Man... is pointing the public to funny, intelligent things your opponent has written a good policy? I mean... "Hey, here's something we think should offend you, but please for the love of god don't laugh or you entirely screw up our point!"

A politician that can get a laugh is a politician that can get a vote. The GOP should be pointing people to his most boring, inane stuff. The controversial stuff is gonna play well.

Posted at June 6, 2008 3:38 PM in response to Franken Apologizes For Writing "Porn-O-Rama" Essay In Playboy

Jeez, this was astonishing. Her dig at Obama about only caring about Universal Healthcare for the past 16 months pretty much made me drop my jaw.

The point where I respected Clintonian tenacity has long past. Tenacity becomes selfishness once it starts to actively hurt your larger goals in favor of your ego. Tonight's speech showed that she has crossed that threshold long ago and is unwilling to find her way back.

If she cared about the party, about progressive values or about the people of this country, tonight was the night to prove it.

Posted at June 3, 2008 10:00 PM in response to Hillary: "I Will Be Making No Decisions Tonight"

No! Wes Clark is actually overqualified for VP. The problem with the VP slot is the relative powerlessness of it. That has changed in recent years, but Clark's intelligence and experience in foreign policy actually make him much more suited for a different position: Secretary of State.

The Secreatary of State is actually a much tougher position than VP. Only the President (and with the current administration, not even him) has a more hectic and nerve-fraying job. The Sec. of State post should be filled by someone with exceptional intelligence and tremendous diplomatic experience as well as an insanely strong work ethic. Clark fits that bill perfectly.

The other reason he'd make a better Sec. of State is that he doesn't help electorally as much as you seem to think he does. He's from Arkansas, yes, but he hasn't shown much ability to rally up southerners, and though he's an excellent speaker, his campaigning skills aren't as good as some other contenders

Posted at May 23, 2008 4:32 PM in response to Wes Clark for Obama's VP

And to think, the rest of the GOP field was even less electable than this guy!

Posted at April 7, 2008 8:13 PM in response to McCain: "Chasm of Quagmire" Preferable To "Abyss of Defeat"

I have a huge problem with this. If there's one issue that I hold most highly, it's the 1st Amendment. Just as I opposed congressional hearings on rap lyrics, advertising on R-rated movies and Janet Jackson's nipple, I have a huge problem with Congress calling a TV show to task for their content.

OK, Maybe the administration used '24' as a vehicle to make torture more palatable. I doubt it, I think it simply made for more compelling television (remember, the first season of '24' was probably already half written before 9/11). But the point is: tough! In the end, regardless of political motivations, it's the producer's show, not Bush's. If he wants to stick political messages in the context of his show, even for torture, that's his right.

Now, granted, having someone testify before Congress isn't a direct violation of the First Amendment, but we can't have Congress subpoena artists whenever they investigate something in some way related to the fictitious activities on primetime TV. It creates a definite "chilling effect" on the content that producers and studios would be willing to produce. That's bad enough when we're talking about sex or profanity or regular violence, but now we're talking about something you've identified as a specific political issue. Congress must not have any role in stifling political (or artistic) expression on television.

I'd be more comfortable with this if there was any real evidence. If there was a memo, a serious allegation from someone associated with the show or a some sort of money trail. There isn't. You're saying the producers and star of '24' should testify before congress because the producers are pretty conservative guys.

Let me rephrase that: You're saying you want the producers of '24' to testify before congress because of their political opinions and the alleged expression of those political opinions on their show. You want artists to defend their work before Congress.

Congress, especially a Democrat-controlled House, shouldn't ever do this. It violates the spirit of the First Amendment in very sinister ways.

Please, do not treat the First Amendment with the same contempt that this administration has for human rights. It's wrong, and we should know better.

Posted at April 7, 2008 7:25 PM in response to Congress needs to bring Kiefer Sutherland and '24 'directors to testify about torture

Timba, man... you totally called it!

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/the-daily-show-totally-onionbe.php

Posted at April 3, 2008 7:22 AM in response to Beating McCain: The "Grandpa Simpson" Method

Seriously, I love TPM, but man I HATE their blogging tools! I spend an hour writing my post and then find out I've been logged out. Knowing that logging in will erase my post, I copy it into a text editor, log in, then paste it back in and post it.

Wait 10 minutes for the post to appear and then... all my line-breaks are gone. ARGGGHHH!!!

OK, fine, I'd love to either edit or delete my post but apparently I can't, so I'll just repost in something I hope is readable. New post, paste the text back in and then painstakingly manually re-replace every line break, add in a helpful little note and repost.

Wait 10 minutes for the post to appear and then... MY LINE BREAKS ARE STILL GONE!!!

So then I wept for a bit and commented my own freakin' post to rant.

Hey, TPM Staff: I'm a web programmer. I do this stuff for a living. Let's talk about letting me fix this for you. Seriously, no charge, I'm happy to contribute.

Also, I still love ya.

Posted at April 3, 2008 5:43 AM in response to Giving McCain a Pass on Public Financing

Yeah, a TDS-style montage of ol' McCain will probably not be in the works in the near future. However, you can gauge whether any reframing of him works by whether TDS runs a montage of 24-hour news talking heads repeating the same line.

Anyhow, we got us the internets and a series of YouTubes at our disposal, I think a few creative types could edit a highlight reel of his least glamorous moments together rather effectively.

Posted at April 2, 2008 10:34 PM in response to Beating McCain: The "Grandpa Simpson" Method

Let's be fair here, the dude spent years in a Vietcong POW camp, was tortured, beaten, injured, malnourished. At one point the Vietcong offered to release him due to his father's position as the top Admiral. McCain turned refused the offer unless they offered to release the other POWs as well. He wound up spending 5 years in a POW camp.

Now, none of this makes him presidential material. None of this makes him a more qualified person than Obama or Clinton to lead this country. None of this makes me believe his foreign policy won't be more war, more death.

But yes, KingElvis, this does make him a hero.

Posted at March 31, 2008 8:23 PM in response to Beating McCain: The "Grandpa Simpson" Method

RELAX!

First of all, having the poll numbers this close without having a decided nominee is actually good news for Dem chances. Support will grow once the nominee is decided, because you get everyone who had been thinking "I'm not voting for the other one, I'd rather sit it out or vote for McCain" coming to their senses. You also don't have anyone attacking McCain, but you do have Hillary v. Obama hurting each other's poll numbers.

There's no such thing as an accurate poll 7 months before the general election. All this tells you is that the state is competitive. It would take a much larger lead for this to be scary.

Finally, in my experience, Rasmussen tends to poll a bit conservative in general. Not in a huge way, they're not hacks, but they lean.

Posted at March 31, 2008 12:18 PM in response to Two weak candidates spells Pres. McCain