Electability

Phototoons? I love phototoons! Maybe the April caption could have been “Of course, I would’ve walked right out of that mosque!” Hillary is running out of time. She can’t be blowing set-ups like that and still hope to win the valuable super delegate votes.

Listening to NPR today they were talking about her recent argument that only she can bring the “hard working white folks”. While I would certainly not ever try to say that spending 12 hours tied to a laptop could be compared to the exhaustion and difficulty of intense manual labor day in and day out, I still kind of resent the implication that because I have a college degree and a masters degree and happen to work with ideas I’m not a “real American” or a hard worker. (I must have missed something during all those years of 60-100 hour work weeks)

- to be clear… i think the manual worker with HS education is ALSO a real American. I just think my opportunity to have further education and then make use of it should not disqualify me.

and, um, Adam? Wouldn’t it be “only John McCain or I can keep us safe”?

sorry…you can take the girl out of the editor position, but, you know

I agree. I, too, am a hard-working American! Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to check out a few more websites and then I’m taking some comp time this afternoon. Come on, Hillary, Barack, and John, which one of you wants to claim me? No shoving!

Becca and/or Brian … I couldn’t agree more. What really chaps my ass is how people assume that those of us who went to college and beyond somehow lucked into it. With apologies to the great John Hiatt, I’ve always been pissed off by that “I didn’t go to college ’cause I didn’t have the luck” attitude. Luck had not a damn thing to do with it. I worked my tail off in high school to get to college, while a lot of my peers couldn’t be bothered. And I worked my tail off in college to get to law school. Drank my tail off, too; but that’s a whole ‘nother story.

Oh, and guess what? Having not been born to rich parents in Park Ridge, Illinois, I had to pay my own freakin’ way all the way through. My folks were both teachers, and we didn’t have two nickels to rub together, so every thing was a struggle. At one point in college I worked three separate jobs and held down a full class schedule just to pay the bills. I graduated college in 3 years because the money and the financial aid just plain ran out (thank you very much Ronald Reagan and former Ill. Gov. Jim Thompson). I got as many credits as I could so I could get my diploma before the well ran dry. I’m not saying that to brag; I’d have given anything to have one more year as an undergrad!

Anyway, sometimes I think I knew more about “hard work” by the time I was 21 than HRC will ever know.

So, I got no bone to pick with those who took a different path. Sometimes - often times - I wonder if I shouldn’t have done the same. But, fer Chrissakes, don’t tell me I “lucked” into college, or I got there just because I belonged to some elite group, or that life has been easy since then.

Sorry for the rant; it’s just been a sore spot for me for, oh, 25-odd-years or so …

After all, if Hillary Clinton had that much influence over voters, wouldn’t SHE be the one everyone is lining up behind?

I think that the rhetoric from the Clinton Camp is starting to sound more conciliatory. She may be a fighter but she can still read the writing on the wall, and she is not Ralph Nader who is the only person in America who thinks he didn’t cost Al the election.

I also think that Barack’s focus will head towards McCain now that Hillary’s bid is virtually out of reach. (Of course if videos of BHO burning a Bible in a Mosque to the tune of “God Damn America”, and laughing at bitter common people surfaces, well,,, that’s why we have super delegates).

Dave,

First off, my comments were directed to Adam’s cartoon, not to your mutual-admiration-society debate about who is more hard working and noble.

Second, I did not mean to sound as if I was taking offense at the cartoon. I was simply suggesting that it, and its ilk, are not a particularly effective means to achieve the puported goal of getting BHO elected, and seem designed more to setting up for a scape-goat for loss in November rather an effort to avoid a loss in November.

Your comments, and Adam’s cartoon for that matter, make appear that if you and the BHO crew were going “awfully easy on HRC over the past few months,” it was nothing more than a tactic to paint HRC as the horrible “negative” one. Again, once you think the process is over, you take the gloves off.

Well, guess what, the process isn’t over and it won’t be over at the convention in August either. It’s simple math that the Democrats can’t win the White House without the support of all those voters who came out in support of HRC and all those voters who came out in support of BHO.

It’s not about thick skin, it’s about practicality.

Dave — Talk about thin skin. Do you hear yourself?

My comments had absolutely nothing to do with whether HRC is being practical in continuing her campaign. Nor did I suggest that BHO supporters were being impractical by supporting BHO. I’d be more than happy to have either of those debates with you if you’d like.

My comments concerned the very limited issue of whether it makes sense — and is practical — for BHO supporters to take the kind of shots at HRC evidenced by Adam’s cartoon. Your position seems to be “hell, yeah, HRC has been horribly devisive, so it’s only fair to give it right back to her.” I am suggesting that you may want to consider that if it was so horrible and devisive for HRC to take what you consider to be cheap shots at BHO — because it will so undermine the party’s chances in November — then perhaps, just perhaps, it would be just as unproductive to take cheap shots at her.

Is it only devisive and counterproductive to take cheap shots at the candidate who seems to have garnered the support of slightly more that half the party, but not at all divisive and counterproductive to take shots at the candidate who seems to have garnered the support of slightly less than the other half of the party?

David Sirota’s column today, “Acknowledging the Race Chasm”, had an extremely interesting discussion on this. (The S.F. Chronicle publishes him from time to time.)

I’m beginning to get the depressing feeling that, no matter who wins this, we the people lose, since if BHO wins, we must be incurable misogynists, while if HRC wins, we are clearly incurable racists (Mr. Sirota would agree with this one). And of course if John McCain wins, everyone else loses.

Hillary will come back to her senses and help Obama win the general election. She went off the deep end in her ever more desperate attempt to win the nomination, a nomination she believed she deserved. But the godawful things she said were going to be said by the McCain campaign in the general election, so I still suspect two purposes were served: those things are now old news, so unless they actually have some kind of enduring traction, they will be less of a problem in the general election; and Obama got a chance to respond to them, and deal with his personal distress because of them, before the general election. The greatest damage is what Hillary did to herself, and to the kind of broad tent the Democratic Party actually is. That she would attempt to set core constituencies against each other is pretty appalling. And what a shame that what should be a remarkable positive, that a black and a woman could be the two finalists for the Democratic nomination in an election the Democrats will win, has become an acrimonious divider.

First thing I would like Obama supporters who said they would not vote for Hillary if she were the nominee to do is send a note of apology to Hillary. The supporters of the nominee need to set the tone. Then I would look for reciprocity from the Clinton supporters who swear they will not vote for Obama. They don’t need to send apologies. They just need to vote for Obama. Hillary probably holds the key to what a lot of her angry supporters will do.

In the general election, John McCain will mostly self-destruct, while Obama will inspire. This will be a general election for the ages, even though the media would likely prefer to continue to reduce it to a freak show.

My choice: Obama/Richardson, although Janet Napolitano is an intriguing possibility. Hillary is too prominent to be a vp. If she were going to be in the administration, it would need to be as secretary of state or, to smash a glass ceiling, secretary of defense. Otherwise, I think either back to the Senate as majority whip or, and I really like this idea, onto the Supreme Court. I would love to watch her take Antonin Scalia’s sorry ass apart and serve it at a barbecue. She is a formidable personality, knows the Constitution, and would be free from some of the shitbrained triangulation she was guilty of, especially regarding the Iraq Warcrime. She would rise to the stature of SCOTUS,
unlike the silly-assed Federalist Society egomaniacs and their sadly unenlightened black colleague.

But first she must do everything in her power to undo the damage she has done, for her own sake and for the stature of the Democratic Party. She won’t cause Obama to lose. She can’t. But she can help add to the margin of his victory. I’m looking for a 53-47 spread at this point, but I would love to see 57-43. And I look for both North Carolina and Virginia to wind up in the D column this time. I have trouble imagining Ohio not being a D win. There has been a significant shift in Ohio politics.

Do not hang your heads, Democrats. You are poised to be winners, which means America is finally poised to be a winner again.

Wow. While I was composing my comment, Adam said Motherfucker. Let’s see if Fanny is like the “Shut Your Mouth” girls in the song Shaft and blocks me. MoFo or not Adam’s reply was necessary.

Adam, now can we see some foto funnies of Barack and his minions demonizing Hillary? There’s a lot of material you can draw from.

How about some wacky stuff showing how Barack has shot himself in the foot over and over again with stuff that was naive, dumb, and unwise, demonstrating questionable judgement over and over again in things he has said and ways he has dealt with issues that later blew up in his face?

“I spent the last three months completely mired in this stuff, reading every press release, watching every available stump speech, seeing every talking point that both of their surrogates churned out.”

Damn, Adam, at the risk of sounding like our president, funny is hard work. Ain’t it?

Oops, Zee Man, looks like I just missed you. Good point though, funny is hard work.

Adam:

“If you believe that this Reverend Wright “controversy” is a worthy topic for discussion and that Hillary and her people were justified in bringing it up again and again and again, if you believe the public statement that McCain was more ready to be President than Obama was “fair game” and not a betrayal of party and principle… then clearly you don’t see anything wrong with Hillary’s campaign and obviously there’s not much difference between hers and Obama’s.”

I’d hate to have to sit and watch a National Geographic documentary with you. The constant cries of moral outrage as you watch lion’s taking out baby gazelle’s, sharks grabbing sea lions without provocation, would definitely put a sog on my popcorn.
Can anyone give me some examples of an “ethical” presidential campaign, where most everyone agreed that a candidate didn’t “cross the line,” who went on to win?
I guess someone might identify one, maybe, but it doesn’t seem like a general rule, that if breached, calls for moral repetitive outrage. The “Hillary is too aggressive” motif has been done. We get it. Move on.
I see JM’s point, and appreciate it. Too bad people like Dave had to be a rude ass.

And I think I’d enjoy watching a NatGeo documentary with Adam. He’d put Mystery Science Theater 3K to shame, no doubt. “The constant cries” would be coming from me, begging him to “stop with the comedy!”, lest I wet myself.

Wha? Adam cleaned up comment comment 24 but Fanny left comment 26 intact? So now I look more whacko than usual. 26 should have gone down the memory hole once 24 was edited. You’re fired, Fanny/Winston.
Let’s all put politics aside to note that “. . . sog on my popcorn” is a very good line.

Harold, I think Fanny is out having her nails done. No not her claws, the nails driven into her skull that they attach the electrodes to. Those nails - maybe she’ll do better after that. One certainly hopes.

Paul,

For me and many voters, it’s not about shaming the politicians who use dirty tactics or the pundits that push those agendas; it’s about supporting and voting for someone who elevates the discourse. I don’t see that as “selling earth shoes” or merely pandering to “active and retired hippies.”

It’s, as I said before, calling bullshit when you see it, even when that bullshit is directed at your opponent. It’s about not only speaking to us like adults, it’s about recognizing that one can appeal to our sense of reason instead of relying on provocation of our knee-jerk reactions.

I’m a bit of a history buff so I’m well aware of mudslinging during prior campaigns. I’m also aware that in every election cycle “dirty politics” is always at or near the top of the list of voter turnoffs. By dirty politics, I mean innuendo, outright fabrications, voter caging, push polls, baseless ad hominem attacks, misrepresenting a candidate’s positions, and on and on. But remember, spotlighting a candidate’s or pundits’ or other media’s dissembling is not dirty politics.

I don’t think Senator Obama walks on water, and he wasn’t my first choice at the beginning of the race, but this race has sparked a level of voter involvement that I’ve never witnessed in a primary cycle. I would speculate that this level wouldn’t exist if the race we’re between HRC and one of the prior democratic candidates.

I’ve been cynical about politics for as long as I can remember, but for the first time in a long time, it’s not about getting rid of the lout that’s become entrenched in his or her position of power, or choosing between two candidates based on which one will give fewer turns to the screwing-over. It’s about supporting someone because I believe he will be the most able to energize the citizenry to progress.

Catholic News Service (CNS) In recent weeks, journalists have seen the 81-year-old pontiff go from seven-hour days on the public stage to virtual seclusion behind the Vatican walls.

Predictably, that led to one alarming report — promptly denied by the Vatican — about the pope’s supposedly “fragile heart.”

In the week leading up to Pope Benedict’s six-day visit to the United States, his activities were reduced to a minimum. He gave no speeches, met with no groups and only a few individuals, and limited his public appearances to a weekly general audience and a Sunday blessing.

In Washington and New York, the pope sailed through a busy schedule — 16 major events — with no evident problems, a fact that pleased his aides immensely. But once he got back to Rome, he took another rest and held no public audiences for a week.

“They’re being careful, but I don’t think it’s because of any particular health concern,” said one Vatican official who has known the pope for years.

Some might call it a disappearing act. Vatican officials would simply call it prudence.

Yeah? Well I call it incarceration! I’ve got to get word to Father Guido. Maybe Cardinal Bernie Law will visit me again, down here in my cell. I’ve got plenty on him, plus he’s one of God’s dumber creatures. Maybe Cardinal Bernie can get word to Guido. Actually, it’s worked out well that Guido didn’t crush Bernie with the PopeMobile during that near tragic oil change. Maybe Bernie’s my way out of this cold dark slammer. I love life. It’s chocked full of delicious ironies.

David, I thought you might enjoy this one, having been in the trade for a while.

http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=61699

Coop, are you telling us that David, OUR DAVID, is a wizard? I knew he’s a whiz at grounding us when we tend to rant, but…wow, just wow.

I assume he’s in Dumbledore’s corner rather than Voldemort’s.

You know, I used to consider myself an environmentalist, pro-Earth and all, but I am reconsidering. This Earth lady is not very nice at all. Why should I be nice to someone who has killed 40,000+ in the last week?

Yeah, Paul, sitting around the kitchen table, with the knives safely locked away.

Dan, thanks. By the way, I do believe this the first time I’ve been called a “rude ass” by a guy who also used the phrase “titty-fuck” … I’m not passing judgment, just making an observation.

Still, it’s nice to know my “rude ass” reputation is intact.

Jim, I’ve heard of foot fetishes, but never breast-enhanced shoe fetishes.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

And, for what it’s worth, I meant no sarcasm there.

Jon,
I remember it the same way you do. Thanks for the reminder. My dad, who was 84 at the time, and who looked to me to help him sort through the candidates, but most definitely still had a mind of his own (and a lovable one, at that), was so impressed with Bill Clinton’s campaign that he made a $50 donation on his own, and told me about it later, and quite proudly. To my knowledge, Dad had never before been moved to make a donation to a presidential candidate, although he voted.

Jim, point taken. I was just commenting on what appeared to be some kind of moral outrage going on in the killing fields when the machetes are in full swing.
I generally, like most people, leave that up to the “never again” historians, so they have something to do.
Personally, I think it’s not “fair play” to be telling Hillary to quit. It’s unreasonable, an unlikely, so why keep bringing it up?
I believe if dems have a problem with it, they should reorganize their own game of nominating people so it’s not such a drawn out affair, but then again, maybe it suits dems political purposes in the long run, and look at me moralizing in circles, and I’m going to make fun of me soon if I don’t stop it.
To Dave, one response was enough, but… you just had to go back for one more, didn’t you? “oh wait. I notice Paul’s ass somewhat bruised, but quite fully kicked. Let’s fix that right now…”
All I can say is I can empathize with your chagrine when you noticed that someone who used the term “tittyfuck” was lecturing you on social propriety, but just think how I felt when I was given a heads up on hypocrisy by an admitted practicing attorney.
So maybe we can come together in our pain.

I’ve got to add the fact that I don’t like lawyer jokes. While there are some lawyers who deserve those jokes, I have three lawyers who are friends and one who is a close acquaintance, and the political figures I have known, associated with in campaigns, and admired for their integrity and honesty, have all been lawyers. Teachers, lawyers, elected officials, and bureaucrats are all in the main decent, hard-working, dedicated individuals, and all are essential to the well-being of this nation. As with policemen, when one of these people is a discredit, it hurts all of us, and not just in small ways.

I would also like to add that politics does not corrupt politicians. If they behave in a corrupt manner, they are just being who they always were, and noboby noticed. Because they wield so much power, they are under constant pressure by corrupters, of course, mostly the special intere$t$. But I don’t think corruption is the biggest problem. Misguided ideology is. Most of the damage done by the Bush administration is because of ideology. It just happens that they are apparently also one of the most corrupt administrations, or at least the softest on corruption on behalf of major corporate interests.

But Huey Long was also corrupt. But he wound up doing a great deal of good for LSU and for the public schoolchildren of Louisiana because his ideology was New Deal, and because he taxed the shit out of oil interests in Louisiana, along with the reminder that if they didn’t like it, they could go fuck themselves. Would that he had not been corrupt, because it proved his undoing. But the good folks of Louisiana benefitted from his ideology. The good folks of the United States have been royally screwed by Bush’s ideology.

Do not ask me how I got from point A to point Z in this one. I have no idea. But I do love to take an occasional ride on a train of [semi]consciousness.

Dave. I know you won’t believe me when I apologize if you took personal offense. I was just making an easy joke.
David, you made a lot of good points regarding corrupt politicians, and why lord acton said “great men are almost always bad men.”
It has created the eternal discourse between people who like omelettes and people who hate breaking eggs.
Often, in America, they’re one and the same, which is why I believe a lot of political “debates” are retarded ones.
Good rants by all, anyway.