It's hard to know which one disgusts me more: Chris Matthews wanting to run for Senate in Pennsylvania or Caroline Kennedy eyeing Hillary's NY senate seat.
Who was it that said, "no matter how cynical I get, it's hard to keep up"?
Lest you forget, I bring back to me memories of the 'hope' and 'change' crowd:
Remember the 'bots using 'dynasty' in regards to a husband and a wife (Clintons) who built their lives from nothing to everything??
Move over! The One is now advocating Caroline Kennedy for Hillary's Senate Seat. Question must be asked, "What the f--k has she done?"
Does she have any legislative experience? No.
Does she have any governing experience? No.
Has she ever run a campaign? No.
Has she ever been involved in drafting a policy paper? No.
Has she ever led on any pertinent issues such as the environment? No.
Has she ever used her position to speak out for fairness, against the War, against Bush policies, etc.? No.
Don't worry. None of these matters. The purists who didn't want another Clinton to be in White House, lest the little kids get the wrong message, apparently have no problem with a woman, who has done nothing, jumping to a senate seat by virtue of her connections.
No one can doubt that Obama was the Media Darling. But for Halperin to pretend that he and his cohorts were not disgustingly bad, indeed they turned in the worst political journalistic performance in history (see Somerby, Bob), during the 2000 election is just shameful of him. The difference is that their 2000 performance had perhaps the most devastating consequences in the history of the nation.
But Mark Halperin was, is and always will be a hack.
(bold mine)
What the heck makes Big Tent Democrat so damned superior to Halperin??
Can NH happen one more time? Perhaps. Polls can be misleading.
What happened in NH democratic primary was twofold. Events moved very fast, and polls were slow to accurately measure the quick pace of the public mood swing. Further, pollsters (like Rasmussen) who in fact had measured a bit of that swing, let the haka get to them, and reported their results such that the fast clip of voters moving to Hillary was further obscured. After the primary, of course we were all subject to 'Bradley effect" bullshit, from pundits who don't know crap about anything, but like to pretend that they do.
I believe one perspective has been lost in all the hoopla over the Sarah Palin's choice.
I am not going to talk about Sarah Palin's policies, but rather her effect on the campaign. There is no doubt that she injected a lot of enthusiasm to this race.
Sarah Palin is news because of who she is and what she represents. She is a woman, a mother of five, a governor, and now a VP candidate. She juggles her responsibilities as a mother and a governor very well. For women who have tried to have it all, she is the one who says it can be done.
However, she would not be here as a VP candidate if Hillary Clinton hadn't run her historic candidacy. She would not be here without Hillary Clinton's resiliency in the face of abuse by democrats, by the media, and the silence of the so-called democratic leaders in the face of media attack on Hillary. In short, Hillary endured and fought relentless sexist treatment in the hands consolidated good-old-boys network (media, bloggers, and DNC so-called leaders), and republicans just came in and reaped the rewards.
I can no longer in good conscience not call bad behavior no matter where it comes from.
I can no longer sit still and not call the sexism from the left on their treatment of Governor Sarah Palin, her daughter, and her record. It's disgusting, and let me vent out.
Let me say one thing. Everyone keeps complaining about the level of discourse. Everyone claims to decide on their candidate based on issues, and not partisanship or personalities. Everyone claims that they can be objective no matter what party they vote for. Which brings me back to Governor Sarah Palin.
Barack Obama and John McCain are running neck and neck.
Impossible?
It would seem so. Republican President Bush still has less than a 30 percent approval rating. Headlines blare that unemployment and inflation are up -- even if we aren't, technically, in a recession. Gas is around $4 a gallon. Housing prices have nosedived. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has been indicted -- another in a line of congressional Republicans caught in financial or sexual scandal.
Meanwhile, the GOP's presumptive candidate, John McCain, is 71 years old. The Republican base thinks he's lackluster and too liberal.
So, everyone is puzzled why the Democratic candidate isn't at least 10 points ahead. It seems the more Americans get used to Barack Obama, the less they want him as president -- and the more Democrats will soon regret not nominating Hillary Clinton.
Since being featured in a McCain ad, Paris Hilton has decided to run for President. Here is her ad. It's pretty funny, and note her energy policy near the end of the ad. Paris has more brain that she is given credit for.
Today, I came across this article on the Washingtonpost on its treatment of the two Presidential candidates: McCain and Obama.
Deberoh Howel's column is self explanatory. In all the metrics she uses, the Post has used more photographs of Obama than McCain. While overall, Obama is ahead 3-2, it's telling that with respect to large photos, those that in the words of DH "spanned three or more columns", Obama comes out 30 to 10.
Surely, this is nothing new. The press has always had favorites. More telling is reading the rationalizations and reasoning The Washington Post's Ombudsman gives:
I bet you most of the google generation doesn't even know what Thesaurus means. What with educational standards falling so low and what not...
Well, I am here to the rescue. Here is a link (thesaurus.reference.com) and a great new game called THESAURUS: FIND THE HIDDEN MEANING.
The game is played like this. Player 1 comes up with a new word or a phrase, or an idiom, and using the Thesaurus, Player 2 gets to say why it's racist. You get one point for each step. The person with the least number of points wins.
In response to Campskunk, I think McCain is a true centrist. He now may talk tax cuts to pander to his base, but he did vote against Bush's tax cuts. Make no mistake, he needs republican votes, and so his actual policies in office may reflect that. But, in all likelihood, he'd be more principled and less of a sellout that Bush.
Obama? I have NO idea what he will do. None whatsoever. Democrats (in congress, senate, DNC) lack the discipline and spine to hold him (if elected) accountable.
But they (that is the so-called leaders of the democratic party) will probably like Obama, because Obama is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF BILL CLINTON.
Gail Collins was on the Morning Joe, which is one of the very few shows on television I can still watch.
Joe Scarborough is the chief anchor on the Morning Joe, and I am liking him more and more this season. It doesn't hurt that he jokingly declared himself in love with Hillary during the campaign.
Remember when during RBC's meeting on May 31st, Donna Brazile invoked her mother, and lectured us about her Mama telling her to play by the rules? She then went on to break the same rules and not only award all "uncomitted" delegates from Michigan to a candidate who didn't get a single vote, but helped in stealing 4 of Hillary's delegates and giving them to Barack. Imagine!!
Well, it seems Donna's Mama is absent again, and the babysitter (whoever that is) is not doing that good of a job. Now, we have this article by Wall Street Journal:
Flip-flopping on issues is not necessarily a bad thing
I am an American, and I flip-flop.
As we prepare to choose a new president, do we really want someone without the ability to flip-flop? I change my mind as new information becomes available. It's called being responsible. Certainly the highest office in the land requires this as a matter of principle.
I first found out about this from the Daily Show, and here is the video itself. It doesn't need comment, except that it's laugh-out-loud hilarious. It was done for the Texas Republican Convention, and in fairness, I think his staff wanted it to by funny.
As Atrios says, this is another episode of simple answers to simple questions.
I find it funny that the netroots is twisting itself into a pretzel again, in order to rationalize Obama's position on FISA capitulation. John Cole equates FISA to a poker hand, and there was a hilarious dkos comment, courtesy of Anna Belle (No, I won't link to dkos, just to Anna's comment):
It is a progressive stance with a dash of pragmatism. It is actually the direction I was hoping he would take it.
"Always aim high, work hard, and care deeply about what you believe in. When you stumble, keep faith. When you?re knocked down, get right back up. And NEVER listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on."
Hillary Clinton - June 7, 2008
