BartBlog

March 2, 2008

The Tattlesnake — Political Junkies Quiz Edition

Filed under: Commentary,Opinion — RS Janes @ 10:18 am

Who Said the Following?

Get out a pencil and paper and take the quiz. And no cheating with ‘the Google.’

1. “The most important distinction in this campaign is that I represent real hope for change … I want to bring that change to the American people. But we must all decide first we have the courage to change for hope and a better tomorrow.”

2. “I believe experience counts, but it’s not everything. Values, judgment, and the record that I have amassed in my state also should count for something.”

3. “We have got to have the courage to change.”

4. “And you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.”

5. “[W]e need a president who will bring this country together, not divide it. We’ve had enough division. I want to lead a unified country.”

6. “We can do it. I know we can. ”

7. “We don’t have a person to waste in this country. We are being murdered economically because we have too many drop-outs, we have too many low birthweight babies, we have too many drug addicts as kids, we have too much violence, we are too divided by race, by income, by region. And I have devoted a major portion of this campaign to going across this country and looking for opportunities to go to white groups and African American groups and Latino groups and Asian American groups and say the same thing.”

8. “If the American people cannot be brought together, we can’t turn this country around. If we can come together, nothing can stop us.”

9. “But if you don’t have the guts to control costs by changing the insurance system and taking on the bureaucracies and the regulation of health care in the private and public sector, you can’t fix this problem. Costs will continue to spiral.
“So let’s be careful. When we talk about cutting health care costs, let’s start with the insurance companies and the people that are making a killing instead of making our people healthy.”

10. “I’m tired of being told we can’t. I say we can. We can do better, and we must.”

Answers below.

(more…)

Bob Herbert: A Democratic Nominee? Or a Debacle?

Filed under: Commentary — Tags: , , , , — Volt @ 3:21 am

 

Bob Herbert, The New York Times, March 1, 2008

When does a dandy fight become an ugly brawl?

For the Democrats, perhaps on Tuesday.

If Barack Obama wins in either Texas or Ohio, the race for the nomination will effectively be over. At that point the Clintons, if they have any regard for the fortunes of the party, will be duty-bound to graciously fold their tents and try to rally their supporters behind a candidate who will be stepping into a firestorm of hostility from the other side.

If Hillary Clinton wins both Texas and Ohio, the Democrats will need a trainload of aspirin and a shrink.

The superdelegates currently sprinting toward Obama would suddenly look over their shoulders and wonder what happened to his O-mentum. The Clintons would declare themselves (yet again) the Comeback Kids, although they would still be behind in delegates. They would continue their push to have the Michigan and Florida delegations seated. They would step up their attacks on the Obama forces with understandable glee. And they would use whatever persuasive powers they could muster to push the idea with party regulars that Senator Obama is unelectable.

Read More Here

Frank Rich: McCain Channels His Inner Hillary

Filed under: Commentary — Tags: , , , , , — Volt @ 3:07 am

Frank Rich, The New York Times, March 2, 2008

Before they were sidetracked into a new war against The New York Times, the Rush Limbaugh posse had it right about John McCain. He is a double agent. Some Democrats do admire and like him. So does Jon Stewart, and so do many liberal editorial boards and card-carrying hacks in the mainstream American press. So, in fact, do many at The Times, including myself. As long as I don’t look too hard at the fine print.

You’ve got to love a guy who said a few years ago that he regretted likening Mr. Limbaugh to “a circus clown” because of all the complaints from circus clowns insulted by the comparison. “I would like to extend my apologies to Bozo, Chuckles and Krusty,” Senator McCain told a rather startled Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

What’s more, Ann Coulter and Tom DeLay aren’t entirely wrong when they bluster that a vote for Mr. McCain amounts to a vote for Hillary Clinton (or, for that matter, Barack Obama). The Arizona senator’s otherwise conservative record is closer to the Democrats on immigration, campaign-finance reform, stem-cell research, global warming, oil drilling in Alaska, waterboarding, Gitmo and, until a recent flip-flop, the Bush tax cuts. In The New Republic, Jonathan Chait concluded that Mr. McCain’s Senate votes made him “the most effective advocate of the Democratic agenda in Washington” during the first Bush term.

All of which should make Democrats more nervous than the clowns of the hard right. Might Mr. McCain so blur distinctions that he could grab enough independents to triumph? He won even among antiwar and anti-Bush voters in New Hampshire. A Mason-Dixon poll last week found Mr. McCain beating either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton in must-win Florida.

The good news for the Democrats so far is that whatever Mr. McCain’s sporadic overlap with liberals, he is emulating almost identically the suicidal Clinton campaign against Mr. Obama. He has mimicked Mrs. Clinton’s message and rhetorical style, her tone-deaf contempt for Mr. Obama’s cultural appeal, and her complete misreading of just how politically radioactive the war in Iraq remains despite its migration from the front page.

Read More Here

March 1, 2008

“When an Emergency Letter from Richmond Comes to the White House…”

Filed under: Commentary — Tags: , , , , , — Volt @ 6:02 pm


Democratic Underground, February 29, 2008

When an emergency letter from Richmond comes to the White House at 3:00 in the morning, who do you trust to pick up the quill?

An unknown golden-tongued trial lawyer from Illinois, who’s only served in Congress for one 2-year term?

Or James Buchanan, a man with 40 proud years of service to his country under his belt?

SAY NO TO LINCOLN. RE-ELECT JAMES BUCHANAN IN 1860.

In a difficult time, the experience we need.”

“I’m James Buchanan, and I approve this lithograph.”

Read More Here

Anti-Obama T-Shirt Sales Surge Online

Filed under: Commentary — Tags: , , , , , — Volt @ 8:13 am

Alex Markels, US News and World Report, February 29, 2008

If you think the recent photo of Barack Obama wearing a turban – now appearing on the Internet near you – is a cheap shot, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Or, at least, you haven’t seen the arsenal of cheap shots now on display at CafePress.com, an online store that at last count featured more than 900 anti-Obama designs for sale on some 33,000 T-shirts and other tchotchkes.

Indeed, just as Matt Drudge posted the photo of Obama dressed in local garb during a visit to Somalia, which some have alleged was forwarded by the Clinton campaign, the same image – on more than a dozen T-shirts and sweatshirts – was selling on CafePress.com, along with a cornucopia of “Barack Obummer” campaign buttons and “Osama Obama” onesies.

Ranging from silly to downright offensive, the designs are created and uploaded by millions of would-be entrepreneurs, who then pick which products to emblazon them on and even set the price. “We have a review process that keeps out too much love or too much hate,” CafePress CEO Fred Durham says of the more than 250,000 designs displayed on the website at any given time.

Much like what sometimes happens on eBay, offensive stuff occasionally slips through the cracks, such as a recent T-shirt depicting Obama in a Nazi uniform alongside Adolf Hitler under a caption reading, “Don’t Be Fooled by Propaganda.”

Read More Here

February 29, 2008

Ted Rall: Ralph Nader… Hope You Can’t Vote For

Filed under: Commentary — Tags: , , , , — Volt @ 11:43 am

 

Ted Rall, AltWeeklies.com, February 28, 2008

“What,” editorializes U.S. News & World Report, “does Ralph Nader bring to the political dialogue this year? Answer: nothing except for his own inflated ego.” Dimestore psychoanalysis was the standard reaction to Nader’s third third-party presidential bid. “An ego-driven spoiler,” the Des Moines Register called him. “He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work,” jabbed Barack Obama.

You see, other politicians who seek the presidency are like the Dalai Lama, humble and self-effacing. Obama and Hillary? Two sweeties. Not an ounce of ego between them.

Even our former colonial masters put in their two pence. Nader’s “egotism and cult of left-wing purity has been an utter disaster for the values he affects to espouse,” railed the UK Independent. Nader’s values would fare better, apparently, were he to shut up and keep them to himself.

Is Ralph really a spoiler? To answer “yes,” you have to buy three assumptions:

Read More Here

The Top 18 Titles for the Upcoming Oliver Stone Movie About George W. Bush

Filed under: Commentary — Volt @ 10:29 am

Top5.com, February 28, 2008

Oliver Stone, an outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, supposedly wants to make a movie about Dubya.

The Top 18 Titles for the Upcoming Oliver Stone Movie About George W. Bush

18.  President Evil

17.  Dial W for War

16.  Full Mental Jackoff

15.  The Emperor’s New-cular Groove

14.  Mr. Ditz Goes to Washington

Read More Here

The Economist: John McCain’s Obstacles

Filed under: Commentary — Tags: , , , — Volt @ 10:18 am

 

The Economist, February 29, 2008

John McCain, an enthusiastic gambler and inveterate collector of lucky charms, has the luck of the devil. For him to win the Republican nomination for president, Mike Huckabee had to beat Mitt Romney in Iowa, Rudy Giuliani had to pursue a deranged strategy, Fred Thompson had to contract narcolepsy, and the “surge” had to go well. Mr McCain has run the tables.

But will the senator’s luck outlast the primary season? The past week or so has produced some ominous signs. On January 21st the New York Times ran a story alleging that Mr McCain had a too-close-for-comfort relationship with a female lobbyist. Four days later the Democratic National Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, suggesting the McCain campaign had violated the law on spending restraints.

The short-term damage has been limited. The New York Times poisoned its own story by nods and winks. The debate about Mr McCain’s campaign-finance behaviour is so convoluted that only lawyers understand it. The McCain campaign is now hoovering up more cash than ever, thanks to conservative rage at the “liberal media”.

Yet both stories point to a long-term problem: money, not sex. Mr McCain sells himself as a scourge of special interests and hammer of lobbyists. He also styles himself a hands-on reformer who has tried to fix America’s campaign-finance system. For a presidential candidate, this might prove the equivalent of attaching a sign to your behind saying “Kick me”.

Mr McCain is no stranger to the world of lobbyists. Several members of his staff, including his campaign manager, Rick Davis, are lobbyists. So are about 60 of the most generous contributors to his campaign. The senator is not averse to taking lifts on corporate jets. The public-finance system Mr McCain helped design is so unwieldy that even the man who invented it finds it a nightmare.

Read More Here

How to Resist Evil

Filed under: Commentary — alex @ 8:05 am

This is a speech given by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, authour of “The Lucifer Effect.” In it,
he gives practical advice on how to recognize, and then resist being compelled into
performing evil actions. In this time of creeping fascism, it is important for everyone to inoculate themselves against unwanted influence. The tips given in this seminar will help all of us in avoiding becoming a tool of those who would do people harm.

Click Here to Watch

A Note to the Progressive Puritans

Filed under: Commentary,Opinion — RS Janes @ 7:28 am

While I believe every American has the right to bitterly complain about politics and politicians, and do a considerable amount of it myself, some of the third-party Nader/McKinney for President Puritans remind me of the GOP chickenhawks who want to start wars all over the planet as long as they don’t have to strap on a helmet and get shot at themselves. Yes, the Democrats have gone weak and spineless on many issues, but with a Dem President and a larger majority in the Congress, that would quickly change, I think. And politics is a dirty business – purists are perpetually outraged at those pols who have to occasionally compromise to get good things done, but they have no better solution to offer – just more carping and denunciation.

So, in the interest of constructive advice, here’s a suggestion for the Perfect World crowd who despise and deride the Democrats so much: Why don’t you run for office? Either as a Democrat, or a Green, or independent, or whatever — stop complaining that others aren’t doing exactly what you want them to do and do it yourself. Go out and get the necessary signatures on a petition and file it with the state and put your name on the ballot. (And it has to be your full name; you won’t be able to hide behind a screen name.) Don’t like your senator or congressional rep? Run to replace them!

(more…)

February 28, 2008

GrandPa McCain: Christian Nationalist

Filed under: Commentary — Volt @ 6:02 pm

 

Frederick Clarkson, Talk to Action, Feb 27, 2008

In an interview with BeliefNet, last year, John McCain came out as a Christian nationalist. This is a disturbing development from a man who has been profoundly critical of the religious right in the past, but has courted movement leaders, and received the endorsement of some while seeking the GOP nomination for president over the past year.

There was a flurry of correspondence with the Anti-Defamation League in the wake of his statments. But the upshot was this statement from the ADL:

In response, ADL welcomed Sen. McCain’s clarification, but added, “Nevertheless, we are deeply disappointed that you did not expressly retract your statement that “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.”

Last October, journalist Dan Gilgoff interviewed John McCain on BeliefNet. the interview was titled: John McCain: Constitution Established a “Christian Nation.”

Dan Gilgoff: A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?

McCain: I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn’t say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

Read More Here

Maureen Dowd: Begrudging His Bedazzling

Filed under: Commentary — Volt @ 8:01 am

Maureen Dowd, New York Times, February 27, 2008

A huge Ellen suddenly materialized behind Hillary on a giant screen, interrupting her speech Monday night at a fund-raiser at George Washington University in Washington.

What better way for a desperate Hillary to try and stop her rival from running off with all her women supporters than to have a cozy satellite chat with a famous daytime talk-show host who isn’t supporting Obama?

“Will you put a ban on glitter?” Ellen demanded.

Diplomatically, Hillary said that schoolchildren needed it for special projects, but maybe she could ban it for anyone over 12.

Certainly, Hillary understands the perils of glitter. The coda of her campaign has been a primal scream against the golden child of Chicago, a clanging and sometimes churlish warning that “all that glitters is not gold.”

Read More Here

February 27, 2008

Obama’s Farrakhan Dilemma

Filed under: Commentary — Tags: , , , — Volt @ 9:37 pm

Earl Ofari Hutchinson, New America Media, February 27, 2008

Here’s what a spokesperson for Democratic Presidential contender Barack Obama said when he got wind of former Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s virtual endorsement of Obama’s White House bid, “Senator Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan’s past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister’s support.” Farrakhan made the glowing tout of Obama at the NOI’s annual Savior’s Day confab in Chicago. Obama’s denunciation of Farrakhan was blunt and pointed. But he did not reject Farrakhan’s implied endorsement.

Even after Hillary Clinton publicly demanded that he forcefully reject Farrakhan’s endorsement, Obama waffled. He weakly said after more Clinton cajoling that he rejected the endorsement. He still did not mention Farrakhan by name. A candidate shouldn’t need to be prodded by his opponent to emphatically reject the endorsement of a controversial, and in the case of Farrakhan, much vilified figure. Obama, of course, does not endorse Farrakhan’s views, politics, or his organization, and he has made that clear on more than one occasion.

Yet his failure to flatly say he does not want his endorsement is no surprise. Farrakhan may be a controversial and much vilified figure but he is not a fringe figure within black communities. He is still cheered and admired by thousands of blacks. They are also voters too and most have embraced Obama with almost messianic zeal. This zeal has been a driving force in powering Obama’s surge past Clinton. Many blacks are exhilarated by the prospect that a black man will sit in the Oval office. In other words, Obama is a racial fantasy come true for many blacks.

Few blacks publicly demand that he assume the role of a black leader. They have made no demand that he tell what he’ll do to boost civil rights protections, fight the HIV/AIDS plague, or take strong positions on the other pressing social issues. It’s just as well they haven’t since his image is that of the new generation African-American elected official who thinks and speaks as a unifier and consensus builder, not a racial crusader.

Read More Here

February 26, 2008

Robert Parry: Why the War on Obama?

Filed under: Commentary — Tags: , , , , — Volt @ 5:45 pm

Robert Parry, Consortium News, February 26, 2008

While some cynics still view Barack Obama’s appeal for “change” as empty rhetoric, it’s starting to dawn on Washington insiders that his ability to raise vast sums of money from nearly one million mostly small donors could shake the grip that special-interest money has long held over the U.S. government.

This spreading realization that Obama’s political movement might represent a more revolutionary change than previously understood is sparking a deepening resistance among defenders of the status quo-and prompting harsher attacks on Obama.

Right now, the front line for the Washington Establishment is Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, which has been stunned by Obama’s political skills as well as his extraordinary ability to raise money over the Internet. Obama’s grassroots donations have negated Clinton’s prodigious fundraising advantage with big donors.

Powerful lobbies-from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries-also are recognizing the value of keeping their dominance over campaign cash from getting diluted by Obama’s deep reservoir of small donors. It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible.

So, neoconservatives and other ideological movements-heavily dependent on grants from the same special interests-are now joining with the Clinton campaign to tear down Obama by depicting him as unpatriotic, un-vetted, possibly a “closet Muslim.”

Read More Here

February 25, 2008

The Tattlesnake – Hillary and McCain Pushing Rocks Edition

Filed under: Commentary,Opinion — RS Janes @ 6:29 pm

The Big Ace Parses the Dem Debate and McCain’s Dilemma

“The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.”
– Albert Camus

“It ain’t the heat, it’s the humility.”
– Yogi Berra

The Big Ace sat hunched over a Scotch on the rocks at the bar; since you can’t smoke in saloons in Chicago anymore, he twiddled his unlit cheroot between thumb and forefinger, with the bartender casting an occasional wary eye to make sure he didn’t try to light it up.

“What have you got for me, Ace?” I said, slumping into the barstool next to him and ordering a beer.

“Hell of a thing, you can’t smoke in a bar in Chicago,” he fretted, staring forlornly at his virgin cigar. “You know, it’s this kind of thing that gives you liberals a bad reputation – this no-smoking-in-bars Nanny State crap. Restaurants, office buildings, oxygen tents I can see – but, bars? It’s crazy.”

I agreed with a nod and, flipping out a pocket notebook, asked him again what he had picked up from his contacts in politics and business. The following is recreated from memory and my sketchy notes.

“Did you see the Democratic debate last Thursday? It wasn’t so much that Hillary had to do so well – face it, she’s not the inspiring speaker Obama is and never will be, and racking up debating points is strictly the kind of BS the pundits care about – nobody ever says ‘oh, for joy, my candidate won on debating points!’ No, the thing she had to do was trip Obama up – make him lose his cool and say something really stupid. She needed a clip that would be played over and over in the two weeks before the Texas and Ohio primaries of an angry Obama trying to carve her up like any regular politician and eating his shoe leather in the process. Like that debate between Carter and Ford in ’76 where Ford said Eastern Europe wasn’t Communist – she needed one of those ‘what the hell?!’ moments, but she didn’t get it; she couldn’t rile him out of his ‘zone.’ Worse, of the two clips the media played post-debate, one was of her getting booed. Disaster. Obama played her like a Zen master, making his points and letting her bury herself in minutiae. In the end, who looked more presidential: The woman trying to press some thin plagiarism charge that nobody much cares about, or the guy who calmly deflected her attacks with dignity and poise?

(more…)

Maureen Dowd: ¿Quién Es Less Macho? (Who Is Less Manly?)

Filed under: Commentary — Volt @ 8:05 am

Maureen Dowd, The New York Times, February 25, 2008

If this is truly the Decline and Fall of the Clinton Empire, it is marked by one freaky stroke of bad luck and one striking historical irony.

How likely is it that a woman who finally unfetters herself from one superstar then finds herself eclipsed by another?

And when historians trace how her inevitability dissolved, they will surely note this paradox: The first serious female candidate for president was rejected by voters drawn to the more feminine management style of her male rival.

The bullying and bellicosity of the Bush administration have left many Americans exhausted and yearning for a more nurturing and inclusive style.

Sixteen years of politicians in Washington clashing in epic if not always essential battle through culture wars, the right-wing war against the Clintons, the war-without-end on terror, and the war-with-no-end-in-sight in Iraq have spawned a desire for peace and pragmatism.

Read More Here

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress