Current News and Media Videos

Am I the only one that can see through the smoke? Sen. John Edwards has come under a lot of media scrutiny lately for having an affair with one of his staffers. Of course, he isn’t the first politician to succumb to such temptation. But he is claiming to have notified his church and his wife and to have asked both for forgiveness. Maybe he did, maybe didn’t. Either way, they are both covering for him. Is that ruse?

I frankly don’t care. I think the more important ruse going on is the supposed “objectivity” of the media. The Republican-controlled media is making an appeal to the Puritan public in order to justify shutting Edwards out of the running for vice president. As if having an affair with a staffer is enough to disqualify someone for being the second in command, but somehow shooting someone (even if by accident) and being in on the scandalous ruse of going to war on false grounds is, strangely, honorable. Of course, one could say that Dick Cheney never cheated on his wife, but that’s like saying that criminal isn’t guilty of theft when in fact he’s a murderer. Big Dick may not have cheated on his wife, but he doggone sure cheated on the truth.

Meanwhile, media conglomerates play up to the public’s fear of infidelity even as the war rages on.

According to Media Matters, yes:

It seems to me that “the Maverick” isn’t so maverick any more. He hardly ever says what he really thinks. He just delivers the GOPs talking points and he sounds more like George W. Bush now than G.W. does, except for perhaps the stupid verbal gaffes. I know beneath all of that tough exterior is a melon of a man just dying to say what’s really on his mind. He could explode any day now and it’s my hope that he’ll eventually tell the Republican Party to just go ‘F’ itself. Then I might vote for him. Media love or not.

Why hasn’t this been reported in the mainstream press? It could be that there is so much news going on right now that newspapers and magazines just don’t have the space for it. But I doubt it. Online, space considerations are nil. News websites should have it all over the place, but they don’t. Why not?

When the vice president of the United States is told by a disabled veterans group that he can’t speak at their meetings because his policies are draconian, that’s news. Particularly when that vice president is one of the chief architects of the war that caused many of the disabilities those veterans have. He wants them sequestered while he speaks? Why?

It’s just more of the reasons this administration has got to go. The sooner the better.

I’ve come to the conclusion that most people who comment on blogs don’t know how to argue. If you want an object lesson in non-sequiturs just visit a political blog. Even more so, visit a conservative political blog.

Over at Pajamas Media, Jennifer Rubin lambastes the mainstream media for “going ga ga over Obama’s trip to Europe.” I haven’t seen any ga ga, but I have read some news accounts, which are exactly that, news accounts. They report what a particular person is doing or saying. If that’s “ga ga” then I guess the whole world is ga ga over oxygen.

But never mind that. Rubin makes a few salient points even though her own thesis concerning Obama’s trip to Europe completely misses the point. Here she is in her own words:

Watching tens of thousands of Germans listen to his worldly appeal that “this is our [who is “our” exactly?] time,” voters back home may not be impressed. And poll numbers suggest they aren’t. The blatant appeal to international world opinion (why exactly was he giving a campaign speech to tens of thousands of non-voting Europeans?) may not be the recipe for success.

First, let’s get one thing straight. Obama wasn’t giving a campaign speech to Europeans. He was posing for the cameras. He may have been speaking to Europeans, but he was giving his campaign speech to the cameras, which he was aware would be sending his message to voters back home. It was a savvy thing to do, especially when you consider that one of the most ardent criticisms against him by his opponents is a lack of foreign policy experience. His trip was meant to prove that he can appear presidential, act presidential, and carry himself presidentially in the waters of foreign policy, which in essence means diplomatically. Whether he succeeded at that goal is another discussion.

But given that Republicans have missed that point entirely, it’s no wonder that they are stuck on “Obama is a closet Muslim” and “he’s a Harvard elitist who only cares about himself.” That’s what they want to believe. The facts don’t matter.

Die-hard Republicans who refuse to see that Obama has gained clout among independents are going to ruin the election for their own man. McCain cannot win if he doesn’t recognize that Obama has the kind of appeal that he needs. He cannot run on experience when he intends to succeed a president whose lack of experience has butchered everything that America traditionally - and John McCain as a committed American - stand for. The race will go to whomever can convince the majority of voters in the majority of states to “buy into” the idea that he is a marked and distinctive change from the current administration. So far, that’s Obama. Whether he will make a good president or not is immaterial. Whether he is the right man for the job is not relevant. Whether he is experienced or inexperienced, a Muslim or a Christian, or too wrapped up in himself is not the point. That he, right now, has the upper hand in marketing his brand is.

For a good laugh, read the comments on Rubin’s blog post. You’d think these people were preparing for losing grip with reality.

This is simply brilliant:

The surge is part of American history, and American history has a number of components. And this American history was initiated in some sense by Captain John Smith, and when I visited with him in 1607, he had already initiated that history at Jamestown, by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. That is American history. And he told me at that time that he believed that that history, which is, quote, the surge, part of the surge, would be successful. [Ed. note: Did you catch that crucial move?] So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to continue our history. And so I’m not sure, frankly, that people really understand that a surge is part of American history [Ed. note: there it is again!], which means the settlement at Jamestown, declaring independence, winning the Civil War, emancipating the slaves, the New Deal, deciding to invade Iraq, and then clearly a part of that, an important part of it, was additional troops to help ensure the safety of the sheikhs, to regain control of Ramadi, which was a very bloody fight, and then the surge continued to succeed, and that American history.

You’ll have to read the entire article. Andrew Sullivan is the only person I know that is taking the words of John McCain himself and deconstructing them to arrive at the true underlying irrational assumptions behind them. This is true political analysis, the kind you won’t find in the op-ed pages of America’s newspapers.

John McCain is increasingly looking like a grumpy old man on the defensive. It seems that he can’t get any media attention because the black guy gets it all.

He can’t argue that the surge is the reason voters should choose him over Obama. That’s just one issue and most voters are sophisticated enough to think beyond one victory. And given that Obama has recently turned Iraq into a public relations positive for his campaign and that he has communicated a little more clearly that his Iraq pullout policy is based on events on the ground then it makes him look a bit more practical than McCain on the Iraq War. The only negative for Obama is that he opposed the surge, but that was last year’s news.

McCain has nothing else to draw on. His Republican predecessor is laying in the political gutter on his last breath. Fair or not, many voters will give McCain the cold shoulder based on the failures of the Bush Administration. And Obama is capitalizing on that big time.

Every TV appearance of McCain is based on “but I have military experience …”, “but I was for the surge, Obama was against it”, “but, but, but …”. And you just can’t win a political race on buts. That’s why John McCain seems increasingly like he’s just a grumpy old man trying to keep up. He has nothing but ‘buts’ to run on and not even the ash can is paying him much attention now.

Larry Hunter sums up my own feelings as well:

But, sad as I am to say it, no matter how Senator Obama answers these questions–regardless of whether he remains deaf and blind to economic reality–I will still support him for president if he can change the direction of American foreign policy and begin to restore the freedoms the Bush and Clinton administrations and their cronies in Congress took away from us in the name of national security.

The Bush Administration has not only destroyed the faith and trust of conservatives with a conscience, but they have betrayed their own party and philosophy. Their rhetoric that liberals who oppose their policies are akin to traitors is hollow since their own actions have been Constitutionally treasonous. I’m not sure that I’ll vote for Barack Obama, but I know I will not vote for another Republican for a long time.

Listening to John McCain talk is like listening to George W. Bush discuss NASCAR through a muzzle. If McCain can’t come clean and speak his true mind, shaking off the wallets of his biggest supporters and getting back his “straight talk” while saying something profound and important then he will lose. And what he will lose is far more important than a simple election. He will lose the next 8, and possibly more, years of power and control that the Republicans need to be effective in Washington. Bush has already lost much of that, but McCain will end up throwing the rest of it down the drain.

Obama with no running mate is better than John McCain or any Republican today with the best running mate. Even if it isn’t ideal.

Affirmative action. Saying it is enough to send a self-respecting conservative into a frothing frenzy. Blood boils. Necks turn red (if they’re not already). Steams shoots from the ears (and sometimes from the eyes). And I’ve even witnessed a few synaptic implosions, which tends to cure mild brain damage.

But just what the hell is an “affirmative action president”?

According to Conservapedia, an affirmative action president is one that is elected primarily because of his race.

The phrase was coined, evidently, by right wingnut Michael Savage, who reportedly said that America’s not ready for an affirmative action president. Maybe there’s a point there, somewhere, but would any of these conservapricks like to explain how we were ready for a hostile takeover by the knuckle dragging segment now known as Bush’s Cabal (OK, I made that up; I justed wanted to coin a phrase too)?

Conservapedia’s definition aside, I’m not sure that Barack Obama, if he is elected, would be elected on race alone. A goodly number of voters cast votes against someone rather than for someone, which means what? They’d be voting against McCain because he’s white? Not likely. I won’t vote for McCain, even if I don’t vote for Obama. I won’t vote for him because he doesn’t represent my values and because I think he’s given up on his own values. He’s become a Neo-con shill, which is what I think he believes will get him elected. If it does then it will only prove that Liberty has lost and Alexander Hamilton got the last laugh.

Honestly, Conservapedia’s rhetoric is just a blow-hard’s gust of tonsil snot. If Obama wins, it will likely be because the Republican Party isn’t worth the effort it will take to drain the dirty bath water.

(Source) Opposition Chief Whip Kassiano Wadri said he woke up at midnight to listen to BBC, and was overjoyed when the news of Obama’s victory broke.

“For the first time a black person has taken the US Democratic Party’s primary.” He said although American democracy was over 300 years old, none of the 43 presidents was black. “Africa should be proud that one of our own has moved nearer to the presidency.” He said Americans should also be happy that their nation was no longer ethnic but able to recognise quality leadership. “I wish Ugandans could emulate this.”

Republicans will undoubtedly use this African news story against Barack Obama this election season. It will only serve as proof that their suspicions of him being a black man are actually true.

In other words, Republicans would rather have a dead or near dead white guy serving as their chief executive than a man whose roots go back to Kenya, which is in Africa - even if American democracy isn’t quite 300 years old as the African chief so boldly proclaimed. He at least got it right that none of the previous presidents have been black (if you don’t count Bill Clinton).

When it comes to racial politics, there is a clear dividing line in the U.S. There is no gray area. It’s all black and white. And while there may be a few black Republicans in the mix, there are a lot of more white Democrats. And they will likely vote for Obama. But add up all the Republican prejudices against Obama - he’s black, he’s potentially Muslim, he’s black, he’s been educated in another country, he’s black, he’s “unpatriotic” (meaning he isn’t white), and he’s black - and it spells out so clearly that John McCain would make a better president. Even if he dies while in office. We’ll just prop his old dead body up against the Lincoln Monument and play speeches of Ronald Reagan to inspire us. And pray that his term of office doesn’t expire before rigor mortis sets in and turns his skin - aaaaaaack! - black.

Even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in Texas in early March, Barack Obama seems to have won over more delegates.

Obama has an overwhelming edge against Clinton. This has allowed him to hang on to a slim lead during Texas’ delegate selection process which will conclude in June where both delegates have a strong chance of winning the nomination.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Monday that Obama is likely to end up with 36 to 38 of the 67 total delegates up for grabs from the caucus process. Clinton is expected to finish with 29 to 31 delegates. Clinton won the March 4 popular vote by a 51% to 47% margin, giving her 65 delegates from that process to Obama’s 61. That means Obama could end up with 97 to 99 delegates, while Clinton would have 94 to 96.

Not only that, but Obama now leads Clinton by double digits according to a new Gallup Poll. This isn’t the first time during this presidential campaign that one of the candidates has had a double digit lead during the race to the White House. Clinton held an 11-point lead over Obama in early February.