Hey, I'm working on disproving a spam Obama-rumor factory that was sent
to a friend of mine, and I was wondering if anyone had a link to some
background on one of the points I don't have much information about.
Quoting the spam:

"20.) Without Me, There Would Be No
Ethics
Bill - LIAR, you didn't write it,introduce
it, change
it, or create it."


I am right in saying he cosponsored it, if it's referring to what I think it is, right?

Okay, was I the only one who noticed a giant gap in CNN's reporting of Obama's and McCain's tax policies? They jumped from $161,000 to $2.9 million! There is a large gap of numbers in there. I'm an Obama supporter who lives in a fairly (but not obscenely) wealthy suburb, and so it would be helpful to have the numbers that fill in the gap. Can anyone help?

Does anyone have a link to Obama's entire speech to AIPAC (video please)? If so, would you mind letting me see? I didn't get a chance to yesterday.

So with all the natter and questions that pundits have been asking back and forth about whether Obama's an elitist, it's natural that I've been thinking about the idea myself. Furthermore, after Chris Matthews nailing that guy on what appeasement is (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/hardball-
shoutfest-matthe_n_102020.html), I started wondering to myself what an elitist is. Somehow, I doubted that the definition I would find is "arugula-lover" or "person who is unskilled at bowling," so I wandered onto Dictionary.com to find out (Hey, it's quick). Here's what I got:

1.practice of or belief in rule by an elite.

2.consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.
I figured, "Okay, people can't be upset about the first one because that's what representative democracy is all about, and I know the government could use some fixing, but we can agree that we like the basic idea of a republic, right?" And so the first one was out because whether or not Obama was one shouldn't be a major issue.

As for the second definition, I find it hard not to believe that Obama is proud of being a college graduate, of having made it to the Senate, and now being able to run for president, so I guess he qualifies, but in that case, aren't all of us elitists in that case? I mean, just about everyone has done something really well that helped you join a certain group of people, whether you got good grades, did well at sports, or got a promotion at work, right? And if you do something well, don't you have the right to have pride in it and all consequences of it? So why can't Obama be proud of the position he's in? It doesn't make sense, so that should, in theory, rule out the second definition.

So what, then, are people so worked up about? It's evidently not anything in the dictionary definition, which means that people are referring to something while using the word for something else. This is a problem. Lapses in communication like this will always heat up arguments because there is a fundamental misunderstanding in what the subject matter is, which will lead to secondary misunderstandings in just about everything else discussed.

I was at this point for a while, until I found an peripherally interesting article in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/138528) today and discussed it with my mom. It was an interview with David Sirota about his new book about a supposed populist uprising against the elites that will take place from both the left and the right. Sirota states that there are actually more than a dozen taking place, and then he lists them, and I quote:

"On the left, it manifests itself as a backlash against the war,
economic inequality, and conservatism. On the right, it's a backlash
against illegal immigration and liberal elites. ...They are different in the specific issues they focus on, but the same in what they are acting against: the establishment and the status quo."

Okay, so these are the things that Sirota says are elitist. The argument sounds to me to be a little odd - I thought most were fighting against failed policy, rather than against any particular group of elites. I know that's the reason I'm upset about a lot of the conservatism that's affected the government. If it worked, I'd be perfectly happy with the status quo. I mentioned the article to my mom and asked her my $100 question: "Who're the 'elites' this guy's after, anyway?"

My mom answered in two words: the Jews, citing two quotes. First, one later in the interview, in which Sirota says in response to a question about whether he was worried the book will scare away elites from reading it, "Not at all, because the book wasn't written for the establishment crowd. It's not a book by Tom Friedman. It's not a book for wealthy people." The second one was a quote by some Hollywood director back in the 90s giving a speech, in which he opened by saying, "Welcome, my fellow cultural elites. Or should I say, welcome, my fellow Jews."

Now two quotes, especially two quotes like these that seem to be more emotion-ridden than fact-ridden, are not the foundation of a good argument. However, the foundation of curiosity? I don't see why not, and the more I look at Sirota's political points about the elites, the more I can see a pattern.

Jews are stereotypically for the Iraq War on the basis of Israel's security, and since many are well-off, they would also be stereotypically in favor of conservative fiscal policy (I know, this doesn't have basis in fact, but generalizations and straw men rarely are). On the conservative end, Jews are stereotypically more socially liberal than the American populace at large and since they would have more job security, would be less bothered by illegal immigration.

But when I try to replace "elitist" with its newfound definition in worries about Barack Obama, I wind up just as stuck as before. I don't think anyone's worried about him being a secret Jew, and so this definition makes no sense. Not only that, but Hillary Clinton, the supposed anti-elitist candidate, tends to attract more Jews than Obama does.

The word, I think, is hopelessly confusing, and should perhaps just be purged from the English language until someone can find a good definition. But now I'm wondering if the stereotype of an elitist stems from stereotypes about Jews and maybe just doesn't directly refer to them today. So, what does everyone else think? Am I onto something, or have I just spent too long trying to parse the word?

With all the talk of VP picks, I thought I'd add my two cents. I always hear about Webb, Clinton, Rendell, Bayh... the list goes on, but an under-discussed pick is Delaware Senator Joe Biden.
So who is Joe Biden? Well, if you're really interested, go read his Wikipedia article or check out his legislative record. But for those of us who are too lazy, I'll give you the shorthand. Biden was elected to the US Senate in 1973. He tried to run for president in 1988 and this year as well, but didn't make it very far. He's made good use of the interim, though, becoming the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and coming up with one of the most comprehensive and realistic plans for how to handle Iraq.

Joe Biden is a strong counterpoint to every one of Obama's weaknesses. People complain that Obama is too inexperienced. Biden's been in the Senate for three decades! When it comes to time in public service, he can run relatively even with McCain (excluding military service, which is, admittedly, a big exclusion).

This leads to one of his perceived weaknesses - the fact that he's a Washington insider in a campaign against Washington. But Biden does not speak like your stereotypical politician. He gives strong opinions and then backs them up. He has earned a reputation for straight-talk among those who are familiar with him, and his is quite arguably more deserved than McCain's - although it does get him into trouble every so often.

But this is where his record helps him out. When he called Obama the first articulate and clean black candidate (to paraphrase), part of the reason that story itself didn't doom his chances (his lack of media attention did) is because Biden has a long record of supporting civil rights and equal opportunity. People knew that Biden wasn't a racist (just a little clumsy with the mouth) precisely because he has been in the public eye for so long.

He is a guru on matters of foreign policy, and during the debates over the past year, constantly served as a fact-checker against most of the main candidates, keeping them on the straight and narrow. One area where Obama needs cred is foreign policy, and I don't know anyone who could say that Biden couldn't lend him that with a straight face.

Perhaps one of the best things about Biden is that this is a guy who can speak to the Scots-Irish who Obama is having so much trouble with. A lot of time, grabbing someone for help with a region doesn't work too well. However, Biden, coming from Scranton, PA, has just the kind of persona that resonates with the people being classified as the "white working class" that pundits love to go on about.

Part of the reason that Edwards, the sunshine boy (no disrespect intended) didn't help much with the South (and Gore before him) is because they didn't give off the gritty, toussler reputation that is supposedly respected by people in the Appalachia region. Biden, on the other hand, even if it gets him in trouble on occasion, can benefit from his straight-talking persona to give him some cred in the area.

Obama/Biden '08 is the perfect ticket for the next administration. Anyone interested can go to http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Obama-Biden2008 . Thank you for your time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/
spinning-fine-spinning-an_b_100072.html

This is well-written, concise, and given to anyone calling Indiana a must-win for Obama.

I like to write about my hobbies. I have two big ones (and really need a life besides them). I love politics and I love anime. The two have relatively little to do with each other. Since anime is written in Japan, it is almost never written with the ins and outs of American government in mind. However, there are some lessons that can be universally applied.

One anime that I recently finished (and love to all the characters' deaths) is called Higurashi no Naku Koro ni, or When the Cicadas Cry. Now, before I go on to connect horror anime with politics, I must ask any people who think they might see this anime to please leave the room because it is impossible to say anything about it without spoiling something. I'll give you time.

..................................

Are we good? Great.

Higurashi no Naku Koro ni is divided into small, four-or-so-episode-long stories that detail six characters living in the small town of Hinamizawa. The focus of this anime is on trust and paranoia, and although each story involves the same characters, it is common that most of the characters are killed at the end of each story.

For instance, in the first arc, the main character, Keiichi notices that two of his friends are trying to kill him through a few different means. What start out as thinly-veiled threats ("I'd hate for you to be absent tomorrow.") turn into a needle buried in some food they give him, culminating in them both assaulting him and trying to drug him using a syringe. At this point, Keiichi manages to break away, killing both of them with a baseball bat, and runs away. He later calls the police from a phone booth only to be interrupted in the middle by his own suicide attempt to scratch through his own throat. He dies a day later.

Sounds gruesome, doesn't it? So ultimately, what is the point? Not even Keiichi knows. He asks their corpses before running away, "Why?? What was all of this for??" He dies without getting an answer, but later, we (the audience) do.

Ultimately, the purpose was.... self-fulfilling prophecy, of a sort. His friends were never trying to kill him. Keiichi became afraid because of a murder streak in that village that occured every year on the same day (indeed, the most recent murder had occurred the day before his friends started threatening him), and that fear had spiraled into paranoia, to the point that he hallucinated both the needle (tabasco  sauce mixed into the food) and the syringe (really a magic marker) and killed both his friends needlessly, then promptly killing himself, which is a symptom of the paranoia (Hinamizawa syndrome, a fictional disease) he suffered.

So what's the lesson? We create our own bogeymen, and ultimately, the only ones who can claw out our throats are ourselves.

Right now, I'm worried that the entire Democratic party is suffering from a case of Hinamizawa syndrome (The only thing scarier than one person with it is a lot of people with it at once). We are running around chasing each other with metal bats, creating our own conspiracy theories as to who is out to betray us, but here's the thing: We're all nakama!  We're all looking to the same thing! We're all in the same boat! If one of those bats hits the boat hard enough, though, it springs a leak, and then we all sink.

No one who isn't in the boat can make it sink. The Republicans can't do that, terrorists can't do that, heck, the Green party can't do that! This is the thing that all Democrats need to remember. You don't need to get rid of your bat. Keep it with you, if you want, for crying out loud, the bigger, the better. Just use it to row instead of beating your comrades.

In the anime, there ultimately was a conspiracy to thwart, but no one was looking in the right direction because they were too busy killing each other. Ultimately, the anime does have a happy ending, once the characters manage to overcome the paranoia, but I'm worried that we'll wind up stuck in one of the bad endings where everyone kills each other.

Democrats have a choice now. We can acknowledge our fears on both sides and overcome them (Neither Obama supporters nor Clinton supporters are conspiring to throw the election to the Republicans). Or we can wander through the dead-end timelines until we ultimately claw out our own throats.

So, what's it gonna be?

Here's a new ad that MoveOn.org is just releasing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/
moveon-launches-mission-a_n_99450.html

It's okay. MoveOn is a little heavy-handed most of the time, and I think maybe they were again near the end, but it's a solid ad. Well, except for one problem. The entire ad, I was just staring at the frosting and going "Cake..." Had to remind myself to focus on the message.

As a sidenote, I like cake.

I want to vote for a Democrat in November. I really do. However, I need to feel like said Democrat is an improvement on something. With that said, I have been listening to depressing foreign policy stuff all day, and right now am really longing for the good ol' days of Biden. Knowing that my biggest concern is foreign policy (but I will pay attention to other stuff), someone, please convince me that Clinton is at least a tiny bit better than McCain, because at the moment, I don't trust our foreign policy in either of their hands (I did trust Clinton until her brilliant nuclear umbrella idea). So, people know that I'm not uncivil. Please convince me.

...First, let me make a side-note that two posts in a day is a rarity for me... even if the first was at 4AM.

Now then, without further ado, I present exhibit A:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134317

And now, I present my reaction:

...You mean that no one except Fareed Zakaria felt this was important enough to write about???? I love Fareed Zakaria, but here's the thing about him - he's not a journalist; he's an opinion columnist. A hell of a good one, but when I read an Op-Ed, I usually expect to know the facts before I read the piece. The Op-Ed's only job is to show me a way to interpret it. So where was everyone?? Napping?? Taking 3AM phone calls?? And is there any way to get some real research on this? Is anyone familiar with it?

Was anyone actually talking about Joe Biden? No, not really. But I
read Elizabeth Edwards's piece in the Times
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27
edwards.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin),
and I started to get curious as to what Biden was doing right now. I
guess you could call me a Biden fangirl... I like to call myself a
supporter, but if you called me a fangirl, I wouldn't get pissed. So I
did a tiny bit of digging on Youtube, and look what I found!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXk2QA3clk0

It's
a little old, but if you blow off a little of the dust, it plays just
fine. It's Biden making sense as usual, and only Olbermann covering it
(as usual). It's nice to see that someone's starting to hit McCain
where he needs to be hit, and the honorable Delaware senator is just
the person to do that. I've been listening to his policy proposals ever
since last year, and I love almost every word he has to say (Am I a
hawk? A little bit, so just know that in advance before going off).
This is a guy who made sense when no one else was, and eventually, the
frontrunners started piggybacking on his ideas - most of them
eventually agreed that soft partition in Iraq may be inevitable, for
example.

Oh, one more thing. He gives a reason for not having
announced yet, although it depresses me. Biden, the next POTUS (Obama)
needs you! You must do your duty for your country become his Secretary
of State!

Alright, personal opinion, I think he likes
Hillary's ideas a little bit better, and that's why he hasn't endorsed,
maybe along with the reason he gives. -.- Depressing, but maybe there's
a way to change his mind on both counts.

...Yeah, in case you haven't guessed, I'm really bored. Night, everyone!

(Just on an added side-note... could someone please give me the code for links? I'd use the option at the top, but for websites, it becomes a little tricky since I can't copy and paste. Thanks!)

Was anyone actually talking about Joe Biden? No, not really. But I read Elizabeth Edwards's piece in the Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27
edwards.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin), and I started to get curious as to what Biden was doing right now. I guess you could call me a Biden fangirl... I like to call myself a supporter, but if you called me a fangirl, I wouldn't get pissed. So I did a tiny bit of digging on Youtube, and look what I found!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXk2QA3clk0

It's a little old, but if you blow off a little of the dust, it plays just fine. It's Biden making sense as usual, and only Olbermann covering it (as usual). It's nice to see that someone's starting to hit McCain where he needs to be hit, and the honorable Delaware senator is just the person to do that. I've been listening to his policy proposals ever since last year, and I love almost every word he has to say (Am I a hawk? A little bit, so just know that in advance before going off). This is a guy who made sense when no one else was, and eventually, the frontrunners started piggybacking on his ideas - most of them eventually agreed that soft partition in Iraq may be inevitable, for example.

Oh, one more thing. He gives a reason for not having announced yet, although it depresses me. Biden, the next POTUS (Obama) needs you! You must do your duty for your country become his Secretary of State!

Alright, personal opinion, I think he likes Hillary's ideas a little bit better, and that's why he hasn't endorsed, maybe along with the reason he gives. -.- Depressing, but maybe there's a way to change his mind on both counts.

...Yeah, in case you haven't guessed, I'm really bored. Night, everyone!

Does David Axelrod have any idea what a dumb statement that is?? For those who haven't seen, it's on the main page of TPM at the moment. He said that most working-class whites go Republican anyway, and so it doesn't matter that they didn't turn out for Obama.

Why did Axelrod have to choose such a lousy moment to go senile? That comment was absurd on two different fronts. First of all, the 50-state strategy that Obama needs to use to beat McCain rests on the idea that every vote should be attempted, no matter how unreliable the group. That's why Obama could toss states like Virginia and Texas into play - states that have political breakdowns that have been very favorable to Republicans in recent years. That statement essentially disavows that idea and further shores up the stupid whisper (and louder) campaign that he's an "elitist."

Second of all, this allows the Clinton campaign to say that Obama doesn't care about a group that makes up a sizeable amount of the country and score points for it! The Clinton campaign! The same people who have declared half of the states in the union at this point to be irrelevant! Why the hell would anyone allow them the opportunity??

Axelrod, you've done great up until now. I suggest you and Obama take a three-day vacation or something before your brains get addled. We don't need to campaigns yelling non sequitors over these next six weeks.

Okay, after having watched this mob assemble and tear apart website after website in real-time, I have come to the conclusion that a there has been a mass outbreak of a terrible disease. A disease that has turned people to demons and corpses. I am speaking, of course, of the infamous Hinamizawa Syndrome. But not just any strain. No, I have termed this strain the Type-ABC Hinamizawa Syndrome after doing extensive investigations on both the disease itself and the event that has caused the recent outbreak.

Now, my dear delusional patients, to understand the horror that has conquered your minds, I must first explain to you its origins. Hinamizawa Syndrome was first discovered during World War II, when soldiers invading the Shishibone region of Japan would begin to act deranged and psychotic, even attacking their comrades. Over time, the disease had been kept a secret by the Japanese government until someone from that prefecture made a fortuitous journey to... RUSSIA. Needless to say, when the first deranged patients started popping up there, a country with nuclear weapons, the Japanese could keep it a secret no longer and allowed the other G-7 (and eventually G-8) countries know about the danger that was spreading throughout their borders. The governments worked rapidly to try to contain the people without scaring the populi by keeping it a secret, but to no avail.

Most people infected with Hinamizawa syndrome would never know it until a stress of great enough magnitude sets the symptoms off. It was thought that nothing short of torture (which was plentiful in Russia, of course) could set it off, and thus the populi could remain safe. Until ABC issued the one thing even more stressful than torture to a mass audience: a god-awful presidential debate.

There are five stages to Type-ABC Hinamizawa syndrome.

Level 1: A mild sense of forboding whenever the words "Obama," "Clinton," "bitter," "Reverend," "right," "Gibson," "Stephanopopopopo..." (needless to say, there's little to worry about with this one), "Bosnia," and "-gate" are mentioned.

Level 2 : A sudden aversion to anything having to do with network news or the latin alphabet. Sudden fixations on the hidden meanings of flags in various conspicuous locales at this point is also common.

Level 3: A sense that someone is constantly following you. You may even hear the words, "And from all of us at ABC News, I hope you have a good night" repeated over and over again, following you wherever  you go.

Level 4: At this stage, full-on paranoia tends to occur, usually upon the discovery that you can't figure out how to spell your own last name. The voice that was following you before becomes louder and more persistant, now asking an explanation for why you haven't denounced and rejected your co-worker yet after you watched him stick his ABC (oh no!) gum under the table and other such nonsense.

Level 5: The fatal stage. This usually results in a full-on psychotic break from reality. The subject usually smashes any glass screen in sight, televisions in particular, and murders anyone who so much as mentions politics. Eventually, you become convinced that George Stephanopoulos has been using your vocal cords the entire time and the cause of death is usually managing to scratch out one's own throat.

I fear that a mass-detonation of this disease has occurred, and so I must ask anyone who has seen the recent Philly debates to please lie down so I can give you a dose of C103. Don't worry, I am indeed a trained physician. Pay no attention to the crayon on my diploma.

(To anyone who would wish to learn more about the horrendous disease you are suffering from, I urge you to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higurashi_no_Naku_Koro_ni)

I was cracking up the entire time I was reading this! http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/04/one_debate_wiz_wit.cfm
Sorry - this is short, but I just really wanted people to get some good laughs out of this.