TWO MINUTE WARNING

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

-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!!!!!

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

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

HILLPOCRISY?

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:

1. NAFTA-gate
2. "Going negative"
3. The "associations" with the Weather Underground figures
4. Having "ties" to controversial religious figures
5. Talking about the potential use or nonuse of Nuclear Weapons by the US.
6. Guns
7. Elitism (I'm not going to link to that -just think about it)
8. 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

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

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

Even better than Baracky the Movie!



(YouTube video)

Brilliant!

YOU KNOW WHAT I DON'T GET?

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 :

1. The Tigress of Tuzla flap
2. Claiming to have brought Peace to Northern Ireland
3. 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)
4. Her Iraq war vote
5. 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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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?