Oooh, nuance!

As the fallout from the Reverend Wright show continues, I find myself thinking once again about our American two-party political system. And once again, I conclude that it is robbing us of a rich variety of possible candidates and viewpoints.

We progressive-liberal-commie pinko types are always complaining that no candidate really represents our interests. Well, believe it or not, I hear that from conservative and independent types, too. Or do we really think that most Republicans are happy with Mr. 28% Job Approval? And what about their Congresscritters, who, if we watch C-SPAN, appear to have the collective intelligence of styrofoam? At this point, no one is happy, because the Big Tents of Republicans and Democrats are, well, too big. Trying to grow large enough to make it fit tends to bloat our candidates and make them slow and sleepy. You know, like eating too many carbs at lunch.

Just imagine if there were a proportional representation system in this country, and we had multiple parties representing various constituencies. Oh, I know that we would all still be complaining, but at least we would know that our representatives actually, you know, believed what we did and were pushing our agenda in Congress. Wouldn't that be loverly? And even better, the fringier portions of our electorate would only make up a fringie-ish part of our Congress. Yes, I'm talking to you, rightwing wackos!

Let's apply this to Barack Obama and his controversial pastor, Reverend Wright. Suppose there were a Black Liberation Party (the "BLP"), for example, that consisted of African Americans that subscribe to the views of Pastor Wright, which he classifies as Black Liberation Theology on the TUCC website. Should Senator Obama choose to be a member of that party, he would not have to renounce his pastor, mentor and friend of 20 years in order to run for office. He could simply state that he was a member of the BLP, and whoever ascribed to those views would vote for him. Presto-change-o, no pandering, no pretending. WYSIWYG.

Now, would these views make him eligible for the office of the President of the United States? I don't think so, personally, but if he could get enough votes as a representative of the BLP, then so be it!

This type of system only works if we put several other reforms in place as well. So, since I am borrowing Hillary's Queen of the Universe powers for the day, I hereby decree that:

1. Proportional representation now exists in America.
2. All elections are now publicly funded. Yes, you'd have to pay an extra $20 a year on your taxes. Get over it. Think of how much less time your representative would have to spend on the phone raising money from evil oil and insurance companies. Why, they might even be able to get some work done!
3. All candidates running for national office (President or Congresscritter) get equal, limited teevee time for advertising. The networks would provide it for free, in recompense for their use of the public airwaves to broadcast their mostly mindless drivel.
4. All political parties are legitimate if they can meet certain criteria. Let's say, X number of signatures and X number of meetings per year. (At last, we would see what real far-left liberals look like. Those words do not mean what Bill O'Reilly thinks they mean.)
5. Finally, there are no more primaries, caucuses, delegates, superdelegates or national conventions when we vote for President. Let the people have their say. There will be one national election weekend, and instant run-off voting will decide the winning ticket. Largest amount of votes = President. Second largest = Vice President. Bada bing, bada boom, Betty Boop.

Now, there is a danger that this new system could get a bit messy. (Notice my hitherto unseen gift for understatement.) But dammit, real democracy IS MESSY, but vibrant. Wouldn't that be better than messy, but decrepit?

I say let's go for change that is not just an empty slogan. Power to the people!

Okay, I'm off the fence. Not only is Barack Obama unelectable, but he will make Hillary Clinton unelectable if he joins her on a dream ticket. He is a dead man walking, and he still doesn't understand why.

Nor do his followers. I meandered over to Eschaton yesterday, and I saw many commenters opining on how the Reverend was not so bad; in fact, he was intelligent, thoughtful and misunderstood. Besides which, IACF (It's All Clinton's Fault) because she is fueling the flames of the controversy and because she is busy painting Obama as an uppity n***er.

I shit you not.

I have often wondered why, if Senator Clinton is as powerful as Obamans appear to believe, she would even bother to run for President. Surely, she controls the universe already! Wouldn't this be a demotion for her, of sorts?

I mean, forget the fact that the right-wing scream machine has been using her, her husband and her daughter as punching bags for the past umpteen years. She wouldn't bother using her Super-Powers for something so prosaic as preventing the media from accusing her of murder, or clamoring for the impeachment of her husband because of his infidelity, or publishing ever-more-hysterical accusations about her love life. Why should she bother with such trivialities?

She's much more inclined to use her Queen of the Universe Powers to control every aspect of Barack Obama's life. It's true! For example, did you know that Hillary was hovering, protoplasmically, over Senator Obama's head for 20 years whilst he sat in the Trinity United Church of Christ, listening to Wright's rantings and ravings? I mean, Obama couldn't have gotten up and walked away when he heard things he disagreed with. Senator Clinton kept pushing his butt back down in that seat!

You know what else she controls? The Reverend Wright himself. Late at night, when he is asleep, Hillary uses her mind control to hypnotically suggest that he go on national television and make a complete and total ass of himself by mocking the way white people clap, making fun of the accents of white people of all stripes (including JFK and LBJ), and proclaiming the great historical importance of the lunatic hatemonger Louis Farrakhan.

I am personally in awe at how well Hillary has torpedoed Barack Obama's campaign. She is like Tonya Harding with Super-Powers ZOMG!!!111111

Or maybe, just maybe, no one forced Obama to associate with Wright (or Reszko or Ayers). Maybe everything that's happened to him is the direct result of his own actions. Maybe the DNC, which has aided and abetted him at every turn, should have dealt better with the FL/MI mess, instead of blindly, stubbornly insisting that millions of votes did not count and proclaiming that Barack Obama is the front-runner in an essentially tied race. Maybe the bigwigs of the Democratic Party should have considered Hillary Clinton's decades of service to this country and to her party before jumping on Obama's bandwagon o'cash.

In fact, maybe IACF really doesn't apply here. Maybe Senator Obama and the Democratic Party have no one to blame...but themselves.

I do know one thing. If the Party chooses to nominate Obama despite his obvious flaws as a candidate for President, he will certainly lose against John McCain, and take the Democratic Party with him.

Good riddance, if the Party leadership is that incredibly stupid. This die-hard Democrat will become an Independent, and I won't be the only one.

Are you listening, Super-Delegates?

Oy. Every so often, I am reminded why I never watch news on the Teevee.

I was looking for a weather report yesterday morning, and I settled on New York 1. While I waited, the "news" came on.

The first thing I saw was footage of Barack Obama. Apparently, he was speaking about the economy. (I had the sound muted at first and missed most of what he was saying.) Then, a quote from Senator John McCain was displayed and read by the newsbot, basically stating that Senator Obama didn't understand the economy the way John McCaca McMaverick McCain, the most awesomest economic brain evah, did.

Then the newsbot went to the next story.

Did your head explode yet?

I mean, seriously. This type of reportage is like watching two three-year-olds arguing about who hit whom first. Fergodssake, was what Obama said true? Was it not true? Does John McCain understand the economy? What are McCain's economic proposals compared to Obama's? Which would actually benefit American workers, and which would not?

Okay, stop laughing. I know that the days of fact-based television journalism are long since past, although I hope, not forever. I have stated before that our Fourth Estate is broken. Hell, there are blogs that are devoted full-time to the horrors of today's corporate media. MediaMatters.org and The Daily Howler are two of the very best.

But man, every once in a while I get a glimpse of why so many Americans are uninformed about politics. It's not their fault. They watch the Teevee, and they get Twinkies and Doritos instead of chicken, rice and vegetables.

We aren't stupid. Our media is.

It's a damn shame.

and Central Park looks like this. (The photo is from the Central Park Conservancy, an excellent place to donate a few bucks if you're so inclined.)

Let's all think positive thoughts today, and I hope the weather is lovely in your part of the world.

Barack Obama's campaign, faced with irrefutable evidence from the exit polls and results in Pennsylvania, has finally admitted the problems he will have reaching out to white working-class voters if he becomes the nominee. The presumed Democratic front-runner took the first steps towards Democratic Party Unity by stating,

"You know, I realize that despite my intense concern for the working families of America, I have sometimes come across as if I didn't care. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I will be working very hard to convince the voters of this great country that I, in the inimitable words of Bill Clinton, feel their pain."

I applaud this savvy statement from Senator Obama. First, he admits there's a problem and that it's no one's fault but his own. Second, he throws in "this great country," which helps firm up the perception that he actually does love America. Third, he finally says something nice about the most successful and popular Democratic President most Americans can now remember. Great job, Senator!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Just kidding! That's what an ELECTABLE candidate would do. John Kerry was Bill Clinton compared to this guy.

Here's the latest "gaffe" from Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod. "Mind-blowingly idiotic" is a kind way to describe it.

"The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years [emphasis mine]. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes."

Here's how Bill Clinton won, you ridiculous, lying little snake. HE WON WHITE WORKING-CLASS VOTERS. Of course he didn't rely solely on them to win, but the fact that they "swung" to him made his win possible. That's what the expression "swing state" means. You. Idiot.

Now, I do understand that Barack Obama's strategy is to expand the electoral map in a previously unseen way. He brags about his Republican and Independent support, which I continue to believe is based on no evidence whatsoever. (Crossovers in the Democratic primaries and caucuses do not count. Republicans are known to vote strategically, and often they vote for the opponent they would like to run against.) He wants to count on some of the "red" states, such as Virginia, to carry him over the top. But has he really looked at who John McCain appeals to? Has he seen the effect his dismissive, insulting campaign has had on Hillary's voters? About 50% of those voters will not vote for him in the fall. Honey, there aren't enough young and African-American voters in the world to compensate for that loss.

I ask in despair, what did the Democratic Party ever do to deserve Axelrod and Obama? Haven't we been punished enough by seven years of the Worst President Ever? Do we really need to shoot ourselves in the foot once again by trying to shove an inexperienced, charismatic neophyte down America's throat?

I guess when Obama loses 40 states to John McCain in November, the Obamans will console themselves that they were prophets, misunderstood in their own time, and that all the core Democrats who wanted to vote for the more experienced, more qualified, and more electable candidate were just evil monsters and Republicans at heart. But frankly, they will be the only ones surprised. The rest of us have seen this movie before.

And once again, the ending will be tragic.

I am not too strong on teh mathemumatics, but there are many things that struck me as key in Hillary Clinton's primary victory over Barack Obama last night. Surprisingly enough, they all have to do with numbers. Let's check them out, shall we?

300%.

---

That's the amount by which Obama outspent Clinton in Pennsylvania.

10%.

---

That's the amount by which Clinton beat Obama despite his unprecedented advertising blitz.

50%.

---

That's the amount by which Clinton beat Obama in Scranton.

62%.

---

That's the amount by which white voters chose Hillary over Barack.

0%.

---

That's the amount of corporate media pundits who are being honest about the delegate and popular vote count. What about "they're not counting Florida and Michigan" do you not understand? Trust me, they know that the current count is bogus and that there is no way it will be viewed as legitimate by HRC's supporters. Perhaps that's why...

About 50%.

---

That's the amount of Hillary supporters who say they will not vote for Barack Obama. Holy fucking shit! (Please note that I'm not among those voters, but I deeply sympathize with their feelings.)

100%.

---

That's the amount of corporate media pundits who will now switch their allegiance from Obama to McMaverick McCaca McCain, their one and only true love, now and forever, amen. (It's already started this morning, although I predicted it yesterday on my new favorite blog, TalkLeft.) Say good-bye to your media darling status, Barack. I hope you enjoyed it. From now on, it's always good news for John McCain.

1.

---

That's the number of big states that Obama has won over Clinton. And it was his HOME STATE. It's like Hillary winning New York - it's a gimme. In every must-win General Election state, she has beaten him by a handy margin.

0.

---

That's the number of Obama voters who will riot at the Convention if the SuperDelegates choose HRC. Wake up, people, and stop being afraid of teh Blacks ZOMG!!!111!!!. Obama is a product. Do people riot in the streets if they can't get their iPods?

Here's why I'm sure about this. Before last night's primary, Obama supporters were calling Mayor Michael Nutter's office and excoriating him for his support for Senator Clinton. The good mayor of Philadelphia, who is African-American and hugely popular, was getting so much angry email from Obamans that he had to shut down his email address. Now, has anything happened to him? Of course not. They, like their candidate, are all talk.

A different question is: do I put anything past David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager and the Democrats' answer to KKKarl Rove? Absolutely not. Yes, he could use the tried-and-true Republic tactic of paying people to cause a ruckus, like the "Brooks Brothers riot" in Florida that stopped the vote counting in 2000. But I ask you, what would be the point? Would an Obama-inspired riot convince the Democratic Party that they had made a mistake in choosing HRC? Would they stop the balloons and say "Oh, ha ha, just kidding. Our nominee is....Barack Obama!" Um, no. The point is intimidation. The point is terror. But when it comes down to it, there will be no action, because by that time, it will be too late.

---

In conclusion, if I were a Democratic SuperDee, I'd look at these numbers very carefully. Where are Obama's white votes? Where is his core Democratic support? And why do they think that Hillary's voters have had enough of Barack Obama? Could it be the misogyny, the thuggery, the lying, the foot-in-mouth-itis, the elitism, the lack of experience and follow-through? And why can't he close if he is the nominee?

By the numbers, it looks like a very bumpy ride for Senator Obama from now on.

On this day of the Pennsylvania primary, a possible game-changer for the Democratic Presidential race, I would like to answer some of the questions that many Obama supporters seem to be constantly asking us Hillary supporters. From my travels across neutral and pro-Hillary blogs, I am confident that I am speaking for many and not just for myself. Here goes!

Q. Why does Hillary's experience matter to you? She's just part of the old style of politics.

A. Hillary's experience matters for two reasons:

1) She has been around long enough to know how Washington works. This will be a plus when attempting to get her agenda passed through Congress. We know she is adept at charming her opponents into working with her, as she recently charmed the capo di tutti capi, Richard Mellon Scaife. She also has the best grasp of how to deal with foreign leaders, having traveled to 80 countries as First Lady and been a strong support in negotiating for peace in Northern Ireland. Barack Obama's recent claim that his foreign policy experience was equal to (or surpassing) hers was nothing short of laughable.

2) She knows how to deal with, and defeat, the right-wing scream machine. Many people don't realize this, but her Senate run in 2000 was very, very far from a sure thing.

Her first opponent was - of all people - New York's Nosferatu, Rudy Giuliani. He pulled out in May due to prostate cancer, but if truth be told, Hillary had pulled about even with him before that decision. Then came Republic Rick Lazio, who, up until the very last minute, gave Hillary a real run for her money. She won due to her stellar performance in a one-on-one debate with Lazio, all the while defying the punditry who were constantly, desperately, predicting her demise. It never happened, because our girl never gives up. In 2006, she was re-elected with 67% of the vote.

Q. Why doesn't the math bother you? Barack Obama is leading in the popular vote and pledged delegates. His lead is insurmountable, so she might as well quit.

A. Barack Obama's math does not take Florida and Michigan into account. That is unrealistic and ill-advised. Those votes will at least be counted, even if the delegates are not seated. If you actually give Hillary all the votes she won, the gap narrows to a very surmountable one of 80,000 votes - and that count is from a pro-Obama diarist!

As for pledged delegates, neither candidate can reach the magic number without superdelegates. According to Democratic Party rules, the superdelegates are the only ones that matter at this point, and they can - and will - make their decisions based on any factors they think are important, such as...popular vote totals and electability.

Q. Okay, fine. Let's talk about electability. Don't you think that Barack Obama is more electable? After all, he's bringing in so much new blood and so much excitement to the process. Plus, he's converting a lot of Independents and Republics. Won't he be the best person to go up against John McCain?

A. In a word, no. Here is Hillary's Electoral College Theory of Electability in a nutshell.

At the start of this seemingly interminable Presidential campaign, Democrats saw a very favorable Electoral College map. With Hillary Clinton as the likely nominee, Democrats believed they could turn many states from red to blue, including Ohio (20), Florida (27), Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), Nevada (5), Colorado (9), and possibly Arizona (11), Virginia (13), West Virginia (5), and Missouri (11). But Clinton is unlikely to get the nomination.

Barack Obama is a far weaker candidate in many of these targeted states, but in particular in Ohio, Florida., Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia. McCain takes Arizona off the table against either nominee. Obama is polling better than Clinton in the competitive southwestern states and Iowa, as well as in Oregon, but trails badly in Virginia, which has elected a string of Democrats in recent years to statewide office. Some Democratic Party officials have written off Florida if Obama is the nominee (in some surveys he trails in the state by 10% or more, though he only trails by 4% in the Rasmussen survey). The Rasmussen survey shows McCain with a 7% lead over Obama in Ohio. Obama lost badly in that state's Democratic primary (by 10% to Clinton) winning only 5 of 88 counties. Now having insulted rural voters for their attachment to guns and God, the state has become even less friendly turf for him.

The Electoral math looks this way: if Florida and Ohio are safe for McCain, and Virginia and Missouri are too, as they now all appear to be, then McCain has a base of 260 Electoral College votes of the 270 he needs to win. He would need to only win 10 from among the states Bush won last time that are in play this year: Colorado (currently tied), New Mexico (3 point Obama lead), Iowa (4 point Obama lead) and Nevada (4 point Obama lead), and several tempting blue states in which McCain is currently competitive: Michigan (18), Pennsylvania (21), New Jersey (15) Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), and New Hampshire (4), among them.

McCain currently is narrowly ahead of Obama in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Michigan, and behind in the others. A Marist survey last week shocked many by showing McCain ahead of Obama by 2% in New York State (an 18% Kerry win in 2004). If McCain is within 10% of winning in New York in November, he will not need the state to win the election, for he likely will have won most or all of the blue states on his target list above.

Note that this analysis was done before the full effects of BitterCling were felt, before Obama's horrible performance in last Wednesday's debate, before he wriggled out of the upcoming North Carolina debate (his only suggested date was Passover, which was unacceptable - then he refused to reschedule), before he whined about eating his waffles...I bring these things up because they are Part Deux of the Clinton Theory of Electability. Obama's personal associations with Wright, Ayers, Rezko; his inability to electorally connect with or understand white working-class voters; his squirreliness about facing hostile questions; all these things do not a good candidate, or President, make. In short, he is not ready for prime time, and while Democrats desperate for any Democrat in the White House don't care as much, McCain will beat him like a drum in the General Election.

Q. Fine, so Obama isn't the greatest in debates or off-the-cuff. Don't tell me Hillary is so great either! What about Tuzla?

A. Hillary's misspeaking on Tuzla was definitely blown into a huge story, and it hurt her for a while. However, she apologized for it several times, most recently in the debate, and I think it is defused as a General Election issue.

Q. Well, what about her vote for the AUMF? Doesn't that bother you? If she hadn't voted for it, we wouldn't be in Iraq now. And how will she contrast herself with McCain on Iraq?

A. First of all, I've read about Bush's first few days in office. ("The Price of Loyalty" was a real eye-opener.) That man was going into Iraq. Nothing, including every Democrat voting against the AUMF, would have stopped him. This assertion is borne out by the fact that the AUMF did not authorize Bush to invade unless certain conditions were met; yet, despite the fact that those conditions were not met, Bush invaded anyway.

Barack Obama's supposed anti-war stance is a joke to me. He made a speech, then voted exactly the same as Hillary once he became a Senator. You want a real anti-war Senator, look at Russ Feingold's record. So to me, there is no difference between them on Iraq, except that I prefer her withdrawal plan to his.

As for Hillary's AUMF vote, I don't agree with it, and I was one of the people who marched against the war in 2003. However, I truly believe that this vote will allow her to credibly counter McCain's "I'm stronger on National Security!" argument. One of the things people always worry about with Democrats is, are they too peace-loving to fight when the chips are down? Well, Hillary has already shown her willingness to fight. So yes, she is too hawkish for me, but she's right where most Americans are - she initially supported the war, but now is insistent that our troops be brought home. Of course, McCain wants to stay there for 100 years. Not too hard to draw distinctions, now, is it?

Q. You Hillary supporters sure are long-winded! My last point is, what about the Movement? Don't you want to be part of the New Democratic Party, a party that throws off the shackles of partisanship and petty politics and moves forward with unity into a bright new, hopeful future?

A. I hate to put a bridle on your Unity Pony, but we Hillary supporters don't see you Obamans the way you see yourselves. We see you as thugs who bully and vilify and ban anyone who doesn't fully believe that Obama is the Messiah of the New Democratic Party. This does not speak of unity, lack of pettiness or new politics. It speaks of McCarthyism. You scare the hell out of us, frankly.

No, we see ourselves as the Silent Majority. We are the true Democrats, the ones who believe that parties exist for a reason, that the fights of the 60's are not over, that the nation is in a hell of a mess and that only a return to core Democratic principles - a New New Deal -can bring us forward into the 21st century.

And tonight, Pennsylvania voters will show us that we are right, as Hillary wins big despite being outspent 4-1 by Senator Obama. Barack Obama's movement is a house of cards that is just waiting for a breath of fresh air to blow it over.

Rise, Hillary, Rise!

This campaign must be making me sick...anyway, here's some good news that does not involve Election 2008.

Yes, you can be pro-peace AND pro-Israel. Just meet me on...J Street.

J Street represents Americans, primarily but not exclusively Jewish, who support Israel and its desire for security as the Jewish homeland, as well as the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own - two states living side-by-side in peace and security. We believe ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the best interests of Israel, the United States, the Palestinians, and the region as a whole.

J Street supports diplomatic solutions over military ones, including in Iran; multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution; and dialogue over confrontation with a wide range of countries and actors when conflicts do arise. For more on our policy positions, click here.

J Street will advocate forcefully in the policy process, in Congress, in the media, and in the Jewish community to make sure public officials and community leaders clearly see the depth and breadth of support for our views on Middle East policy among voters and supporters in their states and districts. We seek to complement the work of existing organizations and individuals that share our agenda. In our lobbying and advocacy efforts, we will enlist individual supporters of other efforts as partners.

Good for them. It's about time some rational voices countered the extreme right-wing influence of AIPAC on American politics.

Such a mitzvah!

The Pope is in New York City today. There are over a billion people in this world who, if they follow Catholic doctrine stringently, believe Pope Benedict XVI is infallible.

Maybe it's my commie pinko roots showing, but I don't think any man or woman is infallible. We human beings fall too easily into hero worship, in general, and we fail to appreciate that someone can be good without being perfect.

If we would only realize that the perfect is the enemy of the good, then maybe we wouldn't be so susceptible to manipulation by forces that do not have our best interests at heart. Over and over again, we are disappointed in our political leaders, for example, because they are flawed and all-too-human.

I often wonder if Martin Luther King Jr. would have been able to have the same impact today as he did before infotainment replaced broadcast news. Would the media have destroyed him because of his infidelity to his wife? Would they have focused on character over issues, as they have been doing for decades now, and painted Dr. King as hypocritical and untrustworthy, distracting us from the essential truths contained in his message?

I think that the media would have done exactly that. And we would have fallen for it. And our nation would have been immeasurably poorer as a result.

No man (or woman) is infallible. Not the Pope, not Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, and not John McCain.

The problem is, Barack Obama is campaigning as if he is the One, the only One who can save our country from its imperfections. Through him, we will transcend all prejudice, all differences of opinion; and, forged into a post-partisan, unified, enlightened whole, we will move forward into the 21st century as a healed, proud and dignified nation.

Doesn't that sound wonderful - especially after eight years of suffering under the most lawless, warmongering, just plain evil administration in the history of our country? But notice how whenever Obama is challenged on these assertions and asked how he is going to implement them, he gives no answers. As he did in the debate on Wednesday, he talks about principles instead of plans.

That's because perfection like that is impossible to attain. Reality rears its ugly head. We do disagree with each other because the Republics are wrong about most issues that concern Americans, and simply electing Obama won't change that. Racism is not gone, and won't evaporate simply because we elect Obama. Poverty and injustice will always have to be fought, and won't disappear simply because we elect Obama. The megacorporations will have to be broken up and their stranglehold on the media and our candidates slowly loosened, and that won't happen just because we elect Obama.

Where are the bullet points? On his website? Oh, please. Is that what he's going to tell the Senate and House when he's asked about his plans for America? Is that how he's going to repair our relations with foreign leaders, and negotiate for peace in the Middle East, as every President (except George W. Bush) has attempted to do?

Barack Obama offers an idealized vision of infallibility that many voters seem to find very attractive. But we reality-based folks know better. Bill and Hillary are not perfect, but Bill was one of the most successful Democratic Presidents we've ever had, and Hillary, based on her record of service to this country, could be even better - especially with a supportive Democratic Congress to push her agenda, which Bill Clinton never enjoyed.

Flawed, but good, beats infallible for me any day. I hope the voters of Pennsylvania will feel the same way.

Clearly, he can't take the heat, because the Democratic debate last night was one of the most painful spectacles I've ever seen. [The full transcript is here.]

For about thirty-five or forty minutes, Barack Obama had to suffer a pale echo of the kind of "gotcha" personal questions that Hillary Clinton has had to suffer for the past sixteen years. And his response was twofold: "Stop picking on me!" and, of course, the old standby, "It's all Clinton's fault!" (which I have taken to referring to as IACF for brevity's sake). It was, to be charitable, not impressive.

What's amazing to me, is as awful as those questions were, they were about things that Senator Obama has brought upon himself - and he still couldn't handle them. Who put a gun to his head and made him say those idiotic words about Americans being bitter and clinging to their guns and religion because of economic hardship - and that's why they like Hillary better? Who forced him to stay with that hateful and controversial church for 20 years? Who makes him associate with people like William Ayers from the Weather Underground? If a Democrat wants to run for president, as Senator Clinton has known since her husband went through it, IT'S ALL FAIR GAME.

And believe it or not, this game was fairer than what Clinton's had to go through. For example, they didn't ask him about Reszko and Auchi, two very, very controversial Middle Eastern figures who may be more deeply associated with Barack Obama than he has previously admitted. They didn't make him answer for things that his wife has said or done - though Hillary has always had to answer for Bill. Finally, they didn't just pretend he's done things and expect him to justify doing them. (An extreme case of this type of "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question is the monstrous accusation that Hillary murdered Vince Foster.)

Now, in my ideal world, just being a Democrat running for President would not entitle the corporate media to plot your destruction. But that's what they do, and anyone who is foolish enough not to realize that - like, say, someone who's been tongue-bathed by the media from Day One - deserves what he gets.

The rest of the debate, which was focused on questions about Iraq, the economy, gas prices, taxes and gun regulation, went a bit better for Senator Obama. Unfortunately, he was debating Hillary Clinton, who is, quite frankly, the best I've ever seen in this format. If a question was framed as a "gotcha," she changed it around and addressed the real issue behind it, often getting in some good swipes at Bush and Dick "Fourth Branch" Cheney in the process. If a question was not framed as a gotcha (those were few and far between), she answered it with a point-by-point plan in simple, but eloquent, language. Senator Obama was vague, repetitive and stuttering in most of his responses, and I actually found it very difficult to follow what he was saying. Were he up against a less gifted politician, his performance would have been better, but he was in Hillary's Kitchen. She doesn't let anyone in when she's baking cookies, Senator Obama.

Finally, I was very glad to see that Hillary was able to speak several times about the peace and prosperity that happened in the 1990's, because Barack Obama appears to have been abducted by aliens during that period of time.

How else to explain his repetition of this obviously false talking point:

"For decades, people have seen their government fail to keep its promises to them."

No, Barack, during the 1990's, most people were actually pretty happy with their government. How else to explain the 70-plus percent approval rating that Bill Clinton had DURING HIS IMPEACHMENT?

I never realized before how out of touch Obama's rhetoric is with the basic reality of America, and how utterly damaging his continuous lying about the 1990's is to the Democratic brand. I would like to know how he justifies his lack of praise for even one former Democratic President. Certainly he seems to feel that praising Bill Clinton would damage his credibility. I don't blame him, since so far, his only distinguishing characteristics seem to be a talent for speechmaking, charisma and the "I'M NOT HITLERY!!!1111!!!!" factor. Yesterday, he slammed Jimmy Carter for doing what he won a Nobel Peace Prize for: attempting to broker peace in the Middle East. How about FDR? JFK? LBJ? Any kind words?

Perhaps at some point he has spoken them, but praising successful Democratic presidents of the past is certainly not a cornerstone of his campaign, and it should be. It's the working class, stupid, and every recent Democratic administration, starting with FDR, has been better for the working class than every recent Republic administration. Why can't you just admit it? It may be "partisan," but it's TRUE.

As my husband said last night after watching only the issues-oriented part of the debate, "He'd make a great Vice President." And who knows - that may be where he ends up. But as far as the top of the ticket goes, he should have stayed out of Hillary's Kitchen.

The heat will kill him.

say House Republics.

TRENTON, N.J. - Legislation sponsored by a New Jersey congressman that would have reimbursed states wanting to adopt voting safeguards before the November presidential election failed to win approval Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill, dubbed the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008, fell short of the two-thirds majority it needed to pass, even after clearing a House committee unanimously. The vote was 239-178 in favor, with all but two Democrats supporting it and all but 16 Republicans opposed.

The two Democrats who voted nay on H R 5036 were Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Nick Rahall. [I can't find an answer as to why Kucinich voted against it, but I'm assuming it didn't go far enough for him.] The 16 Republicans who voted in favor of the bill were Reps. Vern Buchanan, Steve Chabot, Tom Cole, Tom Davis, Charlie Dent, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart, Jim Gerlach, Dean Heller, Tim Murphy, Marilyn Musgrave, Jon Porter, Jim Ramstad, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chris Shays, and Chris Smith. [Good for them. Even a blind pig finds a truffle every now and then.]

The bill would have allowed states and jurisdictions to be reimbursed by the federal government for converting to a paper ballot system, offering emergency paper ballots or conducting audits by hand counts.

The measure was designed to ensure that every vote is properly counted. Voters in all or parts of 20 states including New Jersey now cast ballots electronically without backup paper verification, according to the bill's sponsor, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J.

The bill would have provided reimbursements for states to provide voter-verified, audited balloting for the general election, but it would not have mandated standards for the states.

Republicans opposed the bill because of the cost. [No, they didn't, as the next two paragraphs show.]

The White House on Tuesday noted that a 2002 election reform act had authorized $3 billion to help states upgrade their voting systems, and that about one-third of that money was still available.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of the legislation at $685 million, but supporters said that applied only to a worst-case scenario where many states opted to change their systems. [See? One-third of three billion is one billion. One billion is MORE than 685 million. Ah, Republic math!]

I'm not surprised that Republics voted against helping states fund the switch to paper ballots. For many years, they have been on the wrong side of voter enfranchisement. Indeed, as conservative stalwart Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, famously said, the more they can suppress the vote, the better it is for their party.

The hopeful thing for the future is that almost every Democrat voted for the bill. So, once we have more Democrats in Congress, which we most assuredly will in 2009, I feel confident that we will get rid of the paperless voting machines once and for all.

The next step after that, of course, would be returning our franchise to the government instead of keeping it within the purview of private corporations. Oregon votes by mail, and it seems to work quite well. I don't see why Americans all over the country couldn't do the same thing, or some variation thereof.

Of course, that would mean the Republic owners of the voting machine companies, like ES&S, Sequoia and Diebold, would lose their businesses. But hey - that's the free market, guys. If no one wants your product, you lose!

Wouldn't it be lovely if for once, rich Republics had to actually compete in their so-called free market, instead of being able to game the system with no-bid contracts?

Ah, hope is the thing with feathers...

The Tax Man Cometh!

And so does the Deciderer and his awesome economomic plan. Look, $600!

Too bad there's no place to spend it.

A growing number of bankruptcies among US retailers is set to prompt thousands of store closings, the New York Times will report on the front page of its Tuesday edition.

"The consumer spending slump and tightening credit markets are triggering a wave of bankruptcies in American retailing," with ensuing store closures "expected to remake suburban malls and downtown shopping districts across the country," writes Michael Barbaro for the Times.

Barbaro notes that over half a dozen store chains have filed for bankruptcy in recent months amidst "mounting debt and plummeting sales" and warns that financial troubles are "quickly spreading to bigger national companies."

The Times articles comes amid a slew of reports underscoring America's economic woes. Even presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, who only months ago panned talk of a recession, admitted today that he thought the country was now in one.

Even relatively well-off retailers face troubles. Added Barbaro in the article, such store chains who can avoid bankruptcy "are shutting down stores to preserve cash through what could be a long economic downturn."

It's only just begun, folks.

I do hope that $600 helps you and your family, if you are so "fortunate" as to qualify for the rebate.

I also hope that this will be the year that people finally realize that Republicans always, ALWAYS screw up the economy.

If so, we could be looking at a huge blue tide in November.

John McCain scares the hell out of me, so I've been keeping fairly silent on Barack Obama, and what I believe are his fatal flaws as a candidate in the general election. But I can't let this latest gaffe go by.

By now, Senator Obama's jaw-droppingly tone-deaf remarks in San Francisco have made it to your ears or eyes, I don't doubt. But I just wouldn't be a campaign-obsessed bloggista without making my own commentary, now would I?

Obama's remarks were made as an explanation of why he is not connecting with working-class Democratic voters in Pennsylvania. I'll just let you read them again, and shake your head in amazement.

Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

First of all, may I just say that I am incredibly sick of Obama's attempts to rewrite history when it comes to the Clinton administration. I was there, Barack. I know how much better it was in those days of peace and prosperity, when our President's biggest failures were private and didn't kill anyone, when we still had a working Constitution and Justice Department, when we actually stopped terrorist attacks before they happened, and when our economy was strong and it was easy to get a job. It was completely different during the Reagan-Bush years, during which I was also alive and conscious and struggling to make it; yet you make it sound as if the economy had steadily downturned from Reagan-Bush, through Clinton, through the Deciderer's reign of error.

In fact, the working class always does better under Democrats. It's one of the real differences between the parties. We know this. And I suspect you may know it too, but you don't seem to care.

Do you really wonder why working-class Democrats over 30 don't vote for you? And why we don't trust you? And why we resent the hell out of you? Here's a clue, Senator - we don't appreciate your smearing the only successful Democratic President we've had since FDR. To put it in terms you might understand, you are destroying our brand for the sake of your own personal ambitions. Gee, you're doing exactly what you and your supporters accuse Hillary of, every second of every day. Projection - it's not just for film booths anymore!

Second, your explanation of why people don't vote for you is nonsensical. I mean, literally - the entire paragraph doesn't make sense. I actually have no idea what you were trying to say when you claimed people are bitter because they can't find work, and then you say that's why they "cling" to God, guns, xenophobia and anti-trade policies? (By the way - that last little bit about anti-trade policies is very interesting. Sounds like you're not so against NAFTA afta all.)

Some Obamans have claimed that Senator Obama was trying to make the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" argument. Well, I've actually read that book, and the argument is not that people cling to their religious beliefs out of bitterness and that's why they vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Do people not know how to use their brains anymore? Will they accept anything Obama says as gospel, no matter how ridiculous?

The essential argument posited by Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" is that movement conservatives (Republicans) have, through a process called "backlash," convinced the working class in places like Kansas to vote against their economic interest and focus their votes on "social" issues like abortion, which Republicans have convinced many people that only they are addressing. He is explaining how states like Kansas went red, when 100 years ago, they were fiery populists and champions of working class values.

Again, this book is about why people vote for REPUBLICANS against their economic interests. Senator Obama was talking about Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio, right? These are registered Democrats who are voting in the Democratic primary, right? They are voting for Hillary over Obama, choosing between two Democrats, right? So how in any way do his remarks refer to Thomas Frank's thesis? These people WANT TO VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT. They are not voting for Republicans. Grasping at straws much, Obamans?

By the way, Obama's on his millionth "explanation" of his remarks now, with no end in sight.

Sen. Obama on April 13:

Well, first of all, you know, Scripture talks about clinging to what's good... What I was saying is that when economic hardship hits in these communities, what people have is- they've got family, they've got their faith., they've got the traditions that have been passed on to them from generation to generation. Those aren't bad things.

Oh my. Golly gee, Senator, I'm so glad you feel that religion and family traditions aren't bad things. However, that's not remotely what you said, and you know it. You said that people cling to religion and guns because they are bitter and want to explain their economic frustrations. Enough said. After such an inflammatory statement, why in the world didn't Obama just apologize and move on?

Unfortunately, the only explanation I can think of is because he genuinely feels this way about working-class Americans. Obama is showing us that he is, at heart, an elitist Democrat, the kind of Democrat that Left Blogistan accuses Hillary of being; the kind who wants to unify with Republicans and put them in his cabinet; the kind who is more comfortable with Wall Street than Main Street.

However, I must say that Obama is not MY kind of Democrat, and I think most Americans are starting to understand that his promises of "change" are just empty slogans. I'm confident that in the coming primaries, Americans will state their preference loudly and clearly.

Barack Obama and his illusions of inevitability will begin to fade away, starting April 22nd in the Pennsylvania primary. And I hope and pray that the Super Delegates will soon be asking, "What's the matter with Barack Obama?"

Okay, no more McCaca today. Today's obsession is - Tricky Dick!

Apparently, we're still kicking him around.

President Bush's refusal to let two confidants provide information to Congress about fired federal prosecutors represents the most expansive view of executive privilege since Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee told a federal judge Thursday.

Lawyers for the Democratic-led panel argued in court documents that Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers are not protected from subpoenas last year that sought information about the dismissals.

The legal filing came in lawsuit that pits the legislative branch against the executive in a fight over a president's powers.

The committee is seeking the testimony as it tries to make a case that the White House directed the firing of nine U.S. attorneys because they were not supportive enough of Republicans' political agenda.

[snip]

"Not since the days of Watergate have the Congress and the federal courts been confronted with such an expansive view of executive privilege as the one asserted by the current presidential administration and the individual defendants in this case," according to the House's filing.

The idea that Miers could disregard an order to appear at a hearing simply at the president's request suggests a return to the sentiment expressed in Nixon's statement, as quoted in a 1977 New York Times interview, that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal," the House lawyers wrote.

My goodness. Why in the world would the Bush Administration be so incredibly secretive? Could it possibly be that they are also hiding something nefarious? Not just about the fired attorneys, but about many other things? Things that could be, well, illegal under our Constitution and international law?

Like, perhaps, this?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.

The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.

We have replaced the paranoid, drunk, dictatorial President Richard Nixon with the paranoid, drunk, dictatorial, warmongering, face-shooting, torturing President Richard Cheney.

I'll tell you something: it's not an improvement. Because Cheney learned from Nixon's mistakes: he corrupted the Justice Department immediately upon taking office, and had Bush push through as many right-wing federal judges as possible while the Republics were in the majority.

Now, despite the Democrats' efforts to hold this Administration accountable for clear and obvious criminality, it may be impossible to circumvent all the roadblocks put in place by our new Tricky Dick and his trained monkey. The reason the subpoenas of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten were not enforced in the first place was that the Justice Department refused to enforce them. The House then filed contempt charges, which the Justice Department again refused to enforce. At that point, the House decided to sue in federal court, and this is where we are.

I just have one eensy request: If we're going to repeat Richard Nixon's greatest hits, can we play my favorite one?

Impeachment?

and yet, McCaca is still a warmongering asshole.

Republican U.S. presidential candidate John McCain said on Wednesday he would not rule out launching preemptive wars against future enemies.

President George W. Bush, in launching his 2003 invasion of Iraq, said it was necessary to forestall possible future attacks from a country that was developing weapons of mass destruction.

None of the weapons he alleged were in Iraq were subsequently found.

[snip]

When asked at a town hall meeting about the Bush policy on preemption, McCain said: "I don't think you can make a blanket statement about preemptive war because obviously it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces."

After the Sept. 11 attacks Bush approved a new national security strategy in 2002 that allowed the United States to strike first against U.S. enemies believed to be about to use weapons of mass destruction against America.

The doctrine triggered a wide debate and criticism from the administration's critics at the time.

Folks, as the once-great Randi Rhodes used to say, "When they show you who they are, BELIEVE THEM."

Iraq for 100 years? HE MEANS IT.

More wars? HE MEANS IT.

This is the future of our country if McCaca becomes president in 2009. Please don't be under any illusion that he is a moderate of any sort. He's just another tool of the military-industrial complex.

And don't forget that he doesn't really understand economics. Just what we need, since the economy is so awesomely strong and robust!

Waitaminute...

He absolutely, positively refuses to get the most basic elements of the Iraq occupation correct.

What is he, guessing?

This is absurd. And it's not the first time he's done it, either - there have been four other occasions on which he has stated that Iran and Al-Qaeda are directly linked.

And as for the actions of Muqtada Al-Sadr last week, McCain seems to be a tad confused as well.

There are two possibilities here, neither of them good.

1) McCaca is old and senile and honestly doesn't know what he's talking about; in which case, he is simply unable to be President; or,

2) He is insidiously catapulting the propaganda that Iraq would be doing fine if it weren't for Iran; in which case, he is trying to drum up a case for war against Iran, and is a carbon copy of the Warmongerer-In-Chief.

I'm voting for option two.

I'm adding my voice to the "Any Democrat 08" brigade once more. Anyone considering voting for McCaca, or staying home, should consider his obvious intentions to continue and embiggen, if you will, the horrific policies of George W. Bush. If you want, as Teresa Heinz Kerry famously said, "Four more years of hell," then by all means, help make McCaca our next Deciderer.

But be prepared for The Worst President Evah, Part Deux. Because "there will be other wars."

New York Mayor Bloomberg's "congestion pricing" plan is DOA. Sheldon Silver and the Albany Democrats killed it. Praise Jeebus!

For those that don't know about this, Bloomberg had proposed that anyone driving on 60th Street and below in Manhattan pay an $8 fee. The idea behind this would be to alleviate congestion in that area and generate millions in revenue to invest in better public transportation. If this plan were put into action, New York City would be eligible for $354 million in federal funding, about $10 million of which would go towards funding the congestion pricing program itself, and the rest being allocated towards improving infrastructure and public transportation options. This money would be most welcome, since, like most major American cities in the Age of Bush, NYC is perpetually low on cash.

All sounds great, right? One thing I do like about Bloomberg is his commitment to the environment, and I certainly agree that improving infrastructure and public transportation would be a good start.

But read the fine print. The congestion pricing option was only one of many that could have been considered.

New York City applied to be part of the United States Department of Transportation's Urban Partnership Program, which would allocate money to cities that were willing to fight urban traffic congestion through tolling programs, express bus services or bus rapid transit, telecommuting, or technologies designed for the purpose.

Why the focus on congestion pricing, then? I have long felt that telecommuting (which is what I do) is a far, far better option for companies to pursue. It's a win-win in so many respects: cheaper for the company, which has much less overhead to maintain; cheaper for the employee, who saves thousands in commuting costs; and so much better for the environment! Why couldn't tax breaks, or other incentives, be given to companies who allow a certain percentage of their employees to telecommute?

Well, because it's much better for the lowly bridge-and-tunnel folks to be brutally penalized for deigning to enter the Land of The Super-Wealthy, apparently.

Actually, I don't know the answer to this question: all I know is, in my opinion, it is a simply horrible idea to charge people so much money to come to work. Some are already paying a ridiculous amount, and with the price of gas going up? Oy!

For example, my hairdresser, who commutes from the Poconos, tells me she is already paying about $50/day to come to work. She has to drive AND take the bus in order to coordinate with her husband's work schedule. Yes, she works below 60th Street. Yes, she would now be paying almost $60/day. Why? What benefit would it be to her?

And there's the rub. A lot of people who don't live in New York would be paying a lot of money to (possibly) improve the lives of New Yorkers. It just doesn't make sense, and the Democrats in the State Assembly knew it. In fact, New Jersey Governor John Corzine hated the idea so much that he was willing to sue the city to stop the plan from taking place.

But that telecommuting option...

Okay, I admit it - I'm a fool for Tolkien, and the billion-hour extended DVD versions of the LOTR movies are beyond delicious. This weekend, my husband and I took some time off from our taxes and endless apartment work to watch some of the series.

All I could think of as I watched the misshapen Orcs toiling in a Mordor that resembled a nuclear wasteland, as I watched Saruman willingly turn his beautiful home of Isengard into a smoking hole, was Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the modern conservative movement.

In my mind, we humans are in the same desperate case as Tolkien's fictional Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits. The craze for industry, without a thought to its effects on the world's natural beauty and resources, has polluted and destroyed much of our planet. The ice shelves in the Antarctic are starting to crack and melt, raising the possibility of the sea level rising several feet and drowning major American cities. Of course, the endless strife we have caused and exacerbated in the Middle East, has done its share of destruction as well. Besides the bombing of "shock and awe," we have also been poisoning the lands and people (including our own soldiers) with depleted uranium.

As a person who is not caught up in the elaborate Orwellian fictions of today's conservatism, you have to sit back and marvel. How can anyone see the results of this philosophy all around them - tens of millions in poverty, war that never ends, an environment turning blacker and uglier by the day - and still feel comfortable with the Mordor-ization of their world? Do they want to be nothing but Orcs, never achieving their full humanity, slaving away at dead-end jobs, living in filth and squalor, and being thrown into the grinder of the military machine whenever their Dark Lord deems it necessary?

The answer is simple. As John Dean points out in his invaluable book "Conservatives Without Conscience," today's conservative already sees the world as an ugly and essentially evil place. Human beings are not noble, they're sinners and fatally flawed. Thus, there is no hope for a better world. The religious conservatives, indeed, are actively trying to bring about Armageddon, in the hope that Jesus will return and Rapture the true believers into Heaven. In their case, the more destruction, the better. Praise the Lord!

No wonder we non-conservatives have been so despondent for the past 28 years (with a small eight-year respite during the Clinton Presidency). We are seeing the darkness of the conservative mind take shape all around us. Yet, like the characters in the Tolkien books, we are late and slow in taking action, and the Shadow appears to be too strong to be defeated. Many are taking the Elvish route of non-involvement, whereas others have joined the Enemy out of a lust for power and wealth.

Yet we must not despair, for the Shadow can never win. The forces of creation and renewal will always triumph over the forces of destruction. So it has always been, and so it shall ever be - as long as we are committed to defeating the darkness.

We do have hopes and dreams and plans for a better future, for we are liberals and progressives and moderates and independents, and we don't want to live in the Land of Mordor. And though we may suffer greatly at the hands of Bush, Cheney and their enablers all over the world, in the end, if we fight for our country and our globe, we will triumph.

Peace and love be with you today, and always.

Guys, you blew it.

Air America - you went off the rails. Look what Randi Rhodes did in public. Urinating on herself would have been less embarrassing.

Daily Kos - you've become an echo chamber of ranting lunatics.

Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post, Buzzflash, AmericaBlog - you've become the I Hate Hillary show.

Keith Olbermann - why don't you just foam at the mouth a little more when discussing the presidential race? You and Tweety can spit at each other and compete to see who hates Hillary more.

You can't fix it now, as I understand some of you are belatedly, and insincerely, trying to do. It's too late.

We liberals once looked to you as an alternative to the ravings of Fox News and the relentless pro-Bush spin of the corporate media. Yes, we knew you had a bias, but we needed it, because we needed a dose of reality-based reality instead of Orwellian realish-ness.

At first, we visited and listened with joy. Finally, someone was telling the truth about warrantless wiretapping, torture, anti-Constitutional activities, stolen elections, and so much more!

But then, something changed. Slowly, each outlet picked a side in the Democratic presidential nomination; and amazingly, it was always the same side. Oh, some pretended they were objective, but it was blindingly obvious that progressive media had lined up 100% behind Barack Obama.

Even that would not have been so bad, but once you decided to love Obama, apparently, you decided to hate Hillary Clinton. I mean, really, REALLY hate her. Randi Rhodes was YouTubed saying what she said, but over the past several months, I have seen and heard so many things that are so much worse than that...relentless, non-stop poisoning of the well of public opinion against Hillary.

Let me repeat that.

The progressive media decided to bash, malign, smear and hate the possible Democratic nominee for President.

Now, in a rational universe, Hillary Clinton is a much better pick for liberals than John "McCaca" McCain for president. As I've pointed out many times, her progressive voting record is 91% - check it out on ProgressivePunch.org. She was the only person in recent history to try to bring universal health care to the U.S., and deserves a lot of credit for the SCHIP program. I could go on and on, but let's get real. McCaca is old, incompetent and clueless, and determined to continue the disastrous policies of the Worst President Evah. We simply cannot afford him as President. CANNOT.

But apparently, as I've also pointed out, Obamans really do not understand who the enemy is. They really think that Obama is The One and Hillary is a horrible monster tearing chunks out of his beautiful saintly hide purely for the edification of her own unseemly ambitions. And once you've drunk that Koolaid, you must hold these beliefs, even if you are a progressive news blog, a progressive pundit or a progressive news/talk network.

No more do we hear about Bush and the various machinations of the Dems in Congress in their endless attempts to undo the damage he's done. No more do we hear about McCaca and how flawed he is as a candidate. All we hear is HILLARY LIED! HILLARY CRIED! HILLARY'S DEAD! WHY DOESN'T THAT BITCH DIE?

All I can say is, Big Progressive Media, you have completely lost it. You've lost all your credibility. You've lost listeners, readers and viewers, and you're going to lose more. Because now? Many of us are going to Fox News for balance (I won't do it myself, but many are). Yes, Fox News is less hateful to Hillary and more fair to both candidates than Big Progressive Media. What the hell is wrong with you?

I will never understand why, but you fucked us all over for the sake of Barack Obama and his sweet, sweet Koolaid. And if he's not the nominee, or if he loses the GE? Why, you'll blame evil monster Hillary - but by that time, will anyone care about you?

I sure hope that Koolaid tasted goooooood. Because you've proven the right-wingers right once again: the American left is fucking crazy. We don't even need them to destroy us; we've destroyed ourselves. In a year where we should have won the Presidency by a landslide, we might have handed the presidency to John McCain. KKKarl & Co. are chortling with glee at our puerile stupidity.

There is some good news. Already new and smaller media is rising to compete with the old, but they have an uphill battle against the Hillary Hatred that they are having a hard time winning. I have blogrolled some of them, and I hope you will check them out.

The next time we mount a concerted effort to fight with the Big Boys, we must focus our ammunition on enemy soldiers and stop using friendly fire on our own troops.

If not, Big Progressive Media in this country will always be doomed to die.

No, seriously, I really do. I'm only partially non-delirious.

Will post more when I'm back to my (ab) normal self.

Meanwhile, check out the good folks on my blogroll. Especially cute kitties at Plush Life, if you don't feel like bad news today...

A brief clue before you click, in case you missed this light-hearted Obama event: The Senator went bowling recently in PA, and let's just say, it, um, didn't go well.

Senator Clinton's oh-so-serious take?

Priceless.

is a brilliant, timely and practical answer to the financial crisis we find ourselves in today. Ready for swift action, the Treasury Secretary has promised immediate relief to homeowners and accountability for predatory lenders and other bad actors.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

April Fool's, darlings. No, Bush's plan, even if it were structured to be effective, would not be put into place until...

well, take a wild guess.

Paulson proposed the broadest restructuring of federal regulatory institutions in 75 years with a call to merge agencies and redraw lines of authority that in some cases go back to the Great Depression. But the plan would put off for years any attempt to create new regulations for the streamlined system to enforce. [emphasis added]

As a result, even if the new structure were eventually adopted, it would do little to prevent a repeat of the current crisis or something similar, the Treasury secretary acknowledged.

Well, then, what would be the point of this legislation? C'mon, I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

First, the core of the plan was devised more than a year ago to reflect Paulson's -- and the president's -- conviction that the U.S. must lighten regulations on its financial industry or risk losing business to foreign financial centers such as London and Hong Kong.

But the proposal is being unveiled after the sub-prime mess, the housing meltdown and sliding financial markets left tens of millions of people poorer and more pessimistic.

It is also subject to the judgment of a Democratic-controlled Congress in no mood to give financial firms more leeway.

"We must restore the trust and confidence of investors and consumers," Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said in a statement. "That trust has been shattered -- not because regulators did too much, but because they did too little."

Here's my favorite thing about the Bushies and their ilk: They're so freaking predictable. Just put everything they propose through a Bush-to-English dictionary, and it will come out thusly:

"It'll make mah corporate cronies a hell of a lot richer and, just cause we can, make working-class Americans poorer. Ah love bein' Preznit! Heh heh."

Enjoy the first day of April, everyone, and don't get Fooled by the Bushian doubletalk on the economy.