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.
Friday, March 21, 2008
MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN OLBERMANN?
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.
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.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
THE WRIGHT STUFF
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
MC-IDIOCY
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)
(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
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.
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.
Friday, March 07, 2008
MORE
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.
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?
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".
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".
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
OY
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*
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*
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
CLEVER JOHN
Apparently John McCain has developed a staggeringly clever plan to take the lobbyists out of Washington by putting them in his campaign.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
SHE SAID WHAT!?!?
Tonight's Democratic primary debate in Ohio was typically contentious. Obviously Clinton is completely oblivious of the fact that she polls higher when she's more professional and gracious as she was at the end of the last debate. Her handlers are equally oblivious and have taken tens of millions of dollars from her supporters to make her look like a laughingstock.
Obama held up unsurprisingly well -even in the face of Tim Russert's ridiculous hypos about Iraq : "what if the Iraqi government says get out now, will you leave?" what utter shit, and slime about Ferrakhan "Ferrakhan supports you and he calls Judaism a 'gutter religion' therefore are you an antisemite too?" Outrageous. This is what passes for neutral moderation now.
Kudo's to Clinton for calling Russert on his BS hypotheticals:
Obama held up unsurprisingly well -even in the face of Tim Russert's ridiculous hypos about Iraq : "what if the Iraqi government says get out now, will you leave?" what utter shit, and slime about Ferrakhan "Ferrakhan supports you and he calls Judaism a 'gutter religion' therefore are you an antisemite too?" Outrageous. This is what passes for neutral moderation now.
Kudo's to Clinton for calling Russert on his BS hypotheticals:
MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?Pretty good answers from both overall, however the most surprising moment IMO was in this exchange:
SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe that what's --
MR. RUSSERT: But this is reality.
SEN. CLINTON: No -- well, it isn't reality. You're -- you're -- you're making lots of different hypothetical assessments.
MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, each of you have talked about your careers in public service. Looking back through them, is there any words or vote that you'd like to take back? Senator Clinton.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, obviously I've said many times that although my vote on the 2002 authorization regarding Iraq was a sincere vote, I would not have voted that way again. I would certainly as president never have taken us to war in Iraq, and I regret deeply that President Bush waged a preemptive war, which I warned against and said i disagreed with.[...]
MR. RUSSERT:
But, to be clear, you'd like to have your vote back.SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely. I've said that many times.
W-W-WHAT? She's said *what* many times? That her Iraq vote was a mistake and that she wishes she had it back? Really?
Gee that's the first time I've ever heard of her saying that! In fact that was my original reason for backing Edwards: that he'd had the guts to come out and say that he voted yes on the AUMF for Iraq and that it was a mistake whereas Hillary (until tonight anyway) hadn't.
Unbef**kinglieveable! How can she say that with a straight face? I mean credit where credit's due -she IS saying it now -but to say that she's said it many times?
Complete unadulterated horsesh*t.
DODD ENDORSES OBAMA
Recieved this email today:
Veep other presidential candidates hopping on board with Obama and providing the final nails in her campaign's coffin.
Interesting that Richardson hasn't endorsed yet as he was reportedly on Hillary's short-list. Hmm. And, of course Edward's endorsement will lose more traction the longer he waits to give it.
In the next week or so as Hillary's campaign implodes, look to see more of the"Dear [OP],
We have been through a lot in this past year and your friendship and support have meant so much to me. That is why I wanted to let you know of my decision to endorse a Democratic candidate for President - and that I have decided to support Barack Obama.
We all understand how much is at stake in this election and that it is more important than ever that we put a Democrat in the White House.
And while both of our Party's remaining candidates are extremely talented and would make excellent commanders-in-chief, I am throwing my support to the candidate who I believe will open the most eyes to our shared Democratic vision.
I'm deeply proud to be the first 2008 Democratic presidential candidate to endorse Barack Obama. He is ready to be President. And I am ready to support him - to work with him and for him and help elect him our 44th President.
Put simply, I believe Barack Obama is uniquely qualified to help us face this housing crisis, create good jobs, strengthen America's families in this 21st century global economy, unite the world against terrorism and end the war in Iraq - and perhaps most importantly, call the American people to shared service and sacrifice. In this campaign, he has drawn millions of voters into politics for the first time in their lives and shown us that we are united by so much more than that which divides us.
That is why I believe the time has come for Democrats to come together as a Party and focus on winning the general election. The stakes are too high not to.
The last seven years have been as difficult as any I can remember. More than ever, we need a President who will inspire us to take part in the political process and change our country's path. Today, when we need it most, we are hearing a new call from Barack Obama. And I hope you, like me, will answer it in the affirmative.
Please get involved in Barack Obama's campaign now.
Sincerely,
Chris Dodd"
Interesting that Richardson hasn't endorsed yet as he was reportedly on Hillary's short-list. Hmm. And, of course Edward's endorsement will lose more traction the longer he waits to give it.
Friday, February 22, 2008
OBAMAMANIA EXPLAINED
The rising tide of the Obama campaign is undeniable. Supporters are so upbeat about his candidacy that they've been labeled fanatical like here and here. The campaign has even been called a cult.
There's a relatively simple explanation for this, and it has to do with leadership style, as gleaned from his past, and yes, his speeches.
I was once told something by a mentor of mine that I have adopted as one of the Essential Truths of Life: There are two types of leaders, "Bosses", and "Coaches". They exist in all fields, and I'm sure that you've experienced both -at least I hope so, but the truth is that the latter are few and far between.
Bosses
A boss is someone who leads toward their own ends. Those ends may or may not coincide with the goals of the company or the people below them. A boss never allows questioning, rather choosing a "do what I tell you because I tell you (or because that's why I pay you)" style. People work for a boss, but only because they have to, and they only put in as much time as they need to in order to get by. Employees don't really care about a boss -it's not that they necessarily hate him or her, it's just that they don't really feel that the boss cares for them or is at all interested in their situation so they're likewise disinterested in the boss.
Coaches
Contrast that with a coach. The term comes from the sports world, but doesn't just apply there. It is however best explained by sports analogy. In reality there are many sports teams who are coached by "bosses". Players will play for a boss, but only as much and as long as it advances them. But for a coach players will "walk over hot coals". They'll put in long hours and sacrifice their well being. Why? Because they know that the coach is only asking them to do something that in the aggregate or in the long run will benefit the whole team, not just the coach or the owners. They know the coach isn't requiring any level of sacrifice from any individual any more than any other or any more than the coach him or herself is giving. They know that the coach would never ask anything unreasonable or frivelous. That's not to say that the coach won't be hard-assed or tougher on some players than others, just that s/he'll not punish or criticize anyone who doesn't deserve it and won't do it except for the benefit of the team.
That kind of leadership inspires trust and when you trust someone you necessarily make yourself vulnerable, and that vulnerability naturally lends itself to an emotional outlet.
So to apply the above to Obama supporters: They (Ok, we) view him as a "coach". His background and past accomplishments indicate that he really does care for the state of the country and that he's willing to fight for principles and legislation that would benefit the whole country, not just his donors or constituents. It's in his words as well. When he speaks he says that it (in this case change for the better) won't be easy and will require sacrifice, but you don't get the feeling that he's not willing to sacrifice himself or to work as hard as he's asking others to do. For that matter, he's the only presidential candidate I've even heard of since JFK who's ever asked for any sacrifice from the American People for the common good. Usually those who talk about the common good are labeled communists (unless of course they're talking about defense). That by itself makes him unique.
The promise of that kind of leadership in a candidate for president is intoxicating. I don't know what an Obama presidency would actually be like, but if you want to know why people are so enthusiastic about his candidacy, that's why.
There's a relatively simple explanation for this, and it has to do with leadership style, as gleaned from his past, and yes, his speeches.
I was once told something by a mentor of mine that I have adopted as one of the Essential Truths of Life: There are two types of leaders, "Bosses", and "Coaches". They exist in all fields, and I'm sure that you've experienced both -at least I hope so, but the truth is that the latter are few and far between.
Bosses
A boss is someone who leads toward their own ends. Those ends may or may not coincide with the goals of the company or the people below them. A boss never allows questioning, rather choosing a "do what I tell you because I tell you (or because that's why I pay you)" style. People work for a boss, but only because they have to, and they only put in as much time as they need to in order to get by. Employees don't really care about a boss -it's not that they necessarily hate him or her, it's just that they don't really feel that the boss cares for them or is at all interested in their situation so they're likewise disinterested in the boss.
Coaches
Contrast that with a coach. The term comes from the sports world, but doesn't just apply there. It is however best explained by sports analogy. In reality there are many sports teams who are coached by "bosses". Players will play for a boss, but only as much and as long as it advances them. But for a coach players will "walk over hot coals". They'll put in long hours and sacrifice their well being. Why? Because they know that the coach is only asking them to do something that in the aggregate or in the long run will benefit the whole team, not just the coach or the owners. They know the coach isn't requiring any level of sacrifice from any individual any more than any other or any more than the coach him or herself is giving. They know that the coach would never ask anything unreasonable or frivelous. That's not to say that the coach won't be hard-assed or tougher on some players than others, just that s/he'll not punish or criticize anyone who doesn't deserve it and won't do it except for the benefit of the team.
That kind of leadership inspires trust and when you trust someone you necessarily make yourself vulnerable, and that vulnerability naturally lends itself to an emotional outlet.
So to apply the above to Obama supporters: They (Ok, we) view him as a "coach". His background and past accomplishments indicate that he really does care for the state of the country and that he's willing to fight for principles and legislation that would benefit the whole country, not just his donors or constituents. It's in his words as well. When he speaks he says that it (in this case change for the better) won't be easy and will require sacrifice, but you don't get the feeling that he's not willing to sacrifice himself or to work as hard as he's asking others to do. For that matter, he's the only presidential candidate I've even heard of since JFK who's ever asked for any sacrifice from the American People for the common good. Usually those who talk about the common good are labeled communists (unless of course they're talking about defense). That by itself makes him unique.
The promise of that kind of leadership in a candidate for president is intoxicating. I don't know what an Obama presidency would actually be like, but if you want to know why people are so enthusiastic about his candidacy, that's why.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
PLAGIARISM?
Well, she did it.
In the Texas debate tonight Hillary was actually conned into following the stupid script her handlers wrote and dropped the "change you can Xerox" lead balloon. She didn't even look comfortable saying it.
And now here it comes:
AND
So this plagiarism thing was an unbelieveably stupid exercise in attempted Rovian attack smearing that failed miserably and now lies coughing up blood in a heap on the floor.
How do you feel now Hills?
Interesting though that the very line she ripped from Edwards seems to some pundits to be an indication that she's ready to concede. I don't think so, but if she gets her ass whooped in Texas it'll be closer and if in both Texas and Ohio it's a certainty.
So the skinny is that she's making nice now strategically to either shore up a veep invite or to preserve her chances for 2012 or 2016. The veep thing seems more credible because she'd be challenging an incumbant Obama in 2012 and in 2016 she'll be 68 -young by political standards, but while sexism is fading, it's not gone, and she'll be (to paraphrase Goldie Hawn) well out of "District attorney" and well into "Driving Miss Daisy" by then.
Also I just don't see her "go[ing] gentl[y] into that good night" without some quid pro quo -it's just not her style.
So IMHO Obama won because it was his to lose and he held on without making any big mistakes.
In the Texas debate tonight Hillary was actually conned into following the stupid script her handlers wrote and dropped the "change you can Xerox" lead balloon. She didn't even look comfortable saying it.
And now here it comes:
AND
So this plagiarism thing was an unbelieveably stupid exercise in attempted Rovian attack smearing that failed miserably and now lies coughing up blood in a heap on the floor.
How do you feel now Hills?
Interesting though that the very line she ripped from Edwards seems to some pundits to be an indication that she's ready to concede. I don't think so, but if she gets her ass whooped in Texas it'll be closer and if in both Texas and Ohio it's a certainty.
So the skinny is that she's making nice now strategically to either shore up a veep invite or to preserve her chances for 2012 or 2016. The veep thing seems more credible because she'd be challenging an incumbant Obama in 2012 and in 2016 she'll be 68 -young by political standards, but while sexism is fading, it's not gone, and she'll be (to paraphrase Goldie Hawn) well out of "District attorney" and well into "Driving Miss Daisy" by then.
Also I just don't see her "go[ing] gentl[y] into that good night" without some quid pro quo -it's just not her style.
So IMHO Obama won because it was his to lose and he held on without making any big mistakes.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
ROVIAN ATTACK POLITICS 101
The latest smear against Barack Obama is that his "just words" speech:
was "plagiarized" (gee there's a loaded term) from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, whom as it turns out is good friends with Obama and who suggested he should use the comparison in his speech.
This is Rovian attack politics 101:
1. Identify the opposition candidate's greatest strength
-Kerry's war record
-Obama's oratorial skill
2. Turn that strength into a weakness by
a. pretending that the candidate is touting it him or herself as a strength.
-e.g. "Kerry isn't really the war hero he says he is" (never mind that he never said it himself)
-Obama is "running on his oratorial skills" (Oh, really?)
b. then undermining the basis for the strength
-Kerry "lied about his war record"
-Obama's "speeches are not his own"
c. associating
that strength with some negative idea and repeating it ad-nauseum in association with the candidate's name.
-Kerry "Lies"
-Obama "plagiarism"
was "plagiarized" (gee there's a loaded term) from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, whom as it turns out is good friends with Obama and who suggested he should use the comparison in his speech.
This is Rovian attack politics 101:
1. Identify the opposition candidate's greatest strength
-Kerry's war record
-Obama's oratorial skill
2. Turn that strength into a weakness by
a. pretending that the candidate is touting it him or herself as a strength.
-e.g. "Kerry isn't really the war hero he says he is" (never mind that he never said it himself)
-Obama is "running on his oratorial skills" (Oh, really?)
b. then undermining the basis for the strength
-Kerry "lied about his war record"
-Obama's "speeches are not his own"
c. associating
that strength with some negative idea and repeating it ad-nauseum in association with the candidate's name.
-Kerry "Lies"
-Obama "plagiarism"
This whole story has been concocted to connect Obama's name with the word "plagiarism". It's Obama's swiftboating. Hillary should be ashamed of herself for taking part in it. This is not what our party represents.
Monday, February 18, 2008
SLAUGHTERHOUSE FOLLOWUP
I posted the video below that shows a slaughterhouse in Southern CA that was slaughtering cows that were too weak or sick to stand by themselves by pushing them with a forklift and or kicking them or spraying water in their noses and mouths (a la waterboarding) to get them to move to the slaughter.
Apparently the outcry from that video has resulted in a recall of 143 million pounds of beef -much of which was being used in school lunches, and an investigation.
Let's keep the pressure on.
UPDATE: Yahoo now has the story on its front page.
Apparently the outcry from that video has resulted in a recall of 143 million pounds of beef -much of which was being used in school lunches, and an investigation.
Let's keep the pressure on.
UPDATE: Yahoo now has the story on its front page.
IN A NUTSHELL
Yesterday I was having lunch with my family and inlaws and we were talking about politics. We all thankfully agree politically so the conversations rarely dissolve in to arguments and this was no exception, as we were agreeing about the current state of the democratic side of the race for president.
My 5 year old son with whom I'd had limited discussions about politics before -enough that he knows that "we" are democrats and that there are other people who are republicans- chimed in asking "why are we democrats?"
Nothing gives you a dose of "gut-check time" more than when you're forced to put your entire political belief system into a perspective that a 5-year-old can grasp. Moreover, I felt it important to give him a real answer and not just sluff it off with an "it's too complicated to get into" response.
I paused for what seemed like an eternity and finally responded with: "Because we believe that the government should help all of the people and not just the rich ones".
*whew*
That's really it though isn't it? Isn't that the idea behind "we the people"?
It's not that the republicans don't believe that the government should work for all of the people -it's that they don't believe that the government should work at all. Period. They don't believe in representative government -that's why they're perfectly happy handing over the reins of every function of daily life to private business and then letting private business follow its own agenda which is of course profit. For itself.
By definition that means that not everyone will be able to have access to those services/functions.
Therefore, since the republicans believe that business should fulfill many of the functions of government, they necessarily don't believe that those functions should be available to all of the people -but only the ones who can afford to pay a private business to do them. That is the traditional definition of "rich" -being able to afford private services: private schools, private hospitals, private security, private mail, ad infinitum.
How anyone could look at any of the actions of the republicans and the measures they support and come to any other conclusion is beyond me.
So, in 5-year-old terms Democrats believe that government should help all the people, Republicans believe the government should only help the rich.
"...and that's why we're democrats."
My 5 year old son with whom I'd had limited discussions about politics before -enough that he knows that "we" are democrats and that there are other people who are republicans- chimed in asking "why are we democrats?"
Nothing gives you a dose of "gut-check time" more than when you're forced to put your entire political belief system into a perspective that a 5-year-old can grasp. Moreover, I felt it important to give him a real answer and not just sluff it off with an "it's too complicated to get into" response.
I paused for what seemed like an eternity and finally responded with: "Because we believe that the government should help all of the people and not just the rich ones".
*whew*
That's really it though isn't it? Isn't that the idea behind "we the people"?
It's not that the republicans don't believe that the government should work for all of the people -it's that they don't believe that the government should work at all. Period. They don't believe in representative government -that's why they're perfectly happy handing over the reins of every function of daily life to private business and then letting private business follow its own agenda which is of course profit. For itself.
By definition that means that not everyone will be able to have access to those services/functions.
Therefore, since the republicans believe that business should fulfill many of the functions of government, they necessarily don't believe that those functions should be available to all of the people -but only the ones who can afford to pay a private business to do them. That is the traditional definition of "rich" -being able to afford private services: private schools, private hospitals, private security, private mail, ad infinitum.
How anyone could look at any of the actions of the republicans and the measures they support and come to any other conclusion is beyond me.
So, in 5-year-old terms Democrats believe that government should help all the people, Republicans believe the government should only help the rich.
"...and that's why we're democrats."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
