Getting strong now, Gonna fly now

Baracky II:

Here they go, lying again, beating everybody at their favourite game

On Larry King tonight, Media Matters' Paul Waldman wipes the floor with the delusional Jerome Corsi, in the above video.

That's Jerome Corsi, who was the architect of the "Swiftboat" attacks on John Kerry's military record, who has written a crude and offensive "expose" of Barack Obama:

In the preface of his recently released book, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, author Jerome Corsi writes: "My intent in writing this book, as was the case in coauthoring Unfit for Command, is to fully document all arguments and contentions I make, extensively footnoting all references, so readers can determine for themselves the truth and validity of the factual claims." Indeed, Corsi's comparison of the two books seems quite apt: Just as Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry contains false and baseless attacks on Sen. John Kerry's military service, a Media Matters for America review finds that Obama Nation similarly contains numerous falsehoods about Sen. Barack Obama.

The book includes crap like this:

Corsi baselessly suggests that Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., may have divorced his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, "following the prescripts of Islamic sharia law." Corsi's sole source for this statement is a blogger who made the claim in a March 20 post, which featured the false headline, "BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WAS MUSLIM FOR 31 YEARS" and misstated Obama's mother's name as "Shirley Ann." The blogger Corsi cited, "Majalah Bulanan Kumunitas Indonesia Di Edmonton," provided no substantiation for the claim that "the senior Obama divorced Dunham according to Sharia law."

Other takedowns include the blockbuster false claim that Obama doesn't mention the birth of his half-sister in his book:

Corsi falsely claims that Obama does not mention the birth of his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, during the chapter in Dreams in which he discusses his time living in Indonesia. Corsi writes:

In the midst of the personal drama being played against the background of this Indonesian turmoil, on August 15, 1970, Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, was born to his mother and stepfather. Obama devotes the entire second chapter of his autobiography to his time in Indonesia, but remarkably, he makes no reference to Maya's birth [Page 48].

In fact, on Page 47 of Dreams, in the chapter discussing his time in Indonesia, Obama writes that "my mother and Lolo would remain cordial through the birth of my sister, Maya."

That's some investigatoritive journamalism.

The frustrating thing is that anyone in the media considers this guy to be an actual journalist. His writing is abysmal, and no one seems to call him on the serious factual errors he passes off as legitimate criticism. It's the old balance game, present both sides as legitimate, let people decide:

Some say moon is made of green cheese, others disagree.

Just because one has an opinion doesn't mean the opinion has any reality basis. I'm just glad we have Media Matters to set the record straight..

Corsi: Bastard.
Trad. media: Bastards.

Thanks, Paul!

I love Paris in the summer when it sizzles

Genius:

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

Seriously, there will always be a contingent that would vote Republican even if Josef Stalin was the R candidate for President. They could never be persuaded to vote D under any circumstances. Those folks will find this ad annoying and insulting. Good, they deserve to be annoyed and insulted.

Thanks, Paris. This is the most worthwhile thing you've ever done. Check that: probably the only worthwhile thing.

I`ll lie again and again, and I`ll keep lying, I promise

In answer to the unspoken question "Does the McCain campaign really believe people are either stupid or ignorant enough to believe the lies we keep telling", clearly the answer is yes. From the Obama campaign "Fight The Smears":

The truth about Barack visiting military hospitals

Lie:

John McCain, his spokesmen, and his TV ads have all been politicizing our wounded heroes by making the false claim that Barack Obama snubbed wounded troops by not visiting them on his trip overseas because TV cameras would not be allowed to cover the visit.

Truth:

The Obama campaign originally planned a private trip (no media) to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany to visit wounded troops, but canceled it to prevent the perception of politicizing our troops.
Senator Obama was honored to meet with our men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan during his foreign trip and has visited a combat support hospital in Baghdad as well as wounded soldiers at Walter Reed without fanfare. Barack Obama also called wounded troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center while overseas.

Even Andrea Mitchell, hardly an ardent Obama supporter, takes down this crap:



Yet this McCain smear will play well in Red states, where people believe Rush, Hannity, and Fox. Nice to see the Straight Talk Express of John McMaverickypants seems to have become really bent.


It will especially play well with people like this:

Over the weekend we’ve been following a story here in Clark County about a local couple who appear to be the target of racist vandalism simply because they dared to put a Barack Obama yard sign in front of their home. The Columbian ran a small item on Friday night:

Someone scratched the words “White Power” on a car belonging to a Vancouver family who recently posted an “Elect Obama” sign in their front yard.

On Sunday, Frank Wastradowski, who lives northeast of Southwest Washington Medical Center, noticed the vandalism on the side of his wife’s 1993 Plymouth. The letters, likely scratched with a key, were about 8 inches tall.

“It’s a hate crime and it’s time we get past racism,” he said.

Wastradowski said he won’t take the sign down, adding, “That’s my freedom of speech.”

Nice. Stupid. Ignorant folks like the car vandal just keep the fires of ignorance and stupidity burning.

Bastards.

And the public gets what the public wants

McCain says it's all in your head, watch it!

Want to have some great fun and help determine the political direction of the US for the next several years? Or at least pretend to? Check out Open Cabinet, a wiki where you can pick and choose the next administration from the VPOTUS on down:

Open Cabinet is a collaborative effort to map out the next President's Administration. From the Vice President to the Secretary of Labor, let's figure out who might - and who should - staff the Executive agencies.

Built by Michael Whitney, it's quite interesting. And there's a companion blog as well. Seriously, the selections already in place are fascination, some obvious, some much less so. I'm not thrilled to see Check Hagel's (R-Neanderthal) name on the Obama list for VP. Other than on the Iraq war, the man is as Republican as one can be.

Anyway, check it out, and make your own contributions. That's what a wiki is all about.

Always look on the bright side of life

Mark Kleiman, who is a bright guy, says this about Obama & FISA:

But note that if Obama becomes President, he has no reason either to block internal investigation within the Executive Branch or to use the claim of "executive privilege" to shut down Congressional investigation. So the goal of revealing the extent of the Bush/telco lawlessness is not defeated by the civil-immunity provision.

Note also that the authority in the bill expires in 2012.

Obama's vote is politically wise (not giving McCain an attack line about Obama's not wanting to spy on foreign terrorists) and substantively harmless. But the right wing is devoted to creating an image of Obama as a flip-flopper, and for their own reasons parts of the Netroots are willing to play along.

I'm glad to see that the Obama campaign is allowing the debate to occur on the Obama website. And I'm glad lots of people are really, really outraged about unconstitutional spying, and about amnesty for lawbreaking. But this is not a life-or-death issue. All of the damage done by the passage of the bill will be undone by the election of Barack Obama as President.

While I'm not sure I completely agree with him in re: the FISA vote and subsequent options, I do agree that some in the Netroots are organizing a circular firing squad again.

What do I mean? John Cole explains:

Meanwhile, in matters political, the continued intransigence of left-wing bloggers and liberal Democratic interest groups that make up part of the Democratic voting block remains completely and totally mystifying to me. The utter unwillingness to allow Obama any latitude in framing his positions on issues so that they are more palatable to independent voters, demanding that he adhere to strict and rigid positions with no room for movement or nuance, appears to me to be an unwitting sabotage of a candidate who has always been a center-left pragmatist. Any slight deviation from orthodoxy, real or perceived as we saw last week with Iraq or today with abortion, is met with derision, assaults on his integrity, and charges of flip-flopping. It is particularly vexing given that Obama is not going to pursue policies that run counter to the general positions that these folks demand and that the alternative, McCain, is completely on the “wrong” side of the issues.

The sum total of this behavior is to validate GOP frames that Barack is a flip-flopper and can’t be trusted (aided, of course, by a media establishment that loves a “gotcha” and is wholly in the tank for McCain), and watching these various interest groups daily hamstring Obama is going to give me an ulcer or high blood pressure or both. I can’t decide what is driving it, but it is maddening. Whether it is a need to feel relevant, the naivete of single issue voters, an unwillingness to recognize the demands of a general election, spite from former Hillary supporters, complete ignorance regarding Obama’s stated position on an issue (see his “flip-flop” on Iraq in which he said the same thing he has been saying for over a year- he will continue to refine his withdrawal policy as he gets additional information), or a desire for accountability after eight years of Bush, the end result is to force Obama into a box on many issues and refuse to allow him the flexibility he needs to win in November.

As I said, it is maddening, and I don’t want an ulcer or high blood pressure, so I think I am going to do my best to ignore it. The GOP and the right-wing bloggers, however, will not, and they will be eager to join you as you vent your spleen attacking Obama on your pet issue. Thanks for being a dupe, and spare me the nonsense that you are, unlike Republicans, just demanding accountability from your candidate. Just to be clear, you aren’t demanding accountability- you are knee-capping him. I never noticed this trait among Democrats when I was a Republican, now, it is crystal clear why Democrats have so much problem electing a President. Trying to unite a bunch of self-serving whiners, even after eight years of disaster, is near impossible (and now watch ten people accusing me of trying to stifle dissent or being a Rethuglican in disguise who just likes a new “dear leader.”).

Bottom line is, the choice is Obama or McCain. That's a real difference. If you don't think so, you're either unconscious, or you haven't been paying attention.

The choice isn't Nader, or Gene McCarthy, or even Kucinich, it's Obama or McCain. That's a choice between Bush redux and someone who actually lives in reality. He may not support your personal single issue or be as pure as you'd like (see above YouTube), but he's not McCain.

Repeat for the hearing impaired: HE"S NOT JOHN MCCAIN. That's all that matters. Pragmatics really counts, sometimes more than purity. Let's elect him, them try to purify him. But if we don't elect him, it's McCain.

Think about that.

Headline of the Day

Dead veterans happy to rock again for Obama

So I'm looking at just the headline and I'm thinking "Wow! Wouldn't that be great!?"

Alas, different Dead and different veterans.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

In the navy, Come on, protect the motherland

(Video analysis from the Jed Report)

The ridiculous Right-wing smear of Gen. (That's General, you idiots!) Wesley Clark's comments on John McCain's qualifications is an epic example of Truthiness. As McCain's campaign message has developed into 'Noun, verb, and P.O.W.™', Clark merely said that McCain's military experience didn't necessarily qualify him to be President.

Shocking, just shocking. Ezra points out that Clark actually answered the wrong question:

In that, Clark simply answered the wrong question. Getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is not a qualification to become president. The McCain campaign, however, is hoping that it's a sufficient qualification to be elected president. And if the media happens to helpfully conflate the two, well, then, that's not exactly McCain's fault, now is it?

Indeed. McCain's sole qualification seems to be his military service. Raphael Noboa, another veteran, begs to differ:

McCain is known for three things, and three things only:

1. His role in the Keating five Scandal, which may have led to

2. His role in fashioning a weak campaign finance reform package, and

3. Being shot down and consequently, spending five years as a prisoner of war.

Look, let’s accept, for argument’s sake, that the Vietnam War started in earnest in 1965, and essentially ended in 1973. That’s eight years. McCain was shot down in 1967, taken prisoner, and wasn’t released until 1972.

McCain suffered greatly at the hands of the enemy, that’s beyond question. I respect what he went through over there, even if he doesn’t. His combat experience, however, was fundamentally different from that of Wes Clark, or mine, or my uncle’s, for that matter.

There’s a further reason why Wes Clark or me or many other veterans don’t really talk about combat — it’s because we have other things to talk about! Essentially, we bring our game to the field, and leave everything on it.

McCain, on the other hand, has…no…game. None. Zip. In other words, Mad Jack is a punk, and he knows it! He knows it!

All he does is hint at his suffering, with a wink and a nod, and because regular folks don’t know how to deal with that when faced with it (trust me, they don’t, and that’s OK, as it goes), they give him a pass — and they’ve been doing it for the last four decades.

Again, let me point out that Wesley Clarkis in fact a General, with a lifetime of military experience. He's uniquely qualified to state that McCain's military time is NOT enough to make him a competent President.

Here's what McCain actually said:

CLARK: He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

CLARK: I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

DDay, writing at Digby, adds this:

1) Clark is right. He's not blatantly lying about McCain's political service or even disparaging it. Earlier in the interview he called McCain a hero to "all of us in the service." He's making the simple point that military service and executive experience aren't the same thing. Because we've been saturated with this "commander-in-chief" stuff for the last 7 years, and this false notion that criticizing the President's policies equals "criticizing the troops," this dangerous blurring has occurred.

2) I seem to remember a post about the media seeing in McCain a certain honor that they recognize as lacking in themselves and that's why they constantly feel inadequate in his presence and continuously looking up to him. That's what this is going to be about. Bob Schieffer literally couldn't believe anyone would take on McCain's perceived strength, and now that Clark has done so the rest of the media herd will take it the same way.

3) I have few doubts that Clark will handle this head-on. Let's see how the rest of the Democrats handle it. Will they run for the hills screaming? Undercut Clark at the knees?

I think Clark can handle it, but the Obama campaign folds like a camping tent:

And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides. We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period. Full stop.

Crap. Just crap, from all around. Here's more from the Jed Report:

People twisted Clark's comment into being a slam on John McCain, but as I showed on this video, he was merely rejecting an attack on Barack Obama leveled by Bob Schieffer. Still, that hasn't stopped the media from pumping up the controversy.

I've posted video from MSNBC and FOX after the jump if you're interested in seeing what the media blowhards are spewing forth. (I warn you, it's not pretty!)

The stupid, it never ends. St. McCain can do no wrong according to the media whores.

Update: From VoteVets:

General Clark,

We the undersigned thank you for speaking up forcefully and honestly about what it takes to lead this nation, and the kind of judgment we must look for. You were right to say that Senator McCain has not shown good judgment, despite his extraordinary service to America. Just in the past few years:

- Senator McCain's service and experience, both as a POW and as a Senator apparently hasn't infused him with a dose of good judgment.

- Senator McCain's experience hasn't led him to realize that the war in Iraq and it's continuance has empowered and emboldened Iran, and destabilized the region.

- Senator McCain's experience hasn't caused him to recognize that we're losing ground in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden is still out there, plotting.

- Senator McCain's experience didn't lead him to support the 21st Century GI Bill -- he opposed it. It didn't even make him feel the need to get back to Washington to vote on this -- one of the most important veterans' bills this Congress. He twice skipped votes on the GI Bill, to fundraise.

Go there, sign the petition.

Well I can stand beside ideals I think are right

Thank you, Sen. Clinton.

Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth

(Video by Robert Greenwald at Brave New Films)

There are some folks we call dead-enders. They will follow The Party no matter what. If they saw GWBush, John W. McCain, Dick Cheney, and Grover Norquist gang-raping their child on TV, they would still vote for anyone with an "R" after their name, including the aforementioned McCain.

It always cracks me up when a supposed 'thoughtful' Right-wing pundit criticizes a Democratic candidate, thoughtfully, as if they would ever vote for said candidate, or even consider him anything but a traitor willing to sell us all down the river into Islamofascist slavery:

The fact that everyone knows who Bush was referring to and the fact that the substance contained in the remark reflects the widely held belief of a very large percentage of voters should have given Obama an opening to retract the remark and share his thoughts on engaging Iran, Syria, and other terrorist supporting nations in a useful dialogue.

Instead, Obama and the Democrats hit the ceiling, calling Bush every name in the book and whining about their hurt feelings. Their reaction reminded me of a line from the movie All The Presidents Men where the Washington Post has published an article accusing the White House of wrongdoing and the reaction to that article from the Nixonites. Ben Bradleee observes “They doubt our ancestry, but they don’t say the story isn’t accurate.”

Obama called Bush’s words “an appalling attack,” “dishonest,” divisive, “fear-peddling,” fear-mongering,” but for some reason, never got around to responding to the substance of Bush’s charge; that Obama and the Democrats cannot be trusted with running American foreign policy because their outlook on the world is is based on false assumptions about, our friends, our allies, our role in the world, and most of all our deadly enemies.

Bush actually did Obama a favor. He gave him a golden opportunity to lay out his “realistic” ideas on American foreign policy so that it would get the widest possible hearing. The problem, as Obama and the Democrats well know, is one of perception – a perception they try their best to finesse rather than tackling head on. It’s not about talking tough and making threats. It is about calling our enemies, well, enemies . They could try that for starters.

Right. Problem is, any idea Obama lays out as realistic will be ridiculed by this guy and his crowd. Yet he seems so reasonable. But often so do most sycophants and supporters of totalitarian regimes.

In another post by the same guy, he mocks Obama for his popular appeal, as if appealing to, well, the populace was something to be avoided:

What could possibly be wrong with 75,000 people attending a political rally?

Admittedly, not much on the surface. And perhaps if the times weren’t so perilous and the candidate who was the beneficiary of that huge crowd wasn’t so problematic, we could really celebrate such an outpouring of support, free from the nagging doubts that plague many of us about Barack Obama and his past associations and present ideological beliefs.

Except my republican soul (note the small “r”) is a little frightened at this mob scene. Politicians should be plebeian in their appeal – being one of us and not standing above us, Caesar-like in their beguilement of the masses. Truman and Eisenhower were plebes; modest in their habits and with no illusions regarding their own failings. There is something to be said for such solid republican values in a presidential candidate and when someone such as a Kennedy or Obama rises above the masses, presenting themselves as perhaps something more than a servant of the people, we are bound to look in askance at such a phenomenon.

The anti-populist elitism, the sniff of "dirty masses" from an ivory tower conservative psuedo-intellectual is almost enough to make the spirit of Bill Buckley smile up from Hell. The fear of the people revolting, trying to further their own best interests, has been a touchstone in conservative politics since long before the Cold War.

And in case he forgot, there's never been a more anti-plebian President than GWBush, with the possible exception of Poppy Bush, who really took his elitism as a life style, and didn't try to hid it with a phony rancho in Texas.

Moran finishes his anti-Obama whine thusly:

But dangerous he is – for his beliefs, not for his personality or the character of this mass movement he has inspired. So when I see 75,000 people screaming his name with the kind of abandon reserved for rock stars or religious figures, I worry more that the candidate won’t be able to live up to the lofty expectations he has engendered in his legions than he would use such a movement for nefarious purposes.

And given his incredible lack of experience and zero track record in getting anything done, I would guess that if he is elected he would generate more disappointment among his followers than any other president in memory.

Dude, that's rich in unintended irony. He worries, poor concern troll he is, that Obama won't live up to the Left's expectations, that he has an "incredible lack of experience and zero track record in getting anything done", and will "generate more disappointment" blah blah blah.

Like, you know, George W. "28%" Bush has done.

The real reason for all this pearl-clutching and hand-wringing is in the video at the top, and rests on the heads of the Republican collective, the "dirty unwashed masses" who voted for McCain, once a pariah in Republican top circles, now their candidate. Weak as Wally Cox with the flu, ethically challenged as Ferdinand Marcos, anti-intellectual as GWBush, and flip-flopping more than a trout in the bottom of a boat, McCain's star is the one they have hitched their wagons to. So Moran instead carps and whines about Obama's mis-perceived problems, and pronounces him a bad candidate.

Yeah, because your guy is Teh Hot™.

Bastard.

Appeasers!

Bring out the scarlet letters!:

During a speech to the Israeli parliament yesterday morning, President Bush attacked Barack Obama, comparing him to Nazi appeasers for the Illinois senator's willingness to hold discussions with Iran.

One problem: Bush's speech came just hours after The Washington Post reported that Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said that the United States needs to "sit down and talk with" Iran. Not only that, Gates added, "We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander."

Oops.

Naturally, then, a media firestorm erupted, with the Bush administration and its political allies questioned all day about whether Bush has any idea what he is talking about, whether he has lost control over the Pentagon, whether Gates will be fired, what Gates thinks about Bush's comparison of those (like Gates) who advocate dialogue between the United States and Iran to appeasers of Adolf Hitler, and whether the fiasco will remind voters that the Bush administration's foreign policy has been marked by incompetence and dishonesty, thus doing irreparable electoral damage to John McCain and other Republican candidates.

Sorry -- what was I thinking? That didn't happen.

Instead, much of the news media got busy pretending the Post article didn't exist and that Gates had not undermined Bush's political attack on Obama. Instead, many news outlets simply rushed to repeat Bush's assault over and over again, as though it had merit.

Just like this guy... who had no clue what Neville Chamberlain had done and what appeasement actually means:

to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

Times are very tough now, for a proud white man to live

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives us the right to free speech:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It also give us the right to be idiots:

Marietta bar owner Mike Norman says the T-shirts he's peddling, featuring a look-a-like of cartoon chimp Curious George peeling a banana, with "Obama in '08" underneath, are not meant to offend.

Norman acknowledged the imagery's Jim Crow roots but said he sees nothing wrong with depicting a prominent African-American as a monkey,

"We're not living in the (19)40's," he said. "Look at him . . . the hairline, the ears — he looks just like Curious George."

No, we're not living in the '40s. Black people can vote, and one is the likely Democratic candidate for President. But for some, especially in the South, it's still the '40s, and the Bull Connor '50s.

Mr. Norman, you know God-damned well that picture is offensive, and you don't care, because you're racist. No other conclusion can be drawn. You're not clever, you're not funny, you're infantile and prejudiced.

There is one essential difference between Clinton and Obama that hasn't been talked about. And that is, while there are some who feel women are not as good as men, no one in today's society, except for sociopaths, hates women.

Yet there are still those in this country who hate black people. As fellow blogger darkblack pointed out to me, Obama is in far more physical danger than Clinton, for that simple fact. We've come so far, yet sadly, not far enough. We still have racist jerks like Mr. Norman.

(Note: Title lyric from the awful RaHoWa, a White Power band. I post them so you don't have to go look them up. Mr. Norman may not subscribe to all their tenets, but he's in good company with them, no matter how hard he denies.)

Feel the hollowness inside of your heart, And it's all right where it belongs

Update: Thanks to everyone stopping by from Crooks & Liars. Please click on the "Home" button at the bottom to read other posts here.


(The whole thing)

In re: Rev. Wright (nifty alliteration, eh?), I remain ambivalent, as in, having two faces.

In pure political terms, Wright seems to have callously tried to embarrass Obama with his National Press Club visit. Darkblack suggested to me that perhaps it was a coordinated effort (by Wright and the Obama campaign) to allow Wright to fall on his sword thus allowing Obama to distance himself once again; I'm not sure.

And regardless, it's all fodder for the Vast Right-Wing News Machine™, ranging from Limbaugh to Matthews. Meanwhile, McCain's BFF Hagee escapes scrutiny.

Yet my liberal side pretty much agrees with the great Charles Pierce, writing at Altercation (scroll down):

It's hard to know where to go with the Jeremiah Wright story, what with the law firm of Briggs, Stratton, and Husqvarna looking over my shoulder and all. What I do know is that some folks seem to have the thing backwards. He doesn't owe Obama anything. He was a minister, Obama was his congregant. He could have happily gone on doing the good works he'd done for three decades, and giving his sermons the way he had been giving them, nutty or not. Then Obama decided to run for president. AT THAT MOMENT, because of the campaign, and because of the combination of bad faith and puerility that is the hallmark of modern American political journalism, Wright became an "issue." (And don't be fooled. You could see it coming a mile off. Sean Hannity was frothing about this subject almost a year ago.) Since when does a guy's entire career go up for grabs just because one of his congregation decides to run for president? What's his affirmative obligation to a campaign narrative of which he did not ask to be a part? (I wait in vain for someone to explain to me how what Wright says bears in any way on whether or not Barack Obama should be president of the United States. All answers meeping vaguely about "judgment" are automatically disqualified.) He's not John Hagee, blobbing around on stage with John McCain, who'd flagellate himself to get Hagee's blessing. The narrative went out and found Wright, chewed him up, made the candidate perform in the traditional Kabuki theater of televised outrage, and otherwise made a dog's breakfast out of a 30-year ministry that by all accounts served its community well and faithfully. So, finally, Wright shows up in Washington and tells the nation's media to Cheney itself, and does so in a manner so indecorous that he sounded like John McCain talking to Rick Renzi, and people pronounce themselves shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that he would do so. He's entitled to defend himself, his life, and his ministry, as vigorously as he deems necessary. That right is absolute. He's under no obligation to consider the political ramifications of that defense at all. If it were me, I'd have shown up at the National Press Club with a firehose.

Indeed. So while I applaud Rev. Wright's pugnacity on the one hand, on the other I
understand the need for Obama to disavow, disdain, disrespect, whatever, Wright's earlier comments. That said comments were largely spot on doesn't matter, since this isn't truth, but politics.

Too many people in this country, especially on the Right and in the media have trouble with compound sentences and complex thoughts. For them, anything more challenging than "see Spot run" is too hard. So for them, we'll keep it easy: The bad stuff that bad man said can't hurt you anymore.

Frank Rich

Assures us the Democrats are not unraveling over the silliness of flag pins, Pastor Wright, nor bittergate, and that McBush should be careful not to get complacent:

Mr. McCain is not only burdened with the most despised president in his own 71-year lifetime, but he’s getting none of the seasoning that he, no less than the Democrats, needs to compete in the fall. Age is as much an issue as race and gender in this campaign. Mr. McCain will have to prove not merely that he can keep to the physical rigors of his schedule and fend off investigations of his ties to lobbyists and developers. He also must show he can think and speak fluently about the domestic issues that are gripping the country. Picture him debating either Democrat about health care, the mortgage crisis, stagnant middle-class wages, rice rationing at Costco. It’s not pretty.

Last week found Mr. McCain visiting economically stricken and “forgotten” communities (forgotten by Republicans, that is) in what his campaign bills as the “It’s Time for Action Tour.” It kicked off in Selma, Ala., a predominantly black town where he confirmed his maverick image by drawing an almost exclusively white audience.

The “action” the candidate outlined in the text of his speeches may strike many voters as running the gamut from inaction to inertia. Mr. McCain vowed that he would not “roll out a long list of policy initiatives.” (He can’t, given his long list of tax cuts.) He said he would not bring back lost jobs, lost wages or lost houses. But, as The Birmingham News reported, this stand against government bailouts for struggling Americans didn’t prevent his campaign from helping itself to free labor underwritten by taxpayers: inmates from a local jail were recruited to set up tables and chairs for a private fund-raiser.

The Democrats’ unending brawl may be supplying prime time with a goodly share of melodrama right now, but there will be laughter aplenty once the Republican campaign that’s not ready for prime time emerges from the wings.

I'm ready to laugh!













crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

Oh, deep in my heart I do believe, we shall overcome someday

Pam works with a 20-something black woman, who has recently become politically aware.

She tells Pam (3rd party paraphrase):

When Obama first started running, her parent's generation said "Not gonna happen, they will never let a black man run". They, of course, being the white establishment.

The black community thought highly of the Clintons, but Hillary and Bill are rapidly flushing that down the drain.

Now that's Obama's a shoe-in for the nomination, the same folks are saying that if it doesn't happen, if somehow Hillary gets it, the disappointment will set race relations back a long way.

It would be easy for those of us with far less melanin to say they should get over it, aren't things much better for blacks now? It would also be stupid, since to deny that institutionalized racism still exists would be to ignore all the evidence.

For this, along with many other reasons, I hope Hillary finally reads the writing on the wall and drops out, sooner than later.

Now tell me

Which one is an elitist and which one truly understands Americans?








crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

Ain't that what you said, ain't that what you said, ain't that what you said

Can we just stop? I mean, can we just STOP!!

Barack Obama said some people in the electorate are bitter. Imagine that.

Lots of conservatives are bitter because John McCain is their nominee.

Obama said some people vote issues that have no bearing on their best interests because they are frustrated.

Conservatives are frustrated because their elected politicians don't do anything about pet issues like abortion (see Bush, George H. W & George W.)

Obama said some folks fall back onto bogeyman fear, and blame "others" for their problems.

Conservatives find bogeymen everywhere, including browned skinned folks from anywhere.

And finally, Obama said McCain is out of touch. He said Hillary is out of touch too, but as of now, I officially don't care to comment on anything hillary or her surrogates say. And say, Bill, 1997 called, they want their 65% approval back.

When a politician says something so breathtakingly obvious that the only thing the Traditional Media can add is the spin and crap coming from Drudge, Norquist, Rove and McCain, they have failed. They have been framed out of relevance.

My friend Oliver Willis has the best re-cap:

America’s tired of the distortion and game-playing by the right wing noise machine, and its pretty sad the failing Clinton campaign felt they needed to jump on this (perhaps it had something to do with the coverage of President Clinton bringing back the phony Bosnia story).

One wonders where all this media concern about elitism was when John McCain was raising millions of dollars in the home of a British Lord.

Oh, that’s right. He’s a Republican. And he’s THE John McCain.

Obama wasn't dissing rural folks, that's what the Republicans do. Does anyone think Americans from every economic and social strata aren't bitter? Except, you know, wealthy Republicans with record tax cuts.

Obama's passioned rebuttal to his critics (YouTube at top) is noteworthy for its defiance, and sticking to his point: People are indeed bitter, unhappy, and don't trust politicians to care about them. And yet some, many of us seem to believe in Obama.

He says right stuff. I hope he does right stuff when he gets the chance.

Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?

Ambassador Wilson, I have great respect for you, and your hair. And what was done to your wife was wrong. You have many friends in the bloggersphere, but tonight, you have one less, because of this from HuffPost:

In 1998, as Senior Director for Africa in President Clinton's National Security Council, I helped orchestrate six phone calls, some late at night, directly from President Clinton, three each to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles, and Eritrean President Afwerki, to stop the air war between the two countries. Two of Barack Obama's senior advisers, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also involved in that effort, and could attest to the importance of presidential involvement if they would choose not to remain silent as a ploy to protect their candidate's slender credentials.

. . . In former Yugoslavia, President Clinton played a similar role, reaching out to friends and allies, to adversaries and belligerents, in order to reach agreements that permitted the deployment of an international peacekeeping force.

. . . Contrast the above examples with the last seven plus years of George W. Bush and the conclusion is inescapable: presidential leadership is critical and should be tempered with experience and capability.

No problem so far, we can all agree that the last 7 years were really bad.

But then to go here:

Senator Obama is clearly a gifted politician and orator. I disagree profoundly with his transparently political efforts to turn George Bush's war into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was present in that debate, in Washington, from beginning to end, and Obama was nowhere to be seen. His current campaign aides in foreign policy, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also in Washington, but they chose to remain silent during that debate, when it mattered.

Claims of superior intuitive judgment by his campaign and by him are self-evidently disingenuous, especially in light of disclosures about his long associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. But his assertions of advanced judgment are also ludicrous when the question of what Obama has accomplished in his four years in the Senate is considered.

Joe, you've jumped the shark. Time to pack the show up, and start a second career in directing, because this writing won't sell. I won't even bother with the Wright & Rezko cheap shots; you should be ashamed. I'm glad you passionately support Sen. Clinton, but her past is filled with shady characters whose misdeeds shouldn't be used to attack her. Comes to mind James Blair and Robert L. "Red" Bone:

Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released yesterday.

The computerized records of her trades, which the White House obtained from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, show for the first time how she was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight. In about 10 months of trading, she made nearly $100,000, relying heavily on advice from her friend James B. Blair, an experienced futures trader.

. . . A close examination of her individual trades underscores Blair's pivotal role. It also shows that Robert L. "Red" Bone, who ran the Springdale, Ark., office of Ray E. Friedman and Co. (Refco), allowed Clinton to initiate and maintain many trading positions – besides the first – when she did not have enough money in her account to cover them.

Innuendo? Yes. Criminal acts? Who knows. Let he who has not sinned sail down the Whitewater rapids.

The more important point is that Bill Clinton, praised above as acting responsibly in a crisis, was a Governor of a small Southern state with plenty of internal problems, and virtually no foreign policy implications. While his terms as Governor were neither disastrous nor glorious, his election to the Presidency was based on charm, charisma, and national dislike for George H. W Bush, who had vast foreign policy experience.

To continue:

Obama has stated that he will rely upon his advisers. But how will he know which ones to depend upon and how will he be able to evaluate what they say?

Yes, how will he know who to listen to? I re-cap from earlier in the Wilson piece:

Two of Barack Obama's senior advisers, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also involved in that effort, and could attest to the importance of presidential involvement if they would choose not to remain silent as a ploy to protect their candidate's slender credentials.

So Lake & Rice were invaluable as counselors to Clinton, yet untrustworthy as aides to Obama? Sorry, pal, can't have it both ways.

Which of his shifting coterie of volatile advisers would he turn to? Will it be the one who repudiated his withdrawal plan, exposing his real intention, prior to being forced to resign? Or will it be those advisers who remained silent until politically convenient -- several years and several thousand lives after the shock and awe invasion, conquest and disastrous occupation of Iraq?

Oh just stop it! Support your candidate, that's fine. But this argument is specious, especially when your candidate has her own credibility issues. Face it, the bulk of Hillary's Foreign Policy experience is from being First Lady. And while that's a fine thing, it's no better than the experience of a Senator from Illinois, or New York. She may have met many foreign leaders, yet her interaction with them was ceremonial, not substantive.

Sorry Joe, this season is over.

Saying something stupid

Sadly, stupidity isn't a test for commenting on a popular blog. In this case, I found this comment at Huffington Post:

Barak Hussein Obama


1) He LIES about his relationship to Rev. Jeremiah " God Damn America" Wright. . Who even though he knew how radical this guy was kept him on the campaign for an additional year. Of course in 20 years he never heard of his invective. He never heard but kind words form his favorite "uncle".

2) He LIES about his deal to buy his house with Tony Rezko. He says he only worked 5 hours for the man but amazingly REZKO while defaulting on $10 million in other debts, conspired to buy half of the land Obama's house is on at 100% of asking price, so Obama can get his piece at 65%.
He LIES when he says he hardly knew this man who gave $250,000 to his campaign not the $100,00 he first LIED about.

3) He LIES about his sexual relationship with Larry Sinclair and the attendant drug use.

4)He LIES about NAFTA telling OHIO voters he'll re-negotiate the treaty while telling the Canadian Government not to worry, he'll do no such thing.

5) He LIES about the war saying he has always opposed it while voting for funds to fight it.

6) He LIES about his intentions about bringing the troops home. He says he will. He says he'll send them back into Iraq. He says he'll do whatever the #%*& he wants when he is commander in chief.

7) He LIES about bringing Democrats together while running a formidable and vicious attack on Hillary.

8) He LIES about health care saying his plan does not MANDATE the collection of premiums from hard working Americans as Hillary's would, when if fact his plan would MANDATE everyone buy the coverage for their kids....and he would collect the premiums in the same MANDATED fashion.

9) He has his staff say on national television that the infamous photo of him in Arab/Muslim attire was taken when he was on a diplomatic mission. WHO sent this idiot on a diplomatic mission: NO One.
So the truth is HE LIES why he was in Africa or he LIES about conducting foreign policy for the United States while unauthorized: also a crime.

10) He has LIED his way to position in this election where he might actually win. Not to worry, if that sad event happens the media and McCain will call this guy out so forcefully he won't know what hit him.

No point in unpacking all the crap, lies, straw-man arguments, and delusions in this piece. Is the author racist, a fervent Hillary supporter, ar a Right-winger? Doesn't matter. His/her mind will stay totally fact-free during this election cycle.

And that's pretty scary.

You'd better go now

Two awkward things happened in Democratic politics this week:

NYTimes: Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who gained national prominence relentlessly pursuing Wall Street wrongdoing, has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a law enforcement official and a person briefed on the investigation.

And:

ABC News: Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."

What do they have in common? Gotcha politics, that's what. Scott Horton at Harper's had a lot to say about the tail wagging the dog:

The Justice Department has yet to give a full account of why they were looking into Spitzer’s payments, and indeed the suggestion in the ABC account is that it didn’t have anything to do with a prostitution ring. The suggestion that this was driven by an IRS inquiry and involved a bank might heighten, rather than allay, concerns of a politically motivated prosecution.

All of these facts are consistent with a process which is not the investigation of a crime, but rather an attempt to target and build a case against an individual.

Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast has a lot to say about the manufactured and marketed outrage over Obama's pastor's remarks:

Frankly, while I find Rev. Wright's words and tone to be unnecessarily inflammatory, I also find that I don't have a lot of argument with anything he said.

We live in a culture that has been defined by victimology ever since the 9/11 attacks. We like to think we are a strong people, but look at how Americans have behaved over the last six-plus years. Yes, this country endured a terrible attack. Thousands lost their lives on September 11, 2001. But it is not "hating America" to say that we have to look at our policies and the leaders we have supported, often under the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine, to LEARN from what happened and avoid similar situations in the future.

There's no getting around the fact that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were directly spawned by American policy -- in this case, arming the Afghan Mujahadeen against the Soviets during the latter's invasion of Afghanistan in the late 1980's. There's also no getting around the fact that the American policy of "Israel By Definition Can Do No Wrong" has contributed to the mess we now find in the Middle East.

Indeed. Both men acted rashly, foolishly, and needed to step aside. Elliot, dude, what were you thinking? Go away, think about it, have a drink with Gary Hart, and in a year or so you'll be a regular pundit on the talking head shows. Like Dick Morris.

And Rev. Wright, you know the old adage about the efficacy of honey vs. vinegar? You could have made your point wonderfully, eloquently, and with less self-sabotage by not saying "God Damn America". You're like an over-the-top soul singer who spins every note into a 3 octave cadenza, just to hear the sound of their own voice.

Just because you can doesn't mean you have to.