Bananas

by twit

First, there was this rumbling from the LA Times blog on January 15, 2008:

“Not that it’s going to diminish her ambition to live there again, but Hillary Clinton says she views the White House as something of a prison.”

Then, there was this from Breitbart today:

Clinton also said she was asked by other women “all the time” about what to do with unfaithful husbands.

“I say you have to be true to yourself, no one story is the same as any other story,” she said.

“‘I don’t know your reality. I cannot possibly substitute my judgment for yours, but what I can tell you is you must be true to yourself, you have to do what is right for you.’”

All this made possible today by The Tyra Banks Show. The Hillary YouTube channel promises its own dramatic footage, but at present, there is instead a video that talks about how cool Chelsea is, how original the Hillary is, whoop. ee. the. inspiration…

and if you dare try to escape that, you might fall into the rabbithole of playlists and propaganda from Clinton, Inc.

So here I am, driven half-mad by listening to Hillary give a ‘relaxed’ interview in the ‘ridin’-on-the-bus’ genre, that I dare not watch because the combo of watching a rocking countryside go by in the background is more than this chick can bear at the minute.

So I have a question for the brilliant genies out there who might be able to explain why we would ever want someone who thinks the White House is like a prison to have the responsibility of running it. Or someone who could seem so callous as to compare the lap of luxury at 1600 Pennsylvania to prison. Haven’t we had enough of the bubbled-in mentality? Don’t we want someone who believes they can make a difference?

As to the bit about those unfaithful husbands, I get what she is trying to say, the standard “You are the one with the most information about the situation and are therefore in the best position to decide what to do.” Classic empowerment chitchat, but instead of quitting while ahead, it seems to run amok.

One of the holy screeds of crisis intervention, as I understand it at least, is that the idea of responding to a random request for help is to give people a sense of their options. Telling people what they “must” and “have” to do is out of bounds.

So until the video evidence can be carefully examined and reviewed, such is the rant.

UPDATE: oh, oh, the video… she never doubted bubba’s love. never? not even a teensy weensy little bit?

hmm… I can’t get the video from Wonkette to embed.

Thus concludes the pundit improv session for the night.

random information

by twit

state.gdp

a map renaming states after countries with similar GDPs

thx Wonkette

Maybe Bubba’s just, uh, tense…

by lestro

The New York Times is reporting today that while out on the stump for his wife, Bill Clinton is “simmering” and appears to be having trouble keeping controlling of his notorious temper:

“Mr. Clinton’s temper has been an issue for him as long as he has been in public life. But it has played an unusual role during the current campaign, his face turning red in public nearly every week, often making headlines as he defends his wife and injects himself, whether or not intentionally, into her race in sometimes distracting ways.

Some Clinton advisers say the campaign is trying to rein him in somewhat, so that his outbursts become less of a factor to reporters, but his flashes of anger only seem to be growing.”

I don’t pretend to have any insider knowledge or anything, but maybe the problem is that with all the extra focus of reporters now that he is back on the road, Bubba can’t get away for a piece of tail now and again and he is starting to get a little backed up.

And I think we can all relate to that…

In an unrelated note, yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the drudge report item saying Newsweek had killed a story about the president having an affair with un-named intern…

by twit

UPDATE: It looks like this famous Bubba temper, it actually doesn’t have to exist to get reported on as being a temper, but anyways, via PoliticsTV.com, here’s a clip entitled BILL CLINTON: Lashes Out at Reporter over Vegas Caucus Lawsuit.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton Should Shut the Fuck Up

posted by twit

by lestro

I don’t usually agree with much Novak says, but he is not wrong here:

Before Tuesday night’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas, both campaigns declared an end to the “race debate” over whether Martin Luther King Jr. or Lyndon B. Johnson was more responsible for civil rights legislation. But the fight really was about the Clintons resenting an obstacle on their return to the White House. A prominent Democrat who saw the former president this week described him as “furious, outraged, angry and utterly dismissive of Obama.”

That anger was reflected in Hillary Clinton’s performance on NBC‘s “Meet the Press” last Sunday, when she said, “When Senator Obama’s chief strategist accuses me of playing a role in Benazir Bhutto‘s assassination, there’s silence [from Obama].”

Actually, David Axelrod never made such an accusation. He said the death of the former Pakistani prime minister will “call into issue the judgment” of “taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq.” Perhaps Hillary Clinton’s comments should be vetted.

twit says:

yeah, but a three year old child could also draw the conclusion perhaps Hillary Clinton’s comments should be vetted.

had Novak said, “Perhaps Hillary Clinton should shut the fuck up, ” then, it might be something worth agreeing with.

imho…

Splitting those perfectly coifed hairs

by lestro

For a guy whose entire candidacy is based on the fact that he has the most perfect hair in the Republican Party, Mitt Romney and his people can sure split those ends when they need to.

Yesterday, Romney got into a pissing contest with an AP reporter named Glen Johnson. Now, Johnson probably was a little out of line to do what he did, but in a press availability, the candidate should expect some questions.And my guess is that Johnson has been reporting on the Romney campaign for a while and could no longer hold back a reflexive fact check on the gov’s statements about not having any lobbyists running his campaign.Here’s what the candidate said:

Romney said, “Has he ever been at a debate session? Sure. Is that a senior strategy meeting? Is that a senior strategy meeting of our campaign? No. Let me go back and complete the point I was making. My campaign is not based on Washington lobbyists. I haven’t been in Washington. I don’t have lobbyists at my elbows that are arguing for one industry or another industry. And I do not have favors I have to repay to people who have been in Washington for years nor scores I have to settle.”

Video of the exchange between the candidate and the reporter can be seen here.

But nothing is really resolved there so today’s Boston Globe, the paper form Romney’s home state and the one that his been covering the guy for the longest, had this to say:

The Globe has reported that in preparing his presidential bid, Romney courted Republican power brokers inside the Beltway. He had a fund-raiser with lobbyists on Capitol Hill and a strategy session at a Washington lobbying firm.

The Minnesota Star-Tribune adds this:

…Washington insiders are on his senior staff and registered lobbyists are top advisers.

One of them, Ron Kaufman, chairman of Washington-based Dutko Worldwide, regularly sits across the aisle from Romney on his campaign plane, participates in debate strategy sessions and just last week accompanied Romney to a lunch in Myrtle Beach with Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

Another adviser, former Rep. Vin Weber, R-Minn., is chairman of Romney’s policy committee. He also is chief executive officer of Clark & Weinstock, and his corporate biography says he “provides strategic advice to institutions with matters before the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.”

A third adviser, former Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri, who was at Romney’s victory party in Michigan on Tuesday, is co-chairman of Fleishman-Hillard Government Relations and also is a registered lobbyist, according to federal records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

hmm. For a guy whose current campaign slogan is “Washington is Broken,” Mitt Romney sure seems to be taking a lot of advice from the guys who broke it…

Edwards just doesn’t get it

by lestro

On Thursday, the Reno Gazette Journal endorsed Sen. Barack Obama as the best choice for the Democratic party’s nomination. They cited his talk of unity and change and ability to cite both Presidents Kennedy and Reagan as agents of change.

According to a CBS reporter, John Edwards jumped all over Obama for the Reagan reference:

“When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people,” said Edwards.

“He was openly – openly – intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country. He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment.”

“I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change.”

Edwards isn’t wrong. Reagan fucked over the middle class, sold out the government to private interests, tripled the national debt, ignored AIDS, made ketchup a vegetable in public schools and rolled back a bunch of environmental advances.

But he isn’t right, either. Reagan’s election in 1980 set the tone for the next 12 years. I grew up in the 80s, so I have no recollection of what happened before, but even a cursory glance shows the structural changes and cultural ripple effects that still has all of the Republican candidates drooling all over which blowhard is the most fit to carry Reagan’s jock strap.

For the record, here is the actual quote to which the Edwards campaign was responding:

“I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

There’s been a lot of talk of “change” this election season but the real question is what that change means to the person who says it. Today, we got a look at what two of the Democratic candidates mean when they say change.

Obama apparently means one of those fundamental shifts in the way we look at things. A new generation rising to power and bringing with it a different world view, a new, more interconnected sensibility that draws the best parts of both sides of the aisle.

Edwards version of change is an old definition, a change of faces and rhetoric, but the same world view we’ve been arguing over for decades.

It is time to sluff off the world view of the Baby Boomers. I am appreciative of what they’ve done, but they are still fighting the same fights while the world is moving past them.

You can’t really blame Edwards for wanting to improve the VCR, but i think it might be time to take a chance on this up and coming DVD technology…

UPDATE: Well, Bill and Hillary Clinton both weighed in on this proving they too are just building a better VCR. They are both still struggling with the difference is the word change and are happy to distort what Obama said (though his campaign’s response was admittedly disappointing) in a distinctly Boomer political maneuver.

The report is at TPMelectioncentral and links to Bubba and Obama’s additions are at the bottom.