OK.  Enough of the smokescreen and verbal subterfuge.  This meme that all the Big 3 are asking for is a "bridge loan" is crap.

A bridge loan connects two events, and is required because of a timing mismatch between the two events.  Hence the name bridge, because it spans that time mismatch.

So exactly waht are the two events that this BAILOUT is bridging?  And what is the collateral that ensures repayment.

This is a business deal.  Let's take off the ideological blinders and treat it as such.  The first step is to answer the above two questions.

Maybe this is just tinfoil hat talk, maybe not.

McCain has totally botched the bailout plan politics, but can come out ahead by the following sneaky, underhanded, duplicitous strategy ...

After blowing his chance to simultaneously reinforce his '<i>maverick</i>' meme and vigilant-foe-of-earmarks by voting for the bailout in the Senate, he can now torpedo any House adoption of the bailout.  This would be behind the scenes and off the record (or maybe even not if they give him the fig leaf of adding more wooden-arrows pork.)

This throws resolution of the 'crisis' back to square one and he can then play the populist and pork opponent on a new bill by railing against "rewarding the corrupt practices of Wall Street" and insisting on hearings and a bill that actually explores the problem and examines various new solutions. 

This will play enormously well with the populace and in the press.  It will be the story for a week or more, sucking all the oxygen from the room.  The public is so fed up with this bailout that they are hungry for anybody to stand up and say no.

McCain is a gambler and an opportunist and this is a gamble and an opportunity.  You might say he will never defy his corporate masters, but remember - he'll do anything to be president, including biting the hand that has fed him.  He's also desperate for a way to turn his campaign around.

Watch for this, McCain's reincarnation as the warrior of the people, standing up against the Wall Street fat cats when no one else would.

It's a nightmare for a confirmed Obama voter like me, but at least it will stop this horrible bailout and perhaps allows Obama an opening to join the fray against the bailout as well.  He could position himself as the thoughtful, pragmatic candidate, who now insists on a thorough examination and evaluation of solutions.

So you tell me ... is it tinfoil????

Video of Barack's stump speech line, "everyone should be able to have the same health care that members of Congress have"

Bullet points on screen of the Congresional health care plan

[voiceover]"John McCain doesn't want to change your benefits, expand your benefits, or even include you in benefits.  He wants to TAX your health care benefits ... if you have any"

"Why are John McCain's benefits good enough for Congress, but not good enough for you?"

The McCain/Palin refusal to take questions from the press creates a beautiful opening for Obama/Biden.  They should announce that they will offer a half-hour press conference by Biden, every week until the election - where questions are taken directly from the press and make the whole thing available for live broadcast (or tape delay on c-span or somewhere)

This will box in Palin and contrast the openess of Democratic governance with the stage managed, Svengali/Rovian message control of McCain/Palin.

After actually providing two of these, the entire campaign narrative will turn to Palin's refusal to answer questions in an open forum.

Whaddayathink???

The McCain/Palin refusal to take questions from the press creates a beautiful opening for Obama/Biden.  They should announce that they will offer a half-hour press conference by Biden, every week until the election - where questions are taken directly from the press and make the whole thing available for live broadcast (or tape delay on c-span or somewhere)

This will box in Palin and contrast the openess of Democratic governance with the stage managed, Svengali/Rovian message control of McCain/Palin.

After actually providing two of these, the entire campaign narrative will turn to Palin's refusal to answer questions in an open forum.

Whaddayathink???

His 'goal' -- "in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East"  was as bold as it gets.  It will be remembered not as a goal, but as a promise.

To me, this is what should be the headline tomorrow ... and form the basis for rebuttal from McCain and a full debate of both of their energy plans.  What exactly is McCain's goal in terms of energy anyway????

OK.  Actually Woman Bites Wolf

Here's a video clip (from Crooks and Liars) of Caroline Kennedy's masterful handling of the pompous, vacuous Wolf Blitzer.

Sweet Caroline

It's beautiful to behold.  I just wished they also included the part of the same segment where McCain's media rep Nicolle (?)  told Blitzer - on air - that they were convinced that he 'sleeps upside down somewhere'.

It was almost too good to be true.

For me I clapped when Caroline Kennedy slapped down Wolf Blitzer for asking her to 'run through' the confidential VP vetting process and whether Hilary was vetted.  He's such a Clinton shill and is intent on keeping alive the whole Hilary/Obama rift meme.  That's his only goal.  Caroline recognized it and stood up to him and told him in so many words to GFY.

And then when Nicolle (?) from the McCain side told him that they were convinced that he 'sleeps upside down somewhere' it was almost too good to be true.

Finally Blitzer got bitch slapped in public, not once, but twice, and once from each party.  It was a beautiful thing!

What was your highlight?

Why is it so damn hard for even one TV talking head to say something like, "You know, the convention is about Barack Obama and his quest to be elected president.  The republicans are desperate to intrude and create a storyline of Hilary Clinton in order to take the focus of Obama and we in the media have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker."  This is a made-up story and feeds the media lust for conflict.  There are probably at least a 100 other points of view represented in Denver that are contrary to Obama, but the whole show only exists because Obama has won the nomination.  Let's cover that you morons!

The contrast between this week's convention coverage and next week's will be blindingly clear.  The repub convention coverage will focus on McCain, not democratic talking points.

It really sickens me to see this non-stop gabfest about Hilary.  She lost.  The story is Obama.  Period.

And the suits wonder why nobody watches TV news anymore !!!

I was enthused to hear Biden’s great line, “these times require more than a good soldier, they require a wise leader” and think it has the makings of a valuable meme if he keeps hammering on it.  It’s really a more acceptable (MSM acceptable) way of making the same point that Wes Clark tried to make … and that point needs to be made.  Made in a reasonable “oh-yeah, sure” way, not a “how-dare-you-criticize” way.  It acknowledges McCain’s service and courage but also dismisses it as insufficient as a basis to choose a president.

 

The essence of a good soldier is following orders, and that fits perfectly with McCain’s record from the Keating 5, to the FCC commissioner deal ,to the lobbyist connections, to the 95% behind George Bush and probably many more a competent research team could find.  It effectively refutes the ‘maverick’ meme as a maverick is the antithesis of a ‘good soldier’.

 

The trick is to hammer it home and not just let it die out after this speech.

 

The other side of it is to challenge McCain to show where he has politically shown ‘wise leadership’ and stuck with it, instead of just throwing in with a showy attempt to change something.  Somewhere that he has actually led the change and not abandoned it after it became politically expedient.  Campaign reform is an excellent example of where he abandoned real leadership when it was inconvenient.  Refusing to define waterboarding as torture is another.  Maybe an ad titled “John McCain, Inconvenient Truths”.  Of course Obama would need iron-tight examples of his own leadership in order for this to work.  Plus those examples would have to demonstrate not just leadership, but wise leadership.  Then the distinction could be drawn.

 

Also, in response to the debate clip of Biden saying Obama isn’t ready, by first saying that no one running for president in a primary has ever conceded that their opponent would be a better choice, or be more ready and that no ever asked him if  he thought McCain is ready.  This should prompt a question of, Well, is McCain ready?” which he can then respond to by saying he thinks McCain is not only not ready, but has demonstrably proven that he never will be and then challenge the MSM to give that as much coverage as they have his other comments.

There's a great article on this over at http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/02/is-there-anything-worth-defending/ of all places.  Directly addresses the point of whether the matter is trivial, damaging, or worthwhile to debate among Obama partisans.  Definitely worth your time

I brought this up in a comment on another post, but I think it deserves a post of its own.

There has been a tenuous thread wending its way through the posts at TPM that the sudden appearance of previously unseen posters castigating Obama indicates some sort of organized Republican trolling operation.   I don’t buy it.  To me it’s blogospheric paranoia.  It’s a fearful position and it excuses the holder from examining any other motivation.  I think this sprouting of new voices signals something much deeper, and far more positive.

Speaking for myself, I have been reading TPM for a long time but only recently began posting.  The reason I did is because this issue crosses the line in terms of allowing me to luxuriate in my ‘lurkingness’.  And by issue I mean two distinct things, although intertwined.

1. The vast balance of contents (not just immunity) of the FISA bill with its nefarious widening erosion of our civil liberties, and
2. Obama’s complete about-face on his commitment to veto ‘any bill containing immunity’.

If I expect my candidate to stand tall and fight, then I damn well better be willing to do the same – if only to demonstrate the necessity of doing so.

So I decided to start posting and to call Obama out on his surrender and let him know it is unacceptable.

I’m not limiting my response to TPM, or to the blogosphere in general and I encourage and exhort everyone else to take the additional steps I have taken.  I have written the Obama campaign directly.  I respond to each email request for donations with an explanation that no funds will be donated until Obama publicly opposes FISA.  I have joined the group on his web site asking him to stand up to FISA - http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA

The emergence of posters like myself means this issue has hit a nerve.  It’s not some trolling operation but rather a genuine recognition that is issue is critical and that a large number of heretofore silent Obama supporters will not abide his cave-in on this.  That’s important for him to know and in doing so it is not a sign of weakness.

Efforts to portray this as trolling, or talking family business out into the street are ill considered and reflect a failure of arguments on the merits of accepting the FISA bill.

Grrrrrr - no edit ability ----Grrrrr

Cleaning up my previous post to make it readable

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. … Secrecy must not trump accountability. ... I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come.

Barack Obama, 08/01/2007

 

 

Which would you rather have …

 

A.)     President Obama without the new FISA bill

 

B.)      President Obama with the new FISA bill

 

C.)     President McCain without the new FISA bill

 

D.)     President McCain with the new FISA bill

 

 

If you honestly believe that our country is better off with A than B, then why on earth are you working so hard to tell everybody to shut up about FISA?

 

If your argument is that it’s a necessary evil in order to get Obama to the White house, you have accepted the false choice of FISA …

 

Obama must support FISA or the big bad Republicans will smear him as soft on terror and that will be insurmountable in terms of winning the election

 

That’s a position of fear, of handing power to your opponent, and finally it just plain doesn’t hold up.  Do you actually believe that if FISA passes as is, that the Republicans will not attack Obama as soft on terror.  Do you honestly believe that having taken a principled stand to oppose and defeat the FISA bill that this fact alone will sway an undecided voter that Obama is ‘soft on terror’?  Do you think that voter would have been untarnished by other false Republican smears and would have voted for Obama otherwise?  Sorry folks it just doesn’t add up.

 

Obama promised to ‘change the way things are done in Washington’.  He’s in Washington now.  He can demonstrate that change now, by standing up for the people and the Constitution.  People, if he’s afraid of the Republicans now, that isn’t going to change.  We’re going to get one capitulation after the next if we don’t forcefully demonstrate that we expect him to keep his word, to us, that I “will stand with you in the fights to come”.   Stand now Senator -  and stop kneeling in front of the Republican altar of security trumping liberty.

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. … Secrecy must not trump accountability. ... I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come.

Barack Obama, 08/01/2007

<Br></BR>

<Br></BR>

 

Which would you rather have …

<Br></BR>

A.)     President Obama without the new FISA bill

<Br></BR>

B.)      President Obama with the new FISA bill

<Br></BR>

C.)     President McCain without the new FISA bill

<Br></BR>

D.)     President McCain with the new FISA bill

<Br></BR>

<Br></BR>

 

If you honestly believe that our country is better off with A than B, then why on earth are you working so hard to tell everybody to shut up about FISA?

<Br></BR>

If your argument is that it’s a necessary evil in order to get Obama to the White house, you have accepted the false choice of FISA …

<Br></BR>

Obama must support FISA or the big bad Republicans will smear him as soft on terror and that will be insurmountable in terms of winning the election

<Br></BR>

That’s a position of fear, of handing power to your opponent, and finally it just plain doesn’t hold up.  Do you actually believe that if FISA passes as is, that the Republicans will not attack Obama as soft on terror.  Do you honestly believe that having taken a principled stand to oppose and defeat the FISA bill that this fact alone will sway an undecided voter that Obama is ‘soft on terror’?  Do you think that voter would have been untarnished by other false Republican smears and would have voted for Obama otherwise?  Sorry folks it just doesn’t add up.

<Br></BR>

Obama promised to ‘change the way things are done in Washington’.  He’s in Washington now.  He can demonstrate that change now, by standing up for the people and the Constitution.  People, if he’s afraid of the Republicans now, that isn’t going to change.  We’re going to get one capitulation after the next if we don’t forcefully demonstrate that we expect him to keep his word, to us, that I “will stand with you in the fights to come”.   Stand now Senator -  and stop kneeling in front of the Republican altar of security trumping liberty.

I can't help but notice the parellism between the geral tactics of the Republican neo-con base and the defenders of Sen. Obama's FISA surrender.

The Republicans  want the voters to ignore their civil liberties and shove aside the Democrats so that the Republicans can save us from 'tehe terrorists'

The Obama apologists want us to ignore our 4th amendment rights and give a blank check to Sen. Obama on any position he takes so that Obama can save us from the terrors of a McCain administration.

Both tactics are calculated to speak to our fears instead of our principles, to ignore the reality of specific issues in favor of the safety from the bogeyman, be he Bin-Laden or McCain.