Friday, March 14, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Might This Have Something To Do With Why Obama Doesn't Say the Pledge???
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1
"In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism. "
"Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."
Obama has been a member of this church for twenty years. He was married there. His kids were baptized there. He even credits the minister for giving him the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."
Whats that you say? Obama's church affiliation should matter? I don't know. I'd be a little concerned with a President who spent 20 years under the tutelage of somebody who continually preached against America....
"In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism. "
"Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."
Obama has been a member of this church for twenty years. He was married there. His kids were baptized there. He even credits the minister for giving him the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."
Whats that you say? Obama's church affiliation should matter? I don't know. I'd be a little concerned with a President who spent 20 years under the tutelage of somebody who continually preached against America....
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Culled From the Forums in Aintitcool.com
Regarding South Park's start of their new season tonight on Comedy Central:
"I'll be watching tonight. Last season was the best they've had since season 7 or so. They finally stopped preaching on political hot topics and returned to the characters, where South Park's charm truly lies. Now if they'll just drop the lame man-bear-pig crap."
- Some Anonymous Poster
"I'll be watching tonight. Last season was the best they've had since season 7 or so. They finally stopped preaching on political hot topics and returned to the characters, where South Park's charm truly lies. Now if they'll just drop the lame man-bear-pig crap."
- Some Anonymous Poster
NYT Headline: "Maker's Mark Throws in Towel; Blames Youthful Romance; K.O.T.R. Marshall Forces"
Maker's Mark has thrown in the towel.
Interestingly, I believe that H-Town Jenny battles on vigorously, but alas, she is made of stronger mettle.
The Knights of the Republic will continue to battle on as well.
I believe the first chink in Maker's Mark's armor became evident when I phased him hardcore with the glacial ice-cap trend video a few weeks ago.
There he was, eating his usual breakfast of free-range, carbon-neutral eggs, "Obama-Bites" cereal (caramel nuggats in a vanilla and chocolatey swirl), and fruit-enfused latte, peering over his fresh copy of the New York Times towards his laptop (appropriately, an Apple) to see Johnny Walker Red's pithy, mercilous missive.
With a shuddering spasm his mind could not fathom the images and words that assuaulted him.
Screaming hysterically he bolted out of the house, pell-mell, arms and legs akimbo, and ran down the street, sheding clothing (and his last fragments of lucidity), in his wake.
He was found hours later, behind a Quick-E-Mart, naked and covered in moss and filth, sucking his thumb, repeatedly mumbling, "....the man....the bear....the pig.....the man...the bear....the pig....."
Of Bush and Filters
Is George Bush a liar? Although this is not my primary complaint about his administration, yeah, I think he probably is. I am under the impression that his administration lies mostly after the fact, by reframing issues and pretending they haven’t said things that they previously said in order to make their really upsetting actions seem a little less upsetting. A lot of times they let their press secretaries do it for them, like when they let Scott McClellan repeatedly insist that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby weren’t involved in the Valerie Plame leak.
Then there are the lies that are designed to create a favorable political environment in which they can achieve their strategic objectives. A study by two nonprofit journalism groups determined that seven top officials including Bush, Cheney, and Rice made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the 2 years after 9/11. Now, I haven’t investigated this for myself, and it’s possible that was politically motivated. So let’s just give them half, for argument’s sake. That’s still a lot. For example: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
Now, I know that some Fox folk believe that he really did have them and they were somehow hidden or removed, and others like to mention that people from other countries thought Iraq had WMD too, but this brings us back to a really important issue raised by Jim Beam: the filter.I would like to say a lot more about the filter,and I will, but maybe not here. Normally I get paid to write this much.
Finally, about the lying: there are a lot more examples similar to this, especially via the press secretaries. Here are a few more that you can check out and see if you think they are valid. It is my impression that he has changed his tune repeatedly about what our objectives in Iraq were supposed to have been, after the WMD thing fell through. But that may just be my filter. I will readily admit that have one too, especially in recent years. My filter was not allowed to function properly during my long years in the PCA, as I was consistently reminded of how my brethren in the church viewed people who hold my political opinions. There were other democrats among us, including at least one in church leadership, but we were so rare as to be notable. Now that I am an Episcopalian there is a lot more cultural, social and political diversity. Which is such a relief.
I have to help take the Pre K class to a stage presentation of GO DOG GO, one of my favorite children's books ever, so I have to go dog go myself now. Bye.
Then there are the lies that are designed to create a favorable political environment in which they can achieve their strategic objectives. A study by two nonprofit journalism groups determined that seven top officials including Bush, Cheney, and Rice made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the 2 years after 9/11. Now, I haven’t investigated this for myself, and it’s possible that was politically motivated. So let’s just give them half, for argument’s sake. That’s still a lot. For example: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
Now, I know that some Fox folk believe that he really did have them and they were somehow hidden or removed, and others like to mention that people from other countries thought Iraq had WMD too, but this brings us back to a really important issue raised by Jim Beam: the filter.I would like to say a lot more about the filter,and I will, but maybe not here. Normally I get paid to write this much.
Finally, about the lying: there are a lot more examples similar to this, especially via the press secretaries. Here are a few more that you can check out and see if you think they are valid. It is my impression that he has changed his tune repeatedly about what our objectives in Iraq were supposed to have been, after the WMD thing fell through. But that may just be my filter. I will readily admit that have one too, especially in recent years. My filter was not allowed to function properly during my long years in the PCA, as I was consistently reminded of how my brethren in the church viewed people who hold my political opinions. There were other democrats among us, including at least one in church leadership, but we were so rare as to be notable. Now that I am an Episcopalian there is a lot more cultural, social and political diversity. Which is such a relief.
I have to help take the Pre K class to a stage presentation of GO DOG GO, one of my favorite children's books ever, so I have to go dog go myself now. Bye.
The Knights of the Republic are victorious
I'm sure no one believes me anymore, nor should they, based on my previous assertions, but I really need to get out of this blog. It's become a huge time-waster for me and not all that fun. Maybe it started to be lame when my dad, and then Jenny, and then Chad, and even Jim Beam, all started to disappear, or fade away; maybe it was the man-bear-pigs; maybe it was my own fault for starting fights. Maybe it was waking up and having to look at George Bush's face and Walker's preposterous challenge.
In any case, this relationship reminds me of some of the girlfriends I've had in the past: lots and lots of time and emotional energy spent on a relationship that is actually quite stressful and aggravating. This blog used to be cute and fun and exciting, but now I just feel like a jerk all the time. Takes me right back to my emotional state during my college years. And most people will tell you, oh gentle readers, that while I can sometimes act like a real jerk, that is not my defining quality.
I have just handed Walker the admin privileges and revoked my own. Carry on Walker! Fight the fight! You and your Knights of The Republic now rule the roost. I'm sure I'll keep posting, because every doomed dating relationship has it's fitful, last gasp hook-ups, but I think Texelection and I need to move on.
You can have your vial of blood back.
In any case, this relationship reminds me of some of the girlfriends I've had in the past: lots and lots of time and emotional energy spent on a relationship that is actually quite stressful and aggravating. This blog used to be cute and fun and exciting, but now I just feel like a jerk all the time. Takes me right back to my emotional state during my college years. And most people will tell you, oh gentle readers, that while I can sometimes act like a real jerk, that is not my defining quality.
I have just handed Walker the admin privileges and revoked my own. Carry on Walker! Fight the fight! You and your Knights of The Republic now rule the roost. I'm sure I'll keep posting, because every doomed dating relationship has it's fitful, last gasp hook-ups, but I think Texelection and I need to move on.
You can have your vial of blood back.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Sheesh!
Don't you guys have jobs? I can't keep up with all this. Later, though, when I get a second, I will have something to post that the conservatives will love. Start waiting on pins and needles now!
Global Warming is a myth, and my cigs are homeopathic
I have listened to and read the handful of "scientific studies" the global warming deniers keep trotting out. In all fairness, they should go to this California Attorney General website for some serious denier myth-busting. Read the whole thing and try to be open-minded.
McCain believes in UFOs too, I'm sure!
Check out this video of John McCain, the latest "left-wing global warming zealot." I think the guy off-camera that McCain is talking to must be Walker.
I heard him say the same thing in Houston, in person, and it only increased my respect for him. He's not afraid to speak the truth, even when a majority in his party is koo-koo crazy against him.
I heard him say the same thing in Houston, in person, and it only increased my respect for him. He's not afraid to speak the truth, even when a majority in his party is koo-koo crazy against him.
Spitzer, King David, etc.
I am a bit concerned about previous posts regarding politicians policies vs. their personal lives, i.e, that a candidates politics should trump matters of personal morality.
Shouldn't we expect more from our leaders? Especially, the president of the United States?
Why can't we expect them to be faithful to their wives and families? Why can't we expect them to no perjure themselves under oath and to obey the rule of law?
Would any of us feel comfortable putting are children under the care of a philandering criminal school teacher? "Yes, Mrs. Reynolds may sleep around flagrantly and probably does a bit of coke on the side but, hey, no one can teach trigonometry like she can!"
Our leaders should be the very best. I am nor expecting to elect the Pope or even a religious leader. I just want general executive competence and integrity.
As it relates to Ben Stein: No Intelligence Allowed
This dovetails into my fascination around the whole politicization of science over the past 20 years or so
(see Global Warming - please see my previous Man-Bear-Pig posts).
For many on the left, science is religion.
Also for many on the left, politics is a religion.
Combine the two and you have a combustible mix.
What is funny is that there remain huge, unanswered questions on both of these fronts.
More Proof that Ben Stein is a Great American and Barack Obama is a Master Panderer
Do yourself a favor and check out Ben Stein's recent editorial.
Exxon-Mobil Needs a Hug
Some quotes to pique your interest...
"As usual, Senator Obama gave a fine oration, with thunderous applause from the audience as his reward. But then I was beguiled by a series of gifts he was going to give the American people (of course, with their own money): universal health care, antipoverty programs, large grants to college students in return for community service (a darned good idea) and other goodies....
Mr. Obama is clearly an intelligent man. So it may not be too early to start a small process of education about Exxon Mobil and other oil companies and why attacking them is not smart...
Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company."
Thoughts on Hillary as David or Yoko
I agree that personal life and holiness cannot be the lone criteria for judging rulers.
But if we look at the OT, I'm not sure one can deduce that "how their rule affects the poor and powerless" is the real measuring stick. I'll admit that my knowledge of the OT is shamefully weak, but it strikes me that most of the evil kings who led God's people into ruin usually kicked things off with idolatry of other gods closely followed by various forms of immorality. That behavior then usually led to bad decisions (like starting wars with other folks) and then God's judgment.
But let's put that aside and return to the idea that a good leader can be personally very flawed. David is our chief example. Though he was loved and favored by God, his wicked actions had very great consequences: he had to put down a rebellion led by his son Absolom. And all that happened AFTER David repented.
There are some corollaries between Billary and David. Bill's great episode of wickedness (taking advantage of a young intern and then lying under oath about it) was followed by judgment: 8 years of George Bush. But unlike David, Bill and Hillary NEVER REPENTED. He never had his ashes and sackcloth moment, and she never stopped blaming it all on the great right-wing conspiracy.
Ok, that was response part 1. Now I want to address Hillary's supposed credentials. I am somewhat flabbergasted at how Bill Clinton's success is always imbued on Hillary. I can't take credit for this quip, but here is a great comment from the blogosphere:
Counting Hillary's years a first lady as executive experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle.
On what basis can we assume Hillary will be fiscally responsible and make sound decisions? Hillary has only had three executive responsibilities in her career.
One: health care under Bill. We all know how that went.
Two: managing the white house. She blew through her $400K budget with record speed, accepted extravagantly shady gifts to decorate the place, and famously rented out the Lincoln bedroom. She also fired the chief butler for talking on the phone with his old friend Barbara Bush. Classy!
Three, and this is the biggest: her campaign to become president. It has been well documented that her campaign has been fraught with wasteful spending, infighting, indecision and many, many mistakes. She started with a 30 point lead, national name recognition, the ultimate weapon (Bill), and yet somehow she has managed to lose 29 states.
In contrast, Barack Obama has run a lean, mean, internet savvy campaign. He has stumbled recently with the NAFTA thing, but that's about it. Otherwise it has been almost mistake free. He has raised more many, done a better job organizing, and has had the superior 50 state strategy.
And now Barack is asking the next question: what exactly is her foreign policy experience, besides voting for a failed war? She claims to have brought peace to Ireland, which is about true as Gore inventing the internet.
But if we look at the OT, I'm not sure one can deduce that "how their rule affects the poor and powerless" is the real measuring stick. I'll admit that my knowledge of the OT is shamefully weak, but it strikes me that most of the evil kings who led God's people into ruin usually kicked things off with idolatry of other gods closely followed by various forms of immorality. That behavior then usually led to bad decisions (like starting wars with other folks) and then God's judgment.
But let's put that aside and return to the idea that a good leader can be personally very flawed. David is our chief example. Though he was loved and favored by God, his wicked actions had very great consequences: he had to put down a rebellion led by his son Absolom. And all that happened AFTER David repented.
There are some corollaries between Billary and David. Bill's great episode of wickedness (taking advantage of a young intern and then lying under oath about it) was followed by judgment: 8 years of George Bush. But unlike David, Bill and Hillary NEVER REPENTED. He never had his ashes and sackcloth moment, and she never stopped blaming it all on the great right-wing conspiracy.
Ok, that was response part 1. Now I want to address Hillary's supposed credentials. I am somewhat flabbergasted at how Bill Clinton's success is always imbued on Hillary. I can't take credit for this quip, but here is a great comment from the blogosphere:
Counting Hillary's years a first lady as executive experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle.
On what basis can we assume Hillary will be fiscally responsible and make sound decisions? Hillary has only had three executive responsibilities in her career.
One: health care under Bill. We all know how that went.
Two: managing the white house. She blew through her $400K budget with record speed, accepted extravagantly shady gifts to decorate the place, and famously rented out the Lincoln bedroom. She also fired the chief butler for talking on the phone with his old friend Barbara Bush. Classy!
Three, and this is the biggest: her campaign to become president. It has been well documented that her campaign has been fraught with wasteful spending, infighting, indecision and many, many mistakes. She started with a 30 point lead, national name recognition, the ultimate weapon (Bill), and yet somehow she has managed to lose 29 states.
In contrast, Barack Obama has run a lean, mean, internet savvy campaign. He has stumbled recently with the NAFTA thing, but that's about it. Otherwise it has been almost mistake free. He has raised more many, done a better job organizing, and has had the superior 50 state strategy.
And now Barack is asking the next question: what exactly is her foreign policy experience, besides voting for a failed war? She claims to have brought peace to Ireland, which is about true as Gore inventing the internet.
If Hillary is David, is Monica Goliath?
Allison F's hubby throws his hat in the ring:
My thinking on politics is focused on policy, not personalities. Scripture judges rulers not principally on their personal lives, but on how their rule affects the poor and powerless.
If I were to select among the current three likely candidates based on their personal life, the one candidate I could not support would be the one who abandoned his wife and children, thus failing a fundamental scriptural qualification for leadership.
Admittedly, the Clinton years were full of painful personal drama, but they also produced budget surpluses, a productive economy, low interest rates, welfare reform, smaller government, and successful foreign policy (e.g. stabilizing the Mexican and Asian financial meltdowns plus a successful military intervention in Kosovo). (Editor's note: Reagan spoke about it, Clinton did it.)
I'd also like to add: when you think about it, there were some OT heros who had sexual scandal, foremost being David who was also a murderer, go figure. Obviously, it sickens me when men literally screw up because it reeks of egomania.
That Obama doesn't have that issue, and I'll accept Mark's view of why this is true, is a good thing. But I am more concerned about his willingness to be fiscally responsible as the economy tanks and whether he really gasps foreign affairs, next problem up: Columbia.
My thinking on politics is focused on policy, not personalities. Scripture judges rulers not principally on their personal lives, but on how their rule affects the poor and powerless.
If I were to select among the current three likely candidates based on their personal life, the one candidate I could not support would be the one who abandoned his wife and children, thus failing a fundamental scriptural qualification for leadership.
Admittedly, the Clinton years were full of painful personal drama, but they also produced budget surpluses, a productive economy, low interest rates, welfare reform, smaller government, and successful foreign policy (e.g. stabilizing the Mexican and Asian financial meltdowns plus a successful military intervention in Kosovo). (Editor's note: Reagan spoke about it, Clinton did it.)
I'd also like to add: when you think about it, there were some OT heros who had sexual scandal, foremost being David who was also a murderer, go figure. Obviously, it sickens me when men literally screw up because it reeks of egomania.
That Obama doesn't have that issue, and I'll accept Mark's view of why this is true, is a good thing. But I am more concerned about his willingness to be fiscally responsible as the economy tanks and whether he really gasps foreign affairs, next problem up: Columbia.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Client #9 from outer space.
In tribute to the busted governor from New York, aka "Client #9", I post this picture of Vampira, from Ed Wood's Plane 9 from Outer Space, because what he did makes about as much sense as an Ed Wood movie plot. Let's see, you are the governor of the most powerful state in the nation, you have a beautiful wife of 20 years and 3 kids, you used to be the DA and you personally busted up 2 prostitute rings, you are a rising star in American politics....let's see what should you add to your resume....how about 3 thousand dollar an hour John! Yes! That's it!
Sorry for making everything about Barack, but this is why I support the guy. Sure, he may have some minor skeletons in his closet, but after writing a book and admitting he's done some pot and "a little blow," I think he's already aired his dirty laundry.
I've met his wife personally, so I feel pretty confident that he doesn't cheat on her. She would snap his neck and then stand over his lifeless body while doing head wags and finger snaps. Barack Obama wants to be president, and he wants to live.
Hillary, on the other hand, is well, Hillary. I've said enough on this blog about her character.
John McCain is a hero, but he as had a few scandals (Keating 5 anyone?). And the way he kicked his wheelchair-bound wife to the curb for a hot young Cindy McCain... that's not so great, though I am willing to overlook it because he was tortured for 5 years while serving me and my country.
But it's just so refreshing to feel, in my gut, that I pretty much know what I get with Barack Obama. He's not perfect. He's flawed, and he is the first to admit it. But he's not a total freak. He's just a normal guy who really wants to be president.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Thanks Allison. (Let's do dinner soon!)
I appreciate Allison's response. I think it is very honest, and there is not much there that I can actually disagree with.
I have no truck with anyone who prefers Clinton's policies over Obama's. I think there is little daylight between them, kind of like getting to choose between a Mercedes or a BMW, after you've been driving a crapped out Dodge Neon for the last eight years.
She is right to call me out on hating Hillary in a very un-obama-like fashion. I should follow Obama's example. This is why Obama should be president, not me. If I were president, Walker would be in a prison tower and forced to watch an endlessly repeating loop of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
I also agree that facing Hillary is the ultimate field test. I've been telling Jenny that totally changing the dynamics of American politics is no easy matter; It's almost an epic quest of old, wherein the hero has to face a number of tests. If he cannot slay the little dragon, he will never be able to slay the BIG dragon, which in this case is the nut-bag base of the conservative movement. John McCain is formidable, but it is his allies that will really come at Obama without mercy or morality. (I snapped this picture today in a parking lot in Southampton, of all places. The rear window of the truck said MILITIA over an American flag. Notice how the "t" is a cross, nice touch, eh?)
I don't know. I still cling to hope. I still believe that we can have a country in which the high ground wins. I believe we can have something different from an eternal red/blue state, McCoy-Hatfield war. The Clintons thrive in that war. They pull everyone down on to their knees in the mud, unsheath the knives, and wait until their enemies lose just a little bit more blood than they do. That's how you win a 51 percent majority. Triangulation, maneuvering, right-wing conspiracies, finger-wagging, but aaahhhh, the power. The power is the prize, and once you have that, the psychodrama is justified.
No, she won't ever be Obama. She'll be whatever it takes to win. And maybe Allison's right. He's not tough enough. Perhaps we won't see an Obama in the white house, at least not in my lifetime. Maybe that's what the real world is like, and I just need to get used to it. But for now, I'll stay naive, I'll stay a hope-monger.
Obama will see the Matrix before this is all over. He is.... The One.
I have no truck with anyone who prefers Clinton's policies over Obama's. I think there is little daylight between them, kind of like getting to choose between a Mercedes or a BMW, after you've been driving a crapped out Dodge Neon for the last eight years.
She is right to call me out on hating Hillary in a very un-obama-like fashion. I should follow Obama's example. This is why Obama should be president, not me. If I were president, Walker would be in a prison tower and forced to watch an endlessly repeating loop of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
I also agree that facing Hillary is the ultimate field test. I've been telling Jenny that totally changing the dynamics of American politics is no easy matter; It's almost an epic quest of old, wherein the hero has to face a number of tests. If he cannot slay the little dragon, he will never be able to slay the BIG dragon, which in this case is the nut-bag base of the conservative movement. John McCain is formidable, but it is his allies that will really come at Obama without mercy or morality. (I snapped this picture today in a parking lot in Southampton, of all places. The rear window of the truck said MILITIA over an American flag. Notice how the "t" is a cross, nice touch, eh?)
The rest of Allison's argument boils down to this: Barack Obama just doesn't have what it takes to win, against Hillary or against republicans. He is all hope and no hammer. To paraphrase Allison, you can't win unless you can win it in a knife fight.
I don't know. I still cling to hope. I still believe that we can have a country in which the high ground wins. I believe we can have something different from an eternal red/blue state, McCoy-Hatfield war. The Clintons thrive in that war. They pull everyone down on to their knees in the mud, unsheath the knives, and wait until their enemies lose just a little bit more blood than they do. That's how you win a 51 percent majority. Triangulation, maneuvering, right-wing conspiracies, finger-wagging, but aaahhhh, the power. The power is the prize, and once you have that, the psychodrama is justified.
No, she won't ever be Obama. She'll be whatever it takes to win. And maybe Allison's right. He's not tough enough. Perhaps we won't see an Obama in the white house, at least not in my lifetime. Maybe that's what the real world is like, and I just need to get used to it. But for now, I'll stay naive, I'll stay a hope-monger.
Obama will see the Matrix before this is all over. He is.... The One.
Allison F's Pro- Clinton Response
I have spent the day pondering my “assignment” from Maker's Mark.
My first thought was simply to reiterate that Steve and I like policy and the policies we most agreed with were hers. And people I know who are peers (socio- economically) that voted for Hillary like policy too. And to the extent that Obama’s campaign was getting caught up in its own message of inspiration I felt at greater unease with it.
Now, Steve suggested that we state what outcomes we are seeking in the next Presidency and how Clinton’s policies line up with that. At this point we are especially concerned about the economy.
But that approach, even if we had time for it (which we don’t) would be to take the high road, and as we used to say in grad school, [bracket] the considerations most on Mark’s mind which are more personal and political than policy-oriented.
But I will make one nod in this direction and refer you to the American Prospect cover story on whether to choose a “talented manager” or “visionary” to answer the question of what she has to offer.
Another thought about the assignment is to say, if you want to hate Hillary, I/we can’t stop you. However, you are, in the words of Donald Trump, FIRED, from being an official spokesperson for the Obama campaign for failing to practice his New Politics. You can join Ms. Power outside the camp.
It is not a question of how can I overlook Clinton’s skeletons, but how are you going to do it.
By the way, I am sure you read The Houston Press cover story, Obama and Me. So even folks with short political cv’s have skeletons. [Walker, if you missed this article, look for it online.]
Here is the important irony to consider: facing Hillary is the ultimate field test of Obama’s ideals. Some are advising that he go negative, asking about tax returns etc. I have already posted that that is the wrong way to go negative (i.e. he needs to go negative using the high ground: I’m the better leader because… her record is…)
But why take my word for it. Here is what David Brooks has to say on the topic:
"Unless they (the Obama people) consciously reject conventional politics, the accusations will build on each other. The BlackBerries will buzz. The passions will rise. The Obama forces will see hints of Clinton corruption all around, and they’ll accuse and accuse again. The war will begin to take control, and once you’re halfway through you can’t suddenly surrender because it’s become too rough.
And the Clinton people will draw them every step of the way. Clinton can’t compete on personality, but a knife fight is her only real hope of victory. She has nothing to lose because she never promised to purify America. Her campaign doesn’t depend on the enthusiasm of upper-middle-class goo-goos. On Thursday, a Clinton aide likened Obama to Ken Starr just to badger them on.
As the trench warfare stretches on through the spring, the excitement of Obama-mania will seem like a distant, childish mirage. People will wonder if Obama ever believed any of that stuff himself. And even if he goes on to win the nomination, he won’t represent anything new. He’ll just be a one-term senator running for president.
In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him."
But his conclusion is even more significant:
"Besides, the real softness of the campaign is not that Obama is a wimp. It’s that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona.
If he can’t explain that, he’s going to lose at some point anyway."
Which brings us back to the Ethel’s of the world who do vote for Hillary and back to the politics of the situation, which includes the fact that real rank and file voters have made this a close race but the outcome is going to be decided by the party leadership. The first order of business is to resolve the MI/FL mess. While I am perfectly happy to exclude MI, I blame Howard Dean bumbling for creating FL situation in the first place. I believe it is only fair that FL get to re-vote or have their delegate status renegotiated.
Question two: How can Clinton win this without destroying the Democratic Party? By “this” I assume you mean the primary. Well, first of all, I am not entirely sure she will win. Being up for a knife fight, notwithstanding. But I am pretty sure that if she offers to be a VP and Obama turns her down, he’ll look like a bit of a shmuck. And I am pretty sure that if she agrees to pony up her half of the money for a FL re-vote and he doesn’t, that won’t look so good either. Let me ask you something, would you be asking this question about a really tough competitor who wasn’t Clinton? Do tough primaries DESTROY a political party? That’s an overstatement. (Although the Party Leadership could possibly destroy it – see above.) Could her nomination alienate some voters? Sure. But , hey, I was completely alienated when the Party choose John Kerry to run last time.
Question three seems to me to be asking: ”If she does win how will she be Barack Obama?” She won’t be.
Good night and Good Luck.
Alison Fairfield
My first thought was simply to reiterate that Steve and I like policy and the policies we most agreed with were hers. And people I know who are peers (socio- economically) that voted for Hillary like policy too. And to the extent that Obama’s campaign was getting caught up in its own message of inspiration I felt at greater unease with it.
Now, Steve suggested that we state what outcomes we are seeking in the next Presidency and how Clinton’s policies line up with that. At this point we are especially concerned about the economy.
But that approach, even if we had time for it (which we don’t) would be to take the high road, and as we used to say in grad school, [bracket] the considerations most on Mark’s mind which are more personal and political than policy-oriented.
But I will make one nod in this direction and refer you to the American Prospect cover story on whether to choose a “talented manager” or “visionary” to answer the question of what she has to offer.
Another thought about the assignment is to say, if you want to hate Hillary, I/we can’t stop you. However, you are, in the words of Donald Trump, FIRED, from being an official spokesperson for the Obama campaign for failing to practice his New Politics. You can join Ms. Power outside the camp.
It is not a question of how can I overlook Clinton’s skeletons, but how are you going to do it.
By the way, I am sure you read The Houston Press cover story, Obama and Me. So even folks with short political cv’s have skeletons. [Walker, if you missed this article, look for it online.]
Here is the important irony to consider: facing Hillary is the ultimate field test of Obama’s ideals. Some are advising that he go negative, asking about tax returns etc. I have already posted that that is the wrong way to go negative (i.e. he needs to go negative using the high ground: I’m the better leader because… her record is…)
But why take my word for it. Here is what David Brooks has to say on the topic:
"Unless they (the Obama people) consciously reject conventional politics, the accusations will build on each other. The BlackBerries will buzz. The passions will rise. The Obama forces will see hints of Clinton corruption all around, and they’ll accuse and accuse again. The war will begin to take control, and once you’re halfway through you can’t suddenly surrender because it’s become too rough.
And the Clinton people will draw them every step of the way. Clinton can’t compete on personality, but a knife fight is her only real hope of victory. She has nothing to lose because she never promised to purify America. Her campaign doesn’t depend on the enthusiasm of upper-middle-class goo-goos. On Thursday, a Clinton aide likened Obama to Ken Starr just to badger them on.
As the trench warfare stretches on through the spring, the excitement of Obama-mania will seem like a distant, childish mirage. People will wonder if Obama ever believed any of that stuff himself. And even if he goes on to win the nomination, he won’t represent anything new. He’ll just be a one-term senator running for president.
In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him."
But his conclusion is even more significant:
"Besides, the real softness of the campaign is not that Obama is a wimp. It’s that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona.
If he can’t explain that, he’s going to lose at some point anyway."
Which brings us back to the Ethel’s of the world who do vote for Hillary and back to the politics of the situation, which includes the fact that real rank and file voters have made this a close race but the outcome is going to be decided by the party leadership. The first order of business is to resolve the MI/FL mess. While I am perfectly happy to exclude MI, I blame Howard Dean bumbling for creating FL situation in the first place. I believe it is only fair that FL get to re-vote or have their delegate status renegotiated.
Question two: How can Clinton win this without destroying the Democratic Party? By “this” I assume you mean the primary. Well, first of all, I am not entirely sure she will win. Being up for a knife fight, notwithstanding. But I am pretty sure that if she offers to be a VP and Obama turns her down, he’ll look like a bit of a shmuck. And I am pretty sure that if she agrees to pony up her half of the money for a FL re-vote and he doesn’t, that won’t look so good either. Let me ask you something, would you be asking this question about a really tough competitor who wasn’t Clinton? Do tough primaries DESTROY a political party? That’s an overstatement. (Although the Party Leadership could possibly destroy it – see above.) Could her nomination alienate some voters? Sure. But , hey, I was completely alienated when the Party choose John Kerry to run last time.
Question three seems to me to be asking: ”If she does win how will she be Barack Obama?” She won’t be.
Good night and Good Luck.
Alison Fairfield
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Absolutely Must Read Article
Here it is.
"The fact is that, for all their caveats that this drop in temperatures can be explained by the cooling effect of La Niña, the official orthodoxy that "more CO2 means more warming" is facing its most serious challenge yet."
No jokes about bears, pigs, and men.
Just hard facts and surprisingly conclusions.
"The fact is that, for all their caveats that this drop in temperatures can be explained by the cooling effect of La Niña, the official orthodoxy that "more CO2 means more warming" is facing its most serious challenge yet."
No jokes about bears, pigs, and men.
Just hard facts and surprisingly conclusions.
Don't Stop When I say When
I like to go the metaphorical route. MCCAIN's Theme Song: Foo Fighter's "Everlong." Dave Grohl is John McCain, and he is saving his true love, the Iraq War, from two rockabilly characters with an axe. They are of course Hillary and Barack.
Weird? Yes. But so is this whole political psychodrama. And when you see Dave Grohl open up a can of whup-ass with his giant hand, you'll feel it.
Oh, and there's a giant red phone with a flashing light.
Foo Fighters
Add to My Profile | More Videos
Weird? Yes. But so is this whole political psychodrama. And when you see Dave Grohl open up a can of whup-ass with his giant hand, you'll feel it.
Oh, and there's a giant red phone with a flashing light.
Foo Fighters
Add to My Profile | More Videos
Obama Theme Song: CONQUEST by the White Stripes
Dudes, I am SOOOOOOOOOO good!!
The Lyrics:
Conquest
He was out to make a conquest
Didn't care what harm was done
Just as long as he won
the prize
Conquest
She was just another conquest
Didn't care whose heart was broke
Love to him was a joke
'til he looked into her eyes
And then in the strange way things happen
The roles were reversed from that day
The hunted became the huntress
The hunter became the prey
Conquest
Now you know who made the conquest
She, with all her female guile
Led him helpless down the aisle
She had finally made a conquest
ahh ahh ahh ahhhhh (x4)
oooh oooooohh oohhhh
And then in the strange way things happen
The roles were reversed from that day
The hunted became the huntress
The hunter became the prey
Conquest
Now you know who made the conquest
She, with all her female guile
Led him helpless down the aisle
She had finally made a conquest
ahhhhh
Conquest
The Lyrics:
Conquest
He was out to make a conquest
Didn't care what harm was done
Just as long as he won
the prize
Conquest
She was just another conquest
Didn't care whose heart was broke
Love to him was a joke
'til he looked into her eyes
And then in the strange way things happen
The roles were reversed from that day
The hunted became the huntress
The hunter became the prey
Conquest
Now you know who made the conquest
She, with all her female guile
Led him helpless down the aisle
She had finally made a conquest
ahh ahh ahh ahhhhh (x4)
oooh oooooohh oohhhh
And then in the strange way things happen
The roles were reversed from that day
The hunted became the huntress
The hunter became the prey
Conquest
Now you know who made the conquest
She, with all her female guile
Led him helpless down the aisle
She had finally made a conquest
ahhhhh
Conquest
Texelection Fun Times: Pick a Candidates Theme Song!!
Alright, readers. Here's a new feature on Texelection. You must pick the IDEAL theme song of one of the candidates, preferably one accompanied by a sweet video.
The theme song must somehow capture the very essence of who the candidate is.
Extra points of obscurity and jagged wit.
I will go first: "Short Skirt/Long Jacket" by Cake for Hillary Clinton.
Saturday Morning Roundup - and call-out to Allison F.
Please go read Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal for an elegant summary of where Obama and Clinton stand.
She ends with a fantastic quote from Christopher Hitchens, who depressingly predicts a Clinton victory: "there's something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power . . . people who don't want the meeting to end, the people who just are unstoppable, who only have one focus, no humanity, no character, nothing but the worship of money and power. They win in the end."
Jeepers. How can good, kind, educated liberals vote for Hillary the zombie-queen?
I understand why the brainless part of the democratic base votes for the Hill-bot. I am not confused about why a 65 year old woman named Ethel living in a Scranton blue-collar neighborhood would vote for Hillary. Ethel has probably never been too fond of black people, let alone young black men. Ethel doesn't watch or read much news. Ethel remembers the 90s fondly, when her son, who works in a unionized machine shop, saw his earnings and savings peak. Ethel has worked hard all her life, and she believes Clinton has too, and therefore she deserves to be president. Obama is just a smart, cool lawyer guy, who talks real good. Ethel has no idea what the Harvard Law review is, she doesn't care, and she just doesn't trust him.
But Ethel is the antithesis of Allison F., who is smart, engaged, highly educated. Someone who should know the score.
She ends with a fantastic quote from Christopher Hitchens, who depressingly predicts a Clinton victory: "there's something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power . . . people who don't want the meeting to end, the people who just are unstoppable, who only have one focus, no humanity, no character, nothing but the worship of money and power. They win in the end."
Jeepers. How can good, kind, educated liberals vote for Hillary the zombie-queen?
I understand why the brainless part of the democratic base votes for the Hill-bot. I am not confused about why a 65 year old woman named Ethel living in a Scranton blue-collar neighborhood would vote for Hillary. Ethel has probably never been too fond of black people, let alone young black men. Ethel doesn't watch or read much news. Ethel remembers the 90s fondly, when her son, who works in a unionized machine shop, saw his earnings and savings peak. Ethel has worked hard all her life, and she believes Clinton has too, and therefore she deserves to be president. Obama is just a smart, cool lawyer guy, who talks real good. Ethel has no idea what the Harvard Law review is, she doesn't care, and she just doesn't trust him.
But Ethel is the antithesis of Allison F., who is smart, engaged, highly educated. Someone who should know the score.
Noonan cites an Obama supporter, who, on The Root, a really smart new web mag for African Americans, calls it like everyone sees it:
"This is a dirty campaign and since Senator Barack Obama won't say it, I will. The media has not been unfair to Senator Clinton, they have been extremely soft. There are elephants in the room that need to be addressed. Can anyone say Whitewater? How about impeachment? Let's not forget Osama bin Laden. You can bet Republicans will be talking about these issues. So why aren't Democrats? Clinton's central arguments in the campaign are basically a mirage, and they are dangerous ones both for the party and the country."
So Allison F., I hereby invite you to guest-post. E-mail me the answers to the following questions and I will post them on this blog:
1. How do you overlook a lifetime of Clinton scandals?
2. How can Clinton win this without destroying the democratic party?
3. Even if she does win, how can Clinton ever get a mandate from the American people? How will she ever get republicans, African-Americans (not likely to forgive the Clintons any time soon) or the youth vote? How will she make things up to all the little states and red states she has derided for going to Barack?
We have to know Allison. How can smart democrats sit in the back of the Clinton bus, and watch her drive it right off the cliff? Is it all a grand homage to Thelma and Louise? I have to know.
So Allison F., I hereby invite you to guest-post. E-mail me the answers to the following questions and I will post them on this blog:
1. How do you overlook a lifetime of Clinton scandals?
2. How can Clinton win this without destroying the democratic party?
3. Even if she does win, how can Clinton ever get a mandate from the American people? How will she ever get republicans, African-Americans (not likely to forgive the Clintons any time soon) or the youth vote? How will she make things up to all the little states and red states she has derided for going to Barack?
We have to know Allison. How can smart democrats sit in the back of the Clinton bus, and watch her drive it right off the cliff? Is it all a grand homage to Thelma and Louise? I have to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
