Palin "shock"

*
Will Thomas wrote a brief post on TPM remarking on two under-reported aspects of McCain's selection of Palin for his VP running mate. The second one is of high interest to this blog:

"Shock. The pick caught everyone by surprise, including the Obama camp...."

Just imagine how "shocked" the "Obama camp" would be if, in a week or two, they found that Barack was running against Dave Petraeus. That has been my point all along for repeatedly writing about the unlikely Petraeus/Lieberman '08 Republican strategy: if you're going to shake things up with a so-called "hail Mary pass", it needs to be one that really could change the game. As opposed to pulling the stupidest political stunt ever executed since my brain was first fully developed.

And don't rule out Lieberman yet, either. Josh Marshall makes my point with this one word post: "Eagleton"? If Palin bails or is forced to withdraw, doesn't it seem likely that the petulant McCain would return to his first choice?

Rudy sez....

*
Regarding his primary care physician:

"She's over 6 feet tall. The prettiest black woman you ever saw. I don't know what she's doin' as a doctor: she coulda been a supermodel!"

Maverick tactics

*
Brilliant: trying to upstage one of the finest nights in the history of American political theater by doing something astonishingly stupid. Nice job of vetting the running mate, Maverick.

I believe McCain did this in an unscripted petulant frenzy because his advisors bullied him out of listening to StuporMundi.

My friends, I don't think we've heard the last of this daring strategic plan yet.

Final GOP VP comment before selection [updated]

*
Here's one last reason I think McCain is more likely to choose Lieberman as his running mate: Joe's physique and appearance will not upstage the allegedly petty and petulant McCain.

Next to Romney, McCain would look exceptionally short, cadaverous, and "a little thin up there." Wouldn't it be deluxe if McCain, standing next to Romney in the sun, suddenly melted down forever: "At least I don't slather on the mousse like a trollop, you cunt!"

Update: Upon McCain's choice of the foxy Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his running mate, several thoughts occur to me. First, McCain will still look exceptionally cadaverous and "a little thin up there" next to Governor Palin. (He may look short next to her also, but I don't know how tall she is out of spikes.) Second, McCain's selection of a governor with only 2 years of state-level administrative experience indicates how desperately and deeply he had to reach into the Republican bench to find a running mate who doesn't threaten his ego and has no established PR negatives on the "national stage." Third, Governor Palin hails from what is probably the most politically corrupt state, per capita, in the nation ("google" Senator Ted Stevens and U.S. Rep. Don Young, for example, then google any other name mentioned as indicted or a person of interest in an investigation). So not surprisingly, she already has her own share of baggage to talk about. Fourth, and finally: what Atrios says: Palin's name has barely surfaced in the corporate media over the past month as a prospective McCain VP choice. Although her selection has apparently doomed my Petraeus/Lieberman '08 nightmare ticket, and with it my future as even a second-tier national blogger, I was closer to being right than the bona fide pundits and lefty bloggers were: McCain selected a longshot with at least some history of making social policy in contravention to the right-wing company line (as seen on TPM).

As an aside, I see that there are lots of references on the web to Governor Palin being a "GILF". I wonder what that means.

Free political advice for The Maverick

*
Dear Senator McCain,

After Senator Obama's DNC acceptance speech on the evening of 28 August 2008, I think your best tactic for winning the November election will be to drive home the message that Michael Moore is fat.

Your friend,

---StuporMundi

"They call me MISTER Obama"

*
I doubt that my favorite line of Obama's speech will draw any notice from the corporate media or bona fide bloggers, but it was this:

"So I've got news for you, John McCain."

The rhetoric of it is brilliant and simple, and (I believe) deliberately intended to provoke McCain's irrational anger. No black man tells a white man that "I've got news for you". And nobody except nobody ever says that to a Maverick. I also think the nuance will be understood by unhinged bigots in the audience.

I'm thinking of it as the 21st century version of "They call me Mister Tibbs."

Killer O

*
Not a grand slam. Not even a home run.

Obama's acceptance speech was an in-the-park homer with four men on base, after running which he snatched the ball from the catcher's mitt and jumped 30 yards into the air to hit a three-pointer on a basketball hoop 2 miles away. Really.

I'm at a disadvantage with sports metaphors, obviously. But Obama just gave the best political speech I've ever heard, and I've been listening to them since 1964 --- long before my brain was even fully developed.

If Obama wins the general election, his acceptance speech will be studied for decades. If he doesn't, it still may be studied for decades. Everything about it, in my opinion, rang genuine and uncontrived. His oratory style was perfect --- almost nobody I've ever heard could hit the sweet spot between the personal and the grandiose. If you missed it live, I'm sorry you did --- it is no exaggeration to say it was historic. Gracious, but with plenty of fighting words. Spiritual, but inclusive of everybody. Hard-headed liberalism. About fuckin' time!

I'll try one more sports metaphor. First the setup: remember that Obama is running not only against McCain and all the shadowy interests that want to prevent both a Democrat and a black man from living in the White House, but he's also running against the corporate interests that dominate the mass news media. He's running against all the corporate handmaidens who have been assigned to trivialize Obama, to misdirect our attention to meaningless foibles or words taken out of context, to expound or pass on the dog-whistle racism that right-wing bigots have already been spewing for months on end.

So (sports metaphor coming): if Obama can pull this out and get elected with a mandate, it would at least equal the 1970 no-hitter Dock Ellis pitched while tripping on acid. And that, my friends, would really be something.

Update: I'll try to explain these thoughts more coherently in a future post. Was up too late Thursday night dancing to "The Theme from Shaft" and drinking malt liquor straight from the bag.

Hillary's convention speech

*
I caught a few minutes near the end of it. Seemed to be well written, and I liked the allusion to Harriet Tubman --- good work, whoever thought of that twofer for this specific setting.

Clinton looked relaxed and very well rehearsed. I thought her delivery was much less wooden than it was during the primary season, but it still had a small whiff of Classic American Revival Tent Political Oratory, which very few pols really ever transcend. Her presence reminded me of Ted Kennedy at the convention in 1980, when I developed the hypothesis that marquee politicians who run for president give their best speeches as also-rans, after they have anything to gain personally from the oratory. At that time, Kennedy gave a true, sincere barn-burner that greatly elevated my opinion of him. I think Clinton approached that league tonight.

Now, if she would just kick that peckerwood husband of hers to the curb and then return to the Senate as a strong liberal voice until Obama nominates her to the Supreme Court.

Update: As an afterthought, I must note that I am perplexed by her selection of a Gitmo-drag orange jumpsuit from her senatorial wardrobe. Maybe it's time that she get rid of her present wardrobe.

Late update: "Ah, so you want to get rid of President Ward Robey!?!"

Work in progress

*
In order to skew this blog back toward Fifty50, and away from Seventy30, today I start inserting more nonpolitical content. Contrary to appearances, I do not hate fun: I like stories, songs, toys, and pictures as much as you all do. Work in progress is where I'll share a photographic study that someone other than me might be interested in seeing.

Here's my first one, shot with my Sony F717, an interesting, versatile point/shoot with a blue-chip Zeiss lens. Does not shoot in RAW format, but I discovered that Adobe Bridge CS3 can open JPEGs and TIFFs for processing with the Camera RAW plugin. Many of the controls in Camera RAW are obscure to a novice, but even the simplest ones are quite powerful.

The image depicts some local color (local grayscale, actually): the Chester Street (Champaign) viaduct under the Illinois Central RR tracks, looking approximately northeast. The original file was captured as an RGB fine-quality JPEG. I opened it in Camera RAW, desaturated all the pixels to gray, used the Fill Light slider to emulate the effect of having a huge soft box to even out the exposure to my liking. I may have sharpened a bit. Finally, I used the Skew tool in Photoshop to make the verticals vertical, then messed with the contrast curve a bit. Good learning exercise; halfway decent, if somewhat standard, view. Need to develop a better eye for dynamic range --- deeper darks and a few near-whites might help. Also need to understanding the differences between rendering for screen view versus hardopy print.

Wise sayings

*
There are two kinds of things in the world: (1) any given particular kind of thing and (2) all things that do not fall into the first category.

Eternal truths

*
Effective immediately, the "Eternal truths" department of Fifty50 is hereby renamed "Wise sayings" (for reasons that are best known to Big Otis, Stan Freberg, and Ben Franklin.

Pwn3d by Obama!!!

*
I stayed up past midnight waiting for my email and it never came! Now I read on TPM that Obama has announced his selection of Biden via the email I never got!!! I yam disgustipated!

I'm also not that thrilled by the selection of Bankruptcy Joe, favorite son of the Credit Card State. As VP he would be too close to the presidential side of the legislative sausage factory for my liking, what with all his fancy banker lobbyist friends. But I suppose I'll come to the acceptance stage soon as Big Otis and all the pundits convince me that Biden is the sharpest knife in the block.

Note to Barack: I don't need your email message any more, so please conserve my electrons and put them to good use in defeating your opponents... you juicebag! I WANTED TO BE PART OF HISTORYYYYYY!

PS: I'm voting for McCain now, or better yet, staying home. Take that!

PPS: The "Credit Card State" was invented by Uncle Charlie.

Suggestion for John McCain

*
Dear Senator McCain,

May I suggest that you select a new campaign theme song? I know Running On Empty is descriptive of your character and the extent of your supply of good ideas, but there are better choices considering that Jackson Browne wants to sue you for damages related to misusing his copyrighted material. Instead, how about using Home Home Home Home Home Home Home On The Ranges?

Your friend,

---StuporMundi

Not a prediction, just an observation

*
From the "who cares?" department, here is my one and only post about the Democratic VP nomination.

I think Kathleen Sebelius would be Obama's best choice for a running mate. First, I think Obama could benefit from having an executive (i.e., governor) on the ticket. Second, her presence would serve to "heal" the feelings of '70s-era identity-politics feminists who think it was unfair of Obama to win the Democratic primary cycle, no matter what they now say; Sebelius also would appeal to many other women of all ages, and the Democrats need them to come out strong in November. Third, Sebelius looks lively and energetic while sporting white hair; selecting her for the ticket would give "moderate, undecided voters" (you know: morons) a subliminal point of reference along the lines of "only one party has a person with white hair on the ticket who isn't a morally, psychiatrically compromised former war hero blinded by opportunism and a voracious sense of self-entitlement, and it ain't the Republicans."

But then, I'm just a simple country editor....

PS: I'd actually like Sebelius to be Obama's pick because it would be so much fun to see Hillary, her peckerwood husband, and the horses they rode in on completely "pwn3d" by reality --- just desserts for the Clintons' filthy, racially driven negative campaigning.

Oh, I just can't help it tonight

*
Here are three more reasons why I think John McCain will not be President of the United States even if the Republicans win the November general election. From everything I've seen and read about his personality, McCain is certain to transcend a critical behavioral event horizon if the meme takes hold that his tenure as a war hero has officially expired. I believe McCain's candidacy will become untenable, and Machiavellian Republicans will throw him off the train; ultimately, a coup like that would carry less risk than sticking with him through November.

Eternal truths

*
[Now with it's very own external link:]

One's tenure as a war hero expires immediately when one endorses U.S. government torture of its military adversaries.

VP Joe Lieberman: where have I heard that idea before?

*
Oh dear. Is it possible that Joe Lieberman might have a place on the Republican ticket this fall? Can't be, because neither Tim Russert nor Tony Snow told us it could happen before they each went off to wait at the Gates of Hell for John McCain's torturers to show up.

But wait a minute: there was one observer who suggested way, way back in December 2007 that everybody be on the lookout for this development. Who could it have been? Oh, now I remember.

I'll cop to modifying The Most Awesome Political Prediction Ever later, as more recent events have prudent. My original premise still holds, though: that no one who has been considered Republican presidential timber by the serous media would be strong enough or even untainted enough to win the general election against a strong Democrat. At that time I felt Lieberman might jump his party early to settle in as a Republican, but he didn't. Instead, he spent his time laying groundwork for jumping the party in September. Furthermore, back in December I felt that Petraeus might effectively play the strongman role as Lieberman's VP, in a reprise of the Imperial Vice Presidency. For the past few weeks, though, I've suggested that there is no need for such a role reversal, and that Petraeus/Lieberman '08 would be a stronger ticket for the Republicans. I still believe that.

The only objection I've gotten to my P/L '08 scenario that even begins to hold water, in my view, was from a blogger named Dan Solomon. He raised a technical issue related to the legalities and tradition of military retirements relating to whether Petraeus would be eligible to run for President in September. My original reply to Solomon was that an Executive Branch that gets away with launching wars that are illegal in the view of many unbiased experts, breaking U.S. treaties (impeachable offense, by the way), etc., can certainly find a way to finesse the legalities of a general's retirement... when the Justice Department and the Supreme Court have been thoroughly politicized. My secondary reply, offered now, is that McCain could still make it into the general election cycle in September and not be there in October. Abracadabra.

Again, for any slow learners out there, I'm not suggesting this scenario as something that any sentient citizen of a democracy would like to see. I'm suggesting it because it's as plausible as what we're looking at right now --- a morally and mentally bankrupt former war hero with no real constituency running the high ground against an up-by-the-bootstraps, relatively conservative young black family man. My overall point is that Obama would be prudent to have a coupla people in his boiler room working on a plan for shifting strategic gears if he found himself running against a freshly retired Four-Star General. I may be wrong, though, because Steve Benen, Josh Marshall, and Bob Cesca all have failed to reply to my email on the topic. I'm not bona fide, you see.

Anointing his successor

*
Oh, looky who's right at the top of John McCain's list of wise people: why, it's Gen. Dave Petraeus! At least that's what he tells the rich, fancy Orange County preacher man. (Search on "Petraeus" after you click through to the page.)

Please let me know if you think McCain has said or done anything in the past week to make Petraeus/Lieberman '08 seem more farfetched than you already think it is.

Eternal truths

*
Chicken can taste pretty good even if it smells funky before you grill it.

Most constructive invention of 1877

*
I can't believe I did not know this, but barely a century before disco swept the nation, the word "hello" was apparently a rarity in the American vernacular. According to Wired online, Thomas Edison is credited with suggesting that people answer the telephone using this salutation instead of Alexander Graham Bell's preferred greeting, "ahoy, ahoy." Wired writer Tony Long tells us, in fact, that initially people did answer their telephones with "ahoy," but Edison's suggestion quickly superseded it. Hello, he says, did not enter the dictionary until 1883 even though earlier uses are documented.

Montgomery Burns, who I believe was born about 12 years after Bell applied for his patent, still answers the horn the correct way to this very day. I can't explain, though, why our parents (or I) answer with "nnnyellllo."

Photo credit: from itspaulkelly's photostream on Flickr. Uploaded it to prevent link rot.

Pop quiz

*
Bruce Ivins is to the 2001 U.S. anthrax attacks as Lee Oswald is to:

a. Paris Hilton's pudenda
b. American Idol
c. the Lone Gunman Theory
d. Mexican Idol

Eternal truths

*
You have the right to remain funky. Your funkiness can not and will not be used against you in a court of law.

Things I did not know about England

*
Dan Solomon, an expatriate American blogger living in the U.K., offers us this fascinating report about the ubiquity and characteristics of propaganda posters in England. Most of his examples read like something from the backgrounds in "V", but I found the poster reproduced at upper left to be especially... something or other. Click through and check it out; Dan notifies us that there is at least one "western democracy," as we still call them, that is even better than our very own Republicans at fearmongering to promote social control. The general message of British propaganda seems to be: We see what you're doing. Aren't you ashamed of yourself?

Edwards: "I, imbecile" (updated)

*
I agree with the concision of Atrios pertaining to the "public" John Edwards. What kind of fool does a guy have to be to run for President right after carving a new notch on his bedpost next to his wife's ear?

I'll grudgingly give Edwards credit for having the sense to cop to his affair on a Friday afternoon in the background of pointless Olympics media hoopla. In order to bury news like this about one of their own, by contrast, the Republicans will generally launch a new war or something.

With the Edwards affair now out in the open and lacking the news "legs" to sustain much public interest beyond the Olympics, the corporate media are now free to fully report on the case of John McCain's missing lobbyist girlfriend, Vicki Iseman. I wonder why the courageous Huffington Post isn't following up Chris Kelly's lead on that topic.

Update: Haha --- I beat Josh Marshall to the punch on the Iseman angle! That guy had better get on the ball with Petraeus/Lieberman '08!

From the Petraeus/Lieberman '08 comments

*
A blogger named Dan Solomon, whose site you can visit here, raised an interesting objection to my current metaparanoid scenario involving the drafting of Petraeus and Lieberman as the 2008 Republican presidential ticket out of the thin air of left field. I'm reproducing Dan's comment and my reply here at the top level because I think it's interesting.

I'll add something here that I forgot to address in Dan's comment. I think the disruption of the GOP convention would not necessarily be disadvantageous. It could be stage-managed into a groundswell of "spontaneous" enthusiasm (never mind where all those Petraeus posters suddenly came from). I believe that the Republican lumpen proletariat is naturally self-selected to be a top-down, hierarchy-awed, order-taking lot. Compliance is mandatory; resistance is futile.
________________

dansolomon said...

To follow-up from Bob Cesca's place-

Petraeus couldn't just announce -during- the convention, he'd have to announce beforehand, by the end of August. And he'd be breaking military custom to do so (generals aren't required to announce their retirement sixty days ahead of time, but they almost always do, barring cancer or something), which is a big deal. There's really just not enough time- we're three weeks away from the point at which he'd have to enter the race, and he's nowhere near announcing his retirement. Keep in mind that, if he announces his retirement, he's in effect declaring himself for the nomination (why else would he retire suddenly, in a break from custom?). Which means that McCain has to spend the rest of August as a lame duck that everyone -knows- is lame, so effectively the Republicans have no nominee between Petraeus retiring and the convention. Retiring late in the month would make him look like the scheming-est politician in the world (a real risk anyway), and there's nowhere for him to go.

If he were already a retired general, I think you'd be on to something. But this would be totally unprecedented (and seen by many to be a push toward Martial Law) and it'd disrupt the Republican party in ways that wouldn't be advantageous to them. It'd be a huge gamble, in entirely new ways, and I don't think McCain's polling makes it seem particularly attractive. Remember, his biggest problems come from a lack of a ground game, and that's something that'd be hampered even more by a switcheroo.

--d

07 August, 2008 06:03

Blogger StuporMundi said...

Dan,

You've raised a procedural barrier that I hadn't thought of, and I hope it's as large of a barrier as you think it is. But I don't think so. Consider the real stakes here to the current players. It's not the war, it's keeping the executive investigative and law-enforcement power out of Democratic hands. It's probably not a stretch to say that every senior administration leader is vulnerable to investigation and prosecution for violation of oath, dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, garden-variety corruption, and so on. My theory is based on this premise.

My theory is also based on the power of television to affect the behavior of the so-called swing voter, which is likely the low-info voter who gets most of his or her information from the TV. Those are the people who are most impressionable to powerful TV images of "leadership" and "presidential" comportment.

Another premise of my theory is that, if I'm correct, this strategy was thought of and planned long ago. Any disruption of the convention process would actually be part of the plan since it will be stage-managed by whatever cabal is wanting to "draft" Petraeus.

Would it be a big gamble? I don't think so. But consider this: to reasonable, impartial people, the Republican brand is ruined. These are the people who have put the country on the "wrong track," and everybody knows it. McCain doesn't have much more dignity or credibility to lose; he will be completely out of it by the time the GOP convention starts. If McCain is the nominee, the Republicans will lose, and the GOP knows it.

Yes, you and I would consider this act to be a precedent-erasing move toward overt martial law. But who are you and I? Just two guys who won't vote for a Republican. All this move requires is a procedural irregularity and a violation of military tradition, neither feat being too difficult for people who have been pulling the President's strings for 8 years. There would be some tut-tutting. Henry Waxman would hold a hearing.

Your point about the Republicans having no ground game is dead-on, and that's another reason why I fear this Petraeus '08 possibility. The only way the GOP can win is through a spectacular, unprecedented media campaign. September would be a great time for them to roll out their new product: a bloodless military junta for America.

Thanks for commenting on this. I surely hope that you're correct and that I am dead wrong.

Apropos of nothing

*
Because I'm currently tired of speculating about the earth-shattering importance of America's future herself, here is The Studebacher Hoch Dancing Lesson and Prayer for Guidance, Roosevelt Auditorium, Chicago, circa 29 May 1971 (a few weeks before being recorded in New York for "the white album with the pencil on the cover). Note: photo taken before the prayer became "Cosmic" at the Fillmore East.

Words and pictures

*
About the role of pictures in a presidential campaign, versus words.

McClatchy has a nice article on Big Oil interests possibly "laundering" oer $61,000 in McCain campaign contributions through the bank account of a middle-class New York family.

If the story is true, the reporting will not hurt John McCain in the slightest. The only way McCain will be hurt by this story is if Helen Thomas, when she returns to work, sucker punches him with a question about it on camera. You know: asking McCain if his flipflop on offshore oil drilling was related to the influx of Hess Corp. campaign contributions a few days earlier. Watch McCain stammer. Watch him turn red. Watch him call Helen a "cunt" when she returns to work. Now that would be a picture what is a picture.

But I may be wrong, because I'm just a simple country editor....

More Petraeus/Lieberman '08 talk

*
In the comments section under my previous post on this topic, Big Otis suggests that Democrats could negate the benefits of drafting Petraeus for a Republican "Unity '08" ticket by running Wesley Clark (retired General) or Jim Webb (retired Admiral) as VP. I disagree for several reasons. (Reason 0: Webb has stated that he will not accept the nomination because he is afraid it would serve to muzzle him.)

Clark might help Obama with some voters (not me), but not as much as Petraeus would help the Republicans. First, Clark's most renowned military accomplishments, in the public's view, was as a NATO Commander (i.e., bossing around "gay" Europeans in Bill Clinton's Kosovo adventure), not as a two-fisted four-star General Officer in charge of the most lethal U.S. Army command in world history, as Petraeus currently is. In Stratego terms, Clark is a General (Ret.) and Petraeus is a Field Marshal (active duty). Field Marshal wins.

With Petraeus as GOP presidential nominee and Clark as Democratic VP nominee, Clark couldn't lay a glove on Petraeus even if he wanted to --- and I do not think that he would want to. Even if he did, it would make Obama look weak, as if hiding behind General Clark's kilt (or whatever former NATO commanders wear after hours).

I have much more to say on this, but I'm going to give it a rest for a bit. Last night I floated my theory to Josh Marshall and Bob Cesca by email, but neither one replied. I am not surprised --- this idea is still too far away in left field. Meanwhile, John McCain continues to self-destruct, today jokingly (I assume) pimping his wife out to the titties and beer crowd at Sturgis. But the more damage his campaign does to Obama through racist invective and slander, the more Obama looks like a "divisive" candidate to the corporate media once all the superstar journalists and pundits have their novel, shiny plaything, starting around Labor Day, in the form of Unity '08: a reluctant warrior willing to hang up his spurs in order to save the nation from... a Xenobamislamofascist presidency. The "moderate, undecided voters" will be hypnotized by the exciting and glamourous images on TV, as usual.

And if that were to occur, it would take Josh Marshall and Bob Cesca and the Democratic Party and everybody else except readers of this blog 2 months to figure out what happened. It's really a deadly simple strategy, though: a Petraeus/Lieberman "Unity '08" Republican ticket would instantly, for almost 2 months, wipe out or obscure all GOP negatives in a cyclone of hype, media man-love, corporate media "bipartisanship," and other sleight of hand. And 2 months is all they need.

Eternal truths

*
John McCain offered to let his wife flash 500,000 bikers at Sturgis because he thinks she is a "cunt."

Revisiting Petraeus/Lieberman '08

*
On 16 December 2007, in an early blog post characterized by mediocre writing, I presented my reasons for predicting that a brokered Republican National Convention would result in a ticket of Joe Lieberman and General David Petraeus. I'm sure everybody thought this was quite cute.

Today, with John McCain becoming an object of open scorn for some members of the elite Washington media, and even Paris Hilton's mother, I'm afraid (scared to death, actually) I'm going to have to "double down" on my prediction. Forget the stupid polls that say McCain has a nominal lead over Obama --- Zogby's polls have been wrong about pretty much everything all year. I am convinced that John McCain will not be running for President in October 2008.

First, the Republicans cannot afford to cede the Executive Branch and all the law enforcement and judicial appointment power that comes with it. The Republicans will not lose this election without trying tricks that aren't even in the book yet (outside of this blog). Everyone knows that McCain will lose against Obama no matter what pollsters or pundits say. Want proof? Just think about it for a moment. War, economy, energy: nobody on earth really thinks John McCain has any idea what the problems are, let alone the solutions.

Second, the Republicans have literally no one to run for President who is both well known and untainted by scandal, historical incompetence, etc. That is why McCain is the nominal candidate. But the GOP needs a real candidate and a off-the-scales strategy for winning the November election.

I believe they have that strategy.

Right now, John McCain's bigoted, incompetent campaign serves two Republican purposes. One is that Rove and his proteges are damaging Obama with the standard GOP bigotry and smears; the other is that Republicans are desperate for anyone to deliver them from the disaster of a McCain candidacy. They need someone who will unite the militarists, the corporate interests, the fundamentalists, and low-information "independent voters."

McCain's purpose --- damaging Obama --- will run its course soon, let's say around Labor Day, during the GOP convention, when it is finally time to start the real election campaign they've been planning along. Now imagine this: an "asymmetric" political strategy that begins with McCain dropping out at or shortly before the convention. Maybe he becomes unable to continue his campaign, ostensibly (or in fact) for health reasons.

National drama! The Republicans will have to rally around someone fast --- a devil we don't know, so to speak. The convention ensures maximal prime time viewing for all us suckers out here in TV land. What to do? Draft the only prominent Republican personage who no one would dare to criticize: Dave Petraeus. During the run-up to our annual September 11 fetish, The Architect Of The Surge, a telegenic general who both Republicans and the corporate media love, rides in on his White Horse.

There would be a month-long love affair by the press just because of the novelty of it all. Obama's campaign strategy, whatever it is, would be null. His message and voice would be drowned out for weeks on end. His strategists would be in disarray over how to handle the General. Anyone who wants an excuse to vote against Obama would have one. And Barack, to paraphrase what Hunter Thompson once said of Hubert Humphrey after being stabbed in the back, would look like he'd been sprayed in the face with shitmist.

As a side note, consider that Petraeus recently promoted to head CENTCOM, which Time correctly calls "the core of the U.S. military's current operations". No General in DoD has more power. And, unlike even McCain and Bush, General Petraeus will hear none of this "timetable" crap.

Of course Petraeus will need an inoffensive running mate, perhaps a moralistic, comparatively clean nebbish who is nominally a Democrat. One whose name begins with "Lie". One to whom the General can "reach across the aisle" to construct the Dream Unity '08 Ticket.

This idea truly frightens me. I have to come back later and edit this mess when I'm not feeling sick.

Eternal truths

*
Many people refer to food prepared in a wok as "stir fry," but no one refers to food prepared in an oven as "bake."

Big Rock Head was here

*

Eternal truths

*
Orthopedic radiologists cannot find my acromioclavicular joint because I have a "muscular chest."

Now Obama has a case of the stupids

*
First, regarding my previously posted eternal truth, here's this from the AP via HuffingtonPost:

"Democratic candidate Barack Obama said Saturday that Republican rival John McCain's campaign is not racist but is cynical in trying to divert voter attention from the real issues of the presidential campaign.

"Obama met with reporters for the first time since the McCain campaign claimed that the Illinois Democrat had "played the race card" by warning that McCain would try to scare voters about how Obama looks unlike "all those other presidents on the dollar bills" --- all of whom are white men."

Yes, it would be a rookie mistake or Obama to be lured into the McCain/Rove trap of making this election campaign all about race. But it is just plain stupid for Obama to give professional Republican bigots cover in order to deflect false accusations that Obama is "playing the race card." Backing down will not win Obama points with the corporate media, but it will undermine his own appearance of candor toughness.

In other stupidity news from AP via HuffPost, Obama yesterday said "he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources." His point was that, in order to avoid Republican gridlock on energy policy, he wants to avoid being "so rigid that we can't get something done."

So here's the scenario as Obama sees it: He is elected President in November 2008 and has a veto-proof majority in the Senate. The Bush Administration also has done him the unsolicited favor of inflating the perceived importance of the Executive Branch to the status of a virtual monarchy. The Republican Party, meanwhile, has been undeniably exposed as a corrupt and incompetent little cabal of excessively wealthy men who do the bidding of transnational oil corporations and Saudi princes at the expense of U.S. citizens. And yet President Obama will work hard with these same toads to reach a compromise on offshore oil drilling despite the preponderance of facts and economic analysis stating that harvesting offshore oil will have no significant impact on global supply or price relief, either now or in the future.

I think someone may have poisoned Obama's morning orange juice with Stupid Pills. Or else he is listening a little too closely to Hillary Clinton's advisors. Watch for the term flipflop to appear soon in the ongoing political narrative about Obama.

Eternal truths

*
If John McCain were to accuse Barack Obama of being a "lazy coon," the corporate media would applaud McCain as "a straight talker who isn't afraid to call a spade a spade." If Barack Obama were to reply that McCain's accusation was self-evident hate speech, the corporate media would assert that Obama is playing the "race card" once again.

As seen via Eschaton

*
A Wall Street Journal story today asks whether a nation of obese slobs would stand for a president like Barack Obama, who apparently has very low body fat content. It's supposed to be a serious story, actually. Atrios points us to an explanation, on SadlyNo, of how the WSJ reporter did her research.

The reporter first asked a leading question about Obama's physique on a Yahoo financial message board, and then based her story largely on one probably prankish reply she received that met her need for a "news hook." That reply indicated that the reporter's source, one "onlinebeerbellygirl", would prefer a doughy, potbellied chief executive to "any beanpole guy." The other responses posted to that same thread were from "people saying that the question is stupid, and/or making fun of [the reporter]," SadlyNo informs us. Ample documentation is provided. Arabesques of stupidity will stream through your power cord like beer flowing over your grandmother's paisley shawl.

I must say I completely agree with Alex from the SadlyNo comments thread, who sums it up like this:

If McCain were a homosexual, the WSJ would be questioning whether Obama sucked enough cock to be President.