Sep 08

Republican hypocrisy

And the GOP assault on my intelligence continues.  The newest being this whole Palin baby drama. In a statement from Gov. Palin, she said that she outed her minor daughter’s current pregnancy to rebut rumors online that the baby born in April was really said daughter’s.  I’m at a loss as to how this is a rebuttal. In my world, an adult response would have been something like, “I refuse to discuss unfounded and offensive rumors regarding my minor child.” But that’s just me.

The hypocrisy in all this is that GOPs tsk-tsking over online rumors being given credence. Nevermind that by acknowledging those rumors the McCain-Palin campaign gave them life, therefore forcing the national media to delve into them. Surely, the GOP is above spreading unfounded rumors online, right?

  • This is the political party who has an operative spending almost $3M on Ayers ads.
  • This is the political party who to this day still accuse Obama of being a Muslim as if there’s anything wrong with that.
  • This is the political party who gave us “McCain has a black baby” (NOTE: We never see the ‘black baby’ with the McCain’s as they campaign, be we do see his biological daughter.)
  • This is the political party who spent almost 6 months repeating over and over that Michelle Obama said “whitey”, without a shred of evidence and they’re still trying to force this rumor.
  • This is the political party who accuses Sen. Clinton of being a murderer.

All of a sudden, these people are trying to convince me and the US that they are just shocked and amazed that online rumors are fueling our political discourse. I’d like to say the general American public isn’t that dumb, but history has proven otherwise.

May 08

ELECTION ’08: Ohio all over again

In the Don’t you Ever Learn? category:

The Clinton’s campaign is hollering over a WSJ article that states that Sen. Obama favored ending Federal oversight on the Teamsters. The Clinton’s campaign and the WSJ both made it seem as though Obama only said that to the Teamsters to get their endorsement.

The Obama campaign pointed to a piece from 2004 that stated that Sen. Obama said he favored ending this Federal oversight. In the tradition of the faux-NAFTA outrage generated by the Clinton’s campaign, they accuse Sen. Obama of doing something (telling the Canadians one thing while saying something different to the American public) that they’ve done. The Teamsters stepped up to say that the Clinton’s said the same exact thing to them while seeking their endorsement.

Sen. Clinton’s statement to the Canadians Teamsters:

I am of the opinion that based on what I’ve seen over years of observation, this union has really done a tremendous job in turning itself around. That’s my observation. At some point the past has to be opened. If you screw up in the future, that’ll be a new day, right? That’s the way the system works. But you gotta – you can’t go around dragging the ball and chain of the past. And I think that’s true for anybody, any organization, any individual, you know, and so I would be very open to looking at that and to saying, what is it we’re trying to accomplish here? And seeing what the answers were because at some point turn the page and go on.

Now that they’ve been caught out, the Clinton’s campaign is now being disengenious by making it about Obama’s statement on ABC this morning where he said he wouldn’t make blanket statements. As a commenter turnip at TPM put it:

Obama supports less federeal oversight of the Teamsters. He has since 2004. Apparently so does Senator Clinton according to her statments from 2007.

These positions are essentially the same and whether it’s a “promise” or a “suggestion”, both candidates have historically been on the side of the Teamsters with respect to lessening the enforcement measure in the Consent Decree.

Today Obama reinforces that is his position.

Today Clinton attacks that position.

Wolfson and Clinton supporters can try to thread a needle of semantics on this one, but it’s another case of what is the meaning of “is”.

It’s all really so many levels of smack me on the head stupid ain’t it?

Apr 08

Dick of the Day

That title goes to Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr. (h/t to Booman)

Short story: Indiana city has always bused their seniors eligble to vote to go vote. It was a civics lesson and one that any teacher, parent or American should be proud of. This is getting students involved in democracy. Mayor McDermott, a Clinton supporter, has decided that this is a bad idea. Oh. The students are black.

“To me it seems like an orchestrated effort on behalf of the Obama campaign to take kids who should be in school learning to read and write, instead giving them a day off and telling them to vote for Obama.

“When you corral kids together and ship them to polling places, it’s completely unethical. I think Sen. Obama should distance himself from this type of behavior,” McDermott said.

I don’t know what kind of leap of logic you take to get from point A to point crazy-assed moron, but he did it superbly.

Washington said Lew Wallace students have been bused to Crown Point to vote for three years now. “The entire board thought this was a great idea. We told (Dr. Mary Steele-Agee) to make sure all the high school seniors are able to go out and vote.

“Whatever the cost of gas, for helping a young person exercising their right to vote, that is a cost I don’t think anybody on this board or the state would have a problem with.”

Mayor McDermott is so not on board with kids exercising their right to vote:

LaSota said they wouldn’t turn away potential voters of any age. Fajman said, “Students don’t have time before school opens on election day to vote and they have extracurricular activities at the school. I think it’s a good idea.”

McDermott, whose city hosted Hillary Clinton’s March 28 visit to the region, disagrees. “These kids come from the worst performing schools in the state of Indiana and we are giving them a day off to go vote for Obama. They can vote on election day like everybody else.”

What this brilliant politician fails to mention is that election day is on Tuesday. That would be a school day.

Apr 08

ELECTION ’08: Clinton impersonates Giuliani

h/t to TPM:

Hillary Clinton now has an ad running in PA with imagery of Osama bin Laden.


I…er…I thought that that was GOP territory. I mean, how many SOTU addresses have we played drinking games where we chug when Bush mentioned 9/11? How many times did we laugh at the inanity of Dick Cheney tying bin Laden with Iraq? Now, Sen. Clinton has concern trolled her way into the gutter.

The Obama campaign has a response:

Wonder how that’ll play with the Clinton’s?

Apr 08

Oh those San Francisco Liberals

One of the biggest jokes of the past week has been how Sen. Clinton tosses off “San Francisco” as if it’s a dirty word. We shouldn’t expect much from one half of a couple who spent an inordinate amount of time running away from the “liberal” tag just because the scary old Republicans tried to turn it into a playground taunt. Still, Clinton does have her supporters in San Francisco, so the way she’s been denigrating the Obama supporters who heard his truthful remarks and comparing them to “real” people, is so much GOP bullshit.

The out of touch media dorks were oh-so-quick to give a shout out to their blue-collar upbringings…well, that is the blue collar cities where they were born (near), though many of them are trustafarians who were raised in a different area. Their experiences with blue collar workers has either been ordering them around or getting their asses beat by them. The way they condescend bears this out. Keep in mind that these were people who were telling us that blue collar workers have no idea what arugla is.


So while the small town voter in Pennsylvania who was not being insulted by Sen. Obama’s remarks, is being puffed up by Sen. Moneybags and the Fourth Estate, the poor souls in San Francisco have to deal, yet again, with being treated like they’re so far out of the mainstream. In all these years where “San Francisco liberal” has become a Pavlovian buzzword to half-witted Republicans and even some “D”emocrats. I’ve never once heard any media pundit come to the defense of the San Francisco voter. I’ve never heard any Democrat stand up and say, “This is where we draw the line, the voters of San Francisco are people, tax-paying Americans who also deserve to be treated with respect.” Maybe we could even go all Godwin’s law or something. The fact is, that words taken of out context and/or distorted could be insulting to anyone anywhere. You know who the media largely caters to when they’re more concerned about blue collar workers, gun owners and the crazed Bible-thumping faction of religion being insulted than if black, Latino, rich, gay, or just regular religious folks (UCC anyone?) are insulted.

Let’s take the Muslim thing for example. For almost 14 months during this campaign, Muslims have been smeared. In that, I mean that some Democrats <coughHillaryClintoncough>, the media and certainly the unintelligent Republicans feel that it’s alright to “slime” Sen. Obama by implying that he’s a Muslim. Sen. Obama is the only elected official during this entire campaign to say that what these people were doing was insulting to Americans who are Muslim. The only one. That tells me more about their character than anyone Sen. Obama may have sat next to on a board eons ago.

That Clinton thinks that’s it’s totally okay to denigrate one group while ginning up false outrage over a distorted remark not aimed at another group, say even more about her character. On one hand I should be surprised, but then I remember that this is a person who has told us that black voters, activists, caucus-goers, young people, and states that she didn’t win aren’t important. This is a person who wrote off the endorsement of a friend for her opponent as “insignificant”, then spent two weeks publicly attacking the friend.

So, while she’s reminiscing over a duck hunt with dad that probably happened as often as sniper fire in Tuzla, we’ll do well to remember that even though she’s been a hanger-on in the upper echelons of the political class for over 30 years, she can still pretend to the a voice of the American people, while mildly insulting those San Francisco liberals who went to listen to Sen. Obama. Though, I’m sure the San Francisco liberals who are dumping nearly $500K (that’s 10% of what Clinton loaned her campaign!) in Pennsylvania this week on her behalf are the right kind of San Francisco liberals.

Feb 08

Clinton = Lieberman

Everyone in the liberal blogosphere is talking about Lanny Davis’ statement that The New Republic posted today:

Clinton flack Lanny Davis just explained on Fox News that Barack Obama is like Ned Lamont (who, whatever you think of him, won that Democratic Senate primary), and Hillary Clinton is like Joe Lieberman (who, whatever you think of him, refused to abide by the primary result, ran and won as an independent with massive GOP support, and has subsequently endorsed John McCain). Lest anyone miss his meaning, Davis noted that he had been a devout Lieberman booster.

Will Clinton run as a Republican-friendly independent if she fails to get the nomination? Of course not. But that’s the scenario Davis has gone out of his way to sketch metaphorically. That’s the way to help Clinton get the Democratic nomination.

I don’t care what Orr says, I believe that Davis put out this analogy as a clue that Clinton just may run as an independent if she doesn’t get the nod.   I don’t think this was a threat, I think it was a bread crumb.

Feb 08

Oh, those wacky Fox jokesters

h/t to The Field Negro on this one…

Seems, some asshat over at Fox has compared Sen. Obama to Hitler. Crooks and Liars gives me audio. Media Matters gives transcripts. Sullivan spends a few moments to blame the caller for the comparison. Another caller calls in to…um, call Sullivan out on his BS and part of the conversation:

CALLER: — you would compare Barack Obama to Hitler, because we need leaders that can inspire us, to hope for the future. We need people like him.

SULLIVAN: I love the — I love his speech. I told you I sat there and I went — I’m going — I’m listening to his speech –

CALLER: Why would you bring Hitler in on it?

SULLIVAN: I didn’t. The caller brought Hitler in on it. The caller said he sounds like Hitler.

CALLER: Well, why would you even pick it up? It’s denigrating his character.

SULLIVAN: No, it’s not.

That’s all we need to know. Sullivan thinks that comparing Hitler and Obama is funny. He changes his reasonings throughout the phone but ends with:

SULLIVAN: I think — don’t you think I’ve made a very good point of the difference between his leadership speaking style and Ms. Clinton’s speaking style?

CALLER: Yeah, I think you do. If you had left Hitler out of it, you’d have had a perfect show.

SULLIVAN: All right, we won’t play Hitler any more, then.


SULLIVAN: One time — oh, come on, one more time? Can I, please, one more time? Just one more time? Then I won’t do it again.

Isn’t that precious?

Remember way back when Sen. Dick Durbin compared Gitmo to a gulag? The Republicans in Congress and all those dolts on Fox were besides themselves. They were pissing their pants and crying in their beers because the big meanie from Illinois upset them. Needless to say, Durbin caved and apologized. Remember all the other stupid bits of head exploding drama you’ve heard from the Republicans these past 14 years because they have no ideas and no willingness to actually make the government work for the people?


Now, I want you to remember the silence.

Jan 08

Check the delegate counter

Isn’t it funny, that we spend so much time exhorting the media to include all the candidates, that it’s barely acknowledged when bloggers fail to.

That’s right, look at the Democratic delegate counter. Notice anyone missing? Perhaps someone who’s been excluded from the last 2 Democratic debates.