Bottom Of The Barrel

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) are on FOX News Sunday today defending the views of their respective parties.

Can you say mediocrity?

No wonder it's hard to get anything worthwhile through the Senate. These people are absolutely painful to watch. And they're going to be the centrist mediators in Obama Land!

I need some of that hope juice.

The Axelrod Supremacy

David Axelrod is a lobbyist and an apparatchik in the Chicago Democratic Machine. Neither of those vocations particularly qualify him to assist Barack Obama in improving the lives of the American people. Even worse, Axelrod is Obama’s Karl Rove. Period. Here’s what he said to Chris Wallace this week:

Look, I — I've never — I've never accepted that — that comparison. I — my role with Barack Obama for the last six years has been to help the communications operation impart his message, his values and his vision to the American people. And I expect to continue to do that.

And you know, my role is circumscribed to those responsibilities. I'm not trying to rebuild the Democratic Party or any of these other — I think Mr. Rove had quite an expansive portfolio. I think mine is very focused.

So Axelrod lacks the grandiose ambition of Rove. He’s just Obama’s message guy. Is that supposed to reassure us?


The media loves being spoon-fed its heroic tales (see Bush, George W.) To a large extent, "Barack Obama" is a public relations construct from the shop of David Axelrod, and it's been wildly successful. Cool, post-partisan No-Drama Obama. Change We Can Believe In. Is Axelrod anxious to reinvent the wheel in 2012? He wants Obama to ruffle no feathers. The pundits are watching.


Woe to the political consultant who thinks he can toy with the media at will. They don't mind being manipulated, as long as it's not too obvious.


Axelrod won't want to make his own job more difficult. Whenever President Obama considers actually taking bold action instead of just making a speech, he'll try to talk him out of it. And I don’t think his White House office is going to be down the hall by the men’s room.

Division Of Labor

The idea that Barack Obama was some kind of foreign policy savant never made much sense. Obamabots liked to talk about the supposed relevance of his multicultural background, but that was just campaign fodder for the gullible. Bottom line: Obama has no experience in world affairs. (His post-convention "Grand Tour" doesn't count.) Besides, managing the nation’s complex web of international relationships demands the kind of attention to detail that is clearly not his strong suit. Like his role model Ronald Reagan, Obama is more symbol and salesman than executive. Fortunately, he seems to recognize his limitations.


As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is well suited to take the lead in shaping and implementing the Administration’s foreign policy. And Obama is clearly aware of her political strength. He knows she can do her job without requiring the approval of bottom-feeders like Chris Matthews or hand-wringers like Joe Klein.


The media is not the friend of the people. As he concentrates on domestic policy, Obama needs to follow Hillary’s lead if he wants to be a successful president. Screw the pundits.

Past Time For Leadership

This is getting ridiculous:

Washington continued to be gripped by the drama surrounding Mrs. Clinton’s fate and the possibility that Mr. Obama might bring his toughest rival for the Democratic presidential nomination into his cabinet. Mr. Obama’s advisers said the talks had gone well, but would not say if an agreement to avoid conflicts had been reached, as the Clinton camp has indicated.

Instead of feeding the media’s Clinton obsession by leaking stories about leaks, the Obama team needs to name a Secretary of Treasury and then put together the mother of all stimulus packages–something that President Obama can sign the day he takes office. They need to do it now.


Bush and Paulson have exhausted whatever limited credibility they may have had. There’s economic wreckage everywhere you look.


What is the Obama team waiting for?

Wanted: Serious People

Incompetent and gutless as Reid and Pelosi are, not every Democratic failure in Congress is their fault. The players on the field have to take some of the blame.


I’ve watched countless hours of C-SPAN ‘s House and Senate coverage. When the Republicans were in charge, my general reaction was usually Just wait till WE get to run the place again! We’ll show them how it’s done!


Now that the state of the union is a little dicey, and effective legislators are in demand as never before, things look different. Although rank-and-file Democrats aren’t saddled–like Republicans--with having to defend a completely discredited politico-economic ideology, few seem ready to provide alternative solutions. Indeed, some of them are just as small-minded, parochial, and poorly informed as the most risibly idiotic wingnut. And can we please do away with the five-minute opening statements preceding House committee hearings? The Congressional dumbness level would be instantly lowered, and they could cut down on bathroom breaks.


The coaches are responsible for only so much. It’s time for the players to step it up.

Designated Scapegoat

In 1996, after his tabloid toe-sucking got him booted from the Clinton inner circle, Dick Morris decided to market himself as an expert on Hillary. The result hasn’t been pretty. Morris’s unbelievably dishonest interviews and increasingly ridiculous books (remember Condi Vs. Hillary?) have given wingnuts some of the red meat they crave, but for people keeping score, no pundit this side of Bill Kristol has such a lousy record. Going to Dick Morris for insight into the Clintons is like asking George W. Bush for advice on oil drilling.


But that’s plenty good enough for today’s MSNBC. This afternoon one of their anchors cited a typically hysterical post from The Toe Sucker's blog which postulated that a Machiavellian Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her equally amoral mate would do nothing but "undermine" the hapless President Obama at every turn.


Get used to this, folks, if Hillary takes the job. It’s an irresistible media twofer. They get to recycle their old Clinton-hating material even as they protect Obama by blaming his failures on an implacable enemy within.


The Media Borg is going to print and say whatever fits their chosen narrative. The template is already in place.

Clinton in the Cabinet

Descend, dear reader, into the sewer that is the psyche of Maureen Dowd. (I myself no longer have the stomach for such an undertaking, so I've merely glanced at her latest dropping.)


Are you finished yet?


Of course it’s the same old crap! The mainstream media (and Ms. Dowd is its lodestar) is simply incapable of dealing intelligently with the Clintons. The stained blue dress is never far from their thoughts. And one of the iron truths of life is that journalism only gets worse. It’s going to stink more tomorrow than it does today, and so on. (Some form of Gresham’s Law seems to apply.) Best to ignore it.


So--what about the new media? Well, the boys at Open Left have been contemplating the prospect of Hillary at Foggy Bottom, and some of them are none too happy. Here’s a comment:

I'm Batshit Crazy over this. This is a nightmare. If I wanted Hillary in control of FP, I would not have busted my ass supporting Richardson, then Obama in the Primaries. Unless someone wants to convince me that it was entirely political posturing that Hillary has refused til the bitter end to apologize for her Iraq war support, I have no option other to conclude that she does in her heart feel that she made the right decision and that if she had to do it over again, would do the exact same thing. I guess you might argue that Obama is the only one truly in control and she won't do anything he doesn't want her to do, but I am severely worried about this. I do not want Hillary going rogue all over Obama's foreign policy. I don't want her any where near it. Seriously, what have Richardson and Clark done to deserve getting smacked around like this. Seriously, WTF? –supag32

This is a bit much for Chris Bowers, who responds, with Olympian detachment:

I don't care about the Clinton vs. Obama battle anymore. I can't even believe some people are still living through it. I care about the progressive vs. centrist struggle, and that is not, and never has been, the same thing as Obama vs. Clinton.

Uh, Chris . . . Have you ever read your own fucking blog? Before the election, you and Matt Stoller told us that because of her vote on the war, Hillary Clinton was little better than Dick Cheney. Only Barack Obama had the necessary vision to transform our foreign policy into something Samantha Power could endorse. Now you’re saying it’s okay for Hillary and her shitty judgment to help shape our future? WTF, indeed! (Don’t even get me started on Joe Biden. He used to be beyond the pale, too.)


I happen to greatly prefer Hillary’s judgment to Barack’s, but I must say I share some of supag32's confusion. We’re both trying to figure out what Obama actually stands for, once the votes are counted.

Don't Do It, Hillary!

Anybody with half a brain can see that Obama's Secretary of State offer is just a way to get you off his back as he gradually scuttles universal health care. (Of course, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks if you decide to take the job.)

Live-Blogging Hardball

Chris Matthews--Bush voter, Clinton-hater emeritus, prospective Democratic candidate for Arlen Specter's Senate seat--is trashing Republicans big-time. Ron Christie feels his wrath. Yet, I'm feeling no love for Tweety.

Is this the new ObamaCrat Party? I hope not. Chris Matthews should be no more welcome than Joe Lieberman.

Barack will probably see it differently, considering NBC's role in the Clinton takedown .

We Stand For Anything

Somebody needs to explain why it’s so scary-hard to kick Joseph L. ("Joementum") Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus:

President-elect Barack Obama has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress, Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.

Obama's decision could tie the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has been negotiating to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Government Reform committee while keeping him within the caucus. Lieberman has insisted that he will split from the Democrats if his homeland security position is stripped.

No wonder the public views Washington Democrats as worthless and weak. They are! Lieberman campaigns against their own nominee and they negotiate with him.


The sad fact is that Obama and Reid are afraid of Joementum’s constituency. No, I don’t mean the "Connecticut For Lieberman" Party. I mean the Republicans and the Beltway pundits. They might question Barack’s bipartisan credentials.


Pathetic.

Do They Still believe In The Easter Bunny, Too?

Matt Stoller is all upset about Rahm Emmanuel:

So get ready to be kicked in the face, which progressives have clearly argued is why Rahm is the ideal pick, ushering in a new spirit of take-no-prisoners Democrats. He'll also effectively protect Obama from attacks from the right, since they'll be way too scared of him to mention Emanuel's tenure on the board of Freddie Mac.

Stoller is also mad at MyDD, Daily Kos, and uber-Obamabot Josh Marshall (see links). Nothing to see here, they all say. Barack knows best.

Matt's right to be concerned, but not because of Rahm. Obama telegraphed this move months ago. It wasn't hard to see it coming.

Liberal Obamabots are like those frogs in a pan of cold water. Eventually they get boiled alive, and they won't even know it. (The comments to Stoller's post are hilarious.)

No Spores For Me!

Hanging from a tree limb above Jill Ireland sure looks like fun, but I'm going to resist getting myself spored into Paradise.

Instead, I’ll boldly go where no Obamatron has ever gone–to the Planet of Skepticism. . . .

Beam me up, Scotty!

President-Elect Obama

Not having drunk deep of the Trancendental Kool-Aid, I can’t share in the euphoria of his supporters, but I am happy the country won't have to endure another Republican administration. But that’s about as hopeful as I can get, until he shows me something more.

One request, Senator: Don’t be afraid to make a few enemies in the media. (They’re not on anybody’s side but their own.) It will be a painful new experience, but one that's essential to your self-actualization.

Toxic Endorsements: How I Voted

I started out this election cycle as a strong supporter of Al Gore and didn’t begin looking seriously at other presidential candidates until fairly late in the process. Barack Obama then seemed (and still seems now) to be the least qualified of the bunch. Indeed, the entire rationale for his candidacy (before the hype metastasized into inevitability) centered around two speeches.

I wasn’t a fan of Obama’s 2004 address at the Democratic Convention. I remember thinking at the time–What did he just say? It sounded nice, I guess, but something was missing. Content, maybe. But everyone said it was great. He inspires people. Little did I know that one day it would be deemed a character flaw not to feel a thrill up your leg at the sound of his voice.

Then there was Obama's mysterious antiwar speech of 2003. The one delivered--quite uncourageously--in a hotbed of Chicago liberalism. The one followed by zero action. I didn’t like that one, either.

As the campaign went on, it became clear that we were going to have to choose between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Although their positions on issues were broadly similar, I found Clinton’s approach–particularly on health care–to be significantly bolder than Obama's, yet somehow more grounded in reality. She seemed to possess the courage and deep experience required to actually change things rather than just talk about them. Obama–to my knowledge–has never fought for anything not directly related to his own career advancement. Barring the creation of a more exalted position ("Supremely Grand Potentate Of The Galaxy"), I expect Barack’s presidential re-election effort to begin tomorrow.

In the battle for the nomination, the best person lost. But I’ve been voting for weak Democrats my whole life. Why should this time be any different?

Because–in the apocryphal words of Winston Churchill–there are some things up with which I will not put.

One of those things is a candidate stoking the fires of racism to win an election, which I believe Obama did when his back was against the wall in South Carolina. (Sean Wilentz bravely documented this outrage in the pages of The New Republic. He’ll be paying the price for years to come.) Not only was it a despicable course of action on its face, but it told me that, for Obama, nothing was more important than being president. That’s not change I can believe in.

Another is this.

Finally, and most importantly, I cannot vote for the nominee of my party when I believe that its selection process was rotten to the core. At some point, the powers that be–from Howard Dean to Nancy Pelosi to the corporate media–decreed that Barack Obama was going to win. The candidate who got the most votes was purposely denied a shot at the nomination by party bosses who manipulated the Michigan/Florida fiasco until it was safe to award undeserved delegates to Obama. I’m not voting for their hand-picked candidate. These are the people who have been more than happy to let George W. Bush run this country into the ground for eight years. I don’t trust them.

I can’t vote for Obama. I can’t vote for McCain. I did vote for the Democratic House candidate in my district–but not on the Democratic line. The party doesn't deserve it.

We’ll see how things look in two years.

Getting In Their Last Digs

Matt Taibbi–the poor man’s, poor man’s, poor man’s Hunter S. Thompson--offers some "Campaign Memories" to an indifferent world in the current issue of Rolling Stone. No surprises here--Hillary Clinton is still a scheming monster, and John McCain sat on her lap learning how to fight dirty:

But when push came to shove, both politicians went completely Tonya Harding on Barack Obama. In an April debate in Philadelphia, the same Hillary who spent her husband's presidency unfairly bashed as a Marxist pariah squawked about Obama's relationship to Bill Ayers, pointing out that Ayers said on 9/11 he wished he had "done more." Months later, McCain said the same thing, wailing about how Ayers wished he had "bombed more." From Jeremiah Wright, to Obama's supposed vote for graphic sex ed for kindergartners, to the photos of Obama in Muslim garb Hillary's camp reportedly sent to the Drudge Report, to the "scandalous" information about Obama Bob Novak claimed the Hillary camp was holding, to Obama's connections to ACORN, to the constant lies and innuendo about Obama being a Muslim (he isn't, "as far as I know," Hillary told 60 Minutes), the Clinton and McCain campaigns were one long, unabashed, scorched-earth attempt at character assassination.

Here we go:


1) The Drudge story is a lie. 2) The Novak, ACORN, and sex ed stories have nothing to do with Hillary, and are just cheap, lazy-ass smears. 3) Barack Obama himself threw Jeremiah Wright under the bus, but not before dispatching his minions to excoriate Clinton for saying she would have left that church long ago. 4) Bill Ayers? Well, if Hillary Clinton is responsible for every syllable that comes out of Geraldine Ferraro’s mouth, I think it’s fair to ask Obama to comment on the behavior of his sketchier associates--particularly when they’ve blown stuff up! 5) Ah, the 60 Minutes distortion. Watch the video here. Steve Kroft asks Clinton three times if she thinks Obama is a Muslim, and the third time she finally uses the phrase, "as far as I know." (She looks like she’ll say anything to get Kroft to shut up. And since when does Hillary have to be an expert on Barack’s religious life?)


Nobody expects much journalism from Rolling Stone. (By the way, take a look at the current issue–it’s shrunk to the size of Entertainment Weekly.) And I wouldn’t be surprised if the next person to buy a copy of Matt Taibbi’s latest book is also the first. (I know a bit about these matters. Sales of The Great Derangement have been . . . less than brisk.) But Taibbi shows us that the newest new journalism can suck just as bad as the old stuff–and be just as dishonest.