I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want Hillary Clinton waiting around for me to die

by lestro

As Hillary Clinton rolls to another victory among stupid white people (sorry West Virginia, but I call them like I see them: You are 95 percent white, only 15 percent of you went to college and you are a full 5 percent below national average on high school graduates) in a state that leans so red it isn’t even considered a swing state, a new Gallup poll says that a majority of Democrats want Hillary as Obama’s Veep:

“A new Gallup poll shows 55 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents surveyed think Obama should offer the New York senator a spot on his ticket.”

but the next sentence explains how that could possibly be true:

“That number is significantly influenced by Clinton’s supporters — close the 75 percent of her backers want the No. 2 spot to be offered, while only 43 percent of Obama supporters feel the same.”

It means like their candidate, Hillary supporters can’t let go. They are clinging tenaciously to the idea that she could still get back in the White House, that it’s not over, that she didn’t lose, couldn’t lose.

A majority of Obama supporters, meanwhile, seem to want a clean break and want to turn the page.

Imagine that.

Read more of this post

but John, you are a warmonger. look it up.

by lestro

For being such a tough guy, Sen. John McCain seems to me to have a pretty thin skin:

The campaigns of Senators John McCain and Barack Obama sparred Saturday after Ed Schultz, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who is known for his blunt criticisms of the Bush administration and the Republican Party, called Mr. McCain a “warmonger” at a fund-raiser.

Mr. Schultz, a conservative Republican turned liberal Democrat, made the remarks on Friday while revving up a group of Obama supporters at a $100-a-head fund-raiser at the North Dakota Democratic Party’s convention in Grand Forks. As soon as the Republican National Committee got word of the attack, it issued a statement criticizing Mr. Schultz and calling on Mr. Obama to repudiate the comments.

Later, Mr. McCain, speaking to reporters in Prescott, Ariz., said, “Mr. Schultz is entitled to his views.” But he added, “I would hope that in keeping with his commitment, that Senator Obama would condemn such language, since it was part of his campaign.”

But here’s the thing, he is a warmonger. I looked it up:

war·mon·ger Listen to the pronunciation of warmonger Listen to the pronunciation of warmonger
Pronunciation:
\ˈwr-ˌməŋ-gər, –ˌmäŋ-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1817
: one who urges or attempts to stir up war

Read more of this post

Memo to Hillary: Rocky LOST

by lestro

As a former Philadelphian and major fan of the Rocky movies (except Rocky V, which we just don’t talk about), Hillary’s “I’m like Rocky” assertion yesterday irks me:

Recalling a famous scene on the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art from the 1976 Oscar-winning film “Rocky,” Clinton said that ending her presidential campaign now would be as if “Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum steps and said, ‘Well, I guess that’s about far enough.'”

“Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people,” Clinton said in excerpts of prepared remarks to be given Tuesday to a meeting of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO.

Um, memo to Hillary (and spoiler alert): Rocky lost. He went the distance, took his shot and made everyone proud and all – which is what makes it a great movie – but ultimately, he LOST, so I am not sure this is really the metaphor for which you are searching.

And in the process, he beat the snot out of the champ, which would have totally screwed Apollo if he had to battle another world heavyweight champion – like say from an opposing boxing federation (let’s call them the Republican Boxing Association, just for shits and giggles) – within a few short months, he might not be ready for the fight.

I mean, you saw them at the beginning of Rocky II. Did either one of them look like they were in any shape to take on John McCain?

Read more of this post

Hillary gets it wrong again

by lestro

So the big headline yesterday was “Clinton says Obama wants to stop votes” or something to that effect. According to the AP, Sen. Clinton in a series of interviews today told primary voters that Sen. Obama doesn’t want their votes to count:

“My take on it is a lot of Senator Obama‘s supporters want to end this race because they don’t want people to keep voting,” she told CBS affiliate KTVQ in Billings, Mont. “That’s just the opposite of what I believe. We want people to vote. I want the people of Montana to vote, don’t you?”

Montana holds its primary June 3. The New York senator made similar comments in interviews with stations in Indiana and North Carolina, which hold primaries May 6.

Funny thing is, just two days before, he said almost exactly the opposite and it was all over the damn place:

“My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants,” Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said at a news conference in a high school gymnasium here. “Her name is on the ballot. She is a fierce and formidable opponent, and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president.”

While it is true many of his supporters have recently reminded Hillary that math is certainly not in her favor and have recently urged her to stop her attacks on the likely Democratic candidate and give up her Quixotic Candidacy for the good of the party, Sen. Obama has not been one of them. Others have also urged the superdelegates to get real (despite threats from the Clinton mafia) and coalesce behind Obama since he will almost undoubtedly finish the primaries with more elected delegates.

Clinton, on the other hand, is getting her advice elsewhere.

Officially, however the campaign has not said such a thing and publicly supported Clinton’s right to continue running. Why should they? They have three times the money, all the momentum and he’s ahead by a comfortable enough margin that he was able to vacation in the Virgin Islands last week.

The AP story also offers this:

“I don’t even keep track of it, I can’t even tell you that figure,” Clinton said when asked by Pittsburgh CBS affiliate KDKA how many superdelegates had endorsed her in recent weeks.

Which is total bullshit, as the next sentence points out:

As she spoke, her husband, former President Clinton, was in Oregon, lobbying uncommitted superdelegates.

But, just to recap, Clinton is not doing well in that race, even losing a longtime friend who owes his entire political career to the Clintons. In thast respect, James Carville’s metaphor was apt, Richardson’s endorsement of Obama really is a Judas-like move if you’re a Clinton disciple.

But really, i suppose some Democrats could say the same thing about a candidate who continues to not only campaign but attack – sometimes viciously – the party’s best hope in nearly a decade to reclaim the White House. (***UPDATE BELOW!***)

Read more of this post

change you can replicate perfectly

by twit

… is probably what Xerox ™ would like Hillary’s endorsement of Obama to mean.

it was an endorsement, right? it sure sounds like one.

and I realize Queen Clinton is hard up for cash these days, but corporate sponsorship?

Is there anything she won’t do for pity or money?

the twit’s not holding her breath.

morning cartoons

by twit

aw, how sweet:I call him Baby Poo. He calls me, ‘Bitch, get over here.‘”

https://i1.wp.com/jezebel.com/assets/resources/2008/02/icecoco021508.jpg

Read more of this post

Obituary for the Clinton Campaign

by twit

Ramussen reports on Feb 14, 2008 that Obama is polling as the favorite for the Democratic nomination and the general election.

… Obama is the most popular candidate at the moment, viewed favorably by 55% and unfavorably by 43%.

Clinton is viewed favorably by 44% of Likely Voters nationwide, unfavorably by 53%.

McCain’s is viewed favorably by 50% and unfavorably by 47%.

Opinions about Clinton are more strongly held than opinions about either Obama or McCain.

While Hillary’s shining personality may be a key factor in the stumbling failures of her campaign, there are also reports of massive planning failures within the campaign itself. From the New York Times on Feb 14, 2008:

She and her team showered so much money, attention and other resources on … Feb. 5 that they have been caught flat-footed — or worse — in the critical contests that followed, her political advisers said.

She also made a strategic decision to skip several small states holding caucuses, states where Mr. Obama scored big victories, accumulating delegates and, possibly, momentum.

Her heavy spending and relatively modest fund-raising in January compounded the problems, leaving the campaign ill-equipped to plan after Feb. 5, advisers and donors say.

The Clinton campaign appears to be working from a playbook that reads like a strange blend of the Bush “Mission Accomplished” strategy and the Guiliani “New York and Florida” death-rattle. Focus on the big states, ignore the rest, and expect that it will be smooth sailing to the coronation nomination, because Hillary will be greeted as a liberator, of course.

Read more of this post

Hillary may be a top-of-the-line VCR, but Obama is a DVD player

A letter to a Hillary Clinton supporter

by lestro

Recently I discovered that a friend of mine is a supporter of Hillary Clinton and what follows is my response, with links added for reference purposes:

Well, thankfully your reasons for Hillary are actual reasons and not just ‘it’s a woman’s time.’ I hate that shit. It’s so anti-feminist. I am all for a woman President. But not Hillary Clinton. and I voted for her for Senator.

Which is where she belongs, working on the legislation, fighting over the details, making the sausage.

Presidents, however, are about vision, leadership and direction. The policy will follow.

Presidents do not write laws, Congress does. The President sets the vision. Think of your city councils. The mayor doesn’t have a vote. The federal government is supposed to function in the same way on a larger scale.

Presidents provide vision and direction by rallying the country around a set of ideas and a series of goals. Congress then responds to that by writing those laws.

And Hillary has no vision. Obama has vision. He’s the first candidate since Reagan to have vision. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of Reagan’s but he definitely changed the entire political culture of the country. We are still living in Reagan’s America. And I, for one, am done with it.

It is time for something different.

Hillary Clinton will lose to John McCain (you asked who needs Reagan? really? He’s the second most popular president ever. Clinton is fourth. Kennedy is third) because the change she offers is essentially the same he offers. There would be changes in policy, sure, but the time of the baby boomers is over. They are all VCRs and Hillary may be a top-of-the-line VCR, but Obama is a DVD player.

Read more of this post

This is what change looks like

by twit

Via BarackObama.com, highlights from the Feb 12 ‘Potomac Primary’ victory speech:

We need a new direction in this country. Everywhere I go, I meet Americans who can’t wait another day for change. They’re not just showing up to hear a speech – they need to know that politics can make a difference in their lives, that it’s not too late to reclaim the American Dream.

It’s a dream shared in big cities and small towns; across races, regions and religions – that if you work hard, you can support a family; that if you get sick, there will be health care you can afford; that you can retire with the dignity and security and respect that you have earned; that your kids can get a good education, and young people can go to college even if they’re not rich. That is our common hope. That is the American Dream.

… The voices of the American people have carried us a great distance on this improbable journey, but we have much further to go. Now we carry our message to farms and factories across this state, and to the cities and small towns of Ohio, to the open plains deep in the heart of Texas, and all the way to Democratic National Convention in Denver; it’s the same message we had when we were up, and when were down; that out of many, we are one; that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; and that we can cast off our doubts and fears and cynicism because our dream will not be deferred; our future will not be denied; and our time for change has come.

Video after the jump:

Read more of this post

Once you vote black you’ll never go back?

by lestro

With two pretty evenly-matched candidates, the Democratic race seems to hinge, for a lot of people, on the idea of “electability,” the mirage that even though you like one candidate, you can’t vote for them because the other candidate is more likely to win.

It’s what killed the spark and energy of Howard Dean, favoring the middle-of-the-road blandness of John Kerry. And now it has many voters picking Clinton over Obama.

There are many ways electabilty is measured, but one of the most fun ways is money and if that is any indication, the most electable candidate, by a long shot, is Obama.

This is from today’s NYT piece about Washington being the “contest du jour”:

“On Friday morning, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers fought back against impressions that the campaign was short on cash…”

That’s a pretty Clintonian spin on things and not entirely accurate.

I mean, it’s not the impression that the campaign is short of cash. It WAS short of cash, which is why the candidate had to loan herself $5 MILLION.

Campaigns that are not short of cash do not have to take out loans. and even if they did collect $10 million so far in February, that’s really only $5 million because they have to payback the Clintons, right?

Beyond that, $5 million is more than half as much as the Huckabee campaign has spent in total. Hillary has spent more than $100 million to try and convince us she’s the candidate, and the only people who are listening seem to be the same Democratic Party Establishment Elites and Old Guard that make up the 49 percent of democratic primary voters.

And if that’s a problem now, it’s going to be a real bitch in the general election.

Read more of this post

A Reminder for Democrats on Super Tuesday

by lestro

Well it is Super Tuesday, and while we will still probably not have a Democratic Nomination at day’s end, we should be a lot closer to knowing who will be riding the Donkey in November.

The choice seems to come down to this: Hillary wants to talk about policy detail and legislation. Obama wants to talk about larger concepts of vision and hope.

A quick review of the past shows that while Americans tend to favor Democratic policy – and, for the record, most of them seem to work better in the long run than Republican legislation – we still tend to elect Republicans as President.

Why? Because they apparently understand the electorate better, as well as the way the system is set up: policy and legislation are for Congress. Presidents are about vision and leadership.

Presidents, despite what they may say during the campaigns, do NOT write legislation, Congress does. The President should set the tone and the agenda, but not write laws.

Read more of this post

Chris Rock Robocalls for Obama

by twit

The audio file is posted at Putfile.com via a report about Scarlett Johansson’s robocall

https://i1.wp.com/www.boingboing.net/images/_images_obama.jpg
poster image via Boing Boing

I see your Kennedy and raise you a Reagan

by lestro

There is no bigger indication of the failure of the Bush Administration than the fact that not a single candidate is trying to claim the Bush mantle and legacy. He’s a pariah right now with approval numbers hovering at 30 percent.

And rightfully so.

But that is not stopping the candidates from trying to assume the legacies and mantles of presidents past.

As I struggle with watching the Republican candidates genuflect at the temple of Reagan, I recognize the necessity.

Read more of this post

what she said

by twit by twit

Via The New York Times:

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

“A President Like My Father”

Published: January 27, 2008

Obama’s South Carolina victory speech on January 26, 2008:

A thirty-second clip of a speech by JFK about sending Americans to the moon:

Read more of this post

Obama has the funny

by twit

what lestro said, now with video and this bit:

At the end of the event, a man yelled out to Obama that he will be a better president than George Bush.

Obama responded, “So would you!”

via CBS and You Tube:

at the late show he works blue…

by lestro

This is a fun piece from CNN’s Political Ticker blog.

It’s about a new bit Sen. Barack Obama debuted the other night at a rally in Vegas.

I haven’t found a video link yet, but I’d love to see it.

Not only is there a fine bit of reporting in the beginning to set up context of the bit, but the schtick actually has the potential to be funny if delivered right.

And is there any doubt Obama can deliver it?

On the Republican side, the race for funnyman in chief is tighter than for the Dems. The frontrunner was (and probably still is) Rudy Giuliani, who has been brilliant on multiple Saturday Night Live appearances, including his legendary show-opener on the first live broadcast after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, during which Lorne Michaels asked the then-mayor “Can we be funny?” to which he responded “Why start now?”

But recently I saw this video of Mike Huckabee doing a Bob Newhart-style phone call with God during the Republican Governor’s Association Dinner in 2004. Again, it’s a politician doing politician schtick, but it’s very well delivered…

That even gives a cross-dressing Rudy and a randy Donald a run for its money…

posted by twit

UPDATE: The video!

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…

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.