stop looking!

It is official, I have found the stupidest f-ing person on the planet. I will provide the link here- but be very, very careful. The damage from encountering this much stupidity may be permanent.

The reason why this pregnancy means something is that it is the daughter of someone who is running for the second highest office in the land. That person also happens to be someone who is very much against teaching sexual education in public schools and only supports abstinence only education. When her underage daughter ends of pregnant, it is incumbent upon us to ask how this private behavior matches up with their public rhetoric. It is a very real example of how this person's judgment is deeply flawed.

Now this doesn't mean that we should all go through their private lives, but we should seriously discuss how this pregnancy reflects on their political agenda.

other thought on Palin

She has an awesome blog.

You really need to check it out.

Seriously.

Like now.

quick thought on Sarah Palin

I can't even really process this decision. At first I was confused about the choice but now I am just angry, extremely angry. At no time in modern American history has a person been selected for office who is so under qualified. There is no need to judge the political merits of this decision. It is dangerous, cynical and disgusting.

Quick thoughts on the speech

I thought this was a great speech by Obama. It was focused and smart and thoughtful.

However, I have to say that the speech didn't do as much for me as Biden's. I know that I am in the minority on this, but I honestly choked up a couple of times when I saw it. I didn't get the same feeling from Obama's speech, although I have felt that way with other speeches.

Tomorrow's conservative news today

They are going to scream and shout the following:

"Barack Obama is ANGRY"

History Lesson

For all of this talk about conflict between Hillary and Obama, Eric Boehlert offers a refreshing history lesson. Consider this:

The Democratic convention in Atlanta witnessed even more tumult from the second-place finisher when Jesse Jackson, furious at being passed over for the vice-presidential slot by the party's nominee, Michael Dukakis (who failed to call Jackson and tell him the VP news), threatened to withhold his delegates' support from the party's nominee. In fact, just hours before the convention began, Jackson's supporters threatened to place the candidate's name into nomination for the vice presidency, which would have created a massive floor fight between Jackson and Dukakis' pick, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.

Pre-convention tension grew so heated that the mild-mannered Dukakis was quoted as saying, "I don't care what Jesse Jackson does. I'm going to this convention and I'm going to win." During his convention keynote address, which lasted nearly an hour -- much longer than expected, Jackson did not specifically endorse Dukakis.

Good time for a rollout

I was wondering if the Democrats were going to hit McCain on his well known temper.

Looks like they have.

This is the line that needs to get burned into the minds of voters:

“He has a huge anger problem,” Boxer said. “And he never hid that. ... I have seen it happen on the Senate floor many, many times. … He has exploded at me a couple times.”

Boxer said McCain has always apologized after the dust-ups. Nonetheless, she insinuated that McCain’s temperament makes him unfit for the White House.

“It’s all well and good to apologize,” Boxer added, “but if you are in charge of that black box, I worry about that.”

Help me

My daughter just learned how to scream. It is loud, it is repetitive and it pierces my spine.

On the bright side though, she laughs her ass off when she is finished.

Obama v. Clinton

I was listening to coverage of the convention last night, and all I really got from the commentators was that there was a huge rift between Clinton and Obama. However, whenever one of the reporters would interview a convention goer, it was the same refrain 'We are here to elect Obama'. I am kind of wondering then, just what would have to occur so that the media reporting on the convention would have to admit -"This is a united party".

Like most media narratives, I fear that they have latched onto an idea and will never give it up. Hillary and Bill Clinton will heap praise upon Obama. 99% of her supporters at the convention will support Obama. Each of the speakers will talk about how united the party is. Yet the only thing that will come of this is that this is a party in crisis. The media will find support for this narrative by finding one or two camera hungry Clintion delegates and trot them out for a zillion interviews. Thus proving that the party is irrevocably harmed.

awesome

Jon Stewart Lays in to Traditional Media

Very inneresting.

Kind of hope there is a recording of this.

My take on Michele Obama's speech

It was a lovely speech and went a long way to accomplish something that has gotten away from the Obama campaign- showing that they are uniquely American and normal. I laughed at the end when Barack Obama showed up and his kids said 'hi' to their dad. That was great.

I think the speech will touch a lot of people who are unfamiliar with the real story of this family and it's interesting because the pundits commenting on this speech don't get that. If Michele had driven on to the stage with in a red pickup truck, that would have signaled 'Real American' to them. Unfortunately, she sort of walked up on stage which means that, of course, she is an elitist.

Observation

Michele Obama is kind of hot. But I am told that she is angry.

Cindy McCain looks like a withered old beauty queen. But I am told that she is down to earth.

That's more like it

Awesome.

NOT fighting back

The latest LA Times poll shows that McCain's attacks on Obama's patriotism and perceived celebrity status are working:

Barack Obama's public image has eroded this summer amid a daily onslaught of attacks from Republican rival John McCain, leaving the race for the White House statistically tied, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released today.

Far more voters say McCain has the right experience to be president, the poll found. More than a third have questions about Obama's patriotism.

I think a lot of Obama supporters (myself included) have been worried about Obama's lack of a counter attack in this campaign. Much like Kerry and the Swift Boat attacks in 2004, Obama has been absolutely silent this August and really needs to hit back. Unfortunately, it seems that he has taken the 'please stop kicking sand in my face' approach (from earlier today):

Barack Obama is giving his speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars right now. With some Dems questioning whether he's hitting back hard enough against John McCain's attacks, Obama went out of his way to directly confront McCain's claim that he would rather lose a war than lose an election.

The problem with this strategy is that it still plays into McCain's frame. It is still allowing for the discussion of whether Obama is patriotic. Instead of this feeble response, Obama needs to hit back hard. He needs to equate McCain with Bush, he needs to show the country that McCain is a pampered rich guy, he needs to openly question McCain's mental status. This is how you fight against these people.

Straight Talk!

At the Saddleback Forum, John McCain stated that he would heavily rely upon Congressman and civil rights hero John Lewis of Georgia for advice if he were to become president.

Which is funny, because after 22 years of serving together in Washington- McCain has NEVER reached out to him before.

Odd.

2002 all over again?

Watching the current presidential campaign makes me feel like I have traveled back in time as I have the sinking feeling that we are headed to same type of disaster which led us to war in Iraq. However, this time we run the risk of electing John McCain. Back then, every time I watched, listened to or read the news it seemed that we could never have an honest discussion of the issues because certain rhetorical tricks were being employed by those who wanted us to march to war. Unfortunately, a lot of those same tricks are being used right now to push for McCain's candidacy. Here is what I see so far:

Back in 2002, the rationale for going to war was incredibly flimsy. If you looked at the case that was presented by the Bush administration and weighed the evidence thoughtfully, there was very little reason to support the war. There was no terrorist connection, there was no link to 9-11 and the existence of stockpiles of WMDs was doubtful. Similarly, McCain is an exceptionally weak candidate. If you look at what he offers, it becomes abundantly clear that he is simply not a good fit for this country. Many of the policies that he embraces are ill conceived (e.g. gas tax moratorium), downright destructive (e.g. harsh stance towards Russia) or unpopular (e.g. support for Bush Tax cut).

However, just like in 2002, it is nearly impossible to get at the meat of the issue. One thing that the McCain campaign does is exploit personal tragedy to avoid criticism. Case in point, when asked whether McCain was in the 'cone of silence' during the forum at Saddleback, the campaign response was:

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,”

This is not the first time that the McCain has used this tactic during the campaign (see here), and it brings to mind the tragedy of 9-11 to thwart criticism of the war. We were constantly reminded of the 3,000 deaths suffered on that day, especially when anyone would point out that the rationale for the war was not as strong as it should have been.

Another tactic is the impugning of motives for those that oppose McCain's candidacy. As noted by Josh Marshall, McCain has repeatedly stated that Obama is committing treason so that he can win an election- which is eerily similar to the tactic commonly used by war supporters in 2002. While now it has become a joke (i.e. "Why do you hate America?"), many commentators would ask why 'opponents would want to undermine the troops' or 'let the terrorists win'.

Lastly, there is the suggestion that questioning McCain's credentials means that you are unpatriotic. As we all learned from the Wes Clark dust-up, asking whether McCain's military background matters is strictly forbidden. We have also had no mainstream coverage of the Solzhenitsyn issue which, as I noted yesterday, is to be expected since asking about it would mean that you are unpatriotic. This matches perfectly with what happened to many critics of the war in 2002 (e.g. Phil Donahue, Dixie Chicks), as they were vilified for opposing the war and speaking their mind.

My hope is that this trend can be reversed, but in all likelihood, public discourse will remain unchanged. I see no evidence that the traditional media will change their ways and fight through the BS. I only hope that voters are wise enough to see the difference.

McCain as plagiarist

I think the evidence for McCain stealing another's story for his own personal gain is solid, but as Michael from Balloon Juice rightly notes- no one will call him on it for fear that it will seem like we are questioning his patriotism.

On and on it goes...

Mediocre men needing to believe they are great

I touched on this the other day- but Josh Marshall does a really nice job of expanding on the point:

One of the great threats we face is the personal sense of grandiosity of the lead foreign hands who shape the course of our role in the world. Not national grandiosity, but personal grandiosity. Because if you're a foreign policy hand or political leader your own quest for greatness is constrained by whether or not you live in times of grand historical events.

There's a lot of this nonsense floating around today by pampered commentators who want to find a new world historical conflict to write bracing commentary about before we're done with the one from last week. But John McCain might be president in six months. And whether it's his own shaky judgment, temperament or just the desire to find a campaign issue, this loose cannon is a real threat to this country.

As I have been watching this all unfold, I have gotten increasingly worried that the press will fall into the McCain as leader meme that he is just itching to play. They so much want to believe that they are all living in a grand historical moment, and all they need to complete this is a grand historical figure that can lead us through it.

American Untouchables

Digby touches on something that has bothered me for a while:

This is really starting to annoy me. Saying "San Francisco mentality" and derisively calling someone "a French-speaking socialist from Boston, Massaschusetts," and refering to Hawaii as "foreign" is considered completely appropriate for public discourse in this country. They issue these little bon mots in a derisive tone, suggesting that anyplace that votes in a somewhat liberal fashion (even though they often vote Republican too) is somehow unAmerican. And yes, I realize that there are liberals who are rude and dismissive of Southerners, but you don't hear it coming from politicians or media figures. They wouldn't dare say anything like this about Mississippi or South Carolina in public.

She is absolutely right about this, for quite some time it has been absolutely unthinkable in popular discourse to cast the same sort of derision on these areas of the country or cultural type. I am not saying that it should be welcome on either side, but what is good for the goose is certainly good for the gander. For every pundit that calls liberals unAmerican, there should be some mention made of the large group of Americans that believe in the Rapture or deny global warming.

I know that makes me an elitist, but for those people who purposefully shut themselves off from reason I think it is deserved.

Thoughts regarding warmongers...

When I read this stuff, the first thing that comes to mind is: Do they realize that when wars are fought, people die?

I know that sounds rather stupid, but it really seems like they believe that war exists purely to give their lives meaning.