For a taste of what's going on in FL, see this Joe Biden "interview" conducted by Orlando's own Barbara West, news anchor at ABC affiliate WFTV channel 9. (When I was in Orlando, there was another woman at WFTV who, by contrast, made Barbara West seem quite moderate and sane.)
It's not so much an interview, as a list of statements phrased as questions. It's obvious that West is more interested in making these statements than in eliciting information.
If you visit this video on YouTube you'll find some bizarre commentary ("Biden Angered By Tough Questions") from the person who posted it. You'll also find some video replies from various people who evidently took West's semi-rhetorical questions the way I did - as a week attempt to put weird words in Biden's mouth.
By "weird words" I mean like something taken out of a McCarthy-era novel. I don't see an "angry Biden" here; I see a guy who's bemused by questions that sound as though they fell through a time warp from the 1950s. They're "tough" in the sense that it's hard to have a 21st-century conversation about 20th-century concerns. They're "questions" in the sense that they are punctuated with question marks.
Biden answered the less-crazy questions about ACORN (which have already been asked and answered in nationally-broadcast interviews and debates) without any problem, and as for the crazier ones that weren't really questions... you know, I wish he'd actually shown more anger. Barbara West can do all the red-baiting she wishes, but she doesn't need to have Biden there while she does it, and he doesn't need to waste his time listening to it.
I don't know if she was trying to make him lose his temper, but to do so would have required some skill. West's questions were clearly intended to manipulate, but they weren't very artful.
Incidentally, Barbara West is married to Republican strategist Wade West.
For a taste of what's going on in FL, see this Joe Biden "interview" conducted by Orlando's own Barbara West, news anchor at ABC affiliate WFTV channel 9. (When I was in Orlando, there was another woman at WFTV who, by contrast, made Barbara West seem quite moderate and sane.)
Just when you thought there was nothing MORE ridiculous they could get upset about than a photo that wasn't retouched, I bring you football. Specifically, an NBC program called "Football Night in America". On this show, they recap the games of the day with ESPN style glib commentary. As an example, kicker Kris Brown kicked a game winning field goal as time expired. The commentary? "What can Brown do for you? With a nice FedEx sign in the background." You get the idea. Pop culture and one-liners mix with football. So, why would the right get upset? Because one of the commentators is Keith Olbermann. And what did he say? He was responding to a Buffalo Bills player getting knocked out of the game with a concussion. "They had to cart Edwards off. He was OK otherwise, but he said 'I can see Russia from here.'"
Pretty innocuous, right? A little bit anti-Palin, but hardly earth shattering. I certainly don't think it called for a Michelle Malkin rant. Of course, nothing really calls for one of her rants. But I can't get out of my head how out of proportion the screeching is over this. Google "palin olbermann football" and see how many hits you get.
Posted by briwei at 10/13/2008 12:19:00 PM
Like whether or not Sarah Palin's photo is retouched on the cover of Newsweek this week.
This is not an argument about whether Newsweek altered a photo to give Sarah Palin buck teeth, or added nose hair, or pimples. This is about whether they didn't retouch her photo to make her look like a model.
Here's the video, but I don't necessarily suggest you watch it:
What the Fox?
Posted by JP Burke at 10/11/2008 03:38:00 PM
Governor Palin, do you have something stuck in your eye, or is that your best Dick Cheney impression?
You know, that's not strictly part of the job of vice president. Although you apparently favor a more Cheneyized role for the VP:
"I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies," Palin said.
Somebody should tell McCain, though, since his view is more limited:
"The vice president has two duties. One is to inquire daily as to the health of the president, and the other is to attend the funerals of Third World dictators. And neither of those do I find an enjoyable exercise."
On the basis of her Dick Cheney impersonation alone, she has what it takes to be VP.
Have you all heard the latest out of McLame? Palin responded to a reporter's question in the exact same way as Obama did during the debate. The problem is, Maverick chided Obama for his answer. But that's ok. It wasn't Sarah's fault.
McCain, who sat with Palin, said in Monday's interview that he understands "the day and age of 'gotcha' journalism. ... In a conversation with someone who you didn't hear the question very well, you don't know the context of the conversation. Grab a phrase. Gov. Palin and I agree that you don't announce that you're going to attack another country."So, it is now considered 'Gotcha!' journalism to ask a candidate a policy question. It is THEIR fault that the candidate does not know her partners stances on these subjects.
I want to remind people that this is a good place to just post goofy shit about the election. If I don't have you guys to amuse me, I'm going to start to go a little bonkers.
I had this song in my head after last night's multiple references to Henry Kissinger (warning, it's not quite kid safe):
If you saw the debate, then you know that the advantage we were told McCain had on national security was exaggerated. At best.
I'd ask you to caption that image, and you can if you like, but I want to point out that it is representative of one aspect of the night. McCain does not like Obama. McCain has a hard time concealing his dislike. It's no wonder he's not a poker player. As far as I could tell, he never looked Obama in the eye. I assume he was trying to contain his emotions.
Here's my caption.
Obama: "Good debate, John. I think we really got our positions across to the American people."
McCain: "What's that? I hear a voice but I don't see anyone. Oh S--T! It's Barack Obama!"
Posted by JP Burke at 9/27/2008 03:27:00 PM
I was surprised to see such blunt criticism of McCain's recent behavior when I watched "this week with George Stephanopoulos" on ABC this morning.
Technorati : mccain economy abc stephanopoulos
When I look at this picture, I have to wonder: is McCain's campaign putting his name on all his clothing? And does that help him get dressed quicker in the morning? I'm wondering if I should try this.
Posted by JP Burke at 9/17/2008 04:45:00 PM
The crap and the hate that gets flung around every election has run it's usual course and soured me to Americans in general, so I'm doing what I normally do - go "off the RADAR screen" politically, do my homework and vote when the time comes.
But I'll still take part in the funny stuff. So maybe we can once again become LOLiticians and take a hack at this pic of the two candidates from last week's memorial at Ground Zero in New York...
Posted by Bull at 9/16/2008 09:05:00 PM
Sarah Palin gives a brief sermon in June 2008 and asks parishioners to pray for a new pipeline.
"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."
Palin's Church May Have Shaped Controversial Worldview (with video)
Welcome to the campaign, Sarah Palin -- the most bestest choice to lead the country!
Dear Romney, Pawlenty, Rice, Powell, Ridge, Lieberman, Whitman, Jindal, Hutchison -- McCain found someone more experienced to lead the country should something happen to him. Now go campaign your little hearts out!
For the record, Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton. And neither is she a model.
To the right, you see a picture of the Overstock.com model Sabine Ehrenfeld. That's why this post is entitled "Not Sarah Palin." Sarah Palin is the governor of Alaska, and there are rumors she is on the short list for McCain's VP pick. Not credible rumors, mind you, but this is the right-wing blogosphere we're talking about.
I found this picture on the following blog:
... which also has placed Gov. Palin in Alabama instead of Alaska. And is asking "So, is this the face of the next candidate for Vice-President of the United States?" That's an easy question to answer, considering Ms. Ehrenfeld is unlikely on McCain's veepstakes list. Although a "McCain taps Ehrenfeld" headline might elicit some snickers, it's even less likely than McCain picking Gov. Palin.
Keep on keepin' on, right wing blogosphere!
Some say Palin would be a good VP choice because Hillary supporters would flock to a McCain/Palin ticket, just to see a woman VP. Whatwhatwhat-now? If you need anything to prove to you what a low (and confused) opinion Republicans have of female voters and Hillary supporters, look no further than the Sarah Palin for VP supporters.
Back in the real world:
Hillary Clinton made it clear last night that she's supporting Barack Obama and you should, too. I was especially impressed with her references to people she met on the campaign trail. She took that familiar stump speech rhetoric and turned it into support for Obama by asking the Democrats to decide whether the campaign was about her or about the people she met on the trail who would certainly suffer under a dangerous McCain presidency that would be as risky as four more years of our current Republican leadership. Do we want to turn from the perilous course our country has been on for 8 years? If not, Hillary clearly gave her answer: Obama.
Hillary is on board. And tonight we'll see Bill throw his support behind this effort in typical fashion.
And the country will see a unified Democratic Party. To withstand the strength of the democrats pulling in one direction, the Republicans are going to need more than the Overstock.com model.
Posted by JP Burke at 8/27/2008 09:17:00 AM
Former Representative of Iowa, Republican Jim Leach endorsed Obama last night at the convention, and unlike when Zell Miller's eyes bugged out on the Republican podium 4 years ago, this didn't really make the news.
"As a Republican, I stand before you with deep respect for the history and traditions of my political party. But it is clear to all Americans that something is out of kilter in our great republic.... Seldom has the case for an inspiring new political ethic been more compelling. And seldom has an emerging leader so matched the needs of the moment.... I stand before you proud of my party's contributions to American history but, as a citizen, proud as well of the good judgment of good people in this good party, in nominating a transcending candidate, an individual whom I am convinced will recapture the American dream and be a truly great president: the senator from Abraham Lincoln's state -- Barack Obama.... This is not a time for politics as usual.... Obama will recapture the American dream and be a truly great president."
Hi, I'm a conservative blogger.
For weeks, I've had two posts prepared for today. I had plenty of time to write them.
The first post was a long diatribe about how Obama's choice weakened his ticket because it reinforced his weaknesses with a too-young running mate who appealed to his core of supporters but didn't deliver enough depth. I was going to laugh about how stupid he was to alienate the American people. I was really pulling for Tim Kane (or equivalent) so I could use this essay. Tim Kane was especially fun, because I was going to crow about how Obama isn't going to win Virginia anyhow.
The second essay was kinda lame, but I think it'll still gain some traction. In it, I state that Obama's choice is "more of the same in Washington" and "undercuts his change message" and "shows that experience matters." I was really hoping I could go with the first essay, because choosing someone like Biden strengthens his ticket by answering some of his critics. If the VP choice is the first important choice of a nascent presidency, a solid, practical choice reassures voters that Obama is not all pie-in-the-sky and is not afraid to bring someone in who has long-established strong opinions and credibility.
Since I have to go with the second essay, I really hope nobody notices how lame it is. And that Obama never said experience doesn't matter. And that Obama is clearly not planning an insular presidency, but rather will bring in the best people to help make good policies.
Damn, I really wish I could have gone with the Tim Kane essay.
Posted by JP Burke at 8/23/2008 01:10:00 PM
Sometimes, in your rush to be a jerk, you also run afoul of the law.
Singer-songwriter Jackson Browne is suing Republican presidential nominee John McCain and the Republican party for using his song "Running on Empty" in a recent TV commercial. [...] Browne claims McCain and the party did not obtain permission to use the song for an ad in which "Senator McCain and the Republicans mock Democratic candidate for president Barack Obama for suggesting that the country conserve gas through proper tire inflation."
I'm sure the RIAA want their crack at McCain, too. Don't hold your breath.
They'll blame some staffer who chose the song, but remember: McCain's voice is on that ad saying "I approve this message."
A group of self-described anarchists threatening to disrupt the Democratic National Convention is promising to go away if the $50 million federal grant that Denver received to pay for convention security is invested in the community instead.
"Spending $50 million on weaponry to attack people voicing their opinion and flooding the streets with riot police while schools close down, children go without health care and people lose their homes is exactly the problem with the corrupt two-party system we're opposing this August."
Hey...assclown...you oppose all "systems"...you're an anarchist...maybe you should look that up. And whatshisnameinthevideo's talk of anarchists being for a "grass roots democracy in the streets" is equally asinine in a country of 300 million people. Or 3000 people for that matter.
Personally, I think none of you got any yarbles and you're all a bunch of narcissists who aren't bent on doing anything but talking about how unhappy you are.
The Justice Department found that under hack appointee Alberto Gonzales, hirings put political affiliation above other considerations.
Monday's report singles out the department's former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, for violating federal law and Justice Department policy by discriminating against job applicants who weren't Republican or conservative loyalists.
''Goodling improperly subjected candidates for certain career positions to the same politically based evaluation she used on candidates for political positions,'' the report concludes.
The NYT story here.
This hack administration is putting liberal conspiracy theory blogs out of business by filling the news with more outrageous stuff than any moonbat could come up with. Except with investigations and evidence.
Technorati : check with your political officer
In case you haven't been around since, oh, forever, Ben Stein has completely "lost the plot".
I shouldn't be surprised, but really - is that all you've got? Large, enthusiastic crowds at your acceptance speech makes you a nazi/fascist?
McCain was hoping and praying that Obama's trip to Iraq would result in some sort of gaffe that he could capitalize on to gain some traction in the American press. Up to now, McCain's campaign has been dead boring. His policies are warmed over from the Bush Administration and do not connect with a population asking to change the horrible course we've been on. And McCain just seems generally out of touch when he chooses advisers who have no compassion for the plight of the citizen who is now feeling the crunch of a struggling American economy.
Instead of a gaffe, Obama got statements from Malaki indicating that 16 months was a good target for withdrawal -- basically endorsing Obama's position on Iraq. Despite "clarifications" encouraged by the Bush administration, Malaki's claim was that he who wants the quicker withdrawal understands the Iraq situation better.
Worse for McCain, he's the one making foreign blunders while he putters around here in the states.
He's referred repeatedly to nonexistent countries and a nonexistent border between Pakistan and Iraq.
McCain supporters who are complaining that Obama is getting more coverage (if it were true) should consider it a blessing for McCain.
I am encouraged by Republican complaints of media bias (pull the plank out of your eye, dudes) because to me, it sounds like they're preparing their excuses before a crushing defeat. Bring on the language of losers, even if it is a little early.
Conservatives crying foul because the New York Times didn't publish McCain's attack against Obama can have their moment of whining, but the fact is that the New York Times offered the forum to McCain if only he'd actually define his own position in more concrete terms, rather than airy fist-shaking. Instead of respond with an Op-Ed, they put the crayons away and ushered in Fox and Drudge to do their "liberal bias" song and dance.
Yeah. In a time of crisis, that's more of what America needs. Some leadership, that.
Posted by JP Burke at 7/22/2008 02:53:00 PM
At least, according to McCain.
WTF? Sometimes I can't believe the stuff these people try to pass off as logic, but what's more unbelievable is the people who swallow it.
Witch hunt. Bah.
Posted by Maggie at 7/22/2008 10:35:00 AM
The Boston Globe has a "What If" tool for playing with the different demographics in the presidential election. Here I've embedded just one aspect of it in which you can play with the effect of the black vote. Check it out. You can look at other demographics (in combination).
Posted by JP Burke at 7/21/2008 03:43:00 PM
Deep down, Republicans who can't face up to how they've screwed the country are lashing our and trying to justify holding on to executive power.
The stink of desperation is never attractive. Republican supporters this year are like the boyfriend who, when you've finally come to your senses and decided to leave him tosses away the façade of affection and throws the kitchen sink of fear and ominous pronouncements at you -- never quite threatening but you get the message just the same.
|If you elect a Democrat, the terrorists will attack!||"Nobody will keep you safe like I will."|
|Liberals are not patriotic!|| |
"He will never love you like I love you."
|"That's not change you can believe in!"||"You want someone new? I can get a haircut!|
|"It's only a mental recession."||"We don't have any problems, baby. Our relationship is great!"|
They are freaking out (see this outrageous billboard for an example), and it's not going to get better for them any time soon.
The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."Beyond words, really. Send the asshole to Gitmo.
He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.
Dear Everyone as Bewildered as I am,
The constitution burns to ash in front of you,the people know what you are up toYour sins, will come back on you .
Mission accomplished, bitches.
Posted by DRock at 7/10/2008 05:48:00 AM
Some dirt about McCain:
The wife John McCain callously left behind
I just skimmed it to learn about his first wife. I hesitated to post such an opinionated story but his backstory hasn't been publicized much elsewhere and I doubt it will be.
Speaking of backstory, this Big Picture post has some compelling photographs, including the moment McCain was captured in Vietnam. That Big Picture weblog is amazing if you haven't already checked it out.
I love the new description of McCain as "Extra Crispy McCain." It's great that he comes in two flavors, but it's unfortunate that they're all out of the Original at the moment.
Original or Crispy? Kentucky Fried Chicken lets you pick original or crispy. So does McCain. Original McCain told reporters in New Hampshire: "I would not support repeal of Roe versus Wade." The new, crispy McCain recently said: "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."
Much better than "flip flopper."
Senator John McCain's presidential campaign has gone through its second shake-up in a year as Mr. McCain, responding to Republican concerns that his candidacy was faltering, put Steve Schmidt in charge of day-to-day operations and abandoned an effort to have the campaign run by 11 regional managers, the senator's aides said Wednesday.
Mr. Schmidt is a veteran of President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign and he worked closely with Karl Rove, who was Mr. Bush's political adviser.
So much for McCain distancing himself from the Bush machine.
Posted by JP Burke at 7/02/2008 06:19:00 PM
Obama kicked off his Florida campaign on Saturday night. Perhaps to to commemorate the occasion, an apparent Clinton supporter in Orlando went on a vandalism spree, spray-painting racial slurs and dopey, misspelled messages about Obama (such as "Obama smoks crack") on city and private vehicles, possibly tampering with gas tanks, and leaving notes on windshields expressing support for Senator Clinton. Some stories report that there were also anti-McCain remarks.
Similar cards had been left on windshields in Daytona a few weeks ago.
It seems to me like an odd time to put Obama and McCain down and express support for Clinton, but maybe this nut (or can of mixed nuts) had some other weird motive in mind.
I could guess, but my elaborate, deranged, borderline-sociopathic theories are usually wrong.
Do you know what the price of gas is? Do you think the price of gas is important?
You can't make this stuff up.
What kind of president will John McCain be were he to be elected? The kind who doesn't care whether you can afford to drive to work.
Posted by JP Burke at 6/29/2008 02:20:00 PM
Remember the ridiculous uproar over Michelle Obama's statement:
"for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback,"
The first lady defended her statement, but right wing attack dogs (including Cindy "Stay Classy" McCain) called her unpatriotic for it.
Oopsie. Now it turns out that McCain said in an interview with Sean Hannity that he didn't love America until he was a POW.
"I really didn't love America until I was deprived of her company." - John McCain
He's trying to make a point in the same way Michelle Obama was trying to make a point about certain feelings becoming stronger as a result of circumstances.
But what's really naughty is that when Fox published the transcript of the interview on its website, the whole bit about being a POW and not loving America was missing. Orwellian much?
You can see some of the video and read the details here. If you happen to run into Cindy "Skipped Finishing School" McCain, and you're in earshot when she trashes Mrs. Obama, maybe you can remind her that John McCain didn't love America until he was a POW. That should put an end to that stupid "argument."
When McCain tries to distance himself from Bush, there is this guy who keeps getting in the way...
Technorati : McCain
Help Obama by linking to his anti-smear site from your own web page:
One of the things Democrats see in Obama is that he's more focused on solving problems than in fighting the battles of the baby boomer era and before.
Mr. Obama is a liberal, but it's not your boomer parents' liberalism that is at the heart of his appeal. He never rattles off a Clinton laundry list of big federal programs; he supports abortion rights and gay civil rights with a sunny bonhomie that makes the right's cultural scolds look like rabid mastodons. He is not refighting either side of the domestic civil war over Vietnam that exploded in his hometown of Chicago 40 years ago this summer, long before he arrived there.
This Frank Rich article offers some good insight into the cluelessness revealed during Tuesday's speeches. And highlights some things that made Maggie and me cringe when we watched McCain's scary speech.
Mr. McCain is so far proving an exceptionally clumsy candidate prone to accentuating everything that's out-of-touch about his American vision.
Mr. McCain's speech in a New Orleans suburb on Tuesday night spawned a cottage industry of ridicule, even among Republicans. The halting delivery, sickly green backdrop and spastic, inappropriate smiles, presumably mandated by some consultant hoping to mask his anger, left the impression that Mr. McCain isn't yet ready for prime-time radio.
This Washington Post article Strategy Was Based On Winning Delegates, Not Battlegrounds analyzes the reasons why Obama's strategy prevailed in the end. And when it comes to delegates two more states can be removed from Hillary Clinton's column. Obama edged her in Nevada 13 to 12 and tied her in New Hampshire 9 to 9. It's difficult to verify these totals now on most poltical websites because they have adjusted the totals to award Edwards' delegates to Obama.
You know, I bet there are a lot of people who are "open" to being Obama's VP, but have chosen to express their interest discreetly.
I don't know what to make of someone who leans out of her chair, waving her hand in the air, yelling "pick me, pick me." (Or one who has her henchmen do that on her behalf.)
There's been a lot of talk among the TV pundits today about her wanting to save face. Is an Arnold Horshack impression a good way to do that?
Dear Jay Severin (& other Conservo-puppets),
Firstly, I completely understand why you are on the radio. You are a horrible elfishly ugly excuse for a human. I'm appalled at your face, but I'm disgusted by what you say and how you speak. Secondly, when you speak I can hear the clicking of your tongue and saliva from the back and sides of your mouth, and it churns my stomach. I dislike you more than I dislike Michele McPhee. I have collected data, however, on how well a host speaks versus how good looking a host is, on your station:
Jay, I see that you are a full 24+ hours late to the puppet party. You found that it is now your turn to give Dunkin' Donuts and Rachel Ray hell for being TERRORIZTZ (that's an internet terrorist, because the internet automagically replaces S's with Z's)! But you didn't just play the role of an unforgiving ignoramus, pushing stupidity to all of your listeners... you took this opportunity to propagate pure hatespeech. Pure and unrelenting hatespeech. You did an awesome job at making sure you didn't get fired though. I see what you did there. You quoted something you referred to as "Amos and Islam", and as of now, I cannot find the source of this. But you used this writing to propagate hatred by quoting it and making clear you don't disagree with it. Presumably to save your own ass from being fired, as you pointed out almost happened the last time you did this.
In your re-reading you quote such things as making it OK to strip search, randomly scrutinize, deport and jail any Middle Eastern looking person. Why? As you put it, not quoting, so they could go back to where they came from and tell their kids to be nice to white people. Why? Because they are overwhelming us in their "demography" by "reproducing" way more. They are politically taking over, as you put it. Your "source" at the FBI informed you, and you thankfully informed us, that there are way more Jihadists than we can imagine in this country, hiding, being harbored, and about to bomb Fenway Park.
You propogandick. You use sensational tactics like pointing out how me and my family will become victims of murderous, ruthless Islamists, and then follow it by telling me it will be at Fenway Park (like 7 fucking times), and most likely on opening day (by the way, that was a while ago). You are sick and twisted, Jay.
You make me so angry that I haven't even gotten to the fucking scarf.
And to display your proud and seemingly limitless knowledge of Islamic and Middle Eastern societies, practices and laws - you made it clear that they ALL (as you put it), think women are less than donkeys. You followed that on the coattails of Amos' explanation about how Islamic culture excludes half the worlds population - women. NO WRONG FAIL! Some, not all still limit the activity of women in utterly disgusting ways. Not all. Not even close. And by the way - "they" aren't the only ones.
You then follow this with a story you read in the NY Post (Times?) about a Belgian woman, who is a "Muslim Extremist". She doesn't bomb or kill on her own, she uses the internet (now with more than 100 websites!) to preach and spread the hatred of Al-Qaeda. This "disgusting pig" as you put it, is a shame, and the NY Post (Times?) should reveal where she lives, so that... "special forces can invade this pigs home, extract all the information they can from her and shoot her dead on the spot."
You put the ass in class, Jay. Because clearly, the only people in the world calling for the death of people unlike them on the behalf of religion is Al-Qaeda, right? Definitely not these folks. Or these, or them or this guy. No one else - ever in the history of anything.
So how did we get here, Jay? Because Rachel Ray wore a scarf in a Dunkin' Donuts commercial. And because you're 24+ hours behind every other lunatic. You are such a puppet. You're from New York, but you said that Dunkin' Donuts has the best bagels you've ever had.
Look, I've been to New Jersey, and even they have better bagels than Dunkin' Donuts, so I'm going to assume that if New Jersey can make awesome bagels, New York must, by association of greasy haired-open shirted assholes, make better bagels than Dunkin' Donuts. You're so proud of Dunkin' Donuts and the actions they took to take the ad away - because it was just outright "distasteful and offensive". Stick to baking cookies with the other elves. They don't have scarves.
Well Jay, I've done some research for you. I found those terrorists in America you're talking about:
Laura Bush: Scarforist!
Small Child at Terrorist Training camp, presumably somewhere cold!
NOT YOU TEDDY!
I want this ad back in the interwebz as fast as possible. I hate Rachel Ray - she's annoying - but she has the right to wear any fucking scarf she feels like when pushing caffeine and hashbrowns into my face.
Apparently these are one the of issues I should be concerned with: American's with scarves.
PS: I apologize for not having linked the sources of what was being read - I can't find them. If anyone can find them, I'll link them immediately (NY Post, Amos).
EDIT: Dr. Momentum's got a take on this business. However, it managed to escape the blogodome (think Tina Turner, inter-tubes, and cats the spell things incorrectly) and it hit the radio waves.
Exposing the California Republican Party's priorities: While thousands of teachers are getting pink slips, the Republicans are supporting an appalling tax loophole for yacht purchases. That's why the Courage Campaign is calling the Republicans the "Yacht Party".
Tonight's primaries are likely to be a 50/50 split. Literally, with about 50 delegates going to each candidate (51 for Kentucky, 52 for Oregon).
So the real news on the delegate front may be elsewhere. Obama picked up 2 super-delegates to Clinton's 1 today. That's business as usual. More interesting is that 10 out of 18 pledged super-delegates for Edwards will now vote for Obama.
That means Obama's total delegate lead is inching up towards 200.
The NBC NEWS counts:
PLEDGED: Obama 1,602 to 1,444
SUPERDELEGATES: Obama 304.5 to 280.5
EDWARDS PL. DELEGATES: Obama 10 to 0
TOTAL: Obama 1,916.5 to 1,724.5 (Obama +192)
Dear Ted Kennedy,
Don't you quit on us now. This country, and more specifically, this state, needs you and your near invincibility, and presumed immortality. At least until November, granted we get ourselves some Democrat action.
Look, a seizure is nothing. You cheated death in a plane crash, car accident, and your family curse.
I'm glad we had this talk, get well soon.
Dear Michele McPhee et al of 96.9 WTKK,
So, Michele, consistently you claim that you are a life long democrat. You, however, have shown no support for the democrats, current and former. Your beliefs seem to be mostly aligned with Neo-conservatism more than anything. A false sense of "conserving". What exactly are you conserving, anyways? Is if the finances of America? We're pissing away $5000 a second. The time it takes me to finish this, the country would have spent nearly $100,000 dollars. Fucking awesome. Is it Christian-centric religious conservatism? Because you've got the gayest party in the world. Since 1980, by my count there were 16 Republican based sex scandals, 10 Democrat. Of the sex scandals, most were "extra marital". The Republicans, however, being very conservative, conserved themselves into new families almost immediately, instead of sticking by their families. Of these 26, 15 caused divorce, illegitimate children, were forceful, with children or homosexual in nature. Of these 15, 12 are Republican based. Also, to note, of these 15, some include overlap, like soliciting young boys (Word up, Foley!).
Before I get into the trigger of this tirade, let me begin with some blurbs about how you roll:
- Jeremiah Wright is still "relevant" in everything you say
- But crazy Hagee isn't?
- Considering most are made in China, wouldn't that make most people Chinese patriots?
- Somehow you have "statistics" "committed to memory" of how many firefighters, police officers, etc... have died because of 9/11
- Even though you type like a fucking Clydesdale, clod-hopping its way through a Texas Roadhouse, crushing peanut shells along the way. Dummy.
Today, Saturday May, 17, 2008, you spewed your rhetoric beyond a point I could not withstand anymore.
As an aside, I listen to you and your station for humor purposes, only. I find it hysterical, albeit frightening, that you and your listeners believe and think some of the things you believe.
Case 1: A gentleman called today, made the "strong claim" that social security in this country is collapsing because we're not having enough children. And since we don't have enough children, all of our jobs go to illegal immigrants. You didn't disagree. You only refuted that we (as a country, or state) don't have enough children and that social security is collapsing IN PART because of corruption. Yes, the solution to social security is to fuck (literally) ourselves (each other?) into being a super power, again. Unemployment is increasing, the dollar is falling and the divergence between socio-economic status is becoming larger. Lines are no longer blurred. Immigrants are to blame?
Case 2: So, today on your show, you continued to harp on the fact that Obama cannot be President, simply because he doesn't respect women due to his "sweetie" comment. You stuck to your guns and insisted that the comment itself is the problem. But, when a caller called in and implied that the real problem is that this is a non-issue with too much focus, you magically agreed and then claimed that you're tired of the sweetie comments taking precedence over issues like "Protecting America". Moments later, another called swayed you back to spewing that "Sweetie" itself was the problem. Because it was like "patting her on the head". Just because you can't remember things during a commercial break, doesn't mean others don't. You have single-handedly demonstrated the ease of which flip-flopping can be observed within Neo-con circles.
Case 3: Your continuance of spewing forth anti-Democrat (for the most part, anti-Obama) rhetoric came at the culmination that Obama was more in the wrong for slipping up and saying "57 States" recently, than McCain was for confusing Sunni's with Shiites. To be brutally honest, if we had a presidential candidate that couldn't count to 7, or manged to speak beyond 5 word phrases (perhaps you should run, Michele?) that could easily identify and NOT confuse "those we're fighting against", I would vote for them over any candidate from the Republicans (and similar groups, including Hilla-crats). Why? As the commander-in-chief it is ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL that they can identify with NO confusion exactly who we're supposed to be fighting and supporting.
Case 4: Or how about when Obama "presumed" he was being attacked via Bush's Knesset speech? It disgusted you that Obama believed it was him. How about getting to the real point? That someone so ignorant and insensitive, and grandson to a Nazi sympathizer, would mention Nazi's, when giving a speech to Israei Jews.
Are these really the issues? Somehow you, and everyone in your circle believe the country needs to be brought together, by fighting terrorism, with only the best damn candidate ever: John W. McBush, Alzheimer's Superhero. We can't have any crazy "elitists" like Obama and Joe Kennedy running around, hugging up to Chavez. I mean, how dare someone be so elite that they provide struggling families with FREE FUCKING HEATING OIL. Instead of raising the price of oil and lying about shortages. Maybe you're right, it is elite to support struggling families with healthcare, food and heat - because no one else is doing it.
I love freedom of speech, but I truly hope that the Democrats can pull of the constitution based destruction and dismantling of conservative radio.
Michele, you create bold-faced lies and support the most destructive force to this country that it has ever seen: Itself. Your entire life, now revolves around avoiding real issues, creating fake issues and convincing the ignorant, weak-minded, swing voters, and Anti-gay Jesus-crazy that the best thing for this country is to trust the current regime.
How can you sleep at night? I assume quite well, because you are socially, cognitively and mentally deficient. Haven't you grown tired of saying the same things over and over again? How long can you ride the Go-Go Reagan-naut coattails? You, your friends, and people like you are destroying this country.
This country is on the verge of a serious EPIC FAIL! Science = evil wizardry. Gay = disease. Guns = AWESOME. Education = "No one is left behind when everyone is left behind". Math = TOO HARD. Stem cells = Not in God's plan. NASCAR = End all be all of entertainment.
I invite anyone and everyone to explain to me the issues, and convince me one way or another what the best things for this country is, and exactly who I should support and why. But, please note, that your opinion is probably wrong.
By now, you've heard that Bush went to Israel and attacked Obama from afar (not by name, but that defense only convinced the extremely credulous). The attack is the usual Republican guilt-by-analogy. If you can't attack someone on the facts, you just say "they're like the Nazis" or "they're like the people who appeased the Nazis." The great thing about this tactic is that you can say anything you want -- make any analogy you want. It can be as groundless as you like, so long as you can get the whole echo chamber to repeat it.
In the coming months, remember this as one more example of how Bush and McCain are reading from the same script. If you vote for McCain, you're voting for a Bush 3rd term. McCain will have to enumerate all the ways he's different from Bush. Some of those will be manufactured, and the unspoken fact behind any such list is that pretty much everything he doesn't mention is all Bush all the time. This was a conscious metamorphosis on his part. Issue after issue, McCain has adopted, even embraced the Bush worldview. You can pick on minor differences, but it's that twisted worldview that earned Bush his unpopular status by way of leaving the country a mess.
Back to this specific story, after Bush used his elected pulpit to travel abroad and launch a purely political attack (it's good to be the King, eh?) McCain wasted no time jumping on Bush's coattails.
But wait! It turns out that if you scratch McCain, there's bullshit underneath. As recently as two years ago, McCain expressed his view that we're going to need to deal with Hamas through diplomats.
[...] given his own position on Hamas, McCain is the last politician who should be attacking Obama. Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:
I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"
McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy toward Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
Today, McCain wants you to ignore his previously expressed views and accept his constantly-shifting foreign policy. Fine, Senator McCain; you're trying so hard to be Bush 2.0 falling all over yourself. This was your chance to be honest and distance yourself from a Bush clumsy political attack. Instead, you want Bush-McCain to be firm in our minds. Have it your way.
For purely entertainment purposes, here's a fun video of Chris Matthews putting the screws to a NeoCon who wants to scream his head off over how horrible Obama is, but he has no idea what his analogy actually meant. This video really started to crack me up about halfway through. Literally, I laughed out loud.
Apparently, congressional Republicans have a new slogan in the run up to the election.
"The Change You Deserve!"
My first reaction to this is that they're finally acknowledging that the recession has left many people scrambling for that loose change in the back of the couch or perhaps between seat cushions on the bus. As far as the government's concerned, that change is yours to keep! You deserve it! Good luck making the rent.
But it turns out that "The Change You Deserve" is already the slogan for the antidepressant Effexor.
Is this an acknowledgement of all the anguish and suffering that Republican "leadership" has put us through, or is it a misguided solution to a predicted economic depression? Effexor may be effective for emotional problems, but they'll have to do better than that if they want to improve the economy.
Hat tip! B.O.B. and Patti brought this story to my attention.
I'm too tired to think straight but these two news stories made me smile. Who doesn't smile at Clinton's superhuman ability to delude herself? According to Clinton, tomorrow's election in tiny West Virginia is going to be a turning point in the election. Another one. Only this time, I guess she expects things to actually turn. She thinks winning a huge percentage of the vote in a state with only 28 delegates is going to turn the superdelegates' heads. Mountain mama.
And I have to admit I get a little chuckle out of the news that Bob Barr is going to be running as the Libertarian candidate for president, and it has the Republican panties in a collective bunch. So are the debates going to be a four-way? Three old white guys and Obama. That will be sweet.
Posted by Maggie at 5/12/2008 05:37:00 PM
This morning, I saw a headline that said Obama had picked up three superdelegates and a union endorsement.
Later, the headline said it was five superdelegates. I clicked, and by the time the article came up, the headline said six superdelegates.
Just a minute ago, the headline had been updated to nine superdelegates, and Obama was one-half superdelegate shy of Clinton.
Since Obama is already way ahead in the mundanedelegate count, this isn't a huge big deal.
And yet, it's cheering me up on this otherwise extremely crappy, disappointing day.
Hey Eggheads and African Americans! Sorry I've been away from the blog for so long. But I've come across an item I think might make you LOL.
The Slate asked posters to enter the "Obama Doomsday Scenario Contest" -- a contest to imgine what kind of event would have to happen for Barack Obama to lose the Democratic Presidential nomination.
I present the winners for your perusal!
3rd place: Hillary appeals to the Supreme Court, which, based upon a 2000 ruling, decides that the candidate with fewer votes wins the election.
2nd place: Hillary Clinton must parachute into Pakistan while under heavy sniper fire, infiltrate al-Qaida using a fake beard, putty nose, and duct tape, and capture Osama Bin Laden, whilst singing the “Star Spangled Banner” with one hand over her heart and an American flag lapel pin prominently shown on her outfit. She must film all of this in HD and create a montage scored to Lee Greenwood's “God Bless the U.S.A.” Meanwhile, Barack Obama must publicly convert to Islam and change his name to Osama Hafez al-Mohammed Hussein Ayatollah Obama, while burning an American flag in the Crystal Cathedral as he replaces the crucifix with a do-it-yourself Piss Christ, while performing an abortion on the exhumed body of Terri Schiavo. He should also be naked. It should then rain frogs. That ought to do it.
—Jason in San Diego
1st place: One of the lesser-known consequences of quantum physics is an event called “quantum tunneling.” Here's how it happens: At a campaign stop in West Virginia, completely out of the blue, the aggregate wave functions of all the particles in Barack Obama's body end up instantaneously transporting him through the entire Earth and leaving him treading water somewhere in the Indian Ocean, or leaving his various particles scattered inside the mantle. The odds of this occurring are such that any macroscopic object tunneling through any barrier is highly unlikely in the lifespan of the universe, but it could occur!
Thought you fellow Eggheads would love the winner!
"I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." - John McCain
"Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. . . . Kill the sons of bitches." - G. Gordon Liddy
Not as juicy a story as watching Obama bowl?
It took a little digging but I found Barack Obama's September 2005 post on the blog Daily Kos. He suggests avoiding absolutes on both sides of the political spectrum as the only way to build a majority large enough to make real changes in this country. He expands on that point in his second book The Audacity of Hope, which I'm reading right now, and he mentions the Daily Kos discussion on page 41.
The book is quite good so far and the second chapter is an interesting summary of how the major political parties have evolved during the last fifty years.
I'll skip the obvious jokes about Bush and coloring books.
Today, I spotted "Hillary Clinton Should..." on Reddit. Some mighty fine suggestions, Google. But, what about Barack Obama? What should he do? Google said nothing in response, so I asked "Barack Obama Is..." and here is what I got:
Posted by DRock at 4/25/2008 08:07:00 PM
The Democrats Have a Nominee, so says Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal, based on two key endorsements Obama picked up after the Pennsylvania primary. Henninger's notes are far too abbreviated to make a good article but he makes a few interesting points in it.
Near the end he concludes that Democrats, dreading more Clinton administration fundraisers, will nominate the candidate who can raise his or her own money.
This LOLitics website called Pundit Kitchen looks like it's worth a visit...
The article link I saw on Yahoo regarding the primary this morning? "Clinton win tightens delegate race". She's behind by about 160 delegates. She won around 10 more than he did last night. She cut less than 10 percent of his lead in her last, best shot to make inroads. But the race "tightened"? Sheesh. The Sox have a 10 run lead, but it gets cut to 9 going into the eight innning. Oooooh. The game got tighter all of a sudden. Puh-leeze.
Wasn't Hillary the front-runner for basically a year? Why can't she close the deal?
Posted by Maggie at 4/23/2008 10:14:00 AM
I laughed, I cried, etc.
By using clips from Rocky I the creator can add an appropriate epilogue no matter who wins the Democratic nomination.
Apparently Hillary Clinton's campaign has more debt than money. Is anybody else nauseated by the amount of money spent by these campaigns? It's like a fifteen-month feeding frenzy of resources.
I guess other people are disgusted by it, or we wouldn't have calls for campaign finance reform. What a freakin' waste.
Posted by Maggie at 4/21/2008 03:45:00 PM
...and I'm tired of hearing about Clinton's "consistent 5% lead" in that state. They keep reporting it as though it's statistically significant in the grand scheme of things.
Are all members of the media still completely ignorant of how Democratic delegates are awarded? Or are they too math-impaired to understand that a 5% lead in votes will give her only a 5% lead in delegates within that state, which will still keep her at a large disadvantage nationwide?
It's as if you're reporting on some really terrible baseball team that has a slim chance of winning its next game. Go ahead and hype them if you want to, but don't report the story as though it means they have a shot at the World Series. (No matter how much they and their manager want it to mean that.)
Funny fake ad created by Slate:
In other news, Obama picks up more conservative Democrat support from Bloomberg-supporters and armed services/foreign relations heavyweights Sam Nunn and David Boren. (Carpetbagger Report)
This continues to be one of the most striking features of this campaign - the tendency of politicians who do or did make their careers on the votes of people from small towns and rural areas to come out for Obama. - (Josh Marshall in Talking Points Memo)
I've always been highly skeptical of Hillary Clinton's argument that she's a stronger candidate in rural areas and red states. But the pols who know these areas best seem to be even more confident she's wrong than I do.
Posted by JP Burke at 4/18/2008 03:06:00 PM
One of two interesting things that happened to me today when I was down in DC on business. Getting ready to leave the hotel and check out, I step into the elevator for the long trip down to the lobby. The only other person there is a young cameraman with a media pass, carrying his equipment and minding his own business.
"Off to the stadium to set up for the Pope?" I ask, assuming he's like every other media weenie crawling through the place.
"Naaah, spending the day chasing Hillary," he replies nonchalantly.
"That sounds more interesting," I comment, and mean it.
"Naaah...it's just as boring."
***Ding*** Door opens, cameraman smiles and walks out.
David Brooks gave his assessment of last night's debate in the NYT today with his article "No Whining About the Media."
His assessment is that the media did a great job, because it is their job to make the candidates uncomfortable. And if they can make Obama uncomfortable, it's a big win.
After watching the first half hour of the debate, I don't agree. And he would probably tell you I am a whiny Obama supporter, because whiny Obama supporters didn't like the questions which were asked of the candidates. But, I'm going to whine anyway.
I disagree that it's the media's job to make a candidate uncomfortable. If that were so, then they could just make them debate in wet clothes, or under a heat lamp, or with sand in their shoes. No, it's the media's job to help us understand the issues and force the candidates to face those issues. And in that process, the media should not be averse to make politicians uncomfortable. But the discomfort of candidates is a probable result of the media doing their job, not an end unto itself as David Brooks describes it.
But what about the argument that there is value in seeing the candidate's reactions when faced with opposition-party talking points because placing them under pressure is revealing?
I agree that any time you see a candidate react, you are learning something about that candidate. But am I to understand that the candidates' positions on relevant issues are unassailable? Should I accept that the only way to knock them off kilter is to elevate the issue of wearing a flag lapel pin to the same forum in which you discuss our men and women dying in another country or families that are in financial jeopardy as a result of the current administration's failed policies?
The only excuse here is laziness or sensationalism. And what we end up with is the acceptance of opposition party talking points as "news" and the all-too-familiar race to the bottom that we call national political news coverage.
If Obama supporters are not to be trusted in their assessment of the debate, and Clinton supporters are also seeing this with a partisan eye, I have to say that Brooks is suffering from his own bias which is pro-sensationalism. By all means hold their feet to the fire, but why not make it about the issues?
Posted by JP Burke at 4/17/2008 03:03:00 PM
I'm less active here than I want to be - but thesis time is almost over, so I'll be making fun of politicians and political (in)action again soon enough.
In the meantime, I would like to recommend everyone try to catch the John Adams miniseries on HBO. If you don't have HBO, find someone who does. To watch a better retelling of the revolution than I had ever seen in classes or on my own before, is inspiring. However, it is also completely depressing.
How can it be both inspiring and depressing? "John Adams" follows some of the most important patriots in our nations birth, from the eyes of the Adams family. It's very depressing because I cannot believe just how twisted the words of the forefathers has gotten. Especially in recent times and regimes.
After watching the series, it feels like we need a new revolution. It feels like the forefathers expected nothing less than another revolution or two.
Posted by DRock at 4/13/2008 04:11:00 PM
It came up Obama for me, and that was no surprise. I found this quiz on Verbatim, and I have to agree with Karen's comment that she would have liked to have seen the answers broken out by candidate. That said, if you've watched the debates you likely know where the two candidates stand on these different issues.
For most of us, it's a little late to be deciding anyhow. but I love a good quiz.
If anyone ends up with Clinton, let me know. So far, nobody I know has scored "Clinton" leading me to believe that either the test is rigged or Democrats really favor Obama's positions in a blind test. Of course, none of the questions were "Do you prefer a president who will be corrupt on day one, or do you prefer it to take a few years for your president to become cynical?"
Technorati : democrats, quiz
This is an interesting Op-Ed in the NYT. I think most Americans probably have no clue what's going on in Iraq, and the opinions probably fall either on the side of "we need a victory, we won't retreat!" to "we started it, we need to take responsibility and finish it," to "we made a huge mistake, it's costing us a huge amount of money, and we need to get out," very simplistic and general. What's going on? "The surge is working," or "the surge didn't work," or "people are dying, there's still civil war." Probably not much more. My level of understanding isn't much deeper because that is not a strong point for me, and I don't see a lot of point in trying to learn every detail of what's going on in Iraq -- I don't even know if it's possible for us to really know what's going on, because I don't know how much is reported and how much of what's reported is true.
But this op-ed piece basically says that Democrats have to stop saying that McCain wants to be in Iraq for another 100 years because it's avoiding the real issues, and the real issues are really bad. That's my summary. But the piece is replete with details about recent events that are pretty horrifying, as usual.
Posted by Maggie at 4/07/2008 04:21:00 PM
...an nationally syndicated talking head that is...
Ed Schultz, host of a nationally syndicated radio program that is based in Fargo, N.D., was warming up the crowd Friday at a $100-a-person fundraiser for the North Dakota Democratic party in Grand Forks when he tagged the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting as a "warmonger," Schultz acknowledged in a telephone interview Saturday.
Senator Obama, being the decent and intelligent individual he is, was quick to condemn the remarks.
The roles were reversed in February, when McCain quickly condemned the anti-Obama remarks of conservative talk radio host Bill Cunningham when he spoke at a McCain campaign rally. Cunningham referred repeatedly to Obama using his full name — Barack Hussein Obama — and called him a "hack, Chicago-style" politician.
So good on both of them for doing the right thing, but really - what the Hell were they thinking allowing these idiots to speak in the first place?
Screenshot from Google News:
Someone's thrilled to be on his way out!
Posted by RadioFree at 4/04/2008 08:30:00 PM
John McCain just said the government shouldn't take any real action on the housing crisis. He'd let the phone keep ringing," the narrator says. "Hillary Clinton has a plan to protect our homes, create jobs. It's 3 a.m., time for a president who's ready."
Now here's Clinton with an ad I can appreciate. And I think she's right. I'd much prefer her approach than McCain's which seems to be "let the recession come and the chips fall where they may."
We know how those chips tend to fall, don't we? They fall hardest on the people least able to handle hard times.
Bush threw out the first pitch at a Washington Nationals game, and received more than a few boos for his trouble.including The Board at the NYT site.
Watching the video made me sad. Not because Bush has to face his lack of popularity. After hiding away for so long and only speaking to vetted, friendly crowds or people who are under orders to hold their tongues, Bush ought to know what people think when he ventures outside the bubble. No, it made me sad that this guy chose such a divisive course that you can't even get away from his bad decisions at a baseball game.
If they'd wanted people to cheer, they ought to have announced him this way:
"Throwing out the first pitch is President George W. Bush, soon on his way out of the country's highest office. Let's have a round of applause."
Here's a question. Why didn't he pitch that first pitch to Lo Duca, who was opening catcher for the game? Duca was, reportedly, looking forward to catching a pitch from the president.
"It'll be cool," he said. "It's something you'll always remember."
Is it because steroids taints everything?
Dowd has a column in today's NYT entitled "The Hillary Waltz" in which she exhorts us to accept Hillary's tough campaign as a kind of crucible for Obama. After seeing Obama give an amazing speech in the wake of the Reverend Wright flap, I have to say I continue to be surprised at hoe events in a camopaign unfold.
My concern about the length of this Democratic nomination process has started to be about giving the party time to organize before the convention. But when I look at the ride Obama's had, it looks to me like he's improving as a candidate. And that can only mean good things when he eventually faces McCain, as I expect will eventually happen.
True, McCain has had some political cover during this time, because of the attention on the Democrats. But polls now and gaffs now don't matter much. McCain is already the nominee for the Republicans, so he's not going to disappear after a couple of gaffes. Mistakes are more critical during the endgame of the campaign, which is another reason why airing "dirty laundry" is best done now than later.
Of course, there is the important question of whether Democrats will be united behind their eventual nominee. I think that depends a lot on the runner up.
Democrats getting jittery about the alienating effects of the endless soap opera they call their campaign should buck up. These "hand-wringers," as the Hillary strategist Harold Ickes calls them, are not seeing the larger picture. [...]
One of the most valuable lessons the gritty Hillary can teach the languid Obama - and the timid Democrats - is that the whole point of a presidential race is to win.
It's not to share power, or force the squabbling couple into an arranged marriage. The winner wins, even if it's only by a fraction of a percentage point or one Supreme Court justice. Winning has no margin of error, as the Democrats should have learned by now. And the winner gets to decide his or her running mate.
Perhaps the problem is just that. For those of us on the sidelines, many of us would just like to see an end to the Bush legacy. Despite McCain's attempts to distance himself from the president on things that are barely on this year's issue radar screen, McCain will be a third term of Bushhit when it comes to things that are most important. And we're worried about all of the Republican chops-licking over a Hillary nomination. And some of us are just plain worried that the Democratic party may not be what we hope it could be with Hillary in the lead.
All this makes some of us pretty damn nervous. Winning has no margin of error, so forgive us a little hand wringing over here. We're looking down the barrel of another four years of ulcers. Isn't that worth a little emotion? But I do appreciate the reassurances. And I hope she is correct.
Warning: the videos in this post may be NSFW for reasons of "language." Technically, they could be broadcast on television because the language is bleeped out. I'm warning you anyhow.
Have you seen the "prank" that Sarah Silverman and Matt Damon pulled on Jimmy Kimmel? If you have, you know exactly what I'm talking about. And then you've probably also seen Jimmy Kimmel's response.
If you enjoyed those, you might love this new song:
Technorati : Clinton, Obama, humor, video