Open Mouth Insert Race Card

So a black man gets caught breaking into his own house. When the police respond to a report of a break in in progress the black man berates the police and creates a bizarre scene by screaming to by standers that they are witnessing the way black people get mistreated in this country. Police then arrest the man, not for breaking and entering seeing as it was his own house, but for disorderly conduct seeing as his behaviour in the face of legitimate authority was outrageous.

So this is the water our cool-headed and intellectually gifted president felt he should wade into while desperately trying to save a floundering cornerstone of his legacy. Wow. And I though he looked silly when he walked into the side of Air Force One.

Here's the story, kids. A country that just elected a black president named Obama while currently fighting two wars because of an Osama is NOT a bigoted country. Period. Barak may have been well intentioned, but he could not have bungled this worse. And the "it's so tough to be black" line is getting really old. This country is wide open and full of opportunity for anyone willing to make even the slightest effort. And I'm glad we aren't afraid to question people for breaking into homes even if they do happen to be black.

Gosh, no, really?

So, Obama, the political equivalent of a fresh breeze, is starting to smell a little stale. Seeing as UBlo writes all my comments in his diary then spends his days looking for inconsistencies let me state something clearly: Obama seems like a decent enough guy but he is an absolute run of the mill leader. We are seeing nothing unique beyond the superficial fact of skin color. Obama lied on the stump and he'll lie from behind the safety of his teleprompter. Of course he'll lie, he's a politician and that's what they do. If you find yourself staring starry-eyed at this guy because you've always been curious about what "worship" means, well you might as well try it on your neighbor or a farm animal you craft out of play-do. Because they would be just as worthy.

Two Americas

It looks like Loverboy Edwards was right. There are two Americas. There's the special rights America where paying taxes and generally following rules or laws is optional and then there's the one populated by the unfortunates who aren't politically connected. Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle are fortunate enough to live on the right side of the tracks with Mr. Obama. It seems choices that would land many of us in jail don't even give our president pause when stocking his political fishpond. Is it closed minded to expect our public servants to actually pay their taxes or follow the rules and burdens that they impose on those of us in the second America? Apparently so. There was a time not too long ago, when these types of "scandals" brought on bold typed indignation from our journalistic protectors. Maybe they're all too busy these days looking for someone who still wants to pay to read what they write, or maybe they're just happy to see their friends calling the shots, once again, in their America.

Is "Conservative" the new "Gay?"

I was going to go with "Is Obama the true Conservative President?" But then I realized that after eight years of Bush, the word "Conservative" like "gay" now means something much different than it did before.

Under Bush, the whole notion of a state deciding what's best for that state just got in the way of his"conservative" party's big government dreams.

Now Obama lets loose with this little gem. He's going to reverse the W doctrine and let states dictate their own emission and fuel efficiency standards. I have no idea what the economic, environmental, employment or any other ramification of this action is, good or bad. But I do know that I like the idea of letting states figure this out for themselves, and I especially like the idea of following each state as they experiment with it and trying to then figure out what's best for my state of Colorado. I recall something from civics class about having each state find its own path though difficult decisions being part of some kind of "Grand Experiment."*

Seems like that used to be the "conservative" view. But now its coming from what the knee-jerk media calls the "Liberal" President.

So nothing about W fit the old definition of "conservative" and the first days of the "liberal" president have been about restoring "conservative" ideals. So since "conservative" clearly doesn't mean what it used to mean, what does it mean now? And is it dirty?

I'm not sure what's going on, but so far, I'm having a gay old time.

*A free one-year subscription to Hydrablog if you can find the reference somewhere.

Like Fonzie I Was Wuhwoo. I Was Wroooough. I Was Woughroooggh.

OK, so I voted for Barr, and thus "Barred" myself from playing with all the other kids in the Obama/McCain debate.

My main beef with Obama was that he wasn't taking a hard enough stand for the my America. My democratic friends all told me, "He can't take a hard stand for these issues because he'll look soft on terrorism, but he'll restore the 4th Amendment, finally do away with legalized torture, shut down Gitmo, and restore openness to the government." But he has to present a certain image to win. Sort of like when Clinton went back to Arkansas to sign the death warrant of Ricky Ray Rector.

"Maybe," said I, but I'm tired of voting for what I hope someone will become, rather than what they are. It's generally a bad bet. Leaders should lead, right?

Well, looks like I'm losing that bet.

In the first week of his Presidency, Obama has,

Made the move to close Gitmo and international "black site" prisons. From the article, Obama said,

The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals,

And,

We are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard.

Then the cherry on top,

We intend to win this fight. We're going to win it on our terms.

Doesn't he know from Bush/Cheney that morals are on a sliding scale of "at least its better than Saddam," and that we should all be ready and willing to suspend core American values because Bush said we're supposed to be scared? Where's Obama been? For eight years we were lead to believe that there is no core morality, no resolute American values. Now Obama's saying that it right to abide by a code of conduct when its hard? My mind's spinning. In one week we moved from morals are for losers, to morals are for victors.

I guess its hard to have core value and stick to them, but I'm game.

But surely the American value of knowing what the government is doing and questioning it is still a quiant, outdated ideal for a democracy. Right?

Let's check on Obama, in his first, week says.

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a
clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.
The Government should not keep information confidential merely
because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure,
because errors and failures might be revealed, or because
of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never
be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of
Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed
to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive
branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit
of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of
the public.

Then, and it was hard to read this though my tears of joy,

The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

Holy Smokes! Openess over secrecy? What kind of crazy radical thinks in order for democracy to prosper, the people have to have access to what's going on? Not only that, but that it's better to go ahead and inform the public, rather than making them jump thorugh hoops.

Yes it's been a week. And sure, some of those released will do bad things, but our prisions have been releasing people who have then done bad things for over 200 years, and we're doing ok. And yes, none of what he wrote above's been tested in action. Its certainly easy to say things, and harder to then do them. But I'll take these statements over what I've been hearing for the last eight all day long.

Frankly, this is much better than I anticipated. To all my friends that said this would happen, you were right. I hope it stays that way.

Sarandon v. Baldwin and why I'll vote for Obama

You know its election season when celebrities start making threats to leave the country if the guy they don't like wins.

Susan Sarandon says she'll split if McCain wins. Canada or Italy she says. Funny, I think its the debate most Honeymooners have. "Canada, Italy? Canada, Italy? Canadaaaa, Italy? Blast, why did they have to make those two countries so similar?"

Stephen Baldwin (can we really call him a "celebrity?") says he'll split if Obama wins. Maybe he'll drive the "Lords Lounge."

Anyway, Mr Obama is the clear winner here. He gets another check in the "Reasons To Vote For Obama" box.

Bush Calls Defese Sec. Gates a "Wuss."

I'm sure you've all heard about Bush going to Israel and mocking those who want to talk to Iran (the Nazi's in this little analogy-always classy).

Honestly, OK, cool. If you think talking is a bad move, you're the President, you're the chief diplomat so that's your call. But you would think you would get your cabinet on board before you go about running them under the bus.

Since the White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that it wasn't talking about Obama,

there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president... thinks that we should not talk to".

"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you," she added.

"That is not always true. And it is not true in this case.

So, if it's not Obama who could be included in the nameless masses that W was referring?

Could it have really been a way to attack Defense Secretary Robert Gates? After all, Gates was on record the day before saying we need to engage Iran in talks. Maybe this was W's way of chastising his Secretary of Defense. I mean what good is a Secretary of Defense who's an appeaser?

What about McCain? McCain also mocks Obama for wanting to talk. From Yahoo!

Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama's position was a serious error. "It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?"

Excellent point. What kind of a jackass thinks its a good idea to talk (Gates) and more importantly for the American people, what kind of jackass would support that jackass? Not John McCain, that's for sure. Wait, what? McCain voted to confirm Gates? Well, surely it was reluctant. Let's look at the transcripts from the hearing.

MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Gates, thank you for your willingness to serve this nation again. We're very grateful. We know you left a very comfortable life in Texas to serve this nation again, and we are grateful. And I would like to offer my congratulations and condolences for your appointment.

MCCAIN: ...I wish you every success. I know that all of us on this committee and in this country have nothing but the interests of our nation's security and the men and women who serve it as our highest priority.

And I hope you will help us gain consensus so that, as a nation, we can move forward and make sure that the American people are not subjected to more sacrifice as a result of the failures that we've experienced in the past in this conflict.

And again, I thank you for serving, Doctor.

Hmmm, well that doesn't look good. I guess McCain will be calling for national attention on why the Secretary of Defense wants to sit down with terrorists. I imagine he'll be calling for W to fire Gates for beings such a stupid sissy. I'll be right here waiting...

Election Prediction Update

For those of you wanting to look smart at dinner parties when you discuss the upcoming election please read Andrew Sullivan's blog, for the rest of you, keep reading.

Here it is, short and sweet, McCain will not win. Period. To see if I write right, mark these trends.

One, Obama will get a bump in the polls once Hillary drops out. This is not a divided party. Its more like trying to pick what you want for dinner. You know which restaurant you want to eat at, just not necessarily what you want for dinner. Once Clinton drops, the party will all eat the same dish, no ones going to leave the restaurant. Hence the bump.

Second, conventional wisdom (meaning Stalins hated Main Stream Media) is that the dems are killing their chances with the prolonged primary. Nope, not this time. This particular campaign is hardening Obama and setting Hillary up for a huge run for Senate Majority Leader and a long shot for VP (either are great carrots for her). All these "damaging" revelations and "embarrassing" slip ups will be long played out by the time the general election comes around. The one thing we know is that in America, scandals are like comets. Burn bright then, poof, no one cares anymore. Obama's learning.

Third, and here's where Stalin's going to blow a gasket, the war is an issue. Politics, right now, is about "blocks." And there's a large block what just doesn't like the war, or how its being waged. "More of the same" is an automatic killer. Having a large block out there that simply wont vote for you just means you have less to work with. Rove perfected this concept. Create blocks that won't vote for your opponent no matter what and hem him in. Then attack the edges. I agree with Stalin, this block, by itself, won't change things, but it makes it much harder for McCain. And, by the way, I think this block is bigger than pinko commie liberals, and, if I'm right, that really hurts big Mac. Block Theory is also why Clinton could never win. Her "no matter what" block is just too big.

Fourth. The economy. Incumbent parties don't win Presidential Elections. You can argue all you want that this recession isn't bad, or real, or lots of things, but perception is reality, and the perception is that we're in a recession. And we also all know that the economy picks up well before the perception of the pick-up is realized. I just don't see the perception changing before the election, even if the actual recession is over by then.

Fifth. Age. Big Mac has been under the warming lights for a very long time. Nothing can change that. Oldest President Ever Elected is just going to haunt him. Again this issue by itself isn't enough to change the election, but a large component of block theory is to set the block then attack the edges. Age is perfect "edge" stuff.

Sixth. McCain cannot hold his two key blocks. Right now he's after the conservatives and the moderates and they are not complimentary blocks. Its too fine a line and a zero sum game. A move to shore up one will cost him with the other. He cannot hold the line on his two blocks with no competition. You can bet that once the dems start attacking, holding on will get even harder, forget about building.

Seventh. He hated Bush, now he loves him. Did he vote for Bush, did he call him, "dumb as a stump?" Who knows? My bet? Oh yeah baby. McCain has a famously bad temper so it's not a huge leap of faith to believe Daddy Mac said some not so nice things about W, and I totally understand McCain not voting for W. I mean, I'm a relatively calm dude, but if W pulled that election sleeze on me, I'd say mean things and not vote for him too. The problem is that with conservatives leery to support McCain, this is bad. It also wont go away. Just as Obama probably has more "friends" he'd like to forget, McCain probably has more "comments" he'd like to take back. Will they bring him down? Nope. Just as Obama's "friends" will be old news, McCain's "comments" will also loose steam. But in the interim, McCain famously cash strapped campaign will have a hard time gaining traction as these comments come to light. Again, as the block of absolute no's grows, and W's massive disapproval numbers drag McCain down, the margins are disproportionately important, and his past comments about Bush will hurt those margins.

In summary, keep these two things in mind. One, circumstance and McCain's own actions have created an inverse in the typical strategy. For McCain the margins aren't marginal, they're his life. Losing a few votes on the side isn't really marginal, its exponential. Two, remember, just getting McCain's base to stay home is a huge win for Obama. Obama doesn't necessarily have to convince voters to vote for him, he can also shoot for getting McCain's base to vote for no one. That's a much easier proposition. Worse for Big Mac? He can't run the same strategy against Obama. Obama's voters are coming. While McCain must convince the swing voters to swing his way while shoring up his base all Obama has to do is focus on the swingers (and this is where Bill Clinton comes in-HEY NOW!). Anyway, two fronts vs. one. Odds are strongly with Obama here.

McCain's only hope is that the dems just plain blow it. Normally that makes him a huge underdog, but since its the dems, its probably 50-50.

Obama Supporters to bail out Clinton

I have to admit, I've been following politics for most of my life (yes, I accept that I'm a total geek) but I had no idea that the following was possible.

Top officials of the Barack Obama campaign are privately exploring ways to help Hillary Clinton discharge her debts and pay back the $11.43 million she has loaned her organization.

Really? So now Clinton staying in makes much more sense. She's not so much staying in because she thinks she can win, and she's not really hindered by spending more money because she's actually staying in as a way to make money. In effect, Clinton's just playing for time to negotiate the best deal (don't blame her, $12million is a lot of jack).

But I can't help but wonder if this is bad for Obama. I know that if I gave money to Obama (I didn't) it would be because I support him and his ideas, and not Clinton's, or I would give to her (I didn't). But with this transaction, if I gave to Obama (not the real me, the hypothetical me), I'm really giving to Clinton. No way do I want the money I gave (recall, I didn't) to go to Clinton. In fact, I'd be pretty peeved at Obama for giving my money (in theory) to Clinton.

I'm also surprised this is legal under Election Laws, but I guess it is. Interesting loophole no?

Anyway, my assumption is that this has been going on for years so no one involved thinks anything of it. But now that the practice of using your campaign money to pay off the debts of your competition is public knowledge, I'll be watching to see what the publics's reaction is. I also wonder if McCain did the same for Huckabee and/or Romney?

In defense of Hillary!

I'm going to buck the crowd. Get ready for this...I support Hillary Clinton in her fight for the Democratic Nomination, not with my vote, but in spirit. And no, its not because it hurts the Dems. I support her because I think she's right.

This is the biggest prize in the whole world. Period. And it matters who wins. You shouldn't quit on it. I mean, isn't that what we want, "not quitters" as President. I mean as a nation we get mad when teams don't go for the Hail Mary before the half of a close game, and we all want her to just quit.

Not only that, but the rules of the game give her hope. If Obama continues to fade, and she continues to build, the rules of the Democratic Party give Superdelegates the ability to alter prior outcomes. Yes, it lacks elegance, but its like Hack-a-Shaq. If it puts you in position to win, do it. If Shaq can't hit his freethrows, that's his problem. If Obama can't put away Hillary, that's his problem. The reality is that Hillary's not the problem, Obama is. He's the one fading, he's the one ducking debates, he's the one allowing this to happen, NOT Hillary. She's just doing what she's supposed to do, try to win. All this stuff that's come up would and will come up in the general election. His "pretty words-no substance" and "don't make a mistake" approach is costing him. Yes, I'm going to another sports analogy, but he's put in the prevent defense, and everyone knows the only the prevent does is prevent you from sealing the deal. If Obama cannot put Hillary away, and this causes the Superdelegates to wonder about him in the General Election, the rules clearly give them the option to give the nod to Hillary. And Hillary's right to try to create that scenario.

Will it destroy the Democratic Party? Who knows. Would it hurt in any worse than losing again (which is a real possibility of an Obama nomination-the guys fading badly and lots of unhelpful things about his past keep coming up)? Again, who knows? I do believe that fear of the unknown should never rule the known. Besides, she has a strong point in thinking that she would have won FL and MI. Those are two states filled with her voters, and two states the Dems must have.

Hillary's found a path to victory, slim yes, but its a fair path well within the rules. She's not my candidate, but I fully endorse what she's doing.

Truth Abuser

The euphemism of the month is "truth abuser". The second runner up is "not factually accurate". The game is, "How to call a liar a liar without saying 'liar'". Kerry calls Bill Clinton a "truth abuser". Kerry is calling Bill Clinton a liar. Barak says Bill Clinton's statements are "not factually accurate". Barak is calling Bill Clinton a liar. Politics is professional wrestling for people who can read newspapers. Nothing is at is seems by design. Or if it is then we call it something different to add another warm blanket between us and the cold truth. The truth is that most if not all politicians lie. However, not all do it with as much shamelessness or gusto as the Clinton's. Even some democrats now are admitting what the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy brought to light over 10 years ago...the Clinton's lie, it's what they do. No matter what you call it. If the Clinton's capture the White House again it will mean that America has become unrecognizable to the people who once believed in the simple decency of her citizens.

Obama hearts Reagan

Sen. Barack Obama is taking heat from Sen Hillary Clinton (and the the inverse of "Behind every great man is a woman" Bill) for his recent quotes about President Reagan. Here's the actual transcript if you're bored enough to read it (hey, if you're reading this blog, you have to be close right?). Mostly Obama correctly identifies the GOP 'sascent, the problems with the Dems, the GOP's current problems and gives credit to Reagan for rallying the nation back in the day.

Interesting strategy on Clinton's part. Most polls show that voters don't really like either party, are fed up with the status quo (read, interparty fighting), and want change (read, from interparty fighting). So what does she do, attack the idea the the Stalin's Hero (where a then chubby VP Bush was famous for "I see noe-thing, I know noe-thing" and and younger hipper Cheney always said, "Staaaaaalin"), may have been an OK President, and that the GOP came to power. Yes, yes, the best way to show that you can work with the other party and move our nation forward is to attack the GOP's Father Figure ( That's all I wanted, something special, Something sacred in your eyes, For just one moment, to be bold and naked
At your side) (creepy how well that fits, right?).

As for Obama, I think he should stick to his guns (if the Dems didn't hate them and want to pry them from your cold dead hand that is) and keep on praising the Gipper. See, there were loads of Reagan Democrats back then and hey, they're queer*, they're here, deal with it. Not only does it potentially reignite that base, but it also reinforces his "See, I can work with the Republicans" message. It makes him less of a partisan. Normally that's a fatal move in the primaries, but again, not a lot of love for either party and the hackery that keeps coming down that pike. This particular election cynical (oops, I mean "cycle"), that may be the exact right move.

Quick side notes from the last debate. When did the debates become so filled with lame cliche's. To wit (or not to wit, that is the question).

Obama told the former first lady he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

And,

Clinton said that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

Awesome. I respectfully suggest next they go with,

I forgot more about how to move this nation forward than you'll ever learn.

Or,

I'll take you down Senator, take you down to China Town.

Ahhhhh, election season. Enjoy.




*queer (kwîr)adj. queer·er, queer·est

1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.

What? What did you think I meant?