Democrashield.com


Four More Years!
May 28, 2008, 9:46 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, Senate | Tags: , , , , ,

Or, rather, that’s what John McCain wants to give us…

1 Comment


The New GOP Talking Point (UPDATED)
May 28, 2008, 9:41 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Economics, Government, IOKIYAR, Iraq, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

On Memorial Day, Barack Obama gave a speech that contained this:

“I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps and the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months. Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain.”

Well, it turns out that the story wasn’t entirely accurate–Obama’s great uncle actually helped liberate Buchenwald. It was an innocent enough mistake, the kind of flaw that gets built into generations-old family stories and passed down from generation to generation.

Of course, that didn’t stop the Right-Wing Noise Machine from jumping all over this, pretending that a minor misstatement somehow means that Obama isn’t fit to be President. Come on–one of Barack Obama’s close family members liberated a Nazi concentration camp–what does it matter which family member liberated which Nazi death camp?

The Republicans are desperate–the dirt they’re throwing at Obama isn’t sticking, so they’re shopping around their new talking point: that Obama is gaffe-prone. Go to any of the major right-wing blogs and I guarantee you’ll find a post from the past few days that puts the words “Obama” and “gaffe” together in the same sentence.

Now, these are the same Republicans who have spent the last eight years backing a President who has made so many gaffes that you can buy calendars with a different Bush gaffe for each day of the year.

These are the same Republicans who just nominated John McCain, who freely admits he doesn’t know anything about economics (despite the fact that the economy is America’s #1 issue); who called his wife a ‘cunt’ in front of a group of reporters; who repeatedly confuses Sunnis and Shiites; who sang a song about bombing Iran. The Republicans just nominated that guy to be their Presidential candidate, yet they’re stupid enough to talk about other people’s gaffes?

Look, guys–if you want to criticize Obama’s policies or his ideas, go right ahead. But when you’re just shopping around your latest idiotic talking point, you might as well just save your breath.

UPDATE: John Cole has more.  Cole’s blog, Balloon Juice, has been added to the blogroll.

Comments Off


McCain’s Lobbyist Problem
May 27, 2008, 9:30 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Corruption, Economics, Government, Scandal, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Former Texas Senator Phil Gramm is one of John McCain’s major economic adviser; he crafted McCain’s mortgage relief policy and speech.

Well, it turns out that–up until late April–Gramm was a lobbyist for the Swiss bank UBS, which has a clear interest in crafting mortgage relief legislation favorable to their business and unfavorable to their customers.

So one of McCain’s major economic policies was written by a banking lobbyist with a clear conflict of interest.  If McCain will tolerate this kind of influence-peddling on his campaign, how far will he let it slide if he’s elected President? Can America really afford another four years of lobbyists running the show in Washington?

5 Comments


100% Bush
May 27, 2008, 2:46 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, Senate | Tags: , , , , ,

In the first six months of this year, John McCain sided with George W. Bush in 100% of the votes he cast in the Senate.

Of course, that’s a slightly misleading statistic because, this year, John McCain has missed nearly 60% of Senate votes.

It’s hard to tell what’s worse–that McCain sides with Bush 100% of the time, or that he can’t be bothered to show up and do the job he was elected to do.

Comments Off


Politics Matters
May 20, 2008, 3:22 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, Media, Progressives, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Behold the latest stupidity:

“Women are just apoplectic about the sexism that has come out in course of the campaign,” said Cynthia Ruccia, spokeswoman for Clinton Supporters Count Too, a women’s group threatening to boycott the election and abandon the Democratic Party.

While Ruccia and members of her group, made up of women from Ohio, Pennsylvania and other swing states, believe Clinton remains very much in the race, they are preparing for an Obama nomination.

“If Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, we will not support the nominee,” she said.

[Emphasis Added]

This is the ultimate cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face. If you’re a Clinton supporter, in all likelihood you’re a Democrat and a progressive—staying home and helping John McCain become President is neither Democratic nor progressive.

How could you call yourself a Hillary Clinton supporter but then turn around and say you’re willing to hurt the very party, the very political movement, that Hillary Clinton herself helped build? As Hillary herself has said, it’s not about her—it’s about the people of this great country. So why are you treating this like it’s all about one person?

Identity politics sucks because it boils politicians down to their component parts—race, gender, religion, etc. It strips away ideology, beliefs, policies; it removes what they’ve said, what they’ve done, what they’ve accomplished, and sticks them into narrow little boxes. If we Democrats only ever voted for people from our own little groups, we would never elect any Democrats and Republicans would be a permanent majority.

Politics isn’t a game. Politics matters It’s not about scoring points for your group or your team. Nobody’s keeping score. Who you vote for matters–I thought 2000 taught us that lesson. I’m sorry, but the choice this fall won’t be between Clinton and McCain.  It will, however, be between Obama and McCain. Democrat and Republican. Progressive and Conservative. The future and the past. There is no way you can be a Democrat and not acknowledge, deep down, that one of those candidates would be far better than the other. No way.

Yet you’re intent on hurting the Democratic candidate and the Democratic Party. But if the Democratic Party is hurt, you know who else is hurt? Democratic women. If Republicanism becomes dominant again then no progressive woman will get elected President. The more popular the Democratic Party is, the more likely it is that we’ll get a progressive woman President. Does it make sense to do something spiteful on behalf of one Democratic woman if it means hurting all other Democratic women?

You have the right to vote—or not vote—however you want. But remember, politics matters. You will have to bear responsibility for your choices. If McCain gets elected President, if he takes away a woman’s right to choose, if he gets more of our brave soldiers killed in unnecessary wars, if he further destroys our economy and puts more Americans in poverty, then all of that will belong to you.

Choose wisely. The fate of your nation depends on it.

1 Comment


BREAKING: Ted Kennedy Diagnosed With Malignant Brain Tumor
May 20, 2008, 12:39 PM
Filed under: Breaking, Government, Senate | Tags: , , ,

From the AP:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor.

Doctors for the Massachusetts Democrat say tests conducted after Kennedy suffered a seizure this weekend show a tumor in his left parietal lobe. Preliminary results from a biopsy of the brain identified the cause of the seizure as a malignant glioma, they said.

His treatment will be decided after more tests but the usual course includes combinations of radiation and chemotherapy.

The 76-year-old senator has been hospitalized in Boston since Saturday, when he was airlifted from Cape Cod after a seizure at his home.

[...]

It’s a starting diagnosis: How well patients fare depends on what specific tumor type is determined by further testing.

Average survival can range from less than a year for very advanced and aggressive types — such as glioblastomas — or to about five years for different types that are slower growing.

Again, this is just a starting diagnosis, and the article cites average life expectancy figures. None of that applies specifically to Kennedy’s case.

Keep in mind that Senator Tim Johnson, who suffered a cerebral hemorrhage, performed far better than his doctors expected and even returned to the Senate several months ago.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the Kennedy family.

More as it comes…

Comments Off


The Clinton Campaign: Post-Mortem
May 20, 2008, 12:00 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Immigration, Media, Progressives, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There are a lot of articles being written about why Hillary Clinton’s campaign failed to deliver her the nomination, despite the fact that she started out as the undisputed front-runner.  Along those lines, I offer my analysis of why the Clinton campaign fell short.

Inevitability

Though they might not have come out and said it, inevitability was the meme the Clinton campaign was based on.  Her organization was lauded, as was her discipline.  Her campaign’s fundraising was prolific.  And she was dominating the polls–nationally and in most of the early states.

Of course, those polls meant nothing–early polls are little more than surveys of name recognition, and they’re highly fluid.  And Clinton’s fundraising apparatus–as impressive as it was–became overshadowed by Obama’s.  If Obama hadn’t raised the money he did, he never would have been a competitive candidate.

Clinton won 2 out of 4 early states, and she won an incredibly impressive spate of victories on Super Tuesday.  But expectations for her campaign were so high that, what normally would have been seen as an impressive performance was seen as a loss.

Change vs. More of the Same

The Clinton campaign also seriously misjudged the national mood when they crafted their message.  They thought America wanted an experienced, proven, competent President who could wade into our national morass and sort our problems out.  Instead, America wanted a change–they wanted someone new, someone untainted by the battles of the past, who could lead America in a new direction.

The Clinton campaign recognized this during the campaign, but by then it was too late–Clinton was the experienced yet status quo candidate, and no amount of attempted re-packaging could shake that first impression of her.

The Fundrace

The Clinton campaign built one of the most impressive fundraising apparatus in political history–unfortunately, it was based on a model pioneered in the 1990’s.  The Clinton’s network of well-connected, rich donors was supposed to keep her campaign awash with money–and it did.

Just not enough.

Obama’s model was a lot easier to set up, operate, and maintain–his campaign courted small donations from regular individuals.  The upside of this is that it takes far less effort to get a ton of small donations from supporters than to bundle $2,300 checks from wealthy connections (many of whom expect something in return for their generosity).  In addition, Obama’s network of small donors could keep giving and giving and giving, while Clinton’s donor base quickly got tapped out.

Obama’s fundraising prowess is what made him competitive to begin with–had his fundraising not matched or exceeded Clinton’s, he would have never even have had a chance.

The Philly Flip-Flop

The first chink in Clinton’s inevitability armor came during the Philadelphia debate during a question on granting drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants.  When asked if she supported the plan, she failed to give a yes-or-no answer; when pushed by moderator Tim Russert, she equivocated.  After that, it took several days for her campaign to release a clear answer, but by then it was too late.

Clinton’s campaign was praised for their organization and message discipline.  She was unflappable at the debates, and performed exceptionally well.  Yet, she failed to answer a yes-or-no question live on national television, floundering before an audience of millions.  It made her look calculating and seemed as if she were trying to play both sides, neither of which are preferable traits to have in a President.

Yeah, the issue was more complex than a yes-or-no answer would allow.  But her equivocation on such a national scale gave a lot of Democratic voters pause and, even worse, it lent credence to the charges that Clinton was a panderer and an equivocator.

Iowa

If Philly was a dent, Iowa was a big, huge crack. Had Clinton won Iowa, she would have become the Democratic nominee–her inevitability would be confirmed, and her subsequent victory in New Hampshire would have sealed the deal.

So what happened?

Again, inevitability became a problem, particularly in a state that Clinton was never really winning–Iowa was first Edwards’, then it was a three-way tie, then it became Obama’s. The national narrative was that she was inevitable, but in the state of Iowa, she was never really leading at all.  Thus, her loss in Iowa–which, overall, was not that big a deal–was seen as a huge turning point in the campaign.  Once again, the Clinton camp was hobbled by their own message.

Plan B

The Clinton campaign expected Hillary to win the nomination on Super Tuesday.  They focused on the early states and the larger states voting on Super Tuesday, assuming that they would win enough by then to effectively win the race.  Unfortunately, Obama performed far better than expected, winning half of the early states and putting up a massively impressive showing on February 5th.  Clinton won a lot of big states, but she only won the states she had focused on–all the rest went to Obama.  He walked away from that night with more states and more delegates; Super Tuesday resolved nothing.

Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign had no plan B. They had no infrastructure put in place to deal with a post-Super Tuesday campaign.  So they lost state after state–11 in a row–while Obama racked up huge margins of victory and a significant lead in delegates.

It was this single problem that really cost Clinton the nomination–she didn’t plan for the future.  Instead of organizing everywhere, instead of running like she was 20 points behind (as the old political adage says you should), she ran like she was the dominant front-runner.  And when her dominance turned out to be not nearly as solid as it needed to be, there was no plan B.  So Obama went on to win state after state, racking up a significant delegate lead, putting Clinton in a deficit she has yet to come out of.

I’m sure there are a lot more factors out there that contributed to her loss, but these are some of the big ones.  Clinton built an impressive campaign, but it just wasn’t good enough and, as time went on, her legendarily on-message, disciplined campaign fell to bickering and infighting.  In the end, though, it was the campaign’s strategic decisions that cost her the race–had things played out slightly differently, we would all have Hillary bumper stickers on our cars right now.

Comments Off


Modern Middle Eastern History 101 (UPDATED)
May 16, 2008, 8:25 AM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Corruption, Government, IOKIYAR, International, Iraq, Progressives, Scandal, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

John McCain, rewriting history:

“I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.’’

Actually, Senator, not only did Reagan negotiate with Iran, he sold them weapons. He sold them weapons after it was known that Iran was responsible for bombing the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American soldiers. All of this came to light in a little flap called the Iran-Contra scandal; perhaps you’ve heard of it?

You know who else Ronald Reagan negotiated with? Iraq. In fact, there’s that famous picture of special envoy Donald Rumsfeld, appointed by Reagan himself, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein:

This friendly meeting happened after the Reagan administration found out that Hussein ordered chemical weapons to be used against both the Iranians and the Kurds.

So it was okay for Ronald Reagan–the patron saint of modern conservatism–to negotiate with and sell weapons to rogue states, yet it’s not okay for Barack Obama to support simply talking to those same states? What kind of upside-down bizarro world do John McCain and his Republican Party live in?

UPDATE: Then there’s this:

RUBIN: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?”

McCAIN: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.“

[Emphasis Added]

So, as late as 2006, John McCain supported diplomacy with Hamas, which Barack Obama opposes.  Does that mean McCain is more of an ‘appeaser’ than Obama? Or does that just mean that all this talk about ‘appeasement’ is nothing more than right-wing theatre, carried out by Republicans who have no good arguments left to make on foreign policy?

Something tells me it’s the latter.

Comments Off


Wealthy Celebrity Pundits Are Not Regular Americans
May 15, 2008, 4:16 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Media, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

You know what I hate?

I hate when millionaire celebrity media pundits act like they know anything about what regular Americans are like.

Take this, for example. Barack Obama goes to a diner in Indiana and orders orange juice; nothing out-of-the-ordinary there, right? Yet, celebrity pundits Chris Matthews and David Shuster–whose contracts are worth the income of several middle-class families combined–call Obama’s beverage choice ‘weird.’

You walk into nearly any working-class house in America and I bet you’ll find a carton of OJ in the refrigerator. In fact, I would venture to say that millions of Americans drink orange juice for breakfast. There’s nothing weird or unusual or elitist about it. Yet, the pundits insist otherwise.

Now, take this instance. Barack Obama goes to Iowa and mentions the price of arugala as an indication of how high food costs have risen. Afterwards, millionaire media pundits start calling Obama an elitist, saying that the people of Iowa are too stupid to know what arugala is.

As it turns out,

In fact, arugula is grown by local farms in Iowa and is widely available in stores throughout the state, including Cleverly Farms in Mingo, Iowa, and Mariposa Farms in Grinnell, Iowa. Moreover, vendors at numerous farmers markets, including the Davenport Farmer’s Market and the Ames Farmers’ Market, sell arugula directly from farms to consumers. Several Iowa grocery stores also carry arugula; the website of Hy-Vee, a large grocery chain headquartered in, and with four stores in, West Des Moines, Iowa — approximately 22 miles from Adel, Iowa, where Obama made his arugula remark — offers tips on cleaning and serving arugula, as well as several recipes featuring it.

Yup–not only do Iowans know what arugala is, a good number of them even grow it themselves.

Here’s the latest incidence of celebrity media pundits launching a ridiculous attack against Barack Obama. During a campaign stop, Obama went into a bar and played a round of pool; afterwards, the millionaire media pundits criticize him again, saying that only rich people play pool.

How many working-class bars and pubs in America have pool tables? The pundits weren’t talking about Obama owning a pool table–they were talking about him going to a bar that had a pool table.

These wealthy media pundits are pushing the same tired storyline they have been for years–Democrats are always, as they portray it, out-of-touch elitists. If they can’t find anything that justifies their story, they just make it up, plain and simple.

Orange juice. Arugala. Pool. None of these things are high-end or elitist. Yet, if you watch the news, you’d be told otherwise. Most insultingly, you’d be told otherwise by a wealthy celebrity pundit who doesn’t have the slightest clue of what regular Americans are really like.

Comments Off


BREAKING: CA Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
May 15, 2008, 1:09 PM
Filed under: Breaking, Government, Rights | Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Breaking news from The San Francisco Chronicle:

(05-15) 10:55 PDT San Francisco (AP) –

In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation’s biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

The CA Supreme Court ruling makes California the second state in the union–after Massachusetts–to legalize gay marriage.

Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Oregon all offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, which offer all of the legal benefits of marriage.

Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Maine and Washington offer domestic partnerships with some of the same legal benefits of marriage.

The court’s decision is here (PDF).

UDPATE: This court ruling is a monumental step, but the fight isn’t over.  Here’s what’s going to happen next:

Challenge For Gay Rights Advocates Not Over: A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court’s decision.

Comments Off


Killing Ridiculous Right-Wing Myths
May 15, 2008, 8:15 AM
Filed under: Uncategorized

This is Barack Obama:

This is Barack Obama, hand-over-heart, during the Pledge of Allegiance:

This is Barack Obama–once again, hand-over-heart–reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:

The right wing loves to play patriotism police to hide the fact that they hate this country and everything we stand for. You can’t destroy America’s economy, shred our constitution, trample our civil rights, ignore the rule of law, degrade our military–and do everything else the modern Republican Party has done–and still call yourself a patriot.

1 Comment


Centipede McCain
May 13, 2008, 11:54 AM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Corruption, Government, International, Scandal, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

John McCain has so many Achillies’ heels, he’s going to need more legs.

Here’s the latest:

McCain’s campaign staff is rife with lobbyists. But, apparently, McCain finally found lobbyists who crossed the line. That line is pretty far out there — representing a brutal military regime that is now letting hundreds of thousands of its citizens die. Over the weekend, he lost two key staffers because they represented the Myanmar regime:

Doug Davenport, the regional campaign manager for the mid-Atlantic states, founded the DCI Group’s lobbying practice and oversaw the contract with Myanmar in 2002.

“Doug has tendered his resignation and we have accepted it,” Jill Hazelbaker, McCain’s communications director, wrote in a e-mail.

He joins former DCI Group CEO Doug Goodyear, who resigned yesterday from the post of convention CEO after Newsweek reported that DCI was paid more than $300,000 to represent Myanmar’s ruling junta.

That’s right–John McCain’s campaign employed lobbyists who represented Burma’s murderous military regime.

If these are the guys he puts on his campaign, imagine who he’ll put in the Penatgon, or the State Department, or the White House.

Scary stuff.

Comments Off


What Liberal Media?
May 13, 2008, 10:44 AM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Corruption, Government, Iraq, Media, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Scandal | Tags: , , , , , ,

4,500.

That’s how many times pro-administration sources from the Pentagon’s in-house propaganda outfit were quoted in the media.

Another nail in the coffin of the right-wing ‘liberal media’ myth.

1 Comment


“Disenfranchisment”?
May 12, 2008, 9:16 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Government, Governors, Polls, Progressives, Senate, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

Now, there are a lot of Hillary supporters out there calling the exclusion of Florida and Michigan from the Democratic primary “disenfranchisement.” These Hillary supporters are saying they won’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s disenfranchising millions of voters. They say their opposition has nothing to do with what’s best for Hillary Clinton, that they’re taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement.

Alright, so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say you are taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement. Let’s say this has nothing to do with your support for Hillary. Then I have some questions for you, like…

Where were you when the rules were being set?

The rules governing the primary were set by the Democratic National Committee nearly in August of 2006. Those rules said only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada could vote before February 5th; any state that voted before then would be stripped of their delegation.

Thus, the potential for millions of Democratic voters to be disenfranchised was written into the 2008 primary back in ‘06.

So, where were you guys then? If voter disenfranchisement is such a big issue to you, why weren’t you opposing the proposed rules back then? Why weren’t you doing anything back when this could have made a difference?

That brings us to…

Where were you when the states were rescheduling their primaries?

It was well known that any state holding a primary before February 5th would be stripped of its delegation. Yet, knowing this, the governments of Michigan and Florida went ahead and voted to break the rules. By changing the dates of their primaries, MI and FL’s governments disenfranchised their own voters.

So where were you guys then? Why weren’t you opposing the proposals to reschedule those states’ primaries? If this is about taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement, why didn’t you take action months ago when this all started?

Also,

What about Terry?

In 2004, Michigan wanted to break that year’s rules and hold their primary early. At the time, the Chairman of the DNC threatened to strip MI of their delegation if they went through with their plan. This is from the DNC Chairman’s book:

“You won’t deny us seats at the convention,” [Michigan Senator Carl Levin] said.

“Carl, take it to the bank,” I said. “They will not get a credential. The closest they’ll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it.”

[Emphasis Added]

The DNC Chairman in 2004 was Terry McAuliffe. Where’s McAuliffe now?

He’s the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign.

If Hillary is taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement, why is McAuliffe the chair of her campaign? Why hasn’t she fired him for his pro-disenfranchisement views? Why haven’t you, her supporters, demanded McAuliffe be fired from the campaign? Where’s the consistency?

If it’s disenfranchisement now, it would have been disenfranchisement then. If you can’t support Obama because he’s not doing enough about voter disenfranchisement, then how can you support Hillary after she appointed pro-disenfranchisement McAuliffe to her campaign?

That brings us to…

What about Jenny?

Jennifer Granholm is the Governor of Michigan. She signed the law that moved Michigan’s primary before February 5th. With a stroke of her pen, Granholm disenfranchised millions of MI voters; had she acted differently back then, millions of Michigan voters wouldn’t be disenfranchised.

Granholm is also a Hillary supporter. If this issue is about taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement, why hasn’t Hillary rejected and denounced Granholm? Why haven’t you all called on her to do so? Why have you allowed Hillary to benefit from the support of someone who single-handedly disenfranchised millions of voters?

Misplaced Anger

A lot of you are blaming Barack Obama for this situation. But how? Obama didn’t set the rules. Obama isn’t in charge of enforce the rules. Obama didn’t move Michigan and Florida’s primaries up. Obama had nothing to do with these decisions. He might be benefiting from the situation, but he’s not responsible for it.

If you’re going to place blame, blame the DNC. Blame Howard Dean. Blame Jennifer Granholm and Charlie Crist. Blame MI and FL’s legislatures. There are dozens of people you can blame for this situation, but Obama isn’t one of them.

So let’s not delude ourselves into thinking he’s somehow responsible for this mess that we’re in. And while we’re not deluding ourselves…

Stop the Spin

Let’s be honest. The fight over Michigan and Florida isn’t about taking a stand against voter disenfranchisement. It never was. This is a political ploy by the Clinton campaign to get more delegates. Want proof? When asked why she didn’t take her name off of MI’s ballot, even though every other candidate did so, Clinton said it was because Michigan “is not going to count for anything.”

That’s right— Hillary Clinton didn’t take her name off of MI’s ballot because she said MI wouldn’t matter. She accepted and acknowledged that MI wouldn’t play a role in the nominating process because they broke the rules.

Want more proof? Here’s a statement from the Hillary campaign, released September 1, 2007:

“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.”

It was only after Obama started winning that Clinton made FL and MI an issue. This was clearly a political decision. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making political decisions—all politicians make political decisions. But let’s stop pretending this is about voter disenfranchisement, because it’s not— it’s about giving Hillary a better shot at the nomination.

The very day Clinton sent a letter to Obama criticizing him for not doing more to seat MI and FL, she rejected a plan to seat MI’s delegation. Why? Because it wasn’t politically advantageous enough for her. This isn’t about giving MI or FL a voice— it’s about whatever works best for Hillary Clinton.

It’s About Integrity, Stupid!

So you say you can’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s disenfranchising millions of voters (even though he’s not really responsible for that).

Well, then I say I can’t vote for Hillary Clinton because of her lack of integrity.

The DNC makes the rules for the primaries. You might not like the rules— I certainly don’t, I think Iowa and New Hampshire have too much influence and I support overhauling the entire primary system— but you have to follow them. That’s the price of trying to be the Democratic nominee— you have to follow the Democratic Party’s rules.

We just had eight years of a President who freely broke the rules. We spent eight years suffering under a President who ignored any rule he didn’t like. Yet now we have Democrats supporting a Democratic candidate who’s also trying to break the rules when it’s convenient to do so.

That doesn’t bode well for a Hillary Clinton administration— America is a nation of rules, and Clinton’s attempt to break the rules for the sake of politics speaks volumes about her lack of integrity.

So you might not like Obama. You might not want to vote for him. That’s your decision to make, and you have the right to make it. But don’t feed us this garbage about Barack Obama “disenfranchising” Michigan and Florida, because that’s nothing but spin. And for people who are supposed to be part of the reality-based community, I expect better from you.

Comments Off


Someone Didn’t Get Their Talking Points…
May 12, 2008, 11:49 AM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Economics, Government, House, Media, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , ,

Patrick Ruffini:

For all the left has done to move bodies and build infrastructure, there’s one area in which they remain woefully lacking: message. Nowhere is this more apparent in their central charge against McCain: that he’s a Bush clone from top to bottom.

[...]

The problem is that it runs counter to some deeply ingrained perceptions about McCain, the most transparently un-Bush candidate Republicans could have nominated.

Uh, Pat?

[WOLF] BLITZER: When it comes to domestic economic issues, what is the major difference between President Bush’s policies, what he wants to do, and what John McCain would do if he were president?

[REPUBLICAN HOUSE WHIP ROY] BLUNT: Well, I think what John McCain wants to do is continue these pro-growth tax policies that our friends on the other side have been talking…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But that’s what President Bush wants to do too.

BLUNT: And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with that.

BLITZER: So it would be in effect a third Bush term when it came to pro-growth tax policies?

BLUNT: It would be. I think it would be. And I think that’s a good thing.

[Emphasis Added]

Yeah, Pat, we’re the ones with the messaging problem. With geniuses like this at work, no wonder the GOP’s electoral chances are in the toilet.

Comments Off


Bill O’Reilly: Completely Insane (UPDATED)
May 12, 2008, 11:04 AM
Filed under: Conservatives, Interesting, Media, Right-Wing Noise Machine | Tags: , , , , , , ,

This clip is from O’Reilly’s Inside Edition days–watch him scream at his crew over a dysfunctional teleprompter (from The Huffington Post):

O’Reilly is the embodiment of the modern Republican Party–an old man in a suit flying into spittle-flecked rages at the slightest provocation.

UPDATE: YouTube took the clip offline but you can see O’Reilly’s rage at Crooks and Liars.

1 Comment


Hey Republicans
May 9, 2008, 4:34 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, Progressives, Scandal, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , ,

In 2000, John McCain didn’t vote for the Republican candidate for President.

In 2001, John McCain considered leaving the Republican Party.

In 2004, John McCain considered leaving the Republican Party again, this time to be John Kerry’s running mate.

How does it feel to know that, instead of nominating a principled conservative, you nominated yourselves a political opportunist? If I were you guys, I would be suffering some serious buyer’s remorse right now.

Comments Off


Won
May 9, 2008, 9:31 AM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Media, Polls, Progressives, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , ,

On the front page of The Huffington Post:

ABC: OBAMA HAS MORE SUPERDELEGATES THAN CLINTON

Obama has won more states.  Obama has won more votes.  Obama has won more pledged delegates.  And now Obama has won more superdelegates. Even if you count Florida and Michigan, Obama still wins every conceivable metric of success.

The Democratic Primary has been effectively over for weeks now; this is just one more nail in the coffin.  It’s time for us to unite behind our nominee, Barack Obama, and start making the case as to why he should be the nest President of the United States.

Comments Off


Deep Thought Of The Day…
May 8, 2008, 10:03 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Media, Polls, Progressives, Race, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

In 1996, Bill Clinton lost the white vote to Bob Dole.  In 1996, Bill Clinton was also re-elected President.

Just putting that out there.

Comments Off


BREAKING: Indiana And North Carolina: Results (UPDATED)
May 6, 2008, 6:35 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Media, Polls, Progressives, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wow.

Polls just closed in North Carolina and already the networks are calling it for Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, Indiana’s polls closed a half hour ago and the outcome is still up in the air. CNN has it as 57% for Clinton and 43% for Obama with 18% of precincts reporting.

More as it comes…

UPDATE: If Barack Obama’s an elitist, then so are the good people of Indiana; take a look at this exit poll result posted on Daily Kos:

Indiana:

Does Clinton share your values?

Yes 62
No 37

Does Obama share your values?

Yes 65
No 33

Let’s put this elitism garbage to bed once and for all, shall we?

And with 20% reporting, Indiana is still 57-43 Clinton-Obama.

UPDATE II: With a quarter of all districts reporting, Indiana’s percentages haven’t budged–we’re still at 57-43.

UPDATE III: CNN is showing nearly a third of Indiana’s precincts are reporting and the percentages are still 57-43 Clinton-Obama. If Obama’s going to make Indiana close, he’s going to have to start showing some movement pretty soon.

UPDATE IV: With 38% of Indiana precincts reporting, there has been some movement–now the totals are 56-44 Clinton-Obama. The start of a trend, or just some electoral static?

UPDATE V: Now CNN is showing Indiana as 55-45 Clinton-Obama. CBS has called it for Clinton but the other networks are holding off. Will Obama knock Clinton down to a single-digit victory in The Hoosier State?

UPDATE VI: CNN is showing Indiana at 54-46 Clinton-Obama with just over half of all precincts reporting. Looks like most networks were right to hold off calling this one just yet…

UPDATE VII: With 65% precincts reporting, Indiana is now at 53% Clinton and 47% Obama. In the past hour or so Obama has cut Clinton’s lead nearly in half; this is now a 6-point race.

UPDATE VIII: With 76% reporting, Indiana is now down to a 52-48 Clinton-Obama split. This is a huge blow to the Clinton campaign no matter how you cut it–IN was supposed to be her state, and for it to get so close is a bad omen in general. Tonight may very well erase any benefit she got from winning PA two weeks ago.

UPDATE IX: With 83% reporting, it’s still a 4-point spread, 52-48. Lake County–which is near the Indiana-Illinois border and where the Obama stronghold of Gary is–won’t report until 11:00 PM EST.

UPDATE X: With 91% of precincts reporting, it’s now Clinton with 51% and Obama with 49%. Even if those are the final percentages this will represent a huge coup for Obama. If he manages to win Indiana it will be an even bigger blow to Clinton, particularly considering the significant negative press he’s received since PA.

Stay tuned…

UPDATE XI: 92% in, still 51-49. Obama is down by more than 20,000 votes, but many of the outstanding areas are his strongholds. Will this be the straw that breaks the camel’s back? Even if Obama doesn’t pull out a victory, tonight will still be remarkable. Conventional wisdom said that working-class Indiana was Clinton’s–Obama wiped her lead out in a matter of days, despite several bad news cycles. If nothing else, tonight will be a testament to Obama’s ability to weather bad press and come out better in the end.

UPDATE XII: Kos brings us this line from Tim Russert:

Russert: Hillary Clinton has cancelled all her morning appearances.

That’s perhaps the most telling part of this. Despite her campaign’s spin, Clinton knows this is a huge blow to her Presidential ambitions. She’s far behind in the popular vote and the delegate count; being handed a humiliating defeat in what was widely considered a safely-Clinton state puts the Democratic nomination that much more out of reach.

Still 92% reporting, still 51-49.

UPDATE XIII: 95% of precincts are reporting. It’s still 51-49, but now Obama is behind by only 16,609 votes. In other words, the last 3% closed the gap by about 4,000 votes.

FINAL UPDATE: With 99% of the precincts remaining, it’s still 51-49. Clinton won Indiana, but by the slimmest of margins–out of 1.25 million votes cast, her margin of victory is just over 22,000 votes. That’s a less than 1% victory.

Indiana wasn’t supposed to be close–the last Pollster composite showed Clinton winning The Hooser State by more than 4%. In other words, despite weeks of bad press, Obama managed to whittle Clinton’s sizable lead to basically nothing. In addition, he picked up a sizable number of delegates by winning NC in a landslide.

The Democratic primary, for all intents and purposes, has been over for weeks now. But perhaps tonight will be the night that finally cements this fact into the DC conventional wisdom. Personally, I hope it does.

Comments Off


The Press’ Shameful Double Standard
May 6, 2008, 7:53 AM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Economics, IOKIYAR, Media, Progressives, Scandal, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Media Matters is taking the media to task for their hypocritical treatment of Cindy McCain.

As I wrote a few days ago, the media heaped huge amounts of scrutiny–and scorn–on Theresa Heinz-Kerry in 2004 due to the role her wealth played in her husband’s Presidential campaign.

Now–just four years later–the media can’t seem to muster the same skepticism when it comes to Cindy McCain.  McCain is an heir to the Anheuser-Busch brewing fortune, which is worth well over $100 million.  In addition, Anheuser-Busch was one of John McCain’s biggest and earliest supporters–he owes much of his political career to their financial support.

This is just another sad, shameful case of “It’s okay if you’re a Republican.”  A Democratic Presidential candidate gets massive amounts of scrutiny for benefitting from his wife’s personal fortune, while a Republican Presidential candidate who does the same gets barely any notice.

When is the shameful double standard going to end?

Comments Off


‘Poor Vetting’
May 5, 2008, 10:38 PM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, Scandal, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today brings us this headline from Think Progress:

McCain Aides Say Hagee Endorsement Was The Result Of ‘Poor Vetting’

More:

McCain’s aides attribute the Hagee controversy to poor vetting. But even some Republicans (not affiliated with the campaign) privately wonder how the pastor’s extreme views slipped through without notice. McCain personally wooed Hagee for more than a year.

[...]

Are we really to believe that neither Mr. McCain nor his camp knew anything then about Mr. Hagee’s views? This particular YouTube video — far from the only one — was posted on Jan. 1, nearly two months before the Hagee-McCain press conference. Mr. Hagee appears on multiple religious networks, including twice daily on the largest, Trinity Broadcasting, which reaches 75 million homes. Any 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops.

John Ashcroft. Alberto Gonzales. Donald Rumsfeld. Michael Brown. Tom Ridge. Michael Chertoff. Dick Cheney.

After eight years of a President who surrounded himself with some of the worst advisers in Washington, I’d like a President who will take the time to actually vet someone before adding them to his/her inner circle.

Is it too much to ask for someone who wants to become leader of the free world to spend a few minutes actually looking up the people he/she relies on for guidance? Or are the American people supposed to accept overwhelming incompetence from our government?

John McCain is not fit to be President of the United States. America can’t take four more years of George-Bush-style government. We just can’t.

Comments Off


Russ Feingold Writes A Letter
May 2, 2008, 2:11 PM
Filed under: Breaking, Conservatives, Corruption, Government, Iraq, Media, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Scandal, Senate | Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Feingold writes a letter to the Government Accountability Office inquiring about the Pentagon’s in-house propaganda outfit.

Excerpts:

The Pentagon is free to air its views on any military operation but it should do so openly.
Potential covert production of press materials by the Defense Department would
undermine full and open public debate on one of the most important matters facing this
country, the war in Iraq. Such debate is essential to our democracy.

According to the article, the documents suggest that the Pentagon supplied retired
officers serving as analysts for several major American broadcasters with private
briefings with Sec. Rumsfeld, talking points in anticipation of appearing on TV, and
commercial airfare. Allegedly, the Pentagon discouraged the analysts from publicly
describing the nature of their relationship with the Pentagon. This clearly violates the
spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Basically, the Pentagon supplied pro-war, pro-administration retired army officers to news outlets for the purpose of providing what was advertised to the public as unbiased analysis of the war in Iraq.  On-air, these officers’ connections to the Pentagon was undisclosed, and the American people were misled into thinking they were getting analysis based on field expertise, not political bias.

We know the Republicans sold their war to the American people with lies; we just didn’t know how far and how deep those lies went.  Now, at least, we have a little more of the whole picture.

Comments Off


Scandal Brewing or YouTube Hoax? (UPDATED)
May 2, 2008, 10:27 AM
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Progressives, Race, Scandal | Tags: , , , , , , ,

Mickey Kantor’s words–if they are what they appear to be–are going to cause some trouble…

Can this primary just end already?

UPDATE: Already this video’s veracity is being called into question. The original source for it appears to be War Room, the documentary about Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. The part in question is this, about 4:15 in:

If you turn the volume up, the first subtitle is clearly wrong–there’s an extra syllable there; it sounds like Kantor is saying “those people are shitting.” As for the second line, though, the subtitle seems to reflect what he says.

You could argue that he’s not talking about the people of Indiana; that’s possible, since the topic at hand is the polls, not necessarily the states. A few people who heard it also claim to hear the name “Charlie Black” in Kantor’s whispering (Black was George H.W. Bush’s spokesman at the time) after the supposed slur. But as far as I can tell, the subtitle appears to be accurate.

UPDATE II: D.A. Pennebaker–an ally of the Clintons and the director of War Room–says the video is a fake.

Here’s Atrios’ take on it:

I’m not going to try for a complete transcript, but basically Kantor gets polls from Indiana. They’re close. He says even if they don’t win the White House has got to be shitting themselves. Then what I think he says is something along the lines of “how would you like to be beaten by a worthless white n*****,” presumably meaning Bill Clinton himself and referencing the Bush I campaign team’s likely view of Clinton.

Comments Off