President Obama on The Tonight Show

In case you missed it, like I did.

Gay Marriage, The States, and Pitchforks

POSTED BY JHW22

I am staying as far from the fray as I can in regards to the post-victory letdown of the passage of gay marriage in New York. From what I gather, a certain self-made martyr and an intelligent, if not emotional and often too myopic, journalist, have decided to dampen celebrations with hyperbole that suggests, in a roundabout way, that Obama hates gay people. They haven't come out (pun intended?) and said he does, as far as I know, but the implications gushing forth from a certain faction of the Angry Left is that Obama doesn't ever want gay people to get married.

Now, he has said he doesn't support gay marriage from a personal perspective (totally paraphrasing but pretty spot-on) but has never taken actions as President to prevent it. Many articles have illustrated how he has actually done MORE than any other President to advance the rights of the LGBT community so I am not going to try to reinvent that wheel.

What I want to focus on is an angle many people miss on many issues. This is just the latest example of the issue I call the "I want unrealistic perfection" syndrome. And this syndrome usually manifests itself in a form of rewriting 2008 campaign history. It results in the Angry Left misrememberstanding (yep, I made up a word) who was running and what our choices were. It results in some la la land delusion of "we could have had someone better" or "(insert candidate) wouldn't have betrayed us".

Here's what Obama said last week that got panties in a bunch:

And since I taught constitutional law for a while, I felt like I was in a pretty good position to agree with courts that have ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Constitution. And that’s why we decided, with my attorney general, that we could no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts.

Now, part of the reason that DOMA doesn’t make sense is that traditionally marriage has been decided by the states. And right now I understand there’s a little debate going on here in New York — (laughter) — about whether to join five other states and D.C. in allowing civil marriage for gay couples. And I want to — I want to say that under the leadership of Governor Cuomo, with the support of Democrats and Republicans, New York is doing exactly what democracies are supposed to do. There’s a debate; there’s deliberation about what it means here in New York to treat people fairly in the eyes of the law.

That has been debated as hypocrisy because that's the argument used against his bi-racial parents, yadda, yadda, yadda.

But this isn't only Obama's rationale. Nope, someone else said almost the same thing:

Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it's a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we're having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges. I want to proceed with equalizing federal benefits.

And I've also been a very strong supporter of letting the states maintain their jurisdiction over marriage. I want to repeal Section 3 of DOMA, which stands in the way of the extension of benefits to people in committed, same-sex relationships. I will be very strongly in favor of doing that as president.

That's what Hillary Clinton said while running for the job we elected Obama to do.

So, be grumpy that Obama has issues with gay marriage that don't sound liberal enough to you. Fine. But let's not pretend someone else in the Oval Office, and I mean a real person and not some imaginary one, would be handling this differently.

My friends here at Broadway Carl have a perspective on this. Some consider us irrelevant or gay-bashing for disagreeing with SOME people who happen to be gay (while at the same time agreeing with many people who happen to be gay -- go figure). But when the facts are clear and when Obama has shown, repeatedly, to be progressive on gay rights, then the hyperbole and exaggeration and speculation are what I consider irrelevant.

And frankly, Obama has acted in the most honestly separation-of-church-and-state way possible. If his personal beliefs on gay marriage are based on his religious studies and thought, and yet he is moving toward more and more rights for gay couples, then he is demonstrating, repeatedly, that he knows how to keep his personal beliefs separate from his professional responsibilities. He has created two silos -- one with a man's views and one with a President's views.

What should matter is what he puts in the Presidential silo. What should matter is that he doesn't allow personal beliefs to affect how he governs. And that is precisely what I think he is doing.

Hillary: Our MSM Sucks, Al Jazeera Rocks

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Oh, yeah, our President knows stuff

POSTED BY JHW22

I do not need to be reminded how smart President Obama is. I am one of those bots who thinks he can do no wrong (well, sometimes I have serious doubts until I hear his rationale and there are a few things he and I will never agree on like belief in God and the death penalty) but essentially I am always 100% aware of how smart he is. But even then I realize he's even smarter than I give him credit for.

Remember that it was Hillary Clinton who wanted the mandatory purchase of insurance for ALL Americans (something the firebagging PUMAs forget when they call Obama a corporate sell-out on this point) during the campaign. Obama just wanted the mandatory for kids. As I watched him compromise during the health reform debates, I always wondered if there was something more to the individual mandate aside from the cost savings that made Obama decide to change his position from just kids to all. Something about it never seemed fully fleshed out.

Well today I read this article and it proves that the Founding Fathers would support a mandate for insurance -- because they did in 1798.

The law was not only the first time the United States created a socialized medical program (The Marine Hospital Service) but was also the first to mandate that privately employed citizens be legally required to make payments to pay for health care services.

Now, I am not saying Obama was made aware of this law and changed his mind. But something tells me that he made his switch on something more than just the cost issue. The fact that he understands the history of our country better than many who ACT as if they do, I truly suspect he knew this law existed and chose to move forward knowing that precedence was on his side. And, in fairness to Hillary, she is smart enough and knowledgeable enough to have been aware of this historic law as well.

Oh, yeah, this is also reinforcement that the Republican party is ignorant of history and not really as in love with the Founding Fathers as they'd have us believe. Not that I am surprised. And I am sure you're not either.

Well, Limbaugh Should Know from Fat Asses

Posted by Fraulein

This week we read that known hard-body and fitness expert Rush Limbaugh has apparently been making insulting comments about the size of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's behind.

Yeah, I know, I've got nothing. Please add your own Limbaugh fat ass joke in the comments.

Forgive me, but...

posted by Armadillo Joe

I know B'way-C said no SUPERTRAINS!, but in this instance I have to break the rules and hope for the best because it sure is funny when conservatives say one thing and do another -- which is, naturally, all the time because they could never actually live by the words they profess (but that's another blog post for another time) -- and watching them get on the bandwagon while protesting the very same bandwagon is one more too-precious-not-to-mock entry in the hypocrisy file.

Because, it turns out, despite the fact that he belittled the whole idea mercilessly with lies about an L.A. to Vegas high-speed link, Eric Cantor remains true to the for-me-not-for-thee creed of the modern GOP when he actually expresses the idea that rail is a good for the car-loving folks of Vir-ginny (via Huffpost):

Asked about high-speed rail at a recent local event in Virginia, Cantor was all thumbs up. "If there is one thing that I think all of us here on both sides of the political aisle from all parts of the region agree with, it's that we need to do all we can to promote jobs here in the Richmond area,"

Of course, he is (as ever) disingenuously acting the part of the aggrieved party. If you read that passage closely, you realize that he is getting all upset because Obama's rail plan doesn't include a high-speed link between D.C. and Richmond. Why a high-speed link would even need to exist between D.C. and Richmond he doesn't say, but I chalk it up to regional chauvanism as everyone thinks their part of the puzzle is the most important. He's in the House, so I am unsurprised that he wants some of that steel wheeled "pork" for his district, too. One man's pork is another man's stimulus.

But yet another conservative, though, has had a revelation that "law-zee mercy" rail is a good, conservative thing that any self-respecting conservative should support because a car-oriented culture is destructive of families and communities, which are good conservative things that conservatives like (and no one else is allowed to like, fucking hippies) so conservatives should support such uplifting, conservative policies that promote rail travel.

OK, I make fun, because the author David Schaengold, actually very eloquently and persuasively makes some very salient arguments in favor of rail travel and against what I have called (stealing from James Kunstler) the Happy Motoring culture. He even sums up rather nicely the heretofore liberal/conservative split on rail travel (h/t Sully):

Sadly, American conservatives have come to be associated with support for transportation decisions that promote dependence on automobiles, while American liberals are more likely to be associated with public transportation, city life, and pro-pedestrian policies. This association can be traced to the ’70s, when cities became associated with social dysfunction and suburbs remained bastions of ‘normalcy.’ This dynamic was fueled by headlines mocking ill-conceived transit projects that conservatives loved to point out as examples of wasteful government spending. Of course, just because there is a historic explanation for why Democrats are “pro-transit” and Republicans are “pro-car” does not mean that these associations make any sense. Support for government-subsidized highway projects and contempt for efficient mass transit does not follow from any of the core principles of social conservatism.

It is amazing to me how the conservatives are always on the wrong side of everything. Now that we've seen what expensive gasoline can do to our economy and the whole idea of Peak Oil is gaining ground in the mainstream, the policies championed by conservatives for decades, policies that promoted car-centric sprawl and corporate big box stores and all the assorted accoutrement of the Happy Motoring suburban lifestyle (a lifestyle that tended to vote Republican, BTW -- hence the support) is now coming back over to the side of rail.

Anyone remember National Review's list of "Conservative Rock Songs"? It's kinda like that, in the "if I like it, it can't be liberal - thus it must be conservative" sort of way all conservatives everywhere are willing to make moral, economic, political, ethical and cultural exemptions for themselves from their much vaunted "values."

At any rate, though a conservative, Mr. Schaengold makes some very good arguments in favor of rail travel. Hell, he's so far off the GOP reservation that he not only manages to pay Hillary Clinton a compliment, he does so regarding one of the Hillary-bashing canards Reich-wingers have used relentlessly for over a decade to club the former First Lady: he agrees with her declaration that "It Takes A Village."

I'll wait for them to apologize for impeaching her husband, too.

Please read the whole thing. It is definitely worth it.

Don't Fuck With Hillary

Here's Rep. Mike Pence (R-Doucheland) thinking that since he's sitting in a seat that is physically higher than the seat Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is sitting in, that he must be more intelligent than Clinton. While questioning her in his best Perry Mason impression with the "Isn't it true" meme, in an attempt to embarrass Clinton and President Obama with that day's faxed Republican talking points regarding the oh so disgraceful Hugo Chavez handshake, what he thought would be his moment of glory quickly became the Bitchslap of the Year to date.



That's beautiful. I can watch that clip over and over again. What did that douche Pence think Clinton was going to answer? He teed it up and she smashed it out of the park. Anyone who had a problem with the choice of Hillary Clinton in this position should take note. She's doing her job, supporting the president and not afraid to take shit from anyone, especially douchebags who bring a knife to a gun fight. Or in this case, one of those soft foam bats that you get at couples therapy sessions to beat out your frustrations.

Caroline Kennedy Bows Out Of NY Senate Race

Reports are confirming that Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn her name from consideration for the New York Senate seat vacated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

What a rigamarole. First she was the favorite, then she wasn't, then Governor David Patterson said he'd make a decision the week after the inauguration. Last night there was rumor that Kennedy bowed out due to concerns of Sen. Ted Kennedy's health; those rumors were refuted by Kennedy. And now this afternoon comes word that Kennedy, who cited "personal reasons," would have had trouble with tax and housekeeper issues according to MSNBC.

I really didn't have any issues regarding Kennedy, either pro or con. But after all this craziness, whether media driven or self inflicted, it's best to let this whole thing drop and let her walk away. There seems to be way too much crap going on with these gubernatorial appointments.

Governor Patterson now says he'll name the new junior senator from New York tomorrow. Although NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo seems to be a favorite, there is word that Patterson is under pressure to appoint a woman to the seat.

Secretary of State Clinton

Hillary Clinton was confirmed by a vote of 16-1. The one nay vote, Senator David "Diaper Man" Vitter(R-LA). And he voted by proxy. He didn't even have the balls to show up. Maybe he was getting his taint Handi-Wiped by a hooker.

Too Much Hillary

It's been a week since it was leaked that the Obama transition team was looking at Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. It's been the Hillary and Bill Show ever since. Bill will drag her down. Doe she want the job? Maybe she wants to be the next "Ted Kennedy" of the Senate. Hillary is torn on making a decision. Bill will do whatever it takes in the vetting process for Hillary. Blah, blah, fucking blah!

Proof positive that at least for the media, Hillary Clinton serves as more of a distraction than anything else. MSNBC even took Tucker Carlson out of mothballs to weigh in on the issue just now. Tucker Carlson! Didn't he have his show cancelled for a reason? If I didn't care what Carlson had to say when he had an hour each weekday, why would I care what he has to say now? But that's the thing. EVERYONE on the MSNBC payroll has beaten this whole Clinton/Sectretary if State thing to the point that they have to bring in Tucker Carlson to add his two cents. That's the equivalent of jumping the shark.

There is no news until Clinton makes a decision. Move on.

It's A Good Day To Be A Democrat

Everyone is freaking out. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? Joe Lieberman's not gone after what he did? What the fuck?! Change, my ass! I didn't sign up for this shit... Or did I?

Just stop and think about it for a minute.

Barack Obama ran on a message of change. A message of hope. But how can we hope to change if we don't rise above the partisan bickering and political infighting that has ravaged our democratic process for so long? Am I expecting Obama to select John McCain for a cabinet position? No. But I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

For once we chose a politician who is already making good on the promises he made while on the campaign trail, but we've been so used to disingenuousness and disappointment, we don't know how to react. We don't know what to make of this person who does what he said he would do.

Lee Stranahan:

...I don't like Joe Lieberman. I was disgusted by Hillary's campaign. And I couldn't be happier with Obama's decisions.

You see, I took all that talk about new politics seriously. In speech after speech, Obama said we had to move past "the smallness of our politics" and he didn't single out the Republicans. He didn't say the smallness of their politics. The smallness has been in both parties and it's turned our political system into a decades long episode of Crossfire where angry and self-righteous adherents shout at each other across an infinite abyss because they are both totally convinced of the righteousness of their own positions.

With these early pre-Presidential decisions, Obama is showing confidence in the idea that he ran on; that America was ready for not just new policies but for a whole new approach to governing. It's the biggest possible change I can imagine.

It's not just good politics. It isn't some clever move. It's what those better angels Obama kept mentioning look like. No wonder it's confusing to so many people of all ideological stripes.

Bob Cesca:

Seriously, now, it's probably not a good idea to totally lose our shpadoinkle every time an Obama announcement rubs us the wrong way -- at this point, there's no need to turn everything into some kind of spasmodic "he's betraying us!" red alert. Disagreements with the administration are bound to happen, but it's also important to keep an eye on the larger narrative thread. Where's he going with this? What's the strategy? Meanwhile, I can think of a long, long list of Republican crazy to prosecute, too.

So in a word: chill.

Jamison Foser:

...we're likely in for yet another round of media snark about the supposed conflict between campaigning on "change" and then hiring Clinton alums.

This is absurd.

...[T]he suggestion that hiring Clinton administration alums is inconsistent with "change" is dependent upon the belief that the Clinton and Bush administrations were identical. Nonsense.

...If the media chatterers want to claim that Obama isn't making good on his promise of "change," they're going to have to do better than simply pointing to the hiring of Clinton administration alumni.

And on that last point, where do you suppose Obama would pick his cabinet from? Preferably whoever he chose would need the requisite experience for the job they would be asked to do, and when was the last successful Democratic administration again? Oh, yeah, the Clinton Administration. Not to say that he's solely going to pick from old Clintonites. You don't see James Carville and George Stephanopolous running around with the Obama entourage, do you?

Think of it this way: Obama asks Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State and the "more of the same" crowd goes ballistic. These same people are saying that Bill Richardson should've been asked. Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bill Richardson work for the Clinton Administration? Is that "more of the same"? Don't fall for the media dictating the narrative, what is change and what is more of the same. The media is looking for ratings and what better way than to create controversy?

A very intelligent friend of mine and I were having a debate on Obama and the choices he's made so far, between the FISA compromise vote, some of his possible staff choices, etcetera, but on this particular day he was angry about the extensive application form that you'd have to fill out in order to be considered for an interview for a place on the Obama staff. After a spirited talk, he said, "I guess I've been against something for so long, I'm having a hard time and forgotten what it's like to be for something."

And that's it in a nutshell - there will be disappointments along the way as Barack Obama plays more towards the center than we'd like if his administration is to get anything done. If being an extremist worked, we'd be talking about President-elect Dennis Kucinich (don't get me wrong - I love you, Dennis). But Bob Cesca is right. We need to take a step back, take a deep breath and chill for a bit. Let's try and reserve our judgment at least until the man is in office for a little while.

Adding - and by the way, another reason to be a happy Democrat today? Mark Begich has beaten Ted Stevens in Alaska. Go directly to jail, Ted. Do NOT pass Go. Do not collect $200.

In Defense of the Obama Application

What if John Edwards was chosen to be Poverty Czar or Attorney General by the Obama Administration and then it was revealed that he had an affair? Or what if the affair came to light during the vetting process?

This is what I ask myself as I see grumblings and outrage over the news this week that the Obama transition team has asked prospective applicants for cabinet or other high ranking positions to fill out what some are calling an extensive and even invasive questionnaire.

Jesse Wendel, Group News Blog:

Like it makes sense to give professional political operatives, HR people no less, your deepest, darkest, most personal secrets, along with your medical and tax records going back years. Then TRUST THEM. Because they work for the President-Elect, so they won't fuck you over, no Sir, nuh-uh.
Other than the on the transition website, which goes further than the Bush Administration's, there's no assurance, absolutely none that they won't use everything you tell them to fuck you...

...So go ahead, hand some 20-30 year old political staff the political equivalent of blackmail video-tapes of you having a torrid affair with Bill O'Reilly, surrounded by luffas and candy you stole from children.

Wendel goes on to say that it's all about checks and balances.

"No one should be forced to submit to political vetting (and trust their public identity to non-existent assurances that their identity won't be destroyed by a trial balloon or a tactical leak for political purposes by the Obama team) on hiring decisions PRIOR to initial hiring."

He uses the phrase "tactical leak for political purposes" immediately after after saying how he knows some of the people on the transition team and trusts them deeply.

Wendel doesn't like the idea of the untrained eye - this is the first Obama Administration after all - going over personal information and compares it to the FBI's years of experience, as if the FBI has a pristine record and would never use information for political purposes. He calls it hypocrisy, something the Republicans would do, and even questions the legality of it.

Is this even legal? I know it wouldn't be anywhere else. Or is this another one of those bullshit situations where the Executive and Congress have exempted themselves from the same laws the rest of the United States must live under. Because if I were hiring people for GNB, I sure as shit couldn't ask a potential hire these questions and base hiring decisions on them. I'd get my ass sued and rightly so.

...If President-Elect Obama with his cocaine use is too much of a chicken-shit to use me and grownups like me, then really, he and the transition team can shove it up their hypocritical asses.

Well, I think you've just blown your chance with that last paragraph, Jesse. And by the way, you're wrong about the legal issue, but we'll get to that in a second. I get where you're coming from but you gotta lighten up.

Let's go back to my initial hypothetical question. Imagine if Edwards was chosen as AG and then the affair came out because there wasn't full disclosure? Game. Fucking. Over. While some see this questionnaire as over the line, and while it may be overprotective, I think it's a smart move on the Obama team's part because of all the bullshit attacks they need to defend themselves from daily just on the stuff that's made up. The last thing they need is to put out fires in their administration before getting off the ground.

As far as the legality of the application, here's a comment from "Myrtle Hussein June":

In 1980 I worked for a government contractor on the space shuttle mission at an air force base. I had to fill out a 10 year history, not unlike Obama's questions except no e-mail/internet stuff, for a security clearance and had to pass a drug test for that job.

Today, where I currently work, every single applicant has to submit to a 10 year background check/security.... for a state university. Every single person no matter the position.

Another blogger just got hired and reported having to answer some highly personal questions.

So, it's not JUST the Obama application or just for the federal government. I think no matter where you go these days there are more and more "security" measures connected with getting employment. Thank you Patriot Act.

... I'm applying to the Obama admin, got the app right here. I'm going to fill it out honestly. I'm not going to judge anything I've ever said or done to qualify as being an "embarrassment" to Obama. It just is what it is.

I don't think it's "chicken-shit"; I think it's the laws that have been passed. It's the crazy right wing extremists, or maybe left wing extremists, they're looking out for. And no, I don't consider fighting for our country to take a hard left BACK to the center "extremist" of any sort. I don't think they do either. The Obama transition team is NOT the Bush Administration.

Sorry, I don't think this is all that unusual for government workers. At least, that's not been my experience since 1980.

And that's how I see it as well - you can't be too careful when there's a world of wingnuts looking for that one opportunity to stab you in the back 24/7. Is it a little over the top? Perhaps. But if more than a little intrusion into your privacy when applying for a government job in a post 9/11 America is not your cup of tea, then don't apply. No one is forcing you to divulge information. If you've got nothing to hide then go for it; if you know you have skeletons in your closet that you don't want people to find out about but still want a job in politics, then go work for the RNC. Apply or don't apply - it's up to the applicant and they have full knowledge of what's being asked of them before they apply.

It's also matter of getting things done in a straight forward, organized fashion. Remember that the Obama camp dubbed the President-elect, "No drama Obama." It's not just a catchphrase. They don't abide any distracting bullshit. It rarely happened during their campaign, but the second there was a distraction - like foreign policy advisor Samantha Power calling Clinton a monster for example - she was gone before the end of the day. Look at how the delayed reaction regarding the Rev. Wright mess affected the campaign. It took weeks for them to shake that off. If you don't nip it in the bud early enough, all you'll be doing is fighting off bullshit distractions and never concentrate on real issues. Case in point is the McCain camp for fuck's sake - they got a poll bump from the Sarah Palin pick and then when she became the distraction, they couldn't get rid of her and they sunk like a stone.

I might tend to lean more towards Wendel's argument if the Obama Administration were walking into a "peace and prosperity" White House, but let's face it: shit has never been more fucked up than it is now and they have to hit the ground running. This will just narrow the search earlier than later. It'll shoo away those that are hesitant to apply if they think they have something to hide and cull the herd. Also, no one's 100% kosher, and I'm sure that having something on your record like a traffic violation isn't going to automatically disqualify you, but it's not so bad that it'll ruin your career if it should be nefariously leaked.

Now for those who thought Barack Obama was a lefty liberal's dream, one only need look at the FISA vote long before the election took place, or the $700 billion bailout approval to tell you that with Obama you get a pragmatist who is maybe just slightly left of center on issues that have broad bipartisan appeal. We all knew that coming in and anyone who thought he was a 21st century Che Guevara was deluding themselves.

We can't lose sight of the bigger picture. Change doesn't come in eight days. We just broke the Ronald Reagan deathgrip on this country for the last 28 years - it can't all happen in one day. Baby steps. Already there are those who are pissed at Obama for the Rahm Emanuel pick, or the possibility of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, or the incredibly invasive application questionnaire. But I think I might wait til maybe Inauguration Day before I start flying off the handle. The fact that his was one of the best run campaigns in American politics wasn't a happy accident. I doubt that his entire staff went "Teh Stupid" on November 5th.

But like I said, I just don't think they can be too careful with all the loonies out there. It's not like they're trolling for information to hold against you like the other side does (see 'illegal wiretapping'). And yes, ultimately we don't know who peeks into those files, so if you like instant messaging minors in a sexual fashion, if you rail against gays while picking up men in airport bathroom stalls, if you killed someone and buried them in your backyard, then maybe you shouldn't fill out an application. But if you think you have what it takes, still like your mom and don't fuck your cat Fluffy on a Saturday night bender, then go for it! Make change happen!

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

Andrea Mitchell:

Two Obama advisers have told NBC News that Hillary Clinton is under consideration to be secretary of state. Would she be interested? Those who know Clinton say possibly. But her office says that any decisions about the transition are up to the president-elect and his team.

Armadillo Joe and I was tossing names around a few months ago (including John Edwards for Attorney General before the whole affair thing) and he said that Hillary would be good for Secretary of State. I agree with him. Does she want it? Who knows. I'm also not crazy about another open Senate seat should this situation come to pass.

Apparently John Kerry and Bill Richardson are very interested in the job.

What do you think?

Tina Fey Is Scary...

... in her eerily accurate portrayal of Sarah Palin. After all, she couldn't have had much time trying to study the extremely small amount of footage of this unknown hockey mom from Wasilla, Alaska who's just like us. Maybe she spoke with other hockey moms and this is an amalgam of traits sewn up in one character. I also heard rumor that Matt Damon helped with her character study.

The Obama - O'Reilly Factor Interview Part Four

Thankfully, the final part. Submitted without comment, because you know, when it comes to O'Reilly, you can put lipstick on a pig...



Now, if you dare, take a look at O'Reilly's interview with John McCain back in May, 2008 and notice the difference in interview style. Also take a peek at "fair and balanced" BillO interviewing Hillary Clinton. You'll only need to watch the first 30 seconds to see where this is going. For your safety and well being, please take your blood pressure medication before watching. Broadway Carl's Blog-O-Mania!™ is not responsible for adverse health effects.

Time For Offense...

... from the Obama camp. The Rude One makes a great point in his post yesterday about McCain's heinous "sex" ad and that it's time to pull the ol' switcharoo on McCain.

... dear Obama campaign, you have to use the word "lie." You wanna make an ad about the Bridge to Nowhere? Call McCain and Palin's assertions "lies." People don't give a fuck about "exaggerations" or "misleading statements." That's lawyer talk.

... You want the best route? Here it is: emasculate John McCain. Use Palin to cut his nuts off. Constantly say shit like, "Am I running against John McCain or Sarah Palin?" or "If the Republicans wanted her to be president, they should have nominated her" or "Maybe Republicans are used to a vice president that runs the show" or whatever. Make McCain have to defend himself. Turn him into Palin's bitch. It'll make him insane. And if there's one thing that Republicans hate most about women, it's the perception of the castrating bitch telling men what to do (see all the shit about Hillary Clinton).

I'm all for it. How about you?

[Updated 4:55pm to add pic]

Must Reads

Seth Colter Walls: Clinton's Wealthy Die-Hards Are Contradicting Her Campaign's Message

Nora Ephron: Hillary the Admonisher

The Rude Pundit: Hillary Clinton Is Not A Liar

Another Clinton Supporting Moron For McCain...

... who tells us that Obama isn't qualified to be President because he was registered as a Muslim in a madrassa in Indonesia - something that CNN debunk a year and a half ago. Her source? A "former congressional investigator," but nyah-nyah-nyah, she's not gonna tell you who it is.

This country has gone topsy-turvy.



What an imbecile. And how does anyone expect to be taken seriously with an attitude like that? I've got to think that this is all a scheme. PUMA is not an organization of former Clinton supporters who think they were robbed of an election she lost fairly, but a core group of McCain supporters posing as Clintonites in an attempt to cast doubt in the minds of undecideds and independents. There's no other explanation for such stupidity.

And if these morons really do exist en masse, Hillary Clinton better hit it out of the park tonight, blow everyone away with a patented "clap-clap-point-point" speech and straighten these fuckers out.

UPDATE (8/27/08 1:10am):

Hey! I may have been more on point than I thought about this whole PUMA thing. From Crooks and Liars:

Chuck Todd makes an observation Monday night that many of his colleagues fail (or refuse to) acknowledge: That the influence of the PUMA crowd is greatly exaggerated, and the Republicans have their own “PUMA problem” with Ron Paul and his supporters.

“I think what’s happening is we’re in our Denver bubble. There’s 1/3 of the Democratic establishment here who would be big time players had Clinton won, and they can stoke this a little. The McCain campaign is stoking this, releasing this ad. And there is a small core group, but I think they have a louder voice than they do a volume of numbers. So, look, I think we’re gonna look back in a few days and say ‘these PUMAs are really no different than these Ron Paul folks that we’re gonna run into in St. Paul.’”

...These PUMA detractors aren’t Democrats, no matter how badly the media wants to drag this out and create these fantasy dramas. The PUMA operation is very clearly a GOP game as much as Operation Chaos:

PUMA (originally “Party Unity My A**” and now officially a more sedate “People United Means Action”) was one of the original angry Hillary groups. Started by Darragh Murphy and depending on whose story you read Will Bowers, PUMA fed on the anger over the actions of the Democratic National Committee over the Florida and Michigan delegations. The PUMA PAC website features a graphic that now says “Obama National Committee” rather than Democratic National Committee.

As Amanda at Pandagon discovered, Murphy donated money to McCain in 2000. She has never donated money to Clinton. Disenfranchised Clinton supporter? I don’t think so. And Rumproast has documented how the PUMAs have sought to make themselves sound much larger and more organized than they are. 60 of them about to take charge of the convention? Not bloody likely.

Another Sad Day In The Life of a Capitulating Democratic Party

FISA capitulation passed. And you can hear the evil bastards in the White House laughing their asses off through the walls of the Oval Office.

From Glenn Greenwald:

UPDATE VI: Cloture on the bill just passed 72-26. Obama voted in favor of cloture along with all Republicans. Hillary Clinton voted against cloture.

After the cloture vote, the Senate just approved final passage of the FISA bill, by a vote of 69-28. Obama voted with all Republicans for the bill. Hillary Clinton voted against it.

Democrats voting in favor of final passage of the FISA bill: Bayh - Carper - Casey - Conrad - Dorgan - Feinstein - Innuoye - Kohl - Landrieu - Lincoln -McCaskill - Mukulski - Nelson (Neb.) - Nelson (Fla.) - Obama - Pryor - Rockefeller - Salazar - Webb - Whitehouse.

Democrats voting against final passage of the FISA bill: Akaka - Biden - Bingaman - Boxer - Brown - Cantwell - Cardin - Clinton - Dodd - Dorgan - Durbin - Feingold - Harkin - Kerry - Leahy - Levin - Lautenberg - Murray - Reed - Reid - Sanders - Schumer - Stabenow - Tester - Wyden.

Once again, in an effort not to appear weak on national defense, the Democrats capitulate and look weak, period.

And even though Senator Obama understandably (and hopefully begrudgingly) voted in favor of the bill for political reasons, as he said he would, it's disappointing nonetheless. There isn't one Democrat with the "fuck you" attitude (that liberals and progressives yearn for) in a position to make a statement on a vote like this. Sure, Hillary Clinton voted for it, but what does she have to lose? Her statement by voting against the bill now is basically, "Fuck you, Barack." Call me cynical, but I'd venture to guess that if Hillary had won the nomination, she would have voted in favor of the bill as well.

Yes, it's a very sad day indeed to be a Democrat. And we should have nothing to say when the right wing nutbags pile on in the "kick 'em while they're down" stompfest. Let them have their giddy few days. Just take it and remember it. Don't forget it... and think about November.

Did Russia Invade Germany?

Russia has apparently invaded Germany and I didn't hear one word about it on televised news or in the newspapers. I suppose we were all too busy waiting for Hillary Clinton to concede and endorse Barack Obama.

According to Crusty McThuselah, "President [Vladimir] Putin of Germany gave one of the old 'Cold War style' speeches" during a conference over the weekend.



(H/T Oliver Willis)