The most interesting thing about McCain's bizarre and desperate choice of VP is that it's consistent with conservative ass-backwards methods of choosing candidates.
If you remember: Bush, as a candidate, had no experience & wasn't fit to be president. But they said it was the content of his heart and all that identity bullshit that mattered. Their idea: If a person's a good person (yeah right) they can do the job.
Next week in Minnesota they'll be crying in their beers about her qualities as a person but they'll be short on her real POTUS qualifications, thinking that it won't matter. "Just anyone can be president if they're a good person. Even 'C' students." Good one. How'd it work with Bush?
But this is but another way to stir up something when you have NOTHING to really run on, policy-wise.
We're a free society, still, sort of. The NY'er is a very pro-Obama magazine, the NY'er is a very liberal magazine, and breaks anti-Bush stories that no one else does, with Seymour Hirsch... As a subscriber I'd say: Let's get a grip.
Honestly, I was offended when I first saw it, but then I realized that those who will take it seriously wouldn't vote for Obama anyway--probably half the country. But it does battle those for whom there is a subconscious narrative of the Obamas as dangerous and anti-American. I think this cover will do more good than harm, ultimately.
You'll note that Karl Rove didn't show up at the Senate today. And I'll wait and see, but I imagine that the Senate's reaction will be like yours in the House vis a vis impeachment. The maybe true/maybe false belief: The more the GOP is seen as breaking the law with impunity, the more people will vote for Dems
Here's the problem with that philosophy which, while it doesn't separate us from the apes, surely separates you and your colleagues from any claim to greatness: If George and Karl and the others can break law as they have and our side does nothing--and yes, the GOP has made a mockery of the law time and again--do you know what is going to happen when Obama's president?
If he stubs his toe one day in the White House, we'll hear loud and consistent calls for his impeachment.
This new McCain ad is very powerful and therefore very scary.
They're trying to make this a culture war election as they successfully have many times before (68, 72, 80, 84, 88, 00, 04). At this point, I'm more for Obama than many of the Kool Aid kidz, as I see all of his FISA, campaign finance reneg, etc., as the old politics Obama's been successfully playing all along. I always felt 'politics is politics,' and I took the "I'll change the culture of Washington" with a grain of salt, so Obama's current moves don't dampen my wish for a Democratic president.
But I'm struck by the irony of how all of the 'change we can believe in' and 'yes we can' worked on [a minority of] Dems but he'll need more than that to beat McCain nationally. Unfortunately.
Troll labels (and the idea of imagining trolls lurking around every corner) are an unfortunate aspects of web-life. Obviously, there are some GOPers who try to stir up trouble on Dem sites, but I'd say the same number of GOP'ers are stirring up trouble on Democratic sites as Al Queda is stirring up trouble in Iraq. What do they say? Al Queda is 2%? 3%? The rest is domestic.
OK THAT WAS JUST A METAPHOR to say that most of whom we call concern trolls are just PEOPLE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH US, and most likely they're Democrats.
So get a grip.
1. Barack isn't perfect. He's a good sincere guy but also a total politician (as good as Bill, if not better) who used "new politics" to get himself nominated and is now doing what he politically needs to do to win.
2. Barack, not being perfect, may give us 60% of health care, 60% of out of Iraq, etc. But that's better than McCain's 0%.
3. The term "politically correct" originated from Mao's Red Book, and was adopted by the left. It's meant to eliminate those who disagree and is totally lame.
NOW: Disagree with me. I WON'T call you a troll. I promise.
I can't get over the irony of this. I was a diehard Hillary supporter, now a Barack supporter. But it seems that using the language of "new politics," Barack old politic'd himself into the nomination. In other words, he "out-old-politic'd" our girl, and he did it fair and square.
Kind of funny to me. I was blogging nonstop during the primaries how there's no such thing as new politics, and I took a lot of heat for it at orange Big Brother. And during that time the progressives were taken in with all the Yes We Can. That's funny.
But the truth is that Barack's tacking to the center makes me respect him more, not less. (I'm a moderate). And Barack wanting to win more than some b.s. idea of being a noble candidate (translate: noble loser, see: Stevenson, Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, [Gore], Kerry) makes me respect him more, not less. And knowing that he knows that new politics was a tool, and is obviously tough enough to win makes me respect him more, not less.
I like him and think he's a noble guy of integrity, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying you've got to hand it to him, as master a politician as Bill Clinton ever was: to have cast Hillary as "old politics," when that very casting was a shrewd "old politics" move by Obama.
As some of you may know, I was the strongest Clinton supporter. I wore myself out fighting for her at the orange Big Brother. I think anyone who follows names around here knows that I was almost violently anti-Obama.
So here's what I want to say to you, Hillary-loving brothers and sisters. GET A GRIP.
This is not about the strong fabulous white woman or the cool smart black guy. This is about one thing only. THE PLATFORM. Health care. Iraq. Iran, Taxes, etc.
No one's perfect. Maybe Barack is 60% perfect. But wouldn't you like 60% of health care rather than McCain's 0, 60% of out of Iraq and not-in-Iran, rather than McCain's?
I love you all for the cause, but please remember that this is about the quality of life. Not personalities. Hillary will have her day. She's made a strong impression. Trust that, and root for America, please.
There's an old joke (was it WC Fields?) of a contest, in which the first prize was a week in Philadelphia, and second prize was two weeks in Philadelphia. (No offense to Philadelphia. The joke is decades old and doesn't represent the city now)
Move On has a new ad that tries to be anti-McCain and anti-Iraq. It shows a young mother with her little baby who says to McCain, "You can't have my little Alex for your war." As someone who has connections to the military, I can tell you that an ad like this may appeal to the already-converted in our party, the extreme left, but will alienate the soldiers who are open to the Democratic party for the first time in years. In other words, if your party is offering benefits to vets that the GOP isn't, but at the same time we're insulting military service through a dumb, emotionally-provocative ad (as they see it), which aspects wins? Sometimes one, sometimes the other.
This from today's NY Times article about Floyd Brown, who is running IS OBAMA MUSLIM ads, like the Swift Boat ads, and he did the race-baiting anti-Dukakis ads of 88.
Yet if Mr. Brown's struggles are any indication -- he has so far failed to raise much money -- it is not clear that Republicans will be able to repeat their successes in 2004, when independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had a significant role in undermining Senator John Kerry's campaign.
"It's all about reaching a tipping point," Mr. Brown said. "Swift Boats achieved the tipping point. I was part of a team that reached the tipping point in 1988. In 1992, we didn't reach it. We might not this time. But that doesn't mean we're not going to try."
from Ready to Attack Obama, if Some Money Arrives
By MICHAEL LUO