Where’s Kanye West When You Need Him?

It seems like the sheer number of people who, like me, just can’t seem to wrap their heads around this Obama/Peace Prize thing, is starting to get under the formerly esteemed Nobel folks’ skin and majorly piss them off.   Duh.  And, they’re surprised because…?  The Associated Press is reporting that, in an “unprecedented move,” the jury what voted for to put the Pretendident in the company of greatness, is speaking out in justification of their mind-blowing decision.  And, in the real spirit of their phony “unprecedented” honesty, let me be the first to go on record as saying, methinks the Nobel Publisher’s Clearinghouse Peace Prize jury is full of shit:

To those who say a Nobel is too much too soon in Obama’s young presidency, “We simply disagree … He got the prize for what he has done,” committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland told The Associated Press by telephone from Strasbourg, France, where he was attending meetings of the Council of Europe.

Jagland singled out Obama’s efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

“All these things have contributed to — I wouldn’t say a safer world — but a world with less tension,” he said.

Oh, wipe my ass and call me “Whitney,” why doncha, huh?  Gee whiz.  First of all, Obama may have received “the prize” of prizes for his platitudinous Cairo speech, among tedious others, but that’s not why he was nominated for it.  According to the Nobel folks’ website, the nomination had to come in February, after less than two months in office, about two months before his April-in-Prague call for nuclear weapons reduction, and almost exactly two months before his June Sermon on the Nile shoutout to the Muslim world.  So, what, these Nobel guys are prescient, too?  Or, did they get a timeline, or blueprint of his proposed agenda by carrier pigeon flown paper airplane the day after he and the Chief Justice channeled their inner Moe and Curly and flubbed, then dubbed his acceptance speech?

The World’s Gone Mad

*UPDATE: Here’s the transcript of Baracus Hubris Maximus (Hail Caesar!)’s
“A New Beginning, ” speech to the Muslim world, for those, like me, who just can’t bear to watch him read it to us.

As I write this, an American Pretendident, Barack Hussein Obama, is in the Middle East about to tell people who hate his country, but love them some him, that he’s not a Muslim, but he feels their pain, from personal experience, while his Jewish Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, stands at his side embodying everything they hate about his country.  Seems he wants to kiss and make up for all the bad stuff George Bush has single-handedly been doing in the region since, oh, I dunno, the Iranian hostage crisis.  I think he’s also planning to try to make the Muslim world, or at least, the Arab part of it, understand that even though he’s gonna keep bombing the shit out of some of them, he really, really wants to be their friend.  That’s because he’s from Chicago, and there are a lot of Muslims there, in fact, there are so many Muslims in this country period, that you could call us one big ol’ Muslim country.

More Tale Of The TARP

News of the release of documents detailing the shenanigans of the particular parties involved in perpetrating the 700 billion dollar fraud bank bailout, or Troubled Asset Relief Program, came out last week and didn’t really get the attention it was due, what with the Pretendident-as-Solomon’s first “Split the Fetus” tour stop at Notre Dame, and his fingernail clinging, bus undercarriage-headed Speaker of the House, Nasty Pancake’s, more-serious-because-chicks-have-a higher-standard, CIA never lies, and all going on.  The Freedom of Information documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that TARP, (or, as I’m sure it is known in certain circle jerks, the Rape of They, The Sheeple, those willing, clueless, hopium-addicted, changeling co-conspirators, who managed to both bend over and grab all of our collective ankles, while forcing everybody’s, theirs included, hands up in a “reach for the sky” surrender gesture at the same time, by electing the Chicago Robbin’ Hood whose vig to the Merry Band of Banksters who he fronted for was due) is  the cross-party, cross-administration, shady scummy scam we’ve all known it to be all along.  From Politico:

It’s The Medical Records, Stupid

Forget single payer.  Not Gonna Happen.  The Obamacans say it’s off the table, and I believe ‘em.  Just like I believed their duly selected Spokesmodel-In-Chief, Barack Hussein Walker Obushma, when he said, back when he was just the Inevitable Candidate, that  he wasn’t opposed to all wars, just dumb ones, and that blowing shit up in Afghanistan and Pakistan was a pretty freaking radically brilliant idea, as far as he was concerned.  “Anti-war, my left tit,” said I back then, and, sure as shootin’, turns out my faith in the Black Sheep of the Bush Family was not misplaced.  His FISA vote and his subsequent, “look forward without anger, why change things when they work for me” philosophy regarding Bush-era transgressions doesn’t surprise me a whit, either.

I have always been struck by the cozy, lovey-dovey relationship Georgie’s Ba’ Bruh has always seemed to have with “Obamacans.”  When I first heard of Republicans for Obama, I was like, “what’s up with that, huh?”  Why would a group of Republicans get together in 2006 to encourage the “most liberal Senator in the history of…liberals and Senators” to run for President after the guy had only been voting against their interests on a national basis for a couple years or so?  Sure, coulda been just another Axelrove AstroTurfing campaign, but, if it was, why weren’t real Republicans yelling their heads off about it?   Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney are not exactly shy about slamming one of their own for being too buddy-buddy with the other side.  Why did all the black Republicans endorse this “most liberal Senator, blah, blah, blah, either explicitly, or tacitly?  Why did so many registered Republicans switch party affiliation to vote for a community organizer, (a phrase they utter with all the dripping sarcasm, venom and contempt a mother uses to describe her law school-grad son, the “rap singer”’s career choice) in the primaries and caucuses, then neglect to switch back, swelling the ranks of Independents while depleting their former party’s numbers so significantly it’s now a shell of itself?  In fact, didn’t the guy Al Franken called a “big, fat, idiot,” encourage that?  Operation Chaos, anyone?  Why didn’t the sleazy Obama ploy plea for Republicans to become Democrats for a Day cause the “liberal media” and the “progressive blogospherians” who supported him with a blind fury to turn their backs on, and wash their hands of, him?  How come the Barackamedian’s biggest laugh on his Rock Star Tour campaign trail come from his oft-related response of “Thank you, why are we whispering?” to Republicans’ hushed confessions of “I voted for you”?

FCC, Fox TV, The First Amendment, And Janet Jackson’s Tit

In light of last week’s Supreme Court ruling against Fox TV and in favor of the Federal Communications Committee, in the case FCC vs. Fox Television Stations, Janet Jackson’s tit is back in the news.  It seems that the Court upheld George Carlin’s “7 dirty words” argument that there are just some words you’re not allowed to say on television, even if uttered spontaneously.   Previous FCC policy held that “fleeting expletives” were no big deal.  From Fox News, April 28:

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Tuesday in favor of a government policy that threatens broadcasters with fines over the use of even a single curse word on live television, yet stopped short of deciding whether the policy violates the Constitution.

In six separate opinions totalling 69 pages, the justices signaled serious concerns about the constitutionality of the Federal Communications Commission’s “fleeting expletives” policy, but called on a federal appeals court to weigh whether it violates First Amendment guarantees of free speech.

Waffling Hypocrisy

I don’t believe there’s ever a justification for war.  War is stupid.  As a means of conflict resolution, or oxymoronically, “maintaining the peace,” I’m sure it can seem effective.  I mean, nothing will shut an annoying opponent up quicker than dropping a super megatonic bomb on his head mid-sentence.  Unfortunately, any of his friends, neighbors, relatives, etc. who manage to survive the fallout, are subject to major pissitude in the aftermath, and likely to wish grievous bodily harm upon the person of bombnation, and all whom he knoweth and love, in perpetuity.  Who needs the hassle?

That being said, I understand the almost irresistible compulsion to reciprocate when one is attacked.  Some stranger smacks you upside the head on line at the Piggly Wiggly, you’re not really gonna care what twisted his knickers into a knot so tight as to cause him to clock you with a can of baked beans in the first place.  You’re likely to take the bottle of bleach you’re carrying and try to catch the guy in the face at the height of the roundhouse arc of your swing at his head.  Never mind that the impact might cause the plastic bottle to crack, or the top to come off and spray you and any innocent bystander in the vicinity, who the fuck does this guy think he is?  More importantly, who does he think you are, some major wuss?  Now, in moments of clarity upon reflection, you might regret contributing to the situation in such a way as to cause it to escalate.  However, when you’re standing there in line, bleeding and covered with bleach, your most fervent wish might be for store security to shoot your assailant in the ass with a bazooka, right before the butcher runs what’s left of him through the meat grinder and packages him up as butt burger dog food.  The reality would probably be however, that cooler heads, fearful of being bleach and bean blindsided themselves, would prevail, and you and Twisted Knickers would both end up in the prison infirmary.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks upon the World Trade Center, Americans were scared.  We were also a little bewildered, and mightily pissed.  All perfectly understandable.  We had been clocked, and many of us wanted to strike back, not just to get revenge, but to alleviate the feeling of impotence, powerlessness.  But, who would we strike, where could our rage be focused, what country would take the credit or blame so we could bomb the shit out of them back?

Debating the Undebatable

Just Barely President, Baracus Hubris Maximus, (Hail Ceasar!) forced the networks to give him a hunk of their prime time last night because…well, he really, really wanted to go on TV again.  It wasn’t like he had anything earth-shattering, or even new, to share with the nation; he just must have felt, just like the rest of us did, that his last few giggly, insulting television appearances sucked, so he needed to hijack American Idol time to try to re-convince America that he was indeed worthy of their American Idol, West Wing-esque devotion to his Spokesmodel-In-Chief-iness.   Whatever; Obi in HD is getting old.

Why Obama?

I’ll be the first to admit that I did not come into this blogging business as the most politically astute or learned person on the planet.  The idea that I might be is so far from the possibility of reality that the words I just typed hardly belong in the same sentence.  I know that.  However, watching my hopes for the election of a candidate I thought to be most qualified to “inherit” (I’m beginning  to hate that word) the responsibility of guiding the county back on track be bashed, dashed, crashed and gleefully shattered to smithereens by disparate entities on the left and right, seemingly demented in their zeal, has given me an opportunity to learn and grow politically in a way unlikely to have been appreciated before, had it presented itself.  And frankly, I’m sick of it.

All. Of. It.

Each news story, op-ed column, Google search, blog post and talking head garbage spew disguised as informed opinion has added another tidbit of information, often counter to the point the happy yakker thought he/she was making, to the tapestry of my understanding of our nation’s political reality.  It’s enough to make you puke.

Presidentin’ Is Hard

Though I make no claims of being a financial wizard, or a political maven, even I can see that all is not right on Wall Street, D.C. where the heart and soul of our country is on life support, currently being administered to by second graders who want to be doctors when they grow up.  And, I’m sophisticated enough to recognize that a lot of what I read about our dire national situation is presented in the media by people representing the political party so far out of favor they have to look to bloviating blowhards for advice, or worse, can be made to appear to need to do so.  I get that.  However, in spite of all that, the forces pretending to represent the white-hatted good guys in this classic Adventures in Administration movie, armed with their heralded sky-high approval ratings for their poor man’s Dark Gable leading man, simply can’t mount enough of a stampede to disguise the fact that the dustcloud that follows them like Charlie Brown’s pal Pigpen’s is not the result of riding hard and strong over the dusty trail, but merely the wispy smoke trails from their “throw ‘em off the path,” hastily built, diversionary cookfire.  In other words, they got nothing.

Stalwart bastion of the Obamedia protection service, Salon Magazine, has an article by former Clinton labor secretary and Obacolyte, Robert Reich, in which he pitifully attempts to pooh-pooh rightwing claims that the Obamessiah himself is responsible for our economic woes by trying to lay them at the feet of the finger-pointers:

When it turns out that people like Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, who took home $68 million in 1997, was the only Wall Streeter in a meeting last September at the New York Federal Reserve to discuss the initial AIG bailout with Tim Geithner, then New York Fed chair, among others, at the very time Goldman was AIG’s largest trading partner, a distinct scent of self-dealing begins to emanate. When it turns out that Citigroup got a bailout deal last October far more generous than that given to any other distressed bank, when a top Citi executive was advising the Treasury and Fed, the scent increases. Goldman’s past CEO was treasury secretary at that time, by the way, and another former Goldman CEO was a top Citi official and also a former treasury secretary. I am not suggesting anything so crude as corruption. But could it be, given these tangled webs, that — innocently, unintentionally, perhaps even subconsciously — the entire bailout effort was premised on saving these companies rather than protecting the public? Or that the distinction between the two was lost, and still is?

Yet, Reich gleefully and disingenuously, ignores the fact that the people he’s defending his ObaMaster against are the people who funded his campaign.  Not only that, the central figure in Reich’s little morality play, Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner, tax cheat, (TTTG,tc)  has a family history of sorts with Barry Sutoro, and is currently employed as the Blameless One’s lapdog and whipping boy.  To point out that he may have colluded with the banksters against the public in ripping off the country on the other team’s watch is…well…stupid.

Why would anyone purporting to defend the Obama administration draw attention to the man quickly becoming the public face of its incompetence?  Especially when the author can’t even make it through to the end of his own piece without acknowledging at least some of the complicity of the Obama Drama Troupe?

The Wall Street and Republican media attack machine doesn’t know exactly what to make of this. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, along with CNBC, alternates between attacking Obama for bailing out Wall Street and excusing Wall Street’s excesses. But then again, Obama doesn’t seem to know exactly what to make of it either. He seems to vacillate as well — one moment scorning Wall Street, the next moment justifying further bailouts. I do hope he takes a firmer hand, drawing a clearer distinction and making a clearer connection between clearing up these financial balance sheets and helping average people. Otherwise, the next populist uprising will be born in this moneyed quagmire. It is here — within the muck that was created by AIG, Citigroup, Fannie and Freddie, other giant financial institutions, now in combination with the U.S. Treasury and Fed — that the public is most confused, bears its most serious scars, and is potentially most burdened in future years, by decisions still made in secret.

What If The Obama Dog Isn’t A Moose?

What if the Obama family dog isn’t a moose?  That’s what Michelle Obama wants to know.  What I’d like to know is, wtf does that mean?  Doesn’t the First Lady have multiple degrees?  Even if she did have to prove she was good enough to get into college, shouldn’t she have at least learned that a dog can never be a moose by the time she got out?  Okay, I’m being snitchy, (snarky bitchy) but, maybe Blackie O should think a bit more before she opens mouth and inserts foot.

The moose/dog question arises in an interview with People Magazine about the dog the President and his wife have been promising their poor, deprived children “for years” (according to Michelle herself).  And, the poor kids still aren’t going to get their pet until April Fool’s Day (the day the rest of us get our tax cuts, btw) at the earliest.  Mommie and Daddy Dearest haven’t yet even settled on a breed.

Though the Huxtables-in-Chief claim to have narrowed their potential choices for this so far mythical dog down to a decision between a Portuguese water dog and a Labradoodle, they’re already trying to name it.  I suggest Harvey, since so far it’s invisible, and a giant rabbit dog makes just as much sense as a moose dog, but the Addams Family has other (bad)  ideas:

“Oh, the names are really bad. I don’t even want to mention it, because there are names floating around and they’re bad,” Mrs. Obama says with a laugh. “You listen and you go – like, I think, Frank was one of them. Frank! Moose was another one of them. Moose. I said, well, what if the dog isn’t a moose? Moose. I’m like, no, come on, let’s work with the names a little bit.”

Them Obamas be so intelligent.  I told you she said a moose was a dog.  You thought I was just being mean, didn’t you?  That’ll teach you to doubt me.

I wouldn’t even be writing about the Obamas and their stupid non-dog if there was anything else in the news besides, The Speech That Saved The World And Cured Cancer.  Yeah, sure, there’s the Obama Wants A 634 Billion Dollar Down Payment On A 10 Year Unspecified Health Care Thingy, but, it’s unspecified so, what’s to talk about?  The 3 Trillion Dollar Budget That Ate the World, it’s supposed to come out of?  I’d rather talk about the pseudo dog.

I guess you’d have to expect the world to be all a-Twitter about a vague speech so powerful it could knock the “catastrophic” state of our economic “crisis” right off the front pages, even when no matter who says what, stocks are still down and people who keep getting laid off still can’t pay for their overpriced houses.  But that’s what happens when you give a State of the Union speech that’s not really a State of the Union speech and still honor the time tested tradition of schmoozing with the media before a State of the Union address, even if it isn’t one for real.

When this supposed time-honored tradition of having off the record, pre-speech gourmet spin-fests began exactly is anybody’s guess, though The Wahington Post claims that they date back to Clinton:

George W. Bush and Bill Clinton routinely had the anchors over for lunch on State of the Union day.

While all reports from “journalists” who attended, like George Stephanoupolis and Katie Couric agree that the purpose of these “just between us” gatherings is for the president to chew the fat informally and run his ideas up their flagpoles, the ground rules specify that the events can only be reported broadly, with no direct attribution allowed.  In other words, the president greases up his fluffers.

Such chatty get-togethers haven’t always been seen to be so acceptable, however.  At one time, any overture to the press by the president was met with skepticism and suspicion.  An April 12, 1989 Maureen Dowd column about the subject derisively questions George H. W. Bush’s motives for issuing such untrustworthy invitations.  But, then again, it is Maureen Dowd:

Some reporters say such private contacts give them additional insights. But many other journalists and media critics are skeptical, remembering the Camelot days when John F. Kennedy’s courtship of reporters seemed to turn many of them into cheerleaders, and the tense days when Lyndon B. Johnson tried to build support for the Vietnam war with intense, personal persuasion of the press corps.

In both cases, many journalists worried afterwards that they may have crossed the line from journalism to advocacy.

Ha, ha, ha!  Crossed the line?  Oh, MoDo, honey, that line has been completely erased by the Tickle Me President!  These guys, and gals, would sell their mothers into white slavery for a chance to lick this guy’s plate.  They can’t wait to write breathtaking exposes about his favorite movie and how his socks smell.  Rock stars can’t get as much tail as our Spokesmodel-in-Chief could get from any one of these “reporters” with just a wink and subtle head nod.

They’re not the only ones, either.  Even CNN’s ObaLover, Anderson Cooper, had to put aside his own desire to get him some ObaMan in order to ridicule those members of Congress who waited up to 12 hours to get an aisle seat for the Speechapalooza Tuesday night:

You wanna talk pathetic? How about a hotshot cable news yacker mocking a New York congressman for being excited about his President?

That’s the response of veteran Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel, who was ridiculed by CNN host Anderson Cooper on Tuesday night for staking out a choice aisle seat 12-1/2 hours in advance for President Obama’s address to Congress.

“It’s like waiting for, like, Madonna tickets or something. It was  … kind of pathetic,” Cooper snarked as legislators swarmed Obama after the speech for handshakes and autographs.

Brian Williams wrote about a September ‘07 George Bush lunch summons to the press which was markedly different in tone than the self-congratulatory love note he wrote about scoring a seat at the left hand of the ObaFather.  Wolf Blitzer’s take on his luncheon with W last year was pretty generic, even though the Houston Chronicle said there was a bomb threat at the White House that day.  The Weekly Standard said the man was psychotic.  But then, according to Fred Barnes whose version of an earlier SOTU luncheon with Bush in 2005 is recounted in his book “Who Gives A F*ck” (that’s not the real name, I just see no reason to promote Fred barnes’ book) Georgie Porgie wasn’t exactly happy to see them:

“Why do I have to go to this meeting?” Bush asks his communications director, Dan Bartlett. “It’s traditional,” Bartlett explains.

Nope, it seems this new Mutual Admiration Society Obama has going with his news hoochies is unique, and uniqely beneficial and powerful for all concerned.  He schmoozes, they swoon, everybody’s happy.  For the price of a lunch, or dinner for those whose pants he wants entree into, or an hour of face time with those ‘ho’s already in his clutches, and thus, obviously secure in their place in his heart, Obama merely has to ensure that the compliant members of his audience agree to do the Hokey Pokey every time he follows the “pause” direction in his script as he reads the words of the Cardboard Titty Groper aloud on TV, to ensure that the ObaLovers will do eveything in their power to see to it that his act always plays in Peoria.

Crisis, schmisis.

And you wonder why I’d rather write about the Mythical Moose Dog.

ObaGlow Fades To Black

I was a registered Democrat for my entire voting life, when I could be bothered to register or vote, because I was expected to be.  As a child growing up in Chicago, watching events unfold every day at dinner time on one of three available channels on our big console TV with the little screen, that led to Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act  when I was ten years old, my parents sang the praises of the Democratic Party because the Democrats “cared about the black man.”  That they didn’t mention black women didn’t bother me in the least, nobody important ever mentioned women of any color; even Martin Luther King spoke of “black men and white men…,” even though I would bet he probably saw women as equal as anybody else at the time did whenever he thought about it, which was probably not very often.  Long before I was ten, I was well aware that being a girl pretty much sucked.

However, being a Democrat was good, being black was getting better.  Therefore, being a black Democrat was a no-brainer.  And, like most people, I never gave it a conscious thought.  I guess if I had to examine my assumptions, they’d go something like this; Democrats are good, Republicans suck.  Democrats care about black men, so that means all black people, me included.  Republicans must not care about black people, or, they’d be Democrats, so, they’re evil.  Nobody cares about women, why worry about it?

But, to take it a step further, Democrats being the party of caring about black people meant even more than that.  It meant they were the fair party, since the only reason for white people to help black people could only be that they saw that it wasn’t fair not to.  So, if the Democrats were the fair party, and, they talked about the “little guy,” that meant they wanted to be fair to everybody, right?  And, when “women’s issues,” including vaginal freshness and brassiere wearing, finally got the attention of the “male chauvinist pigs” who ran the country, reason had it that those MCP’s had to be Republicans, since discrimination against women just isn’t fair.  Democrats were fair champions of the little guy, including blacks and women; Republicans – evil white people.  Worked for me.

As I got older, and in many ways, no wiser, in others, more responsible, and began to take my civic duties a little more seriously, I held fast to my long ago learned beliefs.  I was a Democrat because they are fair.  Jesse Jackson could even run for president as a Democrat.  Clarence Thomas being appointed to the Supreme Court was different, as a Republican, he was obviously confused about loyalty to racial solidarity, having taken sides with the evil white people, and, therefore, forfeited his blackness.  Geraldine Ferraro was on the ticket with Mondale because Democrats were fair to women now, too; Condoleeza Rice was a Clarence Thomas clone in drag.

Needless to say, for many years, I wasn’t really paying attention, but that was okay, I was a Democrat, and, if not on the side of the angels, at least on the side of the Trinity, Kennedy, King, Kennedy.  As a black American Democrat, that was all that was required, since black people were never really involved in the process, anyway.  We were expected to vote because people died for our right to vote, not because anybody expected anything to be significantly affected by our vote; everybody knew that who we voted for, or if we voted at all, made no difference whatsoever in the grand scheme of things.

I began to pay attention somewhat during the Clinton administration; I liked him, he was a Democrat, and he was cute.  I got mad when people picked on him, and I was happy when they didn’t prevail.  Other than the fact that I thought the evil white Republicans picking on Bill and Hillary Clinton wasn’t fair, that’s pretty much the extent of my awareness of the Clinton years.    It wasn’t until the 2000 election that I really began to take note of presidential politics, though, even then, I brought my prejudices right along with me.  Al Gore should have won, that was the only fair outcome, besides, he was Bill Clinton’s veep and, a beauty contest between him and George Bush was pretty much a toss-up.  Remember though, Gore got a couple extra Prince Charming points, being a Democrat and all, while Bush got docked a few for being an evil white Republican toad.

Needless to say, my prejudices were validated by the outcome of the 2000 election, and again in 2004.  There seemed to be way too many evil white Republicans taking over my country, and  that just wasn’t fair.  So, in 2008, I was determined to sit up and take notice, get involved, keep track.  In the ‘04 election I had signed up on John Kerry’s mailing list, and got regular emails alerting me to things he thought I should know about, most of them involving money moving the wrong way, i.e., from me to him, not from him, or the government, sending something my way.  I ignored those.  Then, he sent me a gushing email about Barack Obama, the kid he had invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention, to such glowing reviews you needed RayBans to read them.  I didn’t get what the fuss was all about, either at Kerry’s convention, or at any other time.  What I knew about Obama was, white people were impressed because he could read a DNC form-letter of a speech, and he was the guy who got elected into the Senate because everybody else in Illinois was a sex-crazed crook.  Once I saw that the evil white Republicans had to scramble  to find another Clarence Thomas wannabe in Alan Keyes to import at the last minute to try to give the done deal at least the vaguest appearance of a contest, I knew enough about con games to be suspicious.   So, when Obama threw his hat in the presidential ring, I was more than a bit underwhelmed.  Besides, I liked Hillary Clinton.

After all, she was married to Bill, wasn’t she?  Wasn’t she always the brains behind the throne?  The fact that she stayed with him after the big nobody’s business scandal around her marriage didn’t matter one way or the other to me, that she loved him enough to make him get the heart surgery he needed did.  Beyond that, she had run for the Senate, won, and seemed to be making a pretty decent name for herself.  And, she was committed to Universal Health Care.  I liked that.

So, I emailed John Kerry back and demanded he remove my name from his mailing list, and started to really pay attention to the primaries.  As I watched the candidates duke it out in debate after debate, Hillary seemed to grow in my opinion, while everybody else, especially Barack, seemed to shrink like a guy’s Speedo package on a cold day at the beach. (I can do sexist, too.)  No matter what kind of “gotcha” question she was asked, Clinton always had an answer that she seemed to think about before delivering, while the Keystone Kops running against her seemed to just repeat stump speech lines from memory, whether they were really applicable or not.  Except Obama, who usually said, “me, too, what Hillary said,” before he launched into his standard, “hope to change the old ways” schtick.

Then, the games began.  The guys ganged up on her in Iowa, pledging to throw their “second tier” support to Obama for some strange reason.  But it was the emerging “she’s a racist, she can’t help herself, it’s ingrained in white people and her husband is from the South, you know,” not-so-subtle race-baiting campaign Obama was running that really made me hate him.  “I’m black, they’re not, so vote for me because that’s what being a Democrat is all about,” might as well have been printed up as a campaign sticker as obvious as the ploy was.  But, knowing what I knew about being a black Democrat, there was no doubt in my mind such a ploy would be successful, though, I did hold out hope that the underlying bedrock principle of Democratic fairness would ultimately prevail.

No such luck.  As I watched  the party manipulate and maneuver, I realized for the first time just how shallow the principles I thought I believed in were and how hollowly they were held by my party.  They cheated, they pandered to the illusion of fairness for the sake of their own ambition.  They sold us out for the potential of corporate largesse, they rigged the game.  But, the most heartbreaking thing of all will always be, they cheated.

Democrats are supposed to be fair.

So, as I read column after column of disillusioned Obama supporters bitching and moaning about how he isn’t the person they thought they were believing in him becoming when he stopped being who he was and became what they wanted him to be, I can’t help but note that the only people not questioning their decision and lying to themselves about it are black people.  For them, like for Obots of all races, if they told the truth, Obama is still all they ever needed him to be, black.  It’s just that black people have no reason to pretend otherwise.

Because, unlike the folks who needed to imbue the Obamessiah with superpowers in order to justify their support of the black man who would allow them to believe in the inherent goodness of America and the intrinsic fairness of the Democratic Party, black people have always known that all Barack Obama ever had to be was black.  Otherwise, their votes still don’t matter.

The disappointment comes to those now waking up to the reality that that’s all he is.

Wired Up And Ready To Go

Keith Olbermann, he of the perpetually twisted panties knickers panties, is up to his old tricks of demonizing George Bush in order to fellate the true object of his man love, Barack Obama, again.  Not only does the thought sicken anyone old enough to understand the birds and bees, regardless of sexual orientation, in this case, Olbermann’s efforts could have real consequences.

Now let me start things off by saying, I have no love for George Bush.  His “real Americans would want us to run out and find somebody to bomb the shit out of” rah-rah that lead us into a war he now wants credit for winning (suck my plastic weenie) makes him lower than whale shit in my book.  But, he’s so yesterday, and today, there’s a new sheriff in town who bears watching with a keen eye.  Unfortunately, Olbermann didn’t get the memo.

The memo Olbermann got, to lay the onus for warrantless spying completely at Bush’s feet, seemingly to insulate Obama, came most likely from the MS (Microsoft) part of MSNBC, given that Obama is the Silicon Valley, high-tech, Netroots poster boy whose combined efforts are largely responsible for his being elected, not only through their constant fluffing, but their considerable funding, and is all the more insidious because of it.  The guy who came into office by collecting, manipulating and exploiting digital information, and who has incorporated his campaign machine into the federal government, and who voted to extend carte blanche to prying government eyes is the guy I want to watch now.  It also makes me wonder if all that Netroots sound and fury re: FISA was part of some sort of Astroturfed misdirection choreography.

Olbermann’s latest ravings relate to allegations made by whistle-blower Russell Tice, who claims the Bush administration spied on everybody, not just bad guys, even the media.  Wired tells us that Tice made back-to-back appearances on Countdown, Wednesday and Thursday, to pretty much repeat what he’s been saying all along.  I’ll have to take them at their word, I can’t watch MSNBC or anything that features Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow, Shuster, etc., et al, their voices, likenesses, or hint of a shadow of their essence without risking an aneurysm.

NSA whistleblower Russell Tice was back on Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC program Thursday evening to expand on his Wednesday revelations that the National Security Agency spied on individual U.S. journalists, entire U.S. news agencies as well as “tens of thousands” of other Americans.

Tice said on Wednesday that the NSA had vacuumed in all domestic communications of Americans, including, faxes, phone calls and network traffic.

Today Tice said that the spy agency also combined information from phone wiretaps with data that was mined from credit card and other financial records. He said information of tens of thousands of U.S. citizens is now in digital databases warehoused at the NSA.

In another article, Wired claims that on Thursday, the Obama administration officially sided with Bush on warrantless wiretapping:

The Obama administration fell in line with the Bush administration Thursday when it urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.

Keith didn’t mention that.  He also didn’t mention that Tice was fired from the National Security Agency in 2005, after a “psychological evaluation,” and has been making allegations since 2001.  In January, 2006, CBS News did a profile based on an ABC News story:

President Bush has admitted that he gave orders that allowed the NSA to eavesdrop on a small number of Americans without the usual requisite warrants.

But [longtime National Security Agency insider Russell] Tice disagrees. He says the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions if the full range of secret NSA programs is used.

“That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum,” Tice said.

More info on Tice and the NSA can be found here.  Now, it’s far more than probable that the “psychological evaluation” that lead to Tice’s firing was retaliatory since Tice’s finger-pointing came long before the NSA’s brain-digging, but, that’s not the point.  The point is, Olbermann’s brief Obama mention and brush-off of the fact that his office had no comment, seems telling, or is “warantless wiretapping” only wrong when Republicans do it?  Shouldn’t the media be pressing Obama 2.0 to go on record when they’re siding with Bush?   Why the sudden push to hold Bush’s feet to the fire on Obama’s watch?  Especially when Obama has already shown he can’t be trusted and bears watching?

Two days after introducing what he heralded as the most sweeping ethics rules in American history — ones that would “close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely” — President Barack Obama today waived those rules for his nominee for Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn.

This interview with ABC’s Brian Ross is most likely in conjunction with the above mentioned ABC story from 2006, however, it was uploaded to You Tube in September, 2008.

*Thanks to commenter Coupe de Groucho for the heads up.

Acting Like A President

Everybody still seems to be up in arms about the fact that President-Elect of the World, Barack Obama seems so hard to get a handle on.  Is he a centrist?  Progressive?  Socialist?  Liberal, conservative, communist, neocon?  None of the above?  All of the above?  Some of the above and a few of the below?  The short answer?  Yes.  Hillary Clinton has always known exactly who Obama is:

In an interview with ABC’s Cynthia McFadden, Sen. Hillary Clinton, when asked about the Barack Obama phenomenon, used a quote from Obama to describe her opponent. “I think the best description actually is in Barack’s own book” Clinton said, “where he said that he is a blank screen and people of widely different views project what they want to hear.” Clinton continued saying “he just hasn’t been around long enough.” Clinton continued saying “But with the blank screen it gives you a chance to just really infuse it with whatever you hope for, whatever you want without knowing.”

Of course, the quote to which Senator Clinton referred is from The Self-Chosen One’s book, “The Audacity of Hope” whose title was stolen from his disposable former pastor, whose sermons he didn’t really listen to, according to him.  From Time Magazine:

“I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.” (p. 11, 134, 355-61)

So, now that’s it’s semi-quasi, unofficially official that Obama will almost certainly for sure announce that his appointment of Clinton as Secretary of State is probably a 99% done deal, we can expect, with much more certainty, people from all over the political spectrum to continue howl in outrage about his cabinet appointments being a “betrayal” of his “base, whoever they think they are.  The question is, as it has always been, what’s up with the fuss?  Didn’t these people get the memo?

Some have compared Obama to limp lame duck president, George Bush, on policy, and more superficially.  However, the true thing both men have in common is much more basic than most people recognize; it is the essential element that makes them tick, and it is the one thing to which they owe their success.

They’re actors.

Neither man fits the description of a classic politician.  One gets the feeling that Obama would be far more comfortable pontificating in a classroom, while Bush seems like he’d be right a home in a bar.  Yet they both have an uncanny ability to morph into a compelling image of whatever it is we wish a president to be.  In 2000, after the press and the “vast rightwing conspiracy” had successfully designated Bill Clinton as a lying whoremonger, the country desperately needed a leader they felt they could trust.  Who better than the “good ol’ boy” down at the end of the bar in the “place where everybody knows your name?”  Similarly, Americans wanted to trust somebody this year too, anybody, as long as they bore no resemblance to the now lying warmonger, Bush.  So, just as Bush was able to play the part of drinking buddy while simultaneously claiming to be a Bible thumping teetoatler, Obama is adept at assuming the role of anti-war hawk, or whatever else you want him to be.

Obama, like Bush, is a tightly scripted front man.  In Obama’s case, he is so deficient as a natural politician that even his stump speeches came to be read from a TelePrompTer.  That this caused little controversy is a testament to the abilities of his handlers and the sway they hold over the mainstream media.  Though we know for a fact that he says whatever he’s told to say, his Messianic p.r. campaign is so effective that supposedly intelligent professional pundits argue passionately about his leadership qualities, his instincts, his acumen, his eloquence, his ability; even though the only evidence they have to back them up is of his reading skill.

The truth is just as Obama himself said; he’s a deliberately blank screen disguised as an adaptable political genius.  Like his predecessor, he is far from presidential, he’s just pretty good at playing one on TV.  In fact, Obama told Lynn Sweet just that after winning a Grammy for “Audacity of Hope” in 2006:

“I am going for an Emmy next. The best actor in a drama involving John McCain.”

Is This “The Test?”

In late October, MIA Vice President-elect, Jo(k)e Biden told the country to “mark his words,” that if we elected his running mate, Barack Obama, it “will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy,” to “remember he said it,” that “we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”  After alluding to Hercules’ Fifth Labor, cleaning Augean’s Stables, and all sorts of “doom and gloom” scenarios that would cause the country to find Obama’s response lacking, and react with comments of “Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision,” Biden exhorted us to believe him because he has “forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I’m not being falsely humble with you.”

“Falsely humble”?  Where’s the humility in “Oh, shit, you’re gonna elect a doofus and blame me when he fucks up!”?  No wonder Camp Obama keeps him locked up, whenever he sneaks out, he says something stupid, or frighteningly revealing.  Sometimes, like in the “gird your loins” speeches, he does both at the same time.

So, now that the country has gone ahead and elected the guy we were warned about, anyway (by a guy who should know, even if he is stupid) a world crisis has indeed erupted.  Though Obama has not yet been inaugurated, and George (The Lamest of Ducks) Bush is the only politician keeping a lower profile than Biden, the media, and even Obama himself, to an extent, with his “Office of the President-elect,” have dubbed them “co-presidents,” at the very least.  And, there are those in the press who see the horrific attacks in Mumbai as  the Obama test to which Biden referred.  From Der Spiegel:

The crisis could be Obama’s first big foreign policy test. The world is going to dissect his response. The president-elect has already been in the spotlight for days because of the worsening financial crisis. Given the extent of the economic catastrophe, the January 20th inauguration date seems too far in the future for an ever-growing number of Americans. For three straight days, Obama has held press conferences in order to introduce economics experts who will advise him and stimulus programs that should help the country out of the crisis. His message was clear: “Help is on the way.”

Now, Obama may also be forced into taking responsibility for foreign policy earlier than expected. Indeed, the attacks could be seen as a personal warning directed against him. During the campaign, his vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden attracted attention for announcing that, in the first six months of his presidency, Obama would be tested on the international stage.

With the revelation that British and American citizens were targeted in the attacks, it seems that many are looking to see how Barack Obama reacts.  The Australian reports that Obama has previously consulted with former president Bill Clinton during their meeting in Harlem about the potential for conflict in the region, even going so far as offering him the position of “peace envoy,” a prospect that has been explored over on No Quarter.  While Obama has issued a statement about the Mumbai attacks, and is said to have called Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, some see Obama’s “strong condemnation” as a rather weak response.  And while speculation about Bill Clinton’s future is fun to contemplate, the burning question in my mind is, with the emergence of this “test” of Obama’s foreign policy strength, what are the new implications of his possible appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?

Obama Without Hillary? Dull As Dishwater

After days and days of speculation, allegations, accusations and just plain gossip about Barack Obama’s pending “official” appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, today – nuttin’.  Result?  Dull as dishwater news.  Who cares if Hannity and Colmes split up?  Colmes might as well have never been there in the first place.  We already knew who Obama was going to name as economic advisers; big freakin’ deal.  So, some guy is taking Jo(k)e Biden’s old job.  Nobody’s gonna miss Jo(k)e, nobody even thinks about him until he says something stupid.  That’s why he’s veep.  Duh.  Yeah, yeah, bailouts, stocks up, Bush sucks, blah, blah, blah.  Where’s Hillary?

Okay, CNN is reporting that Bush’s scriptwriter says Obama will “own” Hillary if she takes the SOS job.   And, we should care what he thinks because…?  He’s a flippin’ Canadian neocon for Goodness’ sakes.  Fat lot I care about his opinion.

Let’s face it, Obama needs Hillary, and so do we.  Without her, Barack Obama’s presidency will be a snoozefest.  He’s boring.  They can write about his exciting, historic, rousing campaign until they’re blue in the face, the fact is, the primary campaign was only exciting when Hillary was in it.  It has always been the conflict between Barack and Hillary that made things interesting.  When she dropped out, we were stuck with unevenly matched, dueling TelePrompTer readers in the Obama/McCain powder puff slugfest, until Sarah Palin gave the media a new female subject to kick around.  And, though she provided a few giggles for news junkies, she’s no Hillary, not by a long shot.

The bottom line is, Hillary makes everybody sit up and take notice.  Love her or hate her, without her, Obama’s screwed.  The American people can tolerate a lot of things; incompetence, corruption, condescension, arrogance, etc., are all fine. We’ll even take goofy.

But bore us and you’re toast.

Joe Hearts Hillary, Michelle Does Too, Obie Not Getting Audited

Yeah, that’s a lot to put in one headline, but after perusing the news this morning, that’s “all the news that’s fit to print,” as they say.  Well, except for the fact that President-elect Obama tried to Bogart President-now Bush into doing his bidding with the auto industry yesterday, then had his boys drop a dime to the media in an attempt to show off his flex, but Bush got his boys to hip Drudge to the fact that Obie’s actions are crass and out of line.  Being lectured about etiquette and protocol by Bush has to suck, but it’s just one more example of how Obie rolls.

But I digress.  At a mainstream media panel discussion last night, reported here, here, and here, Joe Scarborough professed his love for Hillary Clinton:

Discussing the perceived bias against Sen. Hillary Clinton, Scarborough joked, “I love Hillary. She’s my girlfriend. We don’t like to talk about it much.” (She already asked him to be her running mate.)

Oh, what might have been.  Clinton/Scarborough; beats Obama/Biden and Joe and Mika all to hell, doesn’t it?  Moving on, last night’s festivities gave the mainstream media-types a rare opportunity to good-naturedly bash themselves while simultaneously patting themselves on the back.  Neat trick, glad we finally figured out what they’re good at.

Next up, Ms. “If she can’t run her own house” Obama, suddenly feels that Hillary Clinton can run a house just fine, especially the White House.  In fact, Shelley wants tips.  Oh, happy day.  Just what we need more of in the media, political “women’s place is in the home” girl talk.

“Michelle may not have loved the senator, but she always respected how the Clintons raised Chelsea,” said a person familiar with Clinton’s end of the call. “They need to talk. There just aren’t too many people who have shared that kind of experience.”

An aide briefed on Obama’s side of the chat said she was “grateful” for Clinton’s “pointers” on “raising children in the public eye.”

What’s next, friggin’ meatloaf and macaroni recipe swaps?  I guess the two women do have something in common, though; they’re both being used and abused by the same man.

Yet a half-dozen Clinton insiders told Politico they are disappointed that Obama’s vaunted fundraising operation hasn’t reciprocated by planning new events or an Internet campaign to help Clinton pay off the $7.9 million she owes to vendors. (Clinton has already written off the $13 million she loaned the campaign during the primaries, aides say).

And in other news, talk about adding insult to injury; looks like Barack Obama’s prodigious, yet apparently dubious, fundraising will escape scrutiny, while John McCain is going to be audited up the yingyang, by law.  Again, according to Politico:

The Federal Election Commission is unlikely to conduct a potentially embarrassing audit of how Barack Obama raised and spent his presidential campaign’s record-shattering windfall, despite allegations of questionable donations and accounting that had the McCain campaign crying foul.

Adding insult to injury for Republicans: The FEC is obligated to complete a rigorous audit of McCain’s campaign coffers, which will take months, if not years, and cost McCain millions of dollars to defend.

Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Another factor: The FEC, which would have to vote to launch an audit, is prone to deadlocking on issues that inordinately impact one party or the other – like approving a messy and high-profile probe of a sitting president.

So, if I’ve got this straight, Obama gets away with collecting gazillions of dollars from Doodad Pro and other fictitious donors, some from foreign countries, by disabling the security features on his donor site, because he decided to do it that way.  Humph, imagine that.  If he had actually agreed to play by the rules, like he promised, he would actually have had to play by the rules.  But since he didn’t, he doesn’t.

Ya gotta hand it to the guy, he and his boyz and blogger bullies might be thugs, but they’re damned good at it.  And, according to his ace gangsta bitch chick, Valerie Jarrett, he’s ready to “take power and rule” from Day One.  Thug life, president for life, ride or die, a’ight?

Once Again, Colin Powell MAY Endorse…Somebody

Politico reports just what the headline to this post says, under their headline, “Colin Powell May Endorse Obama.”

Retired Gen. Colin Powell, once considered a potential running mate for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), now may endorse his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), according to Republican sources. But an air of mystery surrounds Powell’s planned live appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and no one is sure what he will say.

Which “Republican sources?”  Doesn’t matter, they don’t know anything, anyway:

The general’s camp is being coy about what he might or might not say on Sunday. But some McCain advisers suspect, without being sure, that Powell will endorse Obama.

Gosh, I’m glad I can read.  Where’d Politico get the story?  Coulda gotten it anywhere since a gazillion outlets are reporting it under the exact same headline; the only difference being some say “Powell May…” while others say, “Colin Powell May…”  Everybody, including Politico, claims the first they heard of it was from Andrea Mitchell:

NBC’s ‘Andrea Mitchell broke the news of Powell’s surprise “Meet the Press” appearance on the “Today” show Friday.

“In what promises to be a dramatic moment Sunday, Colin Powell — a lion of the Republican establishment, whom McCain and Obama both have courted for months — will finally speak out on a variety of issues, appearing exclusively on ‘Meet the Press,’” Mitchell said. “Of course, years ago, he was talked about as the possible first … African-American nominee of a major party.”

Robert Novak, in a Washington Post column about “Obamacons Who Worry McCain,” wrote this paragraph, which was interpreted to mean a Powell/Obama endorsement was forthcoming, and was picked up by everybody, including HuffPo, in late June:

Neither Powell, first-term secretary of state for George W. Bush, nor Hagel, retiring after two terms as a U.S. senator from Nebraska, has endorsed Obama. Hagel probably never will. Powell probably will enter Obama’s camp at a time of his own choosing. The best bet is that neither of the two, both of whom supported President Bush in 2000 and 2004, will back John McCain in 2008.

In July, after hitting a pedestrian, Novak announced he had a tumor.

BTW, is Colin Powell the same “lion of the Republican party” Bush fired?  Wasn’t there a little sumpin’ sumpin’ about overstating the Iraq threat, or something like that?

Dumb war.

SNL Unbanned

Found it!

more about “SNL Unbanned“, posted with vodpod

h/t Pat Dollard

Voters Confused? You Bet Your Ass!

Slate Magazine, which I grew to hate during the primaries for it’s incessant Obama cheerleading, has an article by Walter Shapiro claiming voters are angry, but too stupid to know why.

A Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday found that 43 percent of all voters admitted that they feel “confused” by the proposed plan to stabilize the financial markets. At the same time, voters grasp that something important is happening — 54 percent say, in response to another question, that they are paying “a lot” of attention to the bailout debate in Washington. Pollster Andy Kohut, the director of the Pew Research Center, said that it was virtually “unparalleled” to have this simultaneous level of interest and confusion in a policy debate. “It’s a tough one to get into the nitty-gritty of,” said Kohut. “It is not like gay marriage that is easy to grasp no matter what your point of view is.”

Hey, Walter, wanna buy a clue?  Maybe what voters are “confused” about is the reason people who get paid to figure stuff out spend so much time looking up their own asses for answers to obvious questions.  We’re “confused” by the fact that the media is so obviously trying to elect a raving lunatic, which Barack Obama is, that they applaud him for doing absolutely nothing to deal with the current economic mess but repeat, over, and over again, that he’s not the guy he’s running against, whose biggest sin, according to Obama, is that he knows the guy who’s been engineering the money train for the last eight years.  The candidate who said, “call me, I got my cell,” the guy who has collected more money from the companies profiting from the restructuring of our financial market than any other, who has also taken more money in his brief tenure from those identified as the major culprits involved in this mess than just about anybody, is for some reason, the media’s fair-haired boy.  Oops, I said, “boy.”  I must be a latent racist, since that’s the only reason I could possibly have to use that particular phrase in that particular instance, or to criticize the Golden Child at all, at least, according to the media.  Never mind that if I am a racist, I must hate myself, ’cause I’ve been black a long time, too.

We’re confused alright, Walter.  It’s hard to figure out how the Democratic party could produce a bill in the House to address the crisis of the imminent collapse of our free market system, or however they framed their “fire-in-a-crowded-theater” clarion call, and then not only not push it through, deliberately sabotage it.  We don’t get that, Walter.  Silly us.

Then there’s David Gergen, who I find considerably more annoying than I would imagine a nest of vipers hatching in my underwear, or a swarm of bees building a hive in my ear to be, who, in a blog post for Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, bemoans America’s lack of trust in it’s leaders, not just in government, but pretty much, across the board:

Four of the five lowest rated groups in the index were business, Congress, the executive branch, and the press. No wonder the “leaders” of these institutions had so much trouble persuading the general public about the seriousness of our financial mess.

David cites research from The Harvard Center for Public Leadership, which he claims to direct, done in partnership with U.S. News and World Report, and Yankelovich, which states this erosion of trust has been going on for a while:

In the fall of 2005, some 65% said we have a leadership crisis in the country. By 2006, the number had risen to 69%. And last fall, no less than 77% declared there was a crisis of leadership. Moreover, 79% said the United States would decline unless we get better leaders.

Gergen goes on to bitch and moan about the challenges facing Barack Obama and John McCain, as well as all the other pseudo-leaders in other fields, in the face of this growing crisis of confidence, blah, blah, blah. Maybe we’d have more confidence in “leaders” if they didn’t have to commission a stupid study to see what’s right in front of their faces.  The government does a lousy job; that’s why their approval ratings suck.  Both parties are full of corrupt liars.  They always promise “change” in exchange for votes; they get the votes, nothing changes.  “Business” wants 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money to prop up the house of cards they’ve been ripping off those same taxpayers from, and the media is a joke.  Those are pretty good reasons for people to stop trusting them.  And, as far as that “better leaders” thing is concerned, we had one running on the Democratic side that I would have trusted in this crisis with my future, but you guys, Walter and David, were among the worst character assassins out there helping to torpedo her chances to be an effective leader.  That’s why we hate you and your kind.

No, we’re not “confused” about the inefficiency of government, or the complicity of the press, or the greed of the financiers.  We’re “confused” that you seem so surprised that we don’t trust them, or you, as far as we could spit at you from.

And, that pisses us off.

‘Cuz, you’re supposed to be the smart guys.

PUMA

Just Say No Deal

When A Deal Is Not A Deal

When is a deal not a deal?  When everybody’s lying about it, that’s when.  It seems that in our current economic crisis, image is everything.  President George Bush (he is still president, isn’t he?) bluntly admitted as much, says The Boston Globe.

“The market is not functioning properly,” the president said. “There has been a widespread loss of confidence, and major sectors of America’s financial system are at risk of shutting down.”

In  that kind of climate, care must be taken to insure that skittish investors see some light at the end of the tunnel.  Hence, talk of a deal.  From The New York Times:

House leaders and the White House on Thursday announced a tentative agreement on an economic stimulus package of roughly $150 billion that would pay stipends of $300 to $1,200 per household, and more for families with children, plus provide tax incentives for businesses to encourage spending.

Then, from AP:

Financial markets grew more upbeat Thursday as political leaders said they struck an agreement in principle on a massive spending plan to revive the crippled financial system. The Dow Jones industrial average jumped about 200 points on optimism about the bailout, and demand for safe-haven assets remained high but eased slightly as some investors placed bets that a deal would help unclog credit markets.

But, wait.  Not so fast, says AFP:

US lawmakers were still working Thursday to agree an unprecedented Wall Street bailout package, Democrats and Republicans said after White House crisis talks.

Lawmakers are “working on it,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, as he emerged from the talks called by President George W. Bush.

“Still have a lot of issues to be worked on. Making progress. A lot more to discuss,” he added.

And now that the markets are way closed for the day, from AP:

Key members of Congress claimed agreement Thursday on an outline and crucial details of an urgent multibillion-dollar plan to stave off national economic disaster, but a historic White House meeting with President Bush, the two men fighting to replace him and other congressional leaders broke up with conflicts in plain view.

And while perceptions are being furiously managed, Democrats and Republicans are still bickering over the merits of John McCain’s decision to suspend his campaign until the problem is resolved, even though Newsbusters is reporting that he was asked to do just that:

John McCain got involved in the bailout negotiations after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Sen. Lindsey Graham yesterday that the bailout plan would fail unless McCain came in and brought balky Republicans aboard.  That’s what Bob Schieffer reported on this morning’s Early Show.  Schieffer’s account stands in stark contrast with the allegation by Dems like Barney Frank and their MSM cohorts that McCain’s moves of yesterday were nothing more than a political “stunt.”

Oh, well, ya gotta do what ya gotta do, huh?

PUMA

Just Say No Deal

McCain’s Rock And Obama’s Hard Place

John McCain has skillfully maneuvered Barack Obama into a “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” position smack dab in the middle of a rock and a hard place.  No matter what you think of the merits of McCain’s decision to suspend his campaign and return to work, ostensibly to lend his “expertise” to the effort to fix the country’s current economic problems, at least it’s bold and decisive action that forces Obama to respond in kind; boldly and decisively.  So far, though, he’s just been wimpy.

CNN reports that while Obama has been making speeches:

“It’s my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person will be the next president,” Obama said in Clearwater, Florida. “It is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once. It’s more important than ever to present ourselves to the American people.”

John McCain has been, well, doing stuff:

Announcing his decision to suspend his campaign, McCain said, “I am calling on the president to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Sen. Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.”

snip

Salter also said McCain called President Bush and talked to colleagues in Washington and learned that passage of the bailout plan was next to impossible.

McCain’s campaign also said that he had canceled his appearance on “The Late Show with David Letterman” on Wednesday night.

Now, given that Obama “suspended” his campaign, canceled his “Saturday Night Live” appearance and went home due to Hurricane Ike, he can’t very well stand on principle here.  Besides, McCain’s call to Bush worked.  An AP-Yahoo News headline screams so:

Bush invites McCain, Obama to White House meeting

With extraordinary stakes on the line, President Bush invited both men vying to succeed him and key congressional leaders to a White House meeting to hammer out a massive financial rescue plan. The president also was appealing directly to Americans in a prime-time address Wednesday to help push his tough-sell bailout into reality.

snip

So, not long before his planned 12-minute address to the nation from the grand East Room, Bush took the unusual step of calling Democrat Barack Obama to invite him to the White House for the meeting on Thursday, said presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino. The White House said the presidential invitation was also extended to Republican John McCain and to Republican and Democratic leaders from Capitol Hill.

So, on a day when all the stars were supposed to be lined up in his favor, Obama finds himself playing defense after being slapped upside the head with the unwelcome news that poll lead, or no poll lead, he is not yet president and still has a day job that requires his attention.  And, darn it to heck, he can’t even blame the messenger.

PUMA

Just Say No Deal

Sorry Bill, Barack May Win, But He Shouldn’t

Bill Clinton said today that Barack Obama will “win handily.”

“I predict that Sen. Obama will win and win pretty handily,” he said.

Obama added: “You can take it from the president of the United States. He knows a little something about politics.”

Let’s just say, this is the first time I’ve disagreed with the former president.  Mainly because when he was in office I didn’t pay much attention to politics at all.  It was the 2000 contest that began to pique my interest.  Something never seemed quite right about George Bush to me, and I desperately wanted him to lose.  Both times.  He didn’t, so, here we are now.

Sure, I was aware of Bill Clinton as president.  To tell you the truth, what I knew about him, I liked.  It wasn’t necessarily his politics, though; I’m still no political maven and was about 100 times less so back then.  No, it was his “aw shucks” demeanor, his “two-fer” candidacy, his gay and lesbian advocacy and his promise of health care reform that got me.  And, to be perfectly honest, I just liked the guy.

I never understood the rabid Republican anti- anything Clinton stance, either.  Okay, the homophobia and fear of real reform of the health care industry I get, but the “Hillary hatred” always seemed over the top.  What was so bad about an Alan Alda, Phil Donahue-ish marital stance being representative of American manhood?  Hillary always seemed more than competent enough to justify it, in fact, she always came across as the real “power-behind-the-throne.”

Everything surrounding Bill Clinton’s presidency seemed over-hyped to me.  His “Sister Souljah” moment could probably have been handled better, but so could Sister Souljah’s statements that set off the media firestorm in the first place.  The media was also being pretty irresponsible at the time, if memory serves.  Gays should be allowed to serve equally in the military, bullets kill them just as dead as they kill straight people, so why discriminate when enemy fire doesn’t?  The fact that every American deserves affordable health care is so obvious that any objection has to carry an ulterior motivation.  Bottom line is, I never understood why Bill Clinton got so much grief.

Okay, so he had an affair or two, or twenty.  Not my business.  It certainly wasn’t the first time in my living memory that such a thing happened.  Why were Clinton’s transgressions impeachable when none of the Kennedy brothers’ were?  Quite the opposite, in fact, their extra-marital activities were held up to the world as sure fire-signs of All-American male virility.  Why was Hillary Clinton’s defense of her husband lamentable when Jackie Kennedy’s tacit approval was laudable?  When JFK’s mistress sang him “Happy Birthday” on national TV, it was a ratings bonanza even though the first lady, for some reason, urgently felt the need to take that opportunity to take the kids on an imperative horse-riding trip.  Was Kennedy’s fondness for movie stars and glamor girls enough to excuse his behavior, while Clinton’s more “ordinary” tastes were not?

Who knows?  Anyway, I never thought he should have been impeached for a marital indiscretion.  And don’t give me the “he lied” bullshit.  There never should have been an official interrogation on the subject in the first place.  Besides, what would you expect any married man or woman facing that question to say?  Oh, sure?  The Clinton witch-hunt by the Republicans is a big part of the reason I’m skeptical of that party to this day.  My memories of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Oliver North and Clarence Thomas, among others, don’t help allay my concerns.  Not to mention the Bush administrations, all three of them.

Fast forward to today’s meeting between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  Clinton says Obama will win handily.  That may or may not be true, but Clinton’s implication that Obama should win, if it exists, is what bothers me.  Yes, Obama “beat” Hillary Clinton in the primaries.  Right.  Whatever.  But it’s not my disappointment that HRC didn’t win that motivates me now, it’s the fact that Barack Obama did that gets my jaws tight.  There’s a difference.

I wish I could support this black man for president.  His nomination is indeed a milestone.  But I don’t want a government made in Obama’s image; I’m not even sure what that would be.  I don’t want a president so racially cavalier that he will exploit black people when it benefits him and ignore them completely for the same reasons.  A gaffe-prone, seemingly weak, wishy-washy, scared to make waves kind of guy is not my ideal first black president.  Why can’t he be decisive?  Why can’t he have principles?  Why can’t he get angry?  Of course he could and should; Obama’s inherent personality flaws drive the media and campaign created pr narrative that he shouldn’t.

So, for all those who want to tell me that I owe allegiance to Barack Obama because we’re both black, screw you.  I’d rather have a good president than a black one.  And to those who claim that now that the race is down to the Democrat, Obama vs. the Republican, McCain, I should vote for the Democrat by default, screw you, too.  I don’t have to vote for either one, there are third party choices and I could always exercise my right as an American to decline to participate at all in an election I feel to be non-representative.  Lastly, to you, Mr. Clinton, if you are indeed suggesting that Barack Obama should win, handily or otherwise, then…well…let’s just say I strongly disagree, and leave it at that, okay?

And, oh, Bill?  I hate to break it to you this late in the game, but in my opinion, you’re no Hillary.

But then again, I think you’ve always known that.

PUMA

Just Say No Deal

Who Woke Ed Koch Up? Why?

Ed Koch is not getting enough rest.  That’s the kindest motive I can ascribe to his latest rants about the presidential race.  Asked what made him endorse Barack Obama, the former Mayor of New York said:

“The designation of Palin to be vice president,” he said. “She’s scary.”

Scary?  Ed, Ed, Ed.  Didn’t you support Hillary Clinton?  Didn’t you say Barack Obama was a loser that the super delegates would protect the Democratic party from?

I don’t think that Obama can win a general election. I believe the superde legates will exercise their discretion just as they’re supposed to in order to protect the party from a loser.”

Get back on the meds, Ed, you’re starting to make less sense than ever.  Did you really mean to say Palin is scary because of a question she asked a librarian?  Did you really mean to say it out loud?

“Any time someone goes to the library and says, ‘I want to ban books,’ and the librarian says ‘no,’ and she threatens to fire them — that’s scary,” he said.

I guess you did not know that she said it was a “rhetorical question”, and that no books were actually banned, huh?  True, she did fire the tattletale librarian, but that’s not scary, that’s bitchy.  Plus, I heard she hired her back.  There are worse things in life, Ed.  And, by the way, didn’t you endorse George Bush?

“I think [Bush has] been terrific. And I have never voted in the past for a Republican president…. But I am voting for George Bush this time around. And I will tell you why. He has created what is now known as the Bush Doctrine, equal to the Monroe Doctrine. And what is the Bush Doctrine? That we will go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. And he’s kept his commitment, unlike anybody else in the world. And certainly unlike any of the nine or so Democratic candidates for president. And the worst one is Howard Dean. I mean, that’s McGovern II.”

Okay, Ed, I promise not to make any sudden moves if you just stay calm and agree to take your nap.  There are a lot of reasons to be scared of Sarah Palin, Ed.  She can shoot a moose and eat it, for Goodness sakes. But she’s not running for president, Ed.  Barack Obama is.

That’s scary.

(And I agree with you about Howard Dean.)

*UPDATE: I guess Ed wasn’t sleepy, after all.  Click here for Ed on Ed’s reasons to support Obama.

PUMA

Just Say No Deal