Oooh, nuance!

THE SCENE: BILL BURTON, Barack Obama's campaign manager, is sitting behind a large chrome and glass desk in a well-appointed, modern office. A large, sleek metal box with two buttons rests on top of the desk. One button is red, and reads "Verbiage;" the other is green, and reads "Statistics."

There is a computer (the latest Mac, of course) and a printer on the side of the desk. His iPhone is lying on the desk: Bill is [duh!] too hip for a landline. Besides which, he doesn't want AT&T spying on HIM!

In front of the desk is DAVID AXELROD, Barack Obama's right-hand man. They are sipping cups of coffee and finishing up croissants. AXELROD also has an iPhone in his hand, from which he will read the action items for the meeting.]

BURTON: Ah! The almond croissant was particularly moist today. So, David, what's on the agenda?

AXELROD: Okay, Bill, we've got several things that need our immediate attention. First off, as you know, President Obama's foreign-policy experience has now been brought up to parity with John McCain's after his week-long tour of Europe and the Middle East. So we're all good there. However, we estimated that a million people would attend his speech in Berlin, and even with two free concerts thrown in, we were nowhere near that number. Can we figure out how many people attended?

BURTON: No problemo! [addressing the box on his desk] Computer, how many people attended the Berlin rally?

COMPUTER [in sultry female voice]: Please press the green button. [BURTON does so.] Your answer is: Two hundred thousand.

AXELROD: Great, great. I'll send it out now. [notates the number in his iPhone and quickly sends it off to his press mailing list] Okay, next item is: The President skipped a visit to the troops while in Berlin because the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring in his cameras. How do we make it clear that President Obama does not, in fact, think of the troops as just a campaign prop?

BURTON [drawing in his breath]: Oooooh, that's a tough one. Let's see what our girl can come up with. Computer, what is the reason for Obama's skipping his visit to the troops?

COMPUTER: Please press the red button. [BURTON does so.] Your answer is: I.A.C.F.

AXELROD [confused]: IACF?

BURTON [embarrassed at the faux pas]: Um, that stands for "It's All Clinton's Fault." I keep telling her that is no longer an acceptable response, but she keeps defaulting to it - I don't know why. [addressing computer] Computer, please give alternate reason.

COMPUTER: Please press the red button. [BURTON does so.] Your alternate reason is: George W. Bush.

AXELROD: George W. Bush? What does she mean by that?

BURTON [nervously]: Search me. [both think for a moment]

AXELROD: Wait, wait! I've got it! We'll say the Pentagon stopped him from going. They were worried that it would look like a campaign visit. Brilliant, Bill! Gotta love that machine. [BURTON is visibly relieved. AXELROD dashes off another communique to the press corpse.] All right all right all right! Now, how about this one? People are raising the issue that President Obama's senior thesis is nowhere to be found.

BURTON: Heh. Thank goodness.

AXELROD: Yeah. So anyway, since Hillary's thesis was thoroughly reviewed and dissected in the media, why haven't we released Barack's?

BURTON: Wow. That IS a stumper! Computer, why haven't we released President Obama's thesis?

COMPUTER: Your question contains a logical fallacy. Please rephrase.

BURTON [rolling his eyes]: Fine, fine. [to AXELROD] She can't handle it when I say "President Obama." So literal-minded! [re-addressing computer] Computer, why haven't we released Senator Obama's thesis?

COMPUTER: Please press the red button. [BURTON does so.] Your response is: "The absurdity of spending any time discussing this issue on television at all makes it difficult to even respond to what you’ve done. Even presenting a balanced argument of what is such a specious story does not do justice to the ridiculousness of giving this any oxygen whatsoever."

[slight pause]

AXELROD: Well, it's a bit wordy, but I think it's the right tone. Great job again, Bill! Off it goes to my press contacts. [AXELROD works his iPhone.]

BURTON [looking at his iPhone]: So, David, is that about it? You know I have to bring the President his waffles.

AXELROD: Oh, just one more thing. Can that model do predictions?

BURTON [doubtfully]: Well, we did install a new module last week, but it's more of a "Magic Eight Ball" than a real analyzer.

AXELROD: Ahhhh, so what? Let's try her out. We may get something we like.

BURTON: Okey-dokey. What do you want me to ask her?

AXELROD: Ask her to predict the results of the November election. Who will become our next President? [snickering] As if we didn't know the answer to that.

BURTON [snickering]: Yeah! That's a good one, Davey. Let's have a little fun. Computer, who will become our next President?

COMPUTER: Please rotate me three times. [BURTON does so.] Your response is: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

BURTON: What? There must be some kind of malfunction. [starts hitting the side of the box]

COMPUTER: Barack Obama's campaign will self-destruct in thirty days.

AXELROD: What the hell is that bitch talking about? [crosses to desk and starts hitting the other side of the box]

COMPUTER: Party Unity, My Ass. PUMA. PUMA. PUMA! [COMPUTER explodes with a giant BANG! and a large puff of smoke.]

[After the smoke clears, BURTON and AXELROD have dirty faces, electric-shock hair, and exasperated expressions.]

AXELROD: Fifth one this month.

BURTON: Yup. Maybe we need a stronger anti-PUMA program. The PUMA virus keeps infecting all our bots.

AXELROD: Well, work on it, will ya? This is getting ridiculous. [begins walking out]

BURTON: Hey, Dave?

AXELROD: Yes, Bill?

BURTON: What if PUMA is the anti-virus, not the virus? What if we are the infection, and the Democratic body keeps rejecting us?

[brief pause]

AXELROD [menacingly]: Bill, you want my advice? Stop thinking so hard, or you'll end up going the way of your computer there.

BURTON [cowed]: Yessir. No problem. I was just -

AXELROD: I know what you were doing. Now, put your happy face on and go get the President his breakfast.

BURTON: Right away, sir. [involuntarily bursting out] PUMA!

AXELROD: WHAT DID YOU SAY?

BURTON [sheepishly]: Sorry, Dave. It's catching!

[LIGHTS OUT.]

Dear PUMAs,

Please, please, please stop paying attention to what we are doing. Our nerves are shot, thinking that our pre-planned installation of Barack Obama might not go through! Seriously, kitties - you think Howard Dean screamed in Iowa? You should hear him now!

We honestly thought everyone would unify behind Obama! Um, well, okay, we didn't really think that, since we've repeatedly told you we don't need you to win. But, ha ha, we were just kidding when we said you usually voted Republican! Can't you all take a joke?

Okay, maybe you all think Obama himself is a joke. Fair enough. He certainly has made a lot of gaffes lately. Tee-hee - he even claimed credit for legislation created by the Senate Banking Committee, calling it "my committee!" We thought it was hilarious that he pretended to head up a committee of which he is not even a member. Gotta love that Obama chutzpah! Ooooh-weeee!

Shouldn't you all be on vacation or something? Why have you been noticing how much Obama's positions are starting to resemble a rightwing Republican's? On everything from abortion to the Fourth Amendment to the war in Iraq, he's been throwing mainstream Democratic positions out the window, or as you would say, "under the bus." But if we tell you he's a Democrat, he's a Democrat! Why are you questioning our authoriteh?

Another thing. What is with this ridiculous insistence on Hillary's name being placed into the nomination at the Convention? Just because it's always been done that way is no reason to steal the nomination, which he has not yet earned, away from Obama! What's the matter, are you all racists or something?

In conclusion, just get over it. Acknowledge that we own your vote. And after the election, we don't expect to hear a peep out of you ever again, because we are the ones you've been waiting for.

Yours In Obama For America,

The DNC

So, yesterday I figured my blood pressure had slipped a little low. I wandered over to The New York Times to see what David "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader" Brooks had to say. I mean, I find myself agreeing with both Ed Koch AND Paul Krugman these days, so why not give Bobo a try?

Let's just say, the man did not disappoint.

The first part of the editorial was actually quite well-written. I wondered if my Bizarro-World experiences lately had caused me to hallucinate.

We’re entering an era of epic legislation. There are at least five large problems that will compel the federal government to act in gigantic ways over the next few years.

First, there is the erosion of the social contract. Private sector firms are less likely to provide health benefits, producing a desperate need for health care reform. Second, there is the energy shortage. Rising Asian demand strains worldwide supply, threatening industry and consumers, and producing calls for a bold energy initiative. Third, there is the stagnation in human capital. During the 20th century, Americans were better educated than the citizens of any other power. Since 1970, that lead has been forfeited, producing inequality and wage stagnation. To compete, the U.S. will require a series of human capital initiatives.

Fourth, there’s financial market reform. In an intricately connected world, even Republican administrations cannot allow big institutions to fail. If government is going to guarantee against failure, then it is inevitably going to get more involved in regulating how businesses are run. Fifth, there’s infrastructure reform. The U.S. transportation system is in shambles and will require major new projects.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the first time I've seen anyone in the MCM lay out the massive problems that face the next administration so succinctly. My eyes were wide with astonishment and happiness. Was this a new era of substantive political discussion by the New York Times?

Of course not. Read on, if you dare.

All of this means that the next few years will be an age of government activism. You may think, therefore, that this situation is ripe for Democratic dominance. The Democrats are the natural party of federal vigor. Voters prefer Democratic approaches to issues like health care and education by as much as 25 percentage points.

Yet, historically, periods of great governmental change have often been periods of conservative rule. It’s as if voters understand that they need big changes, but they want those changes planned and enacted by leaders who will restrain the pace of change and prevent radical excess.

No, it's as if David Brooks stopped reading history after 1929. But hey, he has to justify his McCain love somehow. Who cares if he completely ignores FDR's four terms in office, during which the New Deal was created and successfully implemented? Or perhaps he is forgetting LBJ and the Civil Rights Amendment?

The only "conservative" American President he could find to justify his preposterous thesis was Theodore Roosevelt, who resembles John McCain about as much as Beverly Sills resembles Britney Spears. His other example was Benjamin Disraeli, because conservatism in England is exactly the same as conservatism in America. [snort] In any case, here is how McCain equals The Rough Rider in the fuzzy brain of Mr. Brooks.

"The true function of the state as it interferes in social life,” Roosevelt wrote, “should be to make the chances of competition more even, not to abolish them.”

John McCain’s challenge is to recreate this model. He will never get as many cheers in Germany as Barack Obama, but for a century his family has embodied American heroism.

Ah, there it is - that delightful soupçon of élitism without which a Brooks column just isn't complete. You know you simply cannot implement change unless your family has been in America for at least 100 years being all heroic and stuff. Otherwise it's just change for change's sake! The White House will be painted in rainbow stripes, the Oval Office will smell like patchouli, and President Democrat will enact legislation forcing all Americans to wear their underwear on the outside. The Horror!

The column is a laughable effort by Brooks, to be sure, but to be fair, conservative propagandists are having a harder and harder time pushing their line these days. After all, Bush has proven that today's conservatism (a toxic stew of X-treme Reagonomics wedded to a Christofascist domestic policy and a neo-conservative foreign policy) is a recipe for disaster - the results of which Brooks readily acknowledges in the first portion of his column. The problem is, how to keep Democrats from another four decades of legislative - and possibly executive - dominance?

Poor Bobo. It's hard work being a Minister of Truthiness these days.

At least I know that in this world where every day seems to be Opposite Day, David Brooks can still be counted on to raise the blood pressure of almost everyone who reads his mind-blowingly crapulent bloviating.

Mission Accomplished, baby.

Having been on Howard Dean's mailing list for years, one or two requests to be removed clearly are not cutting it. I received the dreaded Obama mail solicitation this weekend, and the "ick" factor? Off the charts.

The return address was interesting: "Obama for America." What is "Obama for America" - a new game show? Seriously, shouldn't there be somewhere, something that admits that Barack Obama was elected as a Democrat, even though he hasn't campaigned like one? "Obama for America" sounds suspiciously like "Connecticut for Lieberman" to me. You know, that phony third party that Lieberman used in order to avoid his primary loss to Ned Lamont and run for Senate anyway? Lieberman was Obama's Senate mentor for a while; looks like Obama might have learned some very poor lessons from "Joementum."

The letter itself started with the whole phony Axelrovian story of Obama The Underdog. "We started with just two cans and a string connecting them." Uh, what we, Kemosabe? I have never been a part of your campaign. I am not one of your supporters. Therefore, I am assuming that this is the royal "We," a construction that, like most things about you these days, makes me very nervous. Finally, don't give me that "We beat the Big Scary Clinton Machine!!11!!!" crap. You and the DNC have been conspiring for a long time to make sure the nomination goes to you. Why else would Florida and Michigan have been punished the way they were, when the other "early" states were not punished at all? Why else would the takeover of the DNC have happened BEFORE you were officially nominated? We're onto you, pal. Don't try to okie-doke, bamboozle and hoodwink us, mmmmkay?

After that inauspicious beginning, I skipped to the part I had heard about on the Internets. I am supposed to send "Obama for America" money along with this pledge:

"Dear Barack, I agree! We are the ones we've been waiting for...we are the change we seek. You can count on me to support you and our movement for change all the way to the White House."

ICK!

Is this guy a political candidate, or Dr. Phil? Is the Obama "movement" a movement to effect specific changes, or just a bunch of people wanting to feel good about themselves? What are the goals of this movement?

Oh, here they are!

Change is a tax code that rewards work instead of wealth. Change is a health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it, and an education policy that gives every child a chance at success.

Change is ending a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized, and finishing a war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan that should never have been ignored.

That's it? New Deal, anyone? Creating jobs through building infrastructure? The environmental crisis? Millions of people losing their homes?

[cricket cricket cricket]

No wonder Oprah was stumping for him. What a platitude-spewing empty suit Obama is.

I searched in vain for any plan whatsoever for me (not him) to effect these changes. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

So for all this blather about Unity, this "movement" is about one thing: Electing Barack Obama. There is no party - it's "Obama for America." There is no platform - it's vague nonsense about getting us out of Iraq (still slamming Hillary for "authorizing" the war, which the AUMF did not do, of course) and "finishing the job" in Afghanistan, about cutting taxes on the middle class, offering health care to "those who want it" and improving education. IAAO - It's All About Obama.

But what if you don't like Obama?

Who does Obama for America have in its grand movement, really? Wealthy liberals, African Americans (who came out 93% for John Kerry in 2004) and young voters?

Uh, isn't that the same coalition we always have in national elections? Where are the soccer moms, the blue-collar workers, the registered Democrats who so often vote Republican? Where are the voters in swing states that carry Democrats to such rare victories in Presidential elections?

Oh, yes. They voted for Hillary Clinton. And they're not coming to Obama. But don't worry - he doesn't need them to win. He'll win Virginia, North Carolina and some Western states...

Don't give up, Hillary. Take some time off, think for a while, and then come back strong. Fight for the nomination that would have been yours without this dirty back-room Chicago-style wheeling and dealing.

We need a President who sees us, and not just herself, when she looks in the mirror. If we truly want Unity, and not Submission, we will nominate the one who united the Democrats behind her: Hillary Clinton.

Until then: P.U.M.A.!

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."

Not content with "embedding" reporters, preventing photos of coffins and wounded soldiers from being on the TeeVee, and fabricating heroic stories (a la Jessica Lynch) out of whole cloth to gin up support for the occupation of Iraq, we now discover that the Bush government is arresting reporters to control information.

Fascism with a smiley face, eh, Jonah Goldberg? Methinks your puerile little graphic would look quite natural on George Bush's neck.

Associated Press president Tom Curley says his news organization does not buy the government's argument that one of its photographers arrested in Iraq was working on behalf of the enemy, and he alleged the US is rounding up journalists in an attempt to control information.

"To say the least, we see things very differently," Curley commented dryly, regarding photographer Bilal Hussein, who was arrested two years ago and remains in military custody.

Noting that at least a dozen other Iraqi photographers have been detained or arrested, Curley stated, "It's impossible not to conclude that the words and pictures these journalists produced were considered unhelpful to the war effort and that their arrests would have served a broader strategy of information control."

Of course, there is a "legal" basis for these detentions - the putrescent Patriot Act. Ah, poor George Orwell; you thought you were writing a satire, not an instruction manual!

Curley also called on journalists to demand that all the presidential candidates make a commitment to reversing a directive issued by Attorney General John Ashcroft shortly after September 11 that radically restricted the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

Ashcroft's memo stated, "When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records."

Curley told the National Press Club, "When a matter of public policy poses a straight-up choice between the public's rights of access to government and a government effort to infringe or even narrow those rights, journalists cannot pretend to be disinterested observers."

"This is the moment to make it clear to all the presidential candidates how important reversal of the Ashcroft directive is to us and to the people," Curley continued. "We need to ask the candidates at every opportunity ... whether they are willing to appoint an attorney general willing to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the law that protects the people's right to know what their government is doing."

Senators Clinton and Obama, I hope you are listening to this man. We have seen how secrecy and lies have been an integral part of the survival of the most corrupt Administration in history. We need the next President to open the doors once again to transparency and openness in government.

A democracy cannot function without information. Our media has been slowly turned into a Missing White Woman/Shark Attack/Britney Spears infotainment machine. We need to put the news back on the evening news.

hello, FBI! [via Talking Points Memo]

WASHINGTON — Senior officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation repeatedly approved the use of “blanket” records demands to justify the improper collection of thousands of phone records, according to officials briefed on the practice.

The bureau appears to have used the blanket records demands at least 11 times in 2006 alone as a quick way to clean up mistakes made over several years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to a letter provided to Congress by a lawyer for an F.B.I. agent who witnessed the missteps.

I am currently reading "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA." If this book is any indication, then incompetence, lying and CYA are much more common in the intelligence services than actual intelligence-gathering. So far, the FBI is apparently running true to form.

The F.B.I. has come under fire for its use of so-called national security letters to inappropriately gather records on Americans in terrorism investigations, but details have not previously been disclosed about its use of “blanket” warrants, a one-step operation used to justify the collection of hundreds of phone and e-mail records at a time.

[snip]

By 2006, F.B.I. officials began learning that the bureau had issued thousands of “exigent” or emergency records demands to phone providers in situations where no life-threatening emergency existed, according to the account of Mr. Youssef, who worked with the phone companies in collecting records in terrorism investigations. In these situations, the F.B.I. had promised the private companies that the emergency records demands would be followed up with formal subpoenas or properly processed letters, but often, the follow-up material never came.

This created a backlog of records that the F.B.I. had obtained without going through proper procedures. In response, the letter said, the F.B.I. devised a plan: rather than issuing national security letters retroactively for each individual investigation, it would issue the blanket letters to cover all the records obtained from a particular phone company.

So to cover up their illegal activities, they committed more crimes. Awesome! What's even more terrifying is that the Bush DOJ is actually uncovering this scandal. Imagine the whitewashing that went on BEFORE this story leaked to the press!

I have come to believe that our "intelligence" services are not a boon, but a hindrance to America in general. The CIA is at the root of most, if not all, of our interventionist foreign policy maneuvers to "defeat Communism" (which for the most part had disastrous consequences). They have aggressively used psy-ops at home and abroad to manipulate Americans into rooting for war since the early 1950's. And the FBI seems to be more concerned with spying on ordinary Americans and Democrats like Eliot Spitzer than gathering intelligence on actual threats to America.

Our democracy is weak and getting weaker. Let's hope that our next President will clean house at the DOJ, reform the FBI and CIA, and start bringing transparency back to our government.

And let's remember that McCaca will never, ever be the one to do this.

Remember my Hillary-as-devil picture from a couple of days ago? I must have been reading Samantha Power's mind.

"In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win," Power is quoted as saying. "She is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything."

Power issued a statement Friday in which she acknowledged the comments but said she "deeply regretted them."

"It is wrong for anyone to pursue this campaign in such negative and personal terms," she said in the statement. "I apologize to Senator Clinton and to Senator Obama, who has made very clear that these kinds of expressions should have no place in American politics."

[I am stopping here to guffaw loudly and snarkily at the thought of Obama, Mr. "Hillary Is a Racist," making it clear that negative campaigning is bad bad bad.]

Obama's spokesman Bill Burton said in an e-mail: "Senator Obama decries such characterizations which have no place in this campaign."

[Well, at least he "decried" it. Snicker.]

Though Power immediately attempted to withdraw the remark, the newspaper insisted she had agreed in advance that her interview — part of a book tour — would be conducted on the record.

"You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'," Power is quoted as telling the newspaper. "But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."

So let me see now. Hillary is now a monster. Of course, she also makes you want to vomit when you look at her. Sure! Looking at a racist monster will do that to you. And then of course, she has to lie - unattractively - to gullible, dumb-ass poor people in order to get votes. Hey, when you're a racist monster, lying is just another facet of your general horribleness!

From the very beginning, Obama has been trumpeting his moral superiority to Hillary Clinton and the other candidates who voted for the AUMF. He has done this on the basis of one speech in 2002 that was given in a very liberal district in Illinois, where he would have been taking a risk supporting the Iraq War.

When he became a Senator, he voted exactly the same way as Hillary, and admitted that he might have voted for the AUMF had he been in the Senate at the time. Never mind, though, he has superior judgement and morality because he gave a speech in 2002. Never mind what he did after that, when he was in a position to act on his supposed beliefs. Don't compare him to Russ Feingold, who has consistently voted against funding for the Iraq War and who also voted against the AUMF. These are not the droids you're looking for.

Obama's totally NOT cult supporters have swallowed this line of BS hook, line and sinker. As a result, like their candidate, they have been going around with an air of unbearable smugness and arrogance. I for one have been completely turned off by them, and the way they jump on every statement and action of Hillary's as if it were the WORST THING EVER, while acting as if their candidate, because of a speech in 2002, could do no wrong.

I ask again. Who went negative first in this campaign? Who is practicing the politics of personal destruction? Who has been dividing the party and dissing its most reliable members?

Let me tell you something, Samantha Power. I am not poor, not that there would be anything wrong with that if I were. I am a liberal New Yorker who makes a good living. I am the fucking base of this fucking party too. And I am really, really sick of having my chosen candidate demonized by you.

I know Hillary can forgive a lot - after all, she was the one to float the first trial "Clobama" balloon - but boy, she must be a freaking saint if she can still consider teaming up with Obama after Ms. Power's comments.

Or, you know, maybe she's just a politician who wants to win the Presidency, and so is Obama. Can we finally, finally admit that both candidates are imperfect, ambitious, and will do just about anything for the job? (Heaven knows why, you couldn't pay me enough.) And that these characteristics do NOT make them unsuitable for the job, but in fact, make them more likely to succeed in it? And that either one would make a far, far better president than McCaca, Giant Green Lizard forbid?

Or is that just too "monstrous" for the Obamans to realize?

Here's what the Obamans say:

• Declaring the "first Black President" (and his wife by extension) racist - not divisive.


• Copying the "Harry and Louise" flyer from the anti-Hillarycare days to lie about Hillary's health care plan - not divisive.


• Based on the evidence of right-wing shill Matt Drudge's anonymous sourcing, accusing Hillary of disseminating a photo of him in a turban - not divisive.


• Publicly saying he's not sure his voters would vote for Hillary - not divisive.


• Stating repeatedly that he'd put Republics in his Cabinet - not divisive.


• Claiming that it's Bill Clinton's fault that the Democrats lost Congressional and gubernatorial seats in 1994, conveniently ignoring that 1994 was the year of the Gingrich Revolution - not divisive.


• Everything Hillary does - divisive. And of course, horrific, inexcusable, slimy, and Republican-lite.

Look, I'm not saying Hillary is perfect; far from it. She has indeed gone very negative lately. But a veritable truckload of slime has been pouring from the Obama campaign from the very beginning, and it's pretty much destroyed the Clintons' reputations. I find it very hard to forgive Senator Obama for that, since Bill was our first really successful and popular Democratic president since FDR. Now who do we have to be proud of as a party? And do we really hate ourselves that much, and are we such big fucking babies, that if our preferred candidate does not win the nomination we just won't vote? Do we really not get that McCaca would be worse than the Worst President Evah?

I really still wish for a combined candidacy, because I think that would be the biggest landslide we've seen in a long time. In fact, I'd like to see some polling on that! But I also think that it would be uniting for the Democratic Party to see these two bitter opponents put aside their differences for the good of the country and for the party.

Perhaps a deal will be struck tonight. (And people say Hillary supporters have no optimism!)

It seems like a pertinent question these days: Are there any "good" Republicans left? People who put the interests of their country over the interests of their party? People like the Republicans who voted to impeach Richard Nixon, for example? People who I would not lovingly refer to as either "Republics" or "Fascists?"

In my opinion, if such a creature exists in 2007, he or she has met the following criteria:

1) Fired by the Bush Administration;
2) Changed parties to either Independent or Democratic; and/or
3) Made public statements condemning the Deciderer as the Worst. President. Ever.

There are a few people I can think of that meet these criteria - James Comey, formerly of the Justice Department, who has testified in Congress to the misdeeds of Alberto Gonzales, comes to mind - but for the most part, my answer to this question is no.

In my fantasy world, anyone who is currently both a Republican and a supporter of George W. Bush would be banned from political participation. Perhaps we could offer them some sort of rehab; something to awaken their empathy, like having their spouse waterboarded, or rendering them to Syria for months of torture, or sending them to Iraq or Afghanistan to suffer loss of life or limb...but until they show they are actual thinking and feeling members of the human race, no politics for them!

Unfortunately for moi, no one has elected me Queen of the Universe yet. So for now, we must deal with the fact that many Americans still believe that there are Good Republicans out there, one of whom is the bloody but unbowed Colin Powell.

On the campaign trail, Senator Hillary Clinton knew her audience when she said this:

"I have said I won't even wait until I'm inaugurated, but as soon as I'm elected I'm going to be asking distinguished Americans of both parties -- people like Colin Powell, for example -- and others who can represent our country well, including someone I know very well," Clinton told the predominantly black audience after receiving the endorsement of dozens of South Carolina ministers.

Contacted by ABC News' Teddy Davis, Gen. Colin Powell was tight-lipped Tuesday when asked if he is open to Clinton's invitation.

"I have not seen what she has said. I don't know the context of it," Powell told ABC News. "I have admiration for Mrs. Clinton but I have no comment."

As usual, Senator Clinton is looking ahead to the general election. She knows that, despite the fact that Republics have almost completely destroyed America by being loyal only to their party, Americans still want to believe that our existing two parties can get along and accomplish great things together. Hence, the great success of Barack Obama's campaign, based on the "Can't we all just get along?" concept.

As Brian Griffin said on the show Family Guy, "Undecided voters are the stupidest people on the planet." I would change that to "the most uninformed." But alas, our Fourth Estate no longer informs the people. We have "news" networks and talk radio personalities that exist for the sole purpose of promoting right-wing propaganda. Even our most trusted newspapers and magazines print blatantly erroneous information that benefits Republics. Is it any wonder, then, that the myth of the Good Republican refuses to die?

I really think that the main area of disagreement between libertario-conservo-Fascists and normal Americans is this: What is the job of the government?

Personally, I think it is to invest our money to the betterment of society. So how's that working out for us after seven endless years of BushCheney? Is society better when 49 million people don't have health insurance? Is society better when our bridges and roads and levees are crumbling? Is society better when our money buys less and less? Is society better when housing and education are not affordable? Is society better when our jobs are outsourced to India and China? Is society better when our leaders steal elections and refuse to obey our laws and Constitution? Is society better when our brave, patriotic young people are killed, maimed and mentally destroyed in endless wars over limited resources?

A sane person would say no. A sane person would say that Bush and his cronies are destroying everything good and right about America. But clearly, libertario-conservo-Fascists are not sane. They have been driven mad by terror, the very feeling Bush and his fellow fearmongers promise they will protect us against with their strong daddy-ness.

Take a look at this ad by Republic candidate Tom Tancredo, and tell me, with a straight face, that these people have any intention of doing anything but scaring the shit out of their voters.

This is why I don't want to come to the table and reach out and sing Kumbaya with these people. Sorry, Senator Obama. We do not reach out to people who want to destroy us. We run over and over them with a truck until they are dead, politically speaking.

Had we done this with Nixon (and his minions, Cheney and Rumsfeld), America would be a much better country today.

Or...someone in the Bush administration did not get promoted for his criminal and unethical behavior! The Fake News Conference Guy, John "Pat" Philbin, will not be the new Director of Public Affairs for Mike McConnell as planned.

But don't get too excited. It's not like Skeletor fired him.

DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff has called for disciplinary action for the fake news event, which was held last Tuesday at the height of the California fires. But Philbin’s departure from FEMA is not related to any disciplinary action within DHS.

Philbin had long-standing plans to retire last Friday and begin a new position today at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. But the ODNI is distancing itself from Philbin and said in a statement today, “We do not normally comment on personnel matters. However, we can confirm that Mr. Philbin is not, nor is he scheduled to be, the Director of Public Affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

As for the other FEMA employees involved in the faux-news-fest, I can't find any information on what happened to them, if anything. But Mr. Philbin appears to be the Fall Lackey for this particular attempt at catapulting the propaganda.

This is what we're astonished about these days - that a lying, criminal fool does not fail upward in the Bush Administration.

What a sad state of affairs.

Skeletor pretends that he's shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that his employees staged a press conference. But as usual, the expression of passionate outrage will not be followed by action.

Asked specifically if he planned to fire anyone at FEMA, which is part of his department, Chertoff declined to say, citing personnel rules.

"There will be appropriate discipline," he told reporters at a news conference with New York's governor where they announced an agreement on a driver's license plan.

Chertoff said he knew nothing about the matter until after it happened and that he "can't explain why it happened."

Ah yes, the buck stops at the Lackey level.

It's amazing how consistent these Bushies are, isn't it? Do they all go to Rove Indoctrination Camp to learn these strategies? Fake outrage? Blame the Lackey? Propaganda? Secrecy? Viciously attack anyone who disagrees with you? Bait and switch? Never do anything to help the American people if you can avoid it?

It seems like this story is actually getting through to the American people. The White House wagged a finger at FEMA. Chertoff made a strong statement. The question is, will there be any follow-up if no one is fired? Or will it fall off the media radar, as the victims of the California wildfires and of Hurricane Katrina have?

As I walked through the streets of my town over the weekend, I saw signs advertising an event to memorialize the attacks of September 11th, 2001. I immediately thought, "Why?"

Is there any American, anywhere, that does not remember 9/11? Of course not. The events of that day have been forever burned into our minds by a media and administration bent on keeping us terrified and submissive to their anti-American, fascist, neo-con agendas. Using 9/11 as a cudgel, Bush and his cabal have beaten our plowshares into swords and our Constitution into pulp.

What we need to do is FORGET 9/11. Or at least, put it into some perspective - yes, we were attacked by a terrorist, a non-state actor, but it has happened before, and we responded with appropriate, law-enforcement measures. I understand that 3,000 Americans were killed, and it is a tragedy. But did we really have the right to use our outrage and grief to justify acts of atrocity - shock and awe, Abu Ghraib, hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, depleted uranium - against a nation that never attacked us? Meanwhile, George Bush has killed more Americans than Osama bin Laden.

Does anyone remember the exact day the World Trade Center was bombed during the Clinton years? No. We do remember that the perpetrators that were known at the time, were caught and are imprisoned for life.

But we cannot forget 9/11. The World Trade Center site remains unhealed. Osama Bin Laden remains uncaught. And Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, thanks to our moronic neo-conservative intervention in Iraq and our failure in Afghanistan. Let's not forget that other, non-nuclear nations in the Middle East, like Iran, are now desperately trying to prevent us from attacking them by rushing to speed up their nuclear programs. Can you really blame them, when Bush and Cheney have their fingers on the proverbial button?

No, we don't need to remember 9/11. We need to remember who we were before 9/11, when our foreign policy was focused on diplomacy, and our domestic policy was focused, for the most part, on improving the lives of working Americans, rather than turning billionaires into trillionaires. We need to take back our country for the pre-9/11 thinkers. Only then will we join other nations in moving towards a freer, more progressive, more peaceful 21st century.

In our society, we seem to have a serious problem with blame.

Modern conservatives have a worldview that posits a cruel, Social Darwinist society, in which all people, no matter their circumstances, should somehow "know better" than to let bad things happen to them. Sick people shouldn't get sick if they have no health insurance. Poor children shouldn't get hungry if they have no food. Uneducated people shouldn't fall for credit scams. Black people shouldn't let themselves be purged from the voter rolls by Jeb Bush. Michael J. Fox shouldn't allow himself to shake from Parkinson's while promoting stem cell research.

Conservatives tend to smugly blame the victims in the cases above. But conservatives are in the minority, right? We all know that in most cases, sick people cannot prevent themselves from being sick; poor children can do nothing about their poverty; uneducated people are uneducated because of system failures; and the disenfranchised cannot prevent political leaders from disenfranchising them. Those people who really can help themselves, but become victims anyway, are the exception, rather than the rule. As enlightened liberals, we get that.

Or do we?

I fear that blaming the victim has infiltrated our political discourse, left, right and in between, to an alarming degree. For six years, prior to my current incarnation as zzzzzzzzzzzlist bloggista, I yelled at my friends and family for blaming the Democrats for the Bushian takeover of our government. "Why don't you blame the Republicans? They're the ones who are doing everything! They have control of the committees! They change signed bills in the middle of the night! They don't even let the Democrats into the room when they create legislation! Hastert doesn't even bring a bill forward unless it has 'majority of the majority' approval, which means it has no chance of being filibustered!" (Yes, I'm a pain in the butt. Are you surprised?)

No, no, it was the Democrats who were at fault here. Never mind that demonizing the victims is a conservative meme that liberals should be ashamed to promote - bloggers such as Bartcop hammered the Democrats daily for being out of power and unable to prevent the strong-arm tactics of the Republic majority.

Well, now the Democrats are in power, but BARELY. The Senate majority is razor-thin. It counts, of course, because actual humans are now in charge of the committees. (Substituting Patrick Leahy for Arlen Specter as Chair of the Judiciary Committee has had some excellent consequences, for example.) But in terms of getting 67 votes - enough to stop the Deciderer's newly-discovered veto pen - well, let's just say it's a wee bit challenging to get 16 Republics to vote with Democrats on the color of the sky, much less something controversial, such as cutting funding for the Iraq war, or impeaching Bush, Cheney and/or Gonzales. And of course, Bush has had six oversight-free years to completely infiltrate every area of government with his political hacks and flunkies, not to mention the almost-fatal damage his regime has done to our country's laws and institutions.

Yet after barely six months of power, liberals are screaming even louder about how worthless the Democrats are. Why haven't they fixed everything Bush has done by now? Why haven't they ended the war, impeached Bush/Cheney/Gonzales, restored the Constitution, etc. etc. etc.? NEVER do we blame the Republics for blocking Democratic efforts at every turn. No, we take the actions of the minority of Democrats (such as the ones who voted for the FISA bill) and sweepingly apply blame for their actions to the leadership. Well, isn't it possible that the leadership was misled by those Democrats? If so, why can't we blame those Democrats?

Even worse, to me, is how many liberals refuse to give the Democrats credit for anything they are actually accomplishing. So often in the blogosphere (comments on Huffington Post and Eschaton, for example), I hear that the Pat Tillman hearings, the Justice Department hearings, and the NSA wiretapping hearings are so much political theatre. Oh really? Then why have these hearings led to so many resignations? The mighty are falling. The DOJ is in a total shambles, with Gonzales barely holding on. (Another Gonzales protégé resigned today, by the way.) DeLay, Libby, Abramoff, Hastert, Rove, Rumsfeld - all gone or going, long before the President stumbles out of office.

I'm tired of hearing conservative memes falling from liberal lips. It really sickens me that people cannot tell the difference between the criminals and the victims of their crimes. Am I saying that all Democrats are perfect and all Republics are evil? No - although at this point, Republics who hold any political office at all should not be trusted in any way, shape or form. But can we at least blame the right people when something goes wrong? Can we stop repeating Rove's lies as gospel? And can we finally, FINALLY get some nuance back into our political discourse?

What in the world is Chris Matthews thinking, and why must he spew his noisome brain goo in my general direction?

While discussing the Democratic presidential candidates on the August 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asserted: "I don't see a big, beefy alternative to [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] -- a big guy. You know what I mean? An ... every-way big guy. I don't see one out there. I see a lot of slight, skinny, second- and third-rate candidates." Matthews prefaced his comment by saying, "I guess I'm thinking of an Eddie Rendell were in the race -- the governor of Pennsylvania -- or if [former Vice President] Al Gore were in the race or someone else who's a good heavyweight to be running."

[snip]

Matthews' characterization of Gore as "a good heavyweight" marks a change from his previous characterizations of Gore. As Media Matters noted, on the December 21, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews asked Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley if Gore was "in fighting weight" and then said: "He's the Hindenburg."

[snip]

As Media Matters has documented, Matthews has previously touted the purportedly presidential attributes of each of the leading Republicans running for president:

• On the May 2, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews said of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, "He looks like [a] president to me."
• On the November 19, 2006, edition of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, Matthews and his panel gushed over Sen. John McCain (AZ), calling him "passionate," "a smart hawk," and "kind of like Martin Luther." On the March 29 Hardball, Matthews stated: "John McCain certainly deserves to be president, based on his contribution to this country over the years."
• On January 19, Matthews said of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: "He has the perfect chin, the perfect hair, he looks right." On February 13, Matthews said Romney has "got a great chin, I've noticed."

Media Matters also noted that, during the July 18, 2006, edition of NBC's The Tonight Show, Matthews predicted a Giuliani victory in 2008, but also asserted: "I hope the American people take the next election very seriously and don't just vote partisan ... or personality or who has the happiest smile ... but picks the person that makes us feel the safest."

Oh, Tweety. Your mancrushes are horrifically embarrassing. You contradict yourself constantly. Your opinions are uninformed and shallower than the contestants on "The Bachelor".

I beg you. Come out of the closet and get a show on Logo TV discussing the hot manliness of all the Republican candidates. You can sniff Fred Thompson's underwear if you want. But stop, stop masquerading as someone who is fit to be listened to be intelligent people. Your vapidity and endless wanking just make us want to vomit.

A while ago, I opined that the Bush Administration should be called "Fear and Loathing, Inc." It seems obvious to me that fear of a terrorist attack (aka, ignorant fear of brown people of any religion or nationality) and loathing of others (aka, "Fuck you! I've got mine and you don't deserve any help because I got mine all by myself!") are the only reasons people still think Bush is doing a good job these days.

Unfortunately, far too many Americans, while not thinking of themselves as conservatives, have still been infected with Reagan pseudo-libertarianism, which is the "loathing" part of the equation. Ronnie was a great brainwasher, and took the commendable idea of American independence and bastardized it into the idea that the government "is the problem".

This idea, that government is not meant to help anyone but is only meant to defend us from attack, is completely and totally antithetical to everything the Founders of our country wanted our government to be. Don't believe me? Well, don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

The Founders of our country knew that government should be established to create a better world for all Americans. Not Republicans, not Democrats (they didn't even have political parties in those days); but for all citizens.

As Rachel Maddow said about the Minneapolis bridge collapse on Keith Olbermann's show Friday night: "There aren't Republican bridges and Democratic bridges." When we say "Fuck you! I've got mine!", we're really saying "Fuck you!" to the ideals on which this country was founded.

That's a crying shame.