No More Mister Nice Blog


Monday, June 30, 2008  

Oops!

Okay, I know it's terribly expensive to hire actual human proofreaders, but I bet the American Family Association is wishing it had made the investment after this snafu. It seems some right-wing sites use Auto-Correct on Associated Press articles to weed out language they find unacceptable. I wonder what the AP thinks about this:
...the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow website takes the phenomenon [auto-correct] one step further with its AP articles. The far-right fundamentalist group replaces the word “gay” in the articles with the word “homosexual.” I’m not entirely sure why, but it seems to make the AFA happy. The group is, after all, pretty far out there.

The problem, of course, is that “gay” does not always mean what the AFA wants it to mean. My friend Kyle reported this morning that sprinter Tyson Gay won the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials over the weekend. The AFA ran the story, but only after the auto-correct had “fixed” the article.

That means — you guessed it — the track star was renamed “Tyson Homosexual.” The headline on the piece read, “Homosexual eases into 100 final at Olympic trials.”

The eagle eyes at the AFA have since fixed their "fix", but there is a screen capture here, along with some more examples of proofreading brilliance.

via Shakesville; cross-posted at If I Ran the Zoo

posted by Kathy | 1:28 PM |
 

OBAMA'S GOT IT GOING ON

One of the main reasons I decided to support Barack Obama was because even early on it was immediately apparent that he was the kind of enormously deft politician (yes, he's one of those) we haven't seen in the Democratic party in a very long time. When was the last time you ever remember seeing rightwing pundits on the teevees extolling the poliskillz of a Democrat with such wide-eyed admiration and barely-contained jealousy? Little did I know at the time that he would also prove to be an exceptionally wise manager, putting together an organization underneath him that's as awesomely nimble as it is quietly ruthless. Take a look at what the Obama camp is doing in Florida and you'll see what I mean:
Don't let Steve Schale fool you, just because he looks like the kid who won the spelling bee, in wire-rimmed glasses and rumpled khakis. Or because Tallahassee is the biggest city he's ever lived in. Or because he lists Eagle Scout on his résumé.

Recently tapped to lead Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign in Florida, Schale may be the savviest Democratic operative in the state.

He helped his beleaguered party do something it hadn't done in more than 20 years: pick up a seat in the Florida House of Representatives. Under his steady hand, Democrats netted nine seats in the past two years.

Statewide, the latest polls show Obama with a slight edge over Republican John McCain, foreshadowing a knockdown, drag-out fight in the nation's largest battleground state. The Republican Party has already begun trying to undermine Obama among the state's Hispanic and Jewish voters, and it's easy to picture attack ads questioning his stated willingness to meet with hostile governments in Cuba and Iran.

Schale, 33, is a Southern gentleman who hasn't been in the trenches for very long. But he'll likely have more money, staff and volunteers at his disposal than McCain's team -- "the largest and most comprehensive organization that my side of the aisle has ever seen in Florida," he said. His allies warn: Don't let the nice-guy demeanor fool you.

"Steve does best when people take him for granted," said former state Rep. Doug Wiles of Jacksonville, who gave Schale his first job in politics. "I would never want to be on the other side of him in a campaign. He's very competitive, very focused and very driven."

Democrats slightly outnumber Republicans in Florida, but the state has voted only twice for the Democrat in a presidential race since 1976. Partly to blame: clumsy coordination with the presidential campaigns and a second-rate operation of turning out voters and absentee ballots. The man who ran John Kerry's 2004 campaign was chief of staff to New Jersey Sen. Jon Corzine and had never run a race in Florida.

In contrast, Schale is the resident scholar of the Florida Democratic Party. A Southerner from North Florida, Schale has spent his entire career helping Democratic candidates, from a sixth-generation farmer outside of Gainesville to a retired firefighter in Little Havana, run against the Republican tide.

Call Schale up in the middle of the night and no doubt he could rattle off voting trends in Okaloosa County.
Make no mistake about it, the Obama team is going to constantly keep the Republicans on their toes. Welcome to ballet school, wingnuts.

posted by Kevin K. | 10:27 AM |


Sunday, June 29, 2008  

Unholy Shit

I don't think stevem is a gardener, but I am, in my modest way and this has me scared herbless.

From Firedoglake:
In today's Observer, Caroline Davies describes how this year British gardeners find their fruits and veggies are stunted, deformed, and dying. The culprit: Dow Chemical's persistent herbicide aminopyralid sprayed on grazing land or fodder. The herbicide stayed in the plants the cattle ate, stayed in the cattle (and horse) poop, stayed in the compost produced from the poop, and came out the other end of the process all ready to kill food crops and home gardens.

Problems with the herbicide emerged late last year, when some commercial potato growers reported damaged crops.

[snip]

[T]he herbicide has now entered the food chain. Those affected are demanding an investigation and a ban on the product. They say they have been given no definitive answer as to whether other produce on their gardens and allotments is safe to eat.

It appears that the contamination came from grass treated 12 months ago. Experts say the grass was probably made into silage, then fed to cattle during the winter months. The herbicide remained present in the silage, passed through the animal and into manure that was later sold. Horses fed on hay that had been treated could also be a channel.

It can't happen here?

Well, the EPA has licensed aminopyralid in several products used in the US: Cleanwave, Milestone vm, Forefront r&p, and Milestone.

posted by aimai | 6:32 PM |
 

Too Busy To Hate?

No, you can't make this shit up. It really appeared under his byline. David Ignatius explains that "everyone wants" what the emperor-or-whatever-they-call-him of Dubai wants, which is that Obama and McCain take the imaginary debates to this imaginary city to show their imaginary grasp of world affairs.

Atrios puts it down to Ignatius's desire for an all expenses paid trip to Dubai, a place an ordinary person wouldn't go for graft, let alone just for a hotel room and some free toiletries. But I think its worse than that. Its so improbable that I don't see Ignatius wasting his ink on it. Lets face it, the entire thing is a boondoggle of absurd proportions and Ignatius has to have received a payoff up front. We'll know that when his next column proposes that "everyone is talking" about what "great idea" it would be if Obama and McCain would agree to debate on the St. Andrew's Golf Course, wearing Golfing pants, because everyone knows that "Golf is the sport that's too busy to hate" and we have all those golfing interests. And the next column? He'll propose that they sell the naming rights to the debate to Microsoft.


My personal favorite in this gagworthy essay is this remarkable line:

As much as any place in the Arab world, Dubai is a symbol of modernization and change. It's a bit over the top, to be sure, with an artificial ski resort, man-made islands in the shape of a palm tree and rococo hotels with make-believe canals and Arab castles. What's likable about Dubai is that, as a boomtown, it's a city that's "too busy to hate," as was said a generation ago of Atlanta.

What? See, when people are kept busy by capitalism and disney they are "too busy to hate" so presumably all those other countries where they have free time to hate, or to fire mortars at occupation forces, or attack the allies or whatever? Its because they are just plain lazy and under-occupied. If only they had good jobs and rococo hotels and stuff in Iraq, or an autocrat to make them show up at those jobs and clean those hotels, there'd be no insurgency at all. The Iraq war, the enmity of the Arab states towards Israel, is really just a failure of capitalism and the resulting discontent, not an expression of it.

aimai

posted by aimai | 4:13 PM |
 

SY HERSH SPEAKS...

...you listen:
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.

[...]

Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership--Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections--were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.
Read it all. But I wouldn't be concerned. It's not like Hersh got anything right about Iraq.

posted by Kevin K. | 3:21 PM |
 

Easy-Peasy

Yesterday I gave a fund-raiser for Barack Obama. I called it "Something Old for Something New" even though I'm way too old to believe that. I posted it on the web site and leafleted my street and sent out e-invites to some friends. Years of giving children's parties have given me a lot of experience running parties--its important that there be something for everyone to do and important that there be some kind of goody bag. This party was its own thing to do, since everyone brought something, and its own built in goody bag, since everyone got to take something away.

Its a tough time of year for the kinds of people we know because everyone is either running from children's event to children's event, away on the weekends, or at weddings and things that eat up every hour of the weekend. Still, we got 22 donating couples. Each couple or single brought one thing they had loved but wanted to get rid of--a vase, a picture, a piece of jewlery, some fancy cushions, a set of cooking magazines--and donated 20.08 or whatever they wanted to to the campaign. We had punch and snacks for a couple of hours, they filled out their donor cards and some filled out volunteer cards as well, and then everyone got to choose one item from the table full of strange things. We kept Obama campaign pictures from the Scout Tufankjian web site running in a loop on a tv in one room, I had the volunteer stuff out, and I kept my own exhortations to a minimum and just reminded people that this is going to be a hard, bloody, campaign and we are going to need a lot of money and volunteer effort to fight it.

We raised 1,150 some dollars in two hours for the Obama campaign (I haven't quite figured it out yet because some people donated directly on the web site, some by cash and check). More importantly, everyone had a blast, came out for the campaign, and I had a chance to recruit other people into doing something for the campaign. It was so much fun that some people have said they would like to throw a similar party. Its pretty easy to do, really, so if you like to throw parties I highly recommend it.

aimai

posted by aimai | 10:28 AM |
 

THE WRONG STUFF

Maureen Dowd, in need of repairing what little is left of her reputation, seeks out one of the few people in the little town of Unity who is more petulant and small-minded than she is:
Carmella Lewis, with her Hillary T-shirt and Hillary placard, came all the way from Denver to make sure there would be plenty of ambiguity, duality and ferocity in Unity.

Just as Hillary was testing out the unfamiliar familiarity “Barack and me” Friday and talking about “his grace and his grit,” Carmella began loudly booing and waving her sign.

“We want Hillary!” screamed the 57-year-old retired ad saleswoman and Clinton delegate.

“It’s over, lady!” yelled some Obama supporters a few yards away.

Standing between the Sharks and the Jets, David Axelrod took pity on an older friend of Carmella’s who was suffering from aridity in the Unity humidity. The chief Obama strategist fetched a glass of water and brought it to the woman, who was wearing five Hillary buttons.

This amenity did not stop the disunity. Carmella and her friends continued to cry, “Nobama!” “We love you, Hillary!” and “We need Hillary!” as Barack Obama sat onstage on a stool behind his former rival, his finger studiously at his lips.

Carmella was not impressed with all the kissing, laughing and whispering that Hill and Bam were diligently doing for the cameras, so that the moment could produce, as Obama press aide Robert Gibbs put it on “Larry King Live,” “a great picture.”

When it was Obama’s turn to speak, Carmella announced loudly, “I wish I had ear plugs.” Then, as Obama tried to ingratiate himself with the Hillary partisans in the crowd by saying that because of the New York senator, his daughters “can take for granted that women can do anything that the boys can do and do it better and do it in heels,” Carmella put her fingers in her ears.

As Obama tried to curry favor with Hillary, looking over at her sensible, sturdy shoes and marveling, “I still don’t know how she does it in heels,” Carmella tore up a tissue and stuffed it in her ears.

When Obama pandered with a line about how he wouldn’t “perpetuate a system in which women are paid less for the same work as men,” she put her hands over her tissue-stuffed ears.

“Maybe she’d like what she heard if she listened,” sighed Axelrod.

When Obama talked about moving beyond “all the petty bickering,” as Hillary robo-nodded at his side and CNN’s Candy Crowley applied pre-broadcast lipstick above her, Carmella glared at people applauding.

I am PUMA, I wish I could hear myself roar.

(Somewhat cross-posted at this dump)

***

Aimai points out in the comments that there's a very high likelihood that Dowd's dateline on this is bogus and that she was nowhere near Unity. I've poked around but haven't been able to call it one way or another. In addition, Molly Ivors has a slightly different take on this editorial. To be fair (yeah, I know, we're talking about MoDo here), she certainly wasn't the only person in the media who spotlighted Carmella's buffoonery. Unlike Ivors, I don't see these hardcore PUMAs climbing on the bus eventually (I mean, this woman flew in from Denver to plug up her ears with tissues). I hope I'm wrong, but as I've pointed out elsewhere, I think their numbers are wildly exaggerated and hopefully this media feeding frenzy will dry up soon.

posted by Kevin K. | 8:45 AM |


Saturday, June 28, 2008  

This is Wrong

Crooks and Liars posts this instructive "how not to respond" transcript of David Gregory asking one of Obama's Advisor's whether Bush shouldn't be given credit for "no attacks" on the US. Here's the transcript:

Gregory: “Hello, Susan. While we are talking about the prospect of nuclear terrorism, which is what is behind the concerns of North Korea and Iran. I have a broader question for you and really for Senator Obama. Why is it, does he believe that America has not been attacked in this country by terrorists since 9/11? And does George W. Bush, President Bush deserve credit for that?”

Rice: “I think what we have to acknowledge, David, that we haven’t been attacked but we are nonetheless less safe as a sequence of the policies of this administration has pursued. Our standing in the world is at an all-time low. Al Qaeda is more dangerous now in Afghanistan and Pakistan than it has been. Our intelligence community is warning they are reconstituting and more deadly to U.S. forces than Iraq.”

Crooks and Liars picks off the easy point which is to say that:

Of course, Gregory is incorrect, there HAS been a deadly terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11 — the anthrax attacks that killed 5 Americans ring a bell to you? It’s interesting that so many seem to forget this factoid. Speaking of anthrax and Bush failures, you’ll be happy to learn that $5.8 million of your tax dollars were just awarded to Steven Hatfill in his lawsuit against the Bush Justice Department. Hatfill is an Army scientist who was deemed a “Person of Interest” in the anthrax attacks, but was eventually ruled out as a suspect in the Bush administration’s botched investigation. Hatfill’s lawyer placed partial blame on the media for not questioning the Bush administration’s motives in targeting him and for reporting leaked disinformation they could not substantiate.
But even that doesn't go far enough because the correct response is:

"The US, its citizens, its soldiers, and its interests are being attacked every day in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. We lost X number of soldiers last month in Iraq, we lost X number of troops in Afghanistan. Our Allies lost civilians in the bombing attacks in Spain and our allies in Britain and our citizens in this country have lost priceless civil and constitutional protections against government abuse. Short sighted and foolish international policies on loose nukes and other weapons of mass destruction have made the US itself less safe over the long term. If President Bush just wanted to make sure that he looked good to the home audience he played a good game over the last seven years but safer? No, we aren't safer. Not when we count all the people the President has put in harm's way, all our national and international interests, or our historic rights as American citizens."

cross posted at If I Ran The Zoo

posted by aimai | 10:15 AM |
 

SHHHHHHHHHHH...Hope, is the thing with Feathers...pass it on while SteveM. is busy.

From a Diarist at DailyKos who was at the Unity NH Rally:

It took awhile for everyone to file in, so we discussed politics and Obama with some people sitting nearby. One Woman had driven ten hours from Canada to be here. One man had just so happened to volunteer for the campaign a week ago, and was happy to work here today. An African American woman was very happy that this event was taking Place. She had voted for Clinton in the primaries, but loved Obama as well, so this was an amazing event for her.

There was a Clinton supporter carrying around a sign saying "The Democratic Party is a House Divided," upsetting some people. I watched her carefully during the speeches, and afterwards she tore up the sign and asked where to volunteer.

Labels: , ,

posted by aimai | 10:00 AM |
 

Old, Angry, But Very Much In Control--of his tax cuts.

Last week, the Center for American Progress Action Fund released a new report by Michael Ettlinger estimating that under McCain's tax plan, he and his wife, Cindy, would save $373,429. That's nearly $400,000 -- per year, not over the course of their lifetimes. (Under Barack Obama's plan, the McCains would save less than $6,000. The Obamas would save nearly $50,000 under McCain's plan, and slightly more than $6,000 under Obama's plan own plan.)

By the standards the media applied to Edwards, the fact that McCain supports tax policies that would save him and his wife nearly $400,000 a year -- and require massive cuts to public services to pay for those tax breaks -- should surely be news. Unlike the media's focus on Edwards' wealth, which did nothing to help voters understand the substance of his proposals, McCain's potential savings under his tax plan actually would help illustrate how much the wealthy would benefit from the plan.


h/t Media Matters and Atrios

cross posted at If I Ran The Zoo

posted by aimai | 8:16 AM |


Friday, June 27, 2008  

BYE FOR A BIT

I wanted to post a bit more today, but I had huge amounts of work to finish up because i'm taking a week off. I'll be away from the blog (maybe I'll pop in once or twice), but there'll be guest bloggers galore (I hope). See you after the holiday....

****

Oh, Remain Calm is back, and is restored to the real blogroll. Go check it out.

posted by Steve M. | 10:39 PM |
 

NON-AMBITIOUS LEGS GOOD, AMBITIOUS LEGS BAD BETTER

Near the end of a column in which she bemoans the seeming listlessness of John McCain's presidential campaign, Peggy Noonan says this:

...there is a sense about his campaign that ... John McCain has already got what he wanted, he got what he needed, which was to be top dog in the Republican Party.... He doesn't need the presidency. He got what he wanted. So now he can coast. This is, in the deepest way, unserious. JFK had to have the presidency -- he wanted that thing. Nixon had to have it too, and Reagan had to have it to institute his new way. Clinton had to have it -- it was his destiny, the thing he'd wanted since he was a teenager.

The last person I can think of who gave off the vibe that he didn't have to have it was Bob Dole. Who didn't get it. And who had a similar lack of engagement in terms of policy, and philosophy, and meaning....


Er ... George W. Bush? Wasn't a central part of the master narrative in 2000 that Bush -- gratifyingly -- didn't have a lot of ambition, in contrast to that appallingly ambitious Al Gore? Wasn't that what every journalist believed about him?

Here's a 2007 recollection by the king of conventional wisdom, Mark Halperin, as quoted by Bob Somerby:

When George W. Bush ran in 2000, many voters liked his straightforward, uncomplicated mean-what-I-say-and-say-what-I-mean certainty. He came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House....

Here's a bit of hagiography that appears on the Web site of the city of Midland, Texas:

...Bush showed a quiet confidence as a candidate for President in 2000. It was only his fourth run for office, so in some ways he was still a political rookie. But the presidency was simply another goal, not his life's ambition....

Hell, this was considered such an effective card to play that Bush even put it in his speech at the 2000 Republican convention:

...For me, gaining this office is not the ambition of a lifetime, but it is the opportunity of a lifetime, and I will make the most of it....

*****

Somerby reminds us that McCain's ambition hasn't always been so hard to discern. He cites a 2000 Nicholas Kristof column:

Mr. McCain let the scope of his ambitions slip out again in fall 1970, when he was in Vietnam and four of the prisoners of war were put together in a cell. They spent a couple of weeks talking nonstop, and the conversation soon touched on their dreams...

"We asked John what he wanted to be -- chief of naval operations?" recalled Richard A. Stratton, one of those present. "He said, no, the best job in the Navy is commander in chief of the Pacific forces, because then you're chief warrior. But he said that what he really wanted to be was president.

"With him, it's no flash in the pan, no sudden dream," Mr. Stratton said. "He's been thinking of this for a long time."


Maybe Peggy can't see the ongoing ambition because he doesn't invite her to the barbecues.

posted by Steve M. | 2:01 PM |
 

THOSE FIERCELY INDEPENDENT YOUNG CONSERVATIVES

In today's column, David Brooks praises the kids -- a bold new generation of untethered, independent right-wing kids! -- whose writing is going to save conservatism:

Among the many dark tidings for American conservatism, there is one genuine bright spot. Over the past five years, a group of young and unpredictable rightward-leaning writers has emerged on the scene.

... most of these writers did not rise through the official channels of the conservative or libertarian establishments. By and large, they didn't do the internships or take part in the young leader programs that were designed to replenish "the movement."

...There are dozens of writers I could put in this group, but I'd certainly mention Yuval Levin, Daniel Larison, Will Wilkinson, Julian Sanchez, James Poulos, Megan McArdle, Matt Continetti and, though he's a tad older, Ramesh Ponnuru.

Ross Douthat and my former assistant, Reihan Salam, are two of the most promising....


Yup, that's right -- these kids aren't connected to the righty Establishment ... oh, except, I guess, for the one who was an assistant to David Brooks.

Oh, and one or two others.

Like Matt Continetti:

... Doubleday editor-at-large Adam Bellow came up with the idea [for Continetti's first book] shortly after the Presidential election in 2004. ... he needed to find someone to write it. So he did what any media-savvy individual in search of fresh, right-leaning blood would do: He telephoned The Weekly Standard's editor, Bill Kristol.

Mr. Kristol suggested one of his own reporters, Matthew Continetti, 25, for the gig....

Mr. Bellow, who in the past has edited such conservative writers as Dinesh D'Souza and Wendy Shalit, helped his lucky new scribe hammer out a proposal, which Mr. Kristol and others reviewed....

Before Mr. Continetti found himself completing his first book, he was treading a path through a system that connects such ideologically aligned dots as Mr. Bellow, Mr. Kristol and himself....

Mr. Continetti ...was awarded a 2002 summer internship at the
National Review through the Collegiate Network, a division of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute that was founded by Irving Kristol and William Simon Sr. in 1979, which directs money into American colleges to fight what it characterizes as liberal bias on campuses....

The network also funds yearlong fellowships, of which Mr. Continetti was a recipient upon graduation. He spent his year at
The Weekly Standard as a fellow under Fred Barnes and received a stipend of approximately $28,000 from the network; when it was over, the magazine hired him full time....

And now there’s the book deal. Mr. Bellow said that he was taught a "whole generational theory of publishing" by his mentor at the Free Press, Erwin Glikes, who had hired him based on a recommendation from Irving Kristol (who was an acquaintance of his father, Saul Bellow). The theory consisted of finding the best of the younger generation and giving them book contracts....


Ross Douthat? Former editor of the right-wing campus paper The Harvard Salient, which was also funded by the Collegiate Network.

Yuval Levin?

Yuval Levin is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. In 2005 and 2006, he was a member of the White House domestic policy staff.... Trained in political science at American University and the University of Chicago, he is considered by many a bioconservative and a Straussian, in the mold of his mentor, Leon Kass.

Will Wilkinson?

... Currently he is a research fellow at the Cato Institute... Previously, he was Academic Coordinator of the Social Change Project and the Global Prosperity Initiative at The Mercatus Center at George Mason University and before that he ran the Social Change Workshop for Graduate Students for The Institute for Humane Studies.

(The Mercatus Center "is a market-oriented research, education, and outreach think tank ... founded by Rich Fink, former president of the Koch Foundations, which funds a network of market-oriented think tanks and advocacy groups." The Institute for Humane Studies "acts as a libertarian talent scout, identifying, developing, and supporting the brightest young libertarians it can find who are intent on a leveraged scholarly, or intellectual, career path.... The Institute receives funding from a number of large libertarian and right-wing foundations, including the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Koch Family Foundations, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation and the Carthage Foundation.")

Ramesh Ponnuru?

Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review.... He has been a fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London and a media fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

(For info on the Institute of Economic Affairs and Hoover Institution, go here and here.)

Yup -- real bootstrappers, these kids.

****

By the way, I'm amused that James Poulos is on Brooks's list. He's not as well connected -- but he's the guy who, a few years ago, told us that society is being irreparably harmed by "zany" typefaces and deliberate misspellings ("kidz") on items aimed at children. If he's the future of conservatism, conservatism is doomed.

posted by Steve M. | 9:39 AM |


Thursday, June 26, 2008  

I ASSUME WE'D GET ROUGHLY THE SAME ANSWER REGARDING THE IRON MAIDEN AND HOT-LEAD ENEMAS -- AND SO WHAT?

Here's the problem: America didn't care all that much two and half years ago when John Yoo refused to deny that the president has the legal right to crush a child's testicles...

Cassel: If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.


So it's hard to imagine America caring now, when Yoo again refuses to rule out the legality of torture ordered by the president.

CONYERS: Could the President order a suspect buried alive?

YOO: Uh, Mr. Chairman, I don't think I've ever given advice that the President could order someone buried alive...

CONYERS: I didn't ask you if you ever gave him advice. I asked you thought the President could order a suspect buried alive.

YOO: Well Chairman, my view right now is that I don't think a President -- no American President would ever have to order that or feel it necessary to order that.

CONYERS: I think we understand the games that are being played.


Here's the thing. If, in reaction to 9/11 and the earlier history of the United States, you say "God damn America," you'll be a pariah. If you call the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns," you'll be a pariah. No surprise there. And I'm not defending Jeremiah Wright or Ward Churchill -- far from it. But all they were doing was describing the world as they saw it, however offensively. They weren't enabling brutality on the part of those with the power to brutalize, as Yoo did when he worked in the Bush administration. And yet he's no pariah.

We can ask Yoo this question a hundred different ways. He's always going to articulate the same philosophy, because he knows that most of America figures it's fine as long as it only happens to them. As long as most of us don't see ourselves as part of them, John Yoo will have a very pleasant life.

I don't know how to change the way most Americans look at this. Asking John Yoo about ever more grotesque tortures isn't going to do it, as long as Americans think that that is fine because it doesn't happen to us.

posted by Steve M. | 5:28 PM |
 

McCAIN SPINNERS: OBAMA IS EVIL BECAUSE HE'LL FLIP-FLOP ON IRAQ AND BECAUSE HE WON'T

The Supreme Court just struck down the D.C. gun ban, and a McCain blogger conference call used the ruling to discuss ... Barack Obama and Iraq.

Here's the message: Obama will change his position on anything -- which is bad! But he hasn't changed his position on Iraq -- which is bad!

At least that's what we're told here:

The McCain campaign shows once again that they have honed the rapid-response instincts in the campaign by quickly arranging a conference call for the media on the Heller decision and gun control within an hour of the decision. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and senior policy adviser Randy Scheunemann spoke about the decision and what it means, as well as how Barack Obama's reversal on Heller affects the race.

... Brownback expressed amazement at Obama's flip-flop on the DC gun ban today, calling it either "an incredible flip-flop or incredible inexperience".

...He also warned that the next flip-flop will probably be on Iraq. Brownback notes that he himself didn't support the surge, but acknowledged his error and John McCain’s wisdom when it succeeded. Why can't the Democrats do that? Obama talks bipartisanship, but his actions don't match his words.

... Obama, Scheunemann says, has established that he holds no position that he won't change for political opportunism. ... Obama was wrong on the surge and wanted firm timetables for withdrawal, and the McCain campaign figures that another flip-flop may be coming....


Translation: Why can't Obama be an evil, spineless, opportunistic flip-flopper on Iraq? What the hell is his problem?

*****

(An Obama spokesman said last year that Obama thought the D.C. gun ban was constitutional. He's since been saying he thinks the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to carry guns, which is what the Supreme Court said today.)

posted by Steve M. | 12:33 PM |
 

OBAMA'S NON-DUKAKIS REPUTATION

This response to the Supreme Court's decision to ban capital punishment for child rape is apparently enough to inoculate Barack Obama. I'm somewhat surprised:

Obama's non-Dukakis answer

Michael Dukakis, Obama is not.

On the death penalty today, Obama sidestepped a potential political land mine. Opponents could have had something recent and tangible to tag him anew as a hard-left liberal had he answered any differently than he did on the issue.

When asked about the Supreme Court ruling against the use of the death penalty in instances of child rape today at a news conference in Chicago, Obama answered, "I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight years old is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable. That does not violate our constitution."

He continued, "Had the Supreme Court said, 'We want to constrain ability of states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way,' that would've been one thing, but it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision." ...


I was afraid that the many qualifications in his statement would get him brandy as a wussy, legalistic liberal, especially in contrast to John McCain's response, as quoted in The New York Times:

Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, said, "That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing." He called the decision "an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime."

But so far no one seems to be pouncing on Obama. I guess it's enough that he disagrees with the decision, and that he's not categorically opposed to capital punishment, as Dukakis was. But I'm pleasantly surprised that he's getting away with the tone of this statement, with its utter absence of macho posturing -- I'm not sure Kerry or Gore or Dukakis would have. Maybe the folks who run the right-wing noise machine have fallen so much for their own rhetoric that they don't have a ready reaction to an Obama statement that's to the right of their stereotype.

****

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but I do think this decision gets the notion of "evolving standards of decency" quite wrong -- I don't have any sense that this country finds the death penalty for child rape abhorrent. I think there's still a chance that the McCain campaign will take advantage of this, citing Justice Kennedy's phrase "our own independent judgment" (which I think is going to become notorious on the right) and railing against "out-of-control judges" (never mind the fact that three of the five judges in this majority were appointed by Republican presidents). And (see at the Times story) I think this is odd:

Justice Kennedy also said that capital punishment for child rape presented specific problems, including ... the fact that the crime often occurs within families. Families might be inclined to "shield the perpetrator from discovery" when the penalty is death, he said, leading to an increase in the problem of underreporting these crimes.

Death penalty fans have a belief, contradicted by all evidence, that capital punishment has magical powers of deterrence, and now here's a decision overturning some death penalties that agrees with that fallacy. It seems to me that a lot of families already shield child molesters, out of fear that any punishment at all will be meted out -- they don't want the molester jailed or even just removed from the home, seeing that as more disruptive to the family than the sexual abuse (which is hidden from sight and easy to be in denial about). There might be valid reasons to oppose the death penalty for child rape, but this isn't one of them.

posted by Steve M. | 10:20 AM |


Wednesday, June 25, 2008  

LEAST EFFECTIVE AD EVER?



Here's the problem: The era of the original 007 films had the coolest movie music and the coolest movie opening titles ever, and when you do an attack ad in which you parody those things (surprisingly effectively), it just makes the guy you're attacking look cool. That might not be true in every case, but it's certainly true in the case of Obama, because he already looks like a cool guy from that era, a fact this ad reinforces.

It also doesn't help that you can barely hear the supposedly damning Obama soundbites over the music.

Grade: B+ (for Obama's campaign), F (for McCain's).

posted by Steve M. | 5:13 PM |
 

RALPH NADER, GODFATHER OF SOUL

Ralphie has now decided he's qualified to give Barack Obama blackness lessons:

Nader: Obama 'talking white'

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader accused Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic Party nominee, of downplaying poverty issues, trying to "talk white" and appealing to "white guilt" during his run for the White House....

"He wants to show that he is not a threatening ... another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."


Ralph, of course, has a deep and profound connection to the African-American community, as we saw repeatedly in his 2000 campaign:



Wow, that's some bill. If melanin were dynamite, there wouldn't be enough on that stage to blow Michael Moore's baseball cap off. And that's including the only living black person on most Hacky Sack players' iPods, Ben Harper.

More from Ralph:

"... I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."

Hmm, let's see:

Barack Obama wants crackdown on predatory lending

Obama is No Fan of Payday Loans

EPA Accepts Obama Proposal to Eliminate Lead Paint from Schools, Childcare Facilities

And he's so afraid of talking about asbestos that he writes a length in his first book about working on an asbestos-removal campaign, to the point that he's been accused of taking too much credit for the effort.

As for Nader's own campaign site?

References to payday loans: zero.
References to predatory lending: zero.
References to asbestos: zero.

(Yeah, there's one reference to lead paint, on a page featuring a photo of a white child.)

So Ralph's the pot calling the kettle ... er, never mind.

****

UPDATE: What kind of idiot would praise this? Cg.Eye, from somewhere in Hillary or Death Land:

(And confidential to Mr. Nader: Thanks for looking at the man behind the curtain.)

Confidential to Mr./Ms. Cg.Eye: It's called Google. Use it. See above.

****

UPDATE RE CG.EYE: In comments, Leah from Corrente says:

Just wanted you to know that the post in question by cg.eye is the result of our open commenting and posting policy; we're taking steps to correct the errors of fact, by Nader, and repeated by the poster and some of the commentaters.

So noted.

posted by Steve M. | 12:15 PM |
 

DOWD INADVERTENTLY(?) SHOWS ROVE HOW TO DEMONIZE OBAMA MORE EFFECTIVELY

Maureen Dowd, of all people, thinks it's wrong for Karl Rove to call Barack Obama an elitist:

...This was Rove's take on Obama to Republicans at the Capitol Hill Club Monday, according to Christianne Klein of ABC News:

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

Actually, that sounds more like W.

The cheap populism is really rich coming from Karl Rove. When was the last time he kicked back with a corncob pipe to watch professional wrestling?

Rove is trying to spin his myths, as he used to do with such devastating effect, but it won't work this time. The absurd spectacle of rich white conservatives trying to paint Obama as a watercress sandwich with the crust cut off seems ugly and fake....


Dowd's outrage actually seems genuine. But don't worry -- she's just letting her hatred for the Bushies trump her hatred for Democratic girly-men, and it's probably temporary. And she actually points Rove in the direction of ways he might demonize Obama with more impact:

...Obama can be aloof and dismissive at times, and he's certainly self-regarding, carrying the aura of the Ivy faculty club. But isn't that better than the aura of the country clubs that tried to keep out blacks? It's ironic, and maybe inevitable, that the first African-American nominee comes across as a prince of privilege....

He might be smoking, but it would be at a cafe, hunched over a New York Times, an Atlantic magazine, his MacBook and some organic fruit-flavored tea, listening to Bob Dylan’s "Blood on the Tracks" on his iPod....


Yes, she makes what seems to be a sincere declaration that all that Ivy League elitism is OK:

...Rove's mythmaking about Obama won't fly. If he means that Obama has brains, what's wrong with that? If he means that Obama is successful, what's wrong with that? If he means that Obama has education and intellectual sophistication, what's wrong with that?...

But clearly she's long thought there is something wrong with that. Let's go back to Dowd in April, just before the Pennsylvania primary:

...Obama comes across less like a candidate in Pennsylvania than an anthropologist in Borneo.

His mother got her Ph.D. in anthropology, studying the culture of Indonesia. And as Obama has courted white, blue-collar voters in "Deer Hunter" and "Rocky" country, he has often appeared to be observing the odd habits of the colorful locals, resisting as the natives try to fatten him up like a foie gras goose, sampling Pennsylvania beer in a sports bar with his tie tight, awkwardly accepting bowling shoes as a gift from Bob Casey, examining the cheese and salami at the Italian Market here as intriguing ethnic artifacts, purchasing Utz Cheese Balls at a ShopRite in East Norriton and quizzing the women working in a chocolate factory about whether they could possibly really like the sugary doodads....


And in March:

...Obama's multiculturalism is a selling point with many Democrats. But his impassioned egghead advisers have made his campaign seem not only out of his control, but effete and vaguely foreign -- the same unflattering light that doomed Michael Dukakis and John Kerry....

I said yesterday that Rove's "country club" remark clashed with the right's attempt to portray Obama as a sinister non-Christian foreigner. The mythical scary Moo-slime is unkempt -- Saddam in the hidey-hole or KSM looking like a slob. Scary Muslims wear robes and long beards; their ideology is medieval; yadda yadda yadda. Your brain gets whiplash going from that to an effete guy drinking a martini.

I don't want to give wingnuts any more advice, but I can't help noticing that the critiques Dowd is still throwing at Obama would actually dovetail better with the scary-foreign-Muslim archetype than Rove's remarks do. A guy in a cafe? Smoking and poring over a computer? In a college town? That could be a terrorist! Or the 21st-century equivalent of a Cold War commie or 1920s anarchist! Who might not even have been born in this country!

But if there's a message-discipline problem among Obama's antagonists -- and don't worry, Dowd will go back to being one sooner or later, trust me -- I'm not complaining. Let them struggle to figure out how to trash him, and may their attempts to reprogram our reptile brains continue to clash.

posted by Steve M. | 10:03 AM |


Tuesday, June 24, 2008  

KILL BIN LADEN? PLEASE -- BE MY GUEST

I won't exactly surprise you if I tell you that the point of the latest Ralph Peters column in the New York Post is to persuade the reader that liberals and Democrats are morally depraved and want all Americans to die. Now, there may be a few words in the column -- an "and," possibly a "the" -- that actually bear a passing resemblance to objective reality, but there isn't much. Even the caption under the accompanying photo sets up a straw man.

That photo is of Osama bin Laden. The caption reads: Bin Laden: Not going to be rehabilitated. See, the point of the column is to argue that Democrats and liberals think -- and, implicitly, Barack Obama thinks -- that bin Laden can do a few years in the joint and come out a new man. Um, did you ever think that? Me either. But Peters and the Post want readers to think that's what we think.

The text of the column is worse:

DON'T CATCH - KILL
OBAMA'S 'TRY OSAMA' ERROR


June 24, 2008 -- THE first beneficiary of Barack Obama's promise to expand health-care access could be Osama bin Laden.

The senator would rather see Osama captured, not killed, then put into our federal system for trial.


This is a lie. Obama advocates military action against bin Laden, even across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, a stance which gave right-wingers the vapors a few months ago. With regard to bin Laden and other al-Qaeda members, Obama frequently talks of steps needed to "take them out." That's not expressing a preference for capture.

That means the terror master would get better medical treatment -- for free -- than many Post readers can afford.

Is that really what Americans want? To spend millions of dollars protecting a captive bin Laden and millions more treating his kidney problems?


That's a lot of stupid in a short stretch of words. First of all, Obama's ultimate health-care goal is universal coverage coverage for all Americans. Second, if we do capture bin Laden alive, given the fact that he reportedly has chronic kidney disease, do we not treat this disease? Keep reading -- Peters himself says that would be immoral. But that won't stop Peters from demagoguing the issue -- he's going to attack Obama and any of the rest of us who believe precisely the same thing.

...Recent events should have made it clear -- again -- that captive terrorists are overwhelmingly a liability. The meager intelligence we get interrogating them is rarely commensurate with the array of financial, moral and legal costs involved in keeping them locked up.

Good grief. I wish the right would get its talking points straight -- I thought the whole point of Guantanamo and black sites and waterboarding and so on was that we live in a permanent ticking-bomb moment and every detainee carries secrets that, if revealed, can prevent attacks that are a millionbilliongazillion times worse than 9/11. Now Peters tells us that these guys don't know jack?

...A few weeks ago, a well-planned terrorist assault on a prison in Kandahar, Afghanistan, freed dozens of Taliban midlevel managers and perhaps 200 terrorist foot soldiers.

What benefit had we gained by taking these butchers prisoner instead of killing them on the battlefield? They merely lived to fight another day.


Oh, OK, I've got it -- we simply have to stop this not-killing of all enemy combatants. That's been our problem! Not killing them! Whose idea was that? Whose idea was a less-than-100% kill rate of the enemy? It simply has to stop!

...To be clear: I do not advocate executing prisoners. We should treat any terrorist we capture rigorously, but with basic decency.

...Once a terrorist raises his hands in surrender, we must honor the pertinent conventions.


Wuss. Liberal.

By the way,, the "pertinent convention" says prisoners "shall, if their state of health so requires, receive medical attention and hospital treatment to the same extent as the nationals of the State concerned." If we wouldn't let Charles Manson die of a treatable illness, the same goes for bin Laden.

But it is my belief that our conventional military and special-operations efforts should emphasize killing terrorists on the battlefield or in their lairs -- conditions where it is entirely legal to do so.

Waiting for me to object?

But the left-wing arguments against killing those who do all they can to kill us are simply wrong.

Um, where is it being argued that our troops should refrain from killing terrorists or combatants? Got any links, Ralph?

...And killing terrorists doesn't put us on a "slippery slope."

Oh, yeah, right -- fortheloveofgodpleasedontkillterrorists.com. killingterroristsputsusonaslipperyslope.net. Those guys.

...The greatest left-wing fallacy in the War on Terror is the conviction that protecting the rights of terrorists is more important than protecting the rights of the innocent.

Hunh? More important? Who the hell says this?

...There is nothing heroic or noble about defending a fanatical mass murderer's "rights." The nobility lies in protecting the masses of innocent human beings who obey the law....

Well, OK, there it is: To Ralph Peters, this is an either/or choice. I don't think it's either/or. And I don't know anyone on my side who does, either.

Peters actually doesn't mention Barack Obama in the text of his article -- but it runs under a headline that damns Obama, and I'm sure Peters has no problem with that.

For the record, Obama believes the death penalty is justified in the case of bin Laden and other terrorists. If there are trials, he just wants them not to be conducted in kangaroo courts.

posted by Steve M. | 4:33 PM |
 

BLIND SQUIRREL FINDS NUT, BROOKS DETECTS SIGHT

You can read David Brooks's latest column if you like, but here's the gist -- there's really not much more to it than this:

The Bush Paradox

Let's go back and consider how the world looked in the winter of 2006-2007. Iraq was in free fall....

Expert and elite opinion swung behind the Baker-Hamilton report....

In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call [the surge].

... Bush, who made such bad calls early in the war, made a courageous and astute decision in 2006....


Is the surge working better than anything else Bush has tried? Yeah, sure. Is it surprising that Bush stumbled on a course of action that actually didn't make things worse? Not necessarily.

Bush decided on the surge the way he decides on everything -- he wanted (a) something that would piss off people who disagreed with him and (b) someone who would do the hard part for him, i.e., assessing evidence and thinking. For years, he satisfied himself on point (a) by insisting that the original plan (or non-plan) was going swimmingly and that only the liars in the lie-beral media thought we weren't winning; he satisfied point (b), at least in part, by agreeing with Rumsfeld that there were enough troops, because Rumsfeld certainly seemed like a guy who spent all his waking hours assessing evidence and thinking, or at least he made it his life's work to persuade everyone that that was what he did all day.

Then it began dawning on Bush in '06 that his party was in for a thumpin' at the polls. And so Rumsfeld had to go. Now what would piss off Bush's enemies? And who would do Bush's thinking for him?

That's how we got the exaltation of David Petraeus; that's how we got the surge. Bush just so happened to find a screw-you policy advanced by Doctor of Thinkology who wasn't a total fraud. It's as if a guy who actually answers spam e-mails happened to send his Social Security number to someone who really did turn out to be from a legitimate bank that had money for him -- it doesn't validate the principle that this is generally a very, very bad approach.

posted by Steve M. | 10:14 AM |
 

THIS MAY NOT BE THE RELEVANT QUESTION

Steve Benen talks about the Obama-McCain "enthusiasm gap":

...A couple of weeks ago, an NBC/WSJ poll found that most of Obama's supporters are motivated by their support for him. Fewer than 40% of McCain voters could say the same. The Journal's pollster noted, "It is not that these voters aren't for McCain." What’s lacking is "the enthusiasm, the passion, the energy" of the other side.

The problem for the GOP persists.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll has Obama leading McCain among likely voters by six points, 50%-44%.

But the most revealing numbers in the survey were the ones measuring voter enthusiasm: 61% of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting in this year’s election, while just 35% of Republicans said that.

(Stories on the USA Today/Gallup poll are here and here.)

The level of enthusiasm might be important, but I want a different question asked as well, one pollsters never ask: How important do you think that you candidate wins in November?

I think a lot of Republicans, especially the hardcore base, will hold their noses while voting for McCain -- but the harcore types are precisely the ones who are likely to believe that if Obama is elected, all guns will be confiscated, the national anthem will be changed to "The Internationale," and Americans will soon required to pray to Mecca five times a day.

I'd like some sense of how many voters on each side think we absolutely can't afford to elect the other guy. Please, someone, poll that.

posted by Steve M. | 9:22 AM |


Monday, June 23, 2008  

BUT I THOUGHT MUSLIMS DIDN'T DRINK MARTINIS

I really should ignore this nonsense -- by rising to the bait and helping to spread it, I'm doing just what the GOP wants -- but, well, here's Jake Tapper reporting on Karl Rove's latest attempt to create a meme:

ABC News' Christianne Klein reports that at a breakfast with Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club this morning, former White House senior aide Karl Rove referred to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as "coolly arrogant."

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy," Rove said, per Christianne Klein. "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by." ...


This isn't just bizarrely offensive, for a reason so obvious even Tapper grasps it:

Interesting that Mr. Rove would use a country club metaphor to describe the first major party African-American presidential candidate, whom I'm sure wouldn't be admitted into many country clubs that members of the Capitol Hill Club frequent.

It directly conflicts, at the reptile-brain level, with the other meme Obama's enemies are trying to spead: that he's a secret Muslim, a scary brown non-Western foreigner, a one-man vanguard army of "them."

Maybe this is why Rove proclaimed a few months ago that Republicans shouldn't stress Obama's middle name. It wasn't that Rove disapproved of trying to make Obama seem distasteful to certain voters -- it was that he didn't want other people's way of making Obama seem distasteful to interfere with his way of making Obama seem distasteful.

posted by Steve M. | 4:53 PM |
 

SCREW THE ECONOMY -- LET THE BOYS BE BOYS

Maybe I was right all along -- maybe, in a way, the Republicans really did nominate Rudy Giuliani:

Fortune magazine has parallel interviews about the economy with John McCain and Barack Obama in the current issue, and the PR email they sent me highlights their answers to this question:

What do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?

...McCain: Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences.

It's as if McCain is trying to become a parody of himself here. Is his answer to
every question "Islamic extremism"? ...

A noun and verb, and 9/11? Yes, indeed.

****

The exasperated reaction above comes from Kevin Drum. He goes on to say:

And while Fortune's readership undoubtedly skews conservative, does McCain really think they're going to buy this?

I don't know, but the Fortune editor who wrote up the interview seems to buy it. The emphasis below is mine:

...[McCain] starts by deftly turning the economy into a national security issue -- and why not? On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.

And before economics is actually discussed, the Fortune piece gives us a couple of blasts of utterly gratuitous testosterone, for which I'm sure the McCain camp is quite grateful:

...We didn't have to spend a lot of time with McCain on the campaign trail to discover what really gets his mojo working. Let's just say it's not his plan to reform the unemployment-insurance system. There he was at an airport rally in Stockton, Calif., shouting out to his loyal pals in the Rolling Thunder veterans group who had parked their Harleys behind the stage: "Go ahead and start your engines for a second! Go right ahead!" And earlier that week in Chicago, addressing the other NRA -- the National Restaurant Association -- departing from his prepared remarks to accuse Obama of making light of the threat posed by Iran's leadership. "They are the chief sponsors of Shiah extremists in Iraq," he decried, his voice rising, "and their President has called Israel" -- and here he paused for one beat -- "a stinking corpse!"

On such occasions McCain conveys passion, commitment to a cause, a sure sense of who he is and why he's running for President, and above all a strong connection to his audience....


After that, who cares about the damn recession? Let's chest-bump! Whoo - whoo - whoo!

posted by Steve M. | 2:57 PM |
 

testing.


No, really, just testing.

aimai

posted by aimai | 2:07 PM |
 

IT'S A VOLUNTEER ARMY -- JUST DON'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT FACT, YUPPIE SCUM

Oh, it's delightful watching shameless chickenhawk William Kristol attack the new MoveOn ad from two contradictory directions at once, and then try to brazen out the sheer illogic of his position:

You know the ad. You can watch it here, through Kristol quotes the complete text:

...The ad is simple. A mother speaks as she holds her baby boy:

"Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he's my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him." ...


Then he says this:

... it is surely relevant to point out that the United States has an all-volunteer Army. Alex won't be drafted, and his mommy can't enlist him. He can decide when he's an adult whether he wants to serve. And, of course, McCain supports the volunteer army....

But a few paragraphs later, he says this:

...So, why, I wondered after first seeing the MoveOn ad, did I find it so ... creepy?

I was having trouble putting my fin[g]er on just why until I came across a post by a mother of a soldier recently deployed in Iraq, at the Web site BlueStarChronicles.com.

Here's what the mother of an actual soldier has to say about the remarks of the mother of the prospective non-soldier in the ad:

"Does that mean that she wants other people's sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism? What is it she thinks happens in the world? ... Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someone's son, somewhere."

This is the sober truth. Unless we enter a world without enemies and without war, we will need young men and women willing to risk their lives for our nation. And we're not entering any such world....


So which is it, Billy Boy? Is it every free American's inalienable right to serve or not serve, or are you a selfish little narcissistic liberal latte-swilling hippie if you don't serve?

How does Billy Boy resolve this contradiction? By pretending to concede the virtues of free choice -- and then throwing a wild, utterly unsubstantiated McCarthyite charge at exercisers of that choice:

We do, however, live in a free country with a volunteer army. In the United States, individuals can choose to serve in the military or not. The choice not to serve should carry no taint, nor should it be viewed with the least prejudice. If Alex chooses to pursue other opportunities, he won't be criticized by John McCain or anyone else.

But that's not at all the message of the MoveOn ad.

The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve -- and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.

And the sole responsibility of others.


Where the hell does it suggest that? Where the hell does it in any way impugn those who make the choice to fight, in Iraq or anywhere else?

But Kristol knows it doesn't, just as he knows that saying you don't want your son to participate in one futile, pointless war doesn't mean you're categorically opposed to patriotic sacrifice (and just as he knows he has some nerve to question the patriotism of those who exercise the choice not to volunteer in wartime when he, of course, dodged a wartime draft). He can't reconcile his contradictory points, so he just wildly libels those who exercise the choice he's just told you "should carry no taint, nor should it be viewed with the least prejudice," and he hopes you won't notice. What a contemptible human being he is.

posted by Steve M. | 10:53 AM |
 

THE MOST RESPECTED DEMOCRAT IN AMERICA

Hey, did you bid?

It's anyone's guess how high the bidding will go this year when the chance to have lunch with investor Warren Buffett is put up for sale.

The online bidding begins at $25,000 on Sunday evening. A year ago, two investors paid $650,100 for the chance to have lunch with the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

The auction benefits the Glide Foundation, which provides social services to the poor and homeless in San Francisco....


The 2006 lunch went for $620,100. That's one lunch. This man -- who's a Democrat -- is worshipped as a god.

Every other prominent Democrat in America can be turned into a pathetic, ineffectual, effete, hermaphroditic laughingstock in the public's eyes, given the right combination of circumstances and deployment of the usual character-assassination talking points. Not Buffett. He's staggeringly rich, and he's said to be ordinary and commonsensical. Therefore, he's a real man.

Clearly he's never had an interest in doing it, and I'm not saying I'd want him to, but if Buffett would run for president -- or, say, vice president with Barack Obama, whom he very much admires (he likes Hillary Clinton, too), I believe Democrats would be guaranteed victory. We'd certainly get some relief from the usual attacks on Democrats.

Obama gets grief for being a "messiah," yet no one thinks it's unseemly that Buffett is called "the Oracle of Omaha." He's incredibly rich but not creepily exotic like George Soros or those Hollywood richies. So he's exalted.

Just run the SOB four years from now if Obama doesn't win -- I don't care how old he is. He'll win.

posted by Steve M. | 8:44 AM |


Sunday, June 22, 2008  

A POST HOC FALLACY

Atrios wrote this yesterday:

As I've written before, Democrats will regret embracing the expansion of executive power because a President Obama will find his administration undone by an "abuse of power" scandal. All of those powers which were necessary to prevent the instant destruction of the country will instantly become impeachable offenses. If you can't imagine how such a pivot can take place then you haven't been paying attention.

Well, yes and no. Yes, it's quite easy to imagine that Republicans would accuse President Obama of abuse of power for doing pretty much what Bush has done as Republicans cheered -- or for not doing nearly as much in the realm of executive power. But they'll do that to Obama whether or not he and other Democrats fight on FISA. There's no connection whatsoever -- they'll do it no matter what. In any event, Democrats aren't "embracing the expansion of executive power" so much as backing away from a fight. But their attitude toward executive power is irrelevant to what will happen to Obama or whoever the next Democratic president is. The next Democratic president will be accused of abuse of power -- and, probably, of failure to abuse power (e.g., failure to torture evildoers) simultaneously. What Dems do or fail to do right now will have no impact on this.

posted by Steve M. | 11:51 PM |
 

MAUREEN DOWD, BUBBLE GIRL

Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The New York Times, examines charges that his paper was sexist in its coverage of Hillary Clinton during the Democratic nomination contest. He concludes that the paper didn't do a bad job -- except every few days when Maureen Dowd's embarrassment of a column appeared:

...I think a fair reading suggests that The Times did a reasonably good job in its news articles. But Dowd's columns about Clinton's campaign were so loaded with language painting her as a 50-foot woman with a suffocating embrace, a conniving film noir dame and a victim dependent on her husband that they could easily have been listed in that Times article on sexism, right along with the comments of Chris Matthews, Mike Barnicle, Tucker Carlson or, for that matter, Kristol, who made the Hall of Shame for a comment on Fox News, not for his Times work....

Over the course of the campaign, I received complaints that Times coverage of Clinton included too much emphasis on her appearance, too many stereotypical words that appeared to put her down and dismiss a woman's potential for leadership and too many snide references to her as cold or unlikable. When I pressed for details, the subject often boiled down to Dowd....


Dowd is shocked, shocked. And miffed -- this kind of criticism is unprecedented, she says!

..."I've been twisting gender stereotypes around for 24 years," Dowd responded. She said nobody had objected to her use of similar images about men over seven presidential campaigns...

And she's right -- nobody has ever criticized her gender stereotyping of men.

Oh, except Bob Somerby:

...Let's start, once again, with her sick, endless need to "feminize" Barack Obama.

Not that there's anything new about this. It has now been almost nine years since Dowd told the world that "Al Gore is so feminized...he's practically lactating." (That was June 16, 1999 -- the day of Gore's formal announcement.) It has been almost five years since she helped dub John Edwards "the Breck Girl." (June 8, 2003. After that, she called him "the Breck Girl" in five other columns.) It has been almost a year since she wrote a column headlined, "Obama, Legally Blonde?" (February 14, 2007. One week later, he was "Scarlett O'Hara.") And of course, she has kicked the stuffing out of endless Dem wives, for the nastiest, stupidest reasons you could conjure. In Dowd's world, Major Dem Men are constantly girls -- and Major Dem Women are most often men....


And Atrios:

Dear Maureen [Dowd] and Camille [Paglia]

Okay, we get it. Democrats are all women except female Democrats who are men. You can stop writing now.


And Media Matters and Columbia Journalism Review and Mother Jones and Molly Ivors and Taylor Marsh and me two days ago and you, probably, and lots and lots of other people.

But it's all news to Maureen Dowd, who's apparently as much the "Bubble Girl" as the oblivious George W. Bush is "Bubble Boy." Yes, she insists this is the first she's heard of such criticism. And it's not fair!

..."From the time I began writing about politics," Dowd said, "I have always played with gender stereotypes and mined them and twisted them to force the reader to be conscious of how differently we view the sexes." Now, she said, "you are asking me to treat Hillary differently than I've treated the male candidates all these years, with kid gloves." ...

I don't know about Hoyt, but Atrios (see above) nails it, and the rest of us are asking you to add at least a second joke to your one-joke act.

posted by Steve M. | 11:25 AM |


Saturday, June 21, 2008  

I'M NOT DEFENDING OBAMA ON THIS. I'M JUST SAYING THAT ...

... I understand why he's caving on FISA, which is that he doesn't see it the way Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo sees it:

... he's seemed absolutely dead serious about changing the way foreign policy is discussed and argued about in this country.

Time and again, in his debates with Hillary, and now with John McCain, his whole debate posture on national security issues was centered on the idea that he could challenge and change what it means to talk "tough."

...if there were ever anything that would have tested his operating premise throughout this campaign -- that you can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- it was this legislation....


Well, he's picking his battles, and he clearly thinks this wasn't one on which he wanted to test this operating premise. I don't know if this mean he'll cave every time the rubber meets the road or if it just means that he'll be infuriatingly timid 20% of the time or 50% of the time when we want him to stick his neck or whatever -- but he thinks this is not a hill to die on, and that's bad news, but there it is.

Greg says this:

...His candidacy has long seemed to embody a conviction that Democrats can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- that if Dems stick to a set of core principles, and forcefully argue for them without blinking, they can and will persuade people that, simply put, they are right and Republicans are wrong....

Well, yes and no. As I see it, the conviction his candidacy embodies is that he can make a certain number of arguments that conventional wisdom tells us are deemed "soft" and, defying the CW, defend those assertions forcefully and defiantly. But he clearly thinks there's a limit to what you can defend all at once in bucking the CW. Give him credit for having stuck his neck out quite a bit -- on talking to demonized world leaders, on habeas for detainees, and, hell, even on withdrawing from Iraq, which right-wing concern trolls have recently been telling us is a position he's going to have to walk back from after he visits Iraq and sees the awesome success of our awesome surge.

He's taking risks. He thinks he can't afford to take this one. It's maddening, but I can't tell you that, politically, he's wrong. And still, on balance, he's working hard to change "acceptable" opinion on foreign policy, even if this is a profound letdown.

posted by Steve M. | 11:21 AM |


Friday, June 20, 2008  

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

You paid Representative Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan to spew this twaddle ("Speaking Democrat: A Primer") on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives:



"'Government' means 'socialism'"? Dude -- you work for the freaking government. Don't like government? Private sector's that way. Leave your resume at the desk -- we'll call you.

And yes, it's all like that. Imagine a medium-market Limbaugh wannabe after ritual zombification, with all the animal magnetism of Eliot Spitzer putting on his sock garters, and you've basically got it.

*****

Fun facts about Congressman McCotter:

In December 2005, McCotter joined with several other Congressmen to form the Second Amendments, a bipartisan rock and country band set to play for United States troops stationed overseas over the Holiday season. He plays lead guitar. In June of 2006, the band played for President Bush's Picnic on the White House lawn, where Bush was quoted calling McCotter "That rock and roll dude" ....


Rock and roll animal.

McCotter is regular guest on the Dennis Miller Radio Show, where the host refers to him as "young Thad" and frequently comments that he "likes the cut of his jib."

Than which there is no higher praise.

And Thad has a prose style that's uniquely his own:

...No starker episode exhibits our anile need for a moral hospice before we slither into the dust bin of history than the one playing out before Americans' astonished eyes. Legacy building with the urgency of a dying Pharaoh staring at an unfinished Sphinx, George Walker Bush is bent upon being the first U.S. President to attend a foreign nation's Olympics. The nation in question is communist China, the shock troops of which are presently bludgeoning Tibetan Monks as if they were orange bathrobed baby seals. (One shudders at the prospect this Tibetan repression is the Chi-coms' sedulous sally into Olympic demonstration sports.)

Notwithstanding the Global Generation's remaining misanthropes' unsophisticated quibbling (i.e., me and mine), our Compassionate Conservative-in-Chief has eagerly RSVP'ed to the communist dictatorship's dramatic recreation of the Berlin Olympics. Given "The Decider's" resolve, hope dims we might disabuse his whimsy that watching a wobbling discus with the wanton butchers of Tiananmen Square can advance the sacred cause of human freedom....


Wow. Just wow. (And yes, he does still call them "Chi-coms.")

posted by Steve M. | 4:58 PM |
 

DID DAVID BROOKS JUST PREVENT MAUREEN DOWD FROM GETTING JOHN McCAIN ELECTED?

We know what Maureen Dowd was planning to put in every column she writes between now and November: Barry Obambi is a big girl, a fastidious priss who's easily dominated by she-men like Hillary Clinton and his own wife, arugula arugula arugula. Yeah, Dowd's shtick is tired, but her columns still show up regularly at or near the top of the "most e-mailed" list at the New York Times site.

Well, today David Brooks decided to try to out-Dowd Dowd, and right now it's his column that's the Times's most e-mailed, as well as the object of a hell of a lot more blog attention than his usual snooze-inducing sociological maunderings. What he's written today is a depiction of Obama as (in my words, not Brooks's) the anti-Obambi:

...Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there's Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who'd throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator....


There's not much to support charges of Machiavellianism (he ditched Jeremiah Wright after saying he wouldn't! he ditched public financing after saying he wouldn't!), but I don't care. If this Obama-as-badass notion seeps into supposedly serious political coverage (as Dowd's caricatures seem to do), it can really help neutralize the Obambi narrative, which is just the kind of thing that hobbles Democratic presidential candidates. Hell, Dowd herself might even decide that the senator is a biological male and his wife is a woman. (OK, I'm dreaming here.) Maybe that wouldn't be hugely significant, but if Brooks actually did generate a meme here, I think it's a good one for our side.

posted by Steve M. | 1:36 PM |
 

ELECTION SEASON BEGINS IN EARNEST

Damn that Hillary Clinton. If she'd just dropped out when the delegate math became inevitable, fearmongering like this could have begun months ago:

EXCLUSIVE: Hezbollah Poised to Strike?
Officials Say "Sleeper Cells" Activated in Canada


Intelligence agencies in the United States and Canada are warning of mounting signs that Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is poised to mount a terror attack against "Jewish targets" somewhere outside the Middle East.

Intelligence officials tell ABC News the group has activated suspected "sleeper cells" in Canada and key operatives have been tracked moving outside the group's Lebanon base to Canada, Europe and Africa.

Officials say Hezbollah is seeking revenge for the February assassination of Hezbollah's military commander, Imad Mugniyah, killed by a car bomb in Damascus, Syria....


This guy was killed in February. The Democrats were supposed to have their nominee picked by March 5. This Canada story was all ready to go. Why the hell couldn't Hill have dropped out then?

Oh, and we can finally get this up and running, too:

Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

...One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran's nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter....


Change? We've got your change, Barack -- right here!

posted by Steve M. | 7:13 AM |


Thursday, June 19, 2008  

THE LARRY SINCLAIR TRUTHERS

If Barack Obama is elected president, the Larry Sinclair non-saga is never going to go away; it's going to lurk forever, like a herpes infection. It's going to be the ur-text, the basis of any narrative of Obama's unspeakable evil.

Joseph, the proprietor of Cannonfire -- who, I gather, regards it as a lefty blog, though it's basically All Obama Evil, All the Time -- took Sinclair's press conference very seriously:

So far, most bloggers have refused to acknowledge the fact that Sinclair did something rather extraordinary at his press conference: He named a confirmatory witness.

On November 6, 1999, I asked the limo driver -- whose name I now reveal for the first time -- Paramjit Multani, if he knew anyone who would like to socialize and show me Chicago.

Now, remember what allegedly happened that night, nearly nine years ago: Sinclair and Obama did cocaine and had sex. What do you remember about special nights like that? Larry remembers the name of his limo driver. Oh, those special memories....

Over at Cannonfire, Joseph says:

Do I now take Sinclair's charges seriously? No.

...Even so, I may have been premature to dismiss the man as
just a nutcase.

And hey, what do you do in response to someone whose words you consider the rantings of a nutcase? If you're Joseph, you obsess over them:

...I've found out a bit more about Paramjit Multani, the driver who allegedly hooked Sinclair up with Barack Obama.

...There is a taxi cab driver in Maryland by that name (this is the fellow I tried to reach), but he appears to be the wrong person.

Another Paramjit Multani was caught up in a particularly messy deportation proceeding, which lasted from 2000 to 2006. (He was accused of participating in a sham marriage.) The documentation created by that complex affair (see here) indicates that this Multani may indeed have been in Chicago in 1999. This Multani was sent back to India in 2006 (if I understand the document correctly).

At the press conference, Sinclair disclosed a document which showed that one Rashpal Multani owned the limo service in question. A pdf of this document is here. During the Q-and-A session, Sinclair indicated that the Multani he met moved to Tupelo, Missippi, not long ago. If so, then the fellow deported to India was a different man....


So the Chicago Paramjit Multani is not the Maryland Paramajit Multani is not the Tupelo Paramjit Multani ... or maybe two of them are the same, but neither of them, according to Larry, is Larry's driver ... or something like that.

Hey Joseph, good thing you don't find this guy credible, because I hate to think of how many dead ends you'd be following if you did think he was credible. (Ironically, ads at Cannonfire indicate that Joseph is, to his credit, very much an anti-"truther" when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories.)

Meanwhile, this nutjob thinks Sinclair might have been arrested on orders of George Soros, while a few Freepers really are turning Obama into the second coming of (their version of) Bill Clinton:

Prediction:

Larry Sinclair's expectancy can be measured in mere months.

****

He may commit Obamacide in jail.

****

At least he'll be able to compare notes with James MacDougal on the other side...


Me, I'm just alternately amused and horrified by the freak show.

posted by Steve M. | 11:46 PM |
 

STAB-IN-THE-BACK THEORY, DOMESTIC EDITION

By now, we thought the Republicans were going to be declaring that America had been stabbed in the back by liberals on Iraq, but Republicans aren't saying that (because they think the war is going swimmingly). But this New York Times editorial about offshore drilling reminds us that stab-in-the-back language is transferrable to domestic politics:

...A ... fiction, perpetrated by the oil companies and, to some extent, by misleading government figures, is that huge deposits of oil and gas on federal land have been closed off and industry has had one hand tied behind its back by environmentalists, Democrats and the offshore protections in place for 25 years.

The numbers suggest otherwise. Of the 36 billion barrels of oil believed to lie on federal land, mainly in the Rocky Mountain West and Alaska, almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after various land-use and environmental reviews. And of the 89 billion barrels of recoverable oil believed to lie offshore, the federal Mineral Management Service says fourth-fifths is open to industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters.

Clearly, the oil companies are not starved for resources. Further, they do not seem to be doing nearly as much as they could with the land to which they’ve already laid claim. Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska....


I appreciate the use of the phrase "one hand tied behind its back," given how frequently it's used by proponents of the stab-in-the-back theory of Vietnam.

But a right-wing idea doesn't have to be correct to be potent, especially in an election year. People such as Gail Collins may think that the public will see right through Republicans' calls for lifting restrictions on offshore drilling, but I can't help thinking about the people who said in 1988, "Oh, Bush won't get away with that Pledge of Allegiance stuff against Dukakis -- what the Duke is saying comes right from the state constitution!" If Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are going to stand firm in favor of current restrictions, I think they're going to have to do some careful pushback, explaining why in terms Joe Lunchpail can understand. Gas prices, especially if they hit $5 a gallon, really might be a bigger election-year issue than Iraq, and Democrats shouldn't underestimate the power of a pander.

posted by Steve M. | 3:10 PM |
 

McCAIN IS NO MAVERICK, ACCORDING TO RANKINGS YOU NEVER HEAR ABOUT

Do a Google search for obama most liberal senator and you'll get nearly a quarter of a million hits. That's because he's #1 according to one ranking -- that of National Journal (which just so happened to declare John Kerry the most liberal senator in 2004).

But (via Taegan Goddard), here are some rankings you never hear about:

...Voteview.com, a site created by political scientists that plots lawmakers on a liberal-conservative scale based on their voting patterns, calculated there were nine senators more liberal than Obama in the current Congress.

"Obama is a liberal, but he's not the most liberal," said Keith Poole, a University of California-San Diego professor who runs the site. By comparison, McCain is the eighth-most conservative.


(Yup -- according to VoteView, McCain's rank among conservatives is slightly closer to the far end than Obama's rank among liberals.)

More:

Ratings from Congressional Quarterly also provide a mixed picture.

In CQ's calculation of party unity, which measures how often members vote with their party on bills where the parties split, Obama got a 97 percent rating last year. Ten Democrats had higher scores....

McCain had the Senate's highest presidential support score last year, 95 percent, but he missed more than half of the votes because he was campaigning. And McCain hasn’t always been such a strong backer of President Bush. He supported Bush 77 percent in 2005 and has averaged 89 percent since 2001.


Did you catch that? I'll repeat it:

McCain had the Senate's highest presidential support score last year, 95 percent

Why don't we ever hear this?

Is it because McCain's many campaign absences make it an unreliable statistic? The same is true for Obama's "most liberal" ranking from National Journal. Is it because McCain hasn't been quite as loyal to Bush in other years? Well, Obama hasn't been National Journal's most liberal senator in other years, either.

Last month, Progressive Media USA did pick up on the 95% presidential support score for 2007 -- and McCain's 100% presidential support score for 2008. A lot of bloggers picked up on that 100% statistic, but now it's gone from the collective memory, as is the notion that McCain was the most pro-Bush senator in 2007.

Let me repeat that one more time:

McCain had the Senate's highest presidential support score last year, 95 percent

Sounds like a meme, doesn't it?

posted by Steve M. | 12:06 PM |
 

TEARS FOR LARRY SINCLAIR

Larry Sinclair claims he did drugs and had gay sex with Barack Obama, and has accused Obama of being involved in a murder. A lie detector test has confirmed the obvious: he's lying. So, how should we feel after reading about Sinclair's incredibly long rap sheet and learning that he was arrested at his D.C. press conference yesterday?

Well, according to one right-wing blogger, we should feel terrible:

... There are several problems with [Sinclair's] story, and, while I consider it certainly possible to have happened, I don't think it's likely at all.

Earlier today, Sinclair appeared at the National Press Club to tell his tale and was arrested afterwards by officers from Washington, D.C. police, apparently as a result of U.S. Marshals showing up with a warrant.

The question then becomes, why wasn't he arrested before? Has he been in hiding, or were they just trying to send a message? And, what sort of people would celebrate the arrest of someone who makes inflammatory and almost certainly false charges against a political candidate? Barack Obama supporters, that's who. See the comments here or at firedoglake.com/2008/06/18/larry-sinclair-arrested-at-press-club.

Larry Sinclair is hardly a political prisoner, but the arrest at the press conference has quite a political flavor to it....


I see that the right has an interesting new attitude toward the coddling of career criminals. Let's run down that rap sheet:

...He was first arrested on a larceny charge in 1981 in Denver, according to his Colorado arrest record, as filed in federal court. In 1985, he was convicted of theft and of forging a check in Florida, and sentenced to a year in jail, according to Florida records filed in federal court.

After the Florida episode, according to the records, he returned to Colorado, where he faced check fraud and credit card charges in 1986. Then, in 1987, he was convicted in Colorado on more serious forgery charges, and sentenced to 16 years in jail.

In prison, according to state records filed in federal court, Sinclair was disciplined 97 times for infractions including assault, threats, drug possession, intimidation, and verbal abuse, most recently in 1996.

...The Pueblo County Sheriff's website, which pictures Sinclair under the word "Wanted," cites felony theft and forgery charges.

Sinclair was also arrested and charged with disorderly conduct in South Carolina last September, according to state records filed in federal court....


And, in fact, he was arrested on an outstanding warrant from Delaware.

But ignore all that. He's a victim of The Man! Call Amnesty International! Call Human Rights Watch!

Why are some of us happy that Sinclair has been arrested? Gosh, I can't imagine. Maybe because we wander over to the right blogosphere and read that Sinclair's preposterous story seems "certainly possible to have happened"? Because we live in a country where the percentage of people who think Barack Obama is a Muslim is in the double digits, as is the percentage of people who think Saddam was behind 9/11, and a disturbing number of people actually believe that Michelle Obama used the term "whitey," a word no black person ever uses?

Yeah, I'm happy. I'm ecstatic.

posted by Steve M. | 7:00 AM |


Wednesday, June 18, 2008  

IF THERE REALLY ARE 2.5 MILLION "HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTERS FOR JOHN McCAIN"...

... and they're planning to run a full-page ad in a Sunday edition of the Chicago Sun-Times, er, wouldn't you think they could find at least one member who knows the first thing about grammar, syntax, capitalization, and punctuation (e.g., you don't use an apostrophe before the s to form a plural)?

From the ad:

...We are here to tell you now that there are over 2.5 million of us and we will vote for "John McCain and the Democrat's on the ticket that supported Hillary Clinton ONLY" in November, unless she suddenly become's the nominee.

... We are not just women, we are men and women from all race's and nationality's. We are also made up of Independent's and Republican's that voted for Hillary in the Primary's and that would of voted for her in the General Election.

This is not because we are "sore loser's" or any other stupid reason you come up with....

This Ad Is Paid For By Members Of The Hillary Clinton Supporter's For John McCain
Ed Hale, PO Box 147, Wellington, TX 79095


Yeah, right -- that reads like the work of a large organization, rather than one semiliterate crank, doesn't it?

A number of people have noted that Ed Hale has never actually donated money to Clinton or any other Democrat (and his ad refers to the "DEMOCRAT NATIONAL PARTY"), but he did give money to the Green Party's VP candidate in '04. Great Grey at the Ptarmingan Nest offers evidence that Hale is using a manipulable Web counter to create the illusion that he gets more hits than he actually does -- which, if true, is amusing because Fox News reported that he's had 400,000 hits.

****

Never mind. I take it all back. Ed's heard the whitey tape! It's real!



What a maroon. And yet I bet he continues to get press as if he's legit.

posted by Steve M. | 3:58 PM |
 

SURPRISE -- LOOK WHO THE ELITIST CANDIDATE IS

A new Reuters/Zogby poll shows Obama leading McCain overall by 5 (47%-42%). It also includes some master-narrative-busting stats:

Obama leads among all household income groups except those living in households with incomes above $100,000 per year. Interestingly, he also leads among those who said they shop at Wal-Mart at least once a week. This is a demographic group that typically skews politically conservative.

But ... but ... the Obamas were Ivy Leaguers! And they have some money now! People who shop at Wal-Mart will only vote for a presidential candidate who's a poor high school dropout -- right?

****

Oh, and Quinnipiac says Obama's winning two big beer-and-a-shot states -- Pennsylvania by 12 (52%-40%) and Ohio by 6 (48%-42%). Hey, I thought that was impossible unless he learned how to bowl!

Oh, and Florida, too (47%-43%).

A curious bit of information from the Quinnipiac poll: In each of the three states, Obama's getting a double-digit percentage of 2004 Bush voters (13% in Florida and Ohio, 19% in Pennsylvania). That's good, right? But McCain gets an even larger percentage of Clinton primary voters. Wait, that's bad! Obama's losing his base!

But he can't be losing his base -- he's doing better in each state than Kerry did in 2004. (Kerry lost Florida and Ohio, and won Pennsylvania by only 2.) That means -- assuming the poll respondents are telling the truth -- that a fair number of those Hillary voters voted for Bush in 2004, or didn't vote at all. The math simply doesn't work otherwise. If they were Bush voters or non-voters in 2004, McCain might well have won a good chunk of their votes this year against Clinton, even though they gave her their primary votes.

So, in three big swing states, a significant number of people who didn't vote Democratic in '04 voted for Clinton and now like McCain -- and a significant number of people who didn't vote Democratic in '04 now like Obama. And Obama's winning those states, which the Hillary-or-death crowd said he couldn't possibly win. Got it?

posted by Steve M. | 11:27 AM |
 

RIGHT-WING LOGIC: YOU'RE WRONG, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT YOU'RE RIGHT

A post by James Antle at The American Spectator's blog:

Over at The Corner, there's some discussion of this pretentious passage in a -- believe it or not -- Andrew Greeley column: "How many of the male readers of this column who are habitues of bars, locker rooms, commuter train bull sessions, pool rooms and men's clubs have not heard the indigenous racial slurs of such environments applied to Obama?"

I don't spend much time in locker rooms or "commuter train bull sessions," but I have on occasion been seen in bars. I confess that yes, I have heard racial slurs used against Obama in a few such venues. I'm not sure, however, that this confirms much besides my rule that politics shouldn't be discussed in bars.


Follow that? Greeley says racism manifests itself in certain places, which proves it still exists, and Antle says, yes, it does manifest itself in those places, which proves that you should stick your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING when you're in those places.

Right. Got it.

posted by Steve M. | 10:01 AM |


Tuesday, June 17, 2008  

OBAMA: HE'S NOT WALKING ANYTHING BACK

In follow-up interviews, Barack Obama has elaborated on his earlier remarks about the treatment of detainees -- and some people don't get what he's saying. They think he's waffling or "walking back" what he said earlier. He isn't:

"... without giving full blown rights to those who are being held, we can set up a system of due process, and when I said that the administration didn't even try to do that, what I have consistently said is that rather than figure out how do we effectively hold these folks, detain them, provide them with some due process, try them, lock them up, the administration decided to take a bunch of short cuts." ...

"We don't have to treat them in the same way that we would treat a criminal suspect in the U.S., but we should abide by the Geneva conventions...."

Asked by Richard Wolffe of Newsweek what he would suggest be done with detainees, Obama said "we can lock them up in military facilities on U.S. soil in the same way that we locked them up in Gitmo....

"It does not have to be before a U.S. district court," Obama said, "but if we provided some modicum of due process, we can have confidence that we've got the right people, that we're not wasting time on the wrong people. We can send a message to the world that we continue to abide by the standards of rule of law, and we can actually be more effective in our pursuit of terrorism."


Allahpundit of Hot Air, who despite his ridiculous name is usually one of the most sensible right-wing bloggers, can't quite get himself to believe that this is sincere, even as he acknowledges that it's no flip-flop:

In fairness, this isn't the general election pander it looks like. He alluded to trying jihadis under the UCMJ, as opposed to normal criminal statutes, near the end of his big foreign policy speech last August (the same one in which he talked about invading Pakistan) and his floor statement on granting habeas rights two years ago proposed limiting claims to the question of whether the petitioner was being wrongfully held, not whether his cell at Gitmo is too small, etc. Even so, I'm curious as to what's motivating this compromise. Is there any logic behind it or is it a simple something-for-both-sides political solution?

But that's just it -- it's not a compromise. Or at least I assume it isn't, because what Obama is saying is essentially what I've believed all along, and I bet it makes sense to a lot of you, too.

It's never been important to me whether these guys are tried in civil courts -- it's only been important that there's due process as it's understood by the civilized world. They can go through the civil justice system, or be subject to military justice,with different procedures and rules of evidence -- I don't care; I've never cared. Hell, they can be subject to a process expressly concocted for them by the executive branch -- that's fine in theory -- but the process has to have been created in good faith, not like the Bush administration's kangaroo-court system.

Right-wingers are falling for their own rhetoric here. They're so wedded to the idea that we want full civil trials for terrorism suspects, with all possible bells and whistles, that they've never even bothered to learn that a lot of us wouldn't object to another reasonable procedure. So they just don't get it.

posted by Steve M. | 10:33 PM |
 

VOTES DON'T REALLY COUNT IF THEY COME FROM NON-WHITES WOMEN YOUNG PEOPLE

I don't know why Republicans don't just openly call for the disenfranchisement of Democrats. Even when Republicans are winning elections -- and especially when they aren't -- they love to suggest that votes from groups that prefer the Democratic Party are somehow illegitimate.

Ann Coulter says it would be a good thing (i.e., good for Republicans) if we took away women's right to vote. Republicans regularly talk of blacks and Hispanics as plantation-dwellers, as if non-whites' votes for Democrats aren't freely cast. (Robert Novak: "Where would the Democrats be if they're not picking up around 90 percent of the black vote? What if black voters started moving off the Democratic plantation?")

And in the past couple of days we've had two right-wing pundits arguing that it will be a perversion of democracy if Barack Obama wins in November because, after all, a lot of his votes are going to come from young people, who don't really deserve them.

Here's Dennis Prager at TownHall:

We regularly hear about Barack Obama's appeal to youth, about how he has been able to excite and mobilize a generation of young people to become politically involved, his rare ability to excite young people, and about how many new voters will register (and vote Democrat) as a result.

All this seems to be true. The question, however, is whether it is a good thing for the country and not just for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

The answer is that it probably is not. With a few exceptions ... when youth get involved in politics in large numbers, it is not a good thing.

... For those of us who view the late '60s and '70s as the beginning of a downward spiral for American society, ... the mobilization of many young people on behalf of Barack Obama is not encouraging. It is only the latest example of young people getting excited as a result of their unique combination of naivete, lack of wisdom, romantic idealism and narcissism.

Most adults throughout history have recognized that young people are likely to be unwise given their minuscule amount of life experience. After all, most adults, even among baby boomers, believe that they themselves are wiser today than 10 years ago, let alone than when they were 20 years old....


Young people also did horrible things in France in 1968, Prager says, and the '68 generation still controls the hated France. (Er, I thought age conferred maturity, Dennis.) And yes, young people do good things once in a while (e.g., in "those rare cases when young people confront dictatorships"), but these are exceptions to the rule.

The civil rights era? Not relevant, says Prager:

Yes, young people were also involved in the civil rights movement. And that was a wonderful thing. But unlike the anti-war movement, which was largely spearheaded by, and relied for its effectiveness on, young people, the civil rights movement did not need massive numbers of young people in order to prevail.

(I think that would be news to the students who participated in lunch-counter sit-ins, or to SNCC members such as John Lewis, who was 21 when he first participated in a Freedom Ride, or to the many young people who did voter-registration work in the Deep South, such as James Chaney, dead at 21, Andrew Goodman, dead at 20, and Michael Schwerner, dead at 24.)

Over at Pajamas Media, Burt Prelutsky expresses similar sentiments:

...Frankly, I hate the idea that some kid who may still be in high school canceled out my vote for no better reason than that he’s a fan of Sean Penn or went to a Dixie Chicks concert.

Whenever I suggest that teenagers shouldn’t be allowed to vote for anything but student body president or prom queen, I know that someone is bound to say, “If they’re old enough to fight and die in Afghanistan and Iraq, they’re old enough to vote.”

To which I invariably respond, “You’re absolutely right. If they’re serving in the military, I agree they should be able to vote. But if they’re still in school, still getting an allowance and using their mom or dad’s credit card to buy gas, I say they have no more business electing the president than my dog Duke does.”

Let’s face it, ladies and gentlemen, if we raised the voting age to, say, 25, the Democratic party would go the way of the dodo and the Whigs....


Er, Burt? The 26th Amendment was certified in 1971, when Richard Nixon was president, and he had kind words for it. In six of the nine presidential elections we've had since then, Republicans have won the White House.

There might be a lefty pundit somewhere who's suggested that it's time we took suffrage away from white males, but I don't know who that pundit is. For some members of the GOP, on the other hand, virtually every other demographic group's vote is suspect.

posted by Steve M. | 4:40 PM |
 

REPUBLICANS: A MAY 1 MINDSET

There's a lot of howling and feces-throwing on the right in response to remarks Barack Obama made in an ABC interview. Some of the howling is coming from the McCain camp's own blog:

Barack Obama, Esquire: The 9/10 Candidate

In an interview with ABC's Jake Tapper yesterday, Barack Obama offered a glimpse into how he views the threat posed by radical Islamic extremism:

What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, "Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims."

It's hardly surprising that a lawyer would think that the war on terror would be fought more effectively by lawyers than by the United States Marine Corps. But in Obama's rush to praise the prosecution of the terrorists behind the first World Trade Center bombing, he seems to forget that those methods failed to prevent a second successful attack on September 11, 2001....


And on and on.

I'm actually delighted that these guys have blown the dust and cobwebs off that old chestnut, "September 10 mindset." And look who they've got criticizing Obama:

The campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday accused Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) of being "naive" and "representing the perfect manifestation of a Sept. 10 mindset" in his approach on how to treat suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay....

On a conference call with reporters, former CIA chief James Woolsey and others said Obama’s policy regarding the handling of terrorism suspects would create an opening for more attacks like those on Sept. 11, 2001....


James Woolsey? You mean the guy who praised the work of Laurie "Nutjob" Mylroie, who insisted throughout much of the 1990s and for some time after 9/11 that Iraq was behind both World Trade Center attacks? Woolsey, who called her work "brilliant and brave"? Any chance that this crowd might share some of the blame for the fact that we didn't deal adequately with al Qaeda?

Oh, and that McCain blog post quoted above cites Stephen Hayes -- a writer who peddled the Saddam = 9/11 line for years.

But all that aside, I love hearing Republicans talk about a "September 10 mindset." We watched them talk tough like this for years, and what did they do after much of America agreed that, yes, they were the macho men who would keep us safe? They let bin Laden get away. They let Afghanistan fester. They went after Saddam, found no WMDs, and killed 4,000+ Americans for nothing. And they have the gall to talk tough? They have the gall to point out (see the McCain blog post) that the prosecutions after the '93 WTC bombing didn't roll up 100% of the culprits? Hey, tough guys, where the hell's Osama?

I'm deeply amused that Republicans still think it's May 1, 2003 -- the Mission has been Accomplished, torture has happened at Bagram, Gitmo is in place, extraordinary renditions are under way, the WMDs are going to show up any second now, and when members of the GOP beat their chests we just automatically declare them Alpha Males. America knows it's not 5/1/03 anymore.

****

My favorite Obama line from the ABC interview (emphasis added):

[JAKE] TAPPER: Speaking of the Supreme Court, you applauded the decision that the Supreme Court made last week. The Bush administration says, no matter what people think about other programs, other policies they've initiated, there has not been a terrorist attack within the U.S. since 9/11. And they say the reason that is, is because of the domestic programs, many of which you opposed, the NSA surveillance program, Guantanamo Bay, and other programs. How do you know that they're wrong? It's not possible that they're right?

OBAMA: Well, keep in mind I haven't opposed, for example, the national security surveillance program, the NSA program. What I've said that we can do it within the constraints of our civil liberties and our Constitution.

TAPPER: They disagree, though.

OBAMA: Well, but the fact that they disagree does not mean that they're right on this.....


That's what I want to hear from a Democratic presidential candidate. In other words: "You think you can say 'The Republicans say so' and I'll just back down? You think I'm just supposed to acknowledge that they're right on foreign policy, because they're Republicans? After the last eight years? Are you nuts? Sorry, Jake -- it's a new day."

posted by Steve M. | 2:04 PM |
 

PLEASE, DEMOCRATS, NO MORE DRAMAS

I'm supposed to be worked up about Obama's hiring of Patti Solis Doyle, and I understand the basic point -- that putting the now-estranged Clintonite on the payroll is a huge rebuke to Clinton and her team ("rebuke" is a mild form of the key word in the most-read story on this), and thus Obama is saying, rudely, there isn't going to be a "dream ticket."

Sigh. All I care about is the fact that it's still so easy to report on what's going on among Democrats as gossip.

We were left after the primaries with an unexploded bomb: either Obama would hurt Clinton's feelings or he'd have to take great pains not to. The big story among Democrats was still going to be emotional drama. It's a big problem that we're still talking about Democrats that way, in a country that almost always wants to think of its president as Emotionally Steady Suburban-Dad-Slash-Hero.

After the primaries, ideally, the sense that there were still bruised feelings needed to be banished. Everyone needed to make a great show of sucking it up and agreeing to pull together, for the good of the team. Hillary's final speech was an excellent move in that direction, but more needed to be done -- the question of the second spot on the ticket simply had to stop seeming like an emotional issue, at least as far as the public knew.

Maybe the Clinton camp gets that and Obama just decided on a gratuitous slap in the face. More likely, the two camps are still at odds, still thrusting and parrying. Well, enough. Get your acts together, paste smiles on your faces, deal with the running-mate issue calmly and rationally, and tell your subordinates to shut the hell up when reporters ask about any intrigues. That's how it's expected to be done. That's how you make your party and your nominee look strong and stable.

posted by Steve M. | 8:13 AM |
 

A REMINDER

Barack Obama has a 6-point lead over John McCain among all adults in a new Washington Post poll, and a 4-point lead among registered voters.

And there's this:

Obama has the support of nearly seven in 10 white women who describe themselves as feminists.

That's right -- not even 70% of this group.

A little reminder for the other 30+%:



More from Elisabeth Bumiller in today's New York Times:

On abortion, Mr. McCain has long been opposed, and is in fact more explicit than the president in his opposition to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. Although Mr. Bush has spoken about changing American "hearts and minds" to build a "culture of life," Mr. McCain has said directly, in South Carolina in 2007, that Roe v. Wade "should be overturned."

posted by Steve M. | 7:00 AM |


Monday, June 16, 2008  

BLOGROLL

Not that John Cole et al. need my help, but I'm adding Balloon Juice to the blogroll. Also: the estimable Ta-Nehisi Coates; Online Blogintegrity; and Rumproast.

posted by Steve M. | 10:40 PM |
 

ARUGULA, ESSENCE-SAPPING SALAD GREEN OF THE ANTICHRIST

Just because I know right-wingers can't resist talking about Barack Obama's arugula reference on the campaign trail a couple of months ago (here's a recent example, "It's Not Race, It's Arugula" by Noemie Emery, in the Weekly Standard, which, admittedly, is only glancingly about the salad green), I just want to point out that the virile, boot-wearing, purity-of-essence-preserving cowboy in the White House has actually eaten arugula ... and lived.

On November 9, 2007, the White House menu for a dinner honoring Angela Merkel included Citrus and Arugula Salad. On May 7, 2007, the menu for a dinner honoring Queen Elizabeth included Arugula, Savannah Mustard and Mint Romaine. On February 25, 2007, at a White House dinner in honor of state and territorial governors, a Salad of Cherry, Sylvetta Arugula and Frisee was served. (Yes! Frisee, too!) And on April 11, 2005, Scott McClellan recounted the menu for a lunch at Bush's ranch attended by the president and Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon:

And if you want the menu -- here, I'll just give you the menu for the lunch. They had arugula and blood orange salad, pecan-smoked beef tenderloin -- which was very good -- grilled asparagus and roasted seasonal vegetables, some homemade peach sorbet, and then topped it off with some brownies.

Yes, it's true: George W. Bush had arugula in his own house.

It is my understanding that he is still a biological male, Republican, and heterosexual.

posted by Steve M. | 3:15 PM |
 

BARACK OBAMA: THE NEW BILL CLINTON

Were you a bit baffled by the references to murder by the Clinton-or-death crazies during their D.C. demo last month?

..."Would you rather have a president who had an affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]?" Jeannie, the Greensboro Democrat, asks a fellow in a floppy Tilley hat and Hillary buttons. "That's a good point," he replies....

You may have gathered that this has to do with Larry Sinclair -- you know, the guy who claimed in a YouTube "confession" that he had gay sex and used cocaine with Barack Obama in 1999, and who has since been championed by wingnuts and, more recently, the Clinton crazies. (Oh, did I mention the failed polygraph and the criminal record?)

Well, apparently this is going to be a big part of his National Press Club dog-and-pony show on Wednesday, the one Firedoglake has urged the club to cancel (although it's been argued that the club is just renting out space, not endorsing content):

...At the press conference, Larry will (i) reveal the corroborating evidence for his allegations regarding Obama, (ii) address the time-line of the response of the Obama campaign to his allegations and the murder of Donald Young, the openly gay choir director of Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama's now-former church....

So what's the bit about the choir? Here it is, from a hate-Obama blog:

Donald Young was a forty seven year old choir director and deacon at Trinity United Church of Christ, on 400 W. 95th St, the very church made famous by the candidacy of Barrack Obama. Donald Young was also openly gay. He was also a personal friend of Barrack Obama’s. A roommate found Donald Young unresponsive in his home at 7:30 AM on December 23, 2007. He had been shot multiple times. Christmas presents and jewelry were missing from his home....

Why isn’t the murder of Mr. Young, the late choir director of Trinity Church, making news?
...

Why? Well, it seems reasonable to believe that this was a sadly ordinary robbery-murder. It's possible that it was a hate crime. (According to a local news report -- in Chicago, it is making news -- it was the second murder of a gay black man on the South Side in a little more than a month.)

But that's not sufficient for the crazies. The crazies think Obama is involved. By astonishing coincidence, Larry Sinclair claimed in an affidavit sometime after the murder (PDF) that a person named Young contacted him just before the murder to talk about Barack Obama, sex, and drugs.

... Yup, folks, it's the Clinton Body Count all over again, albeit with only one name on it. (So far.)

I'm late to this new bit of nonsense -- it's been all over the loony-right absurdosphere. But it's what Obama has to look forward to -- along with the rest of us -- throughout this campaign and throughout an Obama presidency if there is one, because this is what we do to Democrats in America.

posted by Steve M. | 1:55 PM |
 

JINDAL: IT'S "WRONG" TO TEACH JUST EVOLUTION

Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars reports on yesterday's Face the Nation appearance by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, a possible John McCain runing mate. Nicole's headline is "Jindal Thinks Intelligent Design Should Be Taught With Evolution" -- but it's a bit worse than that. Jindal doesn't just think adding intelligent design makes the curriculum better; Jindal thinks it's "wrong" not to teach intelligent design:

I think local school boards should be in a position of deciding the curricula and also deciding what students should be learning. Secondly, I don't think students learn by us withholding information from them. Some want only to teach intelligent design, some only want to teach evolution. I think both views are wrong, as a parent.

This jibes with the contempt he expressed for evolution when he was running for governor in 2007:

...Mr. Jindal supports teaching creationism. In September 2003, the Associated Press reported his answering "yes" on the Louisiana Family Forum's voter guide as to whether he favored teaching the "scientific weaknesses of evolution" (creationist codetalk) in public schools.... When a reporter asked his position on teaching creationism, Mr. Jindal's response clearly favored undermining the teaching of evolution: "With evolution there are flaws and gaps. I think it's appropriate to tell our students that no scientific theory can prove evolution." ("Sharp questions put candidates at governor’s forum on spot," Associated Press, September 25, 2003) ...

And it's odd because, as Kyle Moore points out at Comments from Left Field, Jindal is a Catholic, and the Catholic Church doesn't support the teaching of intelligent design.

****

I don't know what's going on with McCain and Jindal. However, even though I know a lot of people think McCain's campaign is bumbling and incompetent, my guess is that even these guys wouldn't put a guy on the ticket who's known to have (by his own admission) participated in an exorcism. Also, Jindal's age (he just turned 37) undermines the GOP's argument that Obama is too inexperienced to be president (especially if McCain's #2 seems more likely than most to be called on to assume the presidency), and if you're going to run a dog-whistle racist campaign against Obama, well, doesn't an all-Euro-American ticket make that a lot easier?

I think Jindal is out there to be noticed by some of the people who are paying a lot of attention to the race right now -- particularly movement conservatives, a group McCain is afraid isn't fully in his camp. He wants them to see he's linked to Jindal. He may also think people for whom Obama's youth and and racial background are a plus will become vaguely aware of Jindal and be impressed, and maybe he thinks some Catholics will be impressed, too (though I've got to tell you, it's hard to imagine that Vinny and Sully drinking Bud back at the local bar are going to feel Jindal's one of them) -- but I suspect McCain will just keep using Jindal, but not run with him. He'll definitely get a prime-time speech at the convention. But I think the exorcism is a bridge too far. (And given the fact that McCain harbors dreams of winning suburbanites in big eastern states, he probably knows the creationism is, too.)

posted by Steve M. | 8:18 AM |


Sunday, June 15, 2008  

Thanks, Tom and Bulworth ... I'll be back tomorrow.

posted by Steve M. | 11:09 PM |
 

Obama on the Guantanamo Ruling

Obama Statement on Today's Supreme Court Decision

Chicago, IL June 12, 2008

Chicago, IL - "Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values," said Barack Obama.

And then there's this graph from the Times Linda Greenhouse:

Thanks in no small part to Justice Antonin Scalia’s dire warning that granting Guantánamo detainees access to habeas corpus “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,” the Supreme Court finds itself on the verge of becoming something that it has not been for many election cycles — a campaign issue.

Wouldn't that be appropriate.

posted by Bulworth | 12:55 PM |
 

We've had a couple of encouraging signs in the last few days.

On Friday it was Jim Geraghty's dismay at Obama's supposed contempt for New Rochelle commuters. (If the lifestyle of Rob and Laura Petrie isn't sacred, what is?)

Yesterday it was faux outrage at Obama quoting The Untouchables, showing that the Republican War on Metaphors continues unabated. See, for example, Flopping Aces:
Does it strike readers as somewhat odd that the Dems who screech at the very mention of the word gun would be backing a candidate who threatens to use one in a fight?
And then there's Mac Ranger, as sensitive as he is literate (and as literate as he is sensitive), with a post called Obama's Inner Gangsta Comes Out featuring this image:

And the single most obtuse comment of them all comes from Andrew Malcolm:
Or how about the fact that he stole that line from Sean Connery in "The Untouchables," which is from Chicago too, come to think of it.
And if quoting movies is plagiarism, somebody should sue the corpse of Ronald Reagan.

So what's encouraging about these? Simple: they're flailing. They're more strained than the usual attacks, and they aren't just reaching--they look like they're reaching. More importantly, they don't form a coherent narrative. Is Obama a wimpy street thug, or a violent elitist? Is he scary or not scary, and which is worse? What's the storyline here? Besides, of course, sheer desperation?

To be sure, some of it will stick--but they haven't succeeded in defining Obama. Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry were all summed up in a few words; Clinton was harder for them to get a handle on. In that respect, I think Obama is a lot more like Clinton.

[Cross-posted at If I Ran the Zoo]

posted by Tom Hilton | 12:03 PM |


Friday, June 13, 2008  

AND ON THAT NOTE...

I'm gone for the weekend. Guest posts are (I think) expected.

posted by Steve M. | 7:30 PM |
 

IS BUSH PRETENDING HE MIGHT CONVERT TO CATHOLICISM JUST TO HELP McCAIN?

From Britain's Telegraph:

George W Bush and Pope Benedict XVI have held an intimate meeting in Rome as rumours mounted in Italy that the president may follow in Tony Blair's footsteps and convert to Catholicism....

Several Italian newspapers cited Vatican sources suggesting that Mr Bush may be prepared to convert. One source told Il Foglio, an authoritative newspaper, that "Anything is possible, especially for a born-again Christian such as Bush."...

A source close to the Vatican said that Mr Bush was the most "Catholic-minded" president since John F Kennedy, who famously played down his Catholicism....


You'll recall a Washington Post op-ed from April in which it was argued that Bush "could well be the nation's first Catholic president" ("where Kennedy sought to divorce his religion from his office, Bush has welcomed Roman Catholic doctrine and teachings into the White House and based many important domestic policy decisions on them"). Prior to that, Rick Santorum called Bush "the first Catholic president" back in 2006.

Karl Rove, who's clearly helping John McCain, has long believed that Republicans can peel off Catholic voters from the Democrats, and some poll-readers have argued that the Catholic vote won it for Bush in '04. And McCain is certainly doing outreach to Catholic conservatives; I'll link you again to this story from Right Wing Watch:

Deal Hudson reports that John McCain "met privately" with Rev. Frank Pavone, the Priests for Life head most famous for calling Michael Schiavo a murderer, before a Catholic-outreach meeting in Philadelphia. McCain has been holding events with supporter Sen. Sam Brownback, whose brief presidential run attracted a lot of attention from social conservatives, and who promised to court the Religious Right activists such as Pavone on McCain's behalf....

Deal Hudson is Catholic. Sam Brownback is also Catholic and is McCain's Catholic liaison. Needless to say, Father Frank Pavone is Catholic. (And as I noted earlier today, Pavone also associates with anti-abortion extremists who publicly burn Korans.)

Have these guys concluded that, in some bizarre way, rumors of a Bush conversion, wafting in from across the Atlantic, might improve Catholics' opinion of Bush and the man who's yoked to him, John McCain? I can't rule that out.

posted by Steve M. | 5:34 PM |
 

TIM RUSSERT IS DEAD

I'm speechless.

posted by Steve M. | 4:18 PM |
 

DID JOHN McCAIN'S NEWEST RELIGIOUS PAL ONCE PRESIDE OVER A KORAN-BURNING?

From Right Wing Watch:

McCain's Next Controversial Priest

Deal Hudson reports that John McCain "met privately" with Rev. Frank Pavone, the Priests for Life head most famous for calling Michael Schiavo a murderer, before a Catholic-outreach meeting in Philadelphia....


Yes, Pavone, who advised the members of Terri Schiavo's family who wanted to keep her alive, did call her husband a murderer.

...after Terri died, I called her death a killing, and I called you a murderer because you knew -- as we all did -- that ceasing to feed Terri would kill her.... Some have demanded that I apologize to you for calling you a murderer. Not only will I not apologize, I will repeat it again....

Just after her death, he spread misinformation about her condition -- for instance, at the Priests for Life Web site:

I went down to see [Terri Schiavo] in September 2004....

When her mom first introduced her to me, she stared at me intently. She focused her eyes. She would focus her eyes on whoever was talking to her. If somebody spoke to her from the other part of the room she would turn her head and her eyes towards the person who was talking to her....


And also on Fox News:

...She was very responsive--closing her eyes when I said, "Let’s pray together, Terri," opening them up after the prayer. Smiling, returning the kiss of her father. Turning her eyes to me when I spoke to her. In many other ways, as well, responsive.

Even today, although, of course, with the effects of the dehydration, her response was much less. Nevertheless, her eyes were open, her eyes were moving, and as I prayed with her, her eyes were shifting over toward my direction--even until the last moments that I was with her....


(Terri Schiavo, of course, was blind as a result of brain damage.)

And did he preside over a Koran-burning? Well, it's not clear. We do know about a 2004 event in Ohio that was reported at the Web site of Operation Save America, a sister group to Operation Rescue:

... at Columbus City Hall, Thursday July 22, 2004, ... Operation Save America (OSA) burned a "gay" flag, a copy of Roe vs. Wade and a Muslim "holy" book, the Koran....



Whether or not he was present for the Koran-burning, we know that Pavone spoke at the event:

Thursday, July 22, 2004

OSA Formally, Publicly Transitions to Hate Group; Burns Koran, Rainbow Flag and Copy Of Supreme Court "Roe v. Wade" Decision At City Hall

...Frank Pavone, a priest who is an official of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, spoke this afternoon at OSA's City Hall event.


There's McCain's new pal.

posted by Steve M. | 1:28 PM |
 

MEET THE NEW SEXISM -- NOT ALL THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE OLD SEXISM

I guess we're going to spend much of the day yelling at one another about this again:

Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a "Media Hall of Shame," starting a national conversation about sexism and pushing Mrs. Clinton's rival, Senator Barack Obama, to address the matter.

But many in the news media ... see little need for reconsidering their coverage or changing their approach going forward. Rather, they say, as the Clinton campaign fell behind, it exploited a few glaring examples of sexist coverage to whip up a backlash and to try to create momentum for Mrs. Clinton....


Oy. This is all we need -- a bunch of men in the news media unwilling to acknowledge that there was any problem whatsoever, which fuels the anger of those who believe that anyone who hasn't now put the Cause of Hillary Clinton above all other priorities in life is a woman-crushing, slavering sexist pig.

Here's my view: There was a lot of sexism, some of it strikingly vile. On the other hand, it's not all one undifferentiated mass, and everyone isn't equally guilty. Although she's a bit too forgiving, Candy Crowley makes some sense here:

Candy Crowley, covering the campaign for CNN, said that for the most part, she did not see a drumbeat of sexism in the daily reporting, "but I certainly did see it in the commentary." Still, Ms. Crowley said, "it was hard to know if these attacks were being made because she was a woman or because she was this woman or because, for a long time, she was the front-runner."

The main point she's making is correct: Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson and Mike Barnicle were more sexist than, say, reporters doing straight news for major papers. There were a lot of different groups -- reporters, pundits/blowhards, GOP-leaners outside the traditional media, Obama-leaners outside the traditional media, barely political freelance jerks selling Hillary nutcrackers or waving "Iron My Shirt" signs -- and lumping them all together as if they're one undifferentiated mass isn't helpful, because their degrees of sexism were very different. And some of the "sexism" came from women -- for instance, the notorious Washington Post cleavage story, written by Robin Givhan. (It was a ridiculous story -- the alleged cleavage was almost imperceptible -- but Givhan's beat is, after all, fashion, and she's D.C.-based.)

I'm want to move forward with the Democratic nominee, but I agree that the pundit/blowhard class, in particular, really needs to do quite a bit of soul-searching.

*****

But if we're going to talk about this, can we also talk about the mirror-image set of unpleasant sexual stereotypes Steve Ducat wants us to notice?

...Floyd Brown, ... who succeeded in turning Black rapist murderer Willie Horton into Michael Dukakis's running mate, is now going after the testicular credibility of Barack Obama. [His recent] ad cited a vote Obama cast as an Illinois state senator against a bill mandating the death penalty for gang-related murders -- a bill the state's Republican governor later vetoed for being overly broad, vague, discriminatory, and for lacking any deterrent effect. The spot's narrator concludes, "When the time came to get tough, Obama chose to be weak. So, the question is: can a man so weak in the war on gangs be trusted in the war on terror?" The closing shot is that of the rubble at New York's post-9/11 ground zero.

... As he had successfully done with Dukakis, the aim is to emasculate Obama and thus to induce in the electorate a fear that the Democratic nominee will be unable to function as a manly protector.


This is coming, and as any reader of Maureen Dowd knows, it's going to be rather relentless. He can't bowl. His eating habits are too fancy. His wife is the tough one. And on and on.

Ducat makes a good point about the Obama ad:

Some might think that this strategy is targeted at the so-called "Security Mom" demographic...

The primary audience, I would argue, is the other side of the gender gap, the "Insecurity Men," male voters unconsciously anxious about their masculinity, and who are generally well disposed toward Republican candidates. (Wednesday's poll showed McCain with a 20% lead among white men.) Men as a group tend to be much more troubled than are women over the possibility that they might have traits of the other gender. The more central that male domination is to a social order, the more anxious they are about this. In fact, in such a world, the most important thing about being a man is not being a woman. As I described in my last post, the findings of my own research and that of others have shown that conservative men are much more likely to suffer from the fear that they might be "feminine," than are liberal males. One way this femiphobia gets managed is through projection -- by hating, denigrating, and attacking other men whose masculinity is imagined as somehow deficient....


These same pathetic, insecure men, obviously, also fear Hillary as a "nutcracker."

I don't want to pit these two forms of sexual warfare against one another. I just want to point out that anger at both is justified, because they're very much related. They appeal to the same instinct in the same jerks.

posted by Steve M. | 11:20 AM |


Thursday, June 12, 2008  

IT'S NOT A TERRORIST FIST-JAB ... OR IS IT?

About 1:58 of the way into this trailer for Hellboy II: The Golden Army, it looks as if Ron Perlman is actually blocking a creature's fist with his own very powerful fist, not engaging in a terrorist fist-jab.



...However, let's not be too complacent. The maker of Hellboy II is, after all, Guillermo del Toro, whose most acclaimed work, Pan's Labyrinth, has villains who are evil Spanish fascists -- and we know the people who opposed the Spanish fascists were all big commies, right?

Plus, del Toro is Mexican, so he probably thinks it's good that Islamomuslonazi terrorists routinely cross the Mexican border into America.

So, yes, it probably is a terrorist fist-jab, insidiously planted in a seemingly harmless summer movie to sap the will of our youth.



Is there no end to the America-haters' perfidy?

posted by Steve M. | 10:14 PM |
 

A SCREW-YOU FOR SCREW-YOU'S SAKE, REJECTED BY THE COURT

What the Supreme Court struck down today was quite literally a mockery of justice. Whatever else it was meant to accomplish, I think it was always meant to be precisely that, a mockery -- the administration not just detaining people without due process but rubbing their faces, and the faces of the liberals Bush and Cheney despise, in the injustice.

In upholding the right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees, the Court found that the "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" process ("CSRT") offered to Guantanamo detainees -- mandated by the John-McCain-sponsored Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 -- does not constitute a constitutionally adequate substitute for habeas corpus. To the contrary, the Court found that such procedures -- which have long been criticized as sham hearings due to the fact that defendants cannot have a lawyer present, government evidence is presumptively valid, and defendants are prevented from challenging (and sometimes even knowing about) much of the evidence against them -- "fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review."

It reminds me of a story I once heard of a literacy test given to a black voter in the Jim Crow South. He was handed a piece of paper and told that if he could read it, he was qualified to vote. Problem was, it was in Chinese. He said he couldn't read the body of the text, but he could he read the headline -- it said, This black man isn't going to get to vote today.

I try to imagine the smirking white men who thought it was great fun to toy with that black would-be voter. I imagine they felt the same smug, satisfying sense of enjoyment -- and the same belief that they were holding barbarism at bay -- that the administration felt in putting together the Combatant Status Review Tribunals process. The administration was saying, "You want an appeals process? I got your appeals process -- right here." But the Supreme Court just said, "Not so fast."

posted by Steve M. | 6:46 PM |
 

OBAMA'S LEAD AMONG WHITE WOMEN IS BIGGER THAN BILL CLINTON'S IN 1996

Before we were so rudely interrupted by Fox, I was going to talk a bit more about the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. No, Barack Obama is not blowing McCain away, and it's still going to be a tight race, but for now -- despite warnings that his victory was going to drive women into the McCain camp en masse (which, to some extent, I admit I believed) -- he's actually leading among women by 19 points (52%-33%). Among white women, he leads by 7, 46%-39%.

Not only is that 7-point lead among white women better than what Gore and Kerry accomplished (both lost the white female vote), it's actually slightly better than Bill Clinton did when he won the presidency handily in 1996 -- his lead among white women was 5 points, according to CNN's exit poll (48%-43%).

Who's keeping McCain in the race? White guys, naturally.

Yet among white men -- who made up 36 percent of the electorate in the 2004 presidential election -- Obama trails McCain by 20 points, 55-35 percent.

So Obama emerges from the Great Feminist War of 2008 as the villain -- and the people who don't like him afterward are dudes? Talk about your Law of Unintended Consequences.

Oh, and as for that he-can't-win-without-Hillary thing: adding her to the ticket has close to zero effect.

Twenty-two percent say that adding Clinton as Obama's vice presidential running mate makes them more likely to vote for Obama in November; 21 percent say it makes them less likely to vote for him; and 55 percent say it makes no difference.

Wow. But, er, doesn't that contradict another poll result?

While Obama has a six-point advantage over McCain, that lead expands when New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is added as Obama's running mate, the poll shows. An Obama-Clinton ticket defeats a GOP one of McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by nine points, 51-42 percent.

Well, yes -- or maybe no. Maybe the dropoff for McCain isn't because of the addition of Hillary -- maybe, for some voters, it's because of the addition of that evil Satanic Mormon, Mitt Romney. The resistance to a Mormon president (or vice president?) isn't trivial in this country, after all.

posted by Steve M. | 12:44 PM |
 

RUPERT MURDOCH'S LOW CUNNING, MY GULLIBILITY

I've got nothing to add to the justifiable howls of outrage in the blogosphere in response to the decision by Fox News to refer to Michelle Obama as her husband's "baby mama":



...or, rather, I have nothing to add that wouldn't be slithering into the sewer with Murdoch (I considered doing a payback post involving Murdoch's young, non-white third wife and realized that, even as an exercise, a post like that just spreads more ugliness).

But, good Lord, was I naive when I fell for this:

...Murdoch described Obama as a "rock star" and "fantastic," saying his Republican opponent John McCain is "unpredictable" and "doesn't know much about the economy." While he is a "patriot" and a "decent guy ... he doesn't know much about organizing a campaign it would seem."

Murdoch added that he wasn't backing anyone, saying he wants to know more about Obama's plans and the people around him. But he said he was involved in the New York Post's decision to endorse Obama in New York’s Democratic primarily earlier this year....


Murdoch's New York Post actually did seem to be pulling its punches during the primary fight (the anti-Hillary front pages near the end were rather ugly) but Murdoch's playing a double game here -- I think he wants to be able to point to mild Post coverage in the event of an Obama administration, when he'll want to use the new president, but he's also clearly decided that a months-long Two Minutes' Hate with Obama as target is fresh, exciting new programming for Fox News this year. Both MSNBC and CNN are gaining on Fox right now, and a "Holy crap, what did they say now?" strategy for Fox is probably good business and effective sleazeball politics.

Maybe we're actually doing him a favor by drawing attention to it.

posted by Steve M. | 11:00 AM |


Wednesday, June 11, 2008  

OH, GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK

Some members of the Hillary-for-VP crowd spin The Hill, and The Hill lets itself be spun:

Hispanic Dems warn Obama he risks losing Latinos

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) must commit to helping illegal immigrants achieve citizenship or else risk losing the vital Latino vote in the general election, Hispanic Democratic lawmakers are warning.

If he does not promise so-called comprehensive immigration reform, the lawmakers say, the only other way to win over Hispanic supporters of his erstwhile rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), may be to pick her as his running mate.

..."Hillary holds the entire Latino community in the palm of her hand," said. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), whose district went heavily for Clinton....


What's wrong with this picture? Oh, just this, which The Hill doesn't mention:

A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62% of Latino registered voters nationwide, compared with just 29% for McCain.... The Gallup survey of Latinos found that Obama, despite his string of losses to Clinton, performed just as well as Clinton in a theoretical matchup against McCain.

The Hill story does mention that Bush got 40% of the Hispanic vote against Kerry in 2004 -- but, for some reason, never gets around to mentioning the fact that Obama, supposedly struggling among Hispanics, is doing better than Kerry did, without Hillary as his running mate. So what's the problem?

*****

And if you still believe that how a candidate does with a particular voting bloc in the primaries is how that candidate will do in the general election, then shouldn't you believe that Hillary Clinton, if she'd won the nomination, would have gotten only about 10% of the black vote against McCain?

*****

UPDATE: A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll has very similar numbers for Hispanic voters: Obama 62%, McCain 28%.

In 2004, CNN's exit poll actually had the Hispanic vote as Bush 53%, Kerry 44%. In 2000 (an election in which the Democrats, of course, won the popular vote, and should have won the White House), it was Gore 62%, Bush 35%. So Obama's doing better than both of them already.

*****

(Also see my follow-up post about this poll, "Obama's Lead Among White Women Is Bigger Than Bill Clinton's in 1996.")

posted by Steve M. | 11:17 PM |
 

ANTI-OBAMA "MOVEMENT" SPOKESWOMAN INTERVIEWED ON FOX THINKS OBAMA IS A TERRORIST WHO PRACTICES POTENTIALLY LETHAL MIND-CONTROL HYPNOSIS

From NewsHounds:

Hannity & Colmes hosted crackpot Cristi Adkins, a die-hard Hillary Clinton fan who is now supporting John McCain. Adkins' website makes the outlandish accusation that Obama is "the home-grown terrorist sleeper cell." ...

Adkins said she was there as part of some coalition called, "Just Say No Deal." The website states: "We are a coalition of millions with one thing in common: NObama." ...


There's video at the NewsHounds link. Hannity and Colmes take this guest quite seriously.

How reliable is she? I think all you need to know is the fact that she posted this comment at a fellow Obama-basher's blog back in March:

Be Aware of the Hypnotic Power of the O'Bama Kool Aid…

Is It DANGEROUS?

Yes, Obama is a powerful speaker, make no mistake about that. As with all motivation speakers like Anthony Robbins and Marshall Sylver, he has a hypnotic quality about him. However, what's he really saying? As his voice lowers in pitch, softens a bit, you'll also notice the lights are lowered, the background music gets the audience pumped, he meets your gaze eye to eye during the rally and his voice seems to lull you into the 'feelings' of hope, inspiration and excitement. But when you leave the rally, you are left with one message. 'Change.' The amazing principle of Group Think is applicable, but there is another side to the coin.

...who is this empowering man that can inspire thousands of young, innocent, voters to go to the poles, even on blistery, dangerous highways during an ice storm..such as it was in Virginia and Maryland on February 12? ...

It is the same power that convinces thousands of unsuspecting enthusiasts to drink the red Kool Aid which leads to their ultimate destruction. It's called Mind Control, or in some circles, Hypnosis.

Mr. Obama is highly skilled at bypassing the critical thinking mind and getting straight to the subconscious mind; he knows how to hit what really makes voters tick. It is said in the world of Mind Control, when you control someones emotions, you control them. This is same tool and technique highly recognized in the speaking industry and used by the Anthony Robbins and Marshall Sylvers of the world. Unlike Bush, who used the Fear of Terrorists, O'bama's fear hits even closer to home. It is a sublimina fear of being publicly ridiculed if you say anything negative about a 'well liked' black candidate. Other emotions target the votes as they hope to stay out of a recession, fear losing their homes, desire a better life with greener pastures, excitement builds as the democratic race is the best reality TV to observe….

Keep this in mind when you place your vote. Do you want to be vote with your heart and emotions, with the facts or jump on a band wagon with a mysterious pull to drink the Obama Kook Aid? ...

Cristi Adkins, RN Cht


There's your Fox News "expert."

Of course, judging from this PDF at her workplace, perhaps Cristi is just feeling professional jealousy:

Cristi is a registered nurse who provides holistic nursing and holds a Masters Certification as a Hypnotherapist by the National Guild of Hypnotists. Originally born and raised outside of Baton Rouge, LA in a small town called Denham Springs, but has since moved on to become one of the masters in subconscious reprogramming.

As Registered Nurse she specializes in the body-mind-spirit approach. As an activist in holistic medicine, Nurse Cristi served as the state representative for the American Holistic Nurses Association for the state of Utah in 1998-1999 to bring about awareness to the field of Holistic Medicine. Holistic principles back the Fatloss Forever! weight loss program.

...Cristi offers complimentary consultations for the following services:

Hypnotherapy
Meditation
Audio Spa with the Light Sound System
Ionic Detox Foot Spa
Weight Loss
Nutrition
Holistic Health

Call today for your initial consultation....


I'm not sure why Cristi didn't try to use her skills at hypnotic mind control to persuade voters not to vote for Obama, given the fact that she's a pro, while he's just an amateur (unless there's some truth to the rumors I've heard that he has a master's from the Bin Laden School of Mind Control and Global Domination).

Then again, maybe that's exactly what she's doing -- I'm feeling very sleepy.....

posted by Steve M. | 4:50 PM |
 

DOWD: CRITICIZING THE GOP -- OR HERSELF?

I was a bit surprised when I read the new Maureen Dowd column. She talks about the likelihood that Michelle Obama will be the next target of the GOP smear machine, and she actually seems to think that's a bad thing:

...It's good news for Obama that Hillary's out of the race. But it's also bad news. Now Republicans can turn their full attention to demonizing Michelle Obama. Mrs. Obama is the new, unwilling contestant in Round Two of the sulfurous national game of "Kill the witch." ...

Dowd, surprisingly, seems to have some admiration for Michelle (in part, as a contrast to her twin Antichrists, the Clintons):

...When she's on her game, after all, Michelle is a knockout. And as one Obama booster enthuses: "Michelle's story is a lot more mainstream American than Cindy McCain inheriting a brewery."

...she clearly scored a pre-emptive hit both with her chic style -- Vogue’s Andre Leon Talley declared in The Times the dawn of "a black Camelot" -- and with her playful fist pump....

The dap or pound, as it's also called, was a natural and beguiling moment that showed the country that, even though she started out as her husband's boss and has a resume that matches his, she likes him and is rooting for him, and is not engaged in a dreaded Clintonesque competition with him....


And she doesn't seem to like what she says is coming (and is already here):

...There are creepy Web sites, like TheObamaFile.com, dedicated to painting Michelle as a female version of Jeremiah Wright, an angry black woman, the disgruntled, lecturing "Mrs. Grievance" depicted on the cover of National Review.

On that site and others around the Internet, the seamy rumors still slither that there's a tape of Michelle denouncing "whitey," a rumor that Barack Obama disdained last week as "scurrilous."

E.D. Hill, the Fox anchor who said that the celebrated fist pump between Michelle and her husband the night he snagged the nomination could be called a "terrorist fist jab," apologized Tuesday.

In their narrative of how Hillary lost in The Times on Sunday, Jim Rutenberg and Peter Baker said that Mark Penn argued that Hillary should subtly stress Obama’s "lack of American roots."

That's a good preview of how Republicans will attack Michelle, suggesting that she does not share American values, mining a subtext of race....


But is Dowd criticizing the Obamas' political enemies -- or (in advance) herself?

After all, while chastising other Michelle-bashers, she also says this, with no finger-wag:

...Michelle has not always hidden her jangly opinions so well. She has spent more time dwelling on the ways in which society can pull down the less privileged and refers a lot to a callous but unnamed "They."

"Michelle," as one political observer puts it, "is a target-rich environment." ...


That suggests to me that she'll be ready to jump into the scrum herself any minute now. Given how much of the current column is taken up with Dowd's usual Clinton-bashing, it's likely that she's holding back only because, for now, Michelle is the anti-Hillary. If Hillary's not the VP choice, Michelle could easily become the new Hillary.

If you doubt that, recall this Dowd column from April 2007, in which Michelle was called "emasculating" (OK, it was actually "others" who "worried that her chiding was emasculating"). And recall this Dowd column from a couple of weeks ago, a fantasy conversation between Barack Obama and Bill Clinton about the second spot on the ticket. The nominee speaks first:

"... We're going to have an administration so squeaky clean that it makes Jimmy Carter look like Marc Rich. All your trips abroad will have to be authorized by a higher authority."

"The State Department? Fine, I'll check with them."

"Higher."

"Oh, no. Not that."

"Yes, Michelle. She'll have you on a much shorter leash, Bill, and it's not so fun. There'll be no more Ron Air, no Burkling and Binging. Eight long years of Michelle watching your every move. No eruptions of any kind...."


And this image of Michelle as Scary Taskmistress Bitch turns out to be precisely what persuades Bill that a VP slot for Hill might not be a good idea. Oh, those terrifying female dominatrixes!

I suspect that's the direction Dowd's writing on Michelle is going to take -- it nicely complements her emasculating "Obambi" imagery for the candidate -- however much sympathy she seems to be showing now.

****

dnA isn't even half-impressed:

...unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo are in fact, the only thing Dowd writes about. So she introduced the tape in this column as a rumor "other people are talking about" so that she can continue to write about it endlessly, all Summer and into the Fall, even though no tape will ever materialize. She takes the positioning of criticizing the Right Wing Noise Machine's attack on Michelle Obama even as she legitimizes a story that, with the exception of Roger Stone, they decided was so untrue not even they'd run with it.

And in every column, she will produce the same paper-thin empathy towards Michelle Obama that she offers all women she smears, a rhetorical device that can't hide the contempt she feels for women on the national stage....


I don't think this column is quite that bad, but I think future columns will be.

posted by Steve M. | 12:46 PM |
 

GOP-FRIENDLY POLITICO HACK HELPFULLY POINTS OUT McCAIN-CHENEY FRICTION

At The Page, Mark Halperin has a post entitled "McCain's Cheney Problem." It's basically just a link to this Politico story by Jonathan Martin -- a story that only seems to be about a "Cheney problem" in the McCain campaign:

What should McCain do about Cheney?

He's a highly effective fundraiser in an election cycle where Republicans are starved for cash, a hero to the wing of the party that views John McCain with the most suspicion. He has four decades of campaign experience, ranging from a short stint running Gerald Ford's election bid in 1976 to two successful races on the presidential ticket.

Yet despite that pedigree, Vice President Dick Cheney is unlikely to share a stage with McCain anytime soon -- and may not be called on to play any role at all in the 2008 presidential campaign.

In part, it's a reflection of political expediency. Though Cheney is one of the nation's most influential and talked about vice presidents ever, his favorability ratings are near toxic lows.

But Cheney and McCain also have had a rocky relationship.

They have clashed publicly and privately during the Bush years on matters ranging from the treatment of terrorist detainees to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Most recently, they've been on opposite sides on the idea of a gas tax holiday and on a Cheney-backed energy bill.

As a result, Cheney finds himself on the outside looking in....


What's the point of this story? It's not to tell us that there's a regrettable amount of bad blood between the veep and the candidate. It's to tell us: Hey, look! It's me! The Maverick! I'm not John McSame! I'm not running for Bush's third term! I don't even like Dick Cheney! DID YOU GET THAT? IF NOT, I'LL REPEAT MYSELF: I DON'T EVEN LIKE DICK CHENEY!!!

McCain has had trouble getting people to believe he won't be a Bush clone, so it's awfully thoughtful of Jonathan Martin to give him a big hand in that effort.

In fact, as we learn well into the article, Cheney's very much being the good soldier for his alleged enemy:

...[Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne] McBride emphasized that Cheney supports McCain and mentions him in all his political speeches....

Though it has been little-noticed, Cheney has again taken with gusto to the GOP's rubber chicken circuit.
In the last two months alone, he's headlined 11 Republican fundraisers, keynoting for Senate and House candidates, state parties and the Republican National Committee's Victory fund in states ranging from Colorado to Florida to Minnesota.

In the weeks ahead, he’ll raise cash for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Wyoming GOP and a Georgia congressional candidate.

In addition, he'll speak before friendly interest groups to help push the conservative message. He’s scheduled to speak Wednesday to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s board of directors....


And McCain actually likes the big lug:

...In an interview he gave to the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes in 2006 for Hayes's biography, "Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President," McCain said: "I will strongly assert to you that he has been of enormous help to this president of the United States."

Going further, McCain even told Hayes in comments heretofore unpublished that he'd consider Cheney for an administration post.

Asked whether he'd be interested in Cheney had the vice president not already have served under Bush for two terms, McCain said: "I don't know if I would want him as vice president. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah." ...


But all that is deep into a story the lead of which is JOHN McCAIN: MAVERICK REPUBLICAN. And that's how it will be summarized by pundits.

I hope Martin's check is in the mail.

posted by Steve M. | 9:49 AM |
 

THE BARBARIAN MOB SEEMS TO BE WORKING TWO JOBS

I would have thought the yowling rabble would have their hands full tearing off Hillary Clinton's clothes and flogging her with a rawhide whip (see the post by one of Larry Johnson's co-bloggers that I wrote about yesterday), but apparently the savages are simply tireless in their brutality. Via Ta-Nehisi Coates and John Cole, there's this, from Mary Grabar of TownHall:

An Obama presidency would signal the final salvo by the Left in the culture wars. Obama's advance troops have already taken over our college campuses, have bound and gagged our conservative professors, have ravished our virgins, have pillaged our stores of wisdom, and have ensconced themselves in the thrones of power in deans', presidents' and department heads' offices....

Flogged matriarchs ... ravished virgins ... this is what shows up in certain fantasy lives just after we settle on a nominee who's a black guy. Interesting.

****

On a somewhat less fevered note, Grabar says this:

... Claes G. Ryn, in the Fall 2007 50th anniversary issue of Modern Age, accurately attributes the decline of intellectual conservatism to an abandonment of tradition, philosophical foundations, and artistic expressions, for a focus on political pragmatism, manifested in a fondness for economics and business....

Even for the well-being of the business world we need to refocus on the humanities. As [Claes G.] Ryn points out, the "honesty, good manners, and social responsibility" of Western businessmen is formed by "an ancient civilization." But the increasingly popular business school major offers little in terms of appreciation for the hallmarks of our Western civilization....


A right-winger telling us business school is bad? Yup, and this was posted just before David Brooks of The New York Times gave us this:

The people who created this country built a moral structure around money. The Puritan legacy inhibited luxury and self-indulgence. Benjamin Franklin spread a practical gospel that emphasized hard work, temperance and frugality. Millions of parents, preachers, newspaper editors and teachers expounded the message....

Over the past 30 years, much of that has been shredded.... the most rampant decadence today is financial decadence, the trampling of decent norms about how to use and harness money....


Brooks went on to chastise, among others, Wall Street, credit card companies, and payday lenders.

What's going on here? Did right-wingers decide to throw businesspeople, their long-time heroes, under the bus, just as it became clear that businesspeople are screwing up? What's more, are the problems with business our fault -- us decadent liberals, with our postmodernism and contempt for traditional morality and values? Is that it -- if you screw up, automatically you're a decadent pomo liberal? Even if you're JPMorgan Chase, fer crissake?

posted by Steve M. | 8:14 AM |


Tuesday, June 10, 2008  

TO THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, FREEPERS = "FASHIONISTAS"

David Saltonstall in today's Daily News:

Barack Obama ditched the campaign trail for the bike trail last weekend, offering onlookers a rare peek into the Democratic nominee's casual-wear closet.

It wasn't a pretty picture: ill-fitting jeans, a tucked-in golf shirt, black-and-white socks and a helmet that could make Michael Dukakis blush.

"Please tell me he isn't wearing dark socks," commented one of many Internet fashionistas who weighed in on Obama's recent ride along Lake Michigan with his wife, Michelle, and their two daughters, Sasha, 7, and Malia, 9....


What Saltonstall doesn't tell you is that the "fashionista" in question is "1rudeboy," posting comment #6 in a Free Republic thread two days ago.

"Barry is politically correct, wearing a nice helmet," noted another, tongue firmly in cheek....

Er, that would be "tips up," posting comment #27 in the same wingnut thread.

And in fact, the real fashionistas quoted by Saltonstall are much more forgiving:

"I like seeing my politicians in goofy weekend attire," said Simon Doonan, creative director of Barneys New York. "It means they're thinking about more important stuff."

Tim Gunn, the stylish host of Bravo's "Project Runway," was equally forgiving, arguing that compared with the baggy getups that most guys call clothes on the weekend, Obama was a picture of casual refinement.

"I am grateful that he is not wearing sweats. I am grateful that he is wearing athletic shoes and not Crocs, and I am grateful he is wearing a collar," Gunn told the Daily News. "For a weekend out with the kids, I think he looks great. I give him a B-plus."


Here's the horrific outfit, which -- seriously -- is compared by Saltonstall to Dukakis in the tank:



Come on -- is it really so appalling? He's just a middle-aged dad, and that's what he looks like.

Besides, if he actually looked like stylish on a bike, Maureen Dowd would never stop yammering about it, would she?

posted by Steve M. | 7:07 PM |
 

JOE LIEBERMAN, MARTYR-WANNABE

I usually try to sum up the stories I post about, but the latest Lieberman thing gives me a headache, so I'll refer you to Steve Benen. Basically, Barack Obama has confronted Lieberman -- a perfectly appropriate move given his role as McCain's sidekick and surrogate. Lieberman is now whining that Obama is being mean to him. Wingnuts are leaping to Lieberman's defense. And Steve and others are speculating that Lieberman will be driven from the Senate Democratic caucus -- not this year, but probably next year.

But I disagree with Steve about this:

... I wonder if Lieberman has considered the implications for his reputation -- not with the party, and not with his constituents, but with the media establishment he loves (and which loves him right back). Lieberman's interesting to pundits and talking heads because he's unusual. The media can't get enough of unusual. Lieberman was on the Democratic ticket eight years ago, he had Obama campaigning for him two years ago, and now he's McCain’s Mini-Me. The media can't get enough.

But come January, if he's just another neocon caucusing with the Republican Party and attacking Obama and the Democratic Party, he's not quite as fascinating anymore....


But see, he's counting on the fact that he won't be "just another neocon caucusing with the Republican Party" -- he'll be the guy who was fascistically driven out of the fascist Democrat Party by the fascist jackboot Democrat fascists.

Every sob story you've ever seen or read about unpersons and brutalized political prisoners is going to be dredged up when Joe gets bounced. The Cultural Revolution will be invoked. Right-wing magazines will feature faux-Maoist cover paintings of Lieberman kneeling in a public square with a sign around his neck as his "shamers" -- Obama, Harry Reid, and so on -- surround him, armed and wearing Red Guard uniforms.

Lieberman dreams of this day. And I hope it will come and, when it comes, no one apart from the Bushite/Roveite end-timers gives a crap about poor persecuted Joe and his suffering.

posted by Steve M. | 3:05 PM |
 

"A RAW HIDE WHIP": IS MEL GIBSON POSTING UNDER A PSEUDONYM AT LARRY JOHNSON'S BLOG?

As someone who actually sat through The Passion of the Christ, I think I recognize the nature of this No Quarter post in which Deb Cupples defends, or at least explains away, Hillary Clinton's decision to endorse Barack Obama -- it's a plot synopsis for a sequel, The Passion of the Hillary, and, like the original, it's medieval torture porn. (Emphasis in original.)

...Starting in early March, certain pundits and DNC "leaders" commanded Hillary to drop out of the race. Instead of obeying their orders, she exercised her right to hold her head high and carry on -- and she racked up a string of impressive victories.

This angered some members of the Thunderdome-ish crowd, whose sentiments steadily grew even more toxic.

The Angry Ones cranked up their vituperations to the verbal equivalent of a mob dragging her to the town square, tearing off her frock, and taking turns lacerating her flesh with a raw hide whip.

The soundtrack included ample hoots and whistles and cheers, which drowned out the horrified gasps from those of us who could not believe what we were witnessing.

Crying "uncle" or pleading for mercy wouldn't have moved that mob an inch. The Angry Ones wanted their pound of flesh, and they were
dead set on taking it a few blood-soaked cubic-millimeters at a time.

Given that Hillary’s back looks like a topographical map of the Grand Canyon, wouldn't it be understandable if she simply chose to do whatever was necessary to calm The Angry Ones? ...


Yikes.

Um, I've been trying not to think about Hillary Clinton in any way that taps into ugly ideas about women -- and now it turns out this is how I should want to think of her?

I know, I know -- I should ignore these people. Relax -- I'm not angry anymore. A lot more Clinton supporters than I expected have quickly grasped the need to close ranks and move forward. These people haven't, and they seem more and more pathetic every day -- so I'm just chuckling at the freak show.

posted by Steve M. | 2:02 PM |
 

OMG! HE SAID "EXERCISE JUDGMENT"! THAT'S LEFT-WING CODE FOR "MASS EXECUTIONS WITHOUT A TRIAL"!

Let me be the first to inform everyone that if Barack Obama is elected president, there are not going to be any big war-crimes trials for high-powered officials. Please, people -- this is a guy who was more than willing to infuriate lefties a year ago, when his campaign was barely under way, by saying he was flat-out opposed to impeachment. Whatever you thought of this opposition, it was, after all, consistent with his view of what's wrong with contemporary politics:

...Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

..."I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus." ...


Well, now righties are unloading opposition-research nuggets they've been saving up during the nomination fight, and one of them is EEEK! EEEK! WAR-CRIMES TRIALS ARE COMING! The closest thing they've got to solid evidence is a statement Obama made in an April interview with Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News -- but it's obvious here that Obama, while not categorically ruling out a well-chosen case based on clear and convincing evidence, is still looking to avoid tit-for-tat:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.


That's what he's saying. He seems to be thinking about those who were upset at his impeachment statement and hoping to let them down easy, but he's also saying, "Don't get your hopes up for a big payback."

However, right-wingers, practicing their usual truth creep -- i.e., a game of Telephone in which you deliberately tweak the truth as it passes from person to person until it says what you want it to say -- have warped Obama's statement so it comes out as, for instance,

Obama administration to prosecute U.S. troops for war crimes

Yup -- they read a statement about the possible prosecution of "high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront" -- and it comes out as "Obama wants to try the troops." And that's the message they really want to spread -- that Obama's going to prosecute nineteen-year-olds who are just trying to do their duty -- even though such an approach is totally antithetical to his political philosophy.

The one remaining shred of evidence of this horrifying upcoming star chamber/drumhead tribunal/whatever is that most reliable of documents, a Web-based campaign flyer from last October that, according to the ever-reliable Little Green Footballs, was left accessible in a (now closed) open directory and is thus scary and secret and yet not really secret and thus kinda like some document left at a terrorists' hideout after the evildoers have fled, or something like that. Step 4 is the fiend's sinister plan for jackbooted thuggery:



Was that ever even posted? Was it any more than a rough draft? That's what the wingnuts are taking as gospel?

Look, I would have enjoyed seeing a couple of impeachments right off the bat in the new Congress -- though I'm mindful of the fact that these things generate a massive desire for vengeance exercised for its own sake (see: Clinton, Bill). It's also clear that there'd never have been the votes to convict, much less convict both Bush and Cheney, so the only real result of an impeachment would have been to make clear to the nation, in detail, what a disastrous course we were set on. As it turns out, the public absolutely gets that now, without an impeachment.

I see that Dennis Kucinich has just presented articles of impeachment against Bush. Thanks, Dennis, but, er, y'know, there are only eight months to go. What's the point? It's like calling somebody up three days after a party insult and uttering the comeback that would have been snappy and devastating if it had been said immediately. Forget it. Bush got through his term, and Cheney too. Leave them to history, which won't be kind.

posted by Steve M. | 10:13 AM |


Monday, June 09, 2008  

McCAIN SCREWS UP OUTREACH TO PREACHERS WHOSE RINGS HE NEEDS TO KISS ... AND HAGEE GETS LOVE FROM FELLOW FUNDIES (AND ED KOCH!)

One of the few remaining differences between John McCain and George W. Bush is in the area of religion -- Bush has basked in the embrace of evangelicals, while McCain's outreach in this election cycle has had an air of desperation and insincerity. And now he seems to have screwed up by offending the single most beloved evangelical preacher of all time, according to Doug Wead, a prominent Bush-connected evangelical:

McCain Campaign Declines to Meet with Billy Graham

...In another disturbing sign that Sen. John McCain has little interest in reaching out to his conservative base, including evangelical Christian voters, his campaign has declined an offer to meet with the Rev. Billy Graham.

...In recent weeks I have been involved with Brian Jacobs, a Fort Worth, Texas, minister and consultant to the Billy Graham Association, to broker a meeting between McCain and Graham. In May, we contacted the McCain campaign with an offer to arrange such a meeting....

The rejection of an offer to meet with Graham is yet another indication that the McCain campaign has made a deliberate, strategic decision to chart a new course for the GOP, a course without the sizeable evangelical Christian voting bloc serving as its base....

McCain's decision not to meet with Graham will likely provoke outrage....


McCain's campaign says it didn't reject a meeting and was trying to make other arrangements to see Graham, through his son, the anti-Muslim bigot Franklin Graham -- but Billy Graham's staff says it knows nothing about that effort.

Here's the thing: If you want to be president, especially if you're in the GOP, you can't blow off Billy Graham -- no president, Democratic or Republican, ever does. He's beloved and he's very old and in poor health. (UPDATE: The headlin to a Fox News piece by Brit Hume says it flatly: "Did John McCain Really Refuse to Meet With One Of the Most Beloved People on the Planet?" The subhead is: "Ticking Time Bomb?")

*****

Then again, maybe McCain is just really incompetent at this I'll-have-my-people-call-your-people thing -- at least when it comes to evangelicals. According to Robert Novak, he's having similar problems with James Dobson:

...After McCain clinched the nomination, ... Dobson privately invited him to his Focus on the Family's headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo. When members of the Family Policy Council gathered there May 9 for an annual conference, the word was spread that McCain's campaign staff had rebuffed Dobson's invitation.

It had not been that simple. The McCain campaign had responded that the senator would be in Denver May 2 and would be happy to see Dobson in his hotel suite for a visit not limited by time. Dobson declined and asked McCain to come to Colorado Springs. McCain then also declined....


Either McCain should kiss up to these people with gusto or he should be like The West Wing's Republican presidential candidate Arnold Vinick and say that his religious belief (or lack thereof) is nobody's damn business. Instead, he takes neither approach -- he's a toady, but he's an inept toady.

*****

Incidentally, have you notice the dog that hasn't barked since the Jeremiah Wright tapes emerged? No one on the left actually seems to be attacking Obama for breaking with Wright -- which is odd, because if you listen to right-wingers, you'd assume all lefties are whack-job conspiracy-theorist America-haters, and you'd think that, in this dispute, we'd all be taking Wright's side.

On the other hand, quite a few right-leaners seem to think it was wrong for John McCain to break with John Hagee. Here's Doug Wead, at the end of that article about the botched meeting with Billy Graham, chastising McCain and his team:

...McCain adviser, Charlie Black, and campaign manager, Rick Davis, have a long, troubled history with the evangelical wing of the party.

The pair were said to be behind McCain's decision to throw televangelist John Hagee "under the bus" after audio recordings suggested Hagee believed Adolf Hitler was an agent of God. Though Hagee's views of "predestination" are mainstream among many Christian denominations and Hagee obviously never suggested support for Hitler or Nazis, McCain called Hagee "crazy." Only weeks before he denounced Hagee, McCain had publicly trumpeted the pastor’s endorsement.

Indeed, Hagee has been one of the greatest supporters of Israel and Jewish causes in the evangelical community.

McCain's hasty decision to discard Hagee was seen by many evangelicals, even those who are not fans of Hagee, as a betrayal....


Similar sentiments are echoed by evangelicals in this New York Times article.

And beyond that, joining Joe Lieberman in Hagee's defense is the original Democrat-bashing Democrat, former New York mayor Ed Koch:

Senator John McCain was wrong to reject the endorsement of Texas evangelist Rev. John Hagee....

Hagee was not praising Hitler the monster, he was simply offering the fundamentalist opinion that Hitler was used by God to cause the creation of a Jewish state to which the Jews of the world would return....

It has become fashionable among liberals, including Jews, to ridicule and denounce Hagee and other fundamentalists. I do not. I appreciate their support of the State of Israel and thank them for their enormous contributions to the Jewish state.

This is not to say that I agree with Rev. Hagee's view of Hitler or his other views. For example, I strongly disagree with Rev. Hagee's statement that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for homosexual sin in New Orleans. I also deplore his reference to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore," for which he has since apologized.

In this dangerous world, Christians and Jews must come together to fight or common enemies. I've been working for years to strengthen the Christian-Jewish alliance, and I intend to continue to do so.


So Koch says Hagee is wrong on Hitler, wrong on gays, and wrong on Catholics -- but he's right on Israel, so everything's okey-dokey. (He doesn't say whether Hagee is wrong to argue that a nuclear Armageddon involving Iran, Israel, Russia, and the United States is biblically necessary.)

Koch was a Democrat for Bush in 2004; he backed Hillary Clinton this year, but it's safe to say he'll be rejecting Barack Obama any minute now.

posted by Steve M. | 10:42 PM |
 

SCARY BLACK PEOPLE IN AN ATTACK AD? THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN NOW!

For a while I naively hoped that, after the primaries ended, Paul Krugman would overcome his intense loathing of Barack Obama and everyone who supports him. Alas, that's not the case -- here's Krugman in today's New York Times telling the presumptive nominee and all us Obamabots how lucky he is (and Hillary Clinton isn't) and how ungrateful we cultists all are to the baby boomers -- well, basically to Bill Clinton -- without whom our messiah would be pushing a broom:

Fervent supporters of Barack Obama like to say that putting him in the White House would transform America. With all due respect to the candidate, that gets it backward. Mr. Obama is an impressive speaker who has run a brilliant campaign -- but if he wins in November, it will be because our country has already been transformed.

... why has racial division become so much less important in American politics?

Part of the credit surely goes to Bill Clinton, who ended welfare as we knew it. I'm not saying that the end of Aid to Families With Dependent Children was an unalloyed good thing; it created a great deal of hardship. But the "bums on welfare" played a role in political discourse vastly disproportionate to the actual expense of A.F.D.C., and welfare reform took that issue off the table.

Another large factor has been the decline in urban violence.

... during the Clinton years, for reasons nobody fully understands, the wave of urban violence receded, and with it the ability of politicians to exploit Americans' fear.

...Let me add one more hypothesis: although everyone makes fun of political correctness, I'd argue that decades of pressure on public figures and the media have helped drive both overt and strongly implied racism out of our national discourse. For example, I don't think a politician today could get away with running the infamous 1988 Willie Horton ad.

Unfortunately, the campaign against misogyny hasn’t been equally successful.

By the way, it was during the heyday of the baby boom generation that crude racism became unacceptable. Mr. Obama, who has been dismissive of the boomers' "psychodrama," might want to give the generation that brought about this change, fought for civil rights and protested the Vietnam War a bit more credit....


There's certainly progress -- Obama's success couldn't have happened otherwise. And the Willie Horton ad did spark a backlash (after it helped elect a president). But have we really managed to "drive both overt and strongly implied racism out of our national discourse"?

First of all, has Krugman actually watched the Willie Horton ad recently? It may not be as heavyhanded as he remembers. Here it is:



The voiceover doesn't mention Horton's race. The ad just shows his face, tells a story about him, and lets the viewer draw the conclusion. That doesn't mean it wasn't trying to play on racial anxieties -- it was. But it didn't play the race card as openly and unabashedly, as, say, the Jesse Helms "Hands" ad.

So is the use of Horton in the anti-Dukakis ad really all that different from the use of Jeremiah Wright in this condemned but widely disseminated North Carolina GOP ad?



Or the use of Wright -- and Obama himself -- in this ad from the recent Mississippi special election?



And if we really have managed to "drive both overt and strongly implied racism out of our national discourse," what was up with the blonde in the notorious "Call Me" ad aimed at Harold Ford when he ran for Senate in Tennesseee?



Progress has been made. Boomers deserve a good deal of credit. But Obama didn't win in a race-blind racial paradise created by boomers.

posted by Steve M. | 2:10 PM |
 

THOROUGHLY MISLEADING McCAIN SPIN: WILL IT BE CALLED A FEATURE, NOT A BUG?

As John Cole and Steve Benen have noted, John McCain told two Newsweek interviewers that he deleted a line criticizing the press for not being nice enough to Hillary Clinton from the speech he gave on Tuesday night --

Newsweek: Want to back up a little bit and talk about press coverage. One of the things that you mentioned in your speech in New Orleans was that you felt that the media hadn't recognized or had overlooked some of the attributes that Hillary Clinton had brought to the race. And I wondered–

McCain: I did not [say that] — that was in prepared remarks, and I did not [say it]....


-- even though the line was actually in the speech, about forty seconds in.

The media often overlooked how compassionately [Hillary Clinton] spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received.

Right now the press is presenting McCain's spin just the way he wants it presented -- Politico's Jonathan Martin and MSNBC's Domenico Montanaro ran with McCain's claim despite the fact that the video shows it's flat-out wrong.

But it's the age of blogs, and soon corrections will be issued, I'm sure. (UPDATE: Here's one now.)

Ah, but then what will we be told?

Here's my prediction: We'll be told that it's actually a good sign that McCain misstated what he actually said on Tuesday. It proves that he's got more important things to think about than this awful process of getting himself elected president. It proves that he's not just some silver-tongued preener who spends too much time thinking about how he can talk you into stuff. If McCain made a mistake, it proves that he's genuine. That he's authentic. That he's real.

We'll see if I'm right about this soon....

posted by Steve M. | 11:20 AM |
 

JOHN McCAIN'S ELITIST YOKEL JOKE

Politico today mentions something about John McCain that's escaped my attention:

He tells jokes about ... the reason he had to join the Navy instead of the Marines: His parents were married when he was born.

You know what that is? It's a joke about class. It's a joke about how Marines are disreputable and no-account. It harks back to an era (which I'm just old enough to remember) when being illegitimate meant you were shiftless trash. It's not exactly like Dick Cheney's recent West Virginia incest joke, But it's in the same category. At a time when Barack Obama is criticized for "elitism" on a daily basis, why is it OK for John McCain -- admiral's son, alumnus of a posh boarding school, husband of a wealthy beer heiress -- to make a yokel joke?

And he really does like this joke. Here he is in December, at a party before the Army-Navy game:

When McCain learned [Orson] Swindle [a fellow prisoner in Hanoi] was a Marine, he announced: "I wanted to be a Marine like you but I couldn't handle the qualifications.'"

"I said, 'What qualifications?' And he said, 'Well, my parents were married, to begin with.'"


He made the same joke with Swindle as his foil in Iowa in January, and (apparently not with Swindle present) while he was campaigning in New Hampshire.

Maybe the joke is grandfathered because of its history -- near the end of this McCain campaign video, Swindle says McCain introduced himself to Swindle in the Hanoi Hilton with precisely this joke. That's a tale that I suspect might have grown in the telling, but whatever the history, McCain doesn't use the joke as an anecdote about those years -- he still thinks it's a kneeslapper today.

Never mind Obama -- it's hard to imagine this, but wouldn't Jim Webb or, say, Wesley Clark get heat for making a white-trash wisecrack at an Obama campaign appearance, even if the remark could be traced back to a GI in the jungle in Nam?

posted by Steve M. | 9:56 AM |


Sunday, June 08, 2008  

OH, DAMN

I missed this late Friday: dnA is going to quit blogging as he looks for work. That's gonna hurt -- he's been making huge amounts of sense all over the place (here included), and and he'll really be missed.. Good luck, d -- find work, and I hope you'll be back soon (hell, if Glenn Reynolds can put up eight thousand posts a day while allegedly holding down a real job, maybe you'll be able to return to blogging soon....)

posted by Steve M. | 11:16 PM |
 

THROUGH YEARS OF PAINSTAKING RESEARCH, WE HAVE TENTATIVELY CONCLUDED THAT WATER IS WET, BEARS CRAP IN THE WOODS, AND THE POPE IS CATHOLIC

Speaking of Kathleen Hall Jamieson (see the previous post), I see she has a new book coming out:

Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment
Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Cappella. Oxford Univ., $24.95 (336p) ISBN 978-0-19-536682-2

In this heavily researched analysis of the conservative media establishment, Jamieson and Cappella (coauthors of
Spiral of Cynicism) contend that Rush Limbaugh, the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal and "key players" at Fox News share evidence, arguments and "tactical approaches in their defense of conservatism and their attack on its opponents." The authors argue that these three news outlets disseminate Reagan-era conservatism by creating a "common rogues' gallery of enemies," which they fight by forming an "echo chamber" -- a "bounded, enclosed media space that has the potential to both magnify the messages delivered within it and insulate them from rebuttal," turning audiences into a "balkanized cohort."

No!

Really? Ya think?

Relax, though -- Jamieson and Cappella aren't taking any huge leaps into dangerous territory here:

The authors take pains to note that they are not arguing that "the conservative media menace the country's well-being"; rather, they are interested in the way changing media influence contemporary electoral politics. Their highly academic approach and chart- and citation-laden narration might be slow and difficult reading for those unfamiliar with the social sciences. However, readers seeking a carefully researched view of the changing face of news media will be rewarded for their efforts. (Aug.)

Well, I guess if it's only taken approximately twenty years for academia to figure out how the right-wing media works, the non-right-wing media ought to figure it out in, oh, maybe forty or fifty more years. Hey, that's not too bad, is it?

posted by Steve M. | 10:16 PM |
 

OH, THOSE HYPEREMOTIONAL DEMOCRATS

Michael Kinsley in today's New York Times, endeavoring to explain why Clinton lost and Obama won:

For Democrats, it's been a long time between swoons. Anyone younger than 60 was too young to vote in 1968, when Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy last stirred genuine excitement among Democratic voters. Since then it's been George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry. These men elicited support, agreement, admiration, maybe even enthusiasm. But quit-your-job-and-join-the-cause passion? I'm afraid not.

Er, Howard Dean?

If just making us silly overemotional Democratic teenyboppers swoon was enough to get a candidate all (or most) of the way to the nomination, why didn't Dean win? Or even come close?

Hell, why didn't Jesse Jackson or Jerry Brown or even Dennis Kucinich ever win? Why didn't Ralph Nader ever even break double digits in any state in a general election? Oh, and didn't Bill Clinton cause a bit of swooning in '92?

*****

Kinsley's piece, by the way, is one of twelve pieces in the Week in Review section of the Times assembled under the heading "What Went Wrong?"

How many of the twelve essays mention Iraq? One -- Kathleen Hall Jamieson's -- which, by the way, is the same number that mention the Harry Potter books (Representative Heather Wilson of New Mexico, comparing the reaction to Hillary to "how the young Harry Potter and his male friends initially reacted to Hermione Granger"). And even then, Jamieson's point is that the vote for the Iraq resolution was tragically misinterpreted.

posted by Steve M. | 11:24 AM |


Saturday, June 07, 2008  

THE RIGHT MEDICINE -- I JUST HOPE THE DOSE WAS STRONG AND PURE ENOUGH

As it happened, I heard nearly the entire speech -- and I it ought to make a real difference. I had my doubts early on, when it sounded like just another speech in defense of the Clinton candidacy (I was screaming at the radio when Clinton talked about having been a fighter for "democracy," and I still think that was a dig she couldn't resist) -- but I have to stop quibbling, because the endorsement and the call for Democratic unit were real, and that's what we need.

I keep thinking back to a speech delivered under somewhat similar circumstances, Jesse Jackson's convention speech in 1988. Oldsters like me hear "What does Hillary want?" and what we recall is "What does Jesse want?" from that year; he won only a few primaries, but he greatle exceeded most experts' expectations, and it was believed by some that he held the key to turnout by voters Dukakis would need. I remember being riveted by his speech, and I just read it over. He began with the notion of reunifying the party -- he used the phrase "common ground" nineteen times in the first part of the speech. But the last part of the speech was a pure Jackson pulpit-pounding sermon, and "common ground" was ignored after that. Clinton's speech started on her ground and moved to common ground -- the reverse of Jackson. These speeches can be effective even with a fair amount of "me" in them -- after Jackson's speech (and his appearance onstage with Dukakis and Bentsen at the end of the convention), the Duke was up in the polls by 17 points. So I won't begrudge Hillary a bit of self-focus, because she really did pass the torch.

I just hope it's enough. I hope it's strong enough medicine in a pure enough dose. Wandering over to what I've called the Clinton-or-death blogs, I see that Taylor Marsh is on board:

Hillary is a better candidate today and all I can do is dream about tomorrow. I stand by her today, tomorrow, anywhere, any time, any year. Today and tomorrow that requires me to do everything I can to defeat John McCain, and make sure Barack Obama is elected president in November. That's exactly what I intend to do.

Er, but she's also chose todat to post an essay called "Hillary Clinton Supporters Ask: 'How'd She Lose to This Guy?'" at, of all places, Pajamas Media. Jeralyn Marritt of Talk Left is also on board -- but she sounds like a kid being forced to apologize in the principal's office:

... As one of her supporters, I am going to honor her wishes. She could not have been more clear.

...To those suggesting TalkLef now will cover Obama all the time, or become a cheerleader for him, that will not happen,

I will be returning to writing about issues, urging Obama and the Democrats to promise to enact some reforms. I will point out the wrong-headed policies of the Republicans and John McCain.

When the Democratic Convention approaches, I will cover that. I don't intend to cover the general election or follow the Obama campaign until after that. If there's something newsworthy, sure, I may mention it. But in general, he will not be the focus of TalkLeft.

...The primary race is over. I really don't have much more to say about it.


And many of both sites' commenters are cheering on McCain (or claiming they'll write in Hillary).

And over in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, Larry Johnson is still insisting the Michelle Obama tape is real, while his partner SusanUnPC is still on the island fighting for Tojo ... er, Hillary:

We have TWO months to reverse this travesty.

Back to work, people!


Those lunatics aren't coming back, and it would be futile to try to win them back. But the disgruntled fans of the less crazy Clinton-to-the-end blogs ... is this enough? And what comes after this?

In my dream version of Hillary's speech, she would have ticked off the issues she spoke about and the groups who rallied to her and said, "Listen to me: Barack Obama will fight for you, too. Barack Obama will champion these issues, too." She would have built a bridge from her rhetoric to his campaign.

She may yet. I hope she does.

You know what else would help? Get these two together not at a political event, but on Jon Stewart's show, or maybe Letterman's or Leno's -- break the tension, dissipate some of the bad feeling with a few jokes. I can imagine Stewart: "Oh, you two kids are crazy for each other -- I can see it in your eyes. You shouldn't be fighting like this! Come on, big kiss." That's the election right there. That's the Arsenio Hall sax moment.

posted by Steve M. | 5:49 PM |
 

As it turns out, I'm going to miss the speech this afternoon. I'll try to get caught up and post something about it later today. I've been poking around the Intertubes and everyone seems to be saying it's going to be a sincere and full-throated endorsement; that would be lovely, and the crow you'd get to feed me would taste good. But we'll see.

posted by Steve M. | 10:59 AM |


Friday, June 06, 2008  

OH, I'M SURE IT'S JUST A TYPO

Why does the press release from Team Clinton describing tomorrow's speech refer to it as a "campaign event"?

My suspicions about this event persist.

****

Charitable explanation: Does it have to be called that for legal/Senate ethics/campaign finance reasons? I don't know. If not, though....

posted by Steve M. | 3:29 PM |
 

WOW

The mythical "whitey" tape, as described by its promoters, couldn't possibly have happened -- and the description of the supposed contents may have come from a novel (see the update here.)

posted by Steve M. | 3:05 PM |
 

BLOODY HELL, IS THIS AWFUL

I can't figure out how to embed it, and it's probably just as well for you that I can't, but TownHall.com's perky apparatchik Mary Katherine Ham has just posted a video called "Obama on Your Shoulder" -- apparently the last video she'll do for TownHall before she takes a new job. It's just awful -- and if you have your suspicions about the politics of Politico, it's telling that Politico's Jonathan Martin is calling it a "must-watch video."

You can watch it at either of the links I've just given you (the first one is from NewsBusters) -- but I warn you: have some music you really, really like cued up, preferably something very loud and room-shaking, because this is a song parody, and it will be harder to extract its awful singsong cutesy-wootsy-ootsy tune from your head than it is to get the troops out of Iraq.

The point of the video is that Barack Obama is a big bad Democratic virtuecrat nanny -- how original is that! And a messiah! Even more original! Its jumping-off point is a speech Obama gave a few months ago; we hear this excerpt from Obama:

We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times....

And then the cutesy-wootsy song comes in and we see shots of a little toy Obama sitting on cutesy-wootsy Mary Katherine's shoulder being her good angel as she (gasp!) tries to drive! and eat greasy food! and shoot a gun! and the ootsy-wootsy song plays over and over until you just want the little toy Obama to turn into Chucky and beat the guitarist/singer/composer (M.K.'s husband, I believe) into a bloody pulp. And that's it.

Of course, the edit of what Obama said is just the human equivalent of the famous Gary Larson "what dogs hear" phenomenon. Obama wasn't issuing a list of thou-shalt-nots; he was making a very different point about dealing with the enrgy needs of developing nations (watch the video here):

If we lead by example, then we can actually export and license technologies that have been invented here to help them with their growth pains. But keep in mind -- you're right: We can't tell them, "Don't grow." We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership.

He wants us to be leaders in developing new energy-saving technologies! Which we'd then export ! Quite possibly for profit! Ick, what a nanny-stater!

Hey, good luck in your new job, Mary Katherine. But please -- no more videos.

posted by Steve M. | 1:21 PM |
 

NEWSFLASH: BUSH NO LINCOLN

David Brooks is in assistant-professor mode again today, asserting that (don't start yawning yet) the nineteenth-century notion that maturity requires the mastery of one's sins helped make Lincoln a great leader, while the abandonment of that notion is one reason we have crummy presidents now.

Brooks goes on to say this:

It would be nice to have a president who had gone to school on his own failings. It would be comforting to see a president who'd looked into the abyss, or suffered some sort of ordeal that put him on a first-name basis with his own gravest weaknesses, and who had found ways to combat them.

But, er, don't we have a president who’s "looked into the abyss" and "suffered some sort of ordeal that put him on a first-name basis with his own gravest weaknesses"? Isn't that the whole point of the story of Bush's abandonment of drinking?

Except that, even as that story is told by the most loyal Bush acolytes, there's no sense that Bush has ever "gone to school on his own failings." The story seems to be that he wanted to stop drinking, so he did what he always does when he wants something: he looked for someone to take care of everything for him. In other contexts, that someone has been Karl Rove or Condoleezza Rice or David Petraeus. In this case, it was God. He started reading the Bible, or at least short Bible-derived works, and he started hanging out with Bible-oriented people, and God helped him quit drinking while apparently allowing him not to make any changes whatsoever to the touchy, snappish, narcissistic core of his being.

Nice how that worked out for him.

posted by Steve M. | 11:18 AM |


Thursday, June 05, 2008  

HILLARY AS WARLORD

Just what exactly is Hillary Clinton planning to do on Saturday?

...The [New York congressional] delegation asked the [Clinton] campaign if Mrs. Clinton could move up her announcement to today or at least to make it on Friday in New York. The campaign said no because Mrs. Clinton is bringing in some of her supporters from around the country to stand with her on Saturday.

They will include people from West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico and she can't round them up any sooner than Saturday....


What the hell?

We've all been expecting, or at least hoping, that this will be a gracious, heartfelt passing of the torch -- but apparently Hillary Clinton is planning to turn it into a show of strength. It's not enough for her to speak before whatever admirers might choose to show up -- she's making a point of appearing with an army of the very electoral subgroups she's done well with ... and Obama hasn't.

It's as if she's a warlord showing up with her tribal militia and threatening that they'll destroy Obama's coalition by withdrawing from it and declaring war if he doesn't meet her demands.

Maybe I'm overlooking a more charitable interpretation of this, but I'm afraid any hopes I had that she was becoming a team player were naive.

****

Also note:

...Mr. Obama will not be attending the farewell event for Mrs. Clinton on Saturday. (Her aides said that he was not specifically invited.)...

Interesting that Mr. Obama wasn't invited, since the winner is usually on-hand when a high-profile competitor endorses him. Think, oh, the John Edwards or Bill Richardson events.

But let's ask ourselves, would he really want to be there? It seems this event is turning into a big celebration for Mrs. Clinton with her supporters, who, we reported earlier, will be coming from near and far. This will be Mrs. Clinton's show....


Um, in the interests of the party, does she ever plan to make an appearance at an event that isn't her show?

****

UPDATE: The New York Times tells us that last night's Clinton-Obama secret meeting was arranged by Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Clinton supporter; now she's talking -- and a lot of what she's talking about is, again, respect. Emphasis mine below:

...Mrs. Feinstein also said that she hoped the conversation would lead to greater party unity, and that Mrs. Clinton was intent on respecting the views of her supporters and looking out for the interests of her staff, as the general election unfolds.

"I can speak, I think, for Senator Clinton. She wants to do everything she can to bring the party together," Mrs. Feinstein said. "She wants to do everything she can to see the people who voted for her have their voices heard and that's reflected in credentials, platform. And she wants to have a working relationship with Senator Obama, and I think it's a very positive thing.”

...Mrs. Feinstein said she did not need to urge Mrs. Clinton to hold a meeting. "I didn't urge anybody to do anything. I know it's a natural instinct. People, particularly in this case because Hillary represents a very large block of voters -- the largest ever for anybody that has come in No. 2, and has the popular vote. She is I think desirous of protecting the issues that she cares about to the extent she can, seeing that the people are represented in this administration and certainly in the convention. And also to help with the ticket, and I know she feels that way because we have talked about this."


Why is anyone still hammering away at that "popular vote" line? If Senator Clinton wants party unity, isn't it high time she told every surrogate to stop saying this?

Where is all this really headed?

posted by Steve M. | 10:29 PM |
 

Apologies for light blogging. Usually I'm the king of multitasking, but today has been a horrible day at work.

posted by Steve M. | 7:27 PM |
 

"THE END OF WOMEN IN POLITICS"? HUNH?

I really don't understand what Amanda Marcotte is talking about here:

With two hands over my eyes and plugs in my ears, I could still tell you that Clinton losing the nomination is going to inspire all sorts of disingenuous hand-wringing concealing glee over women’s chances in politics....

For those about to gloat about the end of women in politics, I salute you....


Amanda's no Clinton zealot -- she thought Hillary stayed in too long and thinks a VP offer would be a bad idea -- so I'm just wondering where this comes from, what evidence there is of any glee anywhere about the defeat of the entire gender. I guess, possibly, this comes from watching too many cable pundits -- that's the only subgroup I know of in which there seem to be a lot of people who find the idea of women seeking political power grotesque and unnatural. Everywhere else, even among the nastiest Clinton opponents, the focus seems to be on Clinton and Clinton alone.

But what about all the sexist crap thrown at her? I'd say that a disturbing number of people who turned against Hillary resorted to sexism in a way they don't, if they're Democrats, when talking about, say, Nancy Pelosi or Kathleen Sibelius, or, if they're Republicans, when talking about, say, Condoleezza Rice or Sarah Palin. There's no justification for that -- but as for a blanket dismissal of the idea of a woman president, I don't think I've ever heard that during this campaign, except implicitly from the likes of Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson, and maybe random idiots like the "Iron My Shirt" guys.

I don't know how long it's going to be until we have another genuine female contender for the presidency, but I think this campaign made the notion seem far more plausible, not less. Time will tell I guess....

posted by Steve M. | 2:15 PM |
 

IS IT DELUSIONAL IN HERE, OR IS IT ME?

If the 2008 presidential election were all about Iraq, John McCain would win.

--David Frum in The Telegraph, 6/2/08

Wow. Just wow.

Please, David -- if you're going to make assertions like this, don't limit yourself to op-eds published in the UK. Please join the McCain campaign as an adviser. Hell, I'll pitch in to pay your living expenses if you're willing to offer McCain brilliant words of advice like this, and I'm sure I know a lot of other people who will, too.

Frum claims to have backup for this:

According to the authoritative Pew poll, Americans have become steadily more optimistic about Iraq over the past 15 months. Almost one-half the American public now thinks the Iraq war is going "very" or "fairly" well - up 18 points since before the surge.

Problem is, the Pew poll he's citing is from February of this year -- and even in that poll a plurality wanted to bring the troops home immediately, and the percentage who thought the war was the right decision had actually decreased when compared to February '07.

Now, here are current numbers, from a brand-new CBS poll:

Americans are more pessimistic than ever about the prospects for a stable Iraq.

Sixty-one percent say Iraq will never become a stable democracy - the highest number since CBS News starting asking the question in December 2003. Just one third think Iraq will become a stable democracy, and most of them think that will take longer than two years.

Thirty-five percent of those surveyed say things are going well in Iraq, down from 40 percent in April. Sixty-two percent say things are going badly.

Americans would like U.S. troops to come home from Iraq sooner rather than later. 42 percent are willing to have U.S troops remain in Iraq for only a year or less. 21 percent say troops should stay for one to two years more, while 30 percent are willing to keep troops in Iraq longer than two years.


(Oh, and by the way, in that poll Obama leads McCain by 6 points.)

posted by Steve M. | 11:15 AM |
 

I JUST HAD THE MOST BIZARRE DREAM

I dreamed that all of us in the left blogosphere despised one another more than we despise Bush and the GOP. I dreamed that Hillary Clinton was running for president and that people like Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, and Richard Mellon Scaife priased her, having suddenly decided that feminism and class warfare were good things and she was the embodiment of them, as well as of anti-hippie toughness. I dreamed that even Rush Limbaugh was soliciting votes for her. Then I dreamed that Clinton was losing the Democratic nomination to a black man, and he was being called part of the elite, and then she lost, but she gave a victory speech.

... But now I see that the guy who won is actually the winner, that Clinton is conceding that she lost and will endorse him, and that the Republicans who praised her to the skies in my dream are actually saying that, if she's on the ticket in the #2 slot, it will be perfect for them because they've always hated her and her presence will help them raise lots of money.

Phew -- at least that makes sense. I think I have to watch what I eat before bedtime.

posted by Steve M. | 9:41 AM |


Wednesday, June 04, 2008  

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING/METASTASIZING "WHITEY" TAPE

Remember the "STUNNING!" Michelle Obama "whitey" tape, which no one has actually seen but everyone says is really, really horrible?

Well, I can't help noticing that its contents have changed a bit. Two days ago, Larry Johnson was assuring us that Michelle was on the tape with Louis Farrakhan:

It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks. Whoops!!

Well, now, in a "scoop" at the blog HillBuzz that has been picked up verbatim by Larry, we're told that the vaporware videotape includes not Louis Farrakhan, but Khadijah Farrakhan, his wife.

...Michelle Obama appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks....

Eventually I assume we'll be told that the tape includes neither of the Farrakhans -- it includes Chaka Khan. Or the ghost of Sammy Kahn Cahn, composer of who wrote the lyrics for "Come Fly with Me," "High Hopes," and other pop standards. Or something like that.

****

On the other hand, the alleged contents of the alleged rant just get more and more allegedly unhinged, according to the HillBuzz "scoop":

...For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on "whitey", and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America. Her rant was fueled by the crowd: they reacted strongly to what she said, so she got more passionate and enraged, and that's when she completely loses it and says things that have made the mouths drop of everyone who's seen this....

Did you follow that? She rants for a half hour, leading up to a suggestion that black criminals should choose white victims instead of blacks -- and then she says something even more outrageous, though for some reason it can't be revealed, even though we have an alleged summary of the alleged rant up to that point, presumably because what she says then is just jaw-droppingly awful.

Earlier, Larry referred to a single "image":

When that image comes out it will enter the politcal ads hall of fame.

As described now, this tape would be the source of a hell of a lot more than one damaging "image." Larry's multiple informants said there was only one? And even HillBuzz implies that there's one really bad one? Are these folks struggling to keep their fever dreams consistent with their earlier, less fevered fever dreams?

And, er, isn't it awfully curious that one part of her rant would include exactly the same recommendation that got Sister Souljah in hot water?

And she lashes out at Bill Clinton! As if she knows in advance what's going to happen to her husband four years later! She's clairvoyant!

And she does all this weeks before her husband is going to make a key speech at the Democratic convention, in the midst of his race for the U.S. Senate!

Oh yeah, I believe all this. And, yes, I'd love to buy a bridge.

****

AND: This might be a good place to add Plantsmantx's comment to an earlier post:

I've been black for what is getting to be sort of a long time now, and I've also known several people who are also black. In my experience, the only people in the 21st century who use the slur "whitey" seriously are white conservatives. Hell, the only people in the 21st century who use it in a jokey way are white liberals. In fact, I'm wracking my brain trying to remember if I've ever heard a black person in the flesh (as opposed to a black person in a movie or on TV, mouthing words that were usually written by a white person) use the slur "whitey". I...can't remember any yet. Can I get back to y'all?

I'm old, so I remember the word, but I haven't heard it in almost 40 years, since I was a kid. And Michelle Obama is younger than I am -- she's 44.

posted by Steve M. | 2:42 PM |
 

THE POLITICS OF LEAFY GREEN VEGETABLES

Maureen Dowd today:

...Clintonologists know that Hillary is up to something, but they aren't sure what. Theory No. 1 is that it's the Cassandra "I told you so" gambit: She believes intensely that he's too black, too weak and too elitist -- with all his salmon and organic tea and steamed broccoli -- to beat her pal John McCain....

Broccoli? Now broccoli's a problem?

It was less than twenty years ago -- have we all forgotten that the anti-broccoli guy went on to lose?

...On [March 22, 1990], the President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, declared in a news conference that: He did not like broccoli, he hasn't liked it since he was a little kid, and that he is "the President of the United States and ... [he's] "not going to eat any more broccoli."

In addition, the President also banned broccoli from the White House and Air Force One menus....


Have we forgotten that, in 1992, this was considered not a problem for Democrats but a political opportunity?

...Earlier in the day, Mr. Clinton toured a farmers' market....

Addressing an enthusiastic crowd outdoors afterward, Mr. Clinton suggested that they express their support by going inside to buy the President's least favorite vegetable.

"Go in there and buy some broccoli," he said, as the crowd laughed. "I like broccoli." ...


And then, once Bill Clinton had won:

..."We are trying to move toward healthy, fresh American food," Mrs. Clinton said. That includes broccoli, which was despised by George Bush. "We are big broccoli eaters," Mrs. Clinton said....

I'm not posting this as a knock on Hillary because, as far as I know, she hasn't actually focused on broccoli at all this year. I think this is strictly a Dowd thing.

Oh, and as an FYI for one of Dowd's Times op-ed partners, there may not be a salad bar at Applebee's, but Applebee's does serve steamed broccoli.

posted by Steve M. | 12:27 PM |
 

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ... TAKE THIS ADVICE

Via Ahab at If I Ran the Zoo, I see that John McCain is getting some campaign tips:

Sean Hannity just offered some advice to McCain on Hannity & Colmes. If he wants to give an inspiring speech, the senator ought to look at Mitt Romney's CPAC exit speech and Fred Thompson's exit speech; they were both fantastic, conservative, uplifting speeches....

Romney's CPAC speech? You mean the one with lines that clearly sounded better in the original German?

Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality....

The threat to our culture comes from within....

...we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture....


And Thompson's speech -- you mean the one in which he mumbled thank-yous and Reaganite bullet points into his lectern for ten minutes, occasionally remembering to look up?

Here's what people who actually like Thompson consider praise:

They say he had no "fire in the belly." ...

When he was on
Meet the Press a while back, Claremont's Seth Leibsohn said, admiringly, "Fred came off like his hour there was not the most important thing he had to do that day." There’s something attractive about that....

Yeah, that's the model John McCain should emulate in running against Barack Obama -- and I mean that sincerely.

posted by Steve M. | 10:30 AM |


Tuesday, June 03, 2008  

YEAH, I KNOW

Too much Hillary. I get it. After the last few posts (including the new one below), I'll try to chill and find something else to blog about tomorrow.

posted by Steve M. | 11:35 PM |
 

CLINTON SPEECH: ALL DIVISIVENESS, NOT ONE WORD OF RECONCILIATION

I realize it was overshadowed by the higher-profile speeches by Obama and McCain, but after all that's gone on, given her proclaimed desire to do what's necessary to win the White House for the GOP, Hillary Clinton, on the night her opponent clinched the nomination, couldn't say one word that helped ease her supporters into her Democratic opponent's camp, for the good of the party? Not one word?

I understand that, after pummeling Obama down the stretch, she wanted to take a bit of a victory lap; I understand that she'd think this wasn't a night to let her supporters down. But her speech tonight was defiant, literally from beginning to end. The opening passages sounded like a winner's kind words to a loser:

New York Sen. Clinton, 60, hailed Obama, 46, and his supporters "for all they accomplished," saying they had run an extraordinary race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"Sen. Obama has inspired so many Americans to care about politics and empowered so many more to get involved," she told supporters. "And our party and our democracy is stronger and more vibrant as a result."


And from there it was a campaign speech all the way. She was still getting in digs at Obama, as if there are more states to contest -- the most obvious being a reference to having worked for universal health care not just for sixteen months, but for years. And she was continuing to fan the flames of resentment:

"What does Hillary want? ... I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard, no longer to be invisible."

Barack Obama knows now that he has work to do with her voters, and she knows he knows it -- but she's talking as if that lesson still hasn't been learned; she's telling her supporters that they're still being arrogantly dismissed.

She continues to divide. She continues to help John McCain.

People who are tired of my kvetching about Hillary need to understand that my exasperation is due to the nature of her attacks on Obama -- she's attacked him in ways that dovetail perfectly with right-wing memes, and, as a Democrat in a year when Republicans have little credibility, she's given those memes believability that McCain alone couldn't have given them.

I want her to stop doing damage because she's already done a lot:

Hours before the polls closed Tuesday in the final two Democratic presidential primaries, the Republican National Committee began circulating a video of Hillary Clinton questioning Barack Obama's qualifications to be commander-in-chief, and acknowledging John McCain has this important presidential credential.

"Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002," Clinton says in the one-minute video of CNN's coverage of a news conference she held on March 8...

An RNC official tells CNN to expect to see more of Republicans highlighting Clinton's critical comments of Obama as the campaign now turns to the general election phase.

"We will use it repeatedly," the official said.


And there was more buttering up of Hillary in McCain's speech tonight, along with a Hillaryesque hint that Obama's victory is illegitimate:

...Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received. As the father of three daughters, I owe her a debt for inspiring millions of women to believe there is no opportunity in this great country beyond their reach. I am proud to call her my friend. Pundits and party elders have declared that Senator Obama will be my opponent. He will be a formidable one....

She has to stop tag-teaming with McCain. Now.

posted by Steve M. | 11:30 PM |
 

THOUGH IT IF ENDS THE MADNESS...

Sure, what the hell, I'll vote Obama/Clinton.

posted by Steve M. | 6:51 PM |
 

SHE WON'T CONCEDE LATER IN THE WEEK, EITHER

I'm not the least bit surprised that McAuliffe, Ickes, and Wolfson are all asserting that Hillary Clinton won't concede tonight. I don't even buy the notion that she'll concede if Barack Obama soon cracks has already cracked 2,118 delegates -- I think the remaining core of the Clinton campaign is going to start floating 2,209 again as the "real" threshold, or at least the Clintonites will stop short of conceding that an Obama delegate total over 2,118 ends the contest.

I'll say pretty much what I said in the comments here: I think at a certain point when a course of action becomes a crusade, people lose sight of the likely negative consequences of continuing. I think that’s where the Clintons are now. I think the feeling of heroism Hillary is getting from angry members of her voting blocs is so soul-satisfying that it's become hard for her to care what happens in the future. What's more, I think she respects John McCain enough to only really care about beating him if she gets the satisfaction of doing it. And I think she sees how the Democrats walk on eggshells around Joe Lieberman, so she knows they’re too spineless to punish her no matter what she does.

I think she'll go for something like the "middle option":

…suspend her campaign, acknowledging that Obama has crossed the delegate threshold but keeping her options open until the convention in late August.

But I think she'll refuse to concede that the delegate threshold itself is unambiguous. She'll promise to unite around the nominee (eventually), and she won't attack Obama (although surrogates will continue to do so), but she won't officially stop the fight.

At this point, she’s practically a folk hero in certain precincts. She really might be willing to gamble the rest of her career as a Democrat -- and I think she'd absolutely be willing to risk helping to put her friend John McCain in the White House -- to keep that feeling alive. In some ways, this has probably been the best year of her life.

posted by Steve M. | 2:14 PM |
 

TEAM CLINTON'S STAB-IN-THE-BACK CAMPAIGN

The coming campaign's foundations are already in place. They rest on three building blocks: an attack on the loyalty of those willing to recognize reality; the construction of an alternative reality in which victory is deemed to be imminent; and, finally, a shifting of blame for a supposedly premature withdrawal to those who refuse to play along.

That was Eric Alterman last September, anticipating that the right would turn to the stab-in-the-back theory -- subterfuge by traitors -- to explain the outcome of the Iraq War. That isn't happening with regard to Iraq -- the right thinks we're kicking ass -- but Team Clinton is using stab-in-the-back arguments to fuel resentment among Democrats, portraying Hillary's failure to secure the Democratic nomination as something that occurred in large part because of skulduggery by dishonest enemies. The scapegoats are, in many cases, the same.

The classic stab-in-the-back theory puts a lot of the blame on a press that favors the enemy. Well, here's Bill Clinton on Todd Purdum's recent article about him in Vanity Fair, accusing a press that should be neutral of, well, favoring the enemy:

" ...It's just slimy. It's part of the national media's attempt to nail Hillary for Obama. It's just the most biased press coverage in history. It's another way of helping Obama.... It's all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don't think anything about it."

"But I'm telling ya, all it's doing is driving her supporters further and further away-- because they know exactly what it is-- this has been the most rigged press coverage in modern history..."


Elites who hold ordinary citizens in contempt are also regularly described as backstabbers, as are ethnic minorities -- and here's Geraldine Ferraro on Friday sinking both balls with one shot:

... Reagan Democrats ... see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment....

They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate. His experience with an educated single mother and being raised by middle class grandparents is not something they can empathize with. They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid. What they're waiting for is assurance that an Obama administration won't leave them behind....


The incessant invocation of Clinton's (questionable) popular-vote lead, the references to Zimbabwe and the civil rights era and Florida 2000, all make the case that Clinton is the rightful winner, done in by traitors. It's precisely what Alterman talks about in reference to the classic stab-in-the back scenario: "the construction of an alternative reality in which victory is deemed to be imminent."

It's no wonder that a good number of long-time Democrats are taking their anger out on "the enemy within." That wouldn't be happening, even if Hillary Clinton had campaigned to the bitter end, had she made it clear that she felt the process was legitimate and the GOP was the real enemy.

posted by Steve M. | 10:44 AM |


Monday, June 02, 2008  

McCAIN TRIES TO CAPITALIZE ON THE FURY HILLARY CLINTON WON'T LIFT A FINGER TO QUELL

You can't blame him for trying to capitalize on the huge gift she's giving him, can you?

McCain lavishes praise on Hillary, says she's inspired American women

When a questioner at John McCain's town hall meeting earlier today in Nashville noted that the Republican was talking all about Barack Obama when Hillary Clinton was still in the race, the Republican nominee used the opportunity to pay tribute to his colleague from New York.

"Yes, Sen. Clinton is still in the race," McCain acknowledged to scattered laughter among the conservative crowd. "I have known Sen. Clinton, I admire her and I respect her. She has inspired generations of American women to believe that they can reach the highest office in this nation and I respect that."

...After noting that he and Clinton had "stark differences" on issues, McCain continued: "But I admire the campaign she has run and I think she deserves a great deal of credit."

..."I think the few of us who have been around politics for a while learned a lesson way back in 1992: that you better not count a Clinton out of any race." ...


And RNC "Victory Chair" Carly Fiorina just responded to an interviewer's question thus:

When I ask her what she thinks of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign -- and whether the Democratic New York senator faced sexism on the campaign trail -- her response is clear. "Yes. I think women in positions of power are treated differently, and the treatment of her demonstrates that," she replies. "I have a lot of sympathy for what she's gone through. A lot of women recognize she's been treated differently, whether they're Democrats or Republicans."

Given the fact that Hillary Clinton is almost certainly going to spend the next three months sustaining the sense that she was shafted by sexist pigs and then -- maybe -- will campaign in earnest for the Democratic ticket for a mere two months, you can't blame McCain for trying to hunt where the ducks are. The only question, how many more damn ducks are Hillary and her team going to lead his way? At what point -- if ever -- will she start spending more time talking about defeating McCain than about how unfair it will be if Obama is the nominee?

posted by Steve M. | 11:34 PM |
 

ALL DEMOCRATS ARE TERRIFYING YET INEFFECTUAL HERMAPHRODITES. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A DEMOCRAT TO BE A DEMOCRAT.

On display at the Lucianne.com home page right now:



So, Luce, which is it? Is Hillary Clinton a violent psychopath or (like even her male supporters) an ineffectual silly girl?

I've been extremely nasty to Team Clinton lately, but, yeah, this stuff is ugly. Then again, it's not just directed at women, or at Hillary Clinton. Republicans (and alleged non-Republicans who've internalized Republican memes) routinely characterize Democrats in a way that was recently summed up succinctly by Atrios, addressing himself to Maureen Dowd and Camille Paglia:

Dear Maureen and Camille

Okay, we get it. Democrats are all women except female Democrats who are men. You can stop writing now.


In the pure GOP form of the meme, the sexual stuff is just one facet of the dangerous-freak image of Democrats -- Democrats, in this view, either are going to get everyone in America killed/send all Americans to the poorhouse (because we Democrats are overeducated rootless cosmpolitan coast-dwellers who hate America and sit around with Dr. Evil himself, George Soros, concocting fiendishly brilliant ways to destroy every normal American's life, through terrorism, taxes, or gay marriage) or are nerdy girlie-men who are too limp-wristed to do what a real American can do without breaking a sweat (again, because we're overeducated rootless cosmpolitan coast-dwellers, and therefore don't know our asses from our elbows). That's the men, of course. The women are mannish and ugly and men would rather kill themselves than sleep with them.

And just to show that Hillary Clinton isn't being singled out, on Lucianne's home page today, right below what I highlighted above, Ms. Goldberg depicts an honorary Democrat (he's an honorary Democrat because he's turned against the god-king) who -- naturally! -- is just a pathetic old biddy:



This is practically all they've got. They turn it on everyone they can. If they can get it to work on Obama, they will. They'll certainly try. (Bowling jokes, anyone?)

posted by Steve M. | 2:12 PM |
 

OH, PLEASE -- OF COURSE SHE'S STAYING IN

Count me among those who don't think this is in any way a sign that the end is near:

Members of Hillary Clinton's advance staff received calls and emails this evening from headquarters summoning them to New York City Tuesday night, and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending, two Clinton staffers tell my colleague Amie Parnes.

The advance staffers ... are being given the options of going to New York for a final day Tuesday, or going home, the aides said. The move is a sign that the campaign is beginning to shed -- at least -- some of its staff....


She's just shifting to efforts that don't require a lot of staff -- and those efforts are clearly still ongoing. She says she's going to keep trying to flip superdelegates. She's talking relentlessly about her lead in the popular vote, which is highly questionable.

Iowa, Nevada, Washington state, and Maine haven't released popular vote totals. We can make educated guesses, but they're not precise. How do we count non-binding primaries? Do we count voters who can't participate in the general election (from territories, for example)? How many voters supported Obama in Michigan? It gets a little complicated. Depending on which measurement you prefer, you can say Obama has a very narrow popular-vote lead, or Clinton has a very narrow popular-vote lead.

I keep hearing that Hillary Clinton has stopped attacking Obama, but she hasn't stopped trying to delegitimize him, by delegitimizing his delegate lead. In a party that takes voting rights seriously, suggesting that he's winning by skulduggery is no better than hinting that he's an icky black guy, or that he's unfit to be commander in chief.

Deligitimizing her own loss is a big part of this, and -- what do you know? -- there was Clinton surrogate Geraldine Ferraro in The Boston Globe on Friday doing just that, by playing the sexism and reverse racism cards:

... That sexism impacted Clinton's campaign, I have no doubt. Did she lose a close election because of sexism? I don't know....

As for Reagan Democrats, how Clinton was treated is not their issue. They are more concerned with how they have been treated. Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white....


Translation: Obama won only because Hillary Clinton was prevented from winning by sexist pigs and anti-white racists. Thus, he's not a legitimate nominee.

The fact that Ferraro is still out there mouthing off is all I need to know about whether Clinton is staying in the race. Oh, and Gerry? I'm Italian like you, I'm from the outer boroughs (Boston equivalent), essentially like you -- but I'm a single mother's son who got to the Ivies just like Obama, and when you denigrate him, you denigrate me, and, as a millionaire, you have some gall doing it:

...Whom he chooses for his vice president makes no difference to [Reagan Democrats]. That he is pro-choice means little. Learning more about his bio doesn't do it. They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate. His experience with an educated single mother and being raised by middle class grandparents is not something they can empathize with. They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid....

Sorry -- I guess I got above my station by being a truck driver's son at Columbia. I should have known my place and become an ethically dubious real estate mogul, like your husband.

In any case, it seems obvious to me that if Hillary Clinton can't beat Obama for the nomination, she desperately needs to try to defeat him in November. I'm not even convinced that this is a calculated strategy to emerge as the front-runner for 2012. I think it's more on a gut level than that: the Clintons believe you can't win the presidency as a Democrat any way but their way, and an Obama victory would be a twin humiliation -- not just a defeat of Hillary Clinton personally, but a public demonstration that they don't have a monopoly on political savvy within their party.

They can't live with that. So the attempts to undermine Obama will continue -- to the convention and beyond -- unless they're stopped.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, it's time to play some real hardball.

posted by Steve M. | 11:36 AM |


Sunday, June 01, 2008  

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

Clinton-or-death extremist Larry Johnson is once again gleefully spreading the rumor (in two essentially identical posts) that there is a video of Michelle Obama referring to "whitey":

New and dramatic developments. This is a heads up. I'll post the news Monday morning by 0900 hours. Now I know why people who have seen the videotape say it is stunning. Barack's headaches are only starting.

(I don't know what's really going on, but I can't help wondering if the fact that he's promising "news" on Monday, rather than a posting of the video, means that he's going to tell us that now he's really sure it exists. But, hey, I don't know.)

But I point this out because I notice that someone else is gleefully spreading the rumor, in an appearance on Fox News: Roger Stone.

FNC 06/01/2008 14:43:30: ... just before the break, Roger Stone the Republican strategist made the comment that Michele Obama used the phrase whitey when describing white people and Michael Brown says bs that is republican dirty tricks as usual. Roger take it away. Michael, you are in the wings. >> This has little to do with the general election and a lot to do with why Hillary Clinton is staying in the race. look, there is already a buzz in Washington at least seven news organizations have contacted me. wanting to know how to get their hands on this tape, giving me more information than I had after I had spoken to each one of them. I now believe the tape exists and I believe a network has it. If this pans to out to be true based on michele obama's previous comment that this is the first time she had been proud of her country which I think shows an attitude it is problematic.

Yes, Larry, your partner in sleazy scuttlebutt is Roger Stone, the guy responsible for the 527 group formed solely to insult Hillary Clinton with a sexist acronym -- Citizens United Not Timid.



Lovely -- you guys are now on the same side.

Hey, Larry (and Larry's fans) -- enjoy your new friend.

****

UPDATE, MONDAY MORNING: Oh, fer crissakes -- is the very Roger Stone claim I quoted above the sum total of Larry and his pals' big scoop?

Looks that way right now -- The headline of Johnson's blog's newest post on this subject is "[VIDEO UPDATE] BREAKING NEWS on "Whitey" Tape from Fox News: A TV Network HAS the Tape" -- but the video is just video of Stone saying he thinks there's a "whitey" video and a network has it. In other words, it's video of the Fox appearance I quoted above. There's still no "whitey" video.

If the big revelation Johnson has been promising us for the past couple of days was nothing more than a prediction by Roger Stone that the tape will emerge, that suggests not only that these folks are rowing in the same direction but that Johnson is getting his "tips" from the likes of this old-school GOP scumbag who's been doing dirty tricks since the Nixon days.

Nice, Larry. Are you really just collaborating on the pro-McCain tricks of a freelance Republican sewer rat, or are you being played for a sucker?

****

FURTHER UPDATE: Well, the big BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS! exclusive Johnson has been promising turns out to be as elusive as WMDs in Iraq -- he's got nothin'. Just an empty promise:

I learned over the weekend why the Republicans who have seen the tape of Michelle Obama ranting about "whitey" describe it as "STUNNING." I have not seen it but I have heard from five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape. It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright's Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks. Whoops!! ....

Oh, give me a break. He hasn't even seen it. But it's really, really bad, swear to God.

Vaporware. The Emperor's new clothes. Nicole Simpson's real killer. Crying wolf. What else can I compare this to?*

*Godot. Of course! Thanks, Bulworth.

posted by Steve M. | 11:27 PM |
 

STIRRING UP HATE SO AS NOT TO LOSE FACE -- IT'S A BIT LIKE 1962

I'm reading the Huffington Post and New Republic reports about the now-maddened people who went to the DNC meeting to protest on Hillary Clinton's behalf:

..."You know who is backing him is George Soros. It'll be George Soros, not Obama, who is running the country."

..."[Obama] is a socialist! You know what the Nazi Party was before it was the Nazi Party? It was the Socialist Party." ...

****

...Hillary protesters are occupying an utterly alternate (and healing-free) universe: a universe ... in which a Hillary supporter with two poodles shouts, "Howard Dean is a leftist freak!"; in which a man exhibits a sign that reads "At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen" and shows Dean whipping handcuffed people; and in which Larry Sinclair, the Minnesota man who took to YouTube to allege that Barack Obama had oral sex with him in the back of a limousine in 1999, is one of the belles of the ball.

...Clusters of people in Hillary shirts ask to take their photo with him....

"Would you rather have a president who had an affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]?" Jeannie, the Greensboro Democrat, asks a fellow in a floppy Tilley hat and Hillary buttons. "That's a good point," he replies....


This a small mob, and a nonviolent one -- but I find myself thinking of a moment nearly half a century ago when another politician felt it was more important to stir up hate than to lose face, knowing full well his cause was doomed. The comparison is harsh, but there it is:

...Historian Bill Doyle, author of American Insurrection: The Battle of Oxford, Mississippi, 1962, says that [Governor] Ross Barnett knew integration was inevitable, but needed a way to let James Meredith into Ole' Miss without losing face with his white, pro-segregation supporters. "Ross Barnett desperately wanted the Kennedys to flood Mississippi with combat troops because that's the only way Ross Barnett could tell his white segregationist backers, 'Hey I did everything I could, I fought them, but to prevent bloodshed in the end I made a deal,'" Doyle says....

Barnett knew the mob couldn't stop integration and yet he wasn't going to tell the mob that that was the case. Ultimately, after a great deal of negotiating and some hardball on the Kennedys' part (Bobby threatened that JFK would reveal to the nation that Barnett was negotiating with him), Meredith was registered -- and riots broke out anyway.

I'm not saying there's going to be violence in this case. But the difference is one of degree. Barnett understood the inevitable end of the struggle, but he did what he could to sustain his followers' hatred. I think Hillary Clinton is doing something very similar.

If this hatred can't be put back in a box, the result is unlikely to be bloodshed, but Hillary Clinton may have helped create a new Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of conspiracy theorists and cynical liars who'll help give us yet another Bush term, with John McCain as a surrogate, by making preposterous allegations and claiming victim status. All because Hillary Clinton thought that nothing was more important than not personally losing face.

posted by Steve M. | 11:28 AM |
archives
links