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 .
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
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:
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.
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.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Do They Still believe In The Easter Bunny, Too?
Matt Stoller is all upset about Rahm Emmanuel:
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.)
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.)
Thursday, November 6, 2008
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!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
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:
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
