer and later law professor -neither of which will buy you any private jets. As someone else has remarked, this makes Obama elite not elitist.

Secondly, this attack coming from either of the other candidates is laughable. John McCain 's father and grandfather were admirals, he spent his life in the Navy (the particulars of which are well documented) and went directly into Congress after retiring from the Navy. He's never been "in touch" with mainstream Americans because he's lived his life in a series of bubbles.

Clinton's barely better. Republican for Goldwater, Wellesley undergrad, Yale Law school (though like Obama she was not a "legacy"). As she likes to tout she's had 35 years of experience in Washington (not exactly a lifeline to the "regular folk") and last year she and Bill claimed 109 million dollars on their taxes. And yet she claims Obama is out of touch?

Finally, I think people are catching-wise to this tactic. Despite the psychotic babbling of the talking-head class (quintessentially elitist themselves), I think people are getting tired of being told that they're too stupid to know when they're being pandered to. Ironically, while Hillary slams Obama as out of touch, her incessant calculating, "triangulating" and sticking her finger in the wind before she pounces on the latest manufactured outrage is what will do her in in the end. The same people she tries to turn against the nominee from her own party are growing tired of her patronizing pandering to them, and this is just the latest installment.

Still, with the terminal memory loss of the electorate anything's possible, and this tactic keeps being dredged up because it works. I'm just a little sad that it has to be from a "democrat".

JOHM MCCAIM FOR PRESIDEMT?

2008-04-09T13:11:00.000-07:00

This is a screen shot from the end of Grandpa's latest ad:

(from instaputz)

I guess old hawkeye's proofing his own stuff now? (or should I say "proofing his owm stuff mow?)

As Instaputz says: "If McCain can't spell his name properly, how can we expect him to beat the terrorists?"

Truly.

GRANDPA STRIKES AGAIN

2008-04-08T15:21:00.000-07:00

Yep. You guessed it -Gramps just can't get the whole sunni-shia Al-Qaeda thing straight:

McCain: There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view Al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?
Petraeus: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.
McCain: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shiites overall?
Petraeus: No, no sir.
McCain: Or Sunnis or anybody else then? Al Qaeda continues to try to assert themselves in Mosul, is that correct?
Petraeus: It is senator, as you saw on the chart. The area of operation of Al Qaeda has been greatly reduced in terms of controlling areas they controlled as little as a year and a half ago.

Think the "journalists" will pause their circle-jerk around grampy to comment on it? NAAAAAAAH!

ONLY ONE QUESTION FOR PETRAEUS

2008-04-08T07:35:00.000-07:00

How will we know when we've won in Iraq?

Every party line bloviation from the cheerleaders insists that we're working toward something, and every voice supporting our continued occupation says that we can leave when we've won. Ok then, how will we know?

RANDI RHODES SUSPENSION

2008-04-04T08:46:00.000-07:00

Oh boy.

Air America host Randi Rhodes has been suspended because, while delivering a "standup routine" off the air at an Air America event for an affiliate, she called Hillary Clinton a "dirty f*king whore".

Over the line a tad? Yeah.

Look, it's one thing to slam a candidate for something they've said or done, but this is pure ad hominem name-calling of the most offensive kind. Even that could be defensible if it were funny, but it's not.

I understand what she was trying to do -be shocking and over the top, but in and of itself that isn't funny -particularly not in this context. Rhodes is noted for her pitt-bull style of political commentary and so a certain amount of aggression is expected, and because it's expected, it's not funny when she goes over the top. If it were unexpected -it would be funny. For example if Mother Theresa called Hillary a "dirty f*cking whore."

This is the same thing Michael Richards was trying to do, and just as when he did it, it wasn't funny. In his case it wasn't funny because he already has a "crazy" type of persona. Crazy and racist isn't a funny juxtoposition because it's not a far enough jump, i.e. you might expect a crazy person to utter racist statements.

The unexpected is funny -as an analogy consider the difference between people ignoring a dead body lying on the table at a morgue, and people ignoring a dead body lying on the table at a fancy dress dinner party.

In the latter case -the more outrageously disgusting the dead body is the funnier it is, whereas adding disgusting features to the body in the former scenario doesn't make it any more funny.

Additionally, Air America was completely justified in suspending her. True, this was not on the air, but it was at an Air America sponsored event, and the network can't be seen as sanctioning that kind of behavior -it'd kill them.

Moreover this is not a case of "censorship. The 1st Amendment only protects people from having their speech restricted by the government or by those acting under government authority. Having an FCC license doesn't make them a government entity any more than having a liquor license makes a liquor store into one. Air America is a private entity and is perfectly within its rights to have a policy restricting the behavior of its employees at one of its events. I would think they were incredibly stupid if they didn't suspend her.

So now Rhodes has been suspended and her career is in jeopardy, which is a shame because she has proven herself to be one of the more capable talk-radio voices because of her skill in distilling the issues and presenting them in an "average Joe" format.

Finally, it was horribly myopic of her not to realize that in the YouTube age -anything you say or do in public can be videoed and used to nail you.

Ironically, the person she was slamming (the Tigress of Tuzla as some have called her) found that out before she did

GRANDPA CONTINUES HIS FREE RIDE

2008-04-03T14:32:00.000-07:00

Gee the MSM has completely absolved John Mc~~Cain~~Bush of his senior moments, and is happily ignoring his insisting on at least 4 occasions that Iran and Al Qaeda are working together to take over Iraq. Worse yet his minions like Sloppy Joe are spreading the ^&*% even more.

*sigh*

History Lesson (in a nutshell) folks:

"Al Qaeda" is the name given by us to the movement that was started by Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri based on the teachings of Said Qutb. Qutb was a Sunni Muslim from Egypt who, while attending school in America in the 1950's, became disenchanted with western ideas because he thought that they were leading to immorality and decadence (I mean boys and girls were actually dancing together for crying out loud!)

He left America and went back to Egypt where he joined the Muslim Brotherhood (another sunni extremist group founded in the 1920s.) and wrote a book called "Milestones" which stated that Egyptian leaders had become so corrupted that they were no longer to be considered muslims and therefore could be killed. Qutb was executed by the Egyptian government for conspiracy.

This book and Qutb's teachings influenced Ayman Al-Zawahiri who, after Qutb's execution went into hiding forming a terrorist cell to implement Qutb's teachings. This cell later became the Egyptian "Islamic Jihad" which tried a coup which Egypt defeated. Al Zawahiri was imprisoned. After he was released he met and became close with Usama Bin Laden who went to Afghanistan to help the Mujhaddin fight the USSR. The two reunited after that war, and Al Zawahiri merged his group with Bin Laden's.

There's much more detail to the story, but the point is that Al-Qaeda is a Sunni muslim group. Iran is a Shiite state.

McCain claims that Shiite Iran is training Sunni Al Qaeda against the US effort in Iraq. Here's what Al Zawahiri says:

"The dispute between America and Iran is a real dispute based on the struggle over areas of influence, and the possibility of America striking Iran is a real possibility. As for what might happen in the region, I can only say that major changes will occur in the region, and the situation (US attacking Iran) will be in the interest of [Al Qaeda] if the war saps both of them. If, however, one of them emerges victorious, its influence will intensify and fierce battles will begin between it and [Al Qaeda], except that the Jihadi awakening currently under way and the degeneration state of affairs of the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq will make it impossible for Iran or America to become the sole decision-maker in the region." (emphasis and parentheses mine).

he also says

"With regard to Iraq, Iran achieved an agreement with the Americans before the latter's entry into Iraq. The agreement provided for partitioning Iraq. The Shiite militias trained, funded, and armed by Iran for years advanced violently and quickly into Iraq following the collapse of the Saddam regime. They were merged into the Iraqi Army and other Iraqi security services. They were and remain the Crusader occupier's paws used to strike at Muslims in Iraq"

Oh yeah, but Al Qaeda's training with Iran too?

Thank God McCain's got that Foreign Policy experience and has "passed the Commander in Chief threshold".

Keep on talking grandpa- right into insignificance.

MOVING UP IN THE WORLD?

2008-04-02T15:35:00.000-07:00

HEY! I got "HuffPost's pick" for a comment I left regarding this article by Carlotta Cooper at Huffington Post about how Obama "risks alienating Clinton women and blue-collar supporters" -the subject of which -contrary to the headline- seems to be that if Obama doesn't say anything about his supporters asking Hillary to bow-out that he'll piss-off Hillary's supporters particularly her "base" of "older white women", and yet when he came out and said that Hillary has every right to stay in the race he was patronizing. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Here's what I said:

What amazes me about when people toss around the term "older white women" is that they ignore the first two words of the phrase and zero in on the third. This primary has in more ways than one become a decision about whether we want to hand the torch off to the next generation or keep it in the hands of the current older white ruling class.

Senator Clinton regardless her gender represents all the facets and foibles of the past. Would electing her be a positive milestone in our nation's history? Certainly. Would it dramatically change the power structure in Washington? Not a scintilla. She has spent her entire career trying to be accepted by the Washington circle tragically to find at last that a majority in the nation no longer want that in a president-a fact made all the more apparent by the convergence of two factors: the desperation to scrape off the slime of the bush years and the wild success of an unlikely candidate -Senator Obama.

The older white women need to realize that Clinton would provide them a Pyrrhic victory at best in the gender wars and that, for the sake of their progeny, they need to hand off that torch.

Not bad for an armchair pundit, eh?

HILLARY CLINTON CONCEDES

2008-04-01T16:43:00.000-07:00

Via CNN:

AT LONG LAST!

2008-03-31T14:57:00.000-07:00

Hillary's released her tax returns!!!!

(Hat-tip to the jed report)

THIS'LL GET YA'

2008-03-26T12:20:00.000-07:00

...Unless you're a Republican or a Hillaroid.

From Bob Cesca at HuffPo:

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME?

2008-03-26T11:11:00.000-07:00

This is a picture of Hillary:

With Richard Mellon Scaife. Yes. That Richard Mellon Scaife.

She's giving an interview to his newspaper. Read that last sentence again.

What the hell is she doing in the same room with this guy?

This is, after all, the the Fuhrer of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

This is the the same guy who dedicated all his resources to destroying her and her husband for a decade!

-It's not as if this is some sort of reconciliation meeting.

-It's not as if her campaign needs his newspaper's coverage

-It's not as if his rag sheet is ever going to endorse her

SO WTF IS SHE DOING THERE?

Must be Stockholm Syndrome. Maybe BPS?

BULLSH*T: THE SEQUEL

2008-03-21T15:00:00.001-07:00

What was it that Onion reporter was saying about how partial he was to Hillary's bullsh*t?

I guess she just wanted to give him more.

MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN OLBERMANN?

2008-03-21T12:28:00.001-07:00

Wow. This is really an amazing clip.

Chris Wallace of Faux News uncharacteristically "calls BS" on the Fox & Friends gaggle of vacuous douchebags for harping for over 2 hours on Barack Obama's having used the phrase "typical white person" extemporaneously in an interview on a local Philly radio talk show.

The expressions on the faces of the Fox & Friends crew as they span the gamut from deer-in-the-headlights to disgust are priceless! Watch this:

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but one gets the impressions both that Chris Wallace is perhaps plagued by the guilt of his arc from old journalism to sleeze and of having been truly touched by Obama's speech on race. It's great theatre at any rate.

THE WRIGHT STUFF

2008-03-20T14:55:00.000-07:00

So much has been made regarding Obama's connection with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright that I don't think I need to restate the controversy here.

What is completely overlooked here -even by Barack Obama himself- is that the criticisms of Obama regarding this issue show not just a fundamental misunderstanding of black vs. white issues, but a fundamental misunderstanding of religion.

Consider the chief argument utilized by Obama bashers: how could he sit in those pews week in week out for 20 years listening to that man and getting his spiritual guidance and yet disagree with his views?

Let's set aside for the moment the flawed assumption that every sermon by Wright was as filled with invective as the moments from the ones depicted in the circulating clips are. Even assuming that the clips were culled from services where the entire sermon was as accusatory (an unlikely premise in and of itself -I mean I assume the man had to take a breather at some point!) these are but 3 or 4 sermons in the entire 26 year career of Reverend Wright.

But for arguments sake let's assume that the above is true and that every Sunday Reverend Wright gave an agressive invective filled accusatory sermon from his pulpit. Why assume that anyone who sat in those pews must have instantly agreed with every word? This is the issue that the controversy brings up for me -that people assume that churchgoers are sponges soaking up religious messages to go out into the world and squeeze them out. It assumes that somehow religion erases intellect and that parishioners do not process sermons or even think about them but merely store them. In other words it assumes that churchgoers are only passive and not active.

As a practicing Christian I find that patronizing if not offensive. The same kind of thinking was what led people to fear that Kennedy would slavishly enforce the Pope's will in Rome. It's ignorant and bigoted.

As any Christian can tell you (and though I speak with only catholic experience I can safely assume is true of most denominations -they do all follow the same text after all) the people are the church. Not the pastors, not the heirarchy, not any one person. The community.

This means, of course that the community is going to be filled with a variety of people -they are as individual as a sub group as is any super-group.

For example, I have about as much in common politically with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League as I do with Rush Limbaugh. Donohue and I are both catholics and yet and I don't assume that the presence of either of us in the pews is a reason for the other to leave the faith or that either of us would be caught dead letting the other be assumed to be speaking for all catholics.

Closer to home there is a priest in my parish who actually proclaims himself to be the "Dr. Laura of the parish". Why this would be cause to brag is a mystery to any sane person, and yet he does a great job as a teacher and catechist for the confirmation classes. I have heard several sermons from him that I have disagreed with and even walked out on one (though truth be told I made an effort not to draw attention to myself in doing so). The point is that his objectionable sermons do not detract from the power of the messages of Jesus because I am able th reflect on both his words and Jesus' on my own and come to my own conclusion.

This is where Obama has missed the mark IMO: in not making plain or clear enough what his experience was in the church. Some might say that that is too personal and they'd be right, but at this time and in his present position he has no choice and cannot keep it private any longer.

Obama's speech on race was brilliant and will be talked about for generations to come, but the other door to be opened from this episode is one that Democrats seem to have even a harder time opening than the one about race -that is, the one about religion. We also need to have a serious discussion in this country between the religious and non-religious on the nature of religion and how it affects and whether it should or shouldn't affect both the religious and non-religious.

Take Obama's painting of the resentment felt by both blacks and whites and you can easily transpose it to religious vs. athiest. Without reciting the entire history of/ litany against the church, Atheists are resentful because they feel that the religious look down on them as somehow inferior, and amoral. While this was true in the past and is probably true in some quarters in the present, it doesn't mean that all religious or even a majority feel this way now. Religious (the majority -who don't view atheists as inferior and amoral) feel that athiests mock their faith as either unintelligent or insane. The resentments by both sides are real and justified, and that's where we are.

Personally, I don't want to convert anyone to my religion. I'm happy if they do, and I'm certainly happy to answer any questions about it, but it honestly doesn't affect my judgment of a person. I want to let my religion affect my life and prefer not to be lumped-in with every one else who claims my religion, my denomination or even my parish. To me that's as offensive as lumping me into some group based on the color of my skin or the sound of my last name.

Senator Obama has summed up his relationship with Reverend wright by saying in essence that the whole of the man should not be judged by the most offensive moments of a few of his sermons and this is undeniably true, but he should also challenge those who would criticize his relationship with the pastor of his church to reflect on their own relationships with their own pastors or conversely on how they think a person in a church is affected by that church and whether it is a fair or reasonable impression to hold him to.

OH DEAR

2008-03-20T14:34:00.000-07:00

It just keeps getting better.

MCCAIN: PURIM = HALLOWEEN?

When McCain made a foreign policy gaffe in Jordan on Tuesday, it was Sen. Joe Lieberman who quietly pointed out the mistake, giving McCain an opportunity to correct himself in front of the international press corps. In Israel yesterday, NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum reports, Lieberman once again intervened when McCain made an incorrect reference about the Jewish holiday Purim -- by calling the holiday "their version of Halloween here."

BULLSH*T

2008-03-20T10:45:00.000-07:00

couldn't resist:

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

And in other news:

BLACK GUY ASKS NATION FOR CHANGE

CHICAGO-According to witnesses, a loud black man approached a crowd of some 4,000 strangers in downtown Chicago Tuesday and made repeated demands for change.

"The time for change is now," said the black guy, yelling at everyone within earshot for 20 straight minutes, practically begging America for change. "The need for change is stronger and more urgent than ever before. And only you—the people standing here today, and indeed all the people of this great nation—only you can deliver this change."

It is estimated that, to date, the black man has asked every single person in the United States for change.

"I've already seen this guy four times today," Chicago-area ad salesman Blake Gordon said. "Every time, it's the same exact spiel. 'I need change.' 'I want change.' Why's he so eager for all this change? What's he going to do with it, anyway?"

After his initial requests for change, the black man rambled nonstop on a variety of unrelated topics, calling for affordable health care, demanding that the government immediately begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, and proposing a $75 billion economic stimulus plan to create new jobs.

"What a wacko," Schaumburg, IL resident Patrick Morledge said.

MC-IDIOCY

2008-03-18T14:06:00.000-07:00

Apparently John McCain, just like his overlords Bush and Cheney, doesn't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims. And I'm not talking about their doctrinal or historical differences -he just doesn't get who's who:

(video from ABC news via Raw Story)

"it's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran"

Common knowledge? That Sunni Al Qaeda is going into Shiite Iran and receiving training?

Gee who knew those Iranian Mullah's were so tolerant?

And leave it to good ol' GOP BFF Joe Lieberman to have to straighten out ol "straight talk"

One final thought: This is the man Hillary thinks has passed the CIC "threshold" and, along with her, has the experience to be president?

UPDATE (3/20/08): Apparently this wasn't simply a one time slip but McSkippy has repeated this both before and since this "slip".

UPDATE II (3/20/08): Also apparently CNN has been re-christened "McCNN". One of their reporters, Kyra Phillips, shamlessly repeats McBush's "gaffe" and tries to get Petraeus to comment on it:

(from TPM)

HISTORY IN ACTION

2008-03-18T13:30:00.000-07:00

A few thoughts on Obama's speech today.

Definitely rivals Kennedy's speech to the southern ministers re his Catholicism and church v state. Doubtless, we'll someday be teaching Obama's speeches in history classes.

I especially liked how he didn't trivialize or talk down to the resentment both blacks and whites feel from their respective corners.

The two things that really emotionally hit me every time I hear one of his speeches are: 1) he makes me proud -really proud- to me an American and 2) He makes me want to strive to personally be better and contribute to that "more perfect union" he cited in this speech.

I'm seeing the chatter among his supporters change from "we need him in office" to "we'd better not miss this chance to have someone like him". Subtle shift, but important IMO.

I suffer "indigestion" on a regular basis about whether as a nation we'll actually seize this opportunity, attempt to heal as a nation, and move forward, or whether we'll capitulate to the SOS and continue toward what will, in that case, be a well deserved destruction (or at least diminution).

I'm confident that an Obama presidency would sharply alter the trajectory of our nation toward a better future. I just wish I could be as confident that an Obama presidency will in fact happen.

2008-03-07T09:48:00.000-08:00

Oh, and by the way -refer back to this post and tell me if I'm wrong:

She says that Obama is basing his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN on a speech he gave in 2002?

NO HE ISN'T. That's just unmitigated mendacity.

It's one thing to claim that you have experience -but you'd better be able to back that up, and you'd better be able to show that that experience MEANS something.

Obama needs to keep showing 1. that her claims of experience are silly, and 2. that no matter how much experience she's had it hasn't seemed to affect her judgment.

WHOSE SIDE IS SHE ON?

2008-03-07T09:08:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: so it appears that the total delegates from not-so-super-Tuesday that Hillary has picked up is 8. That hardly makes any difference and Obama is likely to cancel that out as CA certifies the votes that had the "double bubble" trouble, or in this weekend's primaries in Wyoming and Mississippi.

Meanwhile, Hillary keeps praising McCain and slamming Obama, creating more for McCain to use against the eventual nominee with every utterance:

There's worse and the piece below chrystalizes it. This is one of the most powerful pieces of advertising I've ever seen:

Too bad it'll never see the light of day on the MSM.

As Rachel Maddow said on MSNBC Tuesday night: "this is the kind of thing you say when you're hoping to be picked as John McCain's running mate".

OY

2008-03-05T07:08:00.000-08:00

Ok, so it's the morning after the Super Tuesday II hoohah. And the Oscar goes to...Hillary Clinton for "The Big Comback" MSNBC, CNN and Mark Penn producers.

To hear her tell it she's kicked Obama's ass and is "going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York … And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeeeeeeeearrrrrrhhhhh!!!"

Reality check folks -know how many delegates she picked up after last night?

...Drum roll please...

ONE. That's right -as of now- one. The delegate totals? 185 Clinton, 184 Obama.

To be fair she might pick up a couple more as the vote totals come in but regardless it's by no means a blowout, and without blowouts of the remaining states she can't possibly make up the gap she has now.

I think it's time for the gloves to come off. Ok, Ok, calm down -I don't mean that Obama should resort to the lowlife cheap shots she's leveled at him. But he definitely should start taking it to her with regard to her claims of "experience". First as to the amount of experience she claims she has (she says 35 years -that would mean every year since undergrad since she's 60) and then as to what she's labeling experience (First Lady? Governor's Wife? Rose Law Firm?) . Finally, he should hammer home the judgement her "experience" has produced as he's already been doing.

A comment at TPM calls her Iraq war vote into even greater question and totally kills the "I didn't know Bush was going to take the AUMF and actually attack Iraq" bullshit argument she's made.

She's even now saying that she'd entertain a Clinton/Obama ticket -with her at the top of course. How magnanimous "well I can't beat you, so how would you like to work for me?" This of course is after she claimed Obama is less ready to lead than McCain. If that's the case why would she want Obama as her second in command?

The only way I see a joint ticket happening is if she pulls waaaaaay closer in the delegate count and cuts the crap. Why should Obama agree as long as he wins in the delegate count? Plus she's not going to back off the BS any time soon because with this new burst of not entirely justified energy Mark Penn is going to take credit for the "victory" and claim it was a result of the negative press he created against Obama. She'll never drop Penn now, and he's the douchebag responsible for all the cheap shot attacks.

BTW they're now blacking Obama up in their ads -darkening his skin and widening the video to make his nose appear broader just like Time did to OJ.

This isn't going to get any better. And if Obama keeps going strong she's only going to hit harder and lower and in the process sever any possibility of a joint ticket.

Finally as I said at TPM:

I think back to a Thom Hartmann show from a few weeks ago live from the CPAC convention. He (or a guest I forget which) said that the booths there all had anti-Hillary bumper-stickers, t-shirts, buttons, posters etc. for sale whereas there was shockingly no anti-obama paraphenalia.

None. At all.

They can't wait to get their hands on her, and don't forget that the fact that they've done it all before also means that they've practiced it all before -i.e. the "research" is already done, formatted, packaged and awaiting distribution.

I don't agree that the longer this goes on the more the Dems can get their message out and keep McCain off the front pages. McCain's a known quantity and becoming moreso every time he embraces Bush or his policies. The American People know what they'll get with McCain, and frankly every time he speaks he just looks old and tired -that message is stark and clear. They think they know what they'll get with Hillary (though they don't), but the problem is they have yet to grasp what they'll get with Obama -and all the prolonged nomination process will do is give the wingnuts time to gear up against him, because he'll have to spend all his time fighting attacks from someone in his own party rather than putting his best foot forward.

Don't get me wrong -if by some miracle she gets the nomination I'll dutifully vote for her in the general, but she's making it increasingly more difficult for me to do so enthusiastically.

It's going to be a long seven weeks. *sigh*

CLEVER JOHN

2008-03-04T09:03:00.000-08:00

Apparently John McCain has developed a staggeringly clever plan to take the lobbyists out of Washington by putting them in his campaign.

HEH

2008-03-03T16:22:00.001-08:00

Indeed.