Politics with a side of Snark

Jackson and other nuts

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:39:00 -0400

When I was young and idealistic, I served on the county steering committee for the Jackson presidential campaign. Even then, however, I didn’t support Jackson because of Jackson but because of the progressive movement that had surrounded his campaign and was carrying it forward.

I was deeply offended when Jackson, in an unguarded moment, referred to New York as “hymietown.” His antisemintism was inexcusable.

But then, when he spoke at the convention, he won my heart again as he described the quilt that made up the American dream. He said, if I recall properly, that women were right when they said that they deserved equal pay for equal work. And that gay men and lesbians were right when they said they deserved to be able to live and love in peace and dignity. And workers were right when they said that their right to bargain collectively should be respected and protected. Each of these was a piece of the patchwork quilt that made up the American dream. But each was only a piece and none of them had a piece that was big enough to cover us and keep us warm. So we have to stitch together the pieces with a desire for justice and a willingness to stand up for one another. That thread would, if we let it, transform our pieces of fabric from small patches into a quilt that would cover everyone.

It was beautiful stuff.

And that is the pattern of Jesse Jackson. He is a mixture of the most base material (he admits to having a child out of wedlock during the 90s) and the most precious (consistently progressive and willing to put his body on the line). He is a tragically flawed figure.

If you had to pick a Shakespearean character to represent Jackson, his recent vile whisperings might lead you to Iago who also claimed to endorse and support Othello while whispering evil to the listening audience. But the truth is, I suspect, that Jackson is more like King Lear ranting about how ungrateful the next generation is and how they refuse to show their love through flattering speech.

I suspect Obama is secretly pleased over this latest flap. It has brought to the attention of the electorate that he isn’t afraid to be critical of African Americans and that he isn’t Jesse Jackson who, let’s face facts, hasn’t exactly won hearts and minds in the battleground states. By graciously accepting Jackson’s apology, Obama has floated above the controversy and made it clear to everyone that he is a statesman.

I think, however, that Jackson is done. Even his own son has repudiated his comments publically. “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child.”

McCains Defaulted On Home Taxes For Last Four Years, Newsweek Reports - Politics on The Huffington Post

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:44:59 -0400

McCains Defaulted On Home Taxes For Last Four Years, Newsweek Reports - Politics on The Huffington Post: First he breaks his own campaign financing laws and now this. What the heck is up with McCain?!

She’s good!

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:46:37 -0400

She’s good!

Just a few highlights of McSame's history

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:11:00 -0400

McCain Votes to Filibuster Minimum Wage Hike

McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist

Bush, McCain plug Social Security

McCain blasts Obama’s and Clinton’s attacks on NAFTA

McCain in NH: Would Be “Fine” To Keep Troops in Iraq for “A Hundred Years”

McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition

McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

McCain Defends Bush’s Iraq Strategy

With thanks to: Loaded Orygun

Leadership we can believe is W’s third term.

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:06:50 -0400

Leadership we can believe is W’s third term.

When your "last, best" just isn't good enough...

Wed, 28 May 2008 16:08:46 -0400

Hillary recent wrote to the remaining uncommitted “automatic delegates,” making her case for them to support her effort to be the nominee of the party. The letter and memo reveal a great deal about the view from inside Hillaryland. Let’s take a look at her arguments for choosing her as the Democratic nominee and see what they show.

I. Hillary Clinton Will Lead in the Popular Vote for the Democratic Nomination

Not even close to true in any meaningful sense. You see, the way this number is concocted is so convoluted that it is, frankly, kind of embarrassing that a presidential candidate would resort to using it. In order for Hillary to have the lead in the popular vote, you have to include the out-of-order election in Florida and the Soviet-style one-name-only election in Michigan. Then you have to exclude the results of four other states that conduct caucuses and then do not release official numbers for candidates — just the resulting delegate spilts. Each of these states went for Obama.

Even if you count the results of Florida and then toss in, at full value, the very suspect results of Michigan (is it an election if your opponent isn’t even on the ballot?), you have to exclude those caucus states in order for Hillary to pull ahead. Otherwise, Obama remains ahead by something like 85,000 votes.

II. Hillary has put Together a Winning Coalition of Democratic Primary Voters.

Really? To my way of thinking, the single most important characteristic of a winning coalition is that it wins.

A continuing problem that the Clinton camp has is trying to argue the general election metrics based on the primary election exit polling. This is kind of like predicting what will happen in the Super Bowl based on the results of the World Series. The coalition that Clinton references (Lantios, seniors, women and the working-class) is basically the Democratic base. A non-trivial portion of those voters are going to pull the ‘D’ lever in the end regardless of the person at the head of the ticket.

Obama’s coalition of new voters, independents, progressives, and digusted Republicans is somewhat more interesting because it isn’t the usual suspects for the Democratic party.

If it were the case that all those who vote Clinton in the primary would vote McCain in the General if Obama is the nominee, I would agree with Clinton on this point. As it is, it is at best a fatuous argument and at worst an intentionally deceptive one.

III. Hillary Clinton Has Brought More New Voters into the Process than any Other Candidate

On this one, I simply call bullshit.

It is true that more people have been registered as Democrats during this primary season than any other. But every available objective and subjective indicator shows this to be as a result of the unique qualities of the Obama campaign. The “newly registered” and “new democrat” votes have pretty consistently broken for Obama.

So, the Hillary argument becomes that more people have voted — period — this season than ever before. That’s true. Late primaries have been unexpectedly meaningful and people have voted in them because it made a difference. But this isn’t really about Hillary — unless she wants credit for being blind to the facts that have been pretty obvious since Super Tuesday. It’s more about the fact that the DNC designed a primary process that doesn’t make it easy to get a quick win when the field narrows to two candidates.

IV. The road to Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Ohio and Florida – Hillary is winning those states.

Well, this one is sort of true. If you are fighting the last two elections, they did indeed come down to Florida and Ohio. However, if you are looking at this election, it appears that Florida and Ohio aren’t as key. Obama appears to have widened the Democratic map, bringing in states like Colorado that otherwise flow Republican.

More important, however, is the fact that Hillary has such high negatives. She is seen as untrustworthy by more people than not. She has baggage. And if the primary suggests anything, it is that overtime she loses ground whereas Obama tends to gain ground — slowly, but steadily, as time goes on.

And, again, you have to assume that current polls will, in fact, be the end result in November for this to hold true. You have to believe that nothing McCain or Obama does will matter once Hillary leaves the field.

The current electoral map shows Hillary has a clear path to victory and is leading Senator McCain in electoral votes.

True.

Also true? Obama is also beating McCain. And Obama’s measure of victory has been growing as the American people get to know him. And Hillary? Well, her margin has been slowly shrinking as her… issues become more obvious.

In fact, Obama puts more states into play than Hillary, a fact that will help “down ticket” Democrats.

In summary, the case Hillary makes is dishonest, deceptive, and mostly untrue. But then, have we come to expect anything else?

When the political cartoonists start making fun of your grip on...

Wed, 28 May 2008 11:07:19 -0400

When the political cartoonists start making fun of your grip on reality, you have a serious problem.

Hillary: it's over. Honest.

Thu, 22 May 2008 10:35:00 -0400

Lately, Hillary has been comparing her epic battle to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations “as is” at the Democratic National Convention to the efforts by the Democratic party to extend the franchise to all Americans. The struggle for civil rights, the fight for women’s suffrage, and Hillary’s lone stand for the voters of FL and MI, we are to believe, are on a par.

There is, however, a problem with this narrative. You see, FL and MI both broke the rules established prior to the election by the Democratic National Committee. Now, it is true that the voters of FL and MI were not directly responsible. But their elected leaders were. And as we all know, like it or not, we voters are often held accountable for the actions of the elected leadership regardless of our personal support of their official behavior.

What’s more, attempting to count MI “as is” is even more anti-democratic (note small ‘d’) than excluding their delegation. Obama, and most other major candidates, removed their name from the ballot, leaving only Hillary to be elected in a Soviet-style “one name, one vote” election.

Neither Obama nor Hillary campaigned in FL or MI as they did in other states. And we have seen that campaigning does indeed affect voting. It might be that Hillary would have won either FL or MI. It could well be that Obamamania would have carried the day in one or both states. The point is that the voters didn’t get a chance to see the candidates and take them out for the proverbial test spin.

Hillary agreed to run for the Democratic nomination.

When she entered the race, she knew there would be caucus states. No state suddenly became a caucus state when she wasn’t looking.

When she entered the race, she knew that states that scheduled their primaries too early might be penalized or excluded. Many of her supporters were on the committee that drafted the rules in regard to this issue.

As she ran for the nomination, she said it was “clear” that MI’s primary would not be counted.

As she ran for the nomination, she signed a pledge not to campaign in FL or MI — a step not required by the Democratic National Committee but an idea cooked up in Iowa and New Hampshire as a sort of “loyalty test” to their place in the process. She signed that pledge to curry favor in Iowa and New Hampshire (so did everyone else) and she benefited from that pledge.

Now, when times are rough and it is clear that her only route to victory is to get FL and MI seated “as is,” Hillary has cast herself as the Great Enfranchiser.

It is so bogus it makes my teeth hurt.

Now, a message to the candidate…

Hillary, honestly. It’s time for a sit-down reality check. I know that having Obama come out of nowhere to take this thing from you hurts. I know that you feel that after years of serving in Bill’s shadow you deserve some respect. I totally understand how hard this is for you. You’re smarter than Bill, less flawed than Bill, and just as driven. But, Hillary, this just isn’t going to happen for you. The time, the spirit, the season, the Chief Strategist just weren’t right for you.

Hillary, you aren’t the first mighty democratic to take a run at the White House and miss. Look at Ted Kennedy. In fact, really take a look at Ted. He ran for the Oval Office and didn’t get there. He went back to the Senate and served the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States as the “liberal lion.” Kennedy may have never been President, but in the end, I think he has done more to really help people than he ever could have had he won the White House.

Hillary, go home. Sit with it for a bit. And then come out and campaign for Obama. I know it galls. I know it feels like a cheat. But, honestly, it’s what your country needs from you.

I shook hands with you once and told you that I’d rather vote for you than your husband. Maybe I feel a little responsible — like I gave you ideas or something. But now, I’m telling you that the fight is over. All you are doing is kicking our nominee in the teeth and it just doesn’t seem dignified.

Hillary, it’s over. Honest.

Your turn to snark! (Even you, Hillary, may snark here!)

I am so confused. I thought McSame didn’t employ...

Fri, 16 May 2008 16:54:44 -0400

I am so confused. I thought McSame didn’t employ lobbyists? Perhaps he only hires lobbyists who shill for mass murders?

Catch Hope - Funniest MoveOn “Obama in 30” Ad

Wed, 14 May 2008 15:47:16 -0400

Catch Hope - Funniest MoveOn “Obama in 30” Ad

An excellent summary of the media story today. Of course, the...

Wed, 07 May 2008 19:28:41 -0400

An excellent summary of the media story today. Of course, the truth is that Hillary lost this thing back in, oh, February or so. But, hey, if the media just now learned about this new tool called math, I say good on ‘em.

Hillary is 404

Wed, 07 May 2008 18:54:28 -0400

Hillary is 404

"Asked by reporters what her message was by being at the Speedway, she said: “That we need to..."

Tue, 06 May 2008 17:01:33 -0400

“Asked by reporters what her message was by being at the Speedway, she said: “That we need to get on the track in America.” “If you want to go forward, you put it in D. If you want to go backward, you put it in R,” Clinton said.”

- Okay, I may be totally pissed at her, but that’s a great line.

My Way News - Clinton, Obama battle in Indiana, North Carolina primaries

Two Wrights do make a wrong

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:07:00 -0400

It is always interesting to observe someone out of their usual context. I can remember as a child being stunned to see one of my teachers in the grocery store. It seemed so odd that she would need to buy food for her family in the same place and manner that my mother bought food for us. It was disconcerting to see her as a person rather than as a teacher.

There are a few professions in the United States where the trappings of the work give the individual an experience of near universal respect an admiration. Imagine, for example, being a judge and having people rise as you enter a room, being called “your honor” and having near-tyrannical control over your environment with your wishes enforced by the full might of the law. It’s heady stuff.

And so, too, may the life of a pastor be heady stuff. Pastors, priests, ministers — whatever — all experience the same sort of near universal respect and admiration. People who disagree with a minister once s/he is settled in place, usually depart without much fuss and those that remain have self-selected for their high opinion of the pastor. The pastor preaches on Sunday and his words are given careful consideration. He is praised for his insightfulness and wisdom. He is told that his words were inspiring, life-changing, and moving. In every circumstance in his usual work, he is surrounded by people who respect him as a wiser, more spiritual voice.

Now, imagine a Judge taken off the bench and expected to fend for him/herself in… oh, let’s say, MTV’s Real World. You’d probably find yourself with a very irate, irrational, and nasty person in short order.

Now, go watch the video of Wright not during the Moyers interview (where the trappings of respect and careful attention were present) nor, actually, during the presentation at the National Press Club where he was still delivering a sermon. But watch him during the question and answer period. It is clear that Wright didn’t enjoy facing critical, even hostile questions. He was dismissive, irritable, and increasingly irrational.

I have no idea why Wright thought going on a Media offensive would be a good idea. I can tell you that it wasn’t. No one who isn’t professionally counseled should try to jump into the shark tank that is our national media. Wright, however, has been listening to parishioners tell him for 20 years how moving his words were and how his preaching changed their hearts. I suspect he thought that if he just could have a chance to work his magic on the press, they’d see that he wasn’t just not a bad guy, but come around to his way of thinking like everyone else.

Except, the national media weren’t members of his church and they didn’t come to see things Wright’s way at all.

"A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the..."

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:36:32 -0400

“A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran - should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.”

- Hillary Strangelove - The Boston Globe

via www.pollster.com, based on an early March state-by-state...

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:26:49 -0400

via www.pollster.com, based on an early March state-by-state survey by SurveyUSA.

Isn’t this the best argument for super delegates?

"It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she..."

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:05:41 -0400

“It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.”

- The Low Road to Victory - New York Times, April 23, 2008

Clintonball: closing the deal in the right place at the right time

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:27:00 -0400

Do you remember the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes? I think Hillary is getting her political talking points from the ever-changing rules of Calvinball. As soon as she fails in a metric she has previously touted, the rules change and a new metric becomes the only one that matters.

It was difficult last night to watch as Clinton’s surrogates explained that the only state in the nation that mattered in a Democratic primary was Pennsylvania. The twisted logic that suggests that we should ignore the fact that Obama leads in delegates, in pledged delegates, in the popular vote, and in contests won is just plain insulting to those of us who pay attention. It’s even beginning to insult the intelligence of the mainstream media — and these days, that’s hard to do.

Hillary just won in Pennsylvania. As she has been expected to do from the very start of the campaign. Her family has deep roots in the state (as she pointed out at every opportunity). The governor, who is very popular, endorsed her and used his considerable political machine to help her. Obama walked into the state nearly 30 points down. The fact that it was a 9.4-9.6% win by Clinton suggests that once the Obama organization is unleashed, they really can make a difference.

But what the Clinton camp is now asking (and presumably asking in an appeal to the super-delegates who are her only hope) is “Why can’t Obama close the deal?”

I’ll give Hillary this: she has balls.

The candidate who is behind in the popular vote, behind in the delegate count, behind in the “we elected ‘em they damn well vote as told” delegate count, behind in the total number of contests won by a factor of 30 to 14 and whose campaign’s financial state is precarious at best is asking why the other candidate can’t close?

If Hillary is such an all-fired, good candidate for the general election, why can’t she win using one of the various rule-sets she has previously promoted?

Hillary doesn’t need to just drop out of the race today, she needs to rethink the place she wants to occupy in American history.

Look, what’s next is North Carolina and Indiana. I’m betting Hillary has less than $7 million to spend which means she’ll have to pick a state. Obama has a lock on North Carolina, so she’ll go for Indiana. I’m betting that doesn’t pay for her so great and Obama takes North Carolina with “super-majority, extra delegate winning” wiggle room. What will Hillary say then?

Maybe she’ll finally get down to her real argument which is, at heart, “I’m entitled to this, damn it! You owe me!”

Public financing

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:36:00 -0400

The mainstream media are currently echoing John McCain’s talking point that Obama may be backing out of a promise to conduct a publicly financed campaign if he is the nominee.

However, Obama never made such a promise. He did say that he would strive to reach such an agreement with the Republican nominee if he were to win the nomination.

But right now, such an agreement seems impossible because John McCain has opted in to the public financing system, using the system to secure a loan to keep his campaign afloat in the days when people thought he was done. But once he became the nominee, McCain promptly attempted to un-opt, something which is generally not permitted once a candidate has benefited from the opt-in (in this case, by being able to use the system as collateral in obtaining a loan).

Ironically, the provisions of the law that McCain is currently violating were part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. You’d think he’d be able to obey a law he wrote at least, no?

Obama may not be eager to get into an agreement with law breaker McCain, whose record is somewhat tarnished. But surely, McCain deserves the majority of the blame. The straight talker just isn’t talking straight.

Your turn to snark!

The costs of war

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:21:39 -0400

The Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress has released some useful data regarding the cost of the Iraq war.

Here are some highlights. The war costs:

$434 million per day, which is

$3.05 billion per week, which is

$13.2 billion per month, which is

$160 billion per year.

And remember, most of this funding is happening as emergency supplementary funding, which means that we’re slowly selling our country to China in order to finance this war.

But since most of us have never spent $434 million in a day, the Committee has helped us out with some examples of how this money could have been spent.

The cost of one day in Iraq would allow us to hire over 9,000 police officers. Or we could enroll over 155,000 children in Head Start programs. Or we could give over 330,000 uninsured children health insurance.

There are real costs to this war beyond the lives of the American men and women killed in Iraq and the lives of innocent Iraqis lost in the chaos we unleashed.