Demoralizing

Congrats to Hillary Clinton and John Edwards for being transparently disingenuous. When they attack Barack Obama for voting "present" while in the Illinois legislature, they are shoveling crap. Nice.
I'm so tired of this BS out of Clinton[s], especially. Yes. I'll vote for her if she wins-but it'll be a vote against the republican, not for her.

This is impressive:

Ordinarily, endorsements don't make much difference to me, but Senator Leahy endorsing Barack Obama is a little different. As the Chairman of the judiciary committee, he has been heroic about returning the oversight role back to congress. If Obama could just sew up Henry Waxman's endorsement, he could plausibly claim to be the choice of the congressional White House-smackdown caucus.

There is so much wrong here.

Uh...roger that, Spaceman.

"I take it it goes without saying that all of this is unfair..."

This post by Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings is perhaps the best distillation of the reasoning behind my support of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton that I've seen. It gets to a lot of what I was trying to get across to the commenter* on my earlier post about Chris Matthews. I feel a little sad that a well-written, practical, dispassionate defense of a position I hold is extraordinary, but that's where we find ourselves. Things have gotten a little rough and calm, rational discourse is not usually in abundance when things get rough.
I should point out that the reason things have gotten so rough for Democrats (and this comes through in Hilzoy's post-seriously, go read it) is that we are in an "embarrassment of riches" situation. This year we have fielded one of the strongest presidential candidate lists in recent memory. I'd have happily voted for any of them against anyone in the Republican field (OK maybe not so happily for Gravel, but I'd have held my nose, thought of the Supreme Court, and pulled the lever for him-thank god it won't come to that). The unprecedented strength of the Democratic position this year is something to be very happy about, come what may-which I hope is an Obama victory. And I hope that victory is decided as quickly as possible, because I really should be putting more effort into my studies.
Go read the Hilzoy piece.

*That's right! I had a non-spam commenter! *Sniff* That means at least one person not related to me has read this blog!
Seriously-I'm WAY stoked about the commenter (do it again!). The odds of this becoming a place where any remotely significant number of people exchange ideas are longer than the line at hell's ice cream parlor, but I'd love to hear from anyone who happens stop by-use an alias if you're shy. Hell, I do.

Chris Matthews needs to shut his cake hole.

As an Obama supporter and a person who is truly baffled that anyone can muster genuine enthusiasm for Clinton on her own terms (though if she's the nominee I'll be plenty enthused to see her beat whatever paleolithic hairball the Republicans cough up), I wish Matthews would shut the hell up already.
Good gravy, the man's a train wreck! The only rational explanation for his continued mouth-diarrhea about Clinton is that he actually wants her to win the primary and is doing his best to make her opponents seem like misogynist knuckle-draggers. A move like Romney's anti-Mormon push polling.
The only problem with that analysis is that such jiu-jitsu requires a metric ton more intelligence than Matthews ordinarily manifests. So I'm left to the conclusion that there simply is no rational explanation for his continued dipshittery, just some deep-seated loathing for Hillary Clinton that probably comes from his own unrecognized humiliation at having been a part of the two year journalistic search party down Bill Clinton's pants that put us directly in the hell we've enjoyed for the last seven.

My advice below still stands, though-he should simply be ignored. Changing your vote because a pundit pisses you off is totally irrational.

(Note: This post appeared in an early form as a comment to this post over at the group news blog-I was so taken with my prose I reposted it here)

Update: Kos put all of this into a tidy package that pretty well sums up my thoughts.

I don't get it

I've been zipping hither and thither through the blogosphere today and as I have, I've run into variations on the theme of "I'm an Obama (or Edwards) supporter, but I might have voted for Clinton today after seeing how shabbily the media treated her in the last few days" (there are several iterations here).
This sentiment makes no sense to me at all. I don't quibble with the idea that the media has been pretty lame-downright misogynist even-in it's coverage of the Democratic race in the last week. But to alter your vote on that basis is insane. After you cast your "f-you" vote, Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough still have a job. All you've done is confirm their influence, albeit negatively.
Don't be a fool-the only way to chip away at the influence of annoying commentators is to ignore them and do what thou wilt.

I hope not...

Andrew Sullivan is wondering if the surprising NH results can be attributed to the Bradley Effect. God I hope not. Moreover, I hope that the mention of it doesn't cause African American voters in South Carolina and elsewhere to pull back from Obama. Yikes, this is a race...

Wait a minute...?

Didn't Edwards talk about Nataline Sarkisian in his last (not really a) concession speech? I like Edwards-he'd likely be my second choice in the primary-but he really shouldn't so obviously recycle material in such high-profile settings.

Is it just me?

Is it just me or is there a palpable animosity between Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews? Their interactions are just loaded with barely concealed hostility. I love it. When Rachel replaces Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, I hope she and Matthews have to work in the same building.

Gang up?

I keep hearing pundits refer to the idea that the debate this weekend tipped the vote toward Clinton. Andrea Mitchell just said that she thinks a lot of voters thought Edwards and Obama "ganging up" on Clinton was unfair. That's just stupid. Sorry. Maybe Mitchell is right, maybe she's just grasping for anything to fill airtime, but if she's right, she's describing the reaction of foolish people. When there are two people who disagree with a third and they are on a stage talking about their disagreements, it's not "ganging up," it's debating. I hope like hell nobody actually made a decision on that ridiculous basis.

Some advice for MSNBC

When debugging your coverage for the next go-round, you would do well to figure out what that interminable beeping in the background behind the anchors is and make it stop!

NH Primary Night

I'm watching the coverage of the NH primary on MSNBC-actually, I'm watching the goings on prior to Olbermann, Matthews, et al having anything to report-and I'll be commenting when I see things that require comment. Here are a couple off the bat:
#1: Matthews was talking to Tom Delay (I have no idea why they would have him on, but they did) and Delay was discussing McCain's appeal to moderates. When Matthews asked him about his apparent denigration of moderates, he asked how Delay defined "moderate" and Delay actually said "someone who thinks too much." Seriously. He really said that. He laughed afterward, but...wow. Not having to represent anyone but himself anymore has apparently unleashed Delay to be just as ignernt as he dang well pleases.

#2: Dee Dee Myers, Bill Clinton's former press secretary actually had the gumption to say that Hillary Clinton was not the frontrunner until last fall. Wha...?! Chris Matthews about fell off his chair, and Myers got a little pissy about it. Clinton has been the front runner in the democratic race starting about the second Wednesday in November of 2004. What does that spin achieve even if anyone's dumb enough to buy it? The wheels are falling off the Clinton bus and apparently whacking the supporters on the side of the road square in the head...

Update: Olbermann is continuing to clown Myers mercilessly. Yeah, he's kind of mean, but Myers is a big girl and she deserves all of the clowning they can pile on.

Not Just on Planes

It would seem that people are assholes everywhere.
You pieces of feces standing to the left on the escalator out of the subway station, causing those of us with a damned pulse to wait behind your slow ass-I'm looking at you!

The Golden Rule

I recently flew a certain airline for five hours at a time twice in a two week period. Sure, so did everyone else-it's called "the holiday season." Here's what I noticed, that everyone else may have missed (and yes, I do notice this every day-I live in New York City but I like to pretend that I write for a national audience-your actual experience may vary): People are assholes.
That's it. People are assholes.
How else to explain the fact that on my five hour flight from JFK to LGB (AKA Long Beach Airport), the "gentleman" behind me decided to chow down on a giant pile of corn nuts (is that one word? "cornnuts"? "cornuts"? I don't know because I'm not rotten enough to eat the filthy devil snacks!). If you are unfamiliar with corn-nuts, allow me to explain: They are corn kernels processed in such a way as to make sure that when a person crunches them open, thereby releasing their internal nasty-gas and allowing it to mix with human saliva and lung vapor, the resulting stank is heinous in the extreme. Like, heinous to the extent that your mild-manored narrator, ordinarily a charming and peaceful man, seriously considered perpetratin' like he was gonna get up and pee only to walk a row back a break a man's nose.
Overreaction?
No.
This was a man confined on a plane eating corn-nuts!!!
Has he never smelled corn-nuts???!
How the f&$k about "do unto others"?
Seriously.
I don't give a good god-damn if you love the smell of corn-nuts-breath, if you have a corn-nuts-breath scented tree hanging from your car's mirror-
How the hell about a little goddamned common mother-fu^%ing sense?
Howzabout exhibiting the sense that says "hey, I like corn-nuts, and I LOVE stinky-ass tuna sandwiches, but maybe I should hold off on indulging my passion for smelly crap until I'm in a place where that indulgence won't force innocent bystanders to be my stank-ass co-conspirators?"
And while I'm on a rant:
NOBODY likes the smell of your perfume and/or cologne enough for you to jam it up their ass on an elevator!!!
If I can smell you on an elevator, you either should have taken a shower and eschewed the artificial stank, or you just can't smell and need to hire a competent smeller to clear you for public consumption before you walk out the door.
I know it seems like I'm nuts and that I'm simply mining a single incident for an overblown blog post, but I swear to whatever deity you can dream up, a week after the initial corn-nuts incident, on my flight back to JFK, there was ANOTHER corn-nuts eating piece of crap on the plane!!! (Yes, it may have been Fritos-just as bad! Keep them both in the privacy of your own homes please!)
The corn-nuts/Fritos scourge is clearly an epidemic. It may indicate that the offendors don't give a damn if they cause others to suffer. More likely, I think, is that we have reached a point where it simply doesn't occur to most people to think whether or not others will suffer. "Corn-nuts? Tuna? Limburgher and onion sandwich? Poop and peppers casserole? Whatever, dude-I paid and I'm eatin-suck it!"
The golden rule? I don't (and can't) ask that it be followed in all circumstances-but when you're in a metal box, breathing recycled air for five to five and a half hours...?

That about sums it up...

Josh Marshall, proprietor of the TPM media empire, handicaps the primary races in today's installment of TPM tv. This quote captures the sunny state of play on the Republican side.

Who is the most likely person to still be the Republican nominee? Mitt Romney. So Mitt Romney, obviously he's in a lot of danger in Iowa, he's a terrible phony, a repeated flip flopper, but the bottom line is because he didn't have a mistress slush fund, he doesn't hang around with mafiosos, and he didn't get a serial rapist out of jail because a bunch of anti-Clinton whack-jobs convinced him that the guy was a victim of the system, you have to assume Mitt Romney is still the one to beat in the Republican nomination battle...

Even if Clinton, certainly not my preference, wins the Democratic nomination, I'll cast my vote gleefully for her. Being so happy to vote against [insert eventual Republican nominee here] makes being happy to vote for someone almost superfluous.

Translation: Eff you.

Classic. The look on Clinton's face after Obama's quip is priceless. That was one of the smoothest verbal knifings ever.

This is stupid. And the song's my new fave.

The East Bay is a weird place.

You gotta be kidding me...

Imagine, if you will, the following scene:
A cop responds to a call from a distraught mother who has just fished the limp body of her son from the family pool. While on scene, said cop slips in a puddle and breaks her knee. She subsequently sues the family for having "negligently" left a puddle on the floor...of the house where they took the child who had just been pulled, lifeless, from the pool.
The child is profoundly brain-damaged from the ordeal and the cop was out on paid disability leave for a spell. Has anyone checked to see if she broke her head along with her knee? How does anyone this cop runs her plan by say anything but "if you sue those people, I will never have anything to do with you again"? Including her mother, her husband, her best friend, and her children. Sure, she should have the right to bring any kind of jack-assed, frivolous suit she wants, and have it tossed out of court fair and square. That's a civil right she enjoys, godblessamerica! And those of us with some sense of common decency have the right to shun her like a whore-loving puritan.
Good lord...


PS: Obligatory law-school-guy comment: I'm pretty sure her case is crap. It's called assuming the risk. And yes, this story will be turned into a thousand torts exam fact patterns come finals season. Guaranteed.

Per-octer?

Can I be the only one who looks at the new(ish) White House Press Secretary, Dana Perino, and thinks "Ainsley Hayes?" Ainsley Hayes, you'll remember, was the sharp, conservative young woman tapped to be assistant white house counsel for a couple of seasons on the West Wing. Played by Emily Procter, she was a mighty cute young lady and witty as all get-out to boot. And her sense of civic duty was just enchanting. I've done only a perfunctory google search to find out if anyone else has made the Perino-Hayes connection, but so far, nothin'. Really? It seems so obvious...or maybe I'm just a lecherous old liberal with a soft spot for pretty blond conservatives.

Steve Gilliard

Steve Gilliard has passed away after a months-long illness.
This is an incalculable shame. I can't add much to the outpouring of grief and tribute that has met the news, but I would be an ingrate if I didn't try.
I found Steve's blog via James Walcott of all things. It was around 2004, I think. I was immediately drawn in by his utter non-weaselly-ness. Steve never couched his opinions in the language of "it seems" or "there might" or "I think." What Steve thought is what was as far as he was concerned. I was instantaneously hooked, and before long (like within a day or two), the News Blog was the first site I went to each morning after checking my email. And throughout the day it was "check the email, then check the News Blog," without fail. And I check my email about 82,000 times each day, so I was really on top of Steve's action.
I started the Bush years as a pretty middle of the road "give-him-a-chance" sort of fella. I like to think of myself as a pretty reasonable guy, and by the time I found Steve's blog, I was still quite a bit more willing to listen to the bullshit coming from the right-o-sphere than a lot of liberals. As time and events passed, though, Steve's passionate, articulate stand against everything that Bush and his coterie represented never waned. He simply acquired more targets to fire his erudite criticisms at. And he was erudite. My god. Steve Gilliard was able to stomp a dumbass argument or idea down using analogies to history that simply blew my mind. His knowledge of military history was his great asset. More importantly, I have to say I don't recall anyone seriously questioning the conclusions he drew when he was on his military history jags. On a blog, that's profoundly weird. I don't think it's because he lacked for haters. There were trolls aplently over at the News Blog. But he was authoritative, and that's hard to argue with-even for a troll. Before long, I found that experience and common damned sense forced me to catch up with Steve in a lot of ways. When I started reading, he was a very articulate expositor of a position that I often didn't share, but could see the logic of. After Katrina, thousands more dead in Iraq, Plame-gate, ad-bloody-nauseum, I found myself naturally reading Steve's posts as a reflection of what I was thinking. Just phrased better.
He hadn't moved. I had. Not because he convinced me, either. I moved because he was right and smart and it just took me longer to get where he'd been sitting for years. Though his commentary certainly didn't slow the process.
One thing I got from Steve Gilliard, which I don't get from some other bloggers I read regularly, was the fact that he was a real guy with a real life, and not just some news consumption machine. His food posts, (with recipes included, thank you very much) were as sharp and as useful as what he wrote on politics. My experience as a newly minted soccer fan was immeasurably enhanced by his posts during the world cup. I had something meaningful to say about sports for the first time in my life, and that was all Steve.
I moved to Brooklyn in 2005, and I was able to slip into being a resident of New York City far more easily than I ever would have been able to manage without his help (I suspect that's a legacy he'd be at least a little proud of). Notice I didn't say "New Yorker." I'm not, and I won't be for some time, but when I am (in several decades, probably), I'll have Steve to thank for laying the groundwork.
Steve's blog was the first and only one I posted comments to with any regularity (under the moniker "Mr. Stoopid"). When I thought my posts were awesome, I was quickly reminded of how not-so they were when I read the brilliant (seriously, not kidding, BRILLIANT) musings of Lower Manhattanite or Driftglass, among the many other very sharp commenters over there. The News Blog was a community un-self-conscious about itself as a community and it drew some very talented people into its orbit. This was shown most clearly when Steve went into the hospital and Jen and Jim from LA were able to keep the joint cracking with guest posts from the locals. I came to know many of the commenters' situations (Hubris Sonic is a vet, Jesse Wendell is a doctor, etc...), and so did Steve. Before long, it became apparent that Steve wrote the way he did because he respected his readers, and he respected his readers because he knew them.
I've been reading the many tributes to Steve all over the blogosphere today (by Pachacutec, Jane Hamsher, Digby, and tons more, and have only now found out what a gentle, loving guy he was. But I should have known. It was there between the tough-as-nails lines.
Bottom line: I'll miss the hell out of Steve Gilliard. I didn't know him, but I knew the value he added to my life and to my mind.
Thanks Steve.