Oooh, nuance!

because we're finally moving back to Manhattan on Thursday!

But meanwhile, the healing power of music is recognized everywhere - even in North Korea.

The New York Philharmonic arrived in North Korea Monday, becoming the most prominent American cultural institution to visit the isolated, nuclear-armed country.

North Korea made unprecedented accommodations for the orchestra, allowing a delegation of nearly 300 people, including musicians, staff and journalists to fly into Pyongyang on a chartered plane for 48 hours.

The Philharmonic's concert Tuesday will be broadcast live on North Korea's state-run TV and radio, unheard of in the impoverished country, where events are carefully choreographed to bolster the personality cult of leader Kim Jong Il.

[snip]

[Zarin] Mehta told reporters Monday before leaving Beijing that politics was not part of the trip. "We are going to do master classes, we'll do chamber music, rehearsals ... that's what we're there for. Politics is not our game, we play music," he said.

To me, one of the most wonderful things about music - and art in general - is its ability to transcend the differences between us and to bring our commonalities to the surface. All humans feel love, pain, anger and joy, and music exquisitely amplifies those feelings into an emotionally powerful shared experience.

May the Philharmonic and the people of North Korea share the gift of music together, and may it be a small step towards unity and away from the divisive Bush Doctrine.

I admit it - I love real-ish shows like "Flip This House," "While You Were Out" and "Trading Spaces." I would just adore having the money and time to be able to take a run-down house, or a boring room, and make it into something gorgeous and special.

In a somewhat related vein, I've watched the new show "My First Home" a few times. Of course, I routinely want to kill myself afterwards, since all of the prospective homeowners are paying prices that wouldn't get you a hamster cage in New York...but it's still interesting and somewhat inspiring to see people find a great place to live for their families.

I knew this from my own search for a new home, but it's somewhat comforting to discover that it's never easy. Take the case of the woman who starred in the last episode I watched. A single mom with two kids living in Atlanta, she was a renter with bad credit who felt it was time to have her own home.

For six months, she scrimped and saved to pay down her credit card bills and improve her credit score. She cut out all but basic cable, started driving less, and bought fewer toys and clothes for the kids. She even moved into a friend's house so she wouldn't have to pay rent. After all of these commendable efforts, she was ready to begin her search.

And search she did. She saw 30 homes in her price range. Meanwhile, months and months had gone by, and her kids had to start school again in their old district - for their sake, she had hoped to find a home during the summer so they could begin the year in a new school - and she began to despair that she would never find a home that met her criteria.

Finally, her Realtor showed her the 31st home. It was perfect! She made an offer to the Seller, was accepted, and after many Closing Date changes, finally purchased her new home in Atlanta, Georgia. Wanna cry, Northeasterners and Californians? She got a new construction, three-bedrom, two-bathroom, 1600-square foot home with a huge fenced yard for $128,000. (This is the point at which I always desperately remind myself that I heart New York.)

The last piece of the show was the woman saying she was very proud of herself because, as a single mom, she had bought her first home "all on her own."

Well, I felt like someone had just told me I shoulda had a V-8. All on her own, was it? Not so fast, honey!

This lucky lady's friend was kind enough to let her and her kids live rent-free for more than six months. Her Realtor was patient enough to show her 31 houses, and when her Closing Date was rescheduled for the umpteenth time, took the time to persuade the Seller to allow his client to occupy the house pre-Closing. The Seller also agreed to pay her closing costs and down payment. (I've never heard of that happening.) Finally, she was able to get an FHA loan from the government, which allows 97% financing for first-time home buyers.

I'm not saying this woman shouldn't have been proud of her accomplishment, but I really think her attitude is too symptomatic of Americans' in general. We have this myth in America of the loner, the cowboy, the man who needs nothing from others and does everything himself. In some ways, it's a malignant myth, because it keeps us from realizing that no one gets anywhere without the help of others, seen or unseen.

In the case of the heroine of "My First Home," without her Realtor, her friend and the federal government, she never would have owned that wonderful house. In the 21st century, I hope that Americans will finally understand that no person is an island, and that without joining together with ourselves and the rest of the world, we will never own that wonderful future we all need and deserve.

The survival of our planet depends upon it.

The more this story about the lobbyist and McCain develops, the more it looks like it's directly impacting his narrative.

I had an exchange with the talented Four Legs Good on Eschaton yesterday, in which he implied that Obama's string of primary victories over Hillary had nothing to do with narrative. I respectfully disagreed, and said that in my opinion, every campaign is about narrative. Obama's fresh face, his charisma and his natural campaigning ability, along with his tongue-bathing by the national press and the public support of one of the most worshiped women in America, have allowed him to write his own narrative. He is the big change America needs right now, the great hope of American democracy. It's an extremely powerful narrative after the horrors we have endured under George W. Bush, and it has acquired a momentum that most likely will not be stopped in the primaries.

Hillary's narrative, on the other hand, has already been written by the press - she's a cold, manipulative, ambitious shrew who is only out for power - and she has had an uphill battle trying to overcome it. Her war vote has alienated many on the left, although they forgave John Kerry and John Edwards for theirs, and although Barack Obama himself has said that he doesn't know how he would have voted on the AUMF had he not been fortunate enough to be a Senate outsider at the time. Never mind, she's an evil warmongering bitch and Obama is a sainted hero with superior judgment. I suppose judgment and luck are synonymous to Obamans.

It hasn't helped that the press has cut Senator Clinton no slack whatsoever, painting her and Bill as racists (a charge contradicted by common sense - if they were racists, wouldn't we know after 16 years of intense scrutiny?) when they say anything negative about Obama, while allowing Obama to get away with nasty stunts like this and this, for example, with nary a ding to his halo.

It looks like with Hillary's recent loss in Wisconsin, she has one last stand in Ohio and Texas, and if she doesn't win there, her narrative will have been beaten by Obama's. Although the delegate count will remain close enough to go to the convention, she will be seen as a loser who cannot deliver in November. And so it goes.

As for McCaca's narrative, it has been written by the press too - and it's been overwhelmingly positive. Ignoring his flip-flopping on torture (he was against it, then he voted for it time and again) and public financing (for it, against it, for it, then hoping to be for and against it at the same time), the press routinely calls him a maverick and a straight talker with no evidence whatsoever. David Brock of Media Matters, with excellent timing, has just come out with a new book on the media's incredibly generous treatment of John McCain. I very much look forward to cracking that one open.

I don't think anyone cares too much about the personal angle of the McCain story (except possibly the fundies, who were not going to vote for him in large numbers anyway). No, what's suddenly coming to the fore are more stories about McCaca's loving relationships with lobbyists in general.

John McCain's narrative may be completely derailed by this scandal, and that can only mean good news for Democrats in November.

Yesterday was a very strange day for Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John "McCaca" McCain.

The New York Times came out with a story about McCain that was extremely bizarre. Full of innuendo and not much else, the story appeared to be alleging two things:

- That McCaca, like all Republics, has a very cozy relationship with lobbyists that contradicts his public stance on ethics and (undeserved) reputation for incorruptibility; and
- That this cozy relationship may have included bundling - not just money bundling, but bundling in the Victorian sense, meaning, um, cuddling. Yes, that's it...cuddling.

This is odd. First of all, they are attacking a Republic, most notably their darling McCaca, whom they have already endorsed for President. I thought they only attacked Democrats in The Times!

Second of all, it seems that they had this story in December, but were persuaded by the McCain campaign to hold it until he became the presumptive nominee. That The Times would agree to this is shocking, but not surprising - after all, they held the Bush spying story until after the 2004 election - but why would they even publish this to begin with?

Well, Radar, via the indispensable Talking Points Memo, has the answer as to the timing, at least. Right-wing publications such as The New Republic found out about the story. Not willing to be scooped, The Times was first off the mark. But unless there is more to this story, I'm quite skeptical at this point.

McCaca firmly denies every aspect of the article, calling it a smear campaign. Whether or not this is a smart tactic remains to be seen, but at least he is on the offense.

In other media attacks, we now come to possibly the most offensive thing I have ever heard a pundit say. Bill O'Really, one of the most loathsome media figures in America, said that if Michelle Obama thinks America is a flawed nation, it is legitimate to lynch her. (Here's what Michelle said, which in a rational world would not be offensive to anyone.)

Now, I know Mr. Bill didn't say "nappy-headed hos," which was enough to get Don Imus fired, and I know it was on the radio and not the TeeVee - but come on! How disgusting was that? He's advocating the lynching death of an African-American woman if she thinks that America is not the most perfectest, most awesomest country evah in the history of the universe. Gee, America has been so wonderful to African-Americans - why would she have any doubt? And in any case, SHE SAID NOTHING OF THE KIND.

This attack by O'Really, unskillfully disguised as support and sympathy, was beyond over-the-top. But where is Senator Obama's response to this? Why isn't he calling for O'Reilly's head? Due to the manipulations of the rightwing scream machine, this non-story has been in play for days now. Remind you of anything? Kerry's joke about Bush that was twisted into "He doesn't support the troops"? The Swiftboating of 2004?

This is just the first salvo in the war against Barack and Michelle Obama. The media has been holding their fire until now, because they assumed that Hillary Clinton would win. Now that it seems more likely that Barack will be the nominee, they are honing the narrative against him. Barack Osama Obama is a scary Muslim. Barack doesn't like Israel. Barack and Michelle don't love America. Barack has too much melanin in his skin. Etcetera etcetera ad infinitum.

I certainly hope that the decision NOT to call O'Really on his horrific and poisonous racism is not reflective of how Senator Obama will deal with the vicious onslaught that is coming, because ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Just ask Al Gore and John Kerry.

But since I've voted for and donated to Hillary, there's not much more I can do for my candidate. I am just going to have to put my fears that Obama is too conciliatory and kumbaya to beat McCain to rest. I'm just going to have to try to be Zen about everything until the nominee is chosen and the Dem-Republic matchup begins...and perhaps even until after the November elections.

But I am really, really terrified that if this is how Obama is going to handle media attacks, he does not have a fucking prayer in November.

"Ohhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....."

This is the first (but probably not the last) episode of:

What Thers Said.

And by the way, Yours (and My) Candidate Sucks...but not as much as John McMaverick McCaca McCain.

Normally I don't watch Dan Abrams, whom I've referred to in private as "The Dandroid." It seemed like everytime I left the TeeVee on after "Countdown" was over, I saw Pat Buchanan's jowly, dyspeptic visage on the screen. It was too much for a gal to take, I tells ya!

But last night, the first thing I saw was a picture of Hillary Clinton, and no scary Republics in sight. Even more intriguing was the question Dan was posing: "Are the networks being too hard on Clinton?"

The segment included Lawrence O'Donnell, Laura Schwartz and Roy Sekoff - all well-known pundits, and in Mr. Sekoff's case, the editor of the influential newsblog The Huffington Post. Dan Abrams put these questions to them all: Why are you predicting the downfall of Hillary Clinton, when she is up in the polls over Obama in Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania - all states rich in delegates? Why are you not covering this race as it is - a very tight battle for delegates in which Obama's edge is slight, and perhaps non-existent after the next two weeks?

The Dandroid had discovered the Clinton Rules of Journalism. It's okay, Dan - it only took you about 16 years to realize that the networks love to stick it to the Clintons - and by extension, all Democratic frontrunners. But what about the other pundits?

Roy Sekoff's answer: "It's more fun to write vitriol than puffery." Ah, so? Then why is almost every piece on HuffPo pro-Obama and anti-Hillary? Witness this piece by Barbara Ehrenreich declaring him "unstoppable." The article contains both vitriol and puffery. Guess which candidate gets the drooling admiration?

Or should she reconfigure herself, untangle her triangulations, and attempt to appeal to the American people in some deep human way, with or without a tear or two? This, too, would take heavy lifting. Someone needs to tell her that there are better ways to signal conviction than by raising one's voice and drawing out the vowels, as in "I KNOW ..." and "I BELIEVE ..." The frozen smile has to go too, along with the metronymic nodding, which sometimes goes on long enough to suggest a placement within the autism spectrum.

Got it! Hillary is not human. She's robotic, frozen, possibly autistic. How could you vote for such a freak of nature? As Ehrenreich says:

Clinton can put forth all the policy proposals she likes - and many of them are admirable ones - but anyone can see that she's of the same generation and even one of the same families that got us into this checkmate situation in the first place.

Who cares what she'll do as President? She's part of the wrong generation. DISQUALIFIED!!!

Meanwhile, Obama gets this:

So yes, there's a powerful emotional component to Obama-mania, and not just because he's a far more inspiring speaker than his rival. We, perhaps white people especially, look to him for atonement and redemption. All of us, of whatever race, want a fresh start. That's what "change" means right now: Get us out of here!

"Atonement and redemption." And to think that people accuse Obamans of being part of a cult of personality whose followers think he is the Messiah. How utterly fantastical!

Lawrence O'Donnell's response was basically: "You're right, but it makes a better story to have Obama be a come-from-behind winner than to have Ms. Inevitability win the way we all thought she was going to." Oh, well, then, if it makes a better story, by all means, have at it! Don't let those pesky facts bug ya, Larry.

While Sekoff was lying and O'Donnell was truthfully excusing bad punditry, poor, dumb Laura Schwartz didn't understand what Dan was talking about. Exasperated at trying to drill his way through the blonde shellack on her head, Abrams tried smaller words:

"Don't you think it's ridiculous that we cover this election as if it were a sports event? This is the election for the leader of the free world, here!"

Ms. Schwartz was oblivious. "But Dan, the news is 24-7 now! We have to cover the story as it exists in the moment, and in the moment, Senator Obama has won eight in a row!" But never mind that he doesn't have enough delegates to win the nomination, and that Hillary looks strong in four out of the five next states. Somehow that part of the story doesn't exist "now."

I have to say that my husband and I were shouting "THANK YOU!" to Dan Abrams last night. It felt so good to see and hear someone calling the media pundits on their assish-ness - even if it was only a host on cable news, and even if, through disingenuousness or stupidity, the pundits refused to grasp the point.

And even better, there was no Pat Buchanan in sight.

It's Friday - or as I would call it today, "F-day" - and just as in the "Electric Company" days of my youth, I am honoring the letter "F", which played such a big role in the events of yesterday and this week.

My Friends, as the McMaverick would say, let us begin.

"F" is for FISA, Filibuster, Fearmongering, Fuck You and Finally.

The letter "F" served quintuple duty in Congress this week. FISA loomed large on the horizon, as the Senate, after holding the line for months and staging Filibusters to stop telecom/Bushie immunity from being included, realized that Bush's Fearmongering would make it impossible to keep immunity out of the bill. So, the Senate agreed to pass immunity and allow the House to review the bill.

Now, the House had already passed another bill, the Protect America Act, in August, and that bill did not include telecom/Bushie immunity. That bill expires at midnight tonight, at which point, the old FISA bill takes effect. No immunity in that one either. In a spectacular Fuck You to the Deciderer, Speaker Pelosi and the House decided not only to avoid extending the PAA, which Bush had promised to veto in any case, but to take Congress out of session for the next two weeks. As House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes stated, "We'll be Fine." On the same day, the House also passed criminal contempt charges on Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, who had illegally ignored their subpoenas to testify before Congress on Bush's orders.

FINALLY! At least for now, Congress is Firmly standing up to the Unitary Executive theory, and reasserting its status as a co-equal branch of government. Let us keep our Fingers crossed, and keep sending those emails and Faxes in support of our newly-vertebrate Congresscritters.

"F" is for Fascist.

In a brilliant Special Comment last night, Keith Olbermann spoke these words to the Cheerleader-In-Chief:

It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an ex post facto law that could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.

But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn’t even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.

“The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America.”

Believed? Don’t you know? Don’t you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you? Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here? If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.

You’re a fascist — get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it! What else is this but fascism?...

In the same comment, Keith also excoriated the Fascists in the House, who, standing up bravely AGAINST the rule of law and Fearlessness, staged a walk-out.

And your minions like John Boehner, your Republican congressional crash dummies who just happen to decide to walk out of Congress when a podium-full of microphones await them, they should just keep walking, out of Congress and, if possible, out of the country.

For they and you, sir, have no place in a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The lot of you are the symbolic descendants of the despotic middle managers of some banana republic to whom “freedom” is an ironic brand name, a word you reach for when you want to get away with its opposite.

This "Special Comment" was a clarion call, louder and more powerful than ever when backed up by the actions of a suddenly emboldened Congress. In addition, it was a masterpiece of Framing - a strong blow in the battle to Call Things Aright, which the traditional media has not done for a long, long time.

Yes, the "F" reigned supreme this week. May there be more Fearlessness, Finally and Fuck You to come.

I just don't understand this argument I'm hearing from Obama and his supporters.

How is Barack Obama going to get Independent and Republican votes that Hillary Clinton can't...in the general election?

Sure, there are people out there that hate Hillary Clinton with a passion, thanks to the 16 years of lies and smears she's had to endure from the media. But if they've got McCain to vote for - who is, as we know, the most McMavericky, most Independent and Straight-Shooterish and Moderate Candidate Evah, according to the MCM - won't Independent and Republic voters go for him instead of Obama?

Even Obama supporters should be able to admit that the Senator from Illinois has gotten nothing but a honeymoon from the traditional media. Unfortunately, there will be a quick divorce if/when he becomes the Democratic nominee. Are people seriously, truly thinking that after months of "Barack Hussein Osama" + the "Rezko scandal," not to mention the innate racism of most Americans, McCain won't peel off a lot of those votes?

Of course he will. That's why the Republicans nominated him, and that's why he's running almost even with both Obama and Clinton in the polls right now. If Obama were so incredibly strong with Independent and Republican voters, wouldn't he be crushing McCain easily in national polling?

It was one thing to be low in the polls when name recognition made Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani front-runners. Not many people had heard of Barack Obama. But that was before all the debates and the media love and Party endorsements. So how do those poll results support his argument, which is a central tenet of his "kumbaya" campaign?

It is quite obvious that they do not. The person who would have decimated McCain was John Edwards, as the polls reflected at the time. The reason? People who won't vote for a woman named Clinton or a man named Obama would vote for him. You know - white males, who are disproportionately...Republics and Independents.

Clearly, if we wanted to bring Republics and Independents to our side, we should have nominated the safe, handsome, white, Southern male. But we didn't; and it's a mistake, and one not supported by any evidence, to think that Obama will automatically get his supporters. I was one, and I'm voting for Hillary.

So what would the winning strategy be?

Well, for one, it would be nice if Obama and his supporters stopped believing in fairy tales, and opened their eyes to the reality that he and Hillary are deadlocked in delegates (and that's only because Michigan and Florida were shut out). This hardly translates into a giant wave of momentum for Obama. If Hillary loses Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, then she should drop out and let Obama take the frontrunner position, in my opinion. But so far, the polls are showing that as usual, Hillary is stronger in the larger states.

I just can't help thinking that the winning strategy for Democrats is still a combined ticket for Clinton and Obama. They have both proven their strength in various demographics, and they could each bring a great deal to the other's campaign. Moreover, the excitement and participation of Democratic voters this year is palpable, and the turnout is absolutely breathtaking in the primaries. I wouldn't want the Party to lose either of these candidates and the sense of empowerment they bring to their supporters.

I don't think the theoretical gain of a few Republics and Independents should outweigh the almost certain reality of 16 years of Democratic Dominance in the White House. But then...

maybe it's just me.

As a long-time advocate of, and agitator for, impeachment, I was quite pleased and surprised to get an email from Democrats.com with the happy news that John Conyers is seriously considering impeachment hearings for Dick Cheney. Here's an excerpt:

Conyers Considers Cheney Impeachment Hearings

On Thursday, Chairman John Conyers' House Judiciary Committee held a hearing at which Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that he would not investigate torture or warrantless spying, he would not enforce contempt citations, and he would treat Justice Department opinions as providing immunity for crimes.

None of this was new, but perhaps it touched something in Conyers that had not been touched before. Following the hearing, he and two staffers met for over an hour with two members of Code Pink and discussed activism and impeachment, including Congressman Robert Wexler's proposal to begin impeachment hearings on Cheney.

Conyers expressed his concerns about what might happen following an impeachment, the danger of installing a Bush replacement or losing an election. But he said he's listening to several advocates for impeachment, including Liz Holtzman and David Swanson of Democrats.com. He hinted he could be swayed by a convincing argument, leaning out of his chair for dramatic effect.

Apparently Conyers needs convincing on political grounds. It is certainly clear that should hearings commence, Cheney would be gone almost immediately - there is no way he would not step down when all the dirt begins to come to light - and I do agree that it is a daunting prospect to consider who Bush would appoint as a successor to Cheney. Rummy? Rice? TurdBlossom? The mind reels.

But here's what you do. You RECOGNIZE YOUR POWER and you MAKE A DEAL. Chairman Conyers tells Bush who he'll appoint - pick a Democrat, NOT JOE LIEBERMAN, who agrees not to run for President in 2008 - or he'll start impeachment proceedings on teh Deciderer himself.

I do believe that if you stand up to a bully, he will back down. Will Congress remember this in time for their approval ratings to stay above negative numbers? Stay tuned.

And in the meantime, help convince Conyers to do the right thing.

McCain and Rove Form a Tentative Alliance

On Friday, a day after Karl Rove donated $2300 to John McCain's campaign, McCain (R-AZ) put aside a longstanding grudge over Rove's famously bold tactics in securing George Bush the 2000 GOP nomination, and said that Rove’s advice would be welcome in his campaign.

"Nobody denies he's one of the smartest political minds in America," McCain said. "I'd be glad to get his advice. I get advice from a lot of people. I'd be happy to have his advice."

Now, let me get this straight.

The American populace is screaming for a change. Bush's policies are proven disasters in every area. His approval ratings are Nixonian. The "wrong direction" numbers are 80%/20%. So, as the Republic nominee, the smartest thing to do would be to try to distance yourself from Bush, right? And since McCain is the recognized "maverickstraightshooterindependent" of the Republic Party, that shouldn't be so difficult. Right?

Let's look at this strategery from the so-called "strongest" Republic candidate.

War, My Friends

McCain is on record stating that he wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. He has also been caught on YouTube singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." He's gathered some of the most hated - and famously wrong - neoconservative warmongers to advise him on "more wars, my friends."

EXACTLY LIKE BUSH.

The Economy - Stupid?

McClueless recently stated that he didn't understand the economy very well and said in his defense, "I have Greenspan's book." Hmmmm, Alan Greenspan - wasn't that Bush's boy, whose advice led us directly into the Bush Depression?

EXACTLY LIKE BUSH.

Running a Negative Campaign - Good, or Really Really Great?

Both Hackabee and McCain have flamed Willard Romney for running a negative campaign. Yet, McCain has now shown himself to be willing to embrace the King/Queen of All Dirty Tricks, KKKarl Rove - otherwise known as "Bush's Brain."

EXACTLY. LIKE. BUSH.

Oh, McMaverick, you're just so dumb it's priceless. You're going down in flames just like your pathetic Chimp-In-Chief. You could have used the Lurve of the Matthews pundits, and your baseless reputation as a "straight talker," to promote just how different you are from Bush. Hell, it might even have worked. But instead, you're running to embrace him once again.

It's too good to be true, but I think it is. And despite the assurances of the traditional media, it's great news for Democrats.

and we have these weird caucuses and superdelegates and primaries that "don't count." Yes, we do have a lot to complain about and to fix.

However, it's still better being a Democrat during primary season than being a Republic. At least we Democrats don't stop counting votes because we don't like the result.

Republics seem to feel that 87%, not 100%, is the magic number of votes to count in Washington State. Ever-so-surprisingly, stopping the vote count and declaring John McMaverick the winner halted a decisive weekend sweep by Hackabee, the Candidate Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken.

“The Huckabee campaign is deeply disturbed by the obvious irregularities in the Washington State Republican precinct caucuses. It is very unfortunate that the Washington State Party Chairman, Luke Esser, chose to call the race for John McCain after only 87 percent of the vote was counted. According to CNN, the difference between Senator McCain and Governor Huckabee is a mere 242 votes, out of more than 12,000 votes counted—with another 1500 or so votes, apparently, not counted. That is an outrage.

“In other words, more than one in eight Evergreen State Republicans have been disenfranchised by the actions of their own party..."

This is just hilarious. Not only do they hate fair national elections, they hate fair elections WITHIN THEIR OWN PARTY. They're like brothers and sisters cheating each other at "Go Fish." Jeebus, what a bunch of crooks!

Look, I don't think that caucus victories mean a whole heck of a lot compared to primary victories. A primary election is much more like a regular election, where hundreds of thousands, or sometimes millions, of voters come out to express their support for their chosen candidate, whereas a caucus is much more like a town hall, where supporters of candidates group together and try to convince all the caucus-goers to vote their way. I'm not saying that a caucus victory is meaningless, but I don't see it as translating into widespread support for a candidate.

Barring a true miracle, the hated and despised McMaverick will indeed be the Republic candidate for President. But if I were he, I'd take a good look at Hackabee's strength in the South and Midwest, and at the fact that CPAC and fundie conservatives hate me, and perhaps I'd offer Hackabee the VP slot.

Not that it will help him win. But what else can he do?

Ah, Hackenfreude. It's a beautiful thing.

As a New York-Maryland girl, I know that I don't really understand what it feels like to be afraid of the weather. Oh, sure, we might get snowed in every once in a while, but that's about it.

Until a year and a half ago, Westchester County was not known for its extreme weather. Then, we got hit with a very small tornado less than 20 miles from where I live. Although no one was hurt, you can still see the damage to trees and property.

I shudder and weep to think of what lies ahead for Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Alabama.

Tornadoes and storms in the mid-South have killed 55 people since Tuesday evening in the deadliest tornado outbreak in the United States in more than 20 years.

The storms ripped apart homes and trapped residents of university dorms and a retirement home in debris.

The trail of death stretched across four states, with four people killed in Alabama, 13 in Arkansas, seven in Kentucky and 31 in Tennessee.

In some cases, there was almost no warning before the severe weather hit.

I am so sorry for the people of the South, whose suffering seems to grow and grow while the brain-damaged Chimp in the Oval Office shrugs and pretends that "prayer" will fix everything. I am so sorry for Americans, whose expectations of getting emergency services in return for their tax dollars seem to shrink and shrink, while the Vice President sneers and stacks more millions inside his man-sized safe. And I am so, so sorry that Congress is still saddled with heartless Republics, who block and water down every Congressional effort to make government work, while they pocket lobbyist money and insist on drowning government in the bathtub.

This Administration has managed to create seven years of dangerous weather. We are quickly turning into a third-world country, with poverty and joblessness on the rise, millions losing their homes, a dysfunctional educational system, and an economy that is consistently being bailed out by countries like Saudi Arabia and China.

The Bush Administration's tornadoes have been bad enough already. It's adding suffering to suffering when Nature's hurricanes and tornadoes come with them.

Oh my goodness, you mean he's NOT the Decider? Iraq 4-Evah...not so much.

Critics of a permanent presence in Iraq blasted Bush’s effort to cut Congress out of the process, saying the President had “absolutely zero credibility” to “unilaterally negotiate an agreement with Iraq on security.” Bills have been introduced in both the House and Senate that would bar the White House from making any such deals without Congressional approval.

[snip]

UPDATE: During a Senate hearing today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed that “any strategic framework agreement” with Iraq “will not contain a committment to defend Iraq.”

Look, we know we cannot trust Bush to abide by written agreements, but what he normally does with his "signing statements" is to claim that "this agreement/law does not apply to me." My sense is that even he will not be able to introduce language into the bill with a signing statement.

This is definitely a win: for Congressional Democrats, for whomever becomes President next year, and most importantly, for our soldiers in the field and at home. This agreement could have been a stone around the neck of the new Commander-in-Chief. Instead, there will be nothing to prevent the next President from immediately beginning the withdrawal from Iraq (and I hope, although this is not brought up much, either putting up or shutting up in Afghanistan).

I hope Congress continues to add cartilage to its collective spine. If this keeps up, we may actually have some accountability for the Bush Crime Family's lawlessness.

If we keep after our Congresscritters, such a thing may indeed come to pass.

[photos: Getty Images, via CNN]

Super Tuesday, Fat Tuesday, and Super Bowl Tuesday all in one. The Superest, Duperest Tuesday Evah!

So vote already. Be a proud American. And remember, we should all stay friends at the end of the day, no matter whose name we mark on the ballot. The worst thing that could happen would be another Republic President, whether it be Mitt "Double Gitmo!" Romney, or John "100 Years in Iraq" McMaverick.

Let's make sure we passionate progressives keep that in mind.

In a weird way, this gives me hope for America.

Our nation is in such bad shape, but if we don't give up, if we keep fighting against seemingly impossible odds, we can bring about true change, no matter how hopeless it seems.

May I quote "Galaxy Quest?"

Never give up. Never surrender!

Congratulations to the greatest team in football, the New York Giants!

This is absolutely hilarious.

He may still be underperforming at the polls, but when it comes to supporters putting their money where their mouths are, Ron Paul has the Republican frontrunners beat hands down.

Paul, the quirky Texas congressman who's been lighting the Internet on fire, raised $19.95 million in the last three months of 2007. That's more donations than the combined total of the two current Republican frontrunners, John McCain and Mitt Romney, during the same period, reports the Los Angeles Times' Andrew Malcolm.

Amazingly, Under-The-Radar Ron has as many delegates as Rudy NineEleven did before he dropped out. (I'm still reveling in the sheer bliss of not hearing Rudy described as a "front-runner," and having to reassure people who thought he was a serious threat to our candidates in 2008. I TOLD ya he wouldn't make it through the primaries.)

This 2008 Presidential election is obviously historic for Democrats from a race and gender standpoint; but in a strange way, I think it's also historic on the Republic side. Each candidate that has won - and may possibly win - a primary or caucus, represents a splinter of the disintegrating popsicle stick sculpture that is today's Republic Party.

Many people have described the conservative coalition as an uneasy three-way alliance between the corporatists (that would be Willard "Deep Pockets" Romney), the neocon warmongers (ably represented by John "Bomb Iran" McMaverick), and the rightwing fundie wackos (hello, Hackabee!). I haven't seen a lot of references to the fourth group, however, which in some ways is the most powerful: the libertarians, who believe they have found their king in Ron Paul.

One of Raygun's most successful cons was to make Americans believe that corporations are somehow "more efficient" than government. Poor, bloated, red-tape-filled government just couldn't hold a candle to the lean, mean, corruption-free style of the business world. As Raygun said,

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

[Tell that to the Gulf Coast, you heartless fuck.]

Now if the Republics were not so gifted at propaganda, and if Raygun were not such a harmless, benevolent-seeming figure, and if we had a media at that time, those words would have been recognized for what they were: A deliberate attempt to convince Americans to allow the merging of corporations and government. The true name of that system is Fascism. But alas, the same media that destroyed Jimmy Carter for trying to prevent future wars for oil was only too happy to embrace Raygun's nightmare vision. After all, it would certainly make the moguls who owned big corporations a lot richer, and that's all they cared about.

Enter the think tanks, the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys, the giant media conglomerates - all made possible by the evisceration of the Fairness Doctrine and the killing of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The 80's were marked by a huge increase in consumerism as culture; by movies like "Working Girl," which exalted the virtues of business; and, of course, by the entry into the Republican Big Tent of evangelicals and libertarians.

Liberal types tend to think that evangelicals are unteachable. I strongly disagree with this characterization. For example, the extremely popular Democratic Governor of once-red Montana, Brian Schweitzer, garnered the Republican "Gays God and Guns" vote by stressing that if we don't take care of the environment, there will be nowhere to hunt and fish. I believe that many evangelicals have voted, and will vote, Democratic, because we are the ones trying to address global climate change. As the Bible says, we should be stewards of the earth.

No, the truly unteachable are the libertarians. They believe right down to their souls that the government is bad and business is good. They will blather on endlessly, spewing out a fog of nineteen-syllable words they don't even understand, to "prove" how the founders really DIDN'T want government to take care of basic human needs and that the Declaration of Independence is more powerful than the Constitution and that the "free market" will take care of those who are "deserving" and that people can "choose" whether to be sick or poor or black or female or.....It is absolutely amazing that people this deluded about the real world can even hold down jobs or manage to feed themselves. But Raygun convinced them. Greed is good! Deregulation is good! Trust Enron, not the government! Wheeeeeeeeee!

Every high-flown argument for libertarianism boils down to this, however: "Fuck you - I've got mine." It's fine if you want to be an island in your personal life, but never will this philosophy ever work for a society.

I mean, isn't it obvious where Reaganomics has gotten us? Anyone should be able to see the direct results all around us: 47 million without health insurance; many more millions underinsured and going bankrupt because of it; gas prices out of control; the cost of living going up and real wages staying stagnant; good manufacturing jobs gone overseas; poverty increasing, unemployment going up, foreclosures and bankruptcy due to predatory lending prices and bank deregulation, two unwinnable, unending wars for resources in Afghanistan and Iraq...But somehow, libertarians are still holding onto their selfish, pathetic dreams. Obviously, the near-collapse of the American government just isn't collapse-y enough yet. If ONLY we'd deregulate the market MORE! And privatize EVERYTHING! Taxes are "stolen money!"

I swear to Jeebus, these people don't even realize that taxes build their roads, pay the salaries of public safety officials, pay for their schools, and keep the food supply and the air clean. They don't get that when you cut taxes in a time of war, as Dubya did and NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE, you don't have money for all those things to keep functioning. Duh. Fucking. Duh.

And whaddaya know? Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our food and toys are poisoned. Pollution is way up. Global warming is accelerating. Our schools are crumbling and underfunded. And that wonderful, wonderful response to Hurricane Katrina! Oh, that worked out great for the folks in Mississippi and Louisiana. I'm sure they were so grateful that Bush was playing guitar and Condi was shoe-shopping while they lost their homes, their loved ones and their lives.

It is this total denial of reality that allows libertarians to become cultists for Ron Paul, a racist nutjob who advocates against public libraries and a standing army, and who thinks the black helicopters are coming for us all. (I won't link to his website, but you can find all this stuff there.)

And you know what? I hope he wins, as Ross Perot won Maine in 1992; because I just can't wait to hear his victory speech. That will be a major revelation of the selfish and greedy underbelly of today's Republic Party; and one more nail in the political coffin of the most toxic criminal organization that ever stole the White House.

Nader/Bloomberg 2008! David Broder calls this team "A powerhouse combination of non-partisan idealism and megabillions!"

JUST KIDDING.

The dream ticket for me would be Gore/Dodd 2008. As usual, my candidates are not running. It sucks to be a leftie sometimes! But given our choices, I'd say that Clinton and Obama should put aside their differences and become as one.

Clinton/Obama 2008. What a landslide that would be! Her experience and toughness paired with his charisma and youth would be devastating. I feel that Hillary should be President, mainly because I like her approach much better, but also because she's already 60, and in eight years will be 68 - not a good age to be running for President from the VP slot. Barack, being only 46, will be 54 in eight years - still young and new, but now experienced enough to realize that "kumbaya" doesn't work in Washington (I would hope, anyway), and perhaps Americans, after eight years of seeing him in office, will no longer be swayed by rightwing allegations of his Super-Secret Muslim beliefs.

Seems like a good 16-year strategy to me, and the Giant Green Lizard knows...we're going to need at least 10 years to fix the damage the Deciderer has done to our country.