New Posting...After A Long Layoff Only Partially Inspired By Election Fatigue

I ran into another "Best Line Ever", this one at Media Matters.org, concerning our news media's willingness to kowtow to Republican implied controversy before Obama even takes office (re: the Blagojevich scandal):

And yet, here we are again, with an incoming Democratic president who hails from a city we are all supposed to believe is the most corrupt place this side of Dick Cheney's undisclosed location. Chicago, we are told, is a den of villainy so irredeemable it defies credulity to suggest anyone could emerge from so much as a long layover at O'Hare without a closet full of skeletons.

Absolutely, Best Line Ever...

Liveblogging The Election

OK. Butt firmly in chair. Watching MSNBC (CNN has clearly decided to court conservatives, so fuck 'em) and getting TPM and fivethirtyeight up. Buckle up. Much beer, Scotch (Laphroiag...I don't share my damn scotch) and champagne on hand. Monitor my spelling over the evening.

5:25 CST
Talking Points Memo saying Exit Polls breaking strongly for Obama, with all the usual caveats.

5:54
Indiana is still damn close. 3% in. Not good for McCain. Dole is doing badly in NC against Hagan. I'm begining to get optimistic. One of my bellweather points is breaking Obama's way. Cautiously optimistic. 1st Sam Adams opened.

6:38
Jeez. What's with Virginia? Still only 3% reporting. Indiana still too close to call. I want my instant gratification.

7:01
MSNBC calls Pennsylvania and New Hampshire for Obama. And now, Virginia, Florida, Missouri and Indiana are too close to call. Allright. We're now close to being able to break out the Champagne.

7:17
Jeanne Shaheen takes the Senate seat from Sununu. Take that you phone bank jamming bastards. (A major Repub operative was convicted of illegal vote tampering in an election where NH went Kerry pretty hard...the jamming was almost CERTAINLY directed at keeping Shaheen from the Senate seat).

7:43
Hagan takes Dole's seat. +3 Seats for Dems. Still waiting on VA, IN, FL, MO. It may take until CA before Obama goes over 270.

8:02
Wisconsin goes Obama. Colorado too early to call. Ohio too early to call. One of these former Red States has to fall into Obama's column. Right now, it looks like NC or FL (!!) will tip earliest. Gahh. I'm increasingly certain that this will end well, but I was hoping that FL or VA would tip early and we could just do victory laps.

8:17
fivethirtyeight calls New Mexico's Senate seat for Udall (the other Udall). If this comes in at 7 or 8 I'm going to do my "Little Superior Dance" a la the Church Lady. If you guys are lucky, The LATMP will take a film of that and I can post it. (It wouldn't be lucky for you, really...acid won't be able to scrub it from your memory and you'll assuredly have PTSD).

8:23
FINALLY!! Obama just took Ohio. He just flipped a state Bush took in 2004. This is going to take longer than I'd like, but it's looking MUCH MUCH better. The LATMP just heaved a great sigh of relief.

8:33
New Mexico goes to Obama. Another Red State flips. More relief in the Pedant house.

8:46
As expected, James Inhofe (R-Crazy Town) was reelected. Expected, but depressing. The Paternal Pedant was from Oklahoma and I'm resonably sure he's happy we cremated him, so he doesn't have to spin in his grave yet again.

9:13
One restart later and I can post that Iowa went Obama. BTW, Dell laptops suck big hairy donkey balls. I'm going to guess that Indiana may well go Obama, which will please EnviroMom no end.

9:23
fivethirtyeight is showing that Obama is likely to win 353 electoral votes, out of all called, safe, likely and lean states. If both toss-ups, Indiana and Missouri, go to Obama that's another 22 electoral votes, and that puts Obama at 375...a "landslide". It might be enough for us to elect the first black President, but if he also wins by a landslide...

9:31
Half an hour and California, Oregon, and Washington polls close. At that point we should be able to formally call the election for Obama. I'm sure Hawaii and Alaska are used to voting long after the election is called. I guess its the price of either a) living in paradise or b) being fucking nuts enough to live on the set of Northern Exposure.

10:00
Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. Free at last.

10:17
Colorado, Virginia, and Florida have gone Obama. If we get Missouri and Indiana...

10:19
McCain concedes.

'Twas The Night Before...

OK. What the fuck am I going to do with my time, now that the campaign is ending?

Well, likely there will be cabinet pick decisions to look at and pontificate about. There's the ever popular, "What on God's earth will Bush do in the final three months to screw the country up further?" (Hint: "Executive Orders"...it's gonna be Christmas in...um...well...December...for every business group and right wing anti-science group).

But we just got a look at final polls by way of fivethirtyeight.com. It's coming down to Obama +7, and McCain has to run the fucking table just to have a longshot. They're calling it at 98.1% chance of Obama victory now. On the all important Electoral Outlook:

Far more important, of course, is the race for 270 electors. It appears almost certain that Obama will capture all of the states won by John Kerry in 2008. Pennsylvania, while certainly having tightened somewhat over the course of the past two weeks, appears to be holding at a margin of about +8 for Obama, with very few remaining undecideds. Obama also appears almost certain to capture Iowa and New Mexico, which were won by Al Gore in 2000. Collectively, these states total 264 electoral votes, leaving Obama
just 5 votes shy of a tie and 6 of a win.

Obama has any number of states to collect those 5 or 6 votes. In inverse order of difficulty, these include Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri and Indiana. Obama is the signficant favorite in several of these states; winning any one of them may be fairly difficult for John McCain, but winning all of them at once, as John McCain probably must do, is nearly impossible

So what to do?

Well, I'm glad you asked. Last week I found a DELIGHTFUL site called tvtropes.org. The name is a little disingenuous, as it also covers written fiction, comic books, movies and so on.

Anvilicious? Didn't know it. Don't know what I'd do without it now.

Dropped a Bridge on Him? Marvel claims to do it all the time, only to be followed with bringing the character Back From the Dead.

You can spend HOURS on this site.

As for the election? I plan to blog while watching the results tomorrow. Check in for updates. Or to send nasty-grams in the comments.

For Those Worried About The Campaign

(h/t Ta-Nahese Coates)

Donkey In Da House

So I promised to talk about the house. Now at 435, I'm not going to list every race...mainly because not only do I not have a break down, but I couldn't even BEGIN to tell you what freaking congressional district I and the Lovely and Talented Mrs. Pundit live in (ed: WI-5...the Intertubes are a wonderful thing) let alone all the rest of the 434 yahoos. So I really don't have a race by race breakdown.

However, current count is 235 D, 199 R, 1 I (Bernie Sanders, VT, caucuses with the the Dems). My guess is +10, leaving the new House at 245 D, 189 R, 1 I. Why the piddling count improvement? Gerrymandering. Both parties make safe districts for themselves, and Repubs held a crap load of statehouses shortly after 2000 (the Census year). So they packed districts. But not in a really crude, "as many Repubs as we can cram right in there," way.

Here's what you do, if you're a typical Repub state legislator. You optimize. You wall off as many Dems as geography can possibly allow while maintaining the safety of Repub seats...say 60-40 splits. Thus creating, voila, an institutional bias in favor of Repubs in the House. Which they did. It's a testament to the TOWERING incompetence of the Bush Administration and the unpopularity of the Repub brand that the count is where it is, but is also means that we're reaching the point of diminishing returns.

I just don't think that there just aren't that many districts left out there that are even marginally reachable for Democrats that they don't already have. Now this isn't based in any way on poll numbers or a district by district look. I'm sure there are people who's job it is to do that, and report up their party chains. They don't put that on the net. If they're winning they don't want to tip their hand, and if they're losing they don't want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

+10 is a guess, but it's a reasonably educated one. Dems picked up a crapload of seats in 2006. They ran the table that year, folks. But running the table in 2006 means there just isn't that much left to pick up.

If Dems pick up more than +15 to +20, I think that means it will be a good day indeed for Obama.

On a side note: other bellweathers to look for? Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia. Their polls close early. If Obama is ahead in all of those, or if they get called for Obama, you might as well crack the champagne early. The metro districts take longer to get counted. If Obama is ahead or if he's so far ahead that the news orgs actually call it, that means he's winning the RURAL vote. If he does that in those three states, you might as well say the fat lady is singing.

Whither Lieberman?

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. Although I really, REALLY want Obama to win, I'd like to take a look down into Congress. Even if Obama loses, we're picking up major Congress coin. First up...the Senate.

Ezra Klein and Steve Benen (at the Washington Monthly) are posting about the possibility of 60 votes. Fivethirtyeight shows the chances of that occurring at roughly 25%.

I just don't see it...my call is +7 at this point. I think Stevens in AK goes down, along with Gilmore in VA (to Warner), Pearce in NM (to Udall), Schaffer in CO (to the other Udall), Sununu in NH (to Shaheen...again!...and won't THAT piss him off), Dole in NC (to Hagan) and, the wild card is...Coleman in MN (to Franken!!) rather than Smith in OR. I think Smith stays alive to fight another day. Although it wouldn't shock me for that to break the other way

The pickups necessary to get to +9 are too outlandish. In addition to Smith, you'd need to pick off: one of Mississippi, Georgia, Kentucky or Texas. Rii-iiiight.

But even if we get +9, that leaves Lieberman the filibuster killer. Now in the unlikely event that we do get to +9, I think Reid leaves Holy Joe unmolested. I think that would be a mistake. Yglesias makes what I think is a valid point: 57, 58 is as good as 60. If you can get to 58, you can pressure a couple moderate Repubs to vote for cloture. WHICH Repub depends on the issue being voted on, but on almost anything you can cherry pick a couple to carry you over.

Besides I really, really want to screw Lieberman over. But not in that crude, "get the fuck out," way you might be thinking. No. Here's what my twisted vicious brain has cooked up: regardless of how the Senate ends up, I think we pull Lieberman out of EVERY committee assignment he has. We stick him in inconsequential and entirely domestic committees and subcommittees. Agriculture. That Little Tag On New Mattresses Subcommittee. That sort of thing.

Make Holy Joe painfully aware that, as long as he's a Senator caucusing with Democrats, he will never, ever, ever have access to a committee responsible in even a tangential way for Israel. He would be told to not even slow down and listen to Foreign Affairs or Defense hearings. He would be utterly impotent to affect how the Congress funds aid to Israel. Cooperates (or not) with Israeli Intelligence. Provides military equipment and assistance to the IDF.

My retribution for Holy Joe's perfidy? Make HIM make it clear why he's now caucusing with Republicans: because Israel is 100 times more important to him than Connecticut. Whom he at least nominally is supposed to represent.

Joe Klein Goes in the Tank...On The Side Of The Angels

Coupled with Apology NOT Accepted Klein's latest piece completes a Klein rehabilitation for me. Best of all? It's in the "Dead Tree" version of Time. Non-blog trollers will see this one.

Cheating

I'm going to make this an open thread (and no doubt will be mightily disappointed in reaction), but work, where we are trying DESPERATELY to save bonuses given the economic climate, my overall muted and somewhat depressed reaction to ideologues who'd rather ride the bomb down than turn the fucking plane around (a Dr. Strangelove reference):



and a general need to cater to every need and/or whim of the Wee Pedant have left me with a dearth of posting urge.

The Thrilla In Ole Missilla

OK. Post-debate time.

First, my own opinion: It was a push, but a push is a win for the leader and that's Obama. Also, he pretty clearly showed that he has the cool and gravitas to run the country. I kept waiting for McCain to turn into McNasty, but I was disappointed that we didn't see Mt Saint Helens...more like Mauna Loa, a slow flow of anger and contempt from McCain, but it's getting general play.

Snap polls, with all the usual caveats, seem to be giving this one on points to Obama, despite my thinking.

On the other hand, this was (eventually) the foreign policy debate. If McCain can't take Obama on foreign policy, what IS he going to take him on? Economics? I just don't see it. And I expect the Palin/Biden debate to be nothing more than a train wreck after that Couric interview...sweet Jesus, I'm no longer certain English is that woman's first language.

If the last debate is economic and McCain continues to assert that the way to solve a 400 billion dollar deficit is to focus EXCLUSIVELY on 18 billion in earmarks he's gonna flunk Electoral Math.

Whenever I Hear...

Whenever I hear a Republican say, "It's not a time to point fingers," in conjunction with a major crisis whether its Katrina or a financial meltdown on Wall Street, all I ever hear is, "Oh, God, we fucked up again! How on Earth are we gonna avoid having our noses well and truly rubbed in it THIS time?"

When I hear John McCain say, "The regulators were just not doing their jobs," I substitute, "Maybe if I make the right mouth noises, these rubes will forget that the reason the regulators let this happen is that for 14 years we Republicans have starved them of every resource both legal and monetary for doing their job, and have also spent the last 8 making it ABUNDANTLY clear that their ACTUAL job consisted of resolutely looking the other way."

When I hear Karl Rove say, "The McCain campaign has been a little worse about the lying," I hear, "Oh Holy Fuck...the man is lying like a rug! If he blows our fucking cover we might actually have to campaign on the merits of our policies and then we're REALLY screwed!"

Thank you. This has been an edition of Political Babel Fish.

To Keep NagMaster2000 Happy

My MBTI:

Introverted (I) 61.76% Extroverted (E) 38.24%

Sensing (S) 51.52% Intuitive (N) 48.48%

Thinking (T) 83.33% Feeling (F) 16.67%

Judging (J) 56.25% Perceiving (P) 43.75%

ISTJ - "Trustee". Decisiveness in practical affairs. Guardian of time- honored institutions. Dependable. 11.6% of total population.

Take Free Jung Personality Test
personality tests by similarminds.com

My Enneagram:

Enneagram Test Results Type 1 Perfectionism 46% Type 2 Helpfulness 30% Type 3 Image Awareness 66% Type 4 Sensitivity 40% Type 5 Detachment 56% Type 6 Anxiety 40% Type 7 Adventurousness 43% Type 8 Aggressiveness 86% Type 9 Calmness 50% Your main type is 8 Your variant is sexual

Take Free Enneagram Personality Test
personality tests by similarminds.com

Main type	Variant

Take Free Enneagram Personality Test
personality tests by similarminds.com

Pow, POW, P.O.W.!!!

I was thinking recently about all the times that some dippy thing John McCain has said was defended with "Yes, John McCain insert gaffe here, but John McCain didn't have subject of gaffe for five and a half years....in prison!"

McCain is allegedly "reticent" about discussing his P.O.W. past. I'd hate to see what it would look like if he fucking felt like talking about it!!

Expertise vs. Judgement

Since EnviroMom was chapping my ass about posting, here's the second post in a week. Now I have to think of something new to call her. "NagMaster2000" maybe?

So... for what it's worth...I was watching the convention last night and Joe Biden finally got to what I had been groping towards all this time regarding Obama. Bill Clinton may have said Obama was ready for the job, but what Joe Biden actually said in his speech was that Obama had always been ready for the job. By virtue of the fact that he makes good decisions and periodically revisits them to evaluate their appropriateness.

McCain has a greater history in the Senate, though his recent round of flip flops are hardly his first (his post-Keating re-invention as St. John The Maverick was the first) and they're worth noting. I think they will be. Joe Biden started the "more in sorrow than in anger" trope, and I expect that at some point the argument will develop into, "I can't believe what my old friend has begun saying because he's trying to please a corrupt and intellectually bankrupt Republican Party. Does he really believe that???"

So let's look at what "Bomb, Bomb Iran" John's legislative accomplishments have been recently. He opposes Lily Ledbetter (by supporting a Republican filibuster), because apparently pay discrimination is just fine as long as your victim can't figure out they're getting fucked within 180 days of getting their first paycheck. He was against Webb's GI Bill before he just didn't care enough to show up to vote one way or another before he decided to take credit for it in the Rose Garden. He was against torture before he was for letting Bush get away with a signing statement saying, "But torture is defined by the President at his sole discretion acting as Commander in Chief," so that St. John could get a photo-op with the Deciderator in the Rose Garden.

Basically, John McCain is very good at getting REALLY STUPID SHIT done. Frankly, I prefer incompetence in the service of idiocy, thank you very much.

In turn let us consider Obama. Negotiate with Iran with no preconditions? I work in marketing, so I've been part of more than a few negotiations. Let me tell you...if your precondition for even starting a negotiation is total capitulation from the other guy you're NOT NEGOTIATING. You're issuing an ultimatum. Phrased in the form of a negotiation offer so that people who are dumber than a bag of hammers can't figure out you're actually REJECTING any possibility of negotiation. "Fooling some of the people all of the time," leaps to mind here.

"I'm not opposed to all wars, I'm opposed to dumb wars"? Preach it, brother. I was an Army Officer, so pretty clearly I'm not opposed to all wars. But watching a bunch of kids who trust you to do the right thing by them get killed because some dumb fuck of a politician can't keep a hold of his fucking temper for 24 hours at a stretch? Not exactly what any of us signed up for.

Pragmatic free market philosophy in support of an egalitarian redistribution aimed at creating equal opportunity? Pretty much describes my philosophy: The economic purpose of the state is to keep capitalism and free markets from fucking it all up for themselves. Because the Good Lord knows that a 24 year old bond trader wondering where his next Ferrari is coming from is NOT who you want ensuring that capitalism doesn't shit where it lives.

I infinitely prefer judgement to expertise. Expertise can be acquired (or hired). Judgement you're born with. And John McCain doesn't have judgement. He has a seething mass of free floating anger waiting...just waiting...for someplace to light so he can engage in the next round of spastic shitheadedness.

McCain Seriously Loses His Shit

I've been following St. John the Maverick's latest meltdown with some degree of genuine sorrow. After reading an article by an Arizona reporter who knew John McCain like Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose (of Shrub fame) knew Bush, I've come to the conclusion that St. John was never that saintly to begin with.

I knew, for example, that he had a temper. A bad one. What I didn't know was how thoroughly his personality has infused his campaign. Until this week.

See, as you may have heard St. John, who's been saying that Obama is elitist and out of touch, has apparently lost track of how many houses he owns. Which set off a storm.

Apparently, the Obama camp had been laying in wait for this one. They had all kinds of stuff ready to go, and the last couple weeks have as near as I can tell, been a big, Rope-A-Dope.




They've let McCain run "Elitist" ad after ad, and now, McCain walks into a punch and there's two ads out in 48 hours. Almost like they were hoping that he'd gaffe regarding wealth. Stringing it together with Phil Gramm's "whiners" comment and you have a one-two punch that hits McCain where he lives.

The McCain campaign response? It turns out, as you may not have known, that John McCain was a POW. So there!

Even the MSM has started to note that whenever McCain gets his ass in a crack he trots out "POW".

I think this may have been the plan all along. McCain, in his undisciplined way, runs amok all summer long, when no one is actually watching, while Obama keeps his powder dry. Knowing that at some point St. John will put his foot in it. And then won't be able to figure out how to handle it.

Which of course leads to the meta-question. If this guy can't keep his campaign on track for more than 3 days running without losing his shit, do you REALLY want his spastic ass in charge of the country for 4 years?

Unfortunately, I Kinda Thought So...

But about the shooting in Tennessee, as it turns out this wasn't the usual incoherent nutjob.

When I heard this morning on the national news that some guy had shot up a church I thought, "Oh crap...here we go. The Christians will talk about how they're oppressed."

Then I heard that it was a Unitarian Universalist church that was the target of a Mr. Jim Adkisson, 53, and not being an ignorant agnostic my tune changed. The Lovely And Talented Mrs. Pedant can attest that I told her that I figured it was at least 60/40 that this guy was motivated by fundamentalist Christian impulses...and it looks as if I was right. At the very least I was mostly right, and I'll be SHOCKED if it doesn't turn out that this guy was into a fundamentalist church.

Jim Adkisson was apparently motivated by an unproductive job search and by rage against liberals, according to MSNBC.com. "It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that and his stated hatred of the liberal movement," said Knoxville Police Department Chief Sterling Owen.

There've been some aspects in the wake of this that I find telling though. MSNBC.com's headline read, "Police: Killer Targeted Church for Liberal Views." CNN.com's reads, "Church Shooting Suspect Angry Over Job Search, Police Say." Hmmm, bias much?

In the last couple hours the link text but not the article headline has been changed to read, "Police: Shooting suspect mad over job, liberals" which at least indicates that a news organization that employs and coddles Glenn Beck has realized it might not want to appear to be glossing over a major component of the motive, despite having tried to gloss over a major part of the motive.

I also find it interesting that Googling "fundamentalist condemnation church shootings" produces this from Tony Perkins as the very first hit on Google, regarding the pity party Christian Fundies threw for themselves in the wake of the Colorado Springs shootings. Because, of course, everyone knows that after 7 years of Bush Christians have to meet in catacombs to avoid persecution by the government, rather than, say, running most of the government.

As for condemnation of the shootings over the weekend? "Your search - fundamentalist condemnation Tennessee shootings - did not match any documents."

I don't expect it ever will.


UPDATE: Now, not only are there still no Fundie condemnations but CNN and MSNBC, using the same AP wire story, have shaded it slightly differently. MSNBC.com contains this chilling quote: "Adkisson 'stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country,' investigator Steve Still wrote."

CNN.com omitted that little factoid from their version of the AP wire report.

CNN has seriously misplayed their hand. Long called "Clinton News Network" by the wingers, they apparently are trying to court conservatives, at a time when conservative self identification and affiliation with the Republican Party is falling. In the process, they aren't pleasing conservatives, for whom nothing less than full throated Fox News style Republican propagandism is acceptable, and they're now pissing off liberals in their attempt to get at the conservatives. And in order to do so, they're glossing over a conservative hatred of liberals so profound that shooting up a church full of children is OK, at least at the far margins of conservative thought.

They deserve the ratings crackup they're headed for.

McCain Tries For The Early Checkmate

By revealing Obama's itinerary for travel in Iraq.

Joke's on him though, Obama landed in Afghanistan.

Either a) He's trying to get Obama killed before the white supremacists can get to the Democratic nominee or b) his campaign was complicit in a disinformation campaign.

Given that you get the same effect from not saying a goddamn thing as from planting false information...guess which one *I* think? Not that I think St. John the Divine did this; just one of his Repub Frat Boy Staffer types...the ones the Repub party is so thoroughly larded with these days.

Offered Without Further Comment

George W. Bush Sewage Plant name is on ballot in San Francisco.

Republicans And Love Of Country

Basically, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. Obama is making a patriotism speech where basically he says that he won't let anyone impugn his patriotism.

Which McCain has, if not in so many words. Has the man never heard of the Intertubes?? He says outrageous shit and then simply denies he said it. This may be the first year in which YouTube is used more to debunk a lying politician than to check out Leeroy Jenkins.

OK. Plug your ears and lock up the kids. I'll wait...


WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH REPUBLICANS?!?!?!?

Seriously.

Did you somehow become fucking convinced that only YOU love your Country(TM)? News flash assholes, not only do you NOT have a monopoly on loving America, I'm still not convinced that upwards of 90% of you ACTUALLY love America. Sean Hannity dry humping the country (and one sort of envisions that happening to Florida...like a little rat dog humping a leg) notwithstanding, what Republicans ACTUALLY do is TALK about loving America.

I'm going to give you a little hint. Republicans (in the main) don't love America, they love themselves. The reason they spend so much time talking about loving America is that they figure that America is the country most likely to allow them to love themselves with the least amount of interruption or inconvenience. If another country, say Albania, made them a better offer...they'd be on a plane in a second, all those country and western songs notwithstanding.

How can I say this? Simple. If, when discussing taxes, your first words about taxes are something on the order of, "It's MY money, how dare they tell me what to do with it," you love yourself.

If you are terribly concerned with a terrorist attack on American soil...putting YOU at risk...without regard to whether an attack is an existential threat to the country? You love yourself.

Are you concerned with what "Teh Gay" is doing to our moral fabric (LINK WARNING: Shower before and after clicking on the link)...mainly because it makes you feel icky (or even worse, vaguely titillated)? You love yourself.

Basically, what we have is a group of people who are like an abusive boyfriend. As long as America puts out, in whatever kinky way these Republicans want it to, they'll let America occasionally go out to the mall or see friends. If the bitch crosses them though? She'll be sorry.

So spare me your patriotic chest thumping. Go play with a tub of butter or something and leave those of us who actually care about her take her to the ER and have the broken bones looked at.

Best Line Ever

In the spirit of Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person In The World", I am instituting a "Best Line Ever" topic...hyperbole, since I intend to periodically find one. The criteria is simply that it strikes me as insightful and funny all at once.

As a result, Best Line Ever today goes to hilzoy at Obsidian Wings. She was writing about the rather foolish notion that Obama could be our first woman prez, a la Bill Clinton as our first black prez. She notes that both are absurd...Bill is NOT black and Obama, barring some radical hormone therapy and surgery is not and never will be female.

But then she gets to the good part. In noting that the reason to consider Obama feminine is to contrast that with Our Current Idiot Manchild's style of governance. She then writes, "If I truly thought that masculinity was anything like the sneering, bullying caricature that people try to foist off on us every four years at about this time, I'd either take a vow of celibacy right now or spend some serious effort trying to discover whether it's possible to become gay by sheer force of will."

Best Line Ever.

Can Someone Please Tell Me Why

given this monstrosity:



Why oh why shouldn't I be allowed to burn out all of Fox News' Studios, scatter their so-called journalists to the four winds of permanent exile and then salt the earth?

Shall We Play A Game?

For those of you, like the Lovely and Talented Mrs. Pedant, who are too freaking young, that refers to this:



It's also a brief look back at those halcyon days of the early 80s, when we could count on our adversary acting in their own rational self-interest, for what it's worth. But rather than Global Thermonuclear War, I'd like to talk about avoiding Democratic Thermonuclear War.

Hillary's campaign has put out internal guidance to not plan any further appearances after Wednesday's speech in front of AIPAC. While the Clintonites were quick to say that this was by no means the end, I think we all know it's the end. As I've stated before, Hillary pushes this past tomorrow and she'll be luck to run unopposed in the NY Senatorial campaign. Hell, she pushes much past tomorrow and I'll give money to her opponent for Chappaqua DOGCATCHER if she decided to run for THAT.

So what the fuck (that's for you, Really Mad Professor) IS she up to?

Let's play a game. Let's call this game, "Hillary wants to be a Veep." God alone knows why, but let's suppose. She's misplayed her hand up to this point in my opinion, but lord knows Bill is undisciplined enough to be a one man gaffe factory if this is actually her goal. This by the way assumes, not without some degree of justification, that some of the Hillary staffers look more to Bill than her (by the way; NOT because of sexism...by all reports Bill has BY FAR the fouler temper).

So here we have a goal, "Become the Veep," not entirely supported by the tactics of the Clinton Campaign, but not conclusively obviated by it, and a means: "Come in a close second, with an option to drag everything down with her." Not historically unprecedented.

Now, it is possible that Hillary can deliver the cracker vote (aka, Voters So Far Back Up In The Hills They Have To Import Daylight) to Obama. And he needs it, at least the Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania versions thereof. Because while he can (and SHOULD) craft an Intermountain West Strategy (the Democrats version of a 40-Years-Later "Southern Strategy"...a way to pick off traditionally Republican votes cheesed off by the current incarnation of their party) and put states like Colorado in play (way to go EnviroMom...and yes, you have your own blog-du-plume now that I have decided to file all the serial numbers off all your IDs out there)...it's mathematically "fun" to work out how he wins the Electoral College. Best to avoid the whole exercise and BURY the Sons'a'Bitches in November. Hillary CAN help there, I believe.

Maybe that's her motive, but just in case, perhaps Obama should pull her aside. And now, let's pretend we can put words into his mouth:

"Hillary, I need you as VP. It heals a party divided, and moves quickly to uniting the country. But let me be perfectly clear. I will be the President. The first time we have a policy disagreement and I read about a leak that even THEORETICALLY can be linked to the Vice-President's office? You will spend the rest of your days in the Old Executive Office Building waiting for somebody semi-notable to die so you can do SOME kind of job. There will be NO reprieve from the Siberia I put you in. You will write The Gulag Archipelago Two before I let you so much as watch a Cabinet Meeting on CNN. Just so we're clear."

I don't think she wants the job. I think she wants to finish out the whole primary season so she can say, "A woman went the distance and damn near won." Hell, if that's what she says sometime this week or next, I take back every nasty thing I've said about her, because she'd be right. But as long as we're playing games...

How about a nice game of Chess?

For God's Sake, Can We Just CALM DOWN?

The primary season's waning days have me thinking.

Well, that, and a raft of what one hopes are misstatements and the rantings of out of control staffers coming from the Clinton Campaign. Let me preface all this by saying, the reason the somewhat unhinged statements are coming from Sen. Clinton's and not Sen. Obama's campaign are twofold. First, she's lost and both she and her supporters know this; the difference being that some of her supporters seem unwilling to...well, see the title. Second, she has Bill on her campaign, and while Bill was an excellent President, his will to win regardless of cost actually exceeds hers and because he has a sense of grievance exceeded only in some Republican circles which seems to have taken hold. Thus he's lunging around like an untethered cannon on the HMS Victory. (Just click the freaking link...I can't be you guys SOLE source for unwarrantedly obscure military history)

Let's start with Hillary And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day. As reported in the New York Times Blog, it seems as if Hillary really wasn't, you know, suggesting someone might do what hundreds of white supremacist's have expressed an interest in doing. Nevertheless, as Olbermann points out: for the love of GOD, you invoked Kennedy's assassination to justify staying in the race, even tangentially? Are you nuts?!?

This may be what takes her down. The only way she walks back from this, frankly, is to go through June third, and then bow out. There's no way she ends up with a Veep shot after Friday. Not that that seems to have been her idea. And if she pushes this thing all the way to the convention, the highest office she'll ever hold will be senior senator from NY. She gets out of the race and stays out after June third, maybe she gets majority leader, maybe she gets plum committee chairs, maybe she gets a shot at the White House again in 2016 or if the Dem's (god forbid) lose this year, in 2012.

But the only way she has a play this year, at this point, is to deliberately upset the applecart. I don't know if the excitement lately has been with or without her consent (with Bill it seems to have been without), but the RFK comment clinched it. RFK, Jr. can excuse her. The party can't. Either she or Obama lose in this of all years after she does something like that and she'll be lucky if she's allowed to run unopposed in the NY Senatorial Primary in 2012.

Now, let's go to the great "sexism" debate. Look, I get it. I may have a penis, but I know a lot of women, and the ones who are Hillary supporters want this to be about sexism, rather than say...she ran a crappy campaign or she has negatives out the wazoo. Hillary's in trouble because of sexism. Therefore, people who don't vote for Hillary are doing it out of sexism.

Only thing is, you can make the exact same argument for Obama and racism. In other words, if you accuse those who never preferred Hillary of sexism, then if you never preferred Obama it's because you're a racist. You simply cannot have it both ways.

People don't vote for Hillary for a lot of reasons: because 20 years of Bushes and Clintons is enough (my personal reason), because with regard to obsessive secrecy she's second only to George W Bush, because you don't particularly trust her word (Mrs. Pedant's reason), or possibly because you're sexist. It could be any NUMBER of reasons, only ONE of which is sexism.

And finally, for the argument that sexism is worse that racism in this country, I have to say, I have no freaking idea. To me, it seems like an argument about whether drowning or burning is a worse way to die. For the love of god, they're both horrible. Trying to parse out which one is marginally viler is ridiculous. I suspect that women think sexism is worse, blacks think racism is worse, black women no doubt split about equally on which is worse and black lesbians KNOW that homophobia is worse than either sexism or racism. Who CARES?

I do understand. There are a lot of women who want a woman president for what are blatantly obvious reasons. Some of them are old enough and smart enough to figure that the odds of getting another woman candidate before they die are greatly lessened if Obama gets the nomination and wins. After all, if he wins, it's 2016 before another woman runs (since if he wins he is the nominee in 2012 so win or lose in 2012 the next time a woman has a shot is 2016 because it will be a LONG FREAKING TIME before the Repub's run a woman rather than a white dude), and who other than Hillary is available in the short term? So it's "OMFG, Hillary's a victim of sexism and Obama would never be where he is unless he were black." Which argument, by the way, is as foolish as saying OJ got off because he was black (true story...I once heard a guy say that)...all those whites disproportionately jailed proves that theory. (Hint, that's SARCASM.)

Let's put it this way...until the 2004 convention, only Illinois residents knew about Obama. I can think of a couple female governors and senators that might run well off the top of my head. What do you think the odds are that someone somewhere we haven't even HEARD of can come out in 2016 and make a run? Because I want a woman president someday soon. I'd like to point the Wee Pedant to a real flesh and blood figure.

I'd just prefer that the flesh and blood female President I point to not get impeached for the high handed way she continued the Bush secrecy fetish while alienating half the country with her "win at all costs" public style.

Sex and the Unitary Executive

Well, THAT got your attention.

OK, now that I have proven my marketing expertise with the equivalent of "Live Nude Girls" at the header, let's discuss what I alluded to in a previous post: ways in which to contain an out of control President from within his (or her) term.

First, let us dispense with, as my brother assumes, the ability of Congress to send out the Sergeant At Arms and arrest persons who display Contempt of Congress. While IN THEORY this might be effective, in practice...not so much. Any attempt to arrest, say Karl Rove or John Yoo to make them testify about who exactly gave the order to fire the US Attorneys, or what exactly was the expression on Dick Cheney's face when he ordered people tortured (glee, unbridled malice or some combination of both), would of necessity run up against either the FBI (Justice Department) or the Secret Service (Treasury Department) or both.

While a running gun battle between an aging federal pensioner and some FBI HRT gunslinger might be amusing (in a morbid curiosity sense) the obvious outcome to the standoff is...a trip to the Supreme Court. With the Justice Department lawyers (answerable to the EXECUTIVE branch) as Congress's lawyers. Yeah, I'm willing to bet they'll get RIGHT on that case...

And the Supreme's, who last bestirred themselves to alacrity in Gore v. Bush, will no doubt be inclined to let the lower courts have their way first. At length. For ten or fifteen years.

This is not a solution. It's a very long running Abbot and Costello routine ("Who's sued first?" "Exactly!")

Let us also dispense with, "Waiting until the bastard is voted out." Bush has shown us, among all the OTHER things he's done (signing statements, signing bills with Takesie-Backsies, claiming CinC powers confer the ability to not have to even listen when everyone around you says your idea is the dumbest fucking thing to come down the pike since Prohibition), exactly how QUICKLY you can pack the Voting Rights Office with Young Republican Lawyers of the opinion that Blacks and Poor Folk have NO voting rights.

Makes it kinda hard to elect Democrats when two groups routinely shat upon by Republicans can't, y'know, actually VOTE. Eventually God-Emperor McCain or Romney or whoever the hell it is will, like Gaius Octavian Caesar before him, decide to dispense with the troublesome need to even PRETEND to go through an election.

Now, and this is IMPORTANT because I don't want to wade through emails (all three of them) saying, "That's unconstitutional," what I am about to suggest will require amendments, because I must, perforce, screw with the current constitutional balances BY DEFINITION.

One: If Congress is to have the "Power of the Purse" then they need to have the fucking Power of the Purse. CONGRESS should set Department internal budgets, rather than giving the Executive the power to slosh one big honking wad of tax dollars around any way he sees fit within the 13 Appropriations Bills Congress approves. The goddamn President doesn't need a line item veto...CONGRESS does.

If they want to defund Iraq, under this scheme, then they just line out all the requests related to Iraq and the President can't shitcan all VA benefits to then restore funding for Iraq. This one, is at least arguably constitutional. The Constitution is pretty much silent on internal budgets for the various Departments of the Executive.

Not so much for my next suggestion, phrased in the form of a question: Why, in the name of Beelzubub's Big Brass Balls, is the JUSTICE Department part of the Executive Branch rather than the JUDICIAL Branch? Yes, yes. I know: "The President shall ensure that the laws be well and faithfully executed."

Is it the Framer's fault that we elected a Texan, who judging by the number of inmates he sent to "Ol' Sparky" while he was the Governor, has one, and ONLY one, definition of "executed"? Well, no.

But since Bush has shown us what it looks like, I think maybe we should take the lawyers in charge of enforcing laws governing the Executive away from an Executive who thinks laws controlling the Executive are an annoyance, rather than say, the only thing differentiating us from Zimbabwe...now that we eighty-sixed the whole, "Doesn't attach electrodes to political prisoner's balls," thing.

Yes, the Supreme's are annoying. But there's NINE of them. With about as much common purpose as a room full of cats. Plus one loud rabid nutjob of a dog, whose name rhymes with Frito. Seriously, even most of the conservative nutjobs at least care about the law, except for Thomas who, judging by how active he is on the bench during oral arguments, is mainly interested in a NAP, and Frito, I mean Alito, who's mainly interested in how many different ways you can screw the country while remaining at least arguably within the framework of the Constitution. Kinda sorta. If you squint just right.

That still leaves seven people who care about the rule of law. Who might receive a contempt of Congress citation without viewing it as another in a long series of opportunities to expand Executive authority without regard for the other two branches. Or reason. Or decency. Or anything other than an overwhelming desire for power. Unlimited, unfettered, unequaled remorseless force.

That one does require an amendment. And a respect for the principle of good government. Which is why it'll never happen.

Ahhhhh!

Dear GOD, I am glad Fafblog is back.

Back...Kinda Sorta...But I Am In Good Company

Back, after an extended hiatus that mainly consisted of perfecting diaper changes on the Wee Pedant. Seriously. When she turns sixteen and we have an argument and I tell her she's full of shit, I will know what I am talking about.

So I am back. And as it turns out, I'm not the only only one back. Yes! Fafblog has returned! Let the rejoicing commence.

Brief pause while I let the joyous news sink in.

Now I can commence the rant that's been building for many a week. Let's start with something the Lovely And Talented Mrs. Pedant is fond of saying, "Those Founding Fathers were geniuses."

No. No they weren't. Do you know how I know? George W. Bush. And not the way you're thinking. I am sure that they knew that second rate (and third rate) men would occupy office. Hell, half of them THOUGHT the other half were second rate men.

No. It is this: George Bush in his abuse of Executive Authority has in NO WAY clearly violated the Constitution. Sure, his (or Dick Cheney's) interpretation of "Commander In Chief" powers is, shall we say, generous...but his seeming conviction that he was elected God-Emperor of the US is not inconsistent with what Alexander Hamilton was pushing for back in 1787. He hasn't tried to eliminate the Congress...just completely and utterly ignore it. And there's nothing in the Constitution that requires him to pay any attention to Congress.

"But what about 'Checks and Balances'?" I hear you say. Let's look at the "checks" to unfettered Executive power. The Supreme Court? Yeah, maybe, except that we'll probably have colonies on Mars before that collection of egos first hears and then rules on any cases of Executive abuse. If they decide to punt it back to a Circuit Court first because the original ruling was missing a dotted "i" we could be looking at Alpha Centauri before there's a ruling. The Executive branch can do something tomorrow, the Judicial branch takes forever. The court is not capable of being a check on the Executive because the repair takes too long.

Congress. Yeah. Congress wields the "Power Of The Purse". And that, my friends, is ALL Congress wields. Subpoena? Not if the Justice Department doesn't want to enforce it, as they have refused to do on a Contempt Of Congress cite on Karl Rove. Testimony? Oversight? Not likely. (See above, Rove, Karl, Asshole, One Each)

Let's take a hypothetical, say, highly unpopular not to mention strategically disastrous war in Southwest Asia. Congress can stop that war ONLY BY CUTTING OFF ALL MONEY TO THE MILITARY ENTIRELY. Make no mistake. The Executive allocates money within the Defense Department. If Congress were to "defund" Iraq tomorrow, the ONLY thing that would happen is say, all military dependant dental care would get canceled or something like that. Unless Congress cuts off ALL money to the military the Deciderator can just shuffle funds from something else in the DoD and drive on his merry way in Iraq, like some modern Caesar hellbent on over-extending the Legions.

The "Check" Congress wields is FAR too blunt an instrument to stop a President like Idiot Boy, willing to basically say "Fuck You" to every consensual limit on his power.

George Bush has shown us a festering gaping SORE in the basic structure of our Government. Namely, that the Executive Branch has all the available moves.

I have some thoughts on this, but would like to hear comments first.

Fuck The Clarifications

You might be aware that Michelle Obama is "Proud" or "Really Proud" of her country for the first time in her adult life. The right wing blogs and Faux have been having a fake rage-gasm over the quote. Let me say...officially...if you don't agree with her you haven't been fucking paying attention the last thirty years.

To explain, let's go back to when she turned 18, in fact let's even make the poor woman older and go allllllll the way back to 1968. For presidents, Michelle has watched, in chronological order: a Malignant Tumor, an Ineffectual Well-Meaning Sop, an Amiable Moron, a Bloodless Technocrat, a Smarmy Morals Challenged But Competent Letch and a Not-Very-Amiable Vindictive Incompetent Uber-Moron. Hell, with that rogues gallery it's the first time I'm proud of my country and I wasted four years defending it so that the KGB couldn't listen to our phone conversations without warrants and send citizens to the Gulag to be tortured without due process. Oh, wait...

I'm beginning to understand why all those Boomers get their panties wet whenever they talk about JFK or RFK. Obama actually inspires me to do something more than shop. Had 9/11 occurred under Obama, I'm willing to bet he would have asked us all to something noble. Not to go out shopping prop up an economy he'd spent the last nine months badmouthing in an attempt to justify tax cuts he'd already decided on.

Frankly, the latest two minute hate is all the right wing in this country has left. Intellectually bankrupt, all they can do is impugn the patriotism or sanity of anyone opposing them. As someone said on a blog (and I really don't feel like digging it up, so just take my word for it), if you spend all your time implying that 45% of the country aren't really Americans, eventually that 45% is going to get really pissed off. And you don't win elections by needing to get 90% plus one of all the votes left available to you.

The only thing Obama could do that would make me prouder is flying down to Guantanamo immediately after his inauguration, personally setting off the charges that blow the prison there sky high and then remanding those responsible to the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague starting with Cheney (if possible) and Rumsfeld (without fail). Rumsfeld can stand up all the way there.

Voter Fraud Detected in WI. Right Wing Outrage Machine...Well...OUTRAGED

Turns out there's photographic evidence that a slightly underaged voter in Wisconsin went to the polls yesterday:

If you look carefully just above the grassy knoll you'll detect an "I Voted" sticker. Clearly, this is evidence of massive voter fraud that must be addressed immediately. I understand that Red State and Michelle Malkin are, as we speak, rifling through my garbage looking for evidence that the Wee Pedant cast a ballot for the lieberal Demoncrat Barack Jihad Hussein Osama Obama.

Won't they be surprised when all they find is used diapers from the aforementioned Wee Pedant and used litter from Furperson Cat Pedant's litterbox?

Don't eat it it Michelle. :-)

Welcome To The Jungle

You might have heard. We're having a primary here next week. I know, big surprise, huh?

By all accounts it's Obama's to lose, at least here, and Hillary has "gone negative". I'm at work and our IT department has cut us off from YouTube (due to bandwidth considerations) so I can't link to the ad but go poke around TPM or Yglesia's site, in fact let me do it for you. Here or here.

If that's a negative ad, I'm a cossack. What THAT is, is an attempt by the Clinton campaign to get some free airtime here in beer, brat n' cheddar paradise. Clinton is shedding campaign staffers faster than a Las Vegas stripper. She's writing herself 5 million dollar loans. People. Candidates do these things when they're in trouble.

Her best bet is to win Texas and Ohio. But, particularly according to Obama's folks, she'd have to CRUSH him in those states, given the Dem proportional allocation plan. Like 60-40 splits. There's a candidate who's gotten those splits, but it wasn't her. Even in California the margin was more like 55-45 and that was her best showing to date.

So, now what? She's got one hope: keep it close enough in pledged delegates that she can pick enough superdelegates up to take the nomination. Ideally without having to start a floor fight about seating Michigan and Florida...though she might try that if she's close in the pledged delegates and thinks enough supers would back her. Ideally, she is losing badly enough after Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio that the "party elders" like Reid, Pelosi and Dean sit her down and explain that she needs to back down for the good of the party and not push for the supers to bail her out. Maybe a Senate Majority Leader nod from Reid when the time comes will put her over the edge into accepting defeat.

That doesn't look like it's going to happen, though these things have been known to change. Next best is for Obama to have enough of a lead that the supers would feel uncomfortable just ignoring it. I don't know what that number is. 100 or less is probably not enough. 300 or more would be more than enough. So I'll say 200.

Obama goes into Denver with a 200 pledged delegate lead, Hillary counts noses among the supers, comes up short and takes herself out, maybe with as little as a primetime speech but she might angle for the aforementioned Majority Leader position (and wouldn't THAT frost the Repubs ass...female Speaker, female Majority Leader, Black President and---let's assume he picks Richardson as a veep---a Hispanic Vice-President...eat THAT "Heritage Not Hate" Southern-cracker Repubs). That's second best.

Third best is Hillary goes into Denver with enough pledged delegates that the supers aren't obviously ignoring the electorate. Hillary gets the nod and heads into the general with maybe Obama as veep, or maybe not, maybe Obama turns on Illinois as a governor to position himself in 4 to 8 years.

Hillary as the nominee is third best because she energizes McCain's base and frees him to run to the middle, as opposed to catering to the flat-earth, all torture all the time-types on the lunatic fringe, which is what he'd have to do contra-Obama. Yes, I know Obama is ACTUALLY more reliably liberal than Hillary, except for Krugman's weird one-issue Universal Healthcare obsession. For the record, universal health care is important. Just not MORE IMPORTANT than our overseas image, our economic health and our environmental balance COMBINED. (Yes, Krugman's attacks are more widespread, but it started because Obama wasn't doing what Krugman wanted done on healthcare). But he isn't SEEN that way. In this, he IS Reaganesque. He can be on a wing and not SEEM to be on the wing.

Worst is if Hillary JUST ekes out enough delegates to seat Michigan and Florida through the argument that those two states are too important in the general election to dis at the convention. Which by the way, is utter bullshit. Michigan's econo-woes are too awful to go Repub and between the Crackers and Batistasitas...I mean Cuban-Americans...I think Florida goes R no matter what. So who gives a flying monkey whether they're seated...makes no difference in the end. Except. Except. *I* have given serious thought to sitting out the election if Hillary pulls that stunt. How many independants, blacks and young voters go to McCain or sit it out if Hillary pulls that stunt?

And that's always been the nasty smelly underside of Hillary's main strength. She'll do anything, and I mean ANYTHING to win the contest she's in AT THE MOMENT. Let the future take care of itself. If she does that, and then tanks in the general in a year when we should win in a walk, that's it. I'll vote in Republican primaries for the least bad option and sit out the generals. Because if we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this of all years, then the Democratic party needs to cease to exist, and be replaced with something worthwhile.

I don't think that happens though. I think option 2 is much more likely. I think Obama heads to Denver with enough of a lead that the Clinton's count noses and realize they've come up short. But there's always SOMEthing in the jungle waiting to chew your face off. So watch and wait.

So Exactly Who Won Super Duper Tuesday?

Hard to say. Let's start with, "No one sealed the deal," and look a tad deeper. Hillary won California, but that state is hard to move once it gets going in one direction or another, and her NH win probably provided at least 5 points of momentum alone.


But at Washington Monthly blog I find this: "It looks like Obama, by the narrowest of margins, won last night's delegate hunt. By our estimates, he picked up 840 to 849 delegates versus 829-838 for Clinton."

So he won. Except that many superdelegates seem to be breaking for Clinton. So she actually has about a 60 delegate lead. Who are superdelegates? I could tell you but then I'd have to ice my wrist for carpal tunnel, so instead I'll let Josh Marshall explain them.

Bottom line? This fucker may well go TO THE CONVENTION...it is more than feasible that neither Obama nor Clinton will sew it up before or even after the last primary, thanks to proportional representation and the (currently) about 500 uncommitted superdelegates, though Obama is making noises in speeches about the lack of wisdom on the part of superdelegates in contravening the expressed preference of the Democratic Polity: "Those super delegates will have to think long and hard about who they'll support because the people they represent have said, `Obama's our guy.'"

Now on the one hand, damn. That's some cold-blooded threatening. "Fail to support me, and who knows...your constituents might put horse head in your bed sometime." And then I got to thinking. That quote makes me support him more. The one thing I've known about Hillary is that she'll put the knife in and SMILE while she's doing it. We're going to need that. (That she would throw the right into spastic paroxysms of rage and impotence in addition is a feature not a bug, in my opinion.)

And Obama just showed he can play hardball too. "Want to seat those Florida and Michigan delegates? Go ahead and try...but if you fail, and I get the nomination, I. Will. Fuck. You. Up."

Good for him. We're going to need that. Hillary always could supply that cold steely resolve, and I guess Barack can too.

So let the games commence. As long as we can keep it as civil as those California Debates, and as substantive as anything moderated by Tim Russert is allowed to be, we're going to end up looking like the "Grownups' Party" rather than the "Commie-Pinko Party." And if we're seen as the grownups, we win. Period. Eight years of Idiot Manchild is MORE than enough.

Why Obama?

It's going to come as no surprise to those who read this blog (and thus know me) that I am an Obama supporter. I am, in fact, fairly enthusiastic about him, which bodes well for him should he get the nomination. I have a fairly good track record when it comes to victory IF the DemocratIC (that's Democratic, NOT Democrat, you asshole conservatives) Party nominates the guy I liked in the primaries. I liked Carter, I liked Clinton and I like Obama. When the guy I like DOESN'T get the nod, the Dems lose.

So, victory likelihood aside, why Obama? Why not (Hillary) Clinton? I liked her husband, even if, on a personal note, he never got past being the Band Geek, and thus when some free pussy threw itself at him, he had no discernible self-control at a time when he KNEW (not suspected, KNEW) they really were out to get him? I liked him for the reasons he was a pretty decent President; when it came to policy he wasn't doctrinaire, he had a great campaign presence which was sorely needed in the post-Reagan era, his basic ideas about where the country needed to go were spot on. And the country delivered in spades. Longest peacetime expansion. Huge wealth engine. A rising tide that actually DID lift all the boats. That latter is, perhaps, the main reason the right hated him so. He did everything they said would be disastrous and he succeeded. I don't think they ever forgave him for not putting the economy in the tank like they said he would.

But I'm NOT supporting his wife. Why? Maybe she leaves me cold. I dunno. I do know this. After the campaign between Kerry and Bush in 2004 I realized something.

I'm sick and fucking TIRED of the baby boomers dragging our collective asses into their god damned psychodrama. EVERYTHING revolves around who went to Vietnam and who didn't. Who supported the war and who didn't. Who was a dirty fucking hippie and who was a drunken fucking fratboy.

I'm NOT a damned boomer, but thanks to these self-absorbed assholes and their constant need to fight and refight and re-refight the central conflict of the sixties (counter-culture vs. button-down) in all it's multifaceted glory, I get to watch, get sucked in, have to deal with their inability to MOVE THE FUCK ON. That's the change Obama offers. It's the fucking subtext of ALL his speeches, "Aren't you sick and tired of all this hyper-partisan warfare fucking it all up for the rest of us?"

Yes, yes, I am. I realize that the culture war won't end, ever, because every generation has its issues. Personally, if a cancer plague killed every single registered Republican painfully over the next month, I wouldn't shed a tear. But at least that's MY issue. Not some aging Aquarian's need to prove HE (or she) was RIGHT about; drugs, Vietnam, the need to "Burn Baby Burn", sell out and move up, or any of that shit. At least my issues are my issues, not the belted up, bitter baggage of someone who's old enough to have seen the premiere of "Hair".

THAT'S why Obama. Clinton, Bush, they're all just fucking boomers, trying to make us live in the world they want to make. Fuck that. This is the dawning of the Age Of Shut The Fuck Up And Finally Grow Old Gracefully, Or ELSE! Vote for someone who doesn't care what you did in '68. Since what I did in '68 was mainly refuse to take my afternoon nap, I've had it with you people.

Friday Random Thoughts

Much blogging has not been occurring because the Wee Pedant gets up in the middle of the night selfishly insisting on feedings and then processing said feedings directly into diapers. Even with Lovely and Talented Mrs. Pedant running interference during the week, I lack energy.

But instead of ONE long and scatological diatribe, you get many. Shall we start?

Turns out the White House, in direct contravention of laws requiring them to maintain records of emails (and as they've been told now, not to circumvent oversight by using RNC email accounts) has been destroying (or rather "recycling") email tapes and thousands and thousands of emails by writing over the tapes. Spokesman Tony Fratto (and is there ANYone who sounds more like a character from The Godfather available?) has replied, "We have no reason to believe that there is any data missing at all [from White House computer servers], and we've certainly found no evidence of any data missing." Of course you can't find evidence that data is missing, you pinhead. You fucking DESTROYED it!

In other words, since we destroyed the data, you can't prove we destroyed the data, therefore we didn't destroy the data. Shorter White House? Succeeding at it is a valid defense for obstruction of justice.

What else have I been following? That whole Navy warship/Highly threatening Iranian speedboats controversy. The Bushies tried to get their war on over this until...well, read for yourself. Apparently Iran's protestations of innocence may be, ummmm, accurate. And Idiot Manchild's characterization of the incident as unusual and provocative? Not so much.

What's my point? It used to be in incidents like this you knew who to believe. The US had the straight scoop and the the third-world generalissimo making grandiose claims was full of shit. This is what the Deciderator has done. In a he said/he said standoff, I genuinely don't know whether to believe the US or Mahmoud Ahmadinijad. Let THAT sink in for a sec. Course, given what's gone on in the last seven years, calling Bush a third-world generalissimo probably isn't that inaccurate.

Lastly...recession? Probably. Bush's reaction? Entirely (and tediously) predictable. For those of you who never click links AND have the IQ of a lump of granite, the prescription is....(drum roll please)...TAX CUTS! Ta Da.