The Bull On Barack Killing Coal

Gimme a break.  Obama Loves Coal.

The desperate Wingosphere has latched on to an out of context quote by Barack Obama "discovered" in an interview posted online since January by the San Francisco Chronicle, spreading what no doubt will be a very effective last minute fear tactic designed to influence any vacillating members of the low-info, Appalachian coal mining, don't-need-much-of-an-excuse-to-vote-against-the-black-guy voters in Southern Ohio and Western PA and VA.  (Hidden in plain sight.)

MoveOn.org was livid with Obama because of his stance on coal.  This lie that Obama is anti-coal is so Rovian you almost have to admire the last minute smear attack on what was an Obama weakness that only in Appalachia is a strength.  Genius or dumb luck, this one is really something else.  If there was more time, it's a backfire issue that would reveal Obama at his reaching-over-the-aisle best.  Now it's just a rhetorical hand grenade.

I remember last spring when coal, specifically Obama's flip-flops on liquefied coal technology became a big frickin' deal to a lot of my John Edwards supporting friends in Blogtopia.  So stark the differences between Obama and Edwards, many of the enviro-bloggers were convinced that Edwards would win the primary on this issue alone.  No really, especially since one of Obama's co-sponsors on the bill promoting the use of the dirtiest of all fossil fuels as a transportation gasoline substitute -- guaranteed to make global warming worst, not better -- was Larry "Wide-Stance" Craig. 

That's right, Obama is so opposed to the coal industry, wants to funnel huge amounts of tax dollars to them.  Obama supports of federal money for coal as an "alternative fuel."

Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry,
lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee
billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production
plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big
government purchases for the next 25 years¦

Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate
committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants,
each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for
every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies
if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the Air Force
to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of
coal-based jet fuel.

I understand how Sarah Palin and her supporters could miss this obscure bit of news, buried on the Front Page of the New York Times.  They don't read and they don't care.

The Friends of the Earth environmental group endorsed John Edwards, and not Obama or Clinton in no small part because of this coal thing.

Q:   What is your position on Coal to
Liquid technology?   One Democratic presidential candidate cosponsored
a bill to provide taxpayer subsidies for this technology.  Edwards
opposes CtL.  What does using, let alone subsidizing, CtL really mean
for our environment?

A:   Liquid coal is a bad idea for our
country and planet. It contributes twice the amount of carbon emissions
to our atmosphere that petroleum does, consuming an inordinate amount
of water per unit of fuel, and requiring the expansion of ecologically
and socially disastrous mining practices. Unlike Clinton and Obama,
Edwards is the only leading candidate to oppose coal-to-liquid
technology.

We thought this was the ultimate stupid move for someone vying for the Democratic nomination.  You should see my email:

So why then, environmentalists ask, is Obama backing a law supporting the expanded use of coal, whose emissions are cooking the globe? It seems the answer is twofold: his interest in energy independence -- and his interest in downstate Illinois, where the senator's green tinge makes the coal industry queasy.

The coal industry praises Obama's reintroduction, with Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 last week, which would provide incentives for research and plant construction. The industry says the technology, which converts coal into diesel engine fuel, would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil through a new, home-mined fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline.

See, Edwards was much more enviro-friendly than either Clinton or Obama, as note at the time by Politico, much to the delight of the green contingent of Edwards' supporters.  I wasn't really all that green for an Edwards backer, but I noted the argument, which is why I know the latest stuff about Obama out to bankrupt the coal industry is pure fantasy.  We were bitching that Obama was in the pocket of Big Coal.

The Edwards website is history, but I'm sure there's evidence in the Way-Back Machine.  Edwards never directly mentioned his opposition to coal-to-liquid; his energy proposal included other means to utilize coal while reducing emissions, that and the absence of coal to liquid are indicated below in some of the Press Releases I saved when Obama's stance on Liquid Coal became an issue.  This was supposed to show a contrast with Obama:

Edwards opposes coal-to-liquid technology as a viable clean fuel alternative.  John Edwards’ energy plan includes utilizing coal in a “major role” so that the U.S. and the world can meet its energy needs, but he has advocated for carbon capture methods so that hazardous carbon emissions are dramatically reduced.  Edwards advocates for coal gasification technology and carbon sequestration technology in energy production, a method supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council to combat global warming.  
 
EDWARDS PROPOSED INCREASED INVESTMENT FOR SAFE STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM COAL POWERED PRODUCTION
 
2007: Edwards Called For New Coal Power Plants To Have Coal Capture Technology So That Emissions Are Stored And Not Released Into the Atmosphere.  “Edwards believes we need to find a way to use coal without heating the planet. As president, Edwards will require that all new coal-fired plants be built with the required technology to capture their carbon dioxide emissions, so plants built today will be able to permanently and safely store their carbon emissions tomorrow. He also committed to investing $1 billion a year in research and testing to jumpstart the means to store large amounts of carbon dioxide safely underground.” [Edwards for President press release, 3/26/07, http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070326-cleaner-coal/]

As you can tell, we actually thought this was a smoking gun kind of issue, that the Al Gore wing of the Democratic Party could not possibly support Barack Obama mainly due to his friendly attitude on coal. For Sarah Palin and her drooling Wingnut circus to claim he's out to destroy the industry is ludicrous.

The Obamenon

Are you buying these polls?  I mean, are you really buying these polls?


Click to enlarge.

If these numbers stay this big, and dual polls with Ohio in double digits for Obama is huge, it will redefine the meaning of the word mandate.  But to some on the right, those that wholly agreed with Dick Cheney who called a 1% popular vote win in aught-four coupled with an unnatural infatuation with the Cult of Bush a "mandate," they can only visualize an Obama win in terms "dating the man" instead of voting for him. 

Fox News' overnight show Red Eye is hosted by one such deep thinker, Greg Gutfeld, a man who never misses an opportunity to recite a Maureen Dowd column out loud:

Seriously, the man isn’t a presidential candidate, he’s a really hot chick. You know what I mean, right?

You know how when a friend starts dating some girl, let’s say a stripper with top of the line implants, he overlooks everything else. She could be spreading Chlamydia like a Jehovah’s Witness unloading a case of Watchtower pamphlets, and it won’t matter.

Blinded by beauty, he lets her get away with everything, until your buddy is left broken and broke, riddled with disease, sleeping in your garage and convinced a mob boyfriend wants him dead.

I’m not saying Barack is that harmful. I’m just saying that when it comes to the media, he possesses a force field that every hot chick has and no matter what you say or do to convince obsessed fans otherwise, it’s pointless.

Face it: If you found out that your new girlfriend, who happened to be Megan Fox, worked with ACORN, hung around with Bill Ayers and used to do coke back in college, would you care?

Of course you wouldn’t! It’s Megan Fox!

Congratulations. You’re now The New York Times.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler. (Hat Tip: Gawker)

Zeig Heil Greg.  And if you found out your "girlfriend" was a pampered coke-head who went AWOL during Vietnam, bankrupted every company he ran and had financial ties to the Bin Laden family, as long as he promised you more judges promising to abolish Roe v. Wade you and your ilk wouldn't care either.  The media swings on whatever tire is available.  But the Kool Aide drinkers and propagandists on the right are a lot less discerning as long as their pet issue is covered.

Obama: A Bigger Maverick than McCain (or Palin)

[cross posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Republicans loooooooooooove to ask "Who is Obama, really?" Here's the answer: He's the guy who (for the last two years of intense media scrutiny) expertly ran a $400 million campaign that knocked Bill and Hillary Clinton off their pedestals and secured the nomination of his party -- and more importantly, pulled the party together when it was all over. McCain himself should have the balls to acknowledge that (by his own definition) that makes Obama the biggest maverick of all time -- and someone who has shown that he can "reach across the aisle" (see "Powell, Colin" below). Obama is a force to be reckoned with and hardly a mystery man -- unless you've been hiding in the garage since 2006.

The truth is that the electorate should be asking, instead, "who is Sarah Palin, really?" She showed up 7 weeks ago, having been touted as the person who "stood up" to the sitting governor of her own party (and I defy you to even name him) and somehow this qualifies her to be president. Why? Because she's a maverick and a reformer. But really -- have you listened to her talk? We just got done having a president that talked like Palin. What did we learn? That words mean something and you can judge a person by the words they use. We don't need another president like that.

McCain now says "I am not George Bush." He might as well add "Sarah Palin is."

For the life of me I cannot understand why McCain picked Palin -- the maverick -- when it's obvious that he gave away his biggest argument against Obama in so doing. Think about it: compare Obama's last two years of public life with Palin's last two years and tell me, honestly: who is better prepared to be president? Then when you've got your answer ask yourself this question: WTF was McCain thinking?

Fact is, Palin, in all her mavericky glory, hasn't worn well in the 7 weeks she's been on the national stage. The sad truth is that the more the electorate finds out about Palin, the less they are impressed with her qualifications and (more dangersously to the point) the less they like her. She's tanking McCain's campaign and (judging by the steam coming out of McCain's ears during their joint interview last night) McCain knows it. Colin Powell (and how's THAT for reaching across the aisle?) isn't the only Republican who is shocked that McCain thinks she's qualified.

The good news for McCain? The electorate's #1 negative perception about him is no longer that he'll be like Bush. So, yes, they believe McCain is a maverick. The bad news? The electorate's #1 negative perception about John McCain is Sarah Palin.

Out Of Many, One

MCCAIN: MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUT IS 'WELFARE' -- "In other words, Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington."

Now don’t get me wrong. The people I meet — in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks — they don’t expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead — and they want to.

Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don’t want their tax money wasted, by a welfare agency or by the Pentagon. [...]

Voinovich: Obama a 'socialist' -- "He is left of Teddy Kennedy," Voinovich said. "With all due respect, the man is a socialist."

Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach our kids to learn — they know that parents have to teach, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.

People don’t expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. [...]

Palin Touts the ‘Pro-America’ Areas of the Country -- "We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America. [...]

Bachmann Calls Obama and Liberals Anti-American -- "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?" (HT C&L)

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too:

We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States.

We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States.

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. [...]

Pfotenhauer Insults Virginians: ‘Real Virginia’ Is Only Where McCain Is Winning -- "But the rest of the state — real Virginia if you will — I think will be very responsive to Senator McCain’s message."

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope? [...]

To Avoid Being 'Depressed,' Palin Skimps on Campaign News -- "At those times on the campaign trail when sometimes it's easy to get a little bit discouraged, when, you know, when you happen to turn on the news when your campaign staffers will let you turn on the news."

I’m not talking about blind optimism here - the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don’t think about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about something more substantial.

It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs. The hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores.

The hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta.

The hope of a millworker’s son who dares to defy the odds.

The hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.

Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope! [...]

McCain suggests Obama tax policies are socialist -- "At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives."

In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead.

I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity.

I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair.

I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs and that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us.

America! Tonight, if you feel the same energy that I do, if you feel the same urgency that I do, if you feel the same passion I do, if you feel the same hopefulness that I do — if we do what we must do, then I have no doubts that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, [. . .] and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come.

OUT OF MANY, ONE by Barack Obama

Keynote Speech
Democratic National Convention in Boston, Mass.
July 27, 2004

As much as I want to tap dance on the grave of the "conservative movement," it's not about picking the winning side and beating the losing side. It's about not dividing us into "sides" at all.

Frankly, I don't know if I'm mature enough to pull it off, but I sure am all in favor of electing a President who is, who will try, who will move us in the right direction instead of purposely exploiting those things that divide us and looking for more things to spread fear and unease with something or someone "different."

It has to end someday, right? The Atwater/Rove/Schmidt reliance on "wedge issue" stratagems destroy what we are and who we want to be. The only way to end it, and it won't end anytime soon, is to defeat it again and again until it no longer is a viable option in American politics.

Will Blog For Plumbing Work

The theory holds. The internetz IS a series of Tubez, that are now irretrievably clogged with the story of Joe the Not Really a Plumber from Toledo. Seriously, there's so much shit out there on Joe right now, you'd think we were vetting a vice Presidential candidate. Lord knows he took more questions, answered them more frankly if not honestly, and held more extensive press conferences than Sarah Palin.

Such is the tabloid nature of our political discourse. Biden was on Leno, McCain made up with Letterman, SNL went at it again. These venues will no doubt sway the few, the proud, the completely ignorant undecided voters that are left.

I caught McCain and Obama at the Al Smith Roast last night ... and I gotta tell ya....

I was wrong in my previous claim that John McCain reminded me of Don Rickles, even though they bear a striking resemblance. McCain came out in best tradition of Bob Hope. For you Gen Y'ers out there, ask your parents. Trust me that McCain really can clown it up and deliver a deadpan punchline as well as any professional comic.


Frankly, they got the billing wrong. Based on their sense of comic timing alone, Obama should have been McCain's warm-up act and not the other way around.

Not that Barack didn't bring the funny, he did. But as we saw in the last (thank god) debate, McCain is a natural clown. That's clearly evident in the completey unserious way he has managed his campaign and approached the issues of our time. Fortunately, judging by Obama's overwhelming lead in the polls, America is not looking for a Comic in Chief right now.

A couple of folks out there observed, I think Olliver Willis was one, that Barack Obama needed to reach a tipping point at one time or another, nudge past 50% in the polls or so where the people would find him acceptable, before we actually could elect an African-American president. That even the non-bigots out there wouldn't support him due to his race out of fear that he would lose because there simply were too many racists out there for him to overcome. Once he reached that electability threshold, the dam would burst, allowing those who otherwise liked everything else about him and had no personal reservations holding them back on account of Barack's background to support him knowing that the racial barrier had been minimalized enough for him to actually win this thing.

I think one part of Obama's surge in the polls can be attributed to that phenomenon, those Americans who regretted that Obama was not electable due to other American's bigotry now understand that we have overcome. There's still a lot of ugly out there, but not enough to keep a good man down. And of course, the economy helped Obama more than any model could overestimate, but he's kept that lead consistently.

Going back to the Al Smith performance, the dueling stand-up candidate/comics, it's just not Barack's thing. While McCain reminded me of funny-men who got their start in the Catskills back in the 40's or 50's, Obama was much smoother, cooler, but stilted. He's a great speaker, comfortable in front of a crowd -- which is no small thing folks. Public speaking is one of the most terrifying things there is, and Obama is a natural. But he's also something new when it comes to comparing him to the treasure of comedians we've known through the years.

There's been no dearth of black comics over the last 50 years, but Obama simply doesn't fit that mold. He's certainly no Redd Foxx or even a Bill Cosby, and he can't be compared to the likes of Richard Pryor or even the cleaner yet clownish Flip Wilson by any means (again kids, ask Mom). Nor did he remind me of a younger stable of comics of any race. He's no Chris Rock any more than he's a Darrel Hanna or Dane Cook. Maybe I'm being unfair, trying to compare black and white comics. Jim "Beyond the Pale" Gaffigan is whiter than white, and has no more in common with Obama than Lewis Black, who's not black and doesn't remind me of Obama either.

But it is a black thing, this idea that despite admiring all his talents, there is (or was) a segment of the people who might have held back their support for him fearing he couldn't break through because there sadly exist an undercurrent of irrational hate in the country that we just don't talk about in polite company. There's also another entertainment venue that has been a barrier to black entertainers until recently, movies.

So stand-up isn't Barack's thing. That's okay. He can deliver the lines, and they're funny, but his talents lie elsewhere. Just like he's no Jesse Jackson, he's no Martin Lawrence either. But Lawrence's co-star in Bad Boys, Will Smith, is not exactly known for his one-liners and stand-up routine. He's entertaining, often funny, but there's a little more gravitas to the Oscar nominated and golden Globe winning actor who's more in a league with Academy Award winners Denzel Washington (talk about your funny names) and Jamie Foxx than anyone on the stand-up circuit.

Small wonder that Obama himself said that Will Smith should play him in the movie of his life. Not a bad guy to be compared with when you consider Smith holds the record for the most consecutive films grossing over $100 million, ever.

Barack certainly can be funny, but there's more to him than that. He's a leader, a leading man if you will. Save for the occasional Sydney Pointier, there weren't too many black leading men who America would embrace 40 years ago. America is ready, more than ready as a culture to accept the skinny black guy with the funny name -- the Change Candidate. We've changed, and I for one cannot wait for the political change that's coming, reflecting the social change we've accomplished.

This is merely one step, but a big one. We've got a lot further to go and may never eliminate entirely the divisive nature race plays in our society, at least in my lifetime. But as a landmark along the way, "President Barack Obama" is a phrase we all should be proud of.

Whaaaa?

You almost have to admire the complete rejection of liberal leaning reality when the McCain Campaign comes out with something like this. (HT: Steve Benen):

Instead of acknowledging the real differences that exist in this
election, Barack Obama is using America’s economic crisis to deflect
legitimate criticisms of himself and his record.

Ahh yes, the genius of Obama is clear now, resistance is futile, all your votes are belong to us . . .

How dare Obama pander to small businesses, offering a rescue plan for increased loans through the Small Busniness Administration's disaster loan program to help Main Street when John McCain was rushing out with his own call for suspending mandatory withdrawal from 401(k)'s by the folks in his bridge club. 

(Nice idea that retirees over 70 aren't forced to realize a loss on those withdrawals, as long as they can afford to eat or pay for medicine without tapping into their savings and can live off something else.  Doesn't do much good for people who count on those withdraws as part of their fixed income though.)

We have been "distracted" by the oncoming Depression instead of paying attention to Teh Awesum McCain/Palin smear, jeer and puppet dinner theater in the round.  And it's all Obama's fault.  Him and that pinko media of his aren't doing nearly enough to assassinate Obama's character.

Don't you see it now?  Isn't it all quite clear?  Obama and his co-conspirators throughout Wall Street right down through every fly-by-night lender and ne'er-do-well home owners in every hamlet in America conspired to engineer a world-wide economic catastrophe in order to hide Obama's connection to to the sinking of the Lusitania and make John McCain look bad.

Those democrats have no shame.

DOW under 8000.  Damn You Jimmy Carter!!!

I'm Confused, Is This A Smear?

Break this one down for me. [Warning: Some internet traditions may be violated in linking to this AP article.]

Obama awarded Illinois grants to relative's group
The Associated Press - 1 hour ago
The group's executive director when the grants were awarded was Capers Funnye, a South Side rabbi and Michelle Obama's first cousin once removed. ...

Seriously? This was the top AP story running across my ticker. So just who was paid good money to dig up this little piece of oppo research? Why?

Uhm, yeah. So he does nice things for a Jewish guy who runs an organization "that provided job training, employment counseling, and alternative education programs to approximately 1,200 Chicago residents each year." Outrageous!!!

Who are they trying to scare now? This is kinda like the same people who whisper that Obama is a closet Muslim also being outraged by his wacky Christian minister.  There's just a searing amount of cognitive dissonance.

His wife's first cousin you say . . . well that just makes all the difference dontcha know, by golly.  I mean, Jeepers!  A Rabbi too? Well, I don't think that's the kinda faith based initiatives the Bush Administration had in mind when it was pushing precisely this kind of thing. It's obviously the wrong faith and the wrong side of town.

Boo!

Much like Congressional earmarks, Obama has been found guilty, guilty, guilty of violating no law and skirting no ethical rules in his appending various grants to "literacy programs and park improvements to drill team uniforms and jazz appreciation events," in some Illinois state legislation.

The thing IS called Blue Gargoyle though, which sounds like there might be witchcraft involved.  Maybe Caribou Barbie's witch doctor can exorcise the demons from the "job training and placement, tutoring, counseling and an alternative high school for dropouts" programs the grant paid for.

On a side note, I just sent in my application for an absentee ballot so I can vote early today.  I can't wait until the stupidity grinds down to merely intolerable levels instead of the unbearably fucking insane dumbassery we've reached.

Yes, Yes, YES HE DOES!

Via Athenae

By The Way, How Was The Speech?

You know what national problem Barack Obama did not mention last night? It's a pet complaint of bloggers on the right and left every day. Our shitty corporate media.

However, faced with such an extraordinary evening culminating a week of outstanding choreography, not even the most jaded right wing tool could deny the historic nature of what they witnessed. (Note that Hannity and O'Reilly fled back to New York instead of making insta-analysis after the speech, opting for data mining and eating boogers found under their beds and waiting for Limbaugh to write their talking points for their radio hate fests in the afternoon.)

Pat Buchanan calls a Democrat's speech the best and most important political convention speech he had ever heard, going back 48 years. MSNBC to it's credit, along with CNN backed off the commentary and just let the show unfold for the most part.

David Gergan calls a Democrat's speech a Symphony and a Political Masterpiece.


WaPo/Fox's Charles Krauthammer? Obama was "Brilliant." Even the neocon's neocon can't deny what was right in his face.

"[A]wfully impressive performance," Bill Kristol.

Greta Van Sustren: "It was a great speech." "Dazzling," "Dazzling," "Dazzling," "Dazzling," but can he deliver, deliver, deliver, deliver? (She truly is awful.) Pollster Frank Luntz answered her, predicting a predictably inflated 10 point Obama bounce, that the change Barack talks about will not come from him, but from the American people. Luntz reminded us of the line from the speech that change doesn't come from Washington. Change is brought to Washington. [Ooo, make that 5 Greta "Dazzlings."]

Bubba got their notice too.

Karl Rove had enough integrity (I can't believe I wrote that) not to simply parrot Sean Hannity disingenuously trashing Bill Clinton's speech the night before, but talked about Clinton being the first to lay the groundwork for an anti-McCain argument at the Convention -- an argument Obama ran with last night. Peggy Noonan swooned for the Clenis as well.

Even some conservative commentators were impressed. Karl Rove said on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, "He gave the best argument offered thus far on the third day of the convention for Barack Obama. He gave a comprehensive view domestically and internationally. It wasn't his endorsement tonight that mattered...but what he did do is he set a theme: Restoring the American dream at home and America's leadership abroad." Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal that "halfway through" Clinton's speech "I thought: The Master has arrived. Crazy Bill, the red-faced Rageaholic, was somewhere else. This was Deft Political Pro Bill doing what no one had been able to do up to this point at the convention, and that is make the case for Barack Obama."

So, how did Rove assess Obama's acceptance speech? "Clintonian." High praise, at least in what passes for gray matter between Rove's ears. Rove mostly played the role of wonk instead of speech critic, examining the argument Obama make that he saw coming from the Bill Clinton preview, and advising how to counter it. I think he knows there's just no use fighting rhetoric and symbolism against our guy with their guy, who just isn't up to the task.

They're all putting a happy face on everything, but you can just tell the GOP punditocracy is freaked. It must be even worse in the lobbyist encrusted trenches of McCain Central.

Lone Fox nay-sayer Juan Williams was unsatisfied that not enough inspiration, not enough emotion, not enough MLK (even though having MLK,III and his sister speaking should pretty much cover that). Williams felt Obama didn't take advantage of the moment, not giving us enough of the stuff McCain and Co. says is the reason Obama is all fluff.

To Williams, I say: ENOUGH.

When You've Had ENOUGH!

You want only one thing.


Photo Via Kossack Iceberg Slim who has tons more from every night of the convention.
:
Best soundbyte of the night.

"Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and independents across this great land — enough!" Obama said. "This moment — this election — is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On Nov. 4, we must stand up and say: ‘Eight is enough.' ”

Balloon Drop? Feh! Lemme see the GOP beat fireworks and confetti cannons M.F'rs.

But that's just fluff, indicative of the phenomenal support team that made Barack Obama unbeatable. But the red meat I've been dying to hear from him was reported this way by MoJo's David Corn:

Obama sounded strong; he looked strong. "If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice--but it is not the change that America needs," he said. Obama warned McCain to stop questioning his patriotism: "I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first." And, he said, don't go pulling the same-old, Rove-like stunts, accusing Democrats of being nothing but tax-raisers and national security weaklings:

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America--they have served the United States of America.

And the smart campaigning goes on. Think about how many more contacts they make in the swing state of Colorado for the GOTV effort by opening up this historical event to 75,000 people. They picked up another 30,000 text-message subscribers across the nation tonight as well.

Givin’ It Away

Bob Somerby thinks that liberals are blowing the presidential election (as usual) because of our too high-minded reaction to John McCain’s dogwhistles. Obviously, white people are still living in a bit of denial about American racism and the doubt went to the white guy over last week’s kafuffle, even as Obama’s charge about McCain trying to scare people by using Obama's face on our currency was revealed to be absolutely true. So let’s go with a different tack, shall we?

Dear Barack:

We’ve had our “issues” as of late but I still have no doubt that you’re a world better than the other guy, so here it is:

John McCain doesn’t seem to think you’re very smart. He thinks you can’t tell the difference between a campaign about the issues we all want to work on and one based on empty personal attacks. He thinks you want this campaign to be about Britney Spears and Charlton Heston and The Matrix.

I think that the American people are smarter than that. They don’t want to be fooled again into making a bad choice because of baseless attacks on someone’s character. They want a campaign based on the important issues and policies that are at stake in this election. So when you hear me compared with some celebrity, or super hero, or Moses, or that I’m too presumptuous, just remember that my opponent is playing you for a sucker.

That’s how you do jujitsu. I’m charging you for the next one.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Lemme Tell Ya Bout Bad Votes

It was early July of an election year when a bona fide liberal, a staunch defender of the progressive cause was facing a contentious election against an entrenched conservative Senator who would pull out all the stops; painting his less experienced challenger as weak on the tough-guy stuff of national security, a pussy when it came to fighting and killing the evil-doing muslamonazi terror.

Despite being nearly incomprehensible on the stump and surrounded by corrupt and incompetent cronies, the Conservative Senator knew he could count on his legion of lobbyists to fund his campaign of fear and lies. The insurgent challenger correctly judged the temperament of an electorate that was sick to death of GOP rule, but leery as always of something unfamiliar. But he also knew that the only hope for his cause was to beat the Conservative. That was job one.

And politics being what it is, the liberal challenger was put in a box with few good options. He was in the House of Representatives at the time and the day came when the abomination known as the Military Commissions Act came up for a vote, complete with the despicable abolition of habeas corpus clauses and hideous codification of torture. A law so egregiously contrary to what this nation stands for, not even a Supreme Court more to the right than the day it selected Bush as the 43rd Resident could find a way to make it Constitutional, and has knocked it down at every turn.

Sherrod Brown (D-OH) turned his back on his principles and voted for the MCA, a decision he lived to regret but pledged to make up for that mistake. His vote against FISA is one step in that direction.

Barack Obama made just as profound a mistake by not doing all in his power to stop the legislative pardon just handed to the telecom giants and the criminal cover-up by the White House for committing over 30 consecutive felonies by reauthorizing their illegal surveillance. Obama was in a similar box, with bigger stakes and fewer options than Brown in July of 2006.

There were only four sides to the box
.
1. Don't show like McCain.

2. Vote for FISA like he did, reluctantly while on record endorsing the defeated amendments that would have stripped the bill of the telecom immunity clauses.

Or . . . Fight the bill which leaves two possible results.

3. This junior Senator cashes in his political capital before even accepting the nomination of his party for President, leading his slim majority from the back bench and convincing enough Republican Senators to honor his filibuster, thus handing the Presumptive Democratic Party Nominee the legislative coup of the millennium, confirming that he is indeed the second coming.

4. Obama leads a doomed filibuster attempt, a futile gesture that confirms the next month's Fox News talking points that the Democrats are in disarray, will not support Obama, and that he is a feckless and naive politician who has a lot to learn about leadership and the realities of Washington D.C.

He picked number 2. It was clearly the best of bad choices from his perspective. Your mileage may vary, and your Quixotic instincts are noble indeed if you believe he should have gone for 3 or 4. Would that it were true that following through on all good intentions were rewarded or even possible in Versailles on the Potomac.

It would have been the right move, but not a winning move, and America rewards winners, not philosophers. Ask George McGovern, John Kerry and Al Gore, or even Ted Kennedy about how hard it is running for President when you're a liberal, despite knowing in your heart of hearts that you are on the right side of history and have a vision of what this nation can truly become if it listens to its better angels.

Sherrod Brown has to live with stories like this, as he washes the blood from his hands:

. . . Huzaifa Parhat, a member of China's Uighur ethnic group, a Muslim people who are subject to continued oppression by the Chinese government. Parhat had fled China to Afghanistan, which he in turn left when his refugee camps was bombed by the Americans, fleeing this time to Pakistan, where he was turned over to U.S. forces for a bounty payment.

He has been held as an enemy combatant for over six years without charges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has now ruled that absent some proof of his enemy combatant status he must be released. Interestingly, the government while continuing to press his enemy combatant status, has evidently cleared him for release -- unfortunately there is no country to which to return him. Such is the state of justice in this country seven years into the term of a president who has shamed us in so many ways that they are hard to enumerate.

I don't relish the thought of being an Obama apologist. He has more than enough of those, and chief amongst those should be the Senator himself -- with an act of atonement by President Obama, fixing this miserable FISA law and punishing those who abused their powers these last seven years again and again and again under cover of executive fiat.

However, at least Obama doesn't have detainees like Huzaifa Parhat on his conscience, or record. In fact, his extraordinary speech against the MCA was probably the highlight of his first year in the Senate.

When you are sitting in the Oval Office, or don't have to face reelection for another six years in the Senate, you can afford to be a statesman. When the election day is quickly arriving, however, it's all about politics, not principle. That's just the way it is, and Barack Obama always knew that.

One of the reasons I believe the FISA bill got rammed through now is because Obama and Harry Reid didn't want this to hang over the election like the MCA did in September of '06, when the Senate finally got around to approving what the House had done in July. He didn't want to make another speech like this, 9/28/06:

"I may have only been in this body for a short while, but I am not naive to the political considerations that go along with many of the decisions we make here.

I realize that soon, we will adjourn for the fall, and the campaigning will begin in earnest. And there will be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces, and we will be criticized as caring more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans. And I know that the vote before us was specifically designed and timed to add more fuel to that fire.

[snip]

Politics Won Today

But politics won today. Politics won. The Administration got its vote, and now it will have its victory lap, and now they will be able to go out on the campaign trail and tell the American people that they were the ones who were tough on the terrorists.

And yet, we have a bill that gives the terrorist mastermind of 9/11 his day in court, but not the innocent people we may have accidentally rounded up and mistaken for terrorists - people who may stay in prison for the rest of their lives.

So folks, all I have left to say is that you better put on your big boy or girl panties and suck it up. This ain't bean-ball we're playing and we've got people dying out there from war and poverty and sickness, people that will keep dying if the GOP can keep a hold of the White house and keep a strangle-hold on Congress. We've got innocent folks being tortured, kid being blown up for no damn reason on the streets of who knows where, and a corporate kleptocracy raping our resources and stealing our future -- and you're all pissy about Bush bugging your phone.

Get over it. The conservatives have been fighting us liberals as if we were the real enemy in a real war. It's about time to wake up and realize we're in a war and fight back, which included tactical retreats like we witnessed this week. We got bigger fish to fry right now. We can fix FISA the same day we close down Gitmo and indict Cheney and Rove.

So, I Got This Bumper Sticker

From MoveOn.Org, that is a nice pretty shade of blue that even matches my car.

It says "Obama '08," and it was free!

Dartboard or car? Dartboard or car?

Quandary.

(BTW, nice move Hillary.)

My less than heartfelt answer is continued support for Barack Obama, and I'll slap the dart-hole free sticker on the car.

Why?

Step one, rid the bureaucracy of the neo-cons.

Step two . . . (something about underwear gnomes, I forget)

Step Three, profit? Happiness? Utopia? I dunno, but we gotta do Step One.

I just keep going back to the saying, never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

That was Voltaire, who also said, "Love truth, but pardon error."

We can make bumper stickers out of Voltaire's best sayings and be even prouder of our bumper-bling. He would still be considered a progressive today, and recognize that many of society's ills he abhorred are in full force despite a couple of centuries of revolution and "democratic" institutions.

Voltaire perceived the French bourgeoisie to be too small and ineffective, the aristocracy to be parasitic and corrupt, the commoners as ignorant and superstitious, and the church as a static force useful only as a counterbalance since its "religious tax" or the tithe helped to create a strong backing for revolutionaries.

Reading Voltaire reaffirms my commitment to refer to the "Inside-the-Beltway" crowd as more than simply, "The Village" but "Versailles on the Potomac Villagers." We've come so far to fight the same battles. Fortunately, we're better armed for having men like Voltaire, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Hamilton gone before us -- leaving us a framework to fight these battles against a foe too full of itself or too ignorant to even know or care who Voltaire is, and why these are words to live by:

Let us read, and let us dance; these two amusements will never do any harm to the world.

As for FISA, Like his contemporary, the "conservative" Edmund Burke who said that "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny." Voltaire tells us that, "If you want good laws, burn those you have and make new ones."

We have the technology. We can make our laws better than they are.

That will never happen with John McCain in the White House.

It Is Not About You

It's next to impossible this Independence Day not to be reminded how far we still have to go in building this "more perfect union" when the leader of the more liberal political party, uhm . . . evolves his positions almost immediately upon securing the nomination -- something he accomplished in no small part due to the support of the most ardent progressives and the liberal online community.

And he's walking it back, all those things we "hoped" he would be, but really never was.

What really is mystifying, or rather simply infuriating is how easily and predictably we are again left at the alter. McCain, the "Maverick" has done somersaults moving to appease his extreme right base, and the Democrats tag along for the drift to the right as well, despite clear evidence that this of all years, such a "safe" move is unnecessary.

What the politicians don't see, because there is no contrary evidence to convince them, is that the "safe" move to the right is actually dangerous, if not to the nation then to their ambition. There are no consequences for the progressive movement being ignored. We simply aren't perceived as offering the same credible threat of backlash as do evangelicals or obsessive tax-cutters and militarists. Our attention to detail, engagement and enthusiasm present a different dynamic. We won't stay home, know better than to get burned by the Nader protest vote again in this lifetime, and don't have enough clout to bring about real change.

Today the blogosphere is abuzz with Barack Obama's online address on the FISA issue. This is promising, but not heartwarming.

Yes, he used our medium to talk directly to those of us who are most vocal in our opposition to his support of this obviously flawed position. But since he didn't change his stance, Glenn Greenwald thinks the statement was "worthless," Paul Rosenberg at Open Left doesn't think Obama's statement will fool any of us that are paying attention, and Marcy Wheeler doesn't think Obama knows what he's talking about.

I agree with them all, but unsaid is that Obama knows exactly who he's talking to, and it ain't you my dear over-informed blog reader. He's talking to the under-informed, as usual. This time he's just not doing it through the usual media filter. He added a step. But his target, ally and nemesis is always the Versailles Villagers on the Potomac -- or does Digby have to spell it out for you again?

And this is because our political narratives are written by corporate conservatives and disseminated by their rich celebrity employees who actually seem to believe their "values" are shared by Real Americans. One of the most brilliant narratives was the notion that "the left" is unpatriotic. After all, suppressing dissent on that topic has kept the bipartisan Military Industrial Complex gravy train rolling for more than 50 years. It's perfectly natural that the new Surveillance State would be folded into that at the first opportunity, and the corporations that provide all the technology would necessarily want a piece of that action. There's huge money to be made in government contracts and the idea that any corporation would do something to endanger such possibilities over something so trivial as the constitution is naive. They agreed to work together for very good reasons and they do not want any interference.

But it isn't just about money it's also about political power. The effect of this decades long propaganda program has been to inculcate the idea among many Americans that liberalism itself is unserious. It's become so reflexive that any Democratic politician is automatically granted respect from the political establishment for the mere act of defying his own voters. It is considered a sign of courage and gravitas and a necessary right of passage.

What Obama considers important is winning. Not your petty concerns about the rule of law or following the Constitution. It's not like he sat down and took on commenters in a free-for-all exchange at a site like Daily Kos -- and he would have been foolish to do so. He doesn't need to. What he does need to do is have the corporate media report that he engaged us laptop hippies, was nice enough to stoop to our level for which we should be duly impressed, and still supports the "adult" position. NAFTA, Iraq, the list of rightward tacking grows daily.

In a day and age when all of the collective members of the media informed the world exactly when and where the race for the Democratic nomination was over -- because the saintly Tim Russert said it was so -- the progressive online community has a long way to go to be more than a curiosity or a prop in their play.

The lesson is, we just have to keep plugging away.

Two Faces and No Brains

I wonder if the Village Gasbags will be able to figure out who is demeaning whose service?

“I can't speak for them, but we all know that General Clark, as high-ranking as he is, his record in his last command I think was somewhat less than stellar."
-- Orson Swindle, John McCain Campaign

Just in case there’s still some question what actually demeaning a war veteran’s service looks like:

Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."

Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his bronze star...I know, I was there, I saw what happened."

Jack Chenoweth: "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day."

Admiral Roy Hoffman: "John Kerry has not been honest."

Adrian Lonsdale: "And he lacks the capacity to lead."

Larry Thurlow: "When he chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

Bob Elder: "John Kerry is no war hero."

Grant Hibbard: "He betrayed all his shipmates...he lied before the Senate."

Joe Ponder: "He dishonored his country...he most certainly did."

Bob Hildreth: "I served with John Kerry...John Kerry cannot be trusted."

The plain fact is, the Gasbags have no moral or rational authority to judge the matter, they relinquished their credibility and responsibility to do so four years ago.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Playing by the Rules

I’ve always thought that one of the main reasons the Village Press hated the Clintons and Al Gore was because it was so obvious that Bill, Hillary and Al were much smarter people than them all. With egos at least as ginormous as any politician, that cleverness gap had to stick in their craws in a way that it never would, for obvious reasons, concerning any Republican. But, smart as they may have been, the Clintons and Vice President Gore never understood the new rules that were being invented just for them. They were playing a fool’s game – and the Clintons still managed to beat the Village at it – because they were playing as though there were still liberals in the corporate press and that reason and truth would prevail.

Which brings us to today’s campaign. Am I the only one who thinks that the Obama campaign is winning big here and that the media is being played badly? The conversation has begun – “it’s out there” as they say – does McCain’s record as a (not-very-good) fighter jock and POW more than thirty years ago in some way qualify him to be Commander-in-Chief? At the same time, Obama “rejects the statement” and “honors and respects Senator McCain’s service.” How is Obama hurt by this? How is McCain?

And now we can let the bloviators compare this honest question to what was done to John Kerry. Remember how Kerry’s record was fair game because he brought it up and Bush and Rove pretended like they had nothing to do with the SBVT? Democrats didn’t make them up but Obama seems to have learned the new rules. As Ara likes to say, if I were having any more fun, I’d have to be twins.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Running To and From Their Base

Digby really, really nails it tonight. I've been saying for years, as has Digby, that the Republicans' real enemy are liberals, and that they will fight terrorism (and as she points out, any threats to national security, or crime or assaults on "family values") when convenient and advances their anti-liberal agenda.

Repudiating liberalism is a symbolic gesture required of Democrats by the political establishment to prove that they are not elitists. And it goes beyond mere posturing on gay marriage or abortion. The national security challenge is always not to appear to be "an appeaser." The way you prove that is by refusing to appease the Democratic base. The economic challenge is to walk very carefully on taxes because it "costs jobs" for the hard working man and the struggling businessman alike who are in this thing together against the liberal elites. The cultural challenge is to not appear to be too friendly to blacks or too unfriendly to socially conservative religion in order to prove that that you are not beholden to the "extremists." The entire construct is based upon Democrats distancing themselves from their most ardent supporters (which is quite convenient for Republicans.)

We do their dirty work for them. This puts a political straight-jacket on someone like Barack Obama, who must prove that he's not beholden to where he came from. Indeed, it's the very reason someone like Obama can exist at all. As he mentioned in his books, he's not one who is ideologically driven, never was. If he were, he would have been much more easily dismissed by those who are most threatened by him.

In talking about the swiftness with which Obama will break our hearts as progressives, Miles Mogulescu at HuffPost admonishes:

Progressives should not give Obama an easy pass on his FISA turnaround. We must continue to stand for the 4th Amendment protections against warrantless wiretapping, criticize Obama's turnaround, challenge the constitutionality of the FISA legislation in court, and if Obama is elected, continue to build a movement to pressure Obama and a Democratic Congress to amend the FISA act to restore Constitutional protections.

And we won't. True liberals won't anyway. I cannot for the life of my conceive of what it would take for me to simply say, "Okay, go ahead and listen to every conversation everybody has, monitor every email and text message, keep track of every detail of every purchase and bank transaction -- I trust my government and every individual who works for it to do the right thing with this information, and anyone who objects must have something to hide."

Preposterous.

It would be easier for me to give up smoking than give up the idea that the freedoms we Americans supposedly cherish would remain intact under such a regime, many of which are already a thing of the past when airport screeners can order a strip-search on a whim and border agents clone your laptop's hard drive, legally, without even a pretense probable cause could be shown.

I honestly don't think conservatives set out to create a police state. It's just the nature of the beast they chose to fight. Appeals to personal liberty is a mighty powerful tool politically, and speaking up, shouting down "the man" and talking truth to power is just what we liberals pride ourselves on doing. If we're for it, they have to be against it -- especially if in our zeal and honest conviction that we're doing the right thing we could gain credibility in the political as well as social/cultural arenas.

Backed by the wealth of the corporate interests they serve, the conditional responses of the god-fearful's obsequiousness to authority, and their willingness to exchange integrity for a pity slogan -- their attempt to control nearly every aspect of society is merely a byproduct of how they define themselves, anti-liberal, and the tenuousness of their coalition whose demands must be met in their entirety or doom the movement.

We on the other hand, suffer from Bullworth Syndrome, (see also: Bullworth Factor) See this quote as well:

Angry black woman: Are you sayin' the Democratic Party don't care about the African-American community?
Bullworth: Isn't that OBVIOUS? You got half your kids are out of work and the other half are in jail. Do you see ANY Democrat doing anything about it? Certainly not me! So what're you gonna do, vote Republican? Come on! Come on, you're not gonna vote Republican! Let's call a spade a spade!
[Loud, angry booing]

I submit the world conservatives envision is unnatural, that more social consciousness and egalitarian principles are our natural state of being. That fact is why they work so damn hard in both over and subversive ways to defeat it by any means possible. The problem is that Democratic politicians can play into that game without consequences. That's why it's imperative that you understand you can vote for Barack Obama and loudly object to him of all people succumbing to the Bullworth syndrome. Don't let him forget who brought him to the dance.

The truth, you see, has a natural, liberal bias.

Would He Really Have Voted Against The War?

Image courtesy SiFu Tweety Fish and some other folks
who weren't exactly thrilled with Hillary or Barack from the get go.

Didn't ya kinda hope he wouldn't break your heart until next year?

There was something inevitable about Barack Obama pissing off the netroots way before he he let anyone else down. We pay attention, so we're the first to know when his liberal credentials fail our tests.

The primaries are over. We have now entered the battle for the low-information voter. The people who don't or won't even start paying attention until the conventions or later, seeking out the center, the easily swayed. Now to me, this is a tried-and-true strategy that is antiquated and misguided. More people than ever are engaged, paying attention and energized by eventuality that George Bush will no longer be entitled to the honorific, "Still" President.

Centrism and triangulation are strategies, but not ideologies. They do not provide a core set of beliefs, a structure upon which to develop a decision tree. A Centrist stands for . . . nothing. And save for the Villagers on the Potomac, they do not exist in real life.

First he lagged behind all the other candidates on proposing truly universal health care, waited to see what everyone else did on funding the war then followed Hillary's lead after pressure from Edwards and Dodd and shouts from us rabble, took a stupid stand on dirty liquid coal, equivocated on public campaign funding, and I said nothing.

He told the ladies still stinging from Clinton's narrow loss to get over it, and I said nothing.

I took the advice of friends and allies not to bash a fellow Democrat, and when it looked like he had it won about five months before Hillary would admit it, I criticized her for not going along with the program. I never thought he was our best candidate, but to me he was better than Senator Clinton and all her baggage. But he wasn't the liberal champion I want and believe we all need.

He's a parade chaser, judging (very well, I might add) which way the public is leaning and running out in front, but always leaving a safety line so he can walk it back. Smart politics, but hardly inspired leadership. In fact, it's not leadership at all.

Yes, yes. He was against the war and wants us to believe that if he had been in the Senate, on the most highly charged vote in decades with historical significance we can still only guess at five years later, Barack Obama says, "Yes, you can believe" that he would have stood with the brave, principled minority and actually voted NO on the Iraq War.

Balderdash. Not after we saw him leave Chris Dodd out to dry in his fight against immunity for the telecommunication giants.

Folks, he ain't all that special, JUST WAY BETTER THAN THE ALTERNATIVE! If he was more than the projected hopes and fantasies of whatever we want him to be, he wouldn't be so many things to so many people. (John McCain so, so very much worse. He's nothing, so very little to so many.)

I saw a lot that made me wince, but it never seems as blatantly (I hesitate to use the word) calculated -- but close -- as Hillary Clinton. Knowing how important it is to rid this world of Republican Party rule, I said nothing.

Now the guy, my guy, the authentic liberal guy who pushed and pushed and pushed him to do the right things, say the right words and vote the right way (rather, the "left" way actually) wants me to send him money.

I got a fundraising letter from John Edwards on behalf of Barack Obama today -- and I'm sending nothing.

You Shall Know Them by Their Fruitcake

It takes a wingnut to take someone else’s words, say they mean something completely different from what they are saying and then castigate the person for that twisted, unstated meaning. John McCain, having nothing to offer in public policy (he's a Republican) – other than perpetual war in the Middle East (and who knows where else) and short term, ineffective gimmicks – has been running his campaign on just those sort of distortions about what Barack Obama “is saying” when he is saying nothing of the kind.

But it takes a special kind of evangelical whackjob of a wingnut to attack someone by saying essentially the same thing they are.

Evangelical whackjob James Dobson says that, “[Barack] Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament,” in response to Obama saying exactly that:

"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asked in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?"

Dobson’s Focus on the Family spokesman, Tom Minnery, gets it exactly backward when he claims, "Many people have called [Sharpton] a black racist, and [Obama] is somehow equating [Dobson] with that and racial bigotry." Actually, Obama had contrasted not equated Sharpton and Dobson:

"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?"

Dobson himself claimed that it is "lowest common denominator of morality," and that it is a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution," for Obama to say:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values. It requires their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason."

Dobson can claim that reason, argument and universal values are immoral and pretend that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution doesn’t exist but that makes it pretty hard to argue that the other guy is the one who is nuts.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

I Write Letters

The following was in response to this Op/Ed by Jack Kelly, a columnist for The Toledo Blade and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Beyond the absurdity of the premise Mr. Kelly advances that not only can Senator John McCain win the upcoming election, it could be a landslide as every single indicator of the public's preferences indicate that all momentum favors the Democrats this year -- as any objective political analyst who values his integrity would acknowledge -- why does Mr. Kelly feel it necessary to mischaracterize Barack Obama's position on nuclear power?

Mr. Kelly says. "Mr. McCain also supports building more nuclear power plants, which Mr. Obama opposes." This is inaccurate at best. Indeed, according to OnTheIssues.org, much to the chagrin of liberal and environmental activists, Senator Obama believes "Nuclear power ok if we safeguard against waste terrorism. (Sep 2007)" and that we should, "Explore nuclear power as part of alternative energy mix. (Jul 2007)"

Noting that Mr. Kelly relies on an analysis of Senator McCain's energy proposals from noted neoconservative John Podhoretz speaks volumes by itself, they both conflate what is in candidate McCain's best interest -- what he should do to win -- with what is in the nation's best interest. While not necessarily mutually exclusive, those two ideas require separate and often conflicting rationales.

His Op/Ed also gratuitously throws out Senator Chris Dodd's name, a recent rival of Obama for the Democratic nomination, as a transparent way to mingle the subprime mortgage crisis with Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular, failing to note that Senator McCain's principle economic advisor, financial industry lobbyist and former Senator, Phil Graham, practically created the current troubles in the financial markets single-handed by pushing through deregulation of lending institutions, allowing them to engage in the high risk investments that have fallen under their own weight.

It's one thing to try and fix the mess in a controversial way, like bailing out Countrywide, or to have even gotten favorable loan terms from them -- and paid the loans back in full. Quite another to have been responsible for it in the first place, which cannot be laid at Chris Dodd's or Barack Obama's feet.

Mr. Kelly is clever, but his goal obvious. Now that I know his game I intend to be more vigilant in monitoring his writing and alert others to it as well.