Lying Socialist Weasels

Olbermann Explains Hillary's Primary Goalpost Movement

This is hilarious!!

<

First DNC Ad Against McCain

This is an excellent start, and might just make people think...

Seriously... THIS is the best the GOP could come up with? Who REALLY thinks that either Obama or Clinton will lose to THIS?

Miss South Carolina to Stump for Gramps McCain!

Link: Ashley Zais, Miss South Carolina, Hired By The McCain Campaign - Politics on The Huffington Post.

Jonathan Martin over at Politico says he's gotten word from a "colleague" that McCain has hired beauty queen Ashley Zais, to be in charge of his interns. Martin wants everyone to make sure that Ashley Zais should not be confused with Miss Teen South Carolina, who is now a YouTube star for completely messing up an answer during the Miss Teen USA contest last August. Click here to see more photos of Ashley Zais.

More about Ashley Zais from Politico:

Ashley Zais, a recent Wofford grad, will serve as McCain's intern coordinator at the campaign's headquarters.

    She met McCain last year when the senator gave a speech at South Carolina's Newberry College, where her father is president. Mitchell Zais, a retired Army general, and McCain became friendly after Zais published a piece in 2006 critical of how Rumsfeld's Pentagon had handled the war.

Remember, it's NOT this girl!

But wouldn't it be more fun if it was?

For Those Who Think This is Still a Race...

From an AP Analysis of the delegate math:

Overall, Obama's delegate lead is 1,645-1,507. That masks an even larger advantage among those won in primaries and caucuses. There, his advantage is 1,414-1,250.

An additional 566 are at stake in the remaining contests in eight states, Guam and Puerto Rico before the primary season ends on June 3.

If Obama captures 53 percent of them, which is the share he has gained in contests to date, he would close out the primary season with at least 1,945 delegates, only 80 less than the total needed to clinch the nomination. If he and Clinton split the 566 evenly, he would still be within 100 of the number needed.

Clinton needs to win a forbidding 65 percent of the delegates in the remaining primaries to draw even with Obama in pledged delegates. It's a share she has achieved only once so far, in Arkansas, where her husband was governor for more than a decade.

Given the unyielding delegate math, Clinton has relied for weeks on forbearance from party leaders to sustain her challenge. And they are growing restless, eager for the epic nomination battle to end so Democrats can unify for the fall campaign against John McCain and the Republicans.

In short, the nomination is, effectively, over. She won't receive anything close to 65% of the votes in remaining primaries. In fact, she won't even win most of them. Pennsylvania will be tighter than people think, less than 6 points. Plus, the way the delegate math works in PA, it's possible for him to lose by 2-3 points and still end up with a few more delegates. The most she can hope for, honestly, is a net gain of about 8-10 delegates. Then, it's off to Indiana and North Carolina. Indiana is close, but she's running out of money, so he could win that one. He will win North Carolina, and could conceivably take it by more than 10 points, and erase any gains she makes in PA. She could win West Virginia, but the margin will be less than 10 points, and more likely 5- points. She could win Kentucky, but probably won't win Oregon. He will probably win Montana, and will likely win South Dakota.

In other words, the best way to get a woman in the White House in the near future would be to impeach Bush and Cheney; whattaya say?

 

This is Why the Media is Worthless

First, we're treated to one of the worst debates in US history. Now, we're being lectured to by one of the worst journalists in US media history to "stop whining" because the alleged "journalists" running the debate last night asked inane questions that had no point.

I will give David Brooks credit for one thing, though; at least he's honest enough to admit he's a shit journalist. Check out this gem from this morning's New York Times blog

From: No Whining About the Media - Campaign Stops - 2008 Elections - Opinion - New York Times Blog.

No Whining About the Media

By David Brooks

Three quick points on the Democratic debate tonight:

First, Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions.

I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.

Okay, let's stop there.

That is NOT a journalists JOB!

I'm picking on Brooks, but a whole lot of so-called journalists think this way, and it's why the news media has become largely pointless.

A journalist's job is to ask questions to get at the TRUTH! They're not to "explore" in public, on a national stage. Every question asked last night had already been asked and answered, and reflected the bias of the questioner, and NOT a need to know by the public.

Now, let's go to the part that certifies just how morally -- and worse, journalistically -- bankrupt the press has become...

We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.

Does anyone else see the moral and ethical bankruptcy in the above?

First of all, we don't know what will be important in the fall. And as a journalist, your job is to deal in facts. And the statement above reveals a huge bias that has infiltrated the entire journalism industry. Brooks THINKS that all of the above will be huge issues, because he WANTS them to be big issues. Therefore, his  writing will always reflect that belief.

Journalism is supposed to be about taking what is a blank slate and filing in the space with facts. Whether or not people think lapel pins are important has nothing to do with fact. Whether or not Jeremiah Wright said something pissy at some point  depends on your point of view, which means it's not fact.  While it is a fact that Obama had some recent dealings with a former member of the Weather Underground, which disbanded 40 years ago, the only relevant facts would revolve around exactly what those dealings were. Insinuation is not fact.

You know, I know Brooks is writing an opinion piece, but the entire news industry has become so murky, there seems to no longer be a line between news and opinion. What he's writing in his piece is opinion. What Stephanopoulos and Gibson were doing last night was supposed to be journalism. Instead, it came off as an episode of Hannity and Colmes, and they should both be ashamed. (By the way, why was a former Clinton Administration official allowed to "moderate," anyway?)

I thought both Clinton and Obama came out of that so-called 'debate' looking very good; not because of their stands on the issues, but due to the poor performance of the "journalists" running the show.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

There they go again

Once again, the usual suspects (Clinton, GOP and their media surrogates) are manufacturing controversy over an alleged Obama flaw -- this time, a supposed gaffe by Obama at a fundraiser in San Fransisco.

Though Obama has apologized to anyone who was offended by his remarks, the truth is most clearly were not, and media outlets (including Fox News) who have actually asked people on the street have found broad agreement with Obama.

I understand the opportunistic piling on done by the GOP and Clinton -- they really have nothing else to go on.  But I guess it never occurred to them that one of the reasons Obama's campaign themes of "hope" and "change" have resonated so successfully might just be that many people really are bitter and longing for real change.

But then, the fact that Clinton, McCain and others just don't get what matters to most voters is plainly evident by their political fortunes.

Penn out at HRC campaign

As has been noted at several blogs, Mark Penn is giving up his "chief strategist" title at the Clinton campaign, even though evidently the campaign is not severing all ties with his services.

Given the way any major shakeup in a campaign's staff looks to the outside ("campaign in disarray" is a typical conclusion), and given the "through thick and thin" nature of Penn's position with the Clinton campaign, one might wonder why this move is happening now, several days after Penn made news with his consulting job for the Columbian government, a position in which he he was to advocate a position contrary to Clinton's own on free trade.

Negative PR for the Clinton campaign as a result of Penn's actions is nothing new.  However, it's worth speculating whether someone may have recently read the Clinton campaign the riot act regarding Penn's continued position with the campaign.  Perhaps some major donors threatened to turn off the spigot?

I imagine more news will come out on this over the next few days.

On Michigan and Florida

We've seen a lot of angst (mostly delayed angst from the Clinton campaign and their supporters) regarding "enfranchising" Michigan and Florida, and how the Obama campaign is "against democracy" there because it has supposedly opposed some revote proposals.

We also continue to see various arguments coming from Clinton campaign supporters that revolve around how the Obama campaign did something wrong or stupid in the run-up to the invalid primary, and seek to use that to justify an inequitable election outcome.

The problem is, this is a fundamentally wrong-headed perspective.  Elections are about the expression of democratic will via accurate assessment of the electorate's intentions.  As such, the voters need the chance to choose, in an informed, fair manner, from a selection of options.  That is what enfranchisement is all about.

And you can tell a lot about people who try to make it about something else.

Look, it would be great to see a resolution regarding Michigan and Florida.  But if we're talking revotes, they have to be fair to the voters (no fair excluding Democrats and Independents who were told the Democratic primary was invalid and crossed over and voted in the Republican primary, or voted "other").  In any other situation, we'd call an election in which some voters were deliberately barred, who otherwise would be eligible, an unfair election.

And they have to be fair contests in which voters can choose from all the major candidates on the ballot. In any other case, we'd call an election in which some of the major candidates weren't on the ballot undemocratic, and rightly decry it.

Further, they need to be elections in which the major candidates have a chance to campaign and be known to the voters.  An informed electorate is crucial to democracy.

Elections aren't mob action.  There are always rules, just as there are in all aspects of modern society.  Without the rules, you are left with nothing.  Enfranchisement can only take place within a democratic framework of rules.  This isn't exclusive to Michigan and Florida -- it's always the case.

What we really see is one major candidate and her supporters wanting to throw out the rules after-the-fact in order to gain an advantage.  This is fundamentally undemocratic, and rightfully opposed by anyone who cares about democracy.

At this point, the bottom line in Michigan is that the Michigan legislature itself chose not to have a revote. One can place blame wherever one wishes, of course, but in this writer's opinion it's patently preposterous to conclude that if Michigan wanted to hold a revote, any campaign would be able to block it.  The DNC could refuse to accept the results if the respective campaigns found the terms inequitable, but it never even got that far.

And Florida's not looking too good, either.

Let's hope this gets resolved soon.

The Crying Game

Apparently, Hillary Clinton's genius "brain trust," which consists of DLC hacks, has decided that the best way to counter Barack Obama's message of hope and inclusion is to depress the hell out of people.

From Today's Washington Post:

It almost always comes when the audience least expects it: the moment Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton brings a roaring crowd to a hush with a heart-rending anecdote.

"I remember listening to a story about a young woman in a small town along the Ohio River, in Meigs County, who worked in a pizza parlor," the Democratic presidential candidate said during a stop in Cleveland, beginning a particularly grim tale.

"She got pregnant, she started having problems. There's no hospital left in Meigs County, so she had to go to a neighboring county. She showed up, and the hospital said, 'You know, you've got to give us $100 before we can see you.' She didn't have $100," Clinton said.

"So the young woman went back home," she continued. "The next time she went back, she was in an ambulance. It turned out she lost the baby. She was airlifted to Columbus."

She paused before concluding: "And after heroic efforts at the medical center, she died." The audience, as always, gasped.

The story has become a staple of Clinton's stump speech, a prime example of how, in a campaign year in which lofty phrases have taken center stage, she has rejected sweeping oratory -- "just words," as her campaign likes to accuse Democratic rival Barack Obama of offering -- in favor of a dramatic speaking style all her own.

Perhaps the reason she's been so hard on Barack Obama is because she's given up her quest for the presidency, and is instead opting for a revival as host of a series on Lifetime or something.

Hillary Clinton is a great woman, and I have no doubt that she would make a good president. But let's be honest here; the political skills of her campaign staff are atrocious. They think they got Bill Clinton elected, but they didn't. Bill Clinton got Bill Clinton elected, with an able assist from Ross Perot. When it comes to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, she has not been served well by her people in any way. and this  strategy" is no exception.

Now, there's nothing wrong with bringing up these stories to demonstrate what Bush policies have done to America. But there has to be more to them than that. And you certainly need more than her follow-up to such stories, which in this case is, "It's a real indictment of our health-care system. That shouldn't happen in America." But she pretty much stops there, and goes into another story about her "vast experience," which is wholly irrelevant.

Hillary is not going to win the nomination for one very simple reason; she doesn't represent enough change from the status quo, and while I'm sure she's a caring compassionate person, her tendency to alternately cry and scream and whine has become tiresome, and calls into question her actual passion. I would also remind her that tales from the dark side do not make people feel good. They know the Bush regime has been a disaster, and they know that either Democrat will be a major improvement. what they want to know, and what Hillary Clinton has failed to tell them, is that the government is a service organization, designed to help all Americans, regardless of their problems. What's been missing from government for years -- and that includes the eight years her Husband was in office -- is a sense of duty and compassion. Hillary's DLC handlers don't get that. They're all about plotting and strategy, and are incapable of seeing the big picture.