Highest Common Denominator

Yes. Yes, yes, yes. This is what a campaign should look like. Notice the lack of flashy graphics and dramatic music. There are no clips of celebrities, no unflattering pictures of the opponent. Just a candidate spelling out his position instead of marketing an image. There is, of course, an image being presented: that of a statesman. A statesman, of all things. In this day and age. Speaking as an adult to adults, no less. This is what we would have expected from John McCain, if John McCain were still the John McCain of 2000 election. But he sold his pride and integrity to the soulless marketers of the conservative political machine.

I'm not saying I think this will work. I'm not at all sure that it will. But if there's any hope for democracy in this country, then this is what people really want. This should resonate, even if you don't like the ideas, because it lets us respect a candidate as a statesman, not as a product to be consumed.

Represent

I understand the desire among moderate progressives to back off of the Bristol Palin story. Insomuch as I believe a pregnant teenager shouldn't be brought into the public sphere and offered up for scrutiny, I agree. But let us be clear. Her mother did that, not the press, not the Obama campaign, and not the progressive blogosphere. If there was any question in the mind of Sarah Palin that her daughter would become an issue in the campaign, then it is only evidence that her political savvy is even less sophisticated than it would appear. I have to believe she did know, and it was decided that the evangelical right, which she was brought on to court, would flock to her support while critics could be deflected with horrified shock that anyone would dare criticize a young girl as part of a presidential election.

The fact is, however, that Sarah Palin stands on a platform of family values and right-wing extremism. Part and parcel to that is the implied notion that Sarah Palin is better qualified to decide what decisions are available to you as a parent than you are. Sarah Palin believes she is qualified to be the National Parent. She should decide what books your children should not read. She should decide what your children should not be taught about procreation in school. She should decide whether or not your teenage daughter should have access to birth control and abortions. She should decide how your children should be molded into responsible, sexually healthy adults. This is at the very heart of evangelical politics, and Sarah Palin is neck deep. So it is very, very relevant that Sarah Palin's own parenting choices fall well within the scope of reasonable criticism. Because she has applied for the position of National Parent, we are entitled to see her resume, and question what appear to be gaps in her job performance to date. This is not fair to Bristol Palin. I would never argue that it is. But to simply ignore the facts of Sarah Palin's background would be a dereliction of duty, especially when those facts paint her to be unsuitable for the specific position for which she has applied.

Popular Vote Fist-Pounding

Wow. There is a lot of underwear being tied into all sort of knots over the issue of who is winning the popular vote in the Democratic primary. Eschaton, Talking Points Memo, Shakesville, Alas, and plenty of others have been weighing in on this topic... actually, 'weighing in' isn't really the right word. Rules lawyering is more appropriate. Because not only is it important who has the popular vote, but how that popular vote is calculated. Do you count Michigan and Florida votes? If so, do you count all the votes or a percentage? What about caucus results? Do you count uncommitted votes? If so, who gets them?

It reminds me of a game of Dungeons and Dragons I was running once. One of my players, whose character was an impulsive monk not terribly unlike himself, wanted to try to wrestle a balrog to the ground. Per the rules, I had him roll to compare his strength against his opponent's. He failed. He became irritated, and wanted to be sure I'd included all the bonuses he was entitled to as per the official Player's Handbook section on grappling. Finally, I pointed out, with exasperation creeping into my voice, that it didn't matter, because he was trying to wrestle a 30-foot tall demon made out of fire, and no amount of bonuses was going to change the fact that he was a 3-foot tall halfling without a suit of asbestos armor.

The point is, it doesn't really matter who has the popular vote. By one person's standards it might be Obama, and by another's it might be Clinton. There is no need to argue over who is right, because it makes no real difference. Popular vote doesn't count for anything other than unofficial bragging rights. Even if you argue that it might sway the votes of superdelegates, all the argument proves is that the votes are close enough that the delegates should choose based on other criteria. It's just arguing for the sake of arguing. And not just tossing out an opinion here and there, but epic-length diatribes calling into question every popular-vote-grappling rule in the DNC Player's Handbook. This is what the Democratic party has been reduced to.

Remember how Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000? Remember how much that mattered? All it did was give Gore supporters something to put on bumper-stickers after the election was over. So hopefully I'll be excused for worrying that this pointless argument doesn't bode well for the unification of the party after the nomination is made. You will have people stridently claiming Obama's win was illegitimate because he didn't win the popular vote. Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money, in the post that seems to have set off the latest volley of 300-pound marshmallows, appears to agree, but then legitimizes the argument by participating in it. This is not helpful.

Nap Time

Amy's worried about jinxing the election. She should stop worrying, because I've been at it for over a month now. If I was superstitious about anything except my socks*, I'd be afraid of being so openly cynical about how things are going to turn out. But frankly, I think the worst thing would be for progressives, liberals, and rational moderates to believe that we've got this thing in the bag. We definitely do not, and resting on our laurels now will just mean we have to endure watching McCain's inauguration with laurel-shaped welts in our asses.

The press is all over trying to make Obama look shaky, and has no problem running Clinton hit-pieces in the guise of stunningly poor journalism. McCain is getting none of this. None of it. The guy who doesn't know the difference between Iran and Al Queda is getting a pass from the media, because he's not in a real race right now and isn't very interesting.

And Amy's right about Obama's speech too. It was stunningly moving; without a doubt, one of the best examples of true modern-day statesmanship I've heard in a long time. Does it matter? Not at all. Nobody wants statesmanship. They want Hillary upstairs while Bill gets a blowjob. They want Obama's uppity pastor who don't know his place. They want governors with hookers, or maybe admitting to threesomes. Real statesmanship, well, that shit's boring.

We are screwed.

*I never wear matching socks. This message brought to you by Americans Dedicated to Exposing Useless Information About Me.

Walt Disney's White House Kingdom

The problem with national politics, from my standpoint (specifically, the standpoint of an armchair pundit who minored in Political Science at a very expensive but academically vapid university only because he was not allowed to minor in theater), is that it's obviously a dance. The plainspoken statesman is an extinct species. Were one to find himself in the jungle of American politics today, within moments he would be pounced on and devoured by feral campaigns armed with PR machines and focus groups.

If a candidate for the presidency of the United States got on television today and expressed his very sincere belief that he would be leading a parade of goblins riding unicorns through Washington D.C., his campaign would come to a very abrupt end. But Rudy Giuliani can declare emphatically that he will win the Florida primary, an event at least as unlikely as a goblin/unicorn alliance parade, and it's treated as news. It's bullshit. Everybody knows it's bullshit. It's a fantasy, and yet it is also an accepted and expected aspect of our political machine.

I really think that we, as a nation, should consider seeing a professional therapist. This kind of thing can't be healthy.

Is Karl Rove Working on Clinton's Campaign?

AP via Yahoo:

Attached to the Obama complaint was an instruction sheet that Bauer's letter attributed to the Clinton campaign. The sheet offers guidance on how to persuade caucus goers to caucus for Clinton.

One line states: "It's not illegal unless they tell you so."

What the shit, people. This is why I'm not a Republican anymore. I'm not asking for much. Could we maybe just avoid asking our supporters to break the law for us?

Night of the Living Turdblossom

Karl Rove won't stay dead, and hilarity ensues.

Think about that. She’s running against ‘nobody’ and ‘nobody’ gets 40 percent of the vote. The other 5 percent of the vote went to three other people: 27,924 votes went to the guy who believes in UFOs, the guy who dropped out and the guy who last held public office somewhere around 1855.

Wow. He may have handed the Chimp in Charge his resignation, but he hasn't quit the game he's best at: walking the razor-thin line between political spin and complete fabrication, then jumping off and kicking the line repeatedly in the gut until it vomits all over his shiny black Louis Vuittons.

Clinton should have taken her name of the ballot in Michigan. No question about it. But to say that 40% of the vote went to 'nobody' is delusional. 40% of the vote went to Obama and Edwards. Their names weren't on the ballot, but their camps were putting out the word: get to the polls and vote 'uncommitted'.

We let a career criminal walk free... we even give him a cushy job as a columnist for a major news magazine... and this is how he pays us back.

So... Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is being torn into over newsletters carrying his name that included some absolutely disgusting racist and heterosexist content. You probably already know this, because the mainstream media has given it more attention than any other aspect of his campaign.

Is it fair? That's a damn good question. Obviously the media is all over this thing. Paul supporters like Weird at Slacker Nation are obviously unfazed. The impact this is going to have is still unclear. But is it fair? I almost feel bad for saying it, but yes. It's fair.

I can not tolerate racism or heterosexism. I have dropped longstanding friendships over single instances of overt, unapologetic heterosexism. I have cut ties with members of my family over racism. I'm serious about this. So if there were a newsletter carrying my name in 72 point font across the top, and it had a pattern of obscene racism and heterosexism, I would a) know about it. b) put an immediate stop to it. and c) apologize profusely.

Ron Paul, by his own admission, did none of these things. If a) and b) fell through the cracks, the only thing left is c). But if you watch his reaction, he's not apologetic. Hell, he's barely willing to repudiate the articles without being prompted by someone else.

It is unfair that Ron Paul's campaign has been ignored by the media. Absolutely. But it is not unfair that this particular angle is being covered. The media should be digging into the background of candidates and informing us of this sort of thing. Hell, if they'd done their job in 2000 and given this kind of attention to anything in G.W.'s past, maybe we'd be in better shape today. (Anything. Anything at all.)

Just because the media hasn't fairly covered him up to this point does not mean that Ron Paul should be excused from this particular coverage.

Aw... C'mon, John.

Frequent readers (when posts are frequent, anyway) will know that I've been a John Edwards supporter pretty much since the candidates became official, which coincided with my reading of Economic Apartheid in America. Hillary Clinton, being the democratic candidate who is most part of the establishment and propped up by corporate interests is easily my last choice of the bunch.

That said, I have no problem with Clinton choking up a bit when discussing the campaign process. I don't want an emotionless robot running this nation. Passion and emotion are not evil, estrogen-oozing things to be avoided at all costs.

I most certainly do have a problem with John Edwards being a total asshole in response.

"I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business."

Don't be that guy, John. Because that guy sucks, and I won't support him.

A Dandee In King George's Court

Retired brigadier general Keith Kerr was, at one point, appointed to a steering committee for Hillary Clinton, a committee he did not ever actually work on. He is, however, an active member of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group whose very existence never ceases to confound me but nevertheless indicates a Republican bent. Which of these affiliations do you think matters more to the conservative jabbersphere?

Kerr asked a question during the debate that brought to light a fundamental problem not with any individual candidate, but with the conservative platform itself. If national security is so important, why do we disallow qualified individuals to serve in the military over an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with soldiering? Conservative punditry looks at this as an obvious plant, and an attempt to make the candidates look bad. I disagree. In my view, it was a chance for any of the candidates to step up to the plate and hit one out of the park by refusing to pander to social extremists. It wasn't a malicious ambush, it was a missed opportunity.

It's this simple: If you can't answer a simple policy question without it making you 'look bad,' then your policy is flawed. I don't care who asked the question. If you can't answer it without sounding like a spineless panderer, than you're almost definitely a spineless panderer.

Thumbs up to the crowd who booed Kerr for his question, though. Support Our Troops, you hypocritical assholes.

Also, Michelle Malkin is also busy digging up more 'plants' among the debate questioners. I find it interesting that she considers anyone who does not currently support a Republican candidate to be a 'plant'. Maybe this is why the Republicans are worried about a "Coming Cataclysm"... their mouthpieces have become so out of touch that they impose permanent banishment for anyone who disagrees with them. It was hypocrisy that drove me out of the Republican party, but it's the lunacy that keep me away.

Taking It Personally

CNN.com declares:

Attacks get personal between Romney, Giuliani

Uh-oh. Really? Are things getting personal? Let's take a look. According to the article, the attacks follow this pattern:

Giuliani criticized Romney's appointment of Judge Kathe Tuttman, who Romney is now calling to step down after the judge released a convicted killer who then murdered a couple in Washington State.

Romney defended the appointment based on the judge's previous record, and pointed out that given the issues surrounding Giuliani's appointment to police commissioner Bernie Kerik, maybe picking good help wasn't Giuliani's strongpoint.

Giuliani than expanded on his issue with Romney, claiming that the incident was illustrative of Romney's poor record on violent crime.

Romney then criticized Giuliani's fiscal policies while mayor of New York City.

Uh... huh. You know what I can't find? A personal attack anywhere in there. All criticism was directed toward what the candidates did in the course of their duties as governor and mayor. Giuliani didn't call Romney a Mormon whackjob, and Romney didn't respond by calling Giuliani a revolving door for ex-wives.

Holding a candidate responsible for their political and professional record is a good thing. I don't care much about this particular exchange because both candidates are unrepentant waffling panderers who have abandoned their principles to appeal to the social extremists that make up much of the Republican voting base, and are therefor unworthy of the office they're running for. But this smacks of the same nonsense surrounding Obama and Edwards supposedly attacking Hillary Clinton on a personal level, something that hasn't happened despite being widely reported. I want candidates forcing other candidates to defend their platforms and ideologies. It's not negative campaigning, it's responsible politics.

Captain Obvious vs. The Floundering Campaign

Fred Thompson's campaign has not taken off the way a lot of people (presumably including Fred Thompson) thought it would. Going by the way he held off his campaign with a wry smile and chuckle, he thought he could saunter on to the scene like a modern day Ronald Reagan to cheers and adulation. Apparently, he failed to notice that Ronald Reagan emitted more charismatic smiles than dour, moody glares.

So how is he going to reinvigorate his sinking candidacy?

By reminding voters that Democrats are Democrats.

"It's like they're all in training for the NASCAR, you know, nothing but a left turn, just steady as she goes, all the way around," he said at a coffee house in northeastern Iowa.

I guess Fred Thompson feels that the best way to the White House is by reminding Americans that Democrats tend to make more left-wing, liberal decisions than Republicans. I wasn't aware most Americans were oblivious to this fact.

Maybe, instead of pointing out the obvious, Cap'n Fred could explain why we should trust the Republican establishment when they can't even finish a president's term without old cronies ratting them out for corruption.

Leaving Las Vegas

Sometimes, when I look at the process, it makes me want to throw my hands up and quit. Why do we bother to have debates? What's the point? Those Who Choose have already settled on Hillary Clinton, Those Who Blindly Accept have consented, and now it's just a dancing game until the actual campaign begins.

Case in point: When John Edwards discussed the difference between himself and Clinton, he pointed out that he was working on public campaign funding while Clinton was accepting money from corporate sponsors and lobbyists. He didn't even add a value statement there. But the hyped-up Clinton-leaning audience booed him for it.

It wasn't a statement of opinion, you numb fucks. If you consider "Senator Clinton takes money from lobbyists" to be an insult, then your issue isn't with the person who points it out but Clinton herself. Clinton personifies the broken system. If that makes it harder for you to blindly accept her as the foregone victor, maybe you should cut that shit out and actually participate in the process instead of blaming the person with the audacity to shatter your pretty little fantasy.

Also, although Amy beat me to the punch on this one, I am dying to know if Barak Obama prefers diamonds or pearls.

Swift Kids for Truth

Bwa hah hah ha!



This is absolutely fantastic! Good parody is funny, great parody is so close to the truth that it's a little scary. This is the latter. With very few changes, this would be a believable right-wing attack ad.

Brain-Box Scrambler of the Day

This is news only because it is so obviously not news and yet is being covered as news.

Chuck Norris supports Mike Huckabee

Chuck Norris? What possible relevance could the opinion of Chuck Norris hold? Why am I not being informed whom Doug Llewelyn is supporting? Or Gilbert Gotfried? What about Samantha Fox? Surely Samantha has some valuable insight on the election of 2008!

I think supporting Republican candidates is one of the best strategies for extending a career in Hollywood. No matter how washed-up you become, you'll still be unique enough to command headlines, apparently.

Daisy Girl Was Subtle

I'm sure you've seen this, but it bears visual repeating.


Yeah, okay, I don't have to point out why this is totally off-the-wall batshit. I know. But honestly, can we somehow make everyone in the country watch this video, then round up the people who are swayed by it to support Tom Tancredo and keep them in a bunker somewhere, safe, comfortable, entertained, but completely unable to in any way influence national politics? I don't want cowardice affecting our political discourse any more than it already is, and this ad is just begging people to give in to base fear and paranoia.

The potential for infiltration is an inescapable consequence of living in a free and open society. Tancredo seems to believe that what Americans really want is diplomatically-elected authoritarianism. If that sounds like an oxymoron to you, you're far brighter than Tom Tancredo's target demographic.

Ron Paul On The Petri Dish

Atrios over at Eschaton is only the most recent progressive blogger I've seen shrugging off the Ron Paul campaign.

"I find the Ron Paul candidacy interesting, but that has nothing to do with support. It's interesting because I don't quite understand it."
- Atrios

This seems to be a recurrent theme... Ron Paul's campaign is fascinating, but only in the way that some random trivia about the mating habits of africanized honey bees is fascinating. It's neat, but it doesn't mean anything.

I find this reaction frustrating. Ron Paul's campaign means a lot, and failing to recognize that is symptomatic of problematic in-crowd choir-preaching. Ron Paul is like the Kucinich of the right, but he's actually motivating people to get the word out in a way nobody has managed on the left. The left is basically being told that Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee, and there's some low-level buzzing, but that's it. Meanwhile, despite a concerted effort in the media to make Ron Paul appear trivial and unelectable, thousands of highly motivated supporters are getting off their asses and forcing people to take notice. That matters. That's important. It may not mean that Ron Paul gets the nomination, but all that energy will survive this election. It will carry over. Ron Paul's campaign is creating a small army of people who care enough to be active, raise large amounts of money, and devote themselves to a political cause. People are excited about the process again, not just a candidate or a single issue. People feel like they're voting not just for a slimy politician, but for themselves.

People should be studying this phenomenon. People should be studying it very closely.

Avoiding Surprises

Hillary's campaign has been planting questions from the audience at events.

Her reaction now that she's been outed:

"It was news to me," Clinton told reporters, "and neither I nor my campaign approve of that, and it will certainly not be tolerated."

It amazes me how much the woman appears completely unaware of what her employees are doing. Pardon me if that doesn't fill me with confidence in regards to her filling the position of national manager.

Obama and Edwards both called her on it. Edwards mentioned, correctly, that it bore a disturbing resemblance to one of GW's bad habits. Clinton came back by saying that Edwards was more like Bush for trying to divide the country by attacking Democrats. I find it unsettling that the Clinton campaign considers it an attack when she is called out for lapses in integrity. This isn't the first time it's happened, and I'll bet my preordered copy of Rock Band that, given her reaction, she doesn't expect it to be the last. Maybe she could avoid such problems in the future by adopting some integrity.

I am less and less willing to support Clinton with each passing day. Be careful, Democrats. Recent converts like me are here because we grew sick and tired of the hypocrisy and hubris of the Republicans. You can't afford to alienate us by supporting the exact same nonsense.

People as Props

This made me cry a little on the way in to work this morning.

Two women caught up in Democratic campaigns.

If you have time, don't just read the article. Listen to the audio. The first woman, now a crowd-pleasing anecdote for Hillary Clinton, lost one of her two jobs over the incident because her boss isn't 'a big Hillary Clinton fan.' She's just another 'uniquely American' single mom, mocked and exploited by the current administration, and not even left a tip by the giant Hillary entourage she served. She's been walked on by everyone, and it's heartbreaking.

The second woman's story is sad in a more obvious way; her brother is dying of cancer, and she just wanted validation. She went to Barak Obama's campaign for help, and he held her hand and validated her. It almosts sounds like personality worship when she tells it.

Of course, these are two perfect examples of people who should be supporting John Edwards.

No. No, no, no.

From today's edition of the New York Times:

"John Edwards, specifically, as well as the press, would never attack Barack Obama for two hours they [sic] way they attacked her," said Geraldine A. Ferraro, the 1984 vice presidential candidate who supports Mrs. Clinton. "It's O.K. in this country to be sexist," Ms. Ferraro said.

BULLSHIT. Clinton is showing at 44% support, Obama at 25%, and Edwards at 14%. Frankly, if they hadn't gunned for Clinton, that would have been sexist, because damn straight they'd be gunning for a man that far in front, and failing to do the same for Hillary would have been patronizing.

Sexist describes the newspaper articles that preface any discussion of something Hillary said with what she was wearing. Her candidates pressing her on the issues has nothing to do with sexism. When you're 19 percentage points ahead of your closest rival, you're commanding almost half of your party's support, and your gender automatically buys you (for good or ill) extra publicity, you don't get to call it sexist when your opponents call you out for being evasive on points that you are clearly being evasive about.

Hillary Clinton says some stuff about something while wearing a sporty powder blue pants suit. Barak Obama ponders serious political issues nearby.

As much as I appreciate Amy's opinion on the topic, I can't see Hillary as an icon of feminism. She would not be where she is today if she were not married to Bill Clinton. I don't discount some of the positive implications of her strong campaign. But how can someone who started her career as a high-profile wife be an icon for female equality? I want to see a woman in the nation's top office. I want to see our society reach that pinnacle. But if I believe GW's station is compromised by his family's legacy, how can I think differently about Hillary? Does that make me as bad as Edwards and the media?

I guess my main issue with this story is that it misrepresents where sexism exists in this campaign. The way the press treats Clinton is sexist, but not because they press her on issues. It's because they tell us what she's wearing, and how her hair is done, and how she deserves to be protected from spirited debate because of her gender.