Election Nite USA

I'm not excited. Not like the massive throngs of people waiting on the edges of their seats to find out who will lead The Empire into its next chapter of "change" (however you want to define that).

My moment of relief will come when Bush leaves DC as the past president and Cheney disappears into Wyoming's ether - never to be heard from again unless it's from the defendant's chair in his war crimes trial.

Obama will most likely win. To not would be a nearly inexplicable defeat. But I've watched and listened and read him too much to believe or hope that "Yes We Can" is anything more than a very effective marketing slogan. What people think he can do and what he actually will do has yet to be seen. And I'll be watching.

**********************

11 pm ET - It's all over: OBAMA has won.

**********************
 

Sunday Food for Thought: How about a non-campaign?

Here's something to think about: considering how close Obama and McCain poll numbers are in the homestretch, would it have made any difference if they hadn't wasted hundreds of millions of dollars campaigning?

The elections since 2000 have shown that Americans are still almost evenly divided when it comes to sticking to their partisanship guns. I'd hypothesize that even if both of these candidates had just stayed home since they were both chosen as their party's picks for president, those poll numbers would be eerily similar, regardless.

Perhaps the most stunning aspect of the American public's behaviour these past 8 years is the fact that even though Bush's campaign of slashing and burning anything resembling democracy, the rule of law and decency, and the fundamentals of his own party have made him one of the most unpopular presidents ever, once again half of the voters see some redeeming quality in choosing a Republican representative who has overwhelmingly supported those policies as a logical and rational choice.

On the Democratic side, considering the embarrassingly low approval numbers of the Democratically-led congress and the failures and capitulation of Harry Reid and Nancy 'impeachment is off the table' Pelosi added to the centrist mantra Obama has been pushing while so many of his supporters think he's some kind of liberal in the true sense of the word, the cognitive dissonance is equally as palpable.

Overall then, would it have made any difference at all if this whole charade involved candidates who literally were a dog and a pony? I don't think so.

You have a Republican who's clumsily tried to convince people that he's not a Bush sockpuppet and a Democrat who really should have been able to muster an incredible amount of support - enough to have a huge lead in the polls at this point - after Dubya destroyed the country. Neither candidate has managed to deliver on their promise to bridge the partisan divide during this campaign and they have both run races that have mirrored the nastiness and shrillness of every other one before them. Why should we think that either of their presidencies will change that mood in the years to come?

America likes to consider itself as being on the cutting edge so, next time, why not take that to the limit - saving enormous amounts of money and the frazzled nerves of election watchers, journalists, pundits and bloggers (not to mention all of those train, bus, car and plane fumes) - and just have a non-campaign campaign? I'm sure the rest of us could find something else to do with our time (and sanity) until election day.
 

Attack in Syria: A Late October Surprise?

Lest we forget, as much as we may want to, Bush, Cheney and Gates are still busy plotting and carrying out various random attacks on sovereign countries while most of America is focused on the election and the accompanying financial crisis. I have to add though that, even if nothing else was happening, I suspect the majority of Americans wouldn't even blink at the fact that the US military has continually invaded Pakistan's territory in recent months and has now completed an air raid in Syria's boundaries. USA! USA! and all of that... The desire to win something, somewhere is overwhelming.

Depending on who you believe, the attack on Sunday either "killed a major smuggler of foreign fighters into Iraq" according to some anonymous "US official" and/or resulted in the deaths of 8 civilians.

Killing innocent people is a nasty habit the US military has yet to shake as it continually happens in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq - to list the countries that we know of where such "mistakes" involving "collateral damage" take place. We have no idea what other covert operations around the world might be "accomplishing" in this failed war on terror.

I don't think it's a stretch to see this latest US show of militarism in Syria as perhaps a signal favouring the election of Netanyahu over Livni after she admitted this week that she had failed to form a coalition government in Israel and was forced to call an election. Netanyahu has flatly stated that he has no interest in compromising to further the Israeli/Palestinian peace process (such as it is) and if Livni manages to win, media reports characterize the situation as having now delayed that process for at least a year.

While this certainly isn't a good outcome for Bush, who had expressed that he wanted to find some finality on the I/P issue - but who, in reality, along with Condi had stalled progress repeatedly for years - aggression towards Syria could serve as a favour to McCain. We'll have to see how or if he plans to handle this news if his campaign can manage to get the focus off of Palin's wardrobe (an issue she can't seem to let go of).

As Marc J. Sirois writing in Lebanon's Daily Star explains, after analyzing the futility of attacking Iran:

Then came another kind of "surprise." The global financial crisis that broke out earlier this month did not just damage McCain's campaign by exposing his fundamental (and openly acknowledged) ignorance on economic matters ahead of an era in which such abilities are likely to be at a premium. It also forced the US government to take on trillions of dollars in new liabilities in a bid to restore confidence in the markets. Given the gargantuan deficits and debt already amassed by Bush's profligate spending on wars against Muslims, tax breaks for the rich, and subsidies for large corporations, a costly war with Iran is simply no longer a viable option.

For all of these reasons, Syria must look like a more attractive target, especially if Washington can maintain a level of hostilities that is sufficient to pique the average American's "patriotism" but not so intense that it incurs significant costs. There is no guarantee, however, that the Syrians would cooperate with such an approach, even though any form of response in kind on their part would only invite the Americans to escalate disproportionately, especially with their overwhelming advantage in air power.

The ball seems to have gotten rolling in a Syrian village near the Iraqi border shortly before dusk on Sunday. According to Damascus, US troops arrived in helicopters and assaulted a building under construction at a farmstead, killing eight civilians - half of them children.

The Bush administration's official reaction has been painfully slow in coming, but according to an Associated Press report, a US military officer has confirmed that an attack was carried out by special forces. "We are taking matters into our own hands," AP quoted the officer as saying on condition of anonymity because of what the reporter described as the "political sensitivity" - no mention of patent illegality - "of cross-border raids." Pointedly, the comments came in Washington, not from an officer on the ground in Iraq, where the US military professed to be in the dark about the attack in Syria.
[...]
So why now? The timing has got to be instilling a sense of deja vu among senior members of the Syrian regime. They recall with consternation that even after US diplomats publicly acknowledged the value of Syrian intelligence assistance in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Bush and other senior figures kept up their menacing rhetoric about Damascus. [even though they used Syria as a dumping ground for suspects they wanted tortured, like Canada's Maher Arar -catnip]

This looks to be different. Even if Damascus were still a target in Bush's so-called "war on terror," the timing is so vulnerable to accusations of an attempt to influence the election that only a dire threat could possibly justify taking the risk. Even if it turns out that what the Americans hit was indeed tied to the insurgency, therefore, hitting it now makes no sense - unless the real objective is to capture the hearts and minds of undecided voters in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

While Sirois "hope[s] that Obama wins the White House and then makes good on his promise as a conciliatory figure", Obama's fealty to AIPAC may supersede any possible progress with Syria's government on the I/P and Iraq war fronts. The Bush administration's decision to launch this latest attack has only complicated matters but hasn't that been its legacy around the world since day one?

No matter who wins the US election, the dangerously shifting sands in the Middle East will no doubt see the US government involved in extremely complex deliberations for years to come - especially once the Pentagon finally admits that military might is not the answer and that might not happen unless the US finally goes completely bankrupt. A new Great Depression might provide exactly the amount of humility needed to finally reach that point.

But who am I kidding?

Update:

Baghdad condemns 'US Syria raid'

Speaking after a Baghdad cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh also explicitly criticised the US over the unconfirmed helicopter strike.

"The Iraqi government rejects the US helicopter strike on Syrian territory, considering that Iraq's constitution does not allow its land to be a base for launching attacks on neighbouring countries," he said.

 

'Wrecked Iraq'

While both US presidential candidates are fond of using the same talking point about the fact that $10 billion per month is being spent in Iraq, no one seems to have asked the logical follow up question: On what?

Michael Schwartz, writing for the Asia Times takes a look at what that money isn't being spent on in his article, 'Wrecked Iraq'. He also debunks the myth that the Iraqi government has free and unfettered control over its oil revenues, which McCain and Obama both use to chastise Iraq's leaders:

Much has been made in the US presidential campaign of the $70 billion oil surplus the Iraqi government built up in these last years as oil prices soared. In actuality, most of it is currently being held in American financial institutions, with various American politicians threatening to confiscate it if it is not constructively spent. Yet even this bounty reflects the devastation of the war.

De-Ba'athification and subsequent chaos rendered the Iraqi government incapable of effectively administering projects that lay outside the fortified, American-controlled Green Zone in the heart of Baghdad. A vast flight of the educated class to Syria, Jordan, and other countries also deprived it of the managers and technicians needed to undertake serious reconstruction on a large scale.

As a consequence, less than 25% of the funds budgeted for facility construction and reconstruction last year were even spent. Some government ministries spent less than 1% of their allocations. In the meantime, the large oil surpluses have become magnets for massive governmental corruption, further infuriating frustrated citizens who, after five years, still often lack the most basic services. Transparency International's 2008 "corruption perceptions index" listed Iraq as tied for 178th place among the 180 countries evaluated.

The Iraq that has emerged from the American invasion and occupation is now a thoroughly wrecked land, housing a largely dysfunctional society. More than a million Iraqis may have died; millions have fled their homes; many millions of others have been scarred by war, insurgency and counterinsurgency operations, extreme sectarian violence, and soaring levels of common criminality. Education and medical systems have essentially collapsed and, even today, with every kind of violence in decline, Iraq remains one of the most dangerous societies on earth.

So, when McCain and Obama complain about the $10 billion per month being spent there, instead of both of them refusing to consider lowering the Pentagon's budget while they promise a new and improved military effort in equally ravaged Afghanistan, someone needs to ask them what they plan to do about the wretched state of Iraq's infrastructure and why private corporations like KBR, Dyncorp, Blackwater, and Halliburton will still be allowed to flourish under their administrations while the Iraqi and Afghani people continue to suffer.
 

McCain Suspends Campaign

John McCain has announced that he's suspending his campaign to go back to DC to work on the financial meltdown. He's also called for Friday's debate in Mississippi to be canceled/delayed.

Politically, this could go one of two ways. Either McCain will be seen as being a "leader" for making such a bold gesture (suspending his campaign) or he'll look like he's running away from the race and the debate (which I don't think should be canceled/delayed, regardless).

McCain said he is calling on President Bush "to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem."

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton released a statement reacting to the news.

"At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal," Burton said. "At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama's call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details."

Meanwhile, Paulson and Bernanke are testifying in front of the house financial services committee this afternoon. Online on C-SPAN3.

Paulson: "I'm not looking for extraordinary power."

Excuse me?

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

More to come, obviously...

Update:

Video of McCain's announcement -



Unofficial Obama campaign response: 'The Debate is On'

Apparently, Obama will be debating himself. Nothing new there (flip flops). Or maybe he could debate Biden since Joe seems to think he's been running against Obama again lately.

Update:

Obama press conference: "I believe we should continue to have the debate."

I'll post a link to the transcript and/or the video when it's available.

The debate commission says 'Game on!' despite McCain's request.

Update:

Video of Obama on the debate issue -


 

Quote du Jour: Obama Flip Flops on Bipartisan Panels

Daily Kos' mcjoan was quite pleased to present this (supposed) red meat quote to the crowd over there today:

Building on Biden's attack on McCain on the economy yesterday, Obama gave a hard-hitting economics speech today in Colorado.

Obama rejected McCain’s call this morning for a national commission modeled after the bipartisan panel that investigated the 9/11 attacks as a desperate ploy, labeling it "the oldest Washington stunt in the book."

"You pass the buck to a commission to study this problem," Obama said, rejecting the measure as unnecessary. "We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that get us out. I’ll provide it. John McCain won’t."

Impressed?

Well, let's flashback to January 2008:

Unfair to Mr. Obama

Friday, January 25, 2008; A18

Robert J. Samuelson's Jan. 9 column, "Promises They Can't Keep," unfairly singled out Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as not doing enough to address our nation's long-term fiscal imbalance and entitlement program shortfalls.

Mr. Samuelson ignored, for instance, Mr. Obama's support for the approach taken in the Bipartisan Fiscal Task Force bill I have offered with Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.). Our bill would create a bipartisan panel of lawmakers and administration officials tasked with drafting legislation to address the long-term fiscal imbalance and entitlement shortfalls -- legislation on which Congress would be required to vote.

Mr. Obama has indicated he would like to see several changes to our bill -- such as moving back the timing to allow input from the next president and opening the task force's proposal to amendment. But his support for the general task force approach is significant because it marks a break from the status quo and shows a commitment to seeking a bipartisan solution. Mr. Samuelson was told of Mr. Obama's support for this approach, but he didn't follow up with the senator's staff. That's not fair.

Mr. Samuelson is right to be concerned about our nation's long-term budget outlook. But he is wrong to single out Mr. Obama, who is committed to putting our nation back on a sound fiscal course.

KENT CONRAD

U.S. Senator (D-N.D.)

Chairman, Senate Budget Committee

Washington

Busted.

Never forget the power of Teh Googling, Senator Obama.

Update:

Here's the text of S. 2063: Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2007
 
 

Protesters Removed During McCain's Speech

Via the WaPo. Looks like CODEPINK:

10:27 p.m. Two women sitting beneath the press seats attempted to unfurl a pink banner. They screamed, "Get out of Iraq," before people next to them snatched the sign and started to wrestle them out of the hall. This led to a noticeable disruption of the speech. --Matthew Mosk UPDATE: Two antiwar protesters came down aisle 118 with homemade pink cloth signs. "End the war in Iraq," yelled one, holding up the two-fingered peace sign. The signs were snatched by one man and a scuffle ensued. As one of the protestors continued toward the floor, getting within a few feet of it, she was stopped by two men. One grabbed the credential strap around her neck. The protesters were escorted out, with one McCain supporter yelling: "Sit down you Nazi!" --Kevin Merida

10:25 p.m. Multiple screaming protesters were just taken out up the aisle behind the stage and next to the press risers. The audience drowned their shouts with chants of "USA!"
--Ben Pershing

I'll post the video when it's available.

That's nothing compared to what happened outside:

In another tense showdown, police in riot gear swept into the State Capitol grounds Thursday evening, using snowplows, horses and dump trucks to seal off downtown access to a group of antiwar demonstrators attempting to march on the final night of the Republican National Convention.

The group of more than 700 demonstrators had a permit to rally and march. But the permit expired at 5 p.m. and police refused to let them march, leading to an hourlong standoff on the John Ireland Boulevard bridge over Interstate 94 at rush hour.

Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher said about 50 people had been arrested, but that number was expected to climb as several hundred people were blocked on the Marion Street bridge with their hands on their heads. Police used pepper spray and tear gas to quell some of the unrest.

Update:

It looks like CODEPINK was visible during Palin's speech too . Good for them. Someone needs to speak up, loudly and visibly.

Update #2:

CODEPINK in action during McCain's speech -


 

Palinpalooza

There they are, Mr and Mrs America, in amber waves of nausea.

Those who watched Tuesday nite's coverage of the RNC already know the buzz word Republicans are using to push Sarah Palin: reformer. And that is no doubt what her debut speech to the world will be about tonite.

And, although some pundits have postured that Palin will not serve in the attack dog role that so marks US vice-presidents, a preview of her remarks shows otherwise.

Not only will she come out swinging at the "elite" media (ie. everybody but FOX), she's going for Obama's throat:

Palin, whose revelation earlier this week about the pregnancy of her 17-year-old daughter sparked a media frenzy, is expected to make her case as to why she should be vice-president, citing her record as governor of Alaska and, before that, as a mayor of Wasilla, a town with a population of 6,700.

"Since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves," her text read, taking aim at Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

You can find a longer excerpt here.

No matter how reportedly jittery some Repubs may be about McCain's VP choice as they sweat in the backrooms of their convention center, there is one certainty: they have the power of the presidency and they plan to keep it - no matter what. Their partisan discipline will keep them together behind the unlikely pairing of their party's so-called maverick and the unknown woman he's chosen as his running mate. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if McCain announced that Palin's going after Osama bin Laden with her moose-hunting rifle all by herself. Obama/Biden will have their hands full until November. (By the way, where are they? Has anybody actually seen them since Friday?? Funny how things change so quickly...)

Afterspeech thoughts:

Not only did Palin serve the red meat, she hunted it down, dressed it in the field (as Fred Thompson said on Tuesday nite), and threw it out raw into the middle of a hungry crowd that acted like it hadn't eaten in weeks.

Complete text.
 

Hurricane Gustav, meet Hurricane Palin

This, from the largest community of so-called "progressives" on the tubes: Daily Kos

Well, Sarah, I'm calling you a liar. And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better.

Can you spell "l-a-w-s-u-i-t"?

You'd think they'd embarrassed themselves enough during this campaign. Obviously not.

With so many issues with which to go after a very inexperienced Sarah Palin, one would assume that would be enough to successfully pit the Obama/Biden team against McCain/Palin to make a convincing case for the Democratic candidate. Instead, far too many kossacks have decided that using the nastiest smear campaign they can possibly come up with is the way to win in November. And as if that wasn't enough, one of their female front pagers, georgia10, decided to post a sexist caricature of the Alaskan governor as well. Is it any wonder I left that place years ago? How can anyone take it seriously anymore?

"Progressives", heal thy selves.

The place has turned into a pit of vipers. So much for hopeychanginess.

And, for a laugh: you just knew this was coming... (or should have known, fools).

******************

In the real news world, Hurricane Gustav is set to most likely hit NOLA and the Gulf Coast hard on Monday and the Republicans are scrambling to make lemonade out of the impending flood waters:

Convention organizers and McCain advisers watched nervously as Gustav chugged toward land, fearful that the storm could evoke memories of the administration's widely criticized response to Hurricane Katrina three years earlier as Republicans seek to rebrand a party that has been battered under Bush's leadership.

They damn well should be nervous.

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told reporters that the seven-hour program scheduled for Monday night will be pared down to a bare-bones session of roughly two hours, devoted mainly to meeting the legal requirements involved with opening the convention. He said that there will be no partisan speeches and that officials will assess what to do with the rest of the convention on a "day-to-day" basis until the magnitude of the storm damage becomes clear. He said the GOP will seek to make sure that "nothing we do detracts" from the response efforts in the Gulf states.

Afaic, they should all go down there for the cleanup. Some penance for Katrina is still required.

Updates on Gustav as they come in on Monday. May everyone stay safe.
 

Meet Joebama O'Biden

Jonah Goldberg may have coined "O'Biden" today, but I'm claiming "Joebama". Madman gets the bonus points for putting the names together.

Saturday was definitely mush mouth day for pundits and politicians alike. Both of MSNBC's head bloviators, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, slipped and called Biden "O'Biden" today - more than once - while Biden couldn't seem to manage to get Obama's name right during his coming out speech, ending it by calling him "Barack America" after Obama had introduced Joe as the "next president". (Freudian slip.) Whoops all around.

Just one question about the pick: If Biden is so beloved, why has his presidential bid failed - twice?

Fear not though, suddenly most Democrats (and their biased pundit puppets) are madly in lust with Biden as the attack dog - the guy who can flash his (really bright) pearly whites while biting your arm and smiling at the same time. In other words, he's a better-looking Dick Cheney.

Yes, not only will Joebama fix the ills the world but he'll do it by 10 pm and travel home by train to spend the nite with his family. Awesome. On top of that, he has a "drop dead gorgeous wife", as he reminded the crowd in Springfield on Saturday. Beats Lynn Cheney, doesn't it? Or maybe he's trying to reassure the voting public that he's not another John what affair? Edwards.

Of course, the big question of the day was whether Biden could manage to keep his big mouth shut so he doesn't embarrass poor Barack. Good luck with that. Biden as The Invisible Man? It's just not.gonna.happen. and as much as Dems like his attack-dog style, you can bet that Joebama will say something incredibly stupid during the next few months. That's just his way. (You know that horrified cringe you'd feel if your new puppy just pissed on your boss's leg? That'll be the vibe Dem supporters will have to fight off when Joe pulls one of his infamous boners.)

I'll say one thing: it'll be interesting to see if all of the Democratic supporters who had their ageism on full display as they've gone after McCain will now actually eat some crow and stop the age-based jokes and slams. I kind of doubt it though. Howard Fineman called Biden a "young 65" this afternoon. See. That's the trick. McCain is an old 71. Biden is young-er "codger" and he proved that by running up onto the platform to deliver his speech. Plus he has more hair than McSurge. That has to count for something.

I have a feeling the next few months are going to be absolutely intolerable. Thank Dog a new and improved 90210 is back. And that I actually have a life (of sorts). And stuff to crochet. That should help.
 

Breaking News: John McCain is Rich

What? You already knew that?

"We can be a party that tries to beat the other side by practicing the same do-anything, say-anything, divisive politics that has stood in the way of progress, or we can be a party that puts an end to it," he said.

- Barack Obama, January 2008

Barack Obama, today:



Obama campaign to deploy surrogates to hit McCain's houses

I'm still waiting (but not holding my breath) for this brand of "new politics" Obama promised.

Can I just say: WHO CARES HOW MANY HOUSES McCAIN HAS? The yanks are involved in 2 wars in which people are being killed every day. Hello?
 

Who has the biggest halo?

Here we go again. On Saturday nite, CNN will once again be holding a "faith forum" so all of America can decide if the presidential candidates pass the religious test. Don't expect an actual debate though. Instead, Pastor Rick Warren will be interviewing Obama and McCain separately for one hour in front of a crowd of evangelical Christians - one of the most over-pandered to lobby groups of this century.

According to the so-called "best political team on television", and as the name of their daily news show and all of the polls this year declare, "Issue #1" is actually the economy. So where's the CNN economic forum with Obama and McCain being grilled by economic experts? Or how about one led by foreign policy experts considering the global mess the US government has created? Energy policy, anyone?

No. It's more important for Obama to defend himself against the secret Muslim charges and for McCain to prove that he won't wobble on abortion or let teh gays take over the country. And, of course, everybody knows that you can't actually have values or morals unless you're religious.

I'll tell you what: name one Christian president who's faithfully followed the commandment 'thou shalt not kill' and then we'll talk about why it's so bloody important that whoever is in the White House believe in Jesus.

Just in time for the media mass, an ad touting Obama's religiosity is also being released:

(CNN) — A political action committee organized by Christian voters who support Barack Obama will run an ad this weekend suggesting “the character and faith of each candidate” should be a major factor for religious voters making their presidential pick – and that the presumptive Democratic nominee may hold an edge on that front.

Really? And just how do you measure somebody's faith and the impact that will have on a future president?

Let's flashback to 2001.



Excuse me if I really don't care who or what these politicians claim to pray to - or if they pray at all. I'm just amazed that Onward, Christian Soldiers hasn't yet replaced the US national anthem.
 

US Election '08: Reasons Not to Pay Attention

Really.

With stuff like this going on right now, what's the point?

1. Far be it for me to ever link to Newsbusters, but here it is. NYT columnist Bob Herbert sees phallic symbols in the McCain ad comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Really, Bob? Sheesh.

(And can y'all drop the race card discussion about that ad? It was about a lack of substance, clearly. You pundits out there who are asking why the ad didn't compare Obama to Denzel Washington or Oprah and then go on to compare it to the ridiculous 2006 anti Harold Ford ad clearly need some naps...or vacations...or lives...or something.)

2. Reason #346 Countdown With Keith Olbermann is becoming increasingly annoying to watch: this evening, Keith announced the heave ho "resignation" of WaPo correspondent Dana Milbank. Was that Milbank's "You can't fire me. I quit!" moment? As Olbermann explained to his audience, it seems Milbank's refusal to correct a quote he made in a column about Obama last week was the final straw for Big Keith.

Funny thing though - just prior to that little announcement, Olbermann had played the latest Obama campaign ad, "New Energy for America". The problem is that it seems Keith's staff forgot to actually fact check the ad. Who's going to be forced to resign for not giving those corrections, Olbermann?

Sidebar: TPM reports that "Multiple Oil Company Executives Gave Huge Contributions To Electing McCain Just Days After Offshore Drilling Reversal". We'll see how that pans out. I would add, however, that both campaigns have taken money from execs/employees/families of people in various industries throughout this campaign season and the point has been beaten to death that while actual corporate donations can't be accepted, both campaigns are equally guilty of receiving money in this roundabout way. Don't let the glossy ads fool you.

What happened to the "new" politics both of these candidates promised? I know it's officially the "silly season" but I have a suspicion the tenor of both campaigns is going to be this slow, grinding, nails on a chalkboard style until November. Wonderful.

(And Obama supporting offshore drilling now? Mon dieu. I hope someone's keeping a scorecard of his ever-changing positions. I sure can't keep up.)

Is it over yet?
 

About last nite...

I made a simple (and admittedly easy) prediction last nite: cranky Obama supporters will continue to be cranky Obama supporters when he wins the nomination. And I was right, of course.

Anyone who's followed blogs like Daily Kos Obama the past few months has seen a level of ugly vitriol and kool-aid drunkenness that they ironically used to blast in neocons, their supporters, freepers, and wingnuts. Mass hysteria is not party-specific.

And then there are the cable news show talking heads egos who have been whining for Hillary to shut up and get out, as if they're covering their ears so they don't have to put up with the stereotypical nagging wife while they and the mainstream, so-called progressive bloggers have been screaming "Sexism?? What sexism??" And some people wonder why Hillary supporters are angry.

When I watched MSNBC's Tuesday nite coverage of the candidates' speeches, I couldn't help but notice the absolutely ridiculous "Waah! Hillary's making us talk about her again!! Tell her to STOP it!" whining. And then, right on cue, they'd go on talking about her anyway as if they had no control whatsoever. And the same thing is going on throughout the blogosphere today. It all reminds me of a teevee commercial I saw during the 60s. A guy walks into his workplace and complains about his lunch, "Chicken sandwiches, chicken sandwiches. Every day it's chicken sandwiches." Then one of his co-workers says, "Why don't you ask your wife to make something else?" to which the guy responds, "I'm not married."

[insert "d'oh" here]

You would think last nite and today would have been a cause for major celebrations among Obama supporters (and let's not pretend that the MSNBC crew hasn't been in the tank for months on end so that they would have to pretend to be unbiased at this point). But, no. That bad Hillary woman is still making them talk about her and they just can't seen to make her automagically disappear.

Call the wahmbulance.

Sore winners. That's what they are. And it's quite the pathetic display. It's as if they have no idea how to be happy - if even for a moment. (I'll give Chris Matthews props for admitting last night that he had "the giggles" and that, for him, it felt like New Year's Eve. At least he didn't admit to his leg "tingling" again, which was just creepy.)

As for me, I don't support the status quo Democratic party anyway so it really didn't matter to me who won and it won't make much difference whether a Democrat or Republican wins the WH in November. Surely I jest, you insist. Well, no. Especially after knowing full well that Obama's foreign policy is just a stone's throw away from McSurge's. Just read the transcript of Obama's speech to AIPAC on Wednesday. If you still think I'm wrong, go ahead and point out where the differences lie. I'll wait.

Imperialist America. Rah rah rah.

Let's not forget that Obama's all for "remaking the world" in America's image. Save the rest of us from that, please.

Clinton wanted to "obliterate" Iran. Obama wants to "eliminate" the "grave" threat. Does that sound familiar?

Maybe that's why some Obama supporters aren't celebrating today. Even antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo, who admitted earlier this year that he had a crush on Obama, has suddenly changed his tune. But why now? Surely he read last year's speech that Obama gave to AIPAC? Or the recent yay, Zionism! speech he gave in a Jewish synagogue in Florida? And he must know that Obama is only opposed to "dumb" wars - not all wars. If someone like Raimondo, who has been writing about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the military-industrial complex for years was fooled, is there hope for other Obama supporters? Or more, importantly, do they even care?

I don't think so. So, where are the party hats and noisemakers, you cranky Obama supporters?

As for all of the speculation about whether she'll be chosen as his VP
(which mean Hillary forced everybody to talk about by apparently casting some sort of witch's spell on all of you poor, helpless people) - get real. It's not going to happen. So quit the bedwetting and get on with the general election race - which promises to be about as exciting as watching paint dry.

Is November here yet? Let's get on with it already. The American Empire awaits.

(h/t about Raimondo's buyer's remorse to marisacat)

Related:

If Obama thought he was having problems wooing pro-Zionist Jewish voters before, surely Jimmy Carter's endorsement of him on Tuesday won't help matters. And Carter was quite blunt on Wednesday about what bad news it would be if Obama chose Hillary as his VP, stating that it would bring out the negative vulnerabilities in both of them. I've thought all along that if Obama won, he would choose a VP running mate who would basically be invisibly compliant - someone who won't make waves or steal the spotlight. Milquetoast, here we come. Sebelius fits that bill. She's like the anti-Hillary in many respects - although some female Hillary supporters have already said that she'd just be a female-faced spokesmodel for the ticket, so they'd cry foul.

I should add that I congratulate the Democratic party on its first African-American nominee but, on the other hand, what took you so bloody long?

Oh - that reminds me of something Tweety has been saying the past couple of days - that you wouldn't see an African-American being nominated in Europe or some South American countries. Gee, Matthews - do you think maybe the "American" part of that is a clue??
 

Video: Romney Refuses to Call Waterboarding Torture

From Wednesday nite's Republican debate. Watch as John McCain's head almost explodes:



Now, as much as people would like to believe that McCain is the moral authority on all things torture-related since he was a torture victim during the Vietnam war, they should also remember that McCain favoured immunity for CIA agents do the torturing

September, 2006:

BLITZER: What about on the issue of torture, as it's called? Right now the U.S. military has specific guidelines, it's been made public. There seems to be a separate standard for civilians like those in the CIA. You're not happy about that.

MCCAIN: Well, the Geneva Conventions have a -- are generally for those in uniform and the treatment of "POWs." There is one provision that applies to people that are prisoners which is much lower than that of POW status, but still some rights are preserved. And what we are seeking is to make sure that the Geneva Conventions covering these circumstances are not changed, because if we amend the Geneva Conventions, then other nations will to their liking. And several letters, including that of General Colin Powell, could put American lives at risk.

Common Article 3, by the way, is what it's called. We will and want to give immunity, both criminal and civil immunity, to those in the CIA who are involved in this. And we would want to protect them in every way. The difference is, is whether you amend the Geneva Conventions or you do as we want to do, and that's to amend or change the War Crimes Act so that these situations are covered under the War Crimes Act, telling them what they can't do and also then giving them the immunity that they need.

McCain - just another Republican hypocrite.

Romney - just another Republican who wants to hide behind secrecy and American exceptionalism to justify torture.
 

Quote du Jour: McCain's Interior Decorating

 
Or "posterior" decorating, as it were...

Via Pharyngula:

John McCain, who never saw a gaping rectum he didn't want to curl up in, then crawled right up Huckabee's butt and started ordering tasteful accessories from Ikea.

There's more...
 

McCain Claims Baghdad is 'safer'; A War Correspondent Disagrees

McCain on Meet the Press:

... Neighborhoods in Baghdad are safer. They're not safe, but they are safer than they were before.
[...]
MR. RUSSERT: You made a lot of news back in April when you went to Iraq. You went on a radio show and said never--had a news conference, "never been able to go out in the city as I was today." And then later these photographs were released, where we saw--(clears throat) excuse me--John McCain in the marketplace, surrounded, wearing a flack jacket. The next day the papers said that, "A day after members of an American congressional delegation led by Senator John McCain pointed to their brief visit" in "Baghdad's central Market as evidence that the new security plan for the city was working, the merchants were incredulous about" "Americans' conclusions. `What are they talking about?'" "the owner of an electrical supply shop said. `The security procedures were abnormal.' The delegation arrived at the market" "more than 100 soldiers in armored humvees--the equivalent of an entire company," "attack helicopters circled overhead, a senior" "military official in Baghdad said. The soldiers redirected traffic from the area" "restricted access to the American." "The congressmen wore bulletproof vests" through the hour-long visit. `They paralyzed the market when they came,'" "`This was only for the media.'"

SEN. McCAIN: Well, I don't...

MR. RUSSERT: Wasn't that...

SEN. McCAIN: ...I don't know who Mr. Faiyad is, and I'm sorry that I didn't see him. I talked with many, many of the merchants. We stayed there for more, more than an hour. That same place was not a functioning market a short time before. A bomb had gone off in that area and killed many, many people. There, there was a group of people that I talked to, as I traveled--walked around that, that shopping area for over an hour who said, "I'm glad to see you. Things are better." They--some--a guy came and complained about a sniper that, that they'd had problems with, and the police chief we talked to about that.

My point is the neighborhoods are safer. They are not safe. That's why we have to continue what we're doing. We have a new strategy that, that can succeed. I was glad to walk through that market. I will go walk through a market as often as I can. It was not allowed to go through a market a short time before that.

MR. RUSSERT: But, senator, you had an armed escort.

SEN. McCAIN: I had an armed escort because, because that's what General Petraeus thought we ought to have. I was glad to go outside of Baghdad and have over an hour opportunity to talk to the people that I talked to. Now, they are very different from the people that, that you are quoting here and others. They said, "I'm glad to see you. Things are better here. We have, we have seen improvement." That's what I was told, and that's what the other two members of Congress were told when we were there. You can find a lot of difference of opinion if you want to, but I believe that it's important for me to go out and meet those people if I can and be around them. I didn't call for the kind of, quote, "protection" that was around me. But I am not afraid, and I'm glad to go any place that I can to talk to the people of Iraq and tell them of my commitment to see that they have a free, democratic government where they don't have to face the bombs going off and the suicide bombers and the--and can start leading normal lives. And I'll do that every chance I get.

MR. RUSSERT: But the military felt you needed that protection, and the number of suicide bombers has gone up since the surge began.

SEN. McCAIN: The military--the suicide bombers have gone up because they know that this is probably the most effective way publicitywise. It's not the most effective way if you're talking about winning a conflict. Suicide bombers are the most difficult of any to counter, people who are willing to take their own lives in order to take others'. You can ask the Israelis; I think they'll tell you that. They have literally sealed their borders, and yet suicide bombers get across. And again, is this long and hard and difficult? Is that market safe? No, but it's safer than it was before. And that, in my view, is the key to whether we will succeed or fail or not. And I'll be glad to go back to that market with or without military protection and, and humvees, etc. But the fact is, I walked through narrow streets. I didn't have people all around me. I don't know what, what--where they get their information, but I was glad to walk around and talk to people and have contact with them and tell them that I, as an American, will do everything I can to let them lead the normal lives which are God-given rights to everybody on earth.

Compare and contrast McCain's view of security in Iraq to CNN correspondent Michael Holmes' report on Saturday:

FOREMAN: Only minutes after he arrived back in Baghdad, CNN International anchor Michael Holmes was covering a full-scale fire fight.

For the next month, Holmes and his team of photojournalists recorded everything that happened, giving us a very personal look at a very tough story.

And Michael joins us from the CNN Center in Atlanta now. Thanks for being here, Michael. Let me ask you this. When I look at your work, it implies a world where doing almost anything is exceedingly difficult, let alone being a journalist.

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Yeah. It's become very hard to do anything in Iraq. As you know, in Baghdad, I feel sorry for ordinary Iraqis who are frightened to go to work, who are frightened to send their kids to school.

One interesting thing during this month, I was out a lot with the U.S. military embedded because that's really the only safe way to get out and about. I probably asked 100 people if they sent their kids to school. Not one said yes.

So when you talk about reconstruction and fixing up schools and the like, that's great, but not many kids are going.

FOREMAN: Some of your work has some really rather terrifying details in it. I want to run a little clip now about some of the concerns about personal danger there in Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES (voice-over): When I first started going to Baghdad which is right, you know, during the war, at the end of the war, we would walk around the streets and talk to people and interview people and go to restaurants and stuff. But now you can't. That's just the way Baghdad is now.

And so really, the only way we can get contact with local people is to use our own Iraqi staff and they are fantastic and risk their lives for us every day.
[...]
FOREMAN: Obviously with journalists being targets in all of this, and obviously westerners being targets in all of this, do you worry that or do you have a sense that anybody is leading a normal life or a seemingly normal life in Baghdad?

HOLMES: Well, certainly not in Baghdad, no. And you are right. I've covered about five wars now. And this is the first war that I've covered where, A, there's no front lines. The bad guys don't wear uniforms and we are considered high-valued targets.

I mean, journalists have often been collateral damage, if you like, in conflicts, but we are high-value targets to insurgents and in particular al Qaeda. There is no real safe area of Baghdad, despite what we've heard politicians say before.

And I have heard politicians often say that it's only a couple of isolated areas where there is this level of violence. That's true. That's absolutely true, but it's like saying to Americans, you know, 2,000 to 3,000 people a month die in Kansas and California, but hey, the rest of the country's fine. So it's a bit of are specious argument. But Baghdad itself, it is as risky as it's ever been. More so.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it (tm), is to decide whether McCain (the man who spent a couple of myopic hours in Baghdad surrounded by his armed escorts) or Holmes (the reporter who's spent a considerable amount of time over there since the war began) is telling the truth.

Related:
'More troops' call as Iraq murders soar; 234 bodies dumped in Baghdad in only 11 days
 

McCain on Conservative Green Politics

John McCain (R-AZ) and hopeless candidate for '08 president tried to explain his rationale for flip-flopping on ethanol and the need for green politics to Timmeh on Sunday's Meet the Press.

MR. RUSSERT: This is what you said about ethanol--not about subsidies, but about ethanol.

SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality."

SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: And after you said that, you acknowledged you might pay a political price for that view, and this is what you said.

(Videotape, June 19, 2005)

SEN. McCAIN: My opposition to ethanol has--obviously would hurt me. But you know what I found out? That every time I've done something from what may have been influenced by political reasons, I've regretted it. Every time that I've done something that I think is right, it's turned out OK in the end. I've got to do what I think is right. And if it offends a certain political constituency, I, I regret it, but there's really nothing I can do about it.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Now you go to Iowa and say this: "I support ethanol. I think it's a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse gas reduction effects." You had said it had nothing to do with reducing fuel consumption, nothing to do with improving air quality.

SEN. McCAIN: I, I, I am of the confirmed belief that when oil is 10, $15 a barrel, that ethanol does not make sense. When oil is $60-plus a barrel, then ethanol does make sense. I still oppose the subsidies to it. It makes a lot of sense. We are dependent on foreign oil too much. We have a situation where greenhouse gases has now become--emissions has become a vital issue. I am for sugarcane, biofuels, switch grass, and corn-based ethanol because of our need for independence on foreign oil. And it has become far more graphic and dramatic as we watch people like Mr. Chavez in Venezuela behave the way that he has, and President Putin behaving the way that he does. It's a fact that when oil is low amounts per barrel and--that we are not concerned about greenhouse gases or dependence upon foreign oil, it doesn't make the sense that it makes today. It does make sense today.

MR. RUSSERT: But you do now disagree with what you said in '03, that it has nothing to do with reducing fuel consumption...

SEN. McCAIN: What I was...

MR. RUSSERT: ...or nothing to improve air quality?

SEN. McCAIN: I don't...

MR. RUSSERT: You now believe...

SEN. McCAIN: I don't know what--I don't know what it does to fuel consumption. I'm sure that there is some question about that, as the...

MR. RUSSERT: How about air quality?

SEN. McCAIN: ...as the, as the technology has increased dramatically. The air quality, it does reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most effectively? Does--as much as nuclear power? No. But given our dependence on foreign oil, given the situation as the price of oil then--and, and the realities of climate change, we should go for many alternate fuels. I do not support the subsidies.

MR. RUSSERT: So you've changed your mind.

SEN. McCAIN: No, I haven't. I have--I have--I have adjusted to the realities of the world we live in today, and if I don't adjust to those realities, then I would be stuck in the past. I have to adjust to the realities. The realities today are that we have a serious problem with climate change, which I have been concerned about for many years, and we have a far more serious challenge as associated with our dependence on foreign oil.

Not too long ago, a year or so ago, there was an attempted attack on a Saudi oil refinery. If that attack had succeeded, the price of oil would have gone to $150 a barrel overnight.

MR. RUSSERT: And the reality of being part of the Iowa caucuses had nothing to do with it.

SEN. McCAIN: I don't--I don't--I can't respond to a, a statement like that.

MR. RUSSERT: But...

SEN. McCAIN: I do what I--I do what I think is right, and I will continue to do what I think is right. And if conditions change as far as some specific issue is concerned, then, obviously, then I will continue to re-evaluate my position on specific issues.

Now, putting aside the fact that McCain is a bumbling fool who shouldn't be president of anything, least of all the United States, his position on the climate change issue is definitely representative of the way the right-wingers view environmental concerns these days.

McCain, along with every other winger who supported the war against Iraq, possible action towards Iran, cozy relationships with the Saudis and the shunning of leaders like Hugo Chavez realize now that their actions have so increased the public's anger towards oil insecurity which has resulted in higher energy prices everywhere that they have no choice but to talk about green politics in order to lessen dependence on a commodity that they thought they could control partially by seizing Iraq's assets. That's why there's a furious push against the al-Maliki government to pass the oil law in Iraq - private companies like Halliburton are waiting in the wings to take over. The problem is that the Bush administration mismanaged the war to such a point that security to enable the war profiteers to make off with the oil spoils has become almost impossible. Add to that the fact that, as the New York Times reports, billions of dollars worth of oil have been lost via corruption and smuggling and you have a bunch of right-wingers who are stuck with what to do next.

So what do they do? The obvious answer is to try and cover up their failures by now claiming that they want to "go green". But, it's not about the environment. It's about attempting to minimize the impact of the high oil prices on their disgruntled constituents, and thus the politicians' falling poll numbers, by pretending to care about things like pollution and emissions. That's why they have chosen to do as little as they can possibly get away with when it comes to things like honouring (or in the case of the US, not even signing on to) commitments to plans like the Kyoto protocols.

Canadians are already aware of the half-hearted efforts by Conservatives here to manage these issues via their so-called "Clean Air Act" and by this government's refusal to go after Alberta oil sands pollution.

And while pro-Bushites talk tough about the "addiction to oil" and feign interest in climate change, here's what they're really up to behind the scenes:

Negotiators from the United States are trying to weaken the language of a climate change declaration set to be unveiled at next month's G-8 summit of the world's leading industrial powers, according to documents obtained yesterday by The Washington Post.

A draft proposal dated April 2007 that is being debated in Bonn, Germany, this weekend by senior officials of the Group of Eight includes a pledge to limit the global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, as well as an agreement to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The United States is seeking to strike that section, the documents show.

Many scientists have warned that an increase of more than 3.6 degrees this century could trigger disastrous consequences such as mass extinction of species and accelerated melting of polar ice sheets, which would raise sea levels.

It's all a political balancing act and it's meant to keep corporations happy - not average citizens. Oil companies are shoveling in profits but since that's not seen as a Good Thing(tm) by consumers, politicians who are responsible for failed foreign affairs policies have to find some way to appease the masses. Let's not forget that this isn't the first time we've been at this place in history. Back then, "ecology" was the buzzword. How far have we come since then? Not far enough, obviously.

Conservative politicians appear to be in "hurry up and wait" mode - hoping that Iraq will settle down enough to bring prices down to something that might be seen as being more comfortable to consumers (even though we'll still be gouged at the pumps) while pols sing in unison: "supply and demand, supply and demand". That reliance on fixing the Iraq situation is only an illusion when one considers all of the disastrous foreign policies right-wingers support that affect all of us on a daily basis.

It's just like McCain said:

It's a fact that when oil is low amounts per barrel and--that we are not concerned about greenhouse gases or dependence upon foreign oil, it doesn't make the sense that it makes today. It does make sense today.

Sometimes, even politicians speak the truth, when they probably didn't even mean to.
 

Video: McCain Sings "Bomb Iran"

To the tune of "Barbara Ann".



I wonder if he sang that when he went for his leisurely stroll through that Baghdad market.

Campaign spokesman Matt David said the question was asked somewhat in jest and that the Arizona senator was adding some levity to the discussion.

liberal catnip spokesherb catnip said the Arizona senator's chances of becoming the next US president just rose 1000% among those who love dubya.
 

Random News & Views Roundup

- Drudge reports a lie about CNN reporter Michael Ware. Powerline repeats it. Ware fights back with video. Power Line has to add a corrective update. Other right-wing blogs try to cover their sorry asses. It doesn't work. Just another day in the right-wing blogosphere. (Update: McCain is still living in Neverland.)

- The Supreme Court rules against the Bush administration in a global warming case. Senator Inhofe's head explodes and the Weather Channel's ratings go through the roof.

- What CNN didn't tell you earlier today: the missing American man in Kish, Iran is a former FBI agent. No one knows what happened to him. Was it smart for the State Department to reveal that information? I don't think so.

- US authorities snooping in your Canadian bank accounts? No problem. We all trust the Bush administration, don't we?

- More horror:

Baghdad - A truck bomber carrying food supplies killed eight Iraqi schoolgirls and a baby in the northern oil city of Kirkuk on Monday as suspected Sunni militants executed 21 Shiite workers north of Baghdad.

- Truth:

Terry Jones
Saturday March 31, 2007
The Guardian

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.


It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.

The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!

more...