Why is this all goofy looking? Probably because your browser doesn't support stylesheets or you have an old stylesheet. Try hitting reload or upgrade your browser today.
fatmixx iconFatMixx Logo
Check out Coolspotters!
Advertising
Latest Featured Video

One of those mocking, derisive but ultimately silly attacks made by both Giuliani and Palin yesterday had to do with mocking Obama’s time as a community organizers. I’ve read many different posts today defending the work community organizers do but Obama, as you might expect, puts the right perspective on the issue. Steve Benen has more background.

(he slightly misspeaks at the start — it was 20 years ago, not 3).

9:10 pm | leave a comment
Donate

Goal Thermometer

ad for kiva.org which facilitates microloans to small businesses around the world
Support CC - 2007
join EFF!
Advertisement

I admit to having lost a little bit of perspective about the primary, too. Some things to think about:

Like many people, I have gotten pretty caught up in the Democratic nomination fight over the last couple of months. After initially leaning towards Edwards, I shifted to Obama for a variety of reasons. As I became increasingly invested in (and excited by) the prospects of his winning the nomination, I found myself getting irritated by the tactics of the Clinton campaign, sometimes voicing my frustrations on this site in a fairly full-throated fashion.

And then I awoke the next day to two stories on NPR concerning rising food commodity prices and the enormous impact that this is having domestically and internationally. I felt a bit ashamed that I was obsessing over the Democrats’ internecine battle and issues of tactics and the like at a time when the ability of large numbers of people to feed themselves and their families seems to be growing ever more tenuous as a result of poorly crafted public policies.

The take away lesson to me seemed obvious — we cannot afford to allow the Republicans to continue to run this country. It will be a disaster not only for ourselves, but for the world writ large.

I agree. That’s why there’s no realistic circumstance where I won’t vote for the Democratic nominee or encourage all of you to do the same. I’m just tired of choosing the lesser of two evils, and really thought the Dems had two good, positive candidates to choose from.

11:20 pm | leave a comment

Interesting observation on the racial dynamic of the primary so far. I’ve noticed the disparity in reactions of Graham and Hagee vs. Wright (who hasn’t?), but I’m too cynical for it to surprise me anymore. The media is pretty much a reflection of the prejudices of society, along with this tendency to openly display ignorance proudly. We’re heading to another election where straight up lies about a candidate are his biggest liability going into the home stretch.

12:49 am | leave a comment

I like the summary by a commenter:

Shorter version:

Dear Madame Speaker,

Believe and say what we tell you to believe and say or else.

Sincerly,

Money

Those who’re wondering if this will get ugly have missed the fact that it’s already pretty damn ugly when top donors of one candidate are threatening to shaft the party if they don’t nominate their candidate (which is basically the subtext here….)

4:27 pm | leave a comment

Quickly, because I’m in the middle of some stuff here, is James Fallows’s take on yesterday’s news:

That the Clinton family would dignify the American Spectator, of all publications, is astonishing to anyone who was alive in the 1990s.

That they would bless this attempt to paint Merrill McPeak as an anti-Semite is grotesque.

If this wasn’t clear in my ramble last night, that’s what this is about. The American Spectator and Scaife haven’t had some epiphany and suddenly decided to behave like normal, if opinionated, magazines. They have simply decided to back a different side.

This isn’t an improvement for those of us not in the Clinton campaign. In fact, it’s encouraging the same crappy behavior they exhibited during the Clinton years. It’s wrong, period.

1:59 pm | leave a comment

I’ve been sitting back basically wishing Hillary Clinton would drop out of the race but believing that she had every right and reason to stay in the race purely on principle (if she’s able to raise money, clearly people think she can win, ergo she should stay in).

As I’ve watched the race get dirtier and stupider, what with Clinton demonstrating that Sinbad has a better memory than she does, and her tactic of boosting McCain in order to put down Obama, that wish has gotten stronger, but I’ve refrained from joining the call for her to drop out.

That changes today. Today, she showed exactly how far she’s willing to go to win this nomination. It’s not going to seem like much to people who aren’t political junkies, but it’s significant. Today, she sat down with the editorial staff of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which is owned by Richard Mellon Scaife. Here’s TPM on the significance:

This afternoon Greg Sargent and I were talking this over and one of us realized that this wasn’t just any Pittsburgh paper. It was the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the money-losing, vanity, fringe sheet of Richard Mellon Scaife, funder of the Arkansas Project, the American Spectator during its prime Clinton-hunting years and virtually every right-wing operation of note at one point or another over the last twenty years or more.

This alone has to amount to some sort cosmic encounter like something out of a Wagner opera. Remember, this is the guy who spent millions of dollars puffing up wingnut fantasies about Hillary’s having Vince Foster whacked and lots of other curdled and ugly nonsense. Scaife was the nerve center of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Those of us who spent years defending the Clintons from all that malarkey learned this point on day one.

Even the fracking National Review post about this was entitled “Hell Has Officially Frozen Over.”

This man was behind or involved in most of the nastiest smears against the Clintons during Bill Clinton’s time as President. Not only would I expect there to be some animosity, I would expect her to blacklist the outlet. Seriously. This isn’t just some political opponent but a man who literally made up accusations and put our nation through some of the most ridiculous political moments, funded by taxpayer dollars, just to advance his party.

As usual, Atrios has it right:

Remember back in junior high, when you had that friend that the bullies picked on all the time? And you defended that friend, who really never did all that much for you, which led to you getting your ass kicked a few times yourself? And then you got to high school and your friend joined up with the bullies? It’s kind of like that.

This is nuts. This is beyond nuts, it’s insulting to everyone who has ever defended the Clintons against the Whitewater attacks, who supported them, and eventually Gore against these attacks.

It’s insulting to everyone that wants to see Washington stop being filled by win-at-all-cost partisanship. That, more than anything, has characterized the paralysis in Congress, particularly the Republican side, as beating Democrats has been more important than good policy.

This clearly seems to be part of the Clinton campaign strategy as they’re now now passing on fake stories from the American Spectator claiming Obama has a problem with Jews. Bill Clinton today accused the Obama campaign of disenfranchising voters, which he knows is a lie. And on, and on. These aren’t just negative attacks, they’re false negative attacks.

I am done defending her or giving her the benefit of the doubt. By allying herself with Scaife and American Spectator, she’s joined Limbaugh and company in the irredeemable category. If she wins, I won’t give her money, nor will I fund raise for her. $0.

She needs to drop out. She’s crossed the rubicon.

PS. I am not alone in this.

PPS: Yes, I would vote for her in November (she’s still better than McCain), but it will no longer be enjoyable.

2:41 am | 2 comments

Brief article pointing out that the hard counts of delegates the news presents are estimates only and in certain scenarios may not even be close to the real outcome of cacuses and/or primaries.

3:33 pm | leave a comment

Quick, explain the Whitewater Scandal and what the Clintons were supposed to have done wrong. Bet you can’t.

One of the reasons I’m quite upset at the tack the Clinton camp and the press is taking is that they’re spreading baseless smears without any actual evidence or even the appearance of anything wrong. Take the Rezko indictments in Chicago. The name Rezko is mentioned as a potential liability for Obama but with no actual claim of wrongdoing. Anyway, don’t have time to write anything long here, but Glenn Greenwald has a good rundown of the dynamic going on here:

One very simple and self-evidently warranted rule ought to be applied: no reporter should toss around “Rezko” innuendo unless they’re able to explain what it means specifically when assessing Obama’s conduct, what specific allegations of any substance are being made against Obama when the scary specter of “Rezko” is invoked. If they’re incapable of articulating even those basics — and they are — then the whole exercise is just deceitful and worthless.

When the Clintons were facing this sort of attack over Whitewater, it cost the nation $70+ million to investigate with only a perjury accusation over a blowjob to show for it. $70 million. The Clintons should know better than to fan this sort of attack, and it’s disappointing that they keep repeating it.

The other big scandal this weekend that hurt Obama was the Canadian NAFTA conversation. It’s starting to look like the story began with an overture by the Clinton campaign. Somehow it became a story about Obama and AP found the memo. Funny how that happened, huh. (Smear by innuendo, look, it’s EASY!)

11:50 pm | leave a comment

Kevin Drum links to some articles and studies that indicate my concern might be overblown. This is one instance where I hope I am wrong.

8:01 pm | leave a comment

I’m uncomfortable with the idea of the super delegates doing anything significant in this election, but this doesn’t sound horrendous at first blush:

“If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate,” Brazile said. “But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby.”

The risk is, of course, pissing off Obama or (more likely) Clinton supporters if their candidate loses because of a superdelegate intervention…

The easiest way for this to not happen is for Obama and Clinton to keep from going super negative. Of course, Mark Penn (Clinton campaign strategist) has indicated that they will go negative, often. Joy.

7:48 pm | leave a comment