Wall Street Democrats

*
This detestable specimen of politician, starting Hillary Clinton's peckerwood husband and including herself, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and about everybody short of Alan Grayson and Elizabeth Warren (so far as I know thus far), are the real drivers of ruination.

Despite what R.J. Eskow says in the article above, though I believe that President Obama knows exactly what he's doing when he drives liberals to distraction by "negotiating with himself" on promoting long-term rot of the safety net. The bait and switch method begins with bait---

According to The Narrative, he believes that conservatives will play nice with him on Capitol Hill if he shows that he's serious about "deficit reduction" at the expense of no one who works Capitol Hill.

No, President North Star is not naive. And neither are the politicians who I used to refer to as "spineless Democrats." Whether this is what Obama wanted when he was running for the office or he has just surrendered to the inevitability of global hegemony by a transnational military/industrial/banking/infotainment complex, he and his party are intentionally giving radical conservatives all the fertilizer they need to infest our polity like a tropical fungus.

Thanks to President North Star, the "left" position on safety net programs is that they must be "gradually" trimmed back because they are unsustainable. Pretending that he represents the adult faction within the monkey house, the President tells us that the way forward is for Republican thought leaders to erect a so-called permission structure (i.e., comfort zone) that will enable lunatics to fall in line... and endorse a policy that they've been drooling over for 50 years. Note the denial of the author of that linked post, though, and the denial evident at the top of the comments thread: they seem to think this is all the work of "centrist" Democrats. Well, other than the two I mentioned above, I'd be interested for someone to show me a Democrat national officeholder who isn't a centrist. That is, a Wall Street Democrat.

It is these despicable people, posing as traditional liberals, who are willing to accept cuts to a legacy of political genius that is not theirs to bargain away. They're not "naive," and they could turn it around in 6 months if they wanted to. But they don't.

Hillary for VP!!!

*

A correspondent has been annoying me for what seems like months about the fantasy some people have that Obama's best chance to be re-elected involves putting Joe Biden out to stud and selecting Hillary Clinton to run in his place. I ran out of patience even faster than I usually do about things, after explaining my view that a political strategy must involve some actual strategy. A presidential political strategy must not only have a grand objective, but it also must have an accurate and concrete idea about handling the obstacles to achieving that objective.

Today my correspondent sent a link to this op-ed column on the topic by former Times executive editor Bill Keller, which proposes that it's time for this dumb idea to ascend from the musty precincts of "the blogs" and be taken seriously... because, for some reason. He says the arguments in favor of it "are as simple as one-two-three":

One: it does more to guarantee Obama’s re-election than anything else the Democrats can do. Two: it improves the chances that, come next January, he will not be a lame duck with a gridlocked Congress but a rejuvenated president with a mandate and a Congress that may be a little less forbidding. Three: it makes Hillary the party’s heir apparent in 2016.

Simple for simpletons (not counting my correspondent, who is just enthralled with his own wishful thinking). Now, over the years I've gotten a clear impression that many commentators think Bill Keller is quite the simpleton. So I googled "bill keller stupidity," and I found this point-by-point rebuttal by Alex Pareene at Salon:

One: What? Prove it, maybe? Two: Haha what, again? Congress will get ungridlocked if the president switches vice presidents? To a Clinton? Three: OK, but what if Obama/Clinton loses? And if Obama wins again wouldn’t any Democrat be at a disadvantage in 2016 due to historical trends anyway, making it a “safer” bet to not be his running mate, assuming she actually wants to be president still, which is not at all a given?

One-two-three!!! See? Anyone can play!

[I'll interject a thought here about "Two". I don't think most people appreciate why "the Clinton brand" is disliked by many on the left and insanely despised by everyone on the right.]

If you're either interested in or sick of the absurd storyline that Hillary Clinton will ride in, chickenfight-wise, on the shoulders of her peckerwood husband to save Obama's electoral hash this year, I suggest that you read the whole Keller op-ed first, and then Pareene's piece. Pareene's rebuttal goes beyond the easy mockery of Keller to discuss some inconvenient truths that Hillary fans gloss over. Such as the fact that there is no evidence-based argument to support their fantasy.

So Hillary Clinton won the Gallup "beauty contest" of most-admired women in the US: what do you think that is worth to Obama in terms of either electoral or popular votes? Likewise for the concrete advantages conferred to Obama through Hillary's application of campaign warmth and female body parts? Show your work.

Let freedom ring

*

Hillary Clinton, from a speech on 21 January 2010:

We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship.

The title of the speech, of course, was "Remarks on Internet Freedom."

It's funny, see?

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!?!"

SCOTUS, not VP

*
To this, I say this: I think the Clinton for VP issue is a red herring. There's no way she'll get the VP nomination, and I'm sure she doesn't want it. There's a much bigger incentive for her to go out and help nail down the "bitter" vote for Obama: SCOTUS. And after replacing Stevens, she would even be in a position to make history for women by, later, being named the first female Chief Justice (after Roberts and Alito are impeached for being "disingenuous" during their confirmation hearings). In this way she could easily trump the so-called legacy of her peckerwood husband.

[I said it first in a comment on Bob Cesca's blog because I wasn't thinking fast enough for my own good. That's just how selfless I am with my bon mots.]

This tinto tastes like paint!

*
Actually, the Spanish wine I'm drinking at Kopi right now tastes more like Pixie Stix. And that's not all bad, flashwise regarding taste. Much better than vinegar or a gym bag.

In my most recent blogging hiatus I have been planning for the future, blogwise. I've been dissatisfied with how much attention I felt compelled to focus on Hillary Clinton's self-obsessed behavior during the latter half of the Democratic primary process. Too much vitriol from me, as well as Clinton. So I just wanted to say "hi" and assure you that great new features are coming your way!

But for right now I want to post one awesome idea for Barack Obama: a deal that he might make with Hilary that would get her out on the campaign trail and truly working hard to help him sew up the bitter middle-age female and hillbilly vote. He should offer to nominate her for the first SCOTUS vacancy! That would provide Senator Clinton an escape hatch from some discomfort that awaits her in the Senate, and would install her at the highest level of one of our three coequal branches of government. I'll bet she'd go for that. Now, I don't trust her for a second in any elected capacity, but I do think it's possible that an appointment to SCOTUS would allow her to revisit her youthful idealism and dedication to liberal democratic principles. And maybe even give her an opportunity to dump her peckerwood husband. So how about those apples, My Friends?

Fifty50 in-depth analysis: Pennsylvania Democratic Primary

*
You've heard the liars and BS craftsmen spinning their primary analysis to the craven official media. Everybody wants to tell you what it all means. Well, allowing for the fact that I have my own biases, I think a few basic facts are hard to dispute. And the meaning is self-evident to us rubes in Champaign, Illinois, if not the bitter imbeciles of central Pennsylvania and the Beltway Cocktail Circuit.

First, look at these Pollster.com charts. I'm not good at this stuff, and these are probably not the best charts to use, but they look good enough to show that Obama has been steadily been closing the gap on Clinton's lead since the beginning of 2007 or the beginning of 2008 --- take your pick. As far as I can tell, that fact has not been widely reported, or reported as being significant. You may remember that a similar failure of communication led to stories about how Obama got trounced in the New Hampshire primary, even though he steadily gained on Clinton up until primary day. (Obama got "trounced" because he did not live up to the hype or inaccurate opinion polling after the Iowa caucuses.)

Second, there is some irritating and disingenuous "conventional wisdom" being dispensed about how the Democrats are doing themselves tremendous harm through self-destructive negative campaigning tactics. Well, no, that's not really true: Hillary Clinton and her peckerwood husband, and their surrogates, have been directly appealing to the bigot vote by invoking the names of Scary Negroes and their purported association with Obama. Then there's her disingenuous shot-and-beer pandering to morons who think Chablis and Merlot are not manly, and her ridiculous purported love affair with guns. And she has been aided in her tactics by the official media, especially Gibson and "George" on the ABC debate. As far as I can tell, Obama has retaliated by referring to Hillary as "Annie Oakley."

To summarize, both a casual and a careful reader of the news would be justified in concluding that after months of throwing the kitchen sink, all the rolling pins in the drawers, and a bushel of bigoted personal attacks at her opponent, Hillary Clinton was not able to stop the slow and steady gains made by Obama in Pennsylvania over the past year or two.

Update while I'm still writing the original post: now The New Republic is comparing Obama to McGovern, meaning that he is a Don Quixote figure with an increasingly isolated band of fanatics as his only support. Expect to hear a lot of this "meme" in the next two weeks and beyond. Obama will be portrayed as the Democrat who is tearing the party apart.

A Brooks & Shields joint

*
Driving south on Prospect last night I had the misfortune of punching the radio through a transcription of the PBS NewsHour, and some insane punditry by Mark Shields and David Brooks. You just have to listen to it to appreciate the, what --- I don't know: stupidity, mendacity, mental illness? Depends on who was talking at a given moment. Examples:

1. Listen to how Shields immediately goes off the deep end in renouncing debate moderator questions about flag lapel pins while at the same time implying that people who agree with his opinion may be internet-based left-wing conspiracy nuts.

2. Marvel at how smarmy Brooks sounds right out of the gate, lecturing Shields (but really lecturing all of us rubes in the audience) about how important it is for moderators to ask presidential candidates questions to discover whether they are really like "us," possibly not aware of the fact that most of "us" wear lapel pins of any kind, and even fewer wear lapels.

3. Wrap your puny human mind around this bit of analysis by Shields: Pennsylvania have lost 237,00 manufacturing jobs since the beginning of the Bush administration; change has not been good for Pennsylvanians, and change is not a welcome message for these people because change has hurt them. Therefore, Pennsylvania is a "good fit" for Hillary Clinton. [I solemnly swear that my paraphrase of his clanging is accurate.]

4. Mystify yourself wondering why Brooks thinks it's appropriate to slip in an endorsement of retired Senator and unretired DLC A-hole Sam Nunn for VP. What?! That's some nice "being in touch," there, fella.

The insight of the evening, which both of these soiled specimens seemed to think they were uttering for the first time in American history: these (Democratic) people will just say whatever it takes to get elected without any regard for what they would actually have to do once in the Oval Office! Next week: Soylent Green is PEOPLE!

Funny

Hillary Clinton supporters are staging a writer's strike at DailyKos. They feel they are victims of meanness.

Doodooodoot duhdootdoot! I interrupt this blog to bring you a special bulletin: No One Cares.

Geri Ferraro: bigot

*
Much comment on the racism of our first-ever female vice presidential nominee (1984), Geraldine Ferraro, can be found on the web tonight. Here's a representative one --- a Daily Kos link with commentary from Bob Cesca, illustrating that Ferraro has a long history of this kind of race-baiting.

Obama's campaign doesn't need to be demanding resignations from Hillary's campaign, but they do need to point out what the Clinton campaign has become: monstrous. And then they should hire back Samantha Power and give her a raise.

Erratum and update: Well, it appears that Geri Ferraro was not the first-ever female vice presidential nominee after all. StuporMundi apologizes for his error. However, Ms. Ferraro was, as far as StuporMundi knows, the first-ever female vice presidential candidate to end up being such a clueless, bigoted asshole.

A little Obama history

*
The link below goes to Bob Cesca's blog. It reprints an October 2002 antiwar speech by Barack Obama. Read the text. At the time Obama gave the speech, while he was still serving in the Illinois legislature, Senate Democrats were falling all over themselves to stand up and be counted by President Bush. (Yes, that's right: falling all over themselves to stand up.)

Then, if you like, you can follow another link provided by Cesca, this one directing you to the text of a speech Hillary Clinton gave on the floor of the Senate about a week later. It includes this line:

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise [emphasis added].

She made that foreign policy speech less than 2 years after her first election to any public office. Some may attribute the poor judgment shown in that speech to her lack of experience.

A difference between Clinton and Obama

*
Putting aside ideas and policy, an area where political competition is obscured by pointless nuance and deliberate ambiguity, I see one revealing difference between Clinton and Obama. It is evident in the basic strategy and tactics used by each campaign.

Obama seeks support through his personal charisma and giving inspirational speeches. He puts together strong local campaign organizations, including effective get-out-the-vote operations. His goal seems straightforward: to attract the most voters and make sure they get to the polling place on primary day. His campaign treasury is rich largely because hundreds of thousands of everyday people are contributing small amounts in direct response to the message they hear.

Clinton relies heavily on party establishment types and their established political organizations, which can be assumed at least in part to depend for their power on patronage at the city, county, and state levels. She entered two rogue Democratic primaries, in Michigan and Florida, in defiance of the national party and all other competing candidates, and is now lobbying to change the rules pertaining to whether her delegates from those states may be counted. Behind the scenes, her campaign has been trying to lean on party "superdelegates" to snatch the nomination if Obama gets to Denver with more regular delegates than she has.

In other words, Obama is working hard and playing by the rules to win the nomination; Clinton is working the establishment, gaming the system, and operating through back-channels to get what she wants.

Good "get," Hillary

Our heroes over at TPM write that Hillary will soon pick up "a big Ohio endorsement: former U.S. Senator John Glenn."

Yes, that U.S. Senator John Glenn. Of Keating 5 fame. And looky who is right next to Glenn in the Keating 5 WikiPix: U.S. Senator John McCain!

Awesome prediciton revisited

First, cross-reference this. Now fast-forward to this. The author of the former was me, here, on 16 December 2007. The author of the latter was bigshot wingnut and Iraq War advocate Michael Ledeen at National Review Online, a wretched hive of scum and villainy, on 25 January 2008. I don't know much about Ledeen, but evidently he's a right-wing insider, and people of that type pay attention to him. The Republican Party overflows with them.

Think of it: Joementum 2008 -- Lieberman and Petraeus as the Republican standard-bearers. A "national unity" ticket for the celebrity DC pundits and journalists to fetish. I don't think regular voters would see much of a difference between that ticket and a Hillary Clinton/Wes Clark Democratic alternative. Except I'm guessing that more of them would vote for Joe and Dave because Hillary is too cold, or too emotional, or is humorless, or cackles too much, or something. So how do you like them apples? I know Big Otis hates them and thinks they're make-believe.

So-called "stunning comeback"

I can barely stand to hear political news coverage by the state-controlled media. For one thing it mainly speaks for corporations and propertied Americans. For another thing, it guards the gates against facts that don't fit the daily military-industrial narrative. And for a third thing, it's wrong about all the important things.

It was disappointing to see my hero Josh Marshall fall into the trap of echoing conventional platitudes about Clinton's "riveting win." Here is a link to TPM reporter Greg Sargent quoting AP on the "major upset" as if that characterization is a fact rather than someone's opinion.

Let's look at the freakin' historical NH poll data from Pollster.com. I'm terrible parsing lots of numbers, eyeball-wise; maybe Big Otis can help sort out these numbers for me. But it looks to me as if Obama, in most polls, was trailing Clinton by a wide margin --- often double digits --- back in November 2007. His numbers started creeping up in December 2007, but he was still a bit behind in most polls. He was even tied with or behind Clinton in a number of polls as late as 2 January 2008.

In actual voting totals, Obama finished only three points behind Clinton, which is well within the margin of error for a properly conducted poll. Now I'm just a simple country editor, but it looks to me as if the real stories are these:

* Obama slowly and steadily closed the gap between him and Clinton in December, and finished in a statistical tie with her for the primary win.

* Something --- the euphoric impact of a real news event on the people polled, the polling organizations, and the mass media, maybe --- skewed multiple polling results between the caucuses and the primary crazily in Obama's favor.

* The entire media establishment (plus non-establishment guys like Josh Marshall) became deranged --- first by all the amped-up Obama buzz out of Iowa, then by all the bizarre Clinton buzz (negative and positive) after Iowa through NH.

I think the Clinton fall from grace and stunning comeback happened mainly in the minds of celebrity journalists and the people who shovel them press handouts. Yes, we may see that Clinton had a late surge in voter support, and there is in fact anecdotal evidence (too lazy to link to it) that some late support was voter reaction against the negative coverage of her after Iowa. Fine: so be it. But the final NH voting totals were right in line with how the polling there had been trending all along! At least that's the way it looks to my dyslexic eyebones.

So the big news, in my view, is that the establishment media and polling organizations completely misreported what was really happening in the run-up to NH. And now they are all covering each other's backs by pretending that some sort of miracle occurred for Ms Clinton. Can't let the rubes see behind the curtain. To me, this "comeback kid" narrative is even less plausible than the fairy tales Mike Huckabee is ridiculed for spinning.

I'll forgive Josh, though: he's a young guy, and overworked.

Late update: I hate Blogger's numbered list and bulleted list styles. They screw up all typography that comes after them. Therefore, my bulleted lists will employ manual asterisks in order to otherwise preserve typographic beauty and legibility.

Dodd delays rotten FISA bill

I wrote about this yesterday, but the headline of my post wasn't to the point. My letter, to Barack Obama and Dick Durbin (my state's so-called progressive U.S. Senators), was really about Chris Dodd's vow to filibuster a rotten revision of the FISA bill. The law would grant unconditional retroactive immunity to telecom execs and employees who may have helped rogue elements of the executive branch illegally and unconstitutionally spy on U.S. citizens. I demanded that both of my senators get Dodd's back and help make the filibuster work on behalf of the U.S. Constitution. (Obama replied with a longwinded, mealy-mouthed form letter by return robo-ping.)

Evidently, tonight Dodd succeeded in convincing the backstabbing Harry Reid to pull FISA from consideration until after the holiday Senate recess. I don't know or care about the details at this point, but hooray for Dodd! And a turd in the punchbowl for every other Democratic presidential candidate currently in the Senate who did not drop everything and haul back to DC to help Dodd line up a majority-proof filibuster. I am not interested in the purported leadership qualities of Obama or Hillary Clinton if they are not interested in showing some actual leadership on this critical issue here and now. I do not know what is the matter with these people --- more interested in being something than doing something, as the old saying goes. Trouble is, what they're being is opportunistic, irresponsible assholes.