Okay, I was prepared for a vicious series of RNC speeches.  Republicans attack...that's what they do...and they do it fiercely when they're losing. 

I figured they would fail to roll out a real agenda - despite the pressure they put on Obama to do just that - because all that "policy" and all those "details" stink of elitist intellectualism, and don't boil down nicely into 10-word-answers and slogans.

So, based on who they are, the bar was set really low.  I was curious to see what they did with their "Service" theme, and as usual, they seem to think the only real way to "serve" is in the military.  Big surprise.

But then Palin made the crack about community organizers and I wanted to vomit.  They want small government.  They want to cut funding for social programs.  They think the people and the markets should take care of themselves.  AND THEN THEY DENIGRATE THE VERY PEOPLE WHO TRY TO DO THAT.

McCain urged his audience to "stand up and fight for your childrens' future," but what he didn't say is that everyone should only look out for their own; once you try to organize a community, suddenly you're a second class citizen.

So, while the Republicans were failing to roll out an agenda to talk about how can improve, say, public schools, Reverend Meeks in Chicago was rolling out a city-wide boycott of the Chicago Public Schools to protest inequities in school funding.  He took 2000 children and parents to attend classes on the lawns of schools like New Trier (a very well funded suburban school).  Then he took them to corporations in the Chicago Loop highlight the issue to businesspeople (and to show the students what a good education could get them).  Teachers conducted classes in lobbies and hallways (and on the tv news they said the conditions in the hallway were better than their classrooms).  All of this was organized and executed in the name of helping all students get a quality education.

The system is broken and unequal, but the problem of our school system not only doesn't merit a bullet point in ANY Republican speech, they take it upon themselves to MOCK the people who are actually trying to fix it.

No, Governor Palin - Community Organizers are not assigned specific "responsibilities."  That's because they are VOLUNTEERING to do the work you don't want to bother with.  They take the responsibility on themselves, they aren't assigned to it.  Dr. King was a community organizer.  Are you trying to tell me that his work was useless because he wasn't told what to do?  Because he wasn't paid for it? 

There are real people in this country who are working their hearts out for NOTHING (or next to nothing), to clean up the messes made by our Republican government while the folks who were ASSIGNED to do this work were sitting around, stealing, lying, picking up cops in bathrooms, firing their brothers-in-law, sending troops into stupid wars, and misspending our tax money.  Yes, we should ABSOLUTELY mock these people for all that they do.  That's definitely the MORAL choice.  Thank you so much for making that clear for all of us. 

They just don't get it.

I was going to post this in response to Desidero on a different thread, but figured I could just share w/ the whole class!

There's a freaky blog up by Nate Silver (for baseball nuts he's the one with the PECOTA algorithm that predicts player and team performance with scary accuracy).  Silver's algorithm also predicted primary results down to the percentage split.  Anyway, it seems that polls are good predictors when you pull vast quantities of data from the right responses, combine them with demographic data and voting patterns from past elections and monitor them over the long term - very cool!

I heard this as an aside on CNN and it turns out it's true.  Florida and Michigan had their full votes reinstated.  And Florida got front row seating (couldn't tell if Michigan also got princess treatment).

WTF?

Why did the DNC put us through all these shenanigans if they were going to just give them full-seating later?  And, what does this say to the leaders of those states who created the shenanigans in the first place (especially since Michigan in particular has made primary-jumping a habit)?  Hold out long enough and you'll get your way?  What a crock!

And...in the interest of full-disclosure, I've been an Obama supporter since he was in the Illinois legislature.  At the time, I thought the outcome of the DNC meeting earlier this summer was fair.  But, right now I can't help but feel Sen. Clinton got screwed with her pants on.  Why take away a chance to continue only to hand it back when it's too late?  Does this open a back door for the Clintons?

Sorry for the rant...but, it's late, I haven't posted in nearly two months and I feel compelled to call SHENANIGANS!

I still like Obama...not sure about the Party, though.

Excuse the hyperbole of the title - I know sitting behind a desk cracking jokes isn't the same thing as reporting from the field.

Nevertheless, I saw this on the Daily Show a couple of nights ago, and as happens most nights, was blown away at the level of candor that Stewart brings to the show, and prompts his guests to achieve.

Flash back to his amazing appearance on Crossfire a few years ago, and it seems like he (and Colbert) have taken their form of "reporting" more seriously than the folks who are Constitutionally charged/protected to keep us informed.    He does us a great service each  night by shaming the MSM - and making us laugh while doing it.   Why can't real journalists do their jobs as well?  And to those who argue ratings - my guess is that hard-nosed, unbiased TRUTH would bring astonishing ratings because of its sheer novelty.  'Course, it probably helps that Stewart isn't above dorm room humor...

Hi all -

With the middle part of the country completely under water, I have question for folks who know things about things (and unfortunately I realize I won't get much in the way of answers during the day, but I'll give'er a try anyway).

I was watching some video clips from the past few weeks, and one interview stood out - it was a woman in Indianapolis whose home took on 4 feet of water.  She said her family pretty much lost everything, and the interviewer asked her if her insurance company or FEMA had been out to see her yet.  She said the insurance company refused to come because she didn't have a flood policy - and she was angry because, she said, the bank and the insurance company discouraged her from obtaining flood insurance when she purchased the home.  Apparently she was told that area had never flooded in recorded history and therefore she'd be throwing money away to buy flood insurance.

Okay, so here are my questions (for those who know anything about insurance or flood insurance or FEMA):  1) If experts actively discouraged homeowners from purchasing flood insurance because an area "doesn't flood" - and then it does - isn't that enough to invoke the "acts of God" clause in a homeowner's policy?  It seems to me the floods in some of these areas are as random and unusual as tornadoes (I'm not including the river areas in this - I actually mean the dry areas in Indy).  2) What is FEMA's obligation to folks who didn't purchase flood insurance - are they limited in what they can do to help people?

Last:  Where are Bush and McCain while the Midwest is drowning?

I just received this email from the Obama campaign. 

We need your help right now.

In Quincy, Illinois and surrounding areas, the river is expected to crest on Monday or Tuesday.

There are emergency sandbagging operations going on right now and
public officials have put out a call for all available volunteers. Your
help is desperately needed.

The widespread flooding in the Midwest has affected millions of
people. We have an opportunity to use our grassroots movement to make a
real impact at a time of urgent need.

If you can assist, please travel to one of these areas this weekend:

QUINCY, IL

Oakley-Lindsey Civic Center

South 3rd St. and Kentucky St.

Quincy, IL 62301

Map and Directions

Saturday and Sunday, June 14th - 15th

6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Volunteers are asked to come through the north doors of the
Oakley-Lindsey Center. Everyone will be asked to sign a registration
sheet as they enter and leave so the city can keep track of the
volunteer service.

Volunteers are encouraged to bring shovels, gloves and sturdy shoes.

NIOTA, IL

If you'd like to help sandbag in Niota you can call Hancock County emergency services at 217-357-6004 for more information.

URSA, IL

Volunteers are still needed in Ursa. The operation is underway
at Shaffer Farm, along the Ursa blacktop road, 1/8 mile west of the
North Bottoms Road.

Volunteers are also requesting cold bottled water for those who are working.

More information on volunteering in this area:

http://my.barackobama.com/floodvolunteer

Our thoughts and prayers go out to those who have been affected by the recent flooding through the Midwest.

If you are not able to make it to Quincy but would like to help, visit the American Red Cross to donate to their relief efforts or find out how to get involved.

Thanks,

Obama for America

I've never been asked for anything by any politician besides money.  I've never received an email that was about anything but politics - who said what about whom - or policy. 

Maybe I'm making a big deal out of nothing, but the campaign is using its donor list to get help for folks who really need it right now, and I am so proud to be on that list.  I can't explain it fully, but...I'm glad this person will be President in a few short months.

After 9/11 our "president" only asked us to shop.  For the first time in my life I'm proud of a leader I elected.

But enough about Obama...I'm going out to get an oil change and some air in my tires, 'cause it looks like I'm headed to Quincy tomorrow.

If any of you are anywhere near the Midwest, the folks in Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois, Nebraska and Kansas are not only dealing with the floods but have been devastated by the worst tornado season we've had in 10 years.  If you have time, come and help sandbag.  If you are far away or can't make the trip, please contact the Red Cross to donate blood, clothes and food.  It's really, really bad out here - people have lost everything they own to wind and water, and we know we can't yet count on our government to help them (not until January, anyway).

Thanks :)

So I have CNN on in the background while I'm working (the constant loop of daytime stories is generally easy to ignore...sorry CNN), when they cut to part of McCain's town hall meeting in Philadelphia (?). 

I heard these two snippets within less than a few minutes of each other (I might not be quoting exactly, the video isn't available yet 'cause I think the meeting is still going on):

1)  "I don't think the people of Pennsylvania are bitter" (essentially re-hashing the bits and pieces of "bittergate" - old news, old man!)

2) "We need to move away from soundbite politics.  I want to hear more full quotes coming from the media - in context!"

So, what McCain the hypocrite is saying is, it's important to look to context and understand the full meaning of a statement, not just an abbreviation of what was actually said...unless it's something Obama said, in which case soundbites, or maybe only a key word or two, are just fine.  I guess McCain didn't really expect to be held to his "Straight Talk" standard.

Either that, or he was having another "senior moment" and forgot he referred to the context-free "bitter" soundbite two minutes prior.

I'll keep checking for the video and will post more exact quotations when I have them...feel free to add them if you spot them first.

I don't remember how to screen capture, so pardon me if I screw this up, but right now on the main page Josh has a (mistaken?) double post.

Until now, we'd only seen such slips in the Cafe, but it seems we're not alone! 

Maybe now they'll feel our pain and let us edit!

(Light pouring, choirs singing, etc.)

And if the link didn't work, my apologies - it's not like we can preview to test our links...(ohh!...idea light bulb!).

Politico ran an article today that discusses the difficulties Democratic congressional candidates will have in abiding by the ban on accepting money from PACs and lobbyists implemented by Sen. Obama and the DNC.    In fact, the DCCC and the DSCC both say the probably *won't* stop accepting handouts.

Specifically, the lobbyists whine, candidates can't raise money any other way - and the Dems want to win, right?

Before I go any further, I just want to point out two things that I find to be hilarious about the article:

1) Most of the quotes came from disgruntled lobbyists - not too many candidates want to speak out against Obama just now.
2) Although these same lobbyists resent the fact that Obama's edict has painted candidates who do accept their donations as "scumbags" they don't deny the fact that their donations come with big fat strings and are effectively tainted.

Now back to the point:  when I first read this article, I got a little worried that if too many candidates protest the DNC's policy that it won't take and Obama will look like he can't control his own party. 

But I'm wondering if this Congressional and Senatorial temper tantrum only serves to reinforce his point while providing him cover from the Republicans.

Here's why grassroots fundraising has worked for Obama:  he introduced himself to his constituency (both the one he has and the one he wants).

Obama was able to build a lot of national excitement for his presidential campaign primarily from the base he had been cultivating in Illinois for a number of years.

For example, way back after his first session in the Senate, Obama went on a statewide town hall tour where he reported back to Illinois on what was happening in Washington and asked us what we needed him to know about our towns, cities, counties, etc.  I attended one of these town halls and he showed up with our local state legislators.  I had never laid eyes on any of these guys before, but there they were, participating in what was a remarkably interesting, localized conversation.   Together they showed us how our concerns were impacted by events in Washington and Springfield and vice versa.  It was amazing to watch.

Since then, I see these legislators around town and they seem more like people who are approachable, who listen and who represent us well - so when they ask for funding for re-election I happily cut a small check.  And there are many others here who will do the same.

Until this year I have never donated to single campaign and now I try to help our good representatives as much as I can - and I have to admit, if I hadn't met them this wouldn't be the case.

I think the policy Obama and the DNC are trying to enforce proves a really valuable point:  our elected leaders and their constituencies do not know each other.    Maybe if our leaders are forced to be beholden to us for support, WE will get the attention and quid pro quo that is currently reserved for lobbyists and PACS.

Further, I think it proves another point:  campaigns waste a ridiculous amount of  money.  If candidates are forced to rely only on what they can raise from citizen donors maybe they'll spend more wisely and rely on more direct, inexpensive (electronic and face to face) forms of communication with their constituencies. 

Can you imagine a campaign where you actually get to meet and talk to the candidates who want to represent you?  I get faint at the very thought! 

Of course, this will work mainly for incumbents, but even the DCCC could use Obama's grassroots strategy (and infrastructure) to raise excitement and hopefully cash for Democratic challengers.

Also, I know there are a TON of down ticket races going on right now, but it would be nice to see Obama showing support for candidates who reject PAC and lobbyist funds by showing up at an event for them (like a parent using reward teaching).

And, I think it's great to see lobbyists get angry as their influence flees like guests at a skunk picnic.

In the meantime, while the party debates this out, they get some cover because until Republicans reject lobby and PAC donations they can't use this issue against Dems - they'd look like the raging, corrupt hypocrites they are!

Anyway, I feel like this is an excellent exercise bringing government back to the people, but I'm curious to hear if others see holes in this (admittedly idealistic) logic.

[and don't forget to click recommend, please]

I've joked about the resemblance in the past, but after watching his "Green Screen" speech from this past Tuesday, I am absolutely convinced that McCain is living a double life,

Check out the following pics and tell me if you don't see a frightening similarity between these two:

Pic A

Pic B

This should have us all extremely worried, especially because you just don't know what sort of schemes he'll cook up to take back Castle GreySkull - I mean, the White House.

Politico is running a piece today that discusses Drudge's apparent support of Obama.  While folks on the left generally dismiss Drudge (he did a great job of sinking Gore and Kerry), the piece suggests that getting a pass from him is a coup to Obama who will need the PR support in the fall.  A couple of sections I particularly enjoyed:

Now, as Obama and Senator John McCain
look toward the fall, Drudge has emerged unexpectedly as more of a
threat to the Republican than to the Democrat. This, combined with the
rise of left-leaning sites such as Talking Points Memo and Huffington
Post—both of which have proven effective in promoting and amplifying a
Democratic message—reflects a major shift from the last two
presidential elections, a matter of open alarm to Republican
strategists and surprised satisfaction to Democrats.

Drudge himself is reviled by many on the left, but his news instincts
are undeniable—and he has an uncanny ability to drive the national
conversation with what he chooses to highlight on his site.


Now, while his links tend to stress the energy and scale of the Obama
phenomenon, he has emphasized a particularly damaging aspect of
McCain’s candidacy: his age.

I find this all terribly interesting - of course I haven't been a fan of Drudge since the Lewinsky mess, but it seems like Drudge is in a unique position with the right to make a switch and have it work in Obama's favor; his reporting is correct just often enough for him to have a little begrudging credibility (a little!) with the left, but he's also far enough outside the MSM to put a slant on his reporting - even when it slants in Obama's direction - without raising "journalistic" eyebrows or ruffling the feathers of his usual readers.   In other words, Drudge can be pro-Obama without losing his base or prompting  liberals to think, "alright, what are we not seeing...what's wrong with Obama" (which couldn't be true if Rush Limbaugh suddenly started talking about his benefits on the air).

All together, it isn't like the MSM has been especially unbiased or objective this campaign season (if anything they loved throwing gas on the drama fire), so it's interesting to see a guy who *never* claimed impartiality suddenly reversing sides.

(side note - click recommend!  I've never passed 10, and I'm feeling good today!)

CNN's reporting that Obama has resigned from Trinity Church (CNN got it from a blog).  If it's true, I'm not sure how I feel about it...sounds like he's putting power over principle.  Anyone else?

My apologies if this is old news, but a few folks have commented on idiotic's absence on certain posts.

For those, like myself, who were unaware, idiotic has a blog:
http://excellentnewsforhillary.blogspot.com/

If you're missing the "Excellent News" you can now get your fill.

Because she lost.

The end.

Sorry to post two in a day, but CH decided to take to task those of us who glory in "carping" on McCain's age, and asked that we not make fun of the poor guy for being old.  As he points out,

Age is not a proxy for ideology, or good ideas or bad ideas.

Fair enough.  I guess saying he shouldn't be president just because he's old is a little childish and pedestrian.  It's just plain easy!

So, the important question becomes, what can we "carp on?"  And, in the spirit of catchiness, what nicknames would help to sell those negative qualities?

In CH's post I suggested, "Skeletor," "McPotty Mouth" and "Captain Canoodle" (because he gives such nuzzly hugs).  I'm not suggesting that these options are exhaustive or even precisely funny, but they're simply meant to get the ball rolling. 

Leave your suggestions here, just remember that references to age are not allowed!!