Emerging Narratives

Taking a step back from the day-to-day back and forth, I think I see a pattern emerging. To be honest, it is one of despicable dishonesty on the one hand, and counter-offensive belittlement on the other. If the national media can catch up, discard the discredited notion that John McCain was ever a "maverick", and experiences "Palin Fatigue" (I'm quite tired of her already; can you imagine if the Republicans won and she was around for at least four years?), it might be possible for this narrative to come out more forcefully.

One of the things Democrats have in their favor this time around is a candidate in Barack Obama who is running his campaign his way. In 1988, the Democrats chose a good, solid, smart, tough experienced politician who ran a dismal campaign that allowed the Republicans to make non-issues in to issues. This year, the Democrats have chosen a candidate who is solid, smart, tough, and refuses to allow the Republicans to get the better of him or his campaign. He dismisses their claims with derision, but not the Adlai Stevenson kind of derision, in which he tries to make himself look smart. It is a derision that points out McCain thinks American voters are ninnies and fools. It is a derisory on the simple point that McCain thinks he can lie with impunity. Obama calls the claims of the McCain/Palin campaign lies, without hesitation or apology. He refuses to allow McCain to run the kind of campaign he wants to, and Republicans have been running, for decades.

The latest McCain ad, which highlights Obama's support of a measure in the Illinois legislature regarding sex education, is a deft piece of dog-whistle politics for the right. It is also, to be far more blunt that the Obama/Biden campaign can be, a crock of shit.

It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls - a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why.

One of the promising things about these kinds of responses, for me at least, is they may just push McCain's infamous temper to the breaking point. That would be popcorn-worthy, to say the least.

This is why I don't worry all that much. Obama's responses aren't just defenses; they are counter-offensives.

As long as McCain keeps putting out garbage like this - and Republicans can't help themselves - Obama actually keeps the initiative in his favor, because the blows just don't land.

Long live rope-a-dope.

"It is a track record that deserves to be celebrated, not ridiculed or scorned."

Bob Herbert. Click, read, discuss.

"These People"

Courtesy of Ezra Klein, I came across this from The Washington Post's "The Trail", written by Peter Slevin.

Sen. Barack Obama delivered an impassioned defense of the Constitution and the rights of terrorism suspects tonight, striking back at one of the biggest applause lines in Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech to the GOP convention.

It was in St. Paul last week that Palin drew raucous cheers when she delivered this put-down of Obama: "Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights."

Obama had a few problems with that.

"First of all, you don't even get to read them their rights until you catch 'em," Obama said here, drawing laughs from 1,500 supporters in a high school gymnasium. "They should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden and we can worry about the next steps later."

That's good, and it gets better.

Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for more than a decade, said captured suspects deserve to file writs of habeus corpus.

Calling it "the foundation of Anglo-American law," he said the principle "says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' And say, 'Maybe you've got the wrong person.'"

The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, "because we don't always have the right person."

"We don't always catch the right person," he said. "We may think it's Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president."

Obama turned back to Palin's comment, although he said he was not sure whether Palin or Rudy Giuliani said it.

"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It's because that's who we are. That's what we're protecting," Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. "Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."

He ended this particular bit, according to Slevin, with the two words I quote in the title.

I would just add that Palin's comment in her speech was disturbing for the simple reason that she is running for Vice President of the United States. If elected, she takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet, here she was, reaching for an easy applause line in which she denigrates that very same document.

Applause lines are easy. Governing is a bit more difficult. That's what the Republicans have never understood.

If an ad appears soon in which Obama picks this up and makes it clear - that would be choice indeed.

"Politicians Lying About Their Record" - Obama Uses "L" Word In New Ad

Smack!

Obama In Terre Haute (UPDATE)

Courtesy of YouTube, we have this little snippet of Barack Obama campaigning in Terre Haute, IN. What I like about this is the simplicity of it, and the way he gets some free advertising for his message. It also shows how Obama is going to win this. Meetings with people in towns all over the country, telling it like it is. "They must think we're stupid," indeed. Of course, some liberal bloggers, by panicking over recent tracking polls, are certainly acting that way as well . . .



UPDATE: Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly on-line makes a good point. One hopes the Obama campaign refines it, and puts it out there - the Republican campaign is, indeed, premised on the idea that the American people are stupid, can't find out the facts for themselves, and will buy whatever is sold to them. It is both hard-hitting and appeals to the better angels in the American character. This is the kind of message that needs to get out there, hard, fast, and often to keep the McCain campaign off-balance.

Music Monday

In 1983, Yes released 90125, with a new sound, courtesy of a new guitarist. The back story was simple. Steve Howe quit, and drummer Alan White and bassist Christ Squire were looking for new players. They played briefly with Jimmy Page, and planned to record and tour, but there were various legal hassles. Squire had been given a tape of South African musician Trevor Rabin, however, and invited him around. It took a year and a half, a band name change, and the re-emergence of Jon Anderson (who had quit Yes in 1979), but the band was back.

Except a lot of Yes fans didn't like the change.

Well, Rabin was a very different style of guitarist from Howe. Howe, who has a prickly personality, didn't get on very well with Rabin during the "Union" tour. Yet, for all their differences, both are extremely gifted musicians. Here's an example of Rabin's early work, "Getting to Know You Better":

Here's Rabin doing his acoustic solo piece, "Solly's Beard":

In 1989, he released a solo album that did quite well. This is "Something o Hold On To" from Can't Look Away:

Small Towns

I love this video from The Daily Show:

The cowboy? Queerer than a three dollar bill in Confederate money.

I grew up in a town about the size of Wasilia, Alaska. Waverly sits on the border of PA, and there are three boroughs - South Waverly, Sayre, and Athens, PA - all of which run in to one another. The area, physically formed by the junction of the Chemung and Susquehanna Rivers, is simply called The Valley by locals (I still refer to it that way, even though there are other valleys in the world). As an adult, I have lived in both small towns and two cities, one medium sized (Rochester, NY) and one large (Washington, DC). I'm still scratching my head over the whole "small towns are better" thread running through the Republican convention.

Of course, I recognize the politics of it. This is a kind of dog-whistle - it's all about "values". No gay, abortion-loving anti-Christians in LaMoille, IL, South Waverly, PA, or other "towns under 10,000". Except, of course, small towns are as diverse as large cities. The differences are largely that the power structure is inert, in place for generations. The Republicans interviewed by TDS represent the problem with small towns. Inarticulate, narrow-minded, these men and women are caricatures of what is wrong with those in power in small towns. In fact, there are many, diverse and distinct groups living in small towns. People of color, sexual, religious, and other minority groups have their own little enclaves. Some areas have different smaller groups than others. For example, not just Waverly, but the whole Finger Lakes area of western New York State, has a scattered but large population of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Recognizing the politics of such rhetoric is one thing. Cutting through the rhetoric, however, to reveal the hollowness of it is not only a wholly different matter, but necessary. Small Town USA no more provides a moral backbone to the country than do cities undermine them. The only good thing about this kind of rhetoric is that it is about a century too late. In 1896, William Jennings Bryant ran a campaign similar to this; we all know how much of a landslide he won . . . oh, wait, that's right.

Bryant lost to Ohio Sen. William McKinley.

Making It Up As They Go Along

There's been a story going around that the Democrats trashed their American flags after their convention was over. It seems the source of this story is . . . the McCain campaign.

Not only should they be ashamed of themselves, nothing coming from them should be considered legitimate at all.

I just love the way the anti-patriotic dog whistle is being blown by these clowns. They're almost too clever by half. I suppose this is another illustration of Mark Twain's dictum that a lie makes it around the world before truth makes it out the door.

It's WTF For Dinner?

With a generous hat-tip tip to Kirsten, from whom I stole the entire list, here is the Omnivores 100 - the 100 items that are a must-eat before one ceases to care about food. Those in italics are ones I have actually tried.

1. Venison.
2. Nettle tea.
3. Huevos rancheros.
4. Steak tartare.
5. Crocodile
6. Black pudding.
7. Cheese fondue.
8. Carp.
9. Borscht.
10. Baba ghanoush.
11. Calamari. - at a restaurant on Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco.
12. Pho.
13. PB&J sandwich.
14. Aloo gobi.
15. Hot dog from a street cart. - In NYC, no less. Only the best
16. Epoisses.
17. Black truffle.
18. Fruit wine made from something other than grapes.
19. Steamed pork buns.
20. Pistachio ice cream.
21. Heirloom tomatoes.
22. Fresh wild berries.
23. Foie gras.
24. Rice and beans.
25. Brawn, or head cheese.
26. Raw Scotch Bonnet pepper.
27. Dulce de leche.
28. Oysters.
29. Baklava.
30. Bagna cauda.
31. Wasabi peas.
32. Clam chowder in a sourdough bowl.
33. Salted lassi.
34. Sauerkraut.
35. Root beer float.
36. Cognac with a fat cigar.
37. Clotted cream tea.
38. Vodka jelly/Jell-O.
39. Gumbo.
40. Oxtail. - I hesitate, because does soup count?
41. Curried goat. - in a little street-side Indian restaurant on Connecticut Ave, NW in Washington.
42. Whole insects.
43. Phaal.
44. Goat’s milk.
45. Malt whiskey from a bottle worth £60/$120 or more.
46. Fugu.
47. Chicken tikka masala.
48. Eel.
49. Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnut.
50. Sea urchin.
51. Prickly pear.
52. Umeboshi.
53. Abalone.
54. Paneer.
55. McDonald’s Big Mac Meal.
56. Spaetzle.
57. Dirty gin martini.
58. Beer above 8% ABV.
59. Poutine.
60. Carob chips.
61. S’mores.
62. Sweetbreads.
63. Kaolin.
64. Currywurst.
65. Durian.
66. Frogs’ legs.
67. Beignets, churros, elephant ears or funnel cake.
68. Haggis.
69. Fried plantain.
70. Chitterlings, or andouillette.
71. Gazpacho.
72. Caviar and blini.
73. Louche absinthe.
74. Gjetost, or brunost.
75. Roadkill.
76. Baijiu.
77. Hostess Fruit Pie.
78. Snail.
79. Lapsang souchong.
80. Bellini.
81. Tom yum.
82. Eggs Benedict.
83. Pocky.
84. Tasting menu at a three-Michelin-star restaurant.
85. Kobe beef.
86. Hare.
87. Goulash.
88. Flowers.
89. Horse.
90. Criollo chocolate.
91. Spam.
92. Soft shell crab. - on a sandwich.
93. Rose harissa.
94. Catfish.
95. Mole poblano.
96. Bagel and lox.
97. Lobster Thermidor.
98. Polenta.
99. Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee.
100. Snake.

41 out of one hundred isn't bad. Of those I haven't eaten that are on the list, crocodile, snails, horse, hare, black pudding, absinthe, haggis, insects, sea urchin, eel and head cheese are those I have or will seek out to add to it. And sweetbreads are out thanks to Hannibal Lecter. Even though at one time I would have loved to try them.

Saturday Rock Show

There is something about the German language. The heavy metal band Rammstein has that something - their use of their native language (unlike fellow Germans Scorpions) just seems to give their music that extra edge. All semi-gothic theatricality and pomp, they certainly seem to know what they are about as they rock a Nimes, France football stadium (my guess, probably about 75,000 folks) with their song "Links":

Some "Meta" Thoughts On The Presidential Campaign

With the conventions over, the tickets selected, and the race to November 6 on, I think it is time to consider why it is the I believe that Barack Obama and Joe Biden will win. First and foremost, I believe that there has been a fundamental shift in American politics over the past three years, and the Republican era, in force since Richard Nixon narrowly defeated Hubert Humphrey in 1968, is over. The odd thing about this era is that the Republican dominance has never been overwhelming, despite two historically high re-election contests (Nixon in '72, Reagan in '84), and a relatively high win for George H. W. Bush in 1988. The Republican era has been a marginally majority thing, with the GOP only taking over Congress in 1994 and only managing to hold that majority for 12 years. Their grip on power was always tenuous, and their approach to governance dominated by spectacle and an appeal to division rather than substantive. This is not to say that, especially with the advent of Ronald Reagan they did not come with a plethora of ideas and proposals; it is also not to deny that, since the late-1970's, American liberalism as embodied in the Democratic Party was not ideologically anemic, and skittish of the constant barrage of criticisms put out by the Republican Party.

That time has passed. I said it two years ago, and no one believed me. I predicted sweep of the Congressional elections in late summer, and was told that Republican smears, Republican tactics, and even Republican illegality would steal the election. I was told that the Republicans would win, but I could only conclude that people believed that because Republicans had been winning for quite some time. Even with the Mark Foley scandal, the presence of Tom DeLay (even after he quit Congress), and the historically low approval ratings of President Bush, I kept hearing how the Republicans would win and there was nothing we could do about it.

Being vindicated by actual events, we are in another national campaign where the Republicans, I am told, could still win because they are running a Republican campaign playbook that has been so successful in the past. Yet, consider some things. The American economy is very weak. We are, for all intents and purposes, in another era of stagflation, with energy and food prices again being the culprits. Our financial system is shaky at best. People are unhappy with the way the country is being run. The word "change" was heard so often over the past week, I kept checking my pants pocket to see if they were talking about coins. Both parties recognize the public's desire for effective, substantive leadership.

With the national conventions, we were offered a look at the way the two parties address the concerns of the country. The Democrats spoke candidly of the realities we face, of the challenges facing whomever is elected in eight weeks, and offered the American people not just fluff and guff, but some serious options as to how they would go about addressing the multiple problems in which we find ourselves embroiled.

The Republicans, on the other hand, spent much of their convention, belittling the Democratic candidate for President. We had the spectacle of a former liberal Republican governor of an eastern state deriding "eastern elites". We had the former mayor of our largest city - in many ways the first city of the world, not just America - insisting that the choice of the Governor of Alaska as the party's VP nominee was being derided as not cosmopolitan enough. Both the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominee spoke not of what they would do in the face of myriad challenges facing America, but rather insisted that such things were of little importance because both had interesting, even compelling biographies (which, at the same time, are not to be scrutinized too closely). While it is true that both John McCain and Sarah Palin have interesting personal stories, I came away from the Republican convention wondering why anyone would consider them for high office because they did not once offer a policy statement, a message to the new Congress that will also be elected this fall, or anything else that addresses our times. Trying to make Barack Obama in to some kind of lightweight (silly on its face), they have refused to allow the press access to their VP nominee. In fact, in the waning days of the convention and yesterday as it wrapped up and the delegates scattered back to their homes across the country, it became clear that the Republicans are running an anti-media campaign as much as a campaign against Barack Obama and the Democrats.

In essence, the two campaigns appear as follows:

*The Democrats - We know you are facing challenges and serious problems, and here are some ways we will try to address them.

*The Republicans - The eastern elite media wants to hide the fact that Barack Obama does not have the experience to lead the United States because it asks questions about the lack of qualifications of the VP nominee and demands serious, substantive positions of the Presidential nominee.

I fail to see how the Republicans can win with this approach. My own feeling is that the McCain campaign, chronically faced with personnel changes and shifts of emphasis and message as it has been for the past year or so, will continue to drift as it searches for a message that it can use to pull ahead of its Democratic rival. Obama, on the other hand, will continue his "rope-a-dope" approach, allowing McCain/Palin to wear themselves out with futile gestures, messages, and attempts to take Obama out, then come back with short, effective hits that keep McCain off-balance.

A combination of a strong GOTV movement being run by Obama and the Democratic Party, plus the changing socio-political climate and the general dissatisfaction with the way the country currently is will combine to provide the edge. While never underestimating the possibility that some disaster or great event might alter the equation somehow, my own feeling, as I've expressed many time before can be summed up as follow:

McCain.

Is.

Toast.

Laugh At Them, Following This

Nobody does it better than Jon Stewart.

For ER First, Then Anyone Else (UPDATE)

ER and I have traded our love - its a kitschy rather than groovy kind of love - for the tracts of the legendary Jack Chick. He's on the web, and he's archived all of them, including my favorite. Now, scienceblogs is featuring one that is so wonderful I want to go to rest area, truck stop, Denny's, anywhere and find it. I collect them, and have found them in as wildly divergent places as an endcap shelf in Wal-Mart; a restroom in a rest area on New York's Route 17/Interstate-86; a bathroom in a truck stop outside Columbia, MO; and I had one given to me by a friend as a birthday present.

Unlike many who get bent out of shape by Chick Tracts, I love them for the same reason that some people like ugly dogs, or Michael Jackson has the Elelphant Man's skeleton in a display case in his house - freaky stuff has a certain cachet, as it were. They are harmless, mindless, and clearly so over the top one could not imagine them meaning anything other than the way I feel about them - they are like a snowglobe that hold something precious. The person who put the little bit of platinum in the snowglobe knows the platinum is pretty, is heavy, and other people seem to think it is important, somehow. But it is surrounded by kitschy, awful, cheap water, bits of plastic, and the preciousness of the platinum inside is obscured by the cheapness of the surroundings.

Yet, my love for them is real. It is the same love I felt as a child for a cat we had that was not only cross-eyed - seriously cross-eyed; we called him Clarence, after a lion in a short-lived children' TV series - but borderline retarded. This cat could jump off the porch and still miss the ground. And I loved Clarence. And I love Chick Tracts. My hope is that someone sends me a copy of this one. In the meantime, you can see it by clicking on the link.

UPDATE: Alan mentioned a tract I had not heard of - "Doom Town", an anti-gay tract - and one of the panels in it is below:

Did Jack Chick draw that or Tom of Finland?

No Reason Given

In 1992, not long after former Chair of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Willaim Crowe publicly came forward and endorsed Bill Clinton for the Presidency, Will wrote a column that has stayed with me for sixteen years. In it, he said that then-President George H. W. Bush was offering no compelling reason to vote for him for the Presidency, and Will was at least nodding towards Bill Clinton because the Arkansas governor was at least offering substantive reasons to consider him for the office of the Presidency, even if he (Will) didn't agree with all of them.

Last night, McCain offered not a single substantive policy, not a single compelling idea, not one scintilla of evidence that he is offering the people of the US any reason whatsoever to consider him for the Presidency. Indeed, the constant invocation, not just in his speech last night, but over the previous few weeks, of his time in a North Vietnamese POW camp, reminds me not so much of the strength of character he has shown by coming through that ordeal with his sanity intact, but that it happened forty years ago, and is the only thing, in the end, he has to offer. This is not to belittle his experience; rather, it is to wonder out loud of the relevance of the issue.

What about the economy? The soundness of our financial system? What of the degradation of our military, and the shrinking of services for those returning from service, including wounded soldiers? What of the Constitution, to which the President swears an oath (not to the people, or to protect the physical integrity of the US)? The Republicans complained that the Democrats said the US is facing difficult times. There's a reason for that. The Democrats weren't talking down the United States; they were addressing the realities we face, and offering solutions. McCain offered nothing more than his biography as proof that he would . . .

I have no idea.

What He Said (UPDATE)

ER is skittish. Others are just as jittery.

Matt Yglesias, and the inestimable digby (God love her), however, remind us that panic, at this point, is a bit extreme to say the least.

First, Yglesias in full:

A remarkable number of liberals of my acquaintance seemed ready to move into panic mood after it turns out that Sarah Palin can deliver a competent attack dog speech. I don’t see why. It was competent, but no more than that. And it wasn’t a speech that even tried to do either of things that John McCain’s campaign needs to do — separate McCain from George W. Bush or convince people that McCain can improve the economy. It didn’t even try to address those subjects.

This stops the downward spiral, maybe, until perhaps people focus on the fact that Palin’s signature accomplishment as Governor of Alaska was to oppose a bridge project that she in fact favored, but McCain was losing the race before Palin was ever announced. Stopping the slide doesn’t get you to a win.

Now, digby:

But the bottom line is that while she may not sink this ticket (at least immediately) she can't save it either. They'll get out their base, which until now was a questionable proposition. But that won't be enough. Their base has shrunk. They have to win over a chunk of independents and I just don't know if they can successfully separate themselves from the disaster of the past eight years, even if Maverick decides to move the White House to Point Barrow.

In other words, she did nothing more than provide a sandbag in the leaking dyke of McCain's support. Period. Even that will, I bet, end soon enough, because Obama and Biden are lying in wait.

I'm not panicking. I'm confident that the Palin pick for the VP slot seals the Republican's loss. In the long run, as I've said before, McCain is toast.

UPDATE: James Fallows weighs in (please read the whole thing):

[B]oth Reagan in 1964 and Obama in 2004 were effective because, apart from their personal skills, they added something to their party's constituency that had not been there before. Reagan began recruiting the "Reagan Democrats," starting with white Southerners. Obama tried to recruit people tired of divisive partisanship.

Sarah Palin, at least tonight, did not seem interested in bringing anyone new into the fold. A speech that was great in the convention hall. We'll see how it affects the electoral lineup.

Hee Hee (UPDATE)

Oh dear Lord.


I just love Noonan's "It's over."

UPDATE: With a generous hat-tip to Oliver Willis it seems Peggy Noonan's opinion of Sarah Palin has changed drastically . . . in a couple short days (assuming she didn't write this column this morning):

Because [Palin] jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing -- who is really one of them and who is not -- and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy.

Other than the nonsensical idea that there are "real" feminists on the one hand, and "Yale Gender Studies" feminists on the other (God, what an old, tired bit of crap this is), it seems she is working awfully hard here to gild this particularly rotted lily.

To be blunt - all the evidence suggests Sarah Palin ran Wasilia, and now Alaska, as a thug, silencing critics and opponents, using state resources to carry out personal vendettas, and even trying to ban books in the public library. She is as far out on the extreme right as one can get and still have any hope of success even in as red a state as Alaska. She is no more a feminist than I am a White Supremacist. In a sane world, she would be laughed at, McCain would be laughed at, and Obama would do no campaigning because the laughter at McCain's really stupid pick would continue all the way until Election Day.

Since we don't live in a sane world, we're going to have to put up with, in Peggy's own words, "political bullshit" until then. But, we can still laugh.

Why Do We Make Fun Of The French Again?

This is a picture of French Justice Minister Rachida Dati. Besides bearing a strong resemblance to a certain Democratic First Lady of a bygone era, and being my age as well (wow!), she is unmarried and with child. Now, the French have a wonderful approach to these kinds of things, an approach that would be unthinkable in the United States. The difference betrays just how dysfunctional, obsessed with trivia, and ridiculously puerile our politics and political journalism is:

Dati says she has no intention of revealing the father’s identity and offers this marvellous comment: “I have a very complicated private life, and that’s where I draw the line with the press. I won’t have anything to say on that subject.”

It would be impossible for a political figure in the United States to respond in such a manner. In fact, if an unwed woman in a position of authority in the United States become pregnant, she would most likely be asked to resign, if not fired outright.

The French are grown-ups. French politicians are grown-ups. I think we could learn a thing or two from them.

Now They've Done It

While he already lost Joe Klein, it seems McCain's hissy-fit yesterday - refusing an interview with CNN's Larry King - has really ticked off the press:

But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.

I thought yesterday that McCain's refusal to do Larry King would turn around and smack him in the face. Now, he's got Joe Freakin' Klein ticked at him. I suspect that in the next few weeks more and more press outlets are going to drop the whole "Maverick!" garbage, and go after this guy hard. The only thing to make it even better would be for Obama to court the press with wine and cheese. Then watch Sen. Screamin' Meemies really lose his cool.

Senator Pouty Pants

Unless the press give him a tongue bath, it is clear McCain wants nothing to do with them.

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds appeared on CNN for an interview with Campbell Brown. Brown was tough on Bounds, refusing to let him spout typical campaign talking points. She repeatedly pressed him on Palin’s foreign policy experience and qualifications, asking him to name one decision that she made as commander-in-chief of the Alaskan National Guard. Bounds was unable to do so.

Today, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer revealed that because of that tough interview, the McCain campaign has canceled the senator’s appearance on Larry King Live tonight. . .

This just keeps getting better and better.

Palin Agonistes II

It seems we might have a Thomas Eagleton moment brewing.

In this afternoon’s New York Times story on the Sarah Palin (R) insanity today was this sentence:

Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina said that he had heard no discussion about removing Ms. Palin from the ticket.

Sometimes, it’s the questions being asked that are more important than the answers.

Expect the drumbeat to get louder as the media starts doing the vetting the McCain campaign didn’t bother to do.

If McCain should drop her - a move that I find highly doubtful, but anything could happen at this point - expect the entire episode to become a talking point in his favor, rather than another mark against his judgment.

Palin Agonistes I

If anything has become clear over the weekend, it's that the McCain campaign did not do any vetting of Gov. Palin before the Senator announced she would be his running mate. It seems she was chosen by a bunch of conservative Christians, who overrode his first choice, Sen. Lieberman of Connecticut (and wouldn't that have been a hoot and a half?).

It is also clear that neither the Republicans nor the McCain campaign think she is prepared for the feeding frenzy in the media. Whether it's lying about when and/or if McCain knew about her daughter's pregnancy, or lying about when and/or if McCain actually had people check out her record for any potential embarrassments, the entire episode smacks of McCain either being frog-marched to his choice by a bunch of hard-right Christians or closing his eyes and pointing at a list of names. Neither scenario bodes well, and Gov. Palin's absence from news programs, from speechifying, from interviews all smacks not of disciplined message control but desperate lid-clamping.

My guess on Friday (I kept it to myself because my track-record on political predictions [Obama/Gore! McCain/Giuliani!] has been pretty poor) was that, while McCain gained a certain advantage by announcing his VP choice the day after Obama's speech; that he gained a certain advantage by naming a relative unknown to his ticket; that his pick managed to dominate the news cycle the entire holiday weekend, edging out Hurricane Gustav; even with all that, I felt that this would be a long-run disaster. My reasons for believing this are simple. First and foremost, despite media-love for the guy, McCain has always managed to display horrid judgment. He sees his campaign not as a way to display his bona fides for governance, but as a way to show he can dominate media coverage. There is something not so much narcissistic as solipsistic about the whole thing. McCain is running for President so that the news reports can be about John McCain. To be frank - I think he just loves all the attention.

Second, his choice of a relative unknown, without a prior release of information to the press on her record as governor of Alaska or mayor of Wasilia should have been proof enough that they had no idea who they had picked. Usually, there's some kind of cursory list - even a bullet-point presentation - but everyone (including most especially me) was sitting around scratching their heads.

Finally, since the first reports concerning Gov. Palin were bad (TrooperGate), then worse (personal issues, membership in a fringe, secessionist political party), I felt confident that this would backfire on McCain. With polling numbers coming out showing Obama pulling away from McCain over the weekend, I think the picture that's emerging will become more and more clear. McCain managed to redirect the fervent gaze of the media on himself and his campaign, but in a way that, as the dust settles, I am quite sure he does not want, or appreciate. She may be loved by the Christian right, but most Americans, even after a cursory look, are shaking their heads and saying, "Nah."

Labor Day

I will just mention that my maternal grandfather was a founding member of the CIO in the state of Ohio, being a machinist. Before that, his father had been a member of the IWW (Go, Wobblies!). My grandfather rose through the union ranks to become head of the political arm of the CIO in the state, and held the post even after the AFL and CIO merged in the 1950's.

My paternal grandfather kept his position with the Lehigh Valley Railroad during the Great Depression because, even though by the 1920's he had moved to a low-level front office job, he kept his union dues paid up. He went back on the road and stayed there until his retirement.

My father was a member in good standing of both the NEA and the NYEA, and was a negotiator with the Waverly, NY Central School District during the 1970's.

All I will say, in the words of the old ILGWU song, is look for the union label.

Monday Music

I recently did a post on the top ten recordings I would take with me if I were stranded on a desert island. This album missed that list, but just barely. The only American record of the past thirty-five years better than Blood On The Tracks is Bruce Springsteen's Born To Run. The interesting thing about Blood On The Tracks is that, on the eve the record was due, Dylan tossed months worth of tapes in the trash, went in to the studio with his band, and recorded the record pretty much live and in one take. At least that is the myth. Rather than a carefully crafted product, Dylan trashed it all and gave us this record that, for all that it has no weak tracks, and some soaring moments of real triumphs, contains one song that is transcendent. With little rehearsal. And in, at most, a couple passes on each song.

First, I love this little tune, "You're Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go":

I don't know who "Idiot Wind" is directed at. Whether it's a personal take on some incident in his life, transformed into myth, or an allegory for how stupid some music critics are (my own opinion is that it is the latter), I think the chorus sums up so much of the right in this country (Idiot wind, blowing every time you open your mouth;. . . You're an idiot, babe, it's a wonder you still know how to breathe):

Finally, "Shelter From The Storm" is one of those songs that is so personal, I wonder how Dylan had the strength not only to compose it, but the courage to perform it. Having said that, on multiple listenings, I now believe it to be Dylan recounting his experience with music, and how fame came with the package; yet, as always, it was music that gives him shelter. Even if that is so, consider how completely exposed Dylan is here. He sings for five minutes about his own weaknesses, his losses, his fears, and there is a "she" who will shelter him. No matter how you interpret this song (and I don't think there is a "correct" interpretation) . . . Damn, this is a beautiful song.

Disgusting

All I will say concerning the discussion of Gov. Palin's daughter is that this type of thing has no place in our public discourse. Period. It has nothing to do with her qualifications (or quite obvious lack thereof) for the Vice Presidency. It is a terrible invasion of the privacy of a seventeen year old girl and her family who have quite enough on their minds right now.

One more thing. John McCain is rightly criticized (although it's difficult to find any mention of the whole incident in traditional media) for a horrible joke he told about Chelsea Clinton (I refuse to repeat it). I fail to see any qualitative distinction between that joke and this post over at tbogg. I say this knowing full well that I will probably get some kind of criticism from someone about this. Sorry, but there is no way anyone can convince me this has any place in a political debate about Gov. Palin's fitness for national office.

A Pepsi Challenge

Over here, Marshall Art offers up an article from American Thinker (I do not link to racist, factually-challenged publications, so sorry) and challenges his liberal readers to find fault with it.

It was easy. The author claimed that Sadaam kicked UN weapons inspectors out in 1998, when in fact it was the US did so, ahead of a short but intense bombing campaign given the very-poorly named Operation Desert Fox. They refused to return not because Sadaam was mean to them, but because the United States was attempting to use them as intelligence sources. I linked to the Wikipedia article on Operation Desert Fox, and included a quote from Richard Butler in which he specifically sites US pressure as the reason UN inspectors left ahead of the bombs falling and missiles flying. Marshall's response was, in essence, "So what?"

He asked for evidence there was something wrong with the facts in the article in question, I showed him one instance, indeed one of the first ones used by the author over at AT, and he dismisses it.

There's no pleasing some people.

In order for fairness to reign, I am offering this post by Glenn Greenwald for Marshall to read (yeah, his posts are long, but I figure I read something at American Thinker and that felt long). My challenge to him (and to anyone on the right) is to find a glaring factual error - even a niggling one! - with a link to the source which, in turn, must be fact-based. In other words, I don't want a link to National Review On-Line and an opinion piece by Jonah Goldberg that says "Glenn Greenwald is a silly liberal". The source can be conservative, but the question is not ideological bias, but factual erroneousness.

A Case-Study In Really Dumb

In my childhood and youth, a politician could lie with impunity, because the reaction time was so slow. It might be a day or two before a letter to the editor, or an op-ed, or the occasional "fact check" kind of thing appeared on a news broadcast to point out that Mr. or Ms. Politician was a wee bit stretching in this comment or that statement. Mark Green, one-time McGovern operative, Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City in 2001, and old-style liberal, published a book in 1984 called Ronald Reagan's Reign of Error, a compilation of all sorts of erroneous statements Teh Gipper made during his long and illustrious political career. Sadly, the book was a paperback, and the binding glue failed years ago, but it was a fun little read, reminding me of the kind of person Ronald Reagan was. He enjoyed a good anecdote, a good story that sounded real. As atrios is want to say, facts are stupid things; they get in the way of a good punchline.

Today, it is much more difficult for a politician to lie. Not that they don't. With Google and other search engines, with literally millions of bloggers of any and all political stripe out there waiting to pounce, every tiny detail is given the closest scrutiny to ensure there aren't any statements at variance with the facts. Before sitting down with a reporter for an interview, or putting the earpiece in and getting pancaked before a camera, or sitting with a sycophant like Mike Wallace, it might be important to make sure the facts one has in one's mind are just that and not a steaming pile of poo.

It is for this reason that I am just astounded by John McCain's various performances during this past spring and summer. A day has not passed in which something he has said somewhere has not turned out to be flatly, irrevocably, unmistakably wrong. One would think that, being praised by the press as the best in the business, his Republican handlers would have noted this a while back and cautioned their candidate against making any statement that could be fact-checked. Maybe they would insist on it.

I think that is why I find this kind of thing so astounding. He just sits there and lies. He makes up excuses for not doing something he claims to support. He even manages to dismiss a point of fact as irrelevant.

Does he not realize how bad this makes him look? Does he not care?

"Are you baiting me?" "I'm a master at it"

Internet feuds are fun. Since I don't take it seriously anymore (unlike a year or so ago when I lost my cool) I consider it all good fun to get in to various disputes with people. Whether it's trying to connect, in some factual manner, with Marshall Art, or teasing Jason Bowden for not even being original in his political commentary - what of it? My blog exists for me to let off steam, and if part of that process involves some light teasing, well, so what? We're all human beings, with all the good and bad, stupid and wise, beautiful and ugly, that goes with it. I start with the premise that regardless of an individual's political philosophy, religious beliefs, or taste in music, we're all that wonderful mixture of goodness and badness that is humanity.

There are, sadly, those who don't understand that. For whatever reasons, there are those who insist on getting their feelings hurt. They take it all personally. They act as if disagreement was a personal affront, an assault on their integrity. Such is the case with Mark. Apparently, I ticked him off so much, he dedicated an entire post to refuting what he seems to think is my inherent pose of intellectual superiority and unknowing hypocrisy. He did so without even the common courtesy of a link!

That hurts my feelings.

Now, for those who only lightly peruse this blog, and do not follow various links and discussions I have elsewhere, I have been having various discussions and arguments with Mark for a while now. Sometime in the past twelve months, in a context I do not recall immediately, Mark got very defensive concerning something I had written, especially concerning my own education versus his. To say that I couldn't care less is about as clear as I can make it, since the issue has never been "What degree do yo have?" or "What books have you read?", but rather, "Do you access to and use the facts?" and "Are you able to reason capably?"

Recently I lightly chided Mark - in all seriousness it was meant as a light poke in good fun - for his self-professed lack of some degree or other, and he came back with the retort that he has "a genius IQ". Now, again, I couldn't care less, because IQ is a meaningless measure of anything other than an ability to score well on a standardized test. Even if IQ had some inherent meaning, I wouldn't care. To be perfectly frank, I can't for the life of me understand what prompted such a silly riposte.

Well, he's at it again.

Why do you kick against the pricks, Art? the Libs you graciously allow to post comments here will always refuse to believe facts, even those well documented, in favor of believing the pablum spoon fed to them by the Leftist, Communist, Marxist, treasonous, Liberal Bush haters in this country.

I have stopped responding to them myself, because it is an exercise in futility. How does one talk sense to the senseless? You cannot reason with fools.

I know Dan and Geoff et al, will bluster on about how hateful I am but I say, "Who cares?" I don't give a tinkers damn about what traitors think about me.

And . . .

Sorry, Art. I was talking to you. I am no longer responding to Liberals who refuse to admit they are wrong. ABOUT ANYTHING. I'm just saying you are beating a dead horse. They will never see things from your perspective.

If you want to continue to argue with people who will never accept it when they are bested, argue on, brother.

I won't waste my time. I personally don't have enough time to blog as it is.

I was once called "the rudest person on the internet". I still find that funny, all things considered. I mean, I may be rude, and sometimes tasteless, and juvenile. I would compare this particular piece of writing from Mark to my response to Mark in the same comment thread.

First, while I know Mark claims to be smart, and I believe him, this is among the stupidest things I have ever read.

I mean, seriously. I honestly don't believe Mark thinks this about us. How can he? I don't believe he's a fascist, racist, gay-killing thug willing to torture Muslim children in front of their parents (that's the kind of thing Pres. Bush had the CIA and military do; I'm assuming Mark is not now and was not during the height of the Iraq war in the military although I might be wrong). I don't believe Mark has a blood lust for those not of the Christian religion. I do not believe Mark wishes our country to be less safe, less prosperous, less sure of itself, and less dedicated to our Constitutional Principles - I don't believe Mark supports these policies personally, or would advocate them, even though the politicians he supports, and the policies he vocally endorses include these little tidbits.

Are there die-hard Marxists in America anymore? Are there traitors out there? The answers to both questions are a resounding "Yes". Are either Dan or I representative of such people? Since it's impossible to prove a negative, all I can say is that I think America is so awesome a place, we don't deserve a Pres. as bad as Bush has been and as much worse as McCain would be if he were elected.

Oh, and Mark? I know you've got your little blogger hands over your little blogger ears (or perhaps eyes?) and are chanting, "La-la-la-la-la-la-I'm not listening to you!", but I would remind you that, unlike (say) abortion or gay marriage, Jesus actually said something quite harsh about a person calling another person "fool". It's in that big black book you're always quoting, what's the name of it again?

Help me here, because you have a genius IQ.

Rude? I happen to think it skates up to the edge without passing over in to the abyss. Over-the-top, disrespectful, bordering on delusional? Hardly. Which is how I would characterize his own first comment.

I will leave others to judge on the merits whether Mark is deserving of prayers, derision, scorn, pity, or some other response.

Me, I just want to get a good feud going.

Saturday Rock Show

I am ambivalent at times about Pink Floyd. I think I am one of about five people who think that Animals is a superb record. I think I am about one of about three people who think that "Comfortably Numb" is one of the most overplayed songs on FM AOR radio. I also think I am one of the few people who refuse to divide their career in to pre- and post-Syd Barrett timelines. Rather, there is pre- and post-Roger Waters.

A highlight for me was when I was introduced to a film called Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii. I don't know if it was originally a TV special, or a film only screened in Europe. It was made during the production of Dark Side of the Moon, and features some shots of the making of that particular album. It opens, though, with "Echoes", side two of their Meddle LP, a long, rambling song that captures their ability to just play and be all psychedelic and innovative without acid-waste case Barrett.

For those not in the know, Barrett had a roommate who would dose his morning coffee/tea with acid each day during the period when Pink Floyd was emerging as a band in Britain (they recorded their initial release, Piper At The Gates Of Dawn in Abbey Road studios at the same time the Beatles were recording Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and would pop over and check out the Fab Four on occasion). He spent about eight months tripping without realizing it, and it eventually led to a psychotic break, with Barrett leading a hermetic life with his sister until his death a few years ago.

Judgement, Experience - John McCain Fails Again

One last post on the whole Palin pick, then I will move on to other things. I swear.

Many question have been asked about the rationale behind picking a very dark horse choice for the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. Many of the answers to those questions seem to point to a certain desire on the part of Sen. McCain to steal a bit of Barack Obama's thunder from his speech Thursday night. In that regard - as well as pointing out McCain's ability to surprise (be all mavericky!) - it seems to have worked. Yet, there are lingering questions, especially as regards an on-going investigation in to Gov. Palin's firing of the head of the Alaskan State Police over a personal matter (I won't pretend any expertise on the matter, since I only heard of it yesterday). In this matter, it seems, she is very similar to many Republicans, especially in our Forty-Ninth state. Ian Welsh, in a post at Fire Dog Lake, mentions that the McCain campaign is only now, after the introduction of Gov. Palin as McCain's running mate, dispatching people to Alaska to get more details on what is being called "TrooperGate" (unlike the alleged problems then-Gov. Clinton had, these appear to be serious and substantial charges). He then asks a question that should make everyone's eyebrows rise:

[The current inspection of Gov. Palin's bona fides] rather suggests that the campaign didn't vet her properly. Troopergage has been ongoing for some time, even a cursory Google search would have told them they had a problem.

He then concludes:

So much for either "judgement" or, given McCain's inability to use the web, his staff choices. Who does he have advising him, and is it they who are incompetent, or did they warn him and he ignored them? Either way it's not so much Palin whose fitness is in question, it's the man who made the decision to make her his running mate: John McCain

Maverick! indeed.

Wooing Scorned Lovers

John McCain has hurt the one's who loved him most. They wanted to believe. They wanted to see him through. They had laughed at his jokes eight years ago. They had pushed the line about him being "different". After eight years of schmoozing, of almost constant appearances on television, interviews with print journalists, all those good, juicy quotes, though, he had started to change, and those who loved him most didn't understand.

Once, he called Jerry Falwell an agent of intolerance. Then, he hugged him as he gave a commencement address at Liberty U. Once, he had spoken out against massive tax cuts during "a time of war"; now, he wants to make them permanent. Once, he had wavered on the whole issue of abortion. Now, he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. On issue after issue, he had shed his former persona and revealed himself to be nothing more than just another Republican politician, pandering to the far right to get his party's nomination for President.

They never gave up hope in the original dream, though. Something, anything to prove the charm that had attracted them in the first place was still there under the layers of pancake that never left because of all the television appearances, under the smell of barbecue from his ranch, there had to be some trace of the wild fighter pilot they knew and loved.

Dan Balz wrote the headline because, like so many, he found what he was looking for:

With Pick, McCain Reclaims His Maverick Image

That's all it took to reclaim their love. Pick an inexperienced, unknown politician for his running mate. Give away the one possible major rhetorical advantage he had over Obama in a daft move to woo those who needed wooing most - the press.

This move was not aimed at the public. This move was not aimed at the Republican Party. The announcement of Gov. Sarah Palin as John McCain's VP running mate was designed for one thing, and one thing only - to get the press to stop paying attention to Barack Obama and return to the one they loved first, and far better.

Sad to say, it worked.

Huh? Who? (UPDATE)

It seems John McCain has chosen his running mate. No relation to any member of Monty Python's Flying Circus. Unfortunately.

Sorry, folks, but this is a head scratcher for me.

UPDATE: I realize this is extremely juvenile. I realize this is in extremely poor taste. I realize this will offend some.

I laughed my ass off, because it's the kind of thing someone needs to do.

Speechless

Others have said it already . . .

That was a helluva speech, wasn't it? Damn. . . .

--snip--

[H]e's calling out McCain in plain language not just for running a nasty, Rovian campaign, but for running a fundamentally unserious campaign. By tackling this head on, Obama has put a serious dent in McCain's ability to continue campaigning with dumb soundbites and too-cute-by-half innuendo. This isn't a teenager's campaign for junior high school student council, he was saying, it's a campaign for president of the United States and you're old enough to know that you should damn well treat it that way.

Still others have said it better. . .

The McCain campaign set Obama up as a celebrity airhead, a Paris Hilton of wealth and elitism. And he let them portray him that way, and let them over-reach, and let them punch him again and again ... and then he turned around and destroyed them. If the Rove Republicans thought they were playing with a patsy, they just got a reality check.

He took every assault on him and turned them around. He showed not just that he understood the experience of many middle class Americans, but that he understood how the Republicans have succeeded in smearing him. And he didn't shrink from the personal charges; he rebutted them.

--snip--

This is a remarkable man at a vital moment. America would be crazy to throw this opportunity away. America must not throw this opportunity away.

I've said it before, I'm quite sure I'll say it again before the election, but let me say it right now. After last night, it is quite clear to me that . . .

McCain. Is. Toast.

The Speech

It deserves its own place.

I'll Have To Wait (UPDATE)

Obama comes on at 9:15 local time, so I will miss his speech.

Damn it.

I just watched Gov. Bill Richardson give a good speech that probably caused Michelle Malkin's head to explode. He spoke in Spanish, and the Democratic delegates gathered at Invesco Field cheered. Of course, if you have been traveling the internet long enough, you have seen Michelle Malkin cheer, and I can only say that the group in Denver did a far better job.

Actually, just mentioning Michelle Malkin in her cheerleading outfit and jumping around makes me want to pop my eyeballs out of my head.

UPDATE: Stevie Wonder! Stevie Wonder! Stevie Wonder! Even if the Republicans get Ted Nugent to perform, it will not be as great as this.

Stevie!

Ok, they just used "Let the Sunshine In" as Al Gore walked in. Is it me or is there something counterintuitive about that?

"We need a President who puts Barney Smith before Smith-Barney." Best damn line of all these regular former-Republican voters. By far.

Woof

After getting a bit here and there, I floated over to Time and read the interview James Carney and Michael Scherer conducted with John McCain. One can see various . . . highlights . . . elsewhere. Do yourself a favor and check it out. Then ask yourself this question - Is this really the guy we want as our next President?

As an aside, I wouldn't have called the interview "prickly". I might, however, have called McCain "pricky".

Odd Feeling - A Personal Note

Someone with whom I work has read this blog, and I have to say that I feel distinctly odd about it. On the one hand, I invited this person to do so. On the other hand, it is a bit like having someone who sees you everyday and seems to understand who you are and what you're about suddenly see you in a whole different way. I suppose I shouldn't care all that much - this is a public blog, anyone can read it - yet, I do. I feel . . . self-conscious in a way I haven't before. It's one thing to have people I've never met come around and get in to all sorts of discussions and arguments. It is quite another to have someone who is a good friend, yet whose exposure is limited to certain professional tasks (and the inevitable private discussions and joking that happens between colleagues), discover a whole side of oneself they did not know existed.

I'll try to keep things the way they have always been. I can't help but feel a little exposed. For this person's sake, I suppose the best way to proceed is "as usual".

If Only

I have to agree with Josh Marshall. Not only was John Kerry's speech the best of the convention so far, it was by far the best I have seen him give. It gives one pause to consider what '04 might have been like had he given this kind of speech back then. Spilled milk and all that, so rather than wish things might be different, here's the speech from last night. I even like the way he managed to work in "for it before he was against it" against McCain. Nicely done.

Here's Some Real History For You

While I find David Kurtz as annoying as any other reporter, with his constant blather, he at least captures, from the floor of the convention, the moment that should be remembered for the rest of the campaign - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton moved that roll-call voting be suspended and Obama be nominated by acclamation. It was seconded, moved, and done. Here's the video:

I am quite sure the Hillary-haters - Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Maureen Dowd - will be convinced that, coupled with her husband's speech tonight, this was an attempt to steal the spotlight from Sen. Obama, to plan their campaign for 2012, etc., etc. That kind of stuff, while annoying can be ignored. This was graciousness and elegance, and magnanimity on display.

Obama/Biden '08.

Yes We Can!

Out Of Context Is Not Lying, Plus McCain Gets Free Air Time

First of all, I think Jake Tapper is wrong. I do not think McCain's most recent ad, in which he takes Barack Obama to task for comments he made concerning the potential "threat" from Iran and other countries, is false. He certainly takes Obama's statements out of context, and puffs up the threat Iran poses. Furthermore, I'm not sure why posing some kind of existential threat to Israel is of concern to anyone in the American electorate. In fact, compared to the United States, Iran is a tiny country that doesn't pose a threat in any way, shape or form, to our serious interests. I see no reason at all not to engage Iran on many different issues, always taking exception to their support for Hezbollah, not so much because it is a "terrorist" organization, but because it creates an unstable situation in Lebanon, always keeping Israel on its guard and willing to invade, as it did two summers ago.

I think it is far more important to play up the fact that McCain is playing the fear card here. Iran does not pose a threat, and engaging it is far better than threatening it, and McCain's approach - be prepared to "Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! Iran" - is not only unworkable as a practical, logistical matter. It is, to be blunt, a stupid, even dangerous approach to policy. Since fear is all the Republicans have to offer - fear of Barack Obama, fear of Michelle Obama, fear of Hillary Clinton, fear of illegal immigrants, fear of gay marriage, fear of Iran, fear of terrorism, fear of Russia, fear of China - I think it is far more important to highlight the lack of any serious positive approach in McCain's claim to leadership.

While all this dissecting of the latest McCain ad was going on, it the Wall Street Journal reported that a much-talked about ad featuring a former Hillary supporter now allegedly stumping for McCain has aired . . . in Toledo, OH. After noting that journalist Marc Ambinder seems to see dilemma where none actually exists, Ezra Klein manages to sum up what's happening quite nicely:

It's a little odd that the McCain campaign is treating their friends in the press like idiots, but it's odder still that the press seems okay with it, and isn't responding by talking about all the dishonest negative campaigning he's trying to promote and noting that he needs to use the press because his campaign has a money crisis.

If Ambinder would mention this fact, and if the press would mention this fact, it might go a long way toward putting the entire episode in some kind of context. McCain knows he can get free airtime from news outlets just by producing an ad that some might deem "controversial". He doesn't have to spend money he doesn't have to get it aired when cable outlets will do so for free.

You Can't Please Some People

Especially if you're Hillary Clinton. Especially if the person in question who is looking to be pleased is Richard Cohen.

Here’s an item for Guinness World Records: After what seemed like 1,001 Democratic primary debates, and all the time she spent with him in Senate meetings and caucuses and fundraisers and the Green Rooms of countless television studios, Hillary Rodham Clinton could not come up with one -- not one! -- anecdote to commend Barack Obama to the American people. Instead, she said that Obama, like she, supports health care.

Then, of course, he notices that he might be, um, wrong. . .

Okay, more than health care. He wants to “rebuild the middle class” and “promote a clean energy economy” and fight for equality, “from ending discrimination to promoting unionization” -- a phrase that future generation will no doubt quote -- and "help every child live up to his or her God-given potential” and, of course, get the troops out of Iraq. But about the man himself, she was silent.

The last sentence is really dumb. Really, really dumb. Of course, Richard Cohen is really dumb, as he proves as we continue . . .

This is not an insignificant omission, like the failure to mention Obama’s support for nuclear non-proliferation and the stand he has taken on ethanol. Most sentient members of the human race are by now pretty familiar with Obama’s ideology and his political positions, even when his positions are all over the place. We know, too, that he was against the war and that Clinton was initially for it, but that she had since reversed herself -- but not apologized -- and that they would now both pull the troops as quickly and as prudently as possible.

But we still have not taken the measure of Obama: What sort of man is he? He is famously the man from everywhere, which means nowhere. He has a great and moving personal story, but he seems to withhold something -- to not need you as much as you need him. This is the essence of charisma: a cold love that goes only one way.

This is unbearably stupid. Really really bad. Please send Cohen somewhere where he has no access to a typewriter or computer.

Ugh.

Point Of Personal Privilege

Yesterday, I received word that a colleague of Lisa's has Stage 4 metastatic colon cancer. She and her husband are only three or four years older than we are. While "grown" in the technical sense, they have two children.

Over the weekend, I found out that a man who was my best friend while we lived in VA, a man who helped me keep my sanity, with whom I laughed and read, and thought, and all sorts of other things, has terminal pancreatic/liver cancer. He is, I believe, 48 or 49.

I would like everyone who reads this blog, whether you are a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Baha'i, Hindu, Mormon (Hi, Cameron!), or atheist to keep Patricia Anderson and her family, and Steven Creech and his family in your thoughts and prayers.

I, for one, do not pray for "healing" for anyone. If you ask for "healing", remember that it is a far different thing from "curing". I pray for presence, for peace, for strength, for courage. And, yes, I also pray for the ability to be honest enough to rage at God for the unfairness and meaninglessness of it. For a disease that strikes out of nowhere stealing our loved ones from us. For anger that at never seeing one's children graduate from college or marry. Anger at not seeing one's grandchildren, holding them on one's knee. Anger at God for this kind of thing is OK.

Remember Patty and her husband Steve and their two children. Remember Steve and his mother and brother.

No Arguing With Lies

In response to this post which, in its turn, links to this piece of internet detritus, I write, in part:

I do not deal with Holocaust deniers, creationists who deny evolution, or those who say the Bush Administration [did not lie]. All three of these positions are intellectually dishonest, and I will not give them the credibility they desire by "arguing" with those who claim otherwise.

The simplest way to deal with these kinds of fabulists is to take the legs out from under them. Repeat the facts, call any attempt to either dismiss or otherwise deny their credibility a tissue of lies, and move on. If those who are attempting to create an argument where none actually exists persist, like the instructions on a shampoo bottle state, "Lather, Rinse, Repeat". It's that simple.

Up- And Down-Ticket Coattails

With a generous tip of the hat to Kirsten for the link, here is a four-fold map of projected House, Senate, and gubernatorial races for this year, plus the results from the 2004 Presidential election. One of the things I found interesting as I looked over the various permutations and distinctions and so on, was the predominance in Senate races in states that went to George W. Bush in 2004, of leaning or favored Democrats, including Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, New Mexico, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, Missouri, Iowa, Florida, and West Virginia. While it is usually considered good form for down-ticket candidates to attach themselves to their party's candidate for President (if he is popular) as a boost in chances for winning an election, I think it might be possible that, this year, Obama might benefit from tying himself closely with various down-ticket candidates across the country, and benefit from their popularity.

Just a thought.

I Do Not Like Them, Sam-I-Am (UPDATE)

I have recently noted, on more than one occasion, that no matter what ad Barack Obama puts out, no matter what speech he gives, no matter how much the "number of houses" business takes on a life of its own that keeps John McCain off balance, it is never enough for some people. Liberal concern-trolls will not be content until the Democratic Party resembles the Republican Party in cheap attacks, malicious rumor-mongering, and divisiveness. Whether they're reporters or bloggers, the sad fact is, in the end, they want the Obama campaign to do things their way. For whatever reason (mostly because they believe this is the way to win, since Republicans have been doing the whole divide-and-conquer thing so well for thirty-odd years), there is this belief that Obama has no idea how nasty the Republicans can be (as if he hasn't been paying attention), that he has stupid people running his campaign, and that the only way to win is to destroy, utterly and finally, one's opponent.

Today, there is a general wailing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that there just wasn't enough "Attack!Attack!Attack!" on John McCain last night. The convention lasts for multiple days, serves multiple purposes (as I said, the main ones being keeping hotel revenues up in the host cities, as well as providing escort services with an abundance of clientèle), and we have Sen. Clinton's speech tonight, former Pres. Clinton's speech on Wednesday, Sen. Biden's speech, and, of course, Sen. Obama's speech. Plus the myriad lesser speeches by lesser lights from across the Democratic Party. I fail to see how keeping an up-beat message, a positive framing of the Democratic message and Presidential candidate, and displaying the general enthusiasm of the Party for its nominee is somehow bad.

I thought it was the press that beat up on Democrats, detailing their abject failure in everything they attempt. Apparently, liberal bloggers are right up there with Richard Cohen and the rest of the Village idiots.

For the record, one of the reasons the Democrats don't do rat-fucking well is because it tends to be illegal. Donald Segretti lost his law license and went to federal prison. The Swiftboaters are notorious liars. Yes, both instances changed, or at least played a role in changing, the outcome of an election (although, in Segretti's case, it had as much to do with McGovern's ineptitude as Nixon's chicanery). Yet, I ask a serious question, and want a serious answer: Haven't we had enough of this kind of shit? The only way to end it is to end it. If we emulate it, no matter if we win the election, we lose. Period.

As I said last week, "I trust the American people. It’s called democracy. We should try it sometime."

UPDATE: I really need to read more before I post these things. . .

I'm a little puzzled by some of the hand-wringing about the tone of the convention last night. I've argued that the Democrats need to attack this week, but last night wasn't the time to do it.

Ted Kennedy's seriously ill, and you don't trot him out on that podium to hit McSame with gotchas and zingers. You don't ask Michelle Obama, who right-wing assholes are still caricaturing as an angry America hater, to use her speech to deliver political attacks.

--snip--

So how do I know the Democrats won the night? Look at the lineup that the GOP is trotting out their first night:

* U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.)
* Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (Calif.)
* Vice President Richard B. Cheney
* First Lady Laura Bush
* President George W. Bush

I rest my case.

The 70% of Americans who hate George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will tune in and be reminded that John McSame is in the same noxious party as these two losers. And the more Bush and Cheney embrace McSame, the worse a night it will be for him. They're pretty much screwed.

Music Monday

I rediscovered Julia Fordham over the weekend. I haven't actually sat and listened to her CDs in years, but yesterday I rescued them from my wife's office. What a wonderful jazzy, R&B voice, and a nice songwriter (although God knows she needs a better arranger for some of them). She notes her range - four octaves! And much better control than (ick!) Mariah Carey (who has a similar range, but tries to hard to be all R&B-ey). Hers reaches from a low mezzo-soprano to a tenor, although she can do a falsetto soprano sometimes, too (do they count falsetto?).

This first video is a two-fer, containing "Tower Block" and "Your Lovely Face" and an annoying interview with BBC from 1998. Just skip through the interview.

I love her love songs. Her sad love songs. This is "Swept":

Unconventional Wisdom

Since I do not have cable or satellite, and I do have something known as a life, I will be skipping the political conventions on television this year. I will read up on this or that tidbit, but other than the acceptance speeches of the candidates, I honestly don't see where there is much "news" happening. It's a chance for local call girls to rake in the bucks and beer distributors to sell out their inventories.

Yet, one cannot help but get tired of the constant references to the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. It seems that, in the absence of real news, it is far better to recall this moment from our history, when conventional wisdom has it, the Democratic Party "tore itself apart." Now, first of all, the Democrats had nothing to do with the street protests, or the violence brought on by Chicago police officers acting on orders from Mayor Daley. When the cops charged, and the protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching," indeed they were, and many of those watching sided with the cops.

Yet, if you look at the election results from that year, it was as close as 1960, 1980, and closer than 2004. Indeed, had Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey had two more weeks (or, more realistically, had he broken with Pres. Johnson on the war two weeks earlier), he probably would have pulled off a win. The polls were trending his way. He had the momentum going in to the election. He thought the momentum would be enough to carry him past the finish line. It was close, and in retrospect, it was a series of small things that did him in. The convention, however, wasn't one of them.

Yet, journalists, for some reason, want to see it replayed over and over again. So, what do they do? Why, they do this:

Yesterday, Fox News reporter Griff Jenkins waded into the Re-create ‘68 protest outside the Democratic National Convention in Denver, where he was greeted with expletives as he antagonized the crowd by asking “what’s your actual message” and “do you not believe in freedom?” On Fox and Friends today, host Brian Kilmeade acknowledged that Jenkins was intentionally instigating the crowd. At the end of the segment, Kilmeade signed off by saying that Fox was “going to continue to send” Jenkins “out to cause trouble.” “I hope so,” responded Jenkins.

Along with attempting to instigate violence, FOXNews continues its obsession with scantily clad women:

The Fox & Friends team broadcasted live from a bar in downtown Denver today, the opening day of the Democratic National Convention — where they seemed to spend nearly as much time schmoozing with scantily-clad women as they did talking about politics. Segment after segment featured Broncos cheerleaders, Hooters waitresses, with Brian Kilmeade joking about joining the security team to “pat down” the cheerleaders; when Steve Doocy’s son Peter discussed Fox on Twitter, Steve joked that Kilmeade “just twittered the cheerleaders a minute ago!”

And people ask me why I don't watch television news . . .

Slutty

Some people shouldn't be cops.

Students and parents at Windsor High School are outraged after a Wyoming police officer doing an Internet safety presentation at the school scrutinized individual students’ MySpace pages, calling the students “slutty” and saying photos on their sites invited sexual predators.

The officer, John F. Gay III of the Cheyenne Police Department, picked out six or seven Windsor High School students’ MySpace page and began to criticize photos, comments and other content until one student left the room crying

“He told the entire student body that he had shared her info with a sexual predator in prison,” said Ty Nordic, whose daughter Shaylah Nordic’s MySpace page was put on display.

Nordic said Gay then told the student body that the predator said he would masturbate to her picture.

I so love the last sentence. As if this girl was inviting violence, and would have it coming to her.

Amanda Marcotte comments:

The lesson learned here is that it’s hard to know when you’re going too far when you started out on the wrong path. Calling teenage girls “slutty”, mocking their MySpace pages, and generally sexually harassing them by walking them through fantasies about stalking and rape in front of crowds is inevitable when you start with the premise that teenage girl sexuality is such a social problem that it requires “scaring straight” to begin with. I’m not suggesting that it’s wise for teenage girls to pose for pictures in their underwear and put that online, of course. But if you start with the premise that they have a right to their sexuality, then it will be a lot easier to talk to them. Because then you can see what they’re trying to do---which is largely about expressing and exploring sexuality with the sense of control that the internet can give you---and perhaps give them guidance on how to reach their goals more effectively and with more safety.

Far more dirty than any picture on this girl's MySpace page are the thoughts that went through that cop's mind when he saw them. Far more responsible are Amanda's idea that we grant teenagers a certain respect and, yes, a right to their sexuality, offering them appropriate and helpful advice on integrating it in to their lives, rather than punish them for being "slutty".

Still In Hanoi

The PTSD McCain suffers due to his POW status must be much worse than anyone imagined.

"I am grateful for the fact that I have a wonderful life," McCain said. "I spent some years without a kitchen table, without a chair, and I know what it's like to be blessed by the opportunities of this great nation...So the fact is that we have homes, and I'm grateful for it."

In some part of his mind, McCain must still be in that horrid prison. Thirty-four years of freedom disappear anytime anyone questions him about anything.

Poor man needs help. Not election to the highest office in the land.

Attack Dog

Blue Texan has some good, choice stuff from Joe Biden:

Remember last May when Chimpy went to Israel and compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain? Here's what Biden said:

"This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset ... and make this kind of ridiculous statement,” Biden said angrily in a brief interview just off the Senate floor.

And another sample:

The idea that John [McCain] and Joe [Lieberman] are going to eliminate any vestige of Iranian influence in Iraq, bless me father for I have sinned. Are they unaware of a border that has existed there for millennium? Are they unaware of the fact that our guy, Maliki is inviting Ahmadinejad to Baghdad and kissing him on both cheeks, literally not figuratively. Are they unaware of the fact that this government in Iraq feels compelled to visit Tehran to explain what it is that they are attempting to do with a long-term security agreement?

He isn't perfect; he supported the atrocious "bankruptcy reform" bill a few years back that will only make peoples' lives worse as the housing market continues its contraction. Yet, from these little snippets, it is pretty clear he is unafraid to call Republicans on their nonsense.

Good on ya, mate.

Ouch!

Roger Ailes - not the FOXNews guy, but the other one - says this:

The McCain campaign keeps emphasizing that McCain was a prisoner in Vietnam, as proof of his qualification for the Presidency.

Well, so was Gary Glitter, and I'm not voting for him either.

While I don't recommend Obama or Biden using this one, it is good.

Changing The Meaning Of Symbols

We are creatures that imbue certain artifacts with meaning they do not necessarily carry in and of themselves. Consider, if you will, a flag. It is a piece of cloth, dyed and stitched together, hanging out in the wind. Yet, should one decide to rip this piece of cloth down and burn it, say, or place it on the ground and walk on it, there are those who believe this should be a criminal act. If it was only a piece of white linen, no one would have a problem with it; it is the addition of dye and stitching to create a certain pattern that transforms ordinary cloth in to something potent.

The cross is no different. On the inner gatefold of the debut release from Frankie Goes to Hollywood, there are a series of symbols, with their definitions underneath them. Underneath the cross are the words "torture instrument". That is what is was, although "execution instrument" would have been more accurate. To die hanging on a cross was excruciating; very often, those left hung out so had their legs broken (after having spikes pounded through their wrists and ankles, or after working for hours to keep from suffocating by lifting themselves up to keep the pressure off their diaphragms). Yet, for two millennia, Christians have transformed this machinery of Roman death in to one of the most powerful symbols of love and renewal in human history. Christians are people marked with the sign of the cross; we carry the legacy of that symbol with us as a token of the lengths to which God will go for love of creation.

Yet, the symbol is now changed, not through habit or custom, but the decree of a Federal court.

"The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice," U.S Dist. Judge Larry A. Burns wrote in his July 29 opinion allowing the cross to stay where it is.

"The primary effect of the Mount Soledad memorial is patriotic and nationalistic."

So, the cross has been naturalized, now a citizen of an Empire in decline. With the blessings of the legal system, it no longer is the sole property of Christians, who have used it to define their lives as self-sacrifice and unconditional love. It is now "patriotic and nationalistic". Why? Because the court said so.

If this ruling is allowed to stand, not only will a significant line in church/state relations have been irrevocably crossed (no pun intended), but the single most important symbol identifying Christians as unique partners with God in a mission that transcends national, racial, and even temporal boundaries will have been erased. If the cross becomes all red, white, and blue - I'm giving mine back.