If you can afford it, I think you should give some money to the DNC. I'm sure Obama will do spectacular fundraising, especially with Bill and Hillary Clinton's help, but it just looks bad every time you read an article that mentions the RNC has a 50 million dollar advantage over the DNC. Closing the gap will go a long way to more positive media coverage of the Democrats' chances this fall.

I'd like to make a quick point that will demonstrate that the telecoms should have known what they were doing was illegal regardless of whatever assurances they had from the white house. Of all the companies asked to violate our civil rights, one company refused to cooperate. Quest. If Quest knew what they were being asked to do was illegal, every other company knew it was illegal.

During the primaries we all became familiar with this idea of an "I told you so" campaign.  I know one person who can start printing "I told you so" t-shirts today. Ned Lamont.  Seriously, I can't believe Connecticut could fuck that one up so badly.  Actually, I can.  The Lieberman Lamont race demonstrates the need for party unity.  Lieberman was able to peel away democratic support for Lamont and conservatives in the state were all too happy to reward Joe for his support of the war.

We're past the time of playing nice with this shit stain.  I want Lieberman out of office post haste, and I'd like to see him humiliated and shamed.  Let's do some ball parks and figures on making that happen.  The most effective way is for someone to track down a prossy or rent boy he slept with. Beltway readers should get on that.  What else can we do? What can the people of Connecticut do?  Thoughts?

I remember hearing Hillary Clinton promise to work her heart out to get whomever the democratic nominee is elected. Yesterday Terry McCauliff said Sen. Clinton would acknowledge Barack Obama as the nominee as soon as he reached the magic number of delegates. He has reached that number and then some. We have a nominee. Sen. Clinton is not working to get the nominee elected. Only she can get her most dedicated supporters to rally behind Senator Obama and her non concession speech sends a confusing message to those supporters. If this is a gambit to get offered the vice president spot, crow baring herself into the ticket puts Barack Obama in a lose lose lose situation. If he takes her on, he'll seem weak for bowing to pressure. If he doesn't ask her, he'll alienate her most ardent supporters. If he offers it with a face saving agreement that she will turn it down, he weakens himself later by having a running mate who wasn't officially his first choice. How does any of this amount to working to get the democratic nominee elected in November? It doesn't. We have a nominee. It's time for Senator Clinton to live up to her promise.

I often click links to New York Times Op-Ed pieces from other sites thinking "Oh, New York Times. This might be good." Only to load the article and see the author is David Brooks or Paul Krugman and silently curse to myself "God fucking damn it.." My first idea for this post was to discuss which one was a bigger D-Bag, but then I remembered that Bill Kristol is a contributor now too. He obviously wins for biggest turd sandwich. Let's not forget Maureen Dowd and her ridiculous use of metaphor and opinions that conflict with her own writing from just weeks before. It made me realize how often I'm disappointed when I click on an NYT link and how relieved I am when I click on something like a piece from Eugene Robinson at WaPo. Is the New York Times totally rubbish? Should they be "on notice" or "dead to me" a la Stephen Colbert?

Those of you pondering Hillary's reference to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy might find this illuminating.

I just read a great piece over at huffpo about why Obama/Richardson is the real dream ticket.

I just want to link to a great diary at dailykos about what the electoral map will look like for Obama in November.

Tim Russert and the rest led me to believe that the Clinton campaign knew it was over when the results came in from North Carolina and Indiana. You only had to look at Bill and Chelsea Clinton's faces. She would stay in the race for a while, but it would be "choreographed." Some things needed to happen with a wink and a nod to allow the candidates to save face and help unite the party.

Apparently, Hillary Clinton is still trying to win by making a hard case to superdelegates about electability with power point presentations and disturbing comments about her hard working white coalition. Rahm Emanuel said that Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee. He said that Hillary can't win, but Barack could still lose. Ok, I suppose that's true, but Hillary doesn't have to be the one trying to make that happen.

I understand if she needs to continue her campaign for various party considerations. It's also perfectly reasonable that she should continue to raise money to settle her campaign's debts. If Barack Obama becomes absolutely unelectable between now and the convention, obviously the party will flip to her en mass. If that's her last real hope of getting the nomination, why not play nice and see if it happens? If he becomes unelectable before the convention she'll get the nomination. If he becomes unelectable in October when there's no turning back, well we'll all be sorry and have egg on our face, but she'll be first in line in 2012, ready on day one to say "I told you so." Either way, it's in her interest to be earning good will in the party, not trashing it.

After all we've been through, I may not truly believe that Sen. Obama is the democratic nominee until I see the confetti fall in Denver. Senator Clinton has taught me to be superstitious in politics, but for the purposes of this post, we'll imagine that he is the nominee.

If you think that this nomination process has been exhausting, you're right, but the really tough work is just beginning.

Obama supporters, be magnanimous. Clinton supporters, if I had poured so much of myself into this thing to come up short, I'd be shattered. We shared this feeling together in the wake of 2000 and 2004, but this is different. There weren't any Diebold delivered victories. This was a fair fight between two leaders on the right side of the fight to come in November. Take some time, but please come around. Divided we fail.

Every election, people say "this is the most important election in history," but this one really is different. You can feel it. I think maybe eight years ago we could afford to waste a term or two on a guy like John McCain. Yeah, it wouldn't be fun, but how bad could it get? Honestly, if he had been our president instead of George W. Bush, I know things wouldn't be as bad as they are now. That said, he has pledged to continue Bush's worst policies and anything else would be disastrous in its own right. Our military is at the breaking point, and we can't afford these wars. The climate is in crisis, and millions may starve and die as a result. The economy is rubbish, and America can no longer stay competitive with Europe, China, India, etc. The world is watching, willing to give us one more chance to see if we can reclaim our standing as a beacon of freedom and hope. Even if John McCain is more competent and less corrupt than George W. Bush, we still can't afford him.

As president, Barack Obama wants to mobilize the entire country to greatness. Democrats, that starts now, by working to get the man elected. Donate. Volunteer. Spread the word.

Hope and Turning the Page. Barack Obama told his campaign that if they were going to run for the white house, the campaign would have to be done with integrity and with joy. Democrats, some ugly things are coming our way, but we must keep our cool and remain positive. Don't punch out your republican dad at the dinner table and don't give a stranger a reason to vote against our candidate.

Constant Vigilence. Any time you hear misinformation or slanderous assertions about Barack Obama (he's a Muslim, he swore on a Koran), set the record straight. If you hear someone make a comment or express doubt about his race, speak up. Set an example. Let them know you don't feel that way, and you hope America can show itself to be better than they fear. People like that are followers anyway. If you say nothing, they'll think you tacitly agree and feel more comfortable in their own prejudice or fear. Set an example that they can follow.
 
Let's demand more of the MSM and hold them accountable. They're a bunch of gossipy children that pounce on insignificant details and let atrocities pass by without a mention. We need to start protesting their headquarters and demand that they do their jobs responsibly. Talk to the country like adults, ask real questions. If they had done their jobs, we might not be in this war. I don't give a shit about missing blond girls in Aruba, or polygamists in Texas. What about retired generals spreading propaganda in exchange for DoD contracts? Enough is enough. They felt the heat after the ABC debate. We have to bring that heat to the rest of them every time.
 
We can do this together. Yes, we can.

Let's be honest and say out loud what we've all known for years. Economists are worthless know nothing shitheads. Whew. That felt good.

What makes someone who studied a particular subject in higher education and made a career of it think they have anything valid to contribute to a national debate on the subject? Where do they get the nerve?

I mean it's not like when I'm sick I automatically turn to someone that studied medicine and passed some tests to prove how much they know. That would be too obvious.

If I were in some sort of legal jam, would I turn to some dipshit who was so stupid he was stuck in school for three years after he should have finished college? Fuck no. 

What's an archetect? Some loser with a bunch of pencils and T-square. Draw your fruity pictures for someone else, nerd. Want a building? Stack some rocks, and make each level smaller than the one below it. Job done. Six thousand years from now, people will be talking about how awesome you were and you'll appear as a CGI character in summer blockbusters.

The point is, whenever someone tries to confront you with facts or so called "expert" opinion, stop and examine the situation. Is this person sipping a latte? Do their arguments make you feel uncomfortable? (Note, they may use words like "logical") Do they use correct grammar? (Talking faggy) If they answer to any of the above is "Yes" you are probably faced with an elitist. Back away slowly. Don't make eye contact. Run to the nearest bar and consume boilermakers until you feel normal again. If the boilermakers alone don't work, strike up a chat with someone about how the dynosaurs didn't make it onto Noah's ark and the devil put their bones in the rocks to confuse us. You should feel that warm cloudy fuzz return to your brain soon enough.

For most of this campaign, I've felt that the democrats have had an election handed to them on a silver platter, and the only thing that could get the GOP out of their funk and energized would be democratic nominee Sen. Hillary Clinton. It's been a GOP bate fantasy since 1996. She would lose in the general election, and our majorities in the house and senate would shrink or disappear.

I don't think that anymore. I think that John McCain may have appeal to independents and moderates, but he's a flawed enough candidate that his temper and doddering old man image make it possible for a tenacious, fierce, and ruthless Senator Clinton to defeat him in November.  She will be a better president than John McCain even if her only policy achievement is to bring all of our troops home by the midterm elections in 2010. I predict that democratic majorities in the house in the senate will not grow. They will likely shrink, but she can pull out a general election win.

The point is that I just won't care.

Was I happier in the 90's? Yes. Was Bill Clinton a better president than either Bush? Definitely, but the Clintons share some blame for how bad things are now. Under the Clinton administration, democrats lost a majority in the house they held for over 40 years. During his two terms, the democratic party hemorrhaged seats in congress and governorships. Right or wrong, the religious right ascended to power with the Clintons as the focus for all of their anger. They were perceived as criminals and their crimes so great that even if the Monica Lewinski scandal was lame, if it was the one thing they could get to stick, so be it.  The Clintons emerged from the 90's unscathed. They evaded every scandal, and came out the other end with a seat in the senate and a $250k guarantee for speaking engagements. This, friends, made the climate fertile for George W. Bush to fly under the radar, running as a uniter, not a divider, all the way to the white house where the neocons, hard right wingers, and christian conservatives could reap their revenge. You know how the rest goes. Don't get me wrong. Bush and his rubber stamp congress are responsible for the travesties of the last eight years, but lingering anger from the Clinton years primed the political climate to create a perfect storm for Bush and company to come to power.

Bush and company of course played their hand too strong, their policies proved to be disastrous, and here we are again. Another perfect storm. The pendulum swings back. Do you see a pattern here?

Can Sen. Clinton win? Yes. Will she be a better president than John McCain? Yes. Will I be happier with her as president than John McCain? Yeah, probably I will. Will I give a shit at all about politics and where this country is headed? No, I won't. Because I will have learned that hope is for assholes. Politics of division are here to stay. It was naive to ever think different. People that resent someone running for the highest office in the nation for seeming too intellectual don't deserve intellectuals for president. They deserve frat boys like George W. Bush. People that get off on knee in the crotch politics of distortion, distraction, gotcha moments, and pandering.. They can have that. It's all negative, hateful, pointless, and poisonous. I'll happily tune out politics and focus on things that make me happy.

Yeah, I'll still vote, but again, I won't care, and I'm not alone.

"Everyone gets a Sharper Image foot massager.."
-- David Cross channeling George W. Bush.

There were a lot of contributing factors that led to George W. Bush and not Al Gore being inaugurated in January 2001, but one of them certainly was the traction he got pitching his tax cut plan and offering a $300 rebate check to most tax paying Americans. Bush's policies went against the economic interests of most of the people who voted for him, but they voted anyway. "I want my foot massager!"

It's called pandering. If this were highschool and we were voting for student body president, he'd have handed us free candy with "W" taped on it. It's just as lame, but sad in that when it works, it proves that we are as fickle, uninformed, and stupid as the MSM treats us. All you need to get a voter's attention is to dangle something shiny in front of them. Congratulations, you have the decision making and reasoning powers of a cat.

Let's examine the similarites.

For Clinton supporters, the first thing that should give you pause about your candidate's proposal is that John McCain suggested it first.

The plan has been roundly rejected by economists, and energy experts yet Senator Clinton is undetered.

"Aides to Clinton could not, when asked, point to a single non-political expert who supported such a proposal, saying simply that it is a president's prerogative when to take expert advise.

"We believe the presidency requires leadership," said Wolfson. "There are times that a president will take a position that a broad support of quote-unquote experts agree with. And there are times they will take a position that quote-unquote experts do not agree with."

Who else do we know that has selective attention when it comes to listening to experts and scientists? When you don't like what they have to say, it gets in the way of all the decidin' you have to do.

You're with us or against us.

Sen. Clinton asserted

that she was going to propose gas-tax-holiday legislation to see if members of Congress are "with us or against us" in battling the oil companies.

Hillary, speaking of members of Congress, said: "I want them to tell us, are they with us or against us when it comes to taking on the oil companies?"

Who else do we know says "you're with us or against us?" Clearly a uniter, not a divider. Who else do we know that forces ill conceived but politically expedient legislation in front of members of congress, daring them to vote against something that could so easily be turned against them in an election year? I can hear the ad now, "Congressman McDemocrat voted against saving Americans billions of dollars at the gas pump! Got road rage now?"

These are the sorts of election year gimicks that get us politicians we don't want and don't deserve. Speaking leaders we don't want or deserve. Remember in 2000 how Bush's Florida campaign co-chair oversaw the recount, and how the supreme court handed the presidency to him. How many times have you thought about how different the world would be if Al Gore had been our president instead? What do you suppose Al Gore makes of this gas tax holliday?

Hillary Clinton asks Barack Obama, "why won't you debate me?" She wants a debate, and to get one she's even proposing to shake up the format quite a bit. No moderators, just timed statements and rebuttals.

To be honest, I'm sick of these debates. Points aren't scored on substance. They're about faltering, waffling, gotcha moments, and crowbaring in zingers written by comittees of humorless assholes.

I propose a completely new debate format that might actually be interesting to watch. Let's have a debate without the nominees. Let's do this like debate club. Invite two figures skilled in debate to stand in for the candidates and argue for or against. To be fair, halfway through the debate, the debaters can be made to switch which candidate they are arguing for. I suggest Al Franken and Christopher Hitchens. That match up will be fun and entertaining. Al Franken would jump at a chance to get his face on national television to promote his bid for the senate, and Christopher Hitchens would leap at the chance to highlight his personal opposition to the policies of both candidates. Hitchens may be an asshat, but he's a very skilled debater, as is Franken. Franken can be witty and sharp without being a prick.  Hitchens is a walking encyclopedia of facts and historical context, capable of making compelling arguments that cut to the bone.

What do you say? Should we make this happen?

I think Barack Obama was pretty kind to the Rev in his speech on race that he gave in Philadelphia last month. How does he repay that? By proving to the world that he's not just batshit crazy, but he's also a narcissistic shithead of the highest order. I was willing before to give this guy the benefit of a doubt. Surely this guy must have done good work in his life, and in context maybe what he said isn't offensive, just a little spicy. He had an opportunity to show America he's not such a bad guy after all. Well he just came out and repeated all of the same crazy shit, and with attitude, like we are the assholes for not understanding why the government invented AIDS to kill black people. Congratulations. Slow Clap.. No one can give you the benefit of a doubt now. As I write this, Obama is rejecting and denouncing Wright, as he should. Unless this is some brilliant strategy where Wright is putting himself on the cross to allow Obama to completely sever all connection to him, Wright is indeed an asshole. Can other leaders of the black church please step up and tell Wright to crawl back under a rock and let Obama win this election? Can they also spend some time in public smoothing over the mess he made? Please?