Woman in Charge, Women Who Charge

Woman in Charge, Women Who Charge

By Judith Warner

Is it a coincidence that the bubbling idiocy of “Sex and the City,” the movie, exploded upon the cultural scene at the exact same time that Hillary Clinton’s candidacy imploded?

Literally, of course, it is. Figuratively, I’m not so sure.

And before I set off an avalanche of e-mails explaining why Hillary deserved to lose, I want to make one point clear: I am talking here not about the outcome of her candidacy – mistakes were made, and she faced a formidable opponent in Barack Obama – but rather about the climate in which her campaign was conducted. The zeitgeist in which Hillary floundered and “Sex” is now flourishing.

It’s a cultural moment that Andrew Stephen, writing with an outsider’s eye for the British magazine the New Statesman last month, characterized as a time of “gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind.” A moment in which things like the formation of a Hillary-bashing political action group, “Citizens United Not Timid,” a “South Park” episode featuring a nuclear weapon hidden in Clinton’s vagina, and Internet sales of a Hillary Clinton nutcracker with shark-like teeth between her legs, passed largely without mainstream media notice, largely, perhaps, because some of the key gatekeepers of mainstream opinion were so busy coming up with various iterations of the nutcracker theme themselves. (Tucker Carlson on Hillary: “When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.” For a good cry, watch this incredible montage from the Women’s Media Center.)

Stephen is not the first commentator to note that if similarly hateful racial remarks had been made about Obama, our nation would have turned itself inside out in a paroxysm of soul-searching and shame. Had mainstream commentators in 2000 speculated, say, that Joe Lieberman had a nose for dough, or made funny Shylock references, heads would have rolled – and rightfully so.

But 16 months of sustained misogyny? Hey — she asked for it. With that voice, (“When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘Take out the garbage’ ” Fox News regular Marc Rudov, author of “Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables,” said in January). With that ambition, and that dogged determination (“like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court,” according to MSNBC commentator Mike Barnicle) and, of course, that husband (Chris Matthews: “The reason she’s a U.S. Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.”). Clearly, in an age when the dangers and indignities of Driving While Black are well-acknowledged, and properly condemned, Striving While Female – if it goes too far and looks too real — is still held to be a crime.

In a culture that’s reached such a level of ostensible enlightenment as ours, calling a powerful woman “castrating” – however you choose to put it – ought to be seen as just as offensive as rubbing your fingers together to convey a love of gold coinage when you talk about a Jew. It’s nothing other than an expression of woman-hate — and the degree to which such expressions have flourished, in the mainstream media and in the loonier reaches of cyberspace this year, has added up to be a real national shame.

Which brings me back to “Sex and the City.”

How antithetical Hillary’s earnest, electric blue pants-suited whole being is to the frothy cheer of that film, which has women now turning out in droves, a song in their hearts, unified in popcorn-clutching sisterhood to a degree I haven’t seen since the ugly, angry days of Anita Hill and … the first incarnation of Hillary Clinton. How times have changed. How yucky, how baby boomerish, how frowningly pre-Botox were the early 1990s. How brilliantly does “Sex” – however atrocious it may be – surf our current zeitgeist, sugar-coating it all in Blahniks and Westwood, and yummy men and yummier real estate, and squeakingly desperate girl cheer.

Take Miranda: a working mother archetype for an anti-woman age. She’s so callous now that she won’t let her nanny eat a decent meal, and so defiantly sexless that she’s let her pubic hair grow in. Take Charlotte: the Good Mommy, with an angel’s face and no employment, a seemingly limitless credit line and an adoring troglodyte of a husband (so short, so bald, and yet so good with the gelt). And then – please – take Samantha. At 50, she’s the one girlfriend aged enough to bear the baggage of old-time, Clinton-era feminist sentiment. She’s a self-centered heart-breaker, a real man-eater — you should see how she rejects a drooping roll of sushi — her corruption made manifest by the fact that, at film’s end, she develops (gasp!) a gut.

Yes, a gut, girls, like yours and mine and that of virtually any real woman who’s over 35, or has had children, or has something more important to do than full-time Pilates.

“Sex and the City” is the perfect movie for our allegedly ever-so-promising post-feminist era, when “angry” is out and Restalyne is in, and virtually all our country’s most powerful women look younger now than they did 20 years ago.

Oh, lighten up, I can hear you say. Don’t get your knickers in a twist.

Earnestness is so unattractive (in a woman).

Democratic Nomination Things! Yay!

I'm sure you've all already heard this, but Obama got the Democratic nomination. I'd like to get gleeful over it, but we knew this was going to be the case months ago.

The transcript of his speech is here, and the video follows.

Dana over at En Tequila Es Verdad adds:

Note to Hillary: Get the Fuck Over It

Last night, Obama effectively clinched the Democratic nomination, becoming the first black man to ever have a real shot at the nation's highest office. The news doesn't seem to have reached Hillary Clinton:

For nearly a year and a half, the biggest hurdle between Obama and the nomination was Hillary Clinton. Now that the race is over and Obama’s the nominee, his next biggest challenge is still Hillary Clinton.

Indeed, for those of us expecting a graceful farewell speech, Clinton’s remarks were a bit of a curveball. It was almost as if news of Obama’s victory hadn’t reached them yet. McAuliffe introduced her as the “next president of the United States.” Clinton congratulated Obama, not for winning, but for running a great race. At one point she said, “No matters what happens in this race…” as if the race remains unresolved. Clinton added that she would be “consulting with supporters and party leaders, to determine how to move forward,” as if she was still pondering how to launch a comeback. Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down” played as Clinton smiled and waved. The Clinton campaign sent an email to supporters referring to the campaign in the present tense.

As Dana Goldstein put it, “The more I think about it, the more it seems that Hillary’s entire speech was manufactured to rile up her supporters — instead of priming them to shift their allegiance to Obama. Yes, there’s a situation with Michigan and Florida. But is it really fair for Clinton to claim that her 18 million supporters nationwide have been made ‘invisible?’ Who’s supposed to be the bad guy here, scary Howard Dean? Clinton is offering more fighting rhetoric. But the fight should be over.”

This is getting fucking pathological. It seems the little switch in Hillary's brain marked, "You've Lost, Retreat and Fight Another Day" is broken. She's displaying the same spectacular disconnect from reality that Bush, McCain et al suffer. She really is the psycho ex-girlfriend of the Democratic Party. She's become something of a stalker. Obsessive letters and escalating odd behavior may not be far behind.

Hillary! It's not about you, so hang up your hat

Hooray for Australian news sites.
Anne Applebaum
May 9, 2008

Clinton's refusal to see reality is damaging her party and Barack Obama.

ARE you tired of the US election campaign? Not really sure what they're arguing about any more? If you're feeling as if you've lost the plot, don't worry. It's not because you're not American, or because you haven't been paying close enough attention: we Americans feel exactly the same.

The malaise that the endless Democratic primary campaign has inspired across the political spectrum was summed up by writer Nora Ephron, who described the ongoing contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as an "unending last episode of Survivor. They're eating rats and they're frying bugs and they're frying rats and they're eating bugs; no one is ever going to get off the island and I can't take it any more!"

Ephron wrote that a month ago, and nothing has changed. On Tuesday night, primary votes in North Carolina and Indiana once again confirmed everything we knew already. Obama is still safely in the lead, both in the popular vote and in the delegate count. Clinton is still behind. And even if they keep going until the Democratic convention in August, Obama will still be safely in the lead, and Clinton will still be behind. For Clinton to win now, she has to get her party to change the rules of its primary, post hoc (apparently she is planning to try) or bring more states into the union.

Which is ridiculous — but so is this campaign. If you've found the election hard to follow of late, that's because the only real issue at stake is Hillary Clinton's extraordinary, irrational, overwhelming ambition. As I write this, rumours that Clinton intends to drop out are in circulation. Allegedly, she cancelled her talk show appearances yesterday. Allegedly, her campaign is utterly broke. And yet no one can be certain that she won't fight to the last delegate, using up every cent of her own money (she lent her campaign another $6.4 million last week) and every last ounce of the Democratic Party's credibility, because everything we have learnt about her in the past few months indicates this is possible. Clearly, she wants so badly to win that she will try anything — and we know that "anything" includes adopting positions and methods of a kind she once claimed to abhor.

She is not above smear tactics, among them attempts to link Obama to '60s radicals, people with whom he had only the slightest contact, if at all. She is not above hints, verging on racist, that a black man can't win the general election. She is not above exaggerating her achievements, claiming to have helped "bring peace" to Northern Ireland and to have dodged sniper fire in Bosnia.

Bizarre though this will sound to foreign ears, she has also spent much of the past two months trying to remake herself as a whiskey-drinking, gun-toting, blue-collar politician, the candidate of the working class. Although she is a multimillionaire whose best friends are multimillionaires, although she spent most of her life among what can only be described as the elitest of the liberal elite, and although her opponent was raised by a single mother and went to university on scholarships, she has run around in circles trying to convince people that he is the elitist, and she is the populist.

The Chicago Tribune analysed her speeches and determined that she was using grammar and vocabulary several grade levels below that deployed by Obama, "the language of the least-educated, lowest-earning voters". At one point, this long-time supporter of gun control described how her father taught her to shoot.

It would take a psychologist, not a political analyst, to explain why she does this. To prove some feminist point? To show that she's the equal of Bill? To take revenge for Monica?

Still, barring a "deus ex machina" or an Obama implosion of some unpredictable kind, sooner or later she'll have to step down. When she does so, she'll leave a divided party in her wake, as well as a candidate seriously weakened by her prolonged campaign.

You may be bored by the election campaign, but the Democratic Party, when it wakes from this nightmare, will be very angry. And if John McCain beats Obama in November, it is not the Republican Party, but Hillary Clinton who will be blamed.

Anne Applebaum is a columnist with The Washington Post . This article first appeared in the Telegraph.

Evangelical leaders urge step back from politics

Christians become 'useful idiots' when faith is politicized, group says

Reuters

updated 3:35 p.m. ET, Wed., May. 7, 2008

DALLAS - A group of U.S. evangelical leaders called on Wednesday for a pullback from party politics so that followers would not become "useful idiots" exploited for partisan gain.

One in four U.S. adults count themselves as evangelical Protestants, giving them serious clout in a country where religion and politics often mix. Conservative evangelicals have become a key support base for the Republican Party.

But the movement has had growing pains and the statement issued on Wednesday, called an "Evangelical Manifesto," is the latest sign of emerging fractures as some activists seek to broaden its agenda beyond hot-button social issues such as opposition to abortion and gay rights.

"Christians from both sides of the political spectrum, left as well as right, have made the mistake of politicizing faith," the manifesto declares.

"That way faith loses its independence, the church becomes 'the regime at prayer,' Christians become 'useful idiots' for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology in its purest form," it said.

The manifesto was signed by leading and mostly centrist evangelicals, such as Leith Anderson, president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals; Mark Bailey, president of the Dallas Theological Seminary; and evangelical academic and author David Gushee.

Many of the more than 70 signatories have been critical in the past of evangelical partisan involvement that was seen as the crucial element behind President Bush's re-election victory in 2004.

Leading figures on the conservative "Religious Right" such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, did not sign the document, and his office said he had not been asked to sign it.

Limited political impact
Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative Washington think tank that explores the relationship between religion and politics, said of the statement: "It's a sign of maturation of the evangelical movement ... It's an important theological document, but it will have limited political influence because it is making essentially a theological argument."

The document also highlights divisions that have been there for a while as some leading evangelicals attempt to redirect the movement's considerable energies toward areas such as action on global poverty and climate change.

Polls show growing numbers of evangelicals receptive to a wider social agenda and Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been attempting to woo them in a bid to peel some away from the Republican camp ahead of the November election showdown with John McCain.

But analysts say most are still center-right politically and polls consistently show most remain opposed to abortion rights. They are also deeply committed to their faith.

"We have a big umbrella called evangelicalism which is theological in nature. We are called to be followers of Jesus Christ and men and women of the book," said John Huffman, a pastor and chairman of the board of Christianity Today.

Huffman, who helped draft the document, told Reuters by telephone that the group wanted to bring back "civility of discourse in the public square."

Copyright 2008 Reuters.

Daily Kos on the Proposed Gas Tax Vacation

Reposted from Daily Kos, obviously.

Deja vu

by kos

Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:25:21 AM PDT

Uh oh.

"I want to know where people stand and I want them to tell us, are they with us or against us when it comes to taking on the oil companies?" [Clinton] added.

[...]

Wait, with us or against us? Isn’t that Bush’s line?

Making matters slightly worse, the Clinton campaign acknowledged yesterday that every policy expert of every ideological stripe has described the McCain-Clinton idea as nonsense, but they don’t care.

"There are times that a president will take a position that a broad support of quote-unquote experts agree with," spokesperson Howard Wolfson said. "And there are times they will take a position that quote-unquote experts do not agree with."

Remember the last time a president took a "with us or against us" line? And remember the last time a president ignored what the policy experts cautioned?

Yeah, me too. I have no desire to relive the Bush Administration yet again.

Because when you ignore the policy experts, you end up with the exact opposite of what you think you are trying to accomplish, as Steve Benen notes.

In the with-us-or-against-us formulation, it’s particularly odd that Clinton insists opponents of her gas-tax idea "stand with the oil companies." By all indications, she has it backwards.

Economists ... say the oil companies may end up the biggest beneficiaries, while the aid to families wouldn’t be enough to buy a $35 backpack.

The trouble with the plan, they say, is that oil prices are rising because of low supplies, and companies will continue to charge the average $3.60 a gallon and just pocket the money that would have gone to federal taxes.

"That’s $10 billion, and it’s going into the pockets of oil refiners," said Leonard Burman of the Tax Policy Center in Washington. "The last time I checked, they didn’t need it."

Supplies are "being cleared at the current price," said Donald Parsons, an economics professor at George Washington University in Washington. "If you take away the tax, you’ll have the same number of consumers willing to buy the gas at the same total price."

Clinton may have a political winner on her hand. I have no doubt it's been worth a few points in Indiana and North Carolina. But invading Iraq was a political winner for Bush, until Middle East experts (and by "experts", I don't mean the morons at the AEI) were proven correct by reality.

It would be nice to have a president who listens to reason, and not one who panders with bad policy in the mad pursuit of power.

Conspiracy!

A Clinton advisor is claiming conspiracy over a youtube video making the rounds. He claims to have said, "How would you like to be in the White House right now?" But the story is that he called people from Indiana "worthless white niggers."

The video that caused the ruckus has been taken down, and here is the original. It's not getting as much play, but in the interests of giving people something they can actually watch... here it is. The phrase in question is at about 4:47. He definitely says, "Those people are shit/shitting," but it's up to you whom he was referencing and what else was said.

Edit: The more I think about this, the more I think it really is a non-issue. Someone on my LJ mentioned that it does make sense for Kantor to have been talking about the Bush camp "shitting" over the results favoring Clinton in that other Clinton election many moons ago. More importantly, he brought something up that I feel is a pressing concern.

To take such a scenario as credible seems to require having pre-emptively decided that no one associated with the Clintons is a decent human being.

I think there's this drive to turn the petty non-issue bickering back at Clinton, if only to show that Obama's not getting talked about because he's the sleaziest dude around... but because the Clintons are willing to "go there," while taking advantage of the fact no one's doing it to them. So yeah, there's a tendency now to leap on the Clinton camp scratching and tearing, if only as a reaction to receiving huge piles of the same from them.

Still. Saying "they started it" doesn't really excuse it, and this is a tendency that even I'm not immune to (obviously).

It's a high standard and even I'm not living up to it as well as I should. But even having said that, I feel we can do better. If nothing else, I can do better. Props to arctangent for reminding me.

Because the best way to empower women is to rob blacks of their vote.

From this entry by insomnia.

Recently, there were numerous reports in North Carolina of anonymous, caller-ID blocked robocalls in North Carolina from a black man claiming to be a "Lamont Williams", urging voters in predominantly black communities to return their voter registration form to the State Board of Elections... without voting.

Well, it turns out that these anonymous calls from a ficticious black male were made by Women's Voices Women Vote, a D.C.-based PAC which aims to boost voting among "unmarried women voters."

Unfortunately for WVWV, the State of North Carolina was able to track them down and the media attention was significant, so they put out a statement saying that it was a mistake...

Nevermind the fact that the calls are clearly illegal, as calls that use a blocked phone number and provide no contact information are a clear violation of North Carolina rules regulating "robo-calls" (N.C. General Statute 163-104(b)(1)c). It is also a Class I felony in North Carolina "to misrepresent the law to the public through mass mailing or any other means of communication where the intent and the effect is to intimidate or discourage potential voters from exercising their lawful right to vote."

... or that they're not targeting women voters with these calls, and apparently too ashamed to even identify themselves and promote their efforts to register women voters.

... or that they made the same "oops!" mistakes in Arizona, Wisconsin, and numerous other states, which led to the State of Wisconsin singling WVWV out as having "ignored or disregarded state deadlines" . . . causing "hundreds of Wisconsin voters who think they registered in advance" to not be. Jan Brewer, Arizona' Secretary of State, was even more blunt in her criticism, calling the organization's tactics "misleading and deceptive".

Of course, the unbiased nature of WVWV would be a lot easier to believe if Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, wasn't one of their boardmembers.

But please, don't be swayed by the fact that the organization is run by a major Clinton donor who donated $4200 to Hillary, another $2500 to H
ILLPAC, and a whopping $5000 to Emily's List, donating to them after they publically endorsed and started campaigning for Hillary Clinton.

You could perhaps overlook the fact that despite WVWV's supposedly neutral stance on the candidates, the organization's founder practically gave an endorsement speech for Hillary Clinton at the 2007 WAND/WILL conference.

... and did I mention that the organization's Executive Director worked for Bill Clinton,"assisting in the development and implementation of all polling and focus groups done for the presidential primary and general election campaigns"?

Now, ordinarily I would say this could potentially be a mistake... but when you repeat the same mistakes over and over again, are repeatedly called on it, and not only fail to change the content of your robocall campaign, much less the timing... well, that sounds an awful lot more like a carefully-thought out voter supression tactic to me...

... with legal advice provided by Holly Schadler, "an operator for the Clinton White House", who "along with Robert Bauer and Judith Corley--two of her partners at Perkins Coie--incorporated the Back to Business Committee, set up in 1994 . . . to defend Bill and Hillary." This committee later became part of James Carville's "Education and Information Project", which performed the same function: protecting the Clintons by attacking their critics. Once again, Schadler was one of the founders of James Carville's project, willing to dedicate her time and energy to discredit and potentially run ads against an independent federal prosecutor appointed to investigate the President.

Really, this org's repeatedly "accidental" slimy acts of voter supression, combined with numerous hardcore ties to Hillary Clinton's campaign makes "Swiftboat Veterans For The Truth" look like a bunch of kids making mudpies.

For such a professionally advised organization, how could they possibly overlook the fact that they have a responsibility to the public and to the states whose laws they repeatedly violated? In what way *don't* their repeated criminal acts justify that *someone* gets thrown in jail for at *least* a few months?!

I'm including this because obviously not everyone watches my LJ friends page. Seriously, though. This guy's a great blogger, and you should all go comment on this entry over there.

What in the MOTHER FUCK.

How did I not ever hear about the Juanita Broaddrick thing? Fuckin' A. This is what I get for being in grade school during Clinton's presidency.

Juanita isn't the only one: Bill Clinton's long history of sexual violence against women dates back some 30 years

Women have been charging Bill Clinton with sexual assault since his days as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 30 years ago.

A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''

Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home operator, told NBC's Lisa Myers five weeks ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC shelved the interview, saying they were confirming all parts of the story, but finally aired it Wednesday night.

Broaddrick finally took her story to The Wall Street Journal, which published her account of the brutal rape at the hands of the future President, followed by The Washington Post and some other publications.

But Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that Broaddrick's story is only one account of many attempted and actual sexual assaults by Clinton that go back 30 years.

http://www.hench.net/z101600a.htm

AN OPEN LETTER TO HILLARY CLINTON
BY JUANITA BROADDRICK
'DO YOU REMEMBER?'
SUNDAY OCT 15, 2000

As I watched Rick Lazio's interview on Fox News this morning, I felt compelled to write this open letter to you, Mrs. Clinton. Brit Hume asked Mr. Lazio's views regarding you as a person and how he perceived you as a candidate. Rick Lazio did not answer the question, but I know that I can. You know it, too.

I have no doubt that you are the same conniving, self-serving person you were twenty-two years ago when I had the misfortune to meet you. When I see you on television, campaigning for the New York senate race, I can see the same hypocrisy in your face that you displayed to me one evening in 1978. You have not changed.

I remember it as though it was yesterday. I only wish that it were yesterday and maybe there would still be time to do something about what your husband, Bill Clinton, did to me. There was a political rally for Mr. Clinton's bid for governor of Arkansas. I had obligated myself to be at this rally prior to my being assaulted by your husband in April, 1978. I had made up my mind to make an appearance and then leave as soon as the two of you arrived. This was a big mistake, but I was still in a state of shock and denial. You had questioned the gentleman who drove you and Mr. Clinton from the airport. You asked him about me and if I would be at the gathering. Do you remember? You told the driver, "Bill has talked so much about Juanita", and that you were so anxious to meet me. Well, you wasted no time. As soon as you entered the room, you came directly to me and grabbed my hand. Do you remember how you thanked me, saying "we want to thank you for everything that you do for Bill". At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me? You repeated your statement, but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the last eight years. You said, "Everything you do for Bill". You then released your grip and I said nothing and left the gathering.

What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to continue to keep quiet? We both know the answer to that question.

Yes, I can answer Brit Hume's question. You are the same Hillary that you were twenty years ago. You are cold, calculating and self-serving. You cannot tolerate the thought that you will soon be without the power you have wielded for the last eight years. Your effort to stay in power will be at the expense of the state of New York. I only hope the voters of New York will wake up in time and realize that Hillary Clinton is not an honorable or an honest person.

I will end by asking if you believe the statements I made on NBC Dateline when Lisa Myers asked if I had been assaulted and raped by your husband? Or perhaps, you are like Vice-President Gore and did not see the interview.

Juanita Broaddrick
Arkansas

Flag pins>living wage.

A blog entry from one of my new favorite bloggers over at En Tequila Es Verdad

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

The Carpetbagger Report has a quick overview of "red meat" issues for both parties:

So, for Dems, throwing red meat to the base is taking on wage discrimination and insurance companies denying coverage. For Republicans, it’s constitutional amendments on gays and the flag.

Someone's priorities seem to be a little fucked up. Maybe I'm just sheltered, but I haven't had anyone tell me that they put flag protection above a livable wage. Why do people vote Republicon, again?

In related news, Republicons not only have difficulties with priorities, they seem to have a congenital inability to understand science:

Programs teaching U.S. schoolchildren to abstain from sex have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins, health groups told Congress on Wednesday.

The Bush administration, however, voiced continuing support for such programs during a hearing before a House of Representatives panel even as many Democrats called for cutting off federal money for so-called abstinence-only instruction.

[snip]

Rep. John Duncan, a Tennessee Republican, said that it seems "rather elitist" that people with academic degrees in health think they know better than parents what type of sex education is appropriate. "I don't think it's something we should abandon," he said of abstinence-only funding.

That's the most entertaining definition of elitist I've heard so far. An "elitist" is someone who actually knows what the fuck they're talking about compared to, oh, say, John or Jane Public. Lemme tell you something from experience: some parents don't have the first fucking clue about what's best for their kids. They have a completely pollyanna view of what their darling angels get up to, and no amount of reality changes their minds. Back in the day when my high school classmates were trying to get AIDS education on the agenda, their parents were saying, "But our kids don't have sex." This, mind you, is when an average of five girls were running around pregnant out of a student body of 500. Females are half a given population. You do the math and tell me nobody's having sex.

But for Republicons, anyone with a better understanding of reality than them is "elitist." Feels good to be an elitist, don't it?

Speaking of the terminally reality-challenged, John McCain's cunning plan to assist struggling families in our tanking economy is - wait for it - to offer "choices" on such things as education and health care, instead of providing what he likes to call "hand-outs." He further shows his spectacular lack of common sense by making this little speech before people who wouldn't be able to afford those choices should they be presented. Carpetbagger turns him over a knee for a well-deserved spanking:

So, on the one hand, McCain wants to cut taxes dramatically to benefit “corporations and upper-income families,” and on the other, McCain wants to cut federal spending. Since spending cuts for the military and national security are off the table — indeed, he’s vowed to
increase spending on both — it would necessarily mean McCain would make billions of dollars in cuts in spending that would benefit those who aren’t in “upper-income families.”

But if you’re in Appalachia and living in poverty, forget about a “handout.” In a McCain administration, they’re reserved for the same wealthy interests that have benefited throughout the Bush years.

What’s more, in about five months, Republicans will tell these same people in impoverished areas that they shouldn’t even consider voting for Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton) because what really matters are flag pins. It’s like an arsonist telling a family whose home is on fire not to trust the man outside in the firetruck.

Indeed 'tis.

Just had to pass that on.

Links!

I've gotten very backlogged, so I'm obviously not doing these stories justice just by linking them all. Still! There's something to be said for relaying.

Which Democrat Has the Administrative Experience to Be An Effective President? Compare How Well They've Managed Their Campaigns

None of the presidential candidates has experience managing a large executive branch agency or serving as governor. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain have all served as legislators, but never in executive office.

The largest organization any of them have led is their respective campaigns. So if you want to learn something about how well they will manage the people in their administrations, you can learn a lot by seeing how well they have managed the people in their campaign organizations.

Obama at the Helm

Deep into a primary campaign that was supposed be over by now, Barack Obama must still answer one fundamental question. Jeremiah Wright notwithstanding, it's not whether he's too black. It's whether he's too green. Hillary Clinton has made Obama's inexperience her chief line of attack, and if she goes down, John McCain will pick up where she left off. Luckily, Obama doesn't have to rely on his legislative résumé to prove he's capable of running the government. He can point to something more germane: the way he's run his campaign.

Presidents tend to govern the way they campaigned. Jimmy Carter ran as a moralistic outsider in 1976, and he governed that way as well, refusing to compromise with a Washington establishment that he distrusted (and that distrusted him). Ronald Reagan's campaign looked harsh on paper but warm and fuzzy on TV, as did his presidency. The 1992 Clinton campaign was like the Clinton administration: brilliant and chaotic, with a penchant for near-death experiences. And the 2000 Bush campaign presaged the Bush presidency: disciplined, hierarchical, loyal and ruthless.

Of the three candidates still in the 2008 race, Obama has run the best campaign by far. McCain's was a top-heavy, slow-moving, money-hemorrhaging Hindenburg that eventually exploded, leaving the Arizona senator to resurrect his bankrupt candidacy through sheer force of will. Clinton's campaign has been marked by vicious infighting and organizational weakness, as manifested by her terrible performance in caucus states.

FISHY WAY OF SHEIKING THE MONEY TREE

QUESTION: Is it appropriate for the spouse of a US senator and a presi dential candidate to be in business with the leader of a foreign country?

A foreign country that has lots of matters before the US government?

Answer: No.

Hillary and Bill Clinton's tax returns from 2000-2006 reveal that he made at least $8 million from foreign sources and another $15 million from Yucaipa, which is owned by supermarket magnate and "Friend of Bill" Ron Burkle.

It's been reported that Yucaipa manages the financial portfolio of Dubai's ruler - Emir Mohammad bin Rashed al-Maktoum.

So how much of Bill's earnings came from Burkle really come from the Emir's petrodollars?

And what does Bill bring to Yucaipa? A rolodex of contacts made while he was president, and nothing else.

By the way, this is the same Emir who aggressively boycotts Israel and has been cited for human rights violations by the State Department.

How much did Bill get from the Emir and what did he do for it? The tax returns don't say and the Clintons aren't talking.

Obama Questions Clinton on Trade

``Here's what you can't do. You can't spend the better part of two decades campaigning for NAFTA and PNTR for China, and then come here to Pennsylvania, and tell the steelworkers you've been with them all along,'' Obama said. ``You can't say you are opposed to the Colombia Trade deal, while your key strategist is working for the Colombian government to get the deal passed.''

In response, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said, ``Senator Obama's speeches won't hide his condescending views of Americans living in small towns.''

Clinton was scheduled to address the gathering later Monday. Both candidates are hoping to secure the endorsement of the influential United Steelworkers union, which backed Democrat John Edwards before he dropped out of the race. Steelworkers president Leo Gerard introduced Obama to the crowd, saying, "We're tired, we're frustrated, we're angry and we need somebody who's going to stand up for fair trade."

In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

And! In other news (non-election-related, I swear!)

Yemeni judge dissolves 8-year-old girl's forced marriage

A Yemeni judge dissolved the marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a man nearly four times her age, and the girl's lawyer said Wednesday that the court also ordered the youngster removed from the control of the father who forced her into the wedding.

The lawyer, Shatha Ali Nasser, said the girl is just one of thousands of underaged girls who have been forced into marriages in this poor tribal country at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula.

The girl's story has drawn headlines in Yemen because she took the unusual step of seeking out a judge on her own to file for divorce.

Bitterness in Rural America

Obama's "Gaffe:" Some Perspective

I had to take a second to find an article that wasn't ridiculously biased, and included analysis on both sides of this. This blog entry seems pretty good for that.

We're dealing tonight with a classic Kinsleyian "gaffe," where a candidate says what he means and then is forced to account for it. Let's separate, for the moment, the politics of Obama's words from the argument he is making.

At his San Francisco fundraiser, Obama was sketching out a variation of the Thomas Frank argument about working class voters who seem to choose candidates whose policies cut against their economic interest. In Obama's version, working class voters in the Midwest have been inured to promises of economic redress because both Democrats and Republicans promise to help and never do; since government is a source of distress in their lives, they organize their politics around more stable institutions, like churches or cultural practices, like hunting. The outlet for their economic duress is in lashing out, in giving voice to their grievances; In Obama's formulation, Republicans are especially eager and willing to exploit cultural trigger points.

"But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

There is some truth to this. Even John McCain has expressed a similar sentiment about immigration politics.

But the perilous words for Obama are "bitter," "cling to," "guns" and "religion." Those disinclined to put themselves in Obama's head will read the sentences and see Obama dismissing both religion and American gun culture the opiates of the masses and suggesting that their faith and lifestyle are the product of their bitterness. Voters may believe that one's position on cultural issues is a better reflection of their inner values than one's position on economics.

The substance of what Obama said has the makings of a very good Firing Line broadcast. (Alas...)

The elite media and most Democrats will say... "yeah.. .So? Obama is simply describing world as we know it." His opponents and people who are inclined to view Obama as an elitist will say, "he is dismissing the culture and religion of working class whites."

Indeed, the responses to Obama's words have proven (to Obama allies) a part of his argument. Conservatives are already portraying Obama as liberal, elite, out of touch with the values of ordinary Americans -- exactly the type of legerdemain that Obama was pointing to.

So there's a debate to be had about substance.

But the politics are unquestionably dangerous for a candidate whose appeal depends on him transcending traditional political adjectives like "liberal" or "elite."

Despite his working class upbringing, Obama's hyperconfidence sometimes translates as holier-than-thou, elitist, aristocratic, Dukakis-esque. Republicans know that these attributes aren't popular in middle America, so they will use every opportunity to remind independents and moderates about them.

Obama's professorial disquisition at a fundraiser reinforces in real time these stereotypes. And the complexity of his subject matter does not lend itself to an easy response.

One bright spot for Obama: his campaign's response to the story was quick and strong. Obama himself extemporaneously incorporated a defense of his remarks about an hour and a half after the story broke; the Obama campaign sent reporters examples of similar comments made by Hillary Clinton; the campaign entrusted Tommy Vietor, a mid-level spokesman, to give its official response; had a more senior campaign official given the response, it would have conveyed panic.

Obama's response is as follows:

And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said we’re going to make your community better. We’re going to make it right and... nothing ever happens. And of course they’re bitter. Of course they’re frustrated. You would be too. In fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing happened across the border in Decatur. The same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you.

And so people end up- they don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.

So I made this statement– so, here’s what rich. Senator Clinton says ‘No, I don’t think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack’s being condescending.’ John McCain says, ‘Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he’s obviously out of touch with people.’

Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain—it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he’s saying I’m out of touch? Senator Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I’m out of touch?

No, I’m in touch. I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania. I know what’s going on in Indiana. I know what’s going on in Illinois. People are fed-up. They’re angry and they’re frustrated and they’re bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington and that’s why I’m running for President of the United States of America.

I've lived in small-town midwestern America since I was twelve. And, uh... yeah. He's in touch with me. He's in touch with the people I know who vote for officials and politicians who don't give a fuck about their economic interests simply because they've stopped trying to find politicians who care about their economic interests. The best they can do is find someone who'll let them keep their guns, who'll let them build churches on every corner so that they can turn to God to solve problems that mortals in office don't seem to be interested in fixing.

It's bitterness plain and simple to label the government as hopelessly and unfixably corrupt, and to take that one step further and deny that anyone should even try to do better. That's bitterness, and bitterness is often a natural reaction to being seriously seriously screwed over. Rather than, oh I dunno, stop screwing people over, Clinton and McCain are just denying that the bitterness is there.

So you decide for yourself who's demeaning and devaluing the feelings and experiences of rural Americans. The candidate who acknowledges that bitterness and traces it back to political injustice, or the candidates who want to hide that people are upset in the first place?

People are bitter. They are upset. Like Obama said, you would be too. Acknowledging that is not disrespectful or condescending to rural Americans. Ignoring it is.

What's that about electability?

Don't Be Fooled: Obama Is Actually Leading Hillary By 1-2 Million Votes

Many DNC insiders fear that if Hillary Clinton manages to lose the pledged delegates, she may still take the lead in the popular vote, thereby causing the superdelegates to make a hard decision as to which candidate they should choose come August. Their fears are rooted in the notion that Clinton is only behind by roughly 800,000 votes, and that she could feasibly catch up with a big win in Pennsylvania.

They'd be wrong.

In fact, Obama leads in the popular vote by anywhere between 2 million to 3 million voters. How is this possible? The reason lies in the ever elusive math of the Democratic caucus.

When voters everywhere were watching the returns of, say, Kansas on Super Tuesday, most of them naturally assumed that Barack Obama won 27,172 votes to Hillary Clinton's 9,462. But those aren't voters they're counting, they're really just more delegates. County delegates. The county delegates represent an undefined amount of peoples' votes, depending on how many people arrive to the caucus and how many county delegates are assigned. This number could be anywhere from 5 to 100 people and beyond.

Since there is no exact number of how many votes are actually represented in a caucus, let's just round it out to 20 voters per delegate, out of morbid curiosity. That means each delegate, on average, represents about 20 people, and we will multiply the final tally by 20.

Therefore, in Kansas, Barack Obama gained 543,440 votes to Hillary Clinton's 189,240 votes. This is a far wider margin of victory than Clinton supporters would like to admit, but decidedly more accurate.

But let's just say, for arguments sake, that we're overestimating how many people a county delegate represents. Let's call it 10 rather than 20. Then the tally becomes 271,720 votes for Obama, and 94,620 for Clinton. Still a substantial victory. And that is the absolute rock bottom lowest average estimate.

If we apply this math to all of the caucuses, the results are astounding. But to be fair, we won't count Texas for the final tally. Their caucuses were basically repeat voters who most likely voted in the Primary earlier in the day. Also, there are no clear figures as of yet for Washington and Wyoming.

There have been 13 caucus states so far in the Primary and Clinton has only won one of them. Obama handily defeated her in Iowa, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii and Wyoming. Clinton won Nevada.

The current tally of county delegates (that are available) for these states, has Obama at 366,764 and Clinton at 156,563. When we multiply these numbers by 10, it puts Obama at 3,667,640 and Clinton at 1,565,630, a margin of roughly 2 million votes.

When this math is applied to the final tally, it puts Obama ahead of Clinton by 2,300,000 votes, a far cry from the 800,000 most DNC insiders think is the estimate.

Obviously, there is no way to truly estimate how many people these county and city delegates represent. But the fact remains, these caucus tallies are not accurate depictions of the popular vote, nor are they representative of any singular person or voter. Multiplying these figures by 10 gives a far more telling story towards the truth. And when the Clinton Campaign makes blind claims that they may somehow trump Obama on the popular vote, they may not clearly realize how far behind they actually are in the count.

There are many people who estimate that a state pledged delegate represents roughly 10,000 voters. So, in August, the DNC members need to ask themselves this one question: If a state pledged delegate does not represent a single voter... then why should a county delegate?

HRC's Post-Iowa Panic!

I saw all sorts of interesting things while I was following links through a couple of blogs I've begun reading. Stuff that seemed worth mentioning.

New Hampshire Will Be Key Battle in GOP Civil War

Obama faces the prospect of severe and hostile vetting from his primary opponents, however. Upon her arrival in New Hampshire this morning, Hillary Clinton signaled that she intends to play on Obama's as yet unexploited political weaknesses: "Who will be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine?" she asked at an appearance in Nashua.

Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.

Along the same lines, ABC reported that Clinton aides gave the network various examples, of Obama's controversial stands. The aides cited Obama's past assertion that he would support ending mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, pointing to a 2004 statement at an NAACP-sponsored debate: "Mandatory minimums take too much discretion away from judges."

Yeah, this sounds a lot like desperation from that camp. As Phoebe replied to Yglesias' mention of this silliness:

Obama's death penalty reform was passed unanimously in the legislature, got the endorsement of COPS and PROSECUTORS, and started out completely divisive and doomed. Just -- look:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/barack_obama_/2008/01/obama_against_police_torture.php

Not only is it not too liberal, but it's - all by itself - more than she's ever accomplished in her damn life. Or ever could.

This was something I didn't know about before. Thanks, Senator Clinton! One more reason to vote for Obama.

Another amusing point. In case people didn't believe me when I said that Clinton will change her tune to pander to whomever can get her elected....

In Analysis: Clinton goes for young voters, this point was made:

It wasn't long ago that Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign scoffed at the notion that young voters would deliver an election. How quickly things can change.

Just seconds into her speech Friday morning, Clinton was declaring herself the candidate for America's youth — stealing a page from the new Democratic presidential front-runner, Barack Obama. The night before, the under-30 crowd came out in larger numbers than ever in Iowa caucuses normally dominated by the AARP-card set, delivering victory for the Illinois senator who promised to bring change to Washington.

That's why after her third-place finish in Iowa, Clinton got off her plane in New Hampshire and declared: "This is especially about all of the young people in New Hampshire who need a president who won't just call for change, or a president who won't just demand change, but a president who will produce change, just like I've been doing for 35 years."

"I'm running for president to reclaim the future — the future for all of us, of all ages, but particularly for young Americans," she said a few seconds later.

(snip)

"I did very well with people over 45, and I didn't do as well with people under 30. I take responsibility for that," she said. "I'm going to talk over the next five days as much as I can about creating opportunities for young people."

I thought this was a hilarious comment.

Hillary is now the new candidate for young people, since that’s what propelled Obama to victory in Iowa and she wants to win in New Hampshire. Because, obviously, despite her age and the common wisdom about needing to appeal to the AARP set, she’s going to boldly declare that children are our future and if we teach them well we can let them lead the way. Also, despite being the candidate for young people, she’s going to continue to question Obama’s experience, which, as every young person who’s ever lost a job to someone older knows, “experience” is totally not AT ALL code for “youth.” Good plan, honey. Do you think you can get your advisers to lay off the hooch and come up with a consistent message? That might help equally as much.

Oh, Hillary. *playful chuck under the chin* You so silly.

Blah blah random election stuff

Barack Obama's voting record!

Huzzah! More stuff to look at. I think I'm getting a little better at this "informed voter" thing. Still. This is a really really cursory glance, and I'm sure there's a lot that I'm missing. If I should be including something and it's not here, lemme know. Also keep in mind that I'm starting from Obama's and comparing other candidates with him. That's because at this point he's my pick, so you need to be aware that my perspective is revolving around evaluating him more so than the others.

From looking at this sheet (and the many times that Obama simply hasn't voted), my first thought is, "I wish he were more staunchly pro-choice." For example, I'd have wanted him to flat-out vote no to this bill trying to "adopt an amendment that prohibits funds in the bill from being granted to organizations that perform abortions when a woman’s life is not in danger, unless the organization is a hospital." Hospitals aren't the only places offering abortions, and many low-income women end up at places like Planned Parenthood.

He didn't vote on one of those wonderful alarmist bills based in the fear of "abortion predators," (itself based in assumption that older men impregnate younger women so that they can drag them across state lines and abort their babies). The idea is to keep kids from getting abortions without telling their parents. It's a noble goal, but it's based in utter bullshit, and I rather wish Obama had said no, because the damned thing passed. Hillary also said no, but McCain said yes.

However, Obama at least voted "to expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care." Hillary also voted yes on this, but McCain voted no. Same deal for this one in favor of actual sex ed.

As far as education goes, Obama voted yes on an amendment that would increase the Pell Grant maximum scholarship (by only $200, but still). This amendment failed with Hillary's support, and McCain against.

Now about those detainees. Obama didn't vote at all on a bill that'd keep the detainees from ending up on American soil, even in detention facilities. McCain was in favor of it, and so was Hillary. However, this one passed overwhelmingly, so it's kinda to be expected. I just think it's odd that Obama didn't vote. He did vote to invoke cloture (limit further debate, forcing a vote on the issue) on an amendment to reapply the habeas corpus requirement to detainees in the US. Sadly it didn't pass and the amendment kinda died that time around, but at least this time he voted. He also voted to remove language from another bill that makes it harder for people to invoke that messy habeas corpus nonsense. At least, I'm pretty sure what this was about. Correct me if you've got a better understanding. I think that my interpretation might be right, because it's the kind of thing McCain would vote against, and he did. Hillary was for it.

He voted along with most of the senate on some more regulations on lobbying and donations where members of Congress are concerned. Hillary also was in favor, but McCain was one of 14 against.

Here's a real doozy. While I'd prefer Obama be a little more into the 2nd Amendment than he is, at least he voted against this little beauty. See, the whole reason for keeping the government from disarming private citizens is so that they can't declare a state of national emergency and suspend... well, our rights. This amendment says that in a state of national emergency, the government can't confiscate legally-owned firearms. Obama was okay with this amendment, and so was McCain. Hillary plays into my paranoid fantasies by voting no.

Obama voted against English as our national language, but for English as the common language. Hillary also voted no and yes respectively, while McCain voted yes and no.

Obama, Hillary, and McCain all voted to bar immigrants with certain criminal histories. This applies to "immigrants who have participated in criminal gang activity, or have been convicted of child abuse, neglect, or abandonment, human trafficking, obstruction of justice, domestic violence, or a felony count of driving under the influence." I mean, they're reflections of pretty common fears about immigrants and their families, but that doesn't mean these criminals suck any less.

Obama voted to increase the minimum wage. Hillary agreed and McCain didn't.

Iraq! Oh, shit. We've come to Iraq. I'll keep this one brief, since I don't want to end up rambling about this topic for a long while. There was a bill that apparently was in need of some cloture (instead of sitting and being debated forever) and Obama voted for cloture along with Hillary, while McCain didn't vote at all. This bill would give the DoD some more money, as well as setting some guidelines I bet Bush hated. Check the highlights to see what I'm talking about. Cloture wasn't invoked.

Obama said yes to embryonic stem cell research, as did Hillary and McCain. Unfortunately Bush vetoed, and the override vote failed. Damn.

As for Teh Gheyz, Obama not to invoke cloture on a bill that'd prohibit states from recognizing same sex unions. Hillary and McCain agreed.

---------------------------------------
Other articles about people's career history before the senate gigs.

In Trial Work, Edwards Left a Trademark

Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. As a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits with pride.

(snip)

Indeed, there is a growing medical debate over whether the changes have done more harm than good. Studies have found that the electronic fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major surgery.

The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.

An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.

Obama got start in civil rights practice

The firm of Miner Barnhill & Galland, many of whose members have Harvard and Yale law degrees, has a reputation that fits nicely into the resume of a future presidential candidate.

"It's a real do-good firm," says Fay Clayton, lead counsel for the National Organization for Women in a landmark lawsuit aimed at stopping abortion clinic violence. "Barack and that firm were a perfect fit. He wasn't going to make as much money there as he would at a LaSalle Street firm or in New York, but money was never Barack's first priority anyway."

As far as Hillary Clinton goes... I dunno about her career experience. Before doing some digging I can say all I've ever heard of her doing before her carpetbagging senate bid was plan dinner parties for her husband. Looks like she's done her work with children's and women's advocacy. This is an awesome thing to be doing, particularly if she's looking to justify the votes of feminist groups who're pushing for her election just to get a woman in office. At least she's got a good chance to do things those groups will want her to do.

I guess my objections to Hillary are harder to define. First off, it seemed like she was always pretty solidly in line with whatever Bush liked until it came time to make her own bid as a democrat. She goes with Bush on foreign policy (and hers looks a lot like what we've got now) but now all of a sudden this administration is some kind of common enemy for Hillary and a disenchanted population. Erm... What?

I just don't get good vibes from Hillary, and it's things like that. I know what kinds of things she says but I have no freakin' clue what the hell she wants.

So yeah. That's me sitting down for an hour or so and just looking at stuff. I don't know if that helps anybody or if I missed whole big spans of important material, but this is better than nothing.

Rhetorical tools reflect 3 Democrats' legal talents

Rhetorical tools reflect 3 Democrats' legal talents

While none of the three candidates typically mention rivals by name, Obama invokes his most directly. His new speech is centered around a methodical accounting of the strongest arguments his opponents have to offer, which Obama then analyzes to expose the weaknesses in their logic.

"You can't at once argue that you're the master of a broken system in Washington and offer yourself as the person to change it," Obama says, loosely translating some of Clinton's campaign statements. "You can't fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America."

He read versions of these lines late Friday night at a high-school gym in Muscatine slowly, making them sound like riddles, and his audience chuckled as he went along.

In his speeches, Obama also seeks to refute the charge made by Edwards that he is "not angry or confrontational enough."

"By acknowledging the strengths in the other guy's argument, you're saying, 'I'm willing to look at all sides of an issue fairly,' " Meyer said, in analyzing Obama's comments. "That allows you to establish your character with the audience."

In devoting a large share of his time at the podium to directly challenging opponents' assertions, Obama seems to acknowledge that there is a particular urgency to the mission of persuading the undecided voters he identifies as his targets at the outset of his campaign events.

I feel like Obama makes the strongest argument here. Step one of evaluating someone's beliefs and stances is not "is it right" (Edwards) or "is it safe" (Clinton) but DOES IT MAKE SENSE. Start at the very beginning. If it doesn't even make sense in the first place, the other arguments are automatically utterly irrelevant.

So yeah. Big surprise. The Lincoln-Douglas debater supports the candidate most attached to logic and reason. My bias is huge and awesome to behold.