Must Reads

Elspeth Reeve: Sarah Palin's Incredible Shrinking Act Is Almost Complete

David Sirota: Why the anti-Obama tax spin?

Andrew Sullivan: Romney's Got Nothing

Matt Negrin & Jonathan Karl: The Bain Ad That Romney Should Fear the Most

Ron Sherer: Mitt Romney taxes show 'very high' charitable giving tied to Mormon church

Jonathan Capehart: Romney’s current Bain woes were planted two months ago

Eclectablog: OMG!!! Obama disses ALL businesses owners everywhere ever!!! EVERYBODY FREAK OUT!!!

Paul Waldman: Why "Knowing How the Economy Works" Is Not Enough

Kathleen Parker: Get Smart, America

Bill Moyers & Michael Winship: The NRA Has America Living Under the Gun

Must Reads

Marcus Cederstrom: What if Tim Tebow were Muslim?

Digby: Straight Up Racism, No Dogwhistle Necessary

Ezra Klein: Who will get the ‘Recovery Presidency’?

Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics

Robert Reich: The Romney Tax Loophole

Ruth Marcus: Mitt Romney’s miserly concern for the poor

E.J Dionne: Republicans keep moving Obama to Europe

Our blast from the past comes courtesy of loyal reader Chris U. who wants to remind us all of Newt Gingrich's political past, sans revisionist history.

John E. Yang: House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker

Sully Gets It

POSTED BY JHW22

I know, I know. Andrew Sullivan comes with baggage. But for the last four years, he has made more sense than not, and far more sense than many people in all parties. Like him or not, Andrew Sullivan GETS President Obama. And it was nice hearing someone say what many of us have been saying for years. So, thanks, Sully. It was a pleasure having you express reality so clearly.

You can watch him on Hardball



or read his insight in Newsweek.

I would like to add, that when Chris Matthews asks why the Obama team doesn't shout his accomplishments, they do. The media just misses it, ignores it, or doesn't get the significance.

Thanks to The Obama Diary for getting this online so fast!

Must Reads

Oliver Willis: Why I Criticize Obama

Justin Rosario: Censorship Smackdown of the Day: Jewish Organizations That Should Know Better

Andrew Sullivan: Perry Hypocrisy Watch

Elizabeth Drew: A 9/11 Anniversary Misremembered

Karoli: Obama Takes It To The People; Eric Cantor Whines

David Dow: Rick Perry’s Lethal Overconfidence

David Frum: Why Bush Didn’t Mention Canada in His 9/20 Speech

Jason Easley: Eric Cantor Offsets Disaster Relief With a 40% Cut To First Responders

Corey Boles: Senate Approves $500 Billion Increase in Borrowing Authority

Joan Russow: Canada Must Arrest George W. Bush If He Enters Canada

TARP Made a Profit

Believe it or not, we're in the black on TARP. It wouldn't have if the the Obama Administration hadn't reformed the program after taking office and also demanded it be paid back.

From Andrew Sullivan:

...I sure didn't expect the government to make a profit from TARP. And I sure didn't expect the auto bailouts to become such huge successes. What's surprising to me is how pallid is the Obama administration's spin has been on this. I never hear them bragging about how they managed to pull us out of the economic nose-dive we were facing. I know why: the recession isn't over, even if TARP was a success, no one wants to hear about it, etc. But it's one of the strongest and least valued part of Obama's record - along with the cost control innovations in health insurance reform.

At some point, you have to stand up and defend your record. No doubt Obama is biding his time on this. But count me as surprised as I am impressed.

Must Reads

Paul Krugman: American Thought Police

AsianGrrlMN: Michele Bachman Announces that She Plans to Formally Announce Forming a Committee for her Presidency Run Just as Soon as She Gets her Nails Done; A Nation Snickers

Steve Benen: The NBPP 'Story' -- Coda....

Glenn Kessler: Rand Paul’s Historical Misfire in the Debate Over Libya

Joseph E. Stiglitz: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

The Rude Pundit: If You Are a Birther, You Are a Racist; Therefore, Donald Trump Is a Racist and Birtherism and Your Lying Media (Part 2) and Birtherism and the Death of One Kind of Conservatism (Part 3)

Andrew Sullivan: Left, Right And Time

Michael Winship: Labor Pains and the GOP

Unserious Boobs

This is why right wing pundits and Fox News models are completely unserious when it comes to matters of discussing political policy. Here's Fox News' Megyn Kelly and Monica Crowley discussing the decision of the Obama administration to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act it deems to be unconstitutional.



Now, you may agree or disagree with the decision as is your right. But is it necessary to call the President of the United States "Mubarak Obama"? Really? Is that being a serious journalist, if that's how you define yourself? And Crowley then chose to go the route of, "Well, if Bush did this..." Remind me again how the right was all up in arms when the Bush administration gave the thumbs up on waterboarding and other torture tactics in direct violation of countless treaties and military codes of conduct. A nation of laws indeed, Monica.

In the blogosphere, Andrew Sullivan points out that Matt Drudge decided to go with this lovely headline in the midst of the protests in Libya:

"GADDAFI: OBAMA IS A FRIEND," reads the banner headline on his [Drudge's] website right now. The link goes to a year-old interview Gaddafi gave with a London-based newspaper...

So Drudge is now taking Qaddafi's insane ramblings at face value?... Drudge isn't alone. A blogger at Malkin's place picks up a loony World Net Daily article suggesting that Qaddafi, Jeremiah Wright, and Obama are all in cahoots.

Well if that's the case, Drudge, WND, Malkin and her minions, and the rest of those loons should be headlining how the protesters in Libya are just drug-addled people who were taken advantage of by Osama Bin Laden. I mean if Gaddafi said it, it must be true, right? Very serious.

ADDING... A correction, or rather a further explanation of the Justice Department's DOMA statement. The White House and the DoJ has decided not to defend the constitutionality of DOMA in appeals, not the enforcement of the law itself. So that makes the Fox clip above even more asinine.

Also, how many different ways can you spell Gaddafi? Khaddafi? Qaddafi?

S#*! Sarah Palin Says ("Blood Libel" Edition)

Soon after the tragedy at Tucson, Sarah Palin took to her Facebook page to express her condolences to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the victims of the Safeway shooting, while her commenters raged about the shooter, who thought to blame Nancy Pelosi, the "negro abortion" problem, and someone who assumed it was an illegal alien and wanted more border security long before we ever heard the name Jared Loughner. Conservative David Frum was less than impressed at Palin's statement.

"Palin’s post-shooting message was about Palin, not about Giffords. It was defensive, not inspiring. And it was petty at a moment when Palin had been handed perhaps her last clear chance to show herself presidentially magnanimous."

And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, after five days of silence, Palin decides to release a pre-recorded 7½ minute speech, also released on Facebook and with the help of a teleprompter, in which she is the victim on the designated day for a Tucson victims memorial.  She had five days, and neither she nor her speech writer could figure out that the term "blood libel" is probably not the best turn of phrase.

But ultimately, how did Palin respond to the criticism leveled at her vitriolic political rhetoric which some partly blame for the senseless shooting that occurred? She quoted Ronald Reagan (that's becoming a staple for her), invoked 9/11 and doubled down on the rhetoric.

"No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good."

Who is embracing evil and calling it good, Sarah? Care to be more specific? And her fans/commenters were overjoyed. Funny how there never seems to be any negative comments on Sarah's Facebook page.

Richard Clark: Sarah, you must be doing something right, the Liberal Media hates you. Keep up the good work, you're awesome 

Yes, the liberal media hates Palin. All three of them.

Lena Kins: If Jared had been MUSLIN, Obama would see that the MEDIA was "somewhat quiet as possible" not much of a big deal about this tragic massacre of innocent people. Sarah we need LEADERS like you in the White House.

"Muslin"? Seriously?

Al Holloway: Thank God, Dipshit Obama finally stopped talking, it makes me sick how he always says that we need to start speaking to one another in a way that brings us together. As if all of the violent & hateful rhetoric is not coming from Democrats.

All the violent rhetoric is coming from Democrats. Got it.

That last quote was written after President Obama spoke at the Tucson Memorial service. I guess he misunderstood the message.  And Sarah showed she didn't get it either in her feeble attempt to preempt the President's speech in Tucson. Andrew Sullivan put it best in his latest post:

"Palin does not possess the self-awareness, responsibility or composure to respond to crises like this with grace. This message - even at a time of national crisis - was a base-rousing rallying cry, perpetuating her own victimhood and alleged bloodthirstiness of her opponents.

...to moderate that tone, to acknowledge that one can make an error, to defend oneself from unfair accusations while acknowledging the need for a calmer discourse in future - this is beyond her."

Circular Criticism Squad

Posted by JHW22

I have made it pretty clear that I find a lot of the "professional left's" criticisms of Obama to be short-sighted, unproductive and harmful to the party. Frankly, I could give a rat's ass if someone calls me a bot for it. I'd rather speak out for reality than be a bot for talking-point criticisms that sound good to the cynical. I try to avoid the superficial complaints about Obama because, honestly, my blood pressure goes up and I get Hulkified with no outlet for my rage. So, for the sake of my sanity, my marriage and my son's respect for me, I try to stick to reading only that criticism that is legitimate, fair and non-something-up-the-ass random.

So I was reading Andrew Sullivan today. I enjoy Sullivan because he gets it. We may not agree on everything but, for the most part, he provides sound reasoning and stays pretty calm. I like thinking about an issue without having to calm down first. He writes in a manner that lets me think from the first sentence through the last without me trying to "refudiate" each sentence along the way.

His post, "The Best Analysis of Obama's Dilemma" starts out like this:

It comes from Obama himself:

"Given how much stuff was coming at us, we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right... I think anybody who's occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can't be neglecting of marketing and PR and public opinion."

That sounds pretty good. I agree. I hate to agree with the President on this but I do. I'd prefer a policy be right and the American people figure out on their own that it's good, but I realize we're stupid and lazy and need to be massaged into understanding why a good policy is a good policy. I wish he weren't right but he is.

The next paragraph is about a Liberal (keep in mind that Andrew Sullivan is a Conservative):

David Corn complains that this is the kind of self-criticism that does not help before an election, and that in arguing that his biggest error was under-estimating Republican obstructionism, the president cannot also argue that he can work with the GOP, if necessary, in the next two years.

David Corn opened that particular article with THIS paragraph:

With a little over two weeks to go to the critical elections, why would the Obama White House want reporters (and voters) to fixate on what it got wrong in its first two years?

Yeah, why would Obama want reporters to fixate on something they already fixate on just fine without his help? Why would he want to state the very point they have fixated on all along? Doesn't he know that their fixations are so automatic that they will fixate on the very thing they have been fixated on just because now he mentioned it?

Perhaps David Corn is just pissed because now Obama has addressed it and that takes some of the cynicism out of the fixation. Damn. How can people like David Corn possibly criticize the President when he's criticizing himself? That's just not fair, gosh darn it. The only people who should be able to criticize are the very people who make a living criticizing. Each time Obama criticizes himself the "professional left" loses their bearing.

What I don't get is why the "professional left" can criticize Obama daily, without merit most of the time and at times seeming as if they are basing their opinions on someone else's reporting rather than doing the due diligence of thinking for themselves -- oh, but Obama can't criticize himself.

THIS is exactly the kind of crap that the left has been pulling for over a year. And it's exactly the kind of crap that has led me to avoid more and more of the "professional left". I stopped following David Corn on Twitter about two weeks ago because of shit like this. It's called stoking the fire. And as they say, if you can't stand the heat, stop reading the firebaggers. Okay, "they" don't say that but I am going to start saying it. Care to join me and create the "they"?

Say it with me, "If you can't stand the heat, don't read the firebaggers". Save your blood pressure for something that really matters. Use your precious time reading people who offer something legitimate to discuss.

Now, I need to get back to reading the rest of Andrew Sullivan and stop fixating on the firebagging.

edit: I was just reminded why I rarely watch MSNBC anymore. Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd are discussing the fact that Obama criticized himself in such a crucial time. Two people who have repeatedly criticized Obama are now criticizing Obama for criticizing Obama. Do these people hear themselves? Where's the remote?

Special Needs

POSTED BY JHW22

When Sarah Palin ran for VP, she said that she would be an advocate -- a friend -- to families who have children with special needs. Because her son has Down Syndrome, she understands the families' need for research, education, emotional and financial support. She understands that families with a special needs child have special needs of their own. And she has kept her promise by making a few speeches and a few donations. Granted, I thought she'd keep that promise by doing far more. But shame on me for setting my expectations just a little higher.

Yesterday was the 20th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act -- the law that ensures people with special needs have full access to jobs, transportation, entertainment and safety. Nancy Pelosi celebrated the day by posting this on her Facebook page:

For all celebrating the 20th anniversary of the historic Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) civil rights legislation today, I wanted to share this moment from the House floor. This afternoon, Congressman Jim Langevin (D-RI), who is quadriplegic, became the first Member of Congress in a wheelchair to preside over the House. The Speaker’s rostrum on the House Floor was recently made wheelchair-accessible through a series of lifts.

What an amazing moment. What a great way to show the strength that Americans gain from a law created to make life less difficult so that they can achieve their desires. What a way to celebrate special needs by showing how the ADA levels the playing field. Impressive and moving.

So how did the advocate -- friend -- of families with special needs honor the monumental day? Well, Sarah Palin posted on Facebook, also, too. Here's what she posted:

Journey into the Media’s Heart of Darkness

How ironic that on a day when we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, The Daily Caller released 15 pages of JournoListers’ email exchanges about a dark and demented conspiracy regarding my son, Trig.

It’s tough to fittingly describe these numerous members of the mainstream media who actively engaged in the debate about this conspiracy back when I was first introduced as John McCain’s running mate, and it’s impossible to legitimize any “prominent” media publication that continues to traffic in this bizarre narrative today. It wasn’t just a few fringe characters in that JournoList discussion. It included writers for major newspapers, magazines, and online news publications. Those participating in this immature exchange in attempts to plant seeds of doubt and falsely accuse even included a famous historian.

This JournoList exchange exposes the warped nature of today’s media, thus explaining why many of us are forced, in fairness to the public, to utilize other mediums to communicate until the mainstream media wakes up and begins respecting the public’s intelligence and desire for truth in reporting. There is a sickness and darkness in today’s liberal media. With revelations like the JournoList exchanges, may the light keep shining to expose the problem.

It’s always darkest before the dawn. My hope, therefore, is that today, marking the anniversary of our nation’s attempt to show respect for our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters with special needs, will also mark the beginning of a new, more respectful discourse among members of our media who at least aspire to be fair and objective.

- Sarah Palin

Yeah, that's it. She has 1.9 million fans on her Facebook page and THAT is how she chose to advocate and be friends with families. THAT. That is one more example of her "Pawns and Shields" platform. Forget the fact that the reporters she took aim at CHOSE not to even touch the rumors that she wasn't Trig's birth mom. Forget that the reporters CHOSE not to write about her terrible judgment to fly while in labor. Forget that she just brought all that back into the open and yet, no one (except Andrew Sullivan) will even touch it. She is using private, undisclosed gossip that led to absolutely no personal attacks on her, to illustrate her respect for an anniversary that should make her son's life better.

Some think we should ignore Palin. If the media would just stop paying attention to her, she'd go away and we'd all be better off. But I say that as long as she has access to Twitter and Facebook and Fox News, she will make herself heard. And she will use every opportunity to further distort reality and frighten her fans into going along with whatever crap she shovels. She isn't going anywhere -- in fact she is marching boldly into a political future and she is taking hearts and minds with her.

In her speech linked above, Palin said:

"When I learned that Trig would have special needs, honestly, I had to prepare my heart."

Sometimes I wonder, has she prepared her heart -- or just strengthened her platform. And I wonder if we will let that slide for fear of her accusations that we attack her children when we attack her. Or will we say "Enough!" and hold her to her own words and actions and change those hearts and minds she captured with lies?

Must Reads

Matt Taibbi: Lara Logan, You Suck

Christopher Brauchli: Indians and Immigrants

Michael Winship: This Fourth of July, Celebrate "1776" -- The Movie

Paul Krugman: Myths of Austerity

Andrew Sullivan: In Breitbart's World

JHW22 recommends...

Matt Osborne: False Sense of Security

Greg Boyd: For (Too Much) Love of Country

Armadillo Joe recommends...

Anita Lee: Is BP rejecting skimmers to save money on Gulf oil cleanup?

Richard Heinberg: Solarize the White House

Francois Cellier: A Road Not Taken: Solar Panels, Jimmy Carter, and Missed Opportunities for Change

Must Reads

Adam Blickstein: Conservatives Terrified of Bringing Terrorists to Justice

Robert Reich: Harry Reid, and What Happened to the Public Option

The Rude Pundit: Photos That Make Some Kind of Awful Sense (Palin Version) and Fact-Checking Sarah Palin Is a Waste of Everyone's Time, But Fuck It

Bob Cesca: Famous for Being Famous: The Sarah Palin Show Is On the Air

David Vines: If It Were Me, I'd Be Embarrassed

Bob Saget: Why I Love Thanksgiving

Armadillo Joe recommends...

Andrew Sullivan: Deconstructing Sarah, Ctd

Kevin Drum: Quote of the Day

Booman: Questions for Nate Silver

TRex: “This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things!” She Shrieked, then Went Back to Cleaning Her Guns.

Matthew Cole & Brian Ross: EXCLUSIVE: CIA Secret 'Torture' Prison Found at Fancy Horseback Riding Academy

Matt Taibbi: Sarah Palin, WWE Star

driftglass: Going Vague

DistributorCap: The Ownership Society

Must Reads

Bob Cesca: The Health Insurance Mafia Deserves a Good Screwing

Andrew Sullivan: A Marine and the T-Word

Paul Krugman: The Big Hate

Halimah Abdullah, McClatchy: Senators who opposed tobacco bill received top dollar from industry

Lars Thorwald: Obama on DOMA: He IS Keeping A Promise

Armadillo Joe recommends...

Joan Walsh: Why I went on "The O'Reilly Factor"

The Daily Howler: It Happened Last Time! Yesterday’s killing made us think about what happened the last time

D. Aristophanes, Sadly, No!: The Usual Gang of Idiots

Tom Leonard: US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

The Good Fight

by Armadillo Joe

Matt Yglesias gamely tries to spelunk into the frightening recesses of the wingnut mind, attempting to describe their vision of how the world works, especially now that an unwhite-skinned islamofascistic pointy-headed Big City Lib'ruhl who speaks in complete sentences (and has a mooz-luhm name!) runs the show:

The people on the outs are “normal” and the people running the show are “abnormal.” And while I wouldn’t use that language to describe the difference in the coalition, the basic description is right—most Americans are white and most Americans are Christian, and the Republican Party is overwhelmingly the party of white Christian America while the Democratic Party draws its support from a diverse array of non-white and non-Christian ethnic and sectarian groups. But the authentic America is seen as the white & Christian American, an entity in whose defense one can claim to rebel against the actual United States of America.

Doug J at Balloon Juice quotes Yglesias and then follows-up with his own assessment of the wingnut militia movement:

in the minds of many wingnuts, a right-wing insurrection would be a restoration. This probably explains why the right is generally more interested in the idea of armed insurrection than the left

But, driftglass, with the usual aplomb, is having none of it. He gleefully goes for the jugular and gets to the heart of the problem with Reich-Wing politics faster and more thoroughly than ten Andrew Sullivan apologies for the recent political stumbles of otherwise transcendent and timeless conservative values. He attacks with a ferocity that washes over and clouds the vision like a mainline hit of unadulterated TRUTH straight into an artery:

Republicans don't give a shit about this country. They give a shit about their country: the The Caucasian Free State Of Jesusland. And to whatever extent the actual America and its actual constitution and history and pluralty and complexity frustrates and impedes the implementation of the New Confederacy of their dreams, that is the extent to which they will always despise the real America.

And then he uses that momentum to carry us forward into action, ACTION NOW! complete with pitchforks and torches because somebody has to stand and fight against these people before they bring down the rickety facade of the last, best hope on earth:

From Congress to our local PTAs, we have to stop playing nice. We have to stop pretending they'll go away, or sober up, or that they're kidding, or that someday all of that being bugfuck nuts 24/7 will get wearying and they'll take up another hobby.

Sorry, but these are the people who watched Worst President in History magically turn everything he touched to shit and decided "Four More Years!" These are the people who look into Michele Bachmann's helter skelter eyes and asked for seconds.

They have spent decades, vast sums of money and considerable effort going out of their way to earn our loud, rude, sustained and public contempt.

And I urge every Liberal in America to take it upon himself or herself sure Conservatives are paid what they've earned -- in full and with interest -- no matter how long it takes.

Thanks, But No Thanks, But Thanks, But No Thanks... But... Thanks...

I can't wait until Palin runs in 2012 with the line, "I said, 'Thanks, but no thanks' to that economic stimulus package money."

You know it's coming.

(H/T Andrew Sullivan)

Party Before Country

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

~ President Barack Obama, January 20, 2009

Here we are 24 days later, 24 days into the Presidency of Barack Obama, who was handed the task of leading us out of this abysmal mess left by the previous administration because of the avarice of those men behind the curtain to which we should have been paying attention, pulling the levers and pushing the buttons; making the jaw move and the head bobble and the walk swagger of their Great and Powerful Wizard of Intellectual Slothfulness.

President Obama had a message, and in our joy and excitement for the glorious day that had finally arrived, we failed to realize who he was speaking of, as the Wizard took his final balloon flight. He spoke to the Muslim world when he asked to "seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." He spoke to leaders around the world when he warned that "your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy."

And then he said, "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent...". Who do you suppose he meant?

It didn't even take a month. In just a little over three weeks, we now know to whom he was referring when he spoke those words. President Obama has extended his hand, but the GOP has not unclenched their fist. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent..." Can you think of any examples of corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent off the top of your head these last eight years?

He extended his hand as he met with Republican lawmakers in an effort to get support for his recovery bill to try and fight out of our current economic crisis. But why should Republicans help a newly elected Democratic President? Why should the Republicans care about the constituents they were elected to represent? And they slapped President Obama's hand away, claiming they'd been left out of the process.

He extended his hand again, in the interests of bipartisanship, trying to yet again appeal to the GOP's better angels in hosting them at the White House to discuss further ideas for economic stimulus and heard nothing but petty griping, about grass on the mall and contraception. After all, how can creating jobs by repairing the infrastructure of our crumbling national monuments and funding family planning that would save an estimated $60 billion in future government medical costs possibly help our economy? President Obama heard their complaints, removed the "offensive" items from the bill and held out his hand. And they slapped his hand away, claiming they'd been left out of the process.

President Obama then nominated Republican Senator Judd Gregg as Secretary of Commerce. Gregg accepted. After all he had lobbied for the job, why would he refuse? He then abstained from voting on the recovery bill, and decided he didn't want the job after all, in a weak, "It's not you, it's me" moment.

White House statement:

"Senator Gregg reached out to the President and offered his name for Secretary of Commerce. He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace, and move forward with the President’s agenda. Once it became clear after his nomination that Senator Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama’s key economic priorities, it became necessary for Senator Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways. We regret that he has had a change of heart".

Shorter Gregg: Yeah, I wanted the job, thought it would look cool on my resume. Then all my Republican friends got mad at me and I fell to the peer pressure. Besides, I'm going to retire in 2010 anyway since the GOP is going down faster than Larry Craig in an airport bathroom stall, and there's no way I'd be re-elected. But what did you expect? I'm a Republican. That's what we do.

SABOTAGE

Is it possible that the Republican Party is thinking about nothing but trying to sabotage President Obama and the Democrats in order regain control of Congress in 2010? That would be pretty outrageous, don't you think?

Andrew Sullivan: "Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even after the last eight years. Even in a recession as steeply dangerous as this one. "

TPM: "It's hard not to think that Gregg's withdrawal, with the grumbling about the census and the stimulus, was not timed to cause the most damage possible to the Obama administration. Releasing the statement just as Obama took the stage in Peoria was clearly designed to undermine the President's event. The fact he scheduled a presser only seems to confirm it. The classy exit would have been to wait til tomorrow afternoon to quietly bow out. Basically Gregg decided not just to politely decline, but rather to blow shit up and burn the bridge behind him. Do not think this portends good things for the wider political climate. "

Robert Reich (H/T Bob Cesca): "But going into the midterms, I think a lot of Republicans would like to say this was not our bill, this was not our bank bailout, if you had followed us with out tax cuts, we would not be in this position today. And they're gonna want to do what [Newt Gingrich] did in 1994 to nationalize the election."

Bob Cesca: "Ultimately, I don't mind that Senator Gregg has dropped out. But this is yet another indication that the Republicans have no intention of meeting the president halfway on a goddamn thing. They will, in fact, attempt to sabotage the president at every turn because it's their nature."

Yes, it would be pretty outrageous, but in my opinion, not out of the question. Show me the evidence. Give me examples where they have acted for the greater good of the country than for their own political gain. Never underestimate the Republican Party's lust for the return to power that they've lost and what lengths they'll go to regain it. In their minds, they're burning the village in order to save it. If that isn't party before country, I don't know what is.

Keith Olbermann: Special Comment on Ferraro Uproar

No comment necessary.




Update: From Andrew Sullivan -

Ferraro's original gaffe was an accident. The compounding of it is a strategy. A reader comments:

...Throwing the kitchen sink apparently means turning the Democratic Party into an all out race versus gender war, ultimately allowing Bill and Hillary to either emerge on top or for Obama to be so badly damaged that the Superdelegates will fear he's lost the white vote in the general election. That's exactly the game the Clinton's have set in motion here.