Friday’s Mini-Report

February 8, 2008

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* About that 15-day FISA extension: “With time running out for Congress to finish work on an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed a bill on Friday that would extend the current law through the end of the month. The Senate is expected to finish work on the bill sometime on Tuesday afternoon, giving the House just three working days to finish the bill before the current law expires on Feb. 16.”

* And what about all of those FISA amendments? Be patient: “After passing an economic stimulus package late Thursday afternoon, the Senate immediately began taking up some of the 11 amendments pending to the FISA bill. However, Reid put off votes on final passage of the bill, which means it will not likely be completed until early next week.”

* Naturally, torture extended to contractors: “The CIA’s secret interrogation program has made extensive use of outside contractors, whose role likely included the waterboarding of terrorist suspects, according to testimony yesterday from the CIA director and two other people familiar with the program. Many of the contractors involved aren’t large corporate entities but rather individuals who are often former agency or military officers. However, large corporations also are involved, current and former officials said.”

* In light of Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s recent remarks: Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) will ask the Justice Department’s Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility “to investigate the conduct of Justice Department officials who advised the CIA that waterboarding is lawful.”

* On a related note, Bill O’Reilly is taking the administration’s position to a predictable-yet-ridiculous level: “On Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor yesterday, Bill O’Reilly gave a full-throated defense of the torture tactic, claiming that the ‘far left went wild’ after the revelations. The left ‘literally went crazy,’ he said. O’Reilly continued his pro-torture rant: ‘Why are they so insane about this? It’s not fatal. It doesn’t leave a lasting phyiscal injury? Why are they so crazy? … I think the President has to have the authority…in extraordinary circumstances, as these three were. And the far left is putting us all in danger.'”

* Following his “pimp” comments last night, David Shuster has been suspended from MSNBC.

* Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) still wants Stephen Johnson and the EPA to provide “unredacted” copies of a PowerPoint presentation Johnson’s staff made to him about California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Next step: subpoenas.

* During his speech to CPAC yesterday, McCain was identified on Fox News with “(D-AZ)” after his name.

* Yes, consumer confidence can get worse. (thanks to R.K. for the heads-up)

* Media Matters highlighted more of the flaws in the National Journal liberal-conservative rankings I’ve written a few posts about.

* The state of Nebraska can still execute its own citizens, but it can no longer use the electric chair.

* Joseph Romm: Why John McCain is not the candidate to stop global warming.

* It’s hard to believe how badly Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Julie Myers has handled that Halloween-party flap.

* Lawmakers in Mississippi considered legislation that would have banned restaurants from serving food to obese customers, which in Mississippi’s case, would mean 30% of state residents would be excluded from eating out. The bill, sponsored by a Republican legislator, died this week.

* And finally, Jimmie Johnson, a NASCAR driver, got a chance to meet the president at the White House recently, but thought the Oval Office was just for show. “[Y]ou can tell that’s not the office he really works in,” Johnson said. “It’s way too clean. There isn’t a paper on the desk. There isn’t a computer on the desk. And I’d really like to see his spot. Obviously there are things that are done in that office, but I want to see the spot. I want to see how messy this man is or how organized this man is, you know?” I wonder if Johnson considered the notion that maybe the president doesn’t actually have a place where he does actual work?

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

I’m glad Shuster was suspended. Attacking candidates is one thing. Going after their non-politician spouses or children is another. The press has been very very kind to the Bush twins. Chelsea and the Obama children deserve the same.

  • Suspended from MSNBC ?

    It was not a vicious attack !!!! He couldn’t find a better word !!!!

  • Wow, Republicans actually tried to take the first step to preventing fat people from going out in public.

  • So is Faux News equating Sen. John McCain, D-AZ (sic) with Rep. Mark Foley, D-FL (sic)? I guess being a conservative theological heretic is as bad as sending sexually explicit messages to teenage congressional pages.

  • I’m sure Mitt Romney’s sons are grateful their Dad is no longer pimping for them. Maybe now they can finally go to Iraq.

  • The Republicans thank you all for your support in getting Shuster off the air.

    Now they don’t have to watch his Bush League Justice reports anymore.

    Shuster will be replaced by Tucker Carlson, who thinks Shuster’s comments are ridiculous because Hillary doesn’t have enough bling to be a good pimp.

  • Hillary represents the Sisterhood. We shall prevail. This is OUR time, not yours.

    Obama will take a back seat to Hillary, the Sisterhood will prevail!!!

    Believe in Hillary in 2008.

  • Reposting from the depths of an earlier thread:

    No, . . . isboring, I “love” the discussions we had here before everything was about the two candidates all the time. I have even greatly enjoyed the discussions about the two candidates I have had with doubtful and dajafi, and often even Doctor Biobrain when we are both on our better behavior and some others who are very thoughtful in their comments. I loved reading the very sage comments of Anne and Ed Stephen long long before this race started, and when everyone else seemed to as well before showing they were just fair-weather friends who would stick the knife in Anne and Ed as soon as it was about the candidates.

    That was the CBR I loved.

    These last few days have shown how easy it is for a few assholes to screw up a good community. That I dont love at all. I find trite, hyperactive, substance-less screaming, well. . . boring.

    This once wonderful place where I could learn about all of the evils the Republicans were engaged in that the MSM refused to cover has become less about insight and keeping Republicans accountable and more about eating our own and encouraging a race to the bottom. With all due offense, it isn’t worth my time or energy anymore. As I said earlier, if the progressive movement is now all about defending why it isn’t so bad to refer to a candidate’s daughter as a whore, nothing about the movement is worth the effort. This isn’t the political result I have spent 25 years fighting for.

    Yep, the Obamaists have won. I give up. Go celebrate. I’m sure it will be a place of unbridled and transcendent optimism (well, except the Hillary Hating part), and the handful of actual CBR regulars and legit Obama supporters wont be lonely since they’ll have plenty of pet trolls to play fetch with. And I’d have more sympathy, but Cleaver’s calling for assassinations kind of set the wildly incivil tone, and the “you must see the light” or we’ll bash you over the head aspect of the movement followed. The trolls were kind of the last straw, but I see them as the logical – perhaps inevitable – result of a movement candidacy.

    The signal-to-noise ratio is simply intolerable, and it gets worse when decent regulars like dajafi feel compelled to go elsewhere. I have actual work I can go do instead.

    I trust some of my better compatriots will let me know if things return to normal. (Or I might check in now and then as DOUBTFUL GET A LIFE so doubtful can have the honor of his own personal troll, too 🙂 )

    Thanks for a nice ride. I’ll still vote for whomever is the Democratic candidate in November. See y’all once some the bandwidth is being a little better used.

  • Today’s Politico story about the National Republican Congressional Committee scandal deserves a mention:

    “Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), a certified public accountant, had pushed for months for an internal audit of the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to GOP members, but the committee’s treasurer at the time was reluctant.

    Finally, at a recent meeting, the now former NRCC treasurer, Christopher J. Ward, relented, giving Conaway what was supposed to be an official internal audit from 2006. That document was a fake, the GOP members said. Even the letterhead on which it was sent was a forgery.

    Revelations about the falsified document touched off an unfolding scandal that has rocked the NRCC and spurred a criminal investigation by the FBI into the committee’s accounting procedures…”

    Ward is, or was until the scandal broke, treasurer of dozens of GOP PACs and committees. He has been around since 1993.

    This could be the big, fat juicy GOP scandal we need this year.

  • I think suspension for more than a few days is too much, but then again Shuster should have put out a real apology in the first place instead of the “I apologize if you were thin-skinned enough to be offended.” type.

    I also think it is a shame there are no more violent leftist groups because someone needs to kidnap O’Reilly and see how he feels about waterboarding after a week or two of personal experience.

  • What is it with the multiple exclamation points lately??????

    I guess as inflated as today’s rhetoric has become,,,,,,,, we figure one isn”””””’t sufficient;;;;;;;;;;;;;; maybe we”””””””””ve so ruined our eyes watching the TeeVee that we fear one l””””””’il ol”””””” punctuation mark just won”””””””t be seen…………..

    Maybe it”””””””’s the numbing influence of too much gaming. One well————placed bullet just isn”””””t enough anymore……….. It has to be a stream of them to make the point!!!!!!!!!

    My wife and I (((((((here in the State of Washington))))))))) will be caucusing tomorrow………… Our candidate::::::::::: Obama!!!!!!!!

  • zeitgeist, your candidate is going to lose, so you go running away with your tail between your legs.

    at least your girl hillary would stand up and fight like a man.

    maybe you have finally realized that the clintons are scum and don’t deserve your support? i hope so. join the rest of the world with that realization.

  • Naturally, torture extended to contractors: “The CIA’s secret interrogation program has made extensive use of outside contractors, whose role likely included the waterboarding of terrorist suspects…

    Waterboarding is not “torture”…simple as that. Our own military has used it in the past to train parts of our Military. Dems and their MSM don’t care…heck, back in 2004, the MSM was invited to watch a condensed “4-plus-minute video clip” of Saddam’s torture, and “only a handful of reporters showed up to see the new video, and even fewer reported on it.”

    Abu Ghraib abuses seem almost trivial
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39045

    Naming Names
    http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.844,filter.all/event_detail.asp
    (Links to the video there…in MPEG4 and/or Windows Media format.)

  • zeitgeist is right about what? that vince foster’s death is not going to be an issue in november if we nominate the morally corrupt? that pardon selling will not be viewed as a “politicians will be politicians” excused behavior in november?

    zeitgeist is a hillary apologist. he/she should open his/her eyes and realize that hillary is scum.

  • Zeitgeist hon, you’ll be missed by those of us still sane. I always enjoyed reading your comments, whether I agreed with them or not. Keep up the good fight hon.

    Shuster’s non-apology was horrible. And his pimp statement was reprehensible. What is it about those normally sane DC reporters that just gets them so stupid when they are hanging with each other on the tv set like they are in a bar drinking with their buddies? David Gregory gets the contagion too when he hangs with Tuck and Scar. If it weren’t for Olberman and Rachel Maddow, I’d never watch cable news.

    Shuster did such a fine job on the entire Plame thing. He’s a good investigative journalist. And for the longest time I hoped he’d get his own show. Let’s hope he has learned this lesson quite well.

  • On the contractors / torturers…

    You all may remember that Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski said there were Israelis skulking around during the Abu Ghraib abuses, and that their roles were then “vehemently denied” because obviously it didn’t look so good for us to have Israelis helping us torture Arabs. Interestingly, in 1999 the Israelis outlawed a lot of the torture methods we routinely employ such as “sleep deprivation, keeping prisoners in uncomfortable positions for long periods and covering their heads with filthy sacks”.

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0704-03.htm

    I would be very surprised if the criminals running our illegal operations didn’t get a little help from our friends who are some of the most experienced torturers in the region. But given the power of the Lobby over both parties, I would be really surprised if we ever get to the bottom of that one.

  • This isn’t the political result I have spent 25 years fighting for.

    Don’t lose hope just yet.

    Your dream of American oligarchy may yet come to fruition.

  • zeitgeist, please come back asap, but I hear ya on the intolerable trolling. Whoever these people are they sure aren’t helping their stated cause, so I suspect they’re just dipshits trying to get people like you to leave.

    peace, and see you later.

  • You know what, people like Seaberry are why I’m afraid that we’ll never get the country that I thought I lived in back.

    I used to believe in the shining city on the hill. I used to believe that America was a country that wasn’t perfect, but was trying to get better. I used to believe that as a country we made mistakes and still learned from them. I used to believe that we’d be able to put aside authoritarianism and fascism and fear and warmongering and the desire to hurt each other. I used to believe that America was going to lead the world.

    And now there are actually people — in America — in the 21st century — who will argue — with a straight face — completely seriously — that holding a person’s head under water until that person thinks he is going to drown, until that person knows that he is going to drown, isn’t torture.

    That isn’t the action of the courageous.

    That isn’t the action of those who believe in the rights of man.

    That isn’t the action those who believe that the only thing they have to fear is fear itself.

    We used to be better than this. Now, thanks to Seaberry and the people who think like that, we’re not.

    I miss who we used to be. I miss America.

    There are those who say that we must torture — and waterboarding is torture, by any definition that isn’t Orwellian — to keep America safe.

    But if this is what we are willing — eager — to do to keep America “safe,” America — the idea that was America, not the place where that idea lived — is already dead.

    And people like Seaberry killed it. And will never understand what they did.

  • I wrote about this to Steve before I saw the comments from Zeitgeist and others today, but they match up nicely.

    I have proposed to Steve — and ideally other bloggers will take this up — that we declare a “President’s Day Truce” in the Clinton-Obama wars, that during that time no comments will be permitted that attack the other candidate — of course Republicans are always fair game. Talk about your own candidate all you want, but not about the other one.

    It’s Republicans that have to use the tactic “Vote for me because my opponent is a …” Their candidates don’t, usually, have any argument they dare use why someone should vote FOR themselves.

    We do. There are a LOT of better reasons for voting for Obama than ‘he isn’t Hilary’ and vice versa.

    So, can we possibly concentrate on those for at least one weekend?

  • Follow the logic of Torture:

    Whether we outsource it to private companies or other backwards countries, whether we call it by any other name…it is still torture.

    Torture is a tool of terror. (shown thru the ages)

    Torture is not a tool for determining information or truth. (proven time after time through the ages)

    This government or anyone else who uses torture is a terrorist.

    Terrorists should be prosecuted, not kept in positions of power.

  • I don’t think the problem is really Obama supporters. I think it is a few trolls changing their screen names and just trolling. So I like Pupa’s idea and would be glad to try it, but I don’t think the trolls will. Digby shut down her comments for awhile because of abusive trolls. She said she had to spend half her day deleting comments, so it’s a problem in all the progressive blogs. Thanks for your efforts Jim.

  • As I said earlier, if the progressive movement is now all about defending why it isn’t so bad to refer to a candidate’s daughter as a whore, nothing about the movement is worth the effort.

    Right, because that is exactly what happened. Shuster made a dumbass comment using a piece of popular slang you didn’t get. He certainly didn’t call Chelsea Clinton a whore. You remind me of people who get outraged over the word “niggardly” because they think it’s racist.

    And this seems par for the course from the Clinton camp lately. Obama said that the Republicans were the ones pushing new ideas in the 1980s, even though he didn’t agree with them, and that gets twisted into “Oh my God! Obama loves Reagan!” Michelle Obama said she didn’t know if she’d actively work for Hillary if she were the nominee, but said they’d all support the Dem whoever it was, and that gets twisted into “Oh my God! She’s a traitor to the party!” And now this, where the one guy on TV who regularly exposes the Bush administration’s behind-the-scenes machinations to a national political audience gets taken down because you don’t understand slang. Bravo.

    The Republicans pull this shit all the time, and it reduces our political discourse to a third-grade level. I hate it when they do it, and I hate it even more when someone on my team does it too.

  • It’s Republicans that have to use the tactic “Vote for me because my opponent is a …” Their candidates don’t, usually, have any argument they dare use why someone should vote FOR themselves.

    We do. There are a LOT of better reasons for voting for Obama than ‘he isn’t Hilary’ and vice versa.

    So, can we possibly concentrate on those for at least one weekend?

    Excellent point. Drum’s place turned into a pie-fight yesterday too.

  • Zeitgeist,

    Thanks for a nice ride. I’ll still vote for whomever is the Democratic candidate in November. See y’all once some the bandwidth is being a little better used.

    I imagine many of us long time Carpetbagger Report readers will miss your insights. Agree or disagree, it was always interesting. I suppose that worst case we’ll have to wait until after the Dem convention before things get somewhat back to normal here.

  • I had grown tired of ZEITGEIST’s act.

    Hillary could have murded Nicole Simpson, and the glove could have fit, and zeitgeist would still find a way to say she was still electable and forgive her.

    Good riddens. One less Clinton Apologist in this world.

  • ***Zeitgeist was an excellent commenter.***

    No, Dale—Zeitgeist “IS” an excellent commenter, unlike some of the banshee-trolls who are posing as “Obama” fans. And as for Obama fans, I think we can pretty much agree that I am one of the more ardent ones around these parts—and I think Dave Shuster’s getting off easy. If it was my call, he’d have been tossed to the curb in a heartbeat. (Then again, I thought Don Imus should’ve been fed to a pack of feral cats.) He knew better than to say it, long before he said it. He played to the trolls, and to the red-meat-scarfers, and to the absolutely stupid idea that he somehow had to one-up FOX by pretending to be FOX.

    Coral, “z.i.a.s.l.,” and especially you, John S—you’re all a bunch of sh*t-for-brains posers. Try giving people a reason for supporting Obama, instead of just “a vote against Hillary is a good vote” crap. I can get away with cracking jokes about “Fortress Clinton” because I “CAN” give good reasons why I think Obama is a credible alternative to “staying the political course.” I can also cite credible reasons why I think Clinton is not the best choice. WTF do you three have—a dark-side fairy tale that looks like the lost miniseries pilot for “The Partridge Family Meets the Twilight Zone?”

    Please. Real people don’t read the National Enquirer for a good reason. It sounds like something you three would write—and it’s not worth its weight in used toilet paper.

    Take your one-hit-wonder conspiracy theory from the Rush Limbaugh pay-per-listen fan club, choke on it, and STFU until you can offer compelling reasons why someone should do what you want them to do.

  • Gresham’s law states that the bad money drives out the good (i.e., counterfeit makes money worthless). Something like that has clearly happened here. The only way to keep Gresham’s law from operating is to keep out the counterfeiters. We’ve done that here before, and I think it’s time we (i.e., Steve) do it again. Otherwise, we should all follow Zeitgeist to someplace where the air is fresher, the light brighter, the fellowship warmer. For those who care more for excitement than argument, there’s always TeeVee wrestling and NASCAR.

  • #27

    Right on.

    You said it a lot more efficiently than I. But hey, by tomorrow there will something new for everyone to get outraged over. By Monday, the whole incident will be just a faded memory.

  • Chuck wrote:

    …that holding a person’s head under water…

    Chuck’s ignorance of waterboarding is his problem, and not mine. Chuck has been duped, and doesn’t even realize it!? Probably a product of our Socialist public school system.

    Chuck…watch the AEI video and grow up.

  • Coral:
    Betcha a $50 donation to Donna Edwards campaign that you can’t remember who said this(with ouy Googling):

    “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

  • I had grown tired of ZEITGEIST’s act.

    Hillary could have murded Nicole Simpson, and the glove could have fit, and zeitgeist would still find a way to say she was still electable and forgive her.

    Good riddens. One less Clinton Apologist in this world.

    This guy can’t be for real, right?

    Anyway, once you’ve had some time to cool down, Z, come back. I’ve gone from rage, to shock, and now a sort of numb detachment. It’s a bit like it used to be back when the conservative wingers were looking to pounce on anyone who voiced non-conservative views. They tried for a real long time to harrass you and yell and scream and eventually gave up when they realized it would take more than yelling to make us like them. And we don’t need a moratorium. I’m already tired of it. I know understand why Atrios has nothing to do with primaries. It’s a good policy.

    You didn’t really believe people think this way, and I’m not sure — are these Clinton people pretending to be Obama supporters to make them look bad? Republicans? Obama people don’t really think this way — do they? They can’t be this ugly. It’s like charicatures of ugly, not any kind of ugly that could possibly exist in real life. If real, I don’t see how it could sustain a hope campaign for long.

  • On February 8th, 2008 at 6:45 pm, Dale said:
    “Zeitgeist was an excellent commenter”

    ….that should read, Zeitgeist IS an excellent commenter..it’s unfortunate that trolls like “zeitgeist is a sore loser” (I recognize your style from last night greg) have to bother all the grownups but this too will pass (when the candidate is finally picked).

    Meanwhile, Zeitgeist will be missed, at least by me. I dont necessarily agree with everything he says but he has one thing right. We play into the rethugs hands with this inside fighting. Both candidates are qualified, smart, and care about what’s going on in the world today. Both would make a great president. Support the Democratic Candidate for President…that’s what is important

  • re: 36…

    oh oh oh pick me pick me! I know who said it and I didn’t use Google. (any regular here would know the answer)

  • Well, zeitgeist has sung his Swan song. (Sorry, couldn’t resist one last bit of snark).
    As a (hopefully) non-trollish Obama supporter I am making my last post. I am doing this neither because I dislike anyone here nor because I am overwhelmed by the trolls on either side.

    I suddenly realized that what we post here will have absolutely no effect on events.

    Godspeed to all. Hopefully, we will at some point get the government we need rather than the government we deserve.

  • Try giving people a reason for supporting Obama, instead of just “a vote against Hillary is a good vote” crap.

    Glad you’re a big fan.

    I’m sorry if you think my disgust in seeing America spiral further into being a straight-up oligarchy is a ‘shit for brains’ rationale for supporting Obama. But hey, you’re entitled to your opinion – the same as I am entitled to mine.

    If you can come up with a compelling argument for how perpetuating the consolidation of power into the hands of two families in this country for another four years is a positive or progressive thing, then by all means. The floor is yours.

    But if you prefer to sit there and assail me with your pop culture platitiudes, then I’ll pass. This oligarchic nonsense we’ve had going on in this country four two decades is so utterly un-democratic that it is incomprehensible. How the voters can tolerate it is beyond me.

    Although thanks to people like you, I’m starting to understand.

  • Ed Stephan said:
    The only way to keep Gresham’s law from operating is to keep out the counterfeiters. We’ve done that here before, and I think it’s time we (i.e., Steve) do it again.

    I hate to see Steve use his writing time weeding out trolls comments. I bet he could get a trusted volunteer to do that for him

  • Both candidates are qualified, smart, and care about what’s going on in the world today. Both would make a great president. Support the Democratic Candidate for President…that’s what is important

    100% Agree. Two words: Supreme Court.

  • Hillary may have murdered Vince Foster and Zeitgeist doesn’t think that is a big deal. Thinks that the impressional independent voters will just view that as hillary being hillary and laugh it off.

    We are better off withouth Zeitgeist’s “me first” attitude around these parts. Zeigeist was nothing more than a Clinton Apologist. Clinton Apologists just do the party harm. And memekiller, you’re a filthy Clinton Apologist as well, so lose the innocent act.

    I have great fear for this nation if Hillary is nominated. We are either stuck with McCain and his 100 years of killing Iraqi babies, or we are stuck with the biggest criminal family in US History at the helm (or second biggest if you think the Bushes are worse).

    How can anybody disagree with these claims?

  • Oh yeah, and I’m an Edwards guy, I wish he won. But when he dropped out, I went for Good over Evil, Barack over Clinton.

  • TR: Shuster said that Chelsea was being “pimped out” because she was working for her mother’s campaign. That’s not “popular slang” no matter how you try to spin it; that’s an open reference to prostitution. Are you really that desperate to lift up the candidate that *I* voted for this past Tuesday that you’re happy to defend such an egregious insult?

    I’m ashamed to be on the same side as you. Grow up.

  • Actually, Seaberry, there are several videos available that show waterboarding and how it is done (yes! there is more than one technique). The fact is “waterboarding” is simulated/actual drowning. I dont know how you get around the little fact that this is using force to (supposedly) elicit information and that this is the textbook definition of torture. Oh, and by the way, if that’s what it means to be a grownup, supporting torture, I’ll pass..thanks, anyway.

  • John S,

    If you can come up with a compelling argument for how perpetuating the consolidation of power into the hands of two families in this country for another four years is a positive or progressive thing, then by all means. The floor is yours.

    Consolidation of power into a limited number of families is in and of itself not a particularly good thing. However, in this particular election if the choice is between Clinton (in arguendo Oligarghic) and McCain (in arguendo Non-oligarchic) then “perpetuating the consolidation of power into the hands of two families” is indeed the positive *and* progressive thing. Look at who Clinton (Bill) appointed to the Supreme Court and look at who McCain has said he’d use as a model for his nominees.

    One is clearly a progressive set and the other is clearly not.

  • (or second biggest if you think the Bushes are worse).

    think?! Think?! What a joke. The Bushes are 1000x worse than the Clintons. try reading up on the history of W’s grandad for just one source of their evilness.

  • Hillary may have murdered Vince Foster and Zeitgeist doesn’t think that is a big deal. Thinks that the impressional independent voters will just view that as hillary being hillary and laugh it off.

    Oh, I’m sorry. Jack Duffy’s a troll, not an Obama supporter! Whew! Thought we went way off the deep end there for a minute. No Democrat’s being a charicature of ugly at all, unlike any ugly you find in the real world — it’s just a Republican!

    Glad that’s cleared up.

  • Even the Bush Crime Family isn’t Evil. Greedy, demented, sociopathic, stupid, laughable … maybe. But hardly Evil.

    Leave Good vs. Evil to the theologians. In the real world we’re all mixtures of self-serving and group-serving, egoism and altruism. And it has been arguable since Plato and Aristotle which in the mixture is better for the common good.

    The Jesuits, in their Counter-Reformation guise and seeing themselves as educators rather than inquistors, used to regard “movement” types as “invincibly ignorant”, that is, uneducable. I’m beginning to sense something like that here. I’m afraid Zeitgeist is right. It may be time to wish TCR, in its current avatar, a heartfelt RIP.

  • Hey #36 – it was John McCain. No need to google.

    Obviously many of you must be over the age of 30, because the word “pimping” is used quite regularly as a verb among the people my age and younger.

    It is used to emphasize victimization. It is used to give definition to one of the actors (Hillary) not both (Chelsea). Maybe you have a different definition.

    If you saw the entire piece you would see that Schuster said many good things about Chelsea. It was obvious to me that he was criticizing Hillary.

    Since so many YOUNG people are getting involved with politics some of you might want to spend some time with them so that you don’t go off half-cocked because you don’t understand what they mean.

  • However, in this particular election if the choice is between Clinton (in arguendo Oligarghic) and McCain (in arguendo Non-oligarchic) then “perpetuating the consolidation of power into the hands of two families” is indeed the positive *and* progressive thing.

    I have never disputed that, and have stated numerous times that if Clinton is the nominee, the warmongerer gets trumped by the oligarch. That isn’t even a toss up.

    My view on the matter extends only to the choice between Clinton (Oligarghic) and Obama (Non-Oligarchic).

  • TR said:
    Right, because that is exactly what happened. Shuster made a dumbass comment using a piece of popular slang you didn’t get. He certainly didn’t call Chelsea Clinton a whore. You remind me of people who get outraged over the word “niggardly” because they think it’s racist.

    So TR are you still pimping out your wife? How is that ho’ doing anyway? Colloquially speaking.

    Most people know that is used as slang, but it doesn’t mean it’s appropriate especially on tv news, considering its misogynistic origins and its subtext.

    I voted for Obama on Tuesday but Clinton-hating is not any new way I’m into

  • TR: Shuster said that Chelsea was being “pimped out” because she was working for her mother’s campaign. That’s not “popular slang” no matter how you try to spin it; that’s an open reference to prostitution. Are you really that desperate to lift up the candidate that *I* voted for this past Tuesday that you’re happy to defend such an egregious insult?

    First of all, I never defended it. I called what Shuster said a “dumbass comment.” If that sounds like a defense to you, you need to get out more. (And thanks, by the way, for perfectly demonstrating my main point about how people in this race are distorting and twisting the views of others with malicious intent.)

    Rather than defending it, I took issue with Zeitgeist’s hyperventilating claims that Shuster had called Chelsea Clinton a “whore” when he demonstrably did nothing of the kind. I *have* heard “pimped out” used repeatedly as slang for “used” in a pejorative but non-sexual sense, and no amount of foot stamping and pearl clutching is going to change the fact that I have, in fact, heard it used in that way. I suppose you haven’t. Fine. But I work with a lot of 20-somethings, and I hear it all the time.

    I’m happy for you that you voted for Obama. (For the record, I did not.) But it seems in the bizarrely Bush-like Manichean worldview of some people here, it seems you’re either for Hillary or you’re against her.

    I simply do not share your outrage over this comment. I’m sorry if that makes me an evil, pathetic, childish, cultish, messianic Obama-ite or whatever it is you need to demonize me as to make yourselves feel holier-than-thou.

    But my feelings are my own, and I won’t be taken to task by you or anyone else because I do not view the world through your eyes. I doubt the majority of the electorate does either, for what it’s worth.

    So good luck to both camps here with the interesting campaign tactic you have. “Why can’t you assholes see that my candidate is best?!” doesn’t strike me as the best possible route to win people over, but feel free to give it a try.

  • So TR are you still pimping out your wife? How is that ho’ doing anyway? Colloquially speaking.

    Nice one, Governor Romney.

    If you’ll look through this thread and countless others, there are many people — presumably younger than myself — who can attest that “pimping” has a non-offensive meaning to them. (“Ho” does not, for the record.) You needn’t agree with them, but your constant barrage of condescension certainly isn’t doing your side any favors.

  • TR said:

    So TR are you still pimping out your wife? How is that ho’ doing anyway? Colloquially speaking.

    Nice one, Governor Romney.

    LOL Good comeback.

  • locanicole,

    Watch the AEI condensed video…less than five minutes. Have you ever even watched a beheading video? Screams turn to a loud gurgling sound, as they are met by blood.

    During some ‘Jungle’ training, many years ago, I went thru some things that you might consider “torture”. Example: Stripped naked…well, other than my boots, and was put into the Telephone Booth…basically, a barbed-wired sized copy of a real telephone booth. Two others were placed in it with me…both bigger than me (well, other than my penis was twice the size of theirs combined), and they had played football at UM (one went to the Pro’s…with the Bills, if I recall correctly). Three big dudes in a barbed-wire phone booth, all wondering where to point their you-know-whats, i.e. towards the wire or towards each others you-know-whats.

    Was that “torture” or training?

  • Seaberry said:
    Three big dudes in a barbed-wire phone booth, all wondering where to point their you-know-whats, i.e. towards the wire or towards each others you-know-whats.

    Was that “torture” or training?

    I don’t know. How many times did y’all “make love”?

  • LOL Good comeback.

    Thanks. When things get too heated, we need to remember who the real assholes are, like Mitt “Surrender to Terrorism” Romney.

  • Well said TR !!

    This is so silly !!! I can’t believe people are behaving as they are because a few people see the wording of Shuster’s comment a little differently or are aware of a different current version.

    At least I’m not bashing anyone because they don’t see it my way.

  • Dale is another good example of leftist mentality, i.e. limited to ignorance.

    How many times did y’all “make love”?

    …in a barbed-wired cage…

    Snicker

  • Seaberry said:

    Dale is another good example of leftist mentality, i.e. limited to ignorance.

    How many times did y’all “make love”?

    …in a barbed-wired cage…

    Snicker

    Okay, how many times later?

  • *Many of the contractors involved aren’t large corporate entities but rather individuals who are often former agency or military officers. (re: torturers for hire)

    Oh, of course… Why didn’t I think of that? CIA’s hands are perfectly clean; they never tortured; they just hired their ex-buddies — who, probably, had been fired for thuggery in the first place — to do it.

    *O’Reilly continued his pro-torture rant: ‘Why are they so insane about this? It’s not fatal. It doesn’t leave a lasting physical injury?

    Makes me wonder… Is is possible that, at some point, O’Reilly had been a torture victim himself? Because, sure as sure, *something* has left him with permanent *mental* injury…

    * Lawmakers in Mississippi considered legislation that would have banned restaurants from serving food to obese customers, which in Mississippi’s case, would mean 30% of state residents would be excluded from eating out. The bill, sponsored by a Republican legislator, died this week.

    What on earth possessed them to even propose such a bill? Other than sheer stupidity, that is? It may be different in Mississippi than it is i VA — I wouldn’t know — but, here, the majority of fatsoes *are* Repubs. I’ve always thought that it was the fat cells overpowering their gray ones which made them into Repubs in the first place…

    Zeitgeist… I’ll miss ya until you come back. I do realize that all your recent — less and less reasoned arguments in defense of the Clintons were forced on you by — much *more* unreasonable — anti-Clinton shrilling and shilling.

    Dale, @ 26, It’s a good thing that people here don’t speak or understand Polish; your turning “Prup” (@24) into “Pupa” nearly had me choke, “pupa” translating into something like “bottom” (or, whatever the word it is that children are permitted to say instead of “arse”) 🙂

    TR, @27. Your argument for Shuster’s use of “pimp out”, as a harmless bit of slang with an entirely different meaning than that which had been attached to it, would have been valid IF the guy had been speaking in hip, urban slang *throughout* the segment. Which had not been the case; his language had been quite un-hip everywhere else. Which, in turn, argues, that he used that term in the same fuddy-duddy manner as he used all the other words and terms. He took it not from the Urban Slang dictionary, but from Webster Dictionary. And that IS offensive and disgusting, as well as being a lie.

    At the same time… Doesn’t it make anyone wonder just *why* MSNBC was so quick to suspend Shuster who, from all I’ve heard about him (don’t watch TV myself; don’t have the time or the motivation), had been fairly even-handed (ie not a Repub shill) in the past… but never took action against some of its other — equally offensive but more right-leaning — “stars”?

  • Please don’t go, Zeit. It will only mean the terrorists have won. Do what I do. Ignore them. They just want us to get mad at them, to upset our discourse. Don’t let them. Speak your piece on the issues that matter to you, but don’t respond to the obviously deranged. They are not real, and those of us who really matter know it. Let them be invisible to you and their power is broken forever.

    And that goes for the rest of you, the honorable citizens who have worthwhile things to say. We know who our true family is here, and no one can take our family from us. With truth, we shall prevail.

  • [comment deleted, because this isn’t the “hark” who always contributes under the name “hark.” If this person wants his or her IP address renewed, he or she can email me, and I can explain the problems associated with stealing regulars’ screen-names. -CB]

  • Pat Buchanan waws talking about Hillary forcing Barack to take a ack seat to her the other night. NO WAY!!!

  • Libra said: Dale, @ 26, It’s a good thing that people here don’t speak or understand Polish; your turning “Prup” (@24) into “Pupa” nearly had me choke, “pupa” translating into something like “bottom” (or, whatever the word it is that children are permitted to say instead of “arse”) 🙂

    🙂 Well I guess I speak a little Polish now. It should come in handy.

  • Coral said:
    At least I’m not bashing anyone because they don’t see it my way.

    I feel bashed. The kids today just won’t bother to spend time with me and learn the unslang me and my friends talk in..

  • Looks like we lost someone from the playpen. Too much shit in the sand, seems that was their reason…. seems to me, too, but whaddya gonna do? Maybe they’ll be back….

    I work in an arena where it is quite unwise to discuss politics, and moved to a new city recently, so the web’s my best source of supremely unvarnished opinions & writing from people I don’t know with views I do or do not share. In spite of the occasional fecal outburst I have learned a bit more about what Clinton partisans think and why they prefer her.

    As for the specific issue today of Shuster, I would have fired him as an example, but I can also see the point that the “pimping out” term might have somewhat different meaning in a demographic other than my own. Going down to the micro-level of the specific urban ‘slang-ness’ of his idiom on TV I don’t think is helpful as a test, you would have to survey context all over the English language world. It will be awhile before the construction makes it into the OED, and for all I know, 19-year-old white girls at expensive US private colleges really do say ‘pimped out’ 20 times a day– the data’s not there to make the judgment, and in the end the justification doesn’t matter, even if he had a non-standard idiom, for many in the audience it was still insulting and merited punishment.

    Sure, the personal attacks, the name-calling is mostly idiotic, but that’s the price we pay for having the forum, for our anonymity and losing the bounds and restrictions of socialness, for our great big pseudo-Socratic playpen.

  • Sure, the personal attacks, the name-calling is mostly idiotic, but that’s the price we pay for having the forum, for our anonymity and losing the bounds and restrictions of socialness, for our great big pseudo-Socratic playpen.

    OhioDem

    Well put. That’s where I always come down to. I’ll go for unvarnished, messy democracy, and once everyone lets off some steam the level comes down again naturally.

  • John, your pathetic little text-bytes have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “oligarchy”—and you damned well know it. You—and your multiple-personality alter-egos—simply cannot stomach actual discourse, so you resort to going after someone who won’t buy into your message.

    Is this your little game, child? Shout down anyone who won’t play your game, by your rules, on someone else’s dime?

    Seems to me that it’s you and your friends playing at being “oligarchic wanna-be’s.”

    Given, of course, that such transparent idiocy can’t be anything other than genetic.

    Oh—and for the “no-cojones, tail-tucking, yellow dog of a cowardly cat at #69” who’s been using six different names from the same IP address (I thought the gods stopped making people that stupid after they saw the results of a KG43 presidency; silly me, they still have their bizarre sense of humor)—post some factual evidence to your claim that Vince was murdered by Clinton. No tabloid crap; no conspiracy-theory, www-dot-whatever, but some cold, hard facts.

    Unless, of course, you are indeed a no-cojones, tail-tucking, yellow dog of a cowardly cat….

  • Re FISAtortureMukasey: The legislative maneuvering is interesting in an ‘inside-the-game’ way, but I’ve not expected any deviations from Bush orthodox policy until a Democrat gets into the WH and the Republicans lose a net of at least nine seats, maybe ten, in the Senate this November. It would also be helpful if there were more Republican losses in the House to offset some of the ‘blue dog Democrat’ faction who tend to vote a more Republican line. Looks like the Republicans prefer to hang together and take some losses this year, plan for their comeback in 2010, and with McCain it looks like at least on the Iraq occupation, tax policy, and a host of other issues, they are locked into Bush positions until the curtain goes down in November.

    So for the Democrats the main question is: how can we win the presidency and pick up more seats, enough to get past blue dog defections and Senate cloture blocks? I think it’s great that Obama and Clinton have lots of ideas and position papers embedded in their respective web sites, and we can debate which is best for this or that, but the bottom line’s still winning votes: none of the plans matter if they can’t be implemented. Yeah, yeah– on the other hand, the perception of what’s proposed can influence the votes. So which Democratic candidates have the appeal, the plans, that are able to maximize Democratic turnout, minimize Republican turnout, and draw in the ‘independents’ so that at the end of election day we have the votes?

    I’m an Obama supporter at this point– he was not #1 for me at the start, but he’s the preferred candidate with only two left in the race. Part of why I rate him above Mrs. Clinton is that I think he is a better bet for getting the votes that we need. I think that, as the scouts would say he has a higher ‘up-side’ than Clinton, although it might not be apparent until we are in late October and most of the initially ‘undecideds’ are making up their minds. I expect that the Clinton fans probably have heard all this before, but there was a previous entreaty for reasoning from the Obama camp, and I’m trying to oblige.

  • David Shuster is not a 20-something, and as libra so rightly points out, he was not speaking in the vernacular of that group, except for that one phrase. If he had been, he would at least have used it correctly, which would have rendered what he was saying complete nonsense.

    Look at the context – that’s where the meaning is.

    What continues to piss me off is that an awful lot of people who understand and recognize how offensive racism is still do not see the problem with sexism, or the use of language that objectifies women. It’s all “wink-wink, nudge-nudge” and everyone is just supposed to understand. Well, a lot of us women don’t understand why the men who have mothers and sisters and wives and daughters don’t see the disrespect in their words.

    MSNBC has a gotten a little too full of itself lately, and I lay that blame at the feet of the smarmy and terminally immature Chris Matthews. Apologies can flow like a river through the studios of MSNBC, but their ratings are going to suffer, not just for this, but because this is just one more example of the mindset that seems to prevail there. If careers are being ruined, the blame lies with those who apparently have no ability to think before they speak, not with the people at whom their insensitivity is directed.

    As I have said before, language matters. We have no control over how people will react or respond to what we say, and even when our intention was never to offend, we have to accept the responsibility and the consequences when it does.

    While Shuster has, finally, accepted responsibility for his language, it isn’t because he believes he was wrong, but because he was forced to; I hope the humiliation of having to do so makes him more careful in the future, but neither he nor the executives at MSNBC should be surprised if the Clinton campaign no longer trusts the network to act in good faith, or if millions of women stop watching.

    Language matters.

  • John, your pathetic little text-bytes have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “oligarchy”—and you damned well know it.

    Wow, you’re some kind of special.

    Unfortunately for you, even the people that I have been disagreeing with here know that is exactly what it is all about for me. I have consistently said in thread after thread. I’m not sure why this enrages you so, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

    You—and your multiple-personality alter-egos—simply cannot stomach actual discourse, so you resort to going after someone who won’t buy into your message.

    Sorry to disappoint you again, but I only post under one name. I can’t take credit for anybody else’s comments except my own. I enjoy the discourse, and have absolutely no problem engaging in it. You seem to be the one frothing at the mouth and resorting to going after someone armed with nothing more than venom.

    Is this your little game, child? Shout down anyone who won’t play your game, by your rules, on someone else’s dime?

    This seems to be your game – not mine.

    Do you even know what an oligarchy is? Do you understand how it is the antithesis of democracy? Do you somehow think that Hillary Clinton is not part of the oligarchy that has presided over this nation for the last two decades?

    I suspect the answer to these questions is “no” (except the last one).

    Get back to me when you have something to say. The rabid dog act is pretty unseemly.

  • Language matters.

    I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and I think I can agree.

    I think the way in which the remark was perceived differs primarily based on age and gender. But that isn’t really the issue, because everyone seems to agree (to some extent or another) that the remarks were out of line. But that has nothing to do with what those remarks meant – in fact, that is really an irrelevant point. Whether it’s a ploy by Hillary or people have overreacted is moot, too.

    The bottom line is that it was unprofessional. Shuster is a journalist for a major media network. He should act like one. This is about professionalism. The discourse needs to move away from these petty swipes so that we can get back to the facts. Back to the issues. We can focus more on what Hillary’s plans for the future are and less on whether her daughter is out hustling votes for her.

    Because I don’t want my kid to grow up in an Idiocracy.

  • To continue my thoughts re ‘up-side’ potential (apologies for the academic tone):

    I think what Mrs. Clinton has had going for her is (extremely obviously) great name recognition, both good and bad– how could she not, she had 8 tumultuous years as a very atypical First Lady, as certainly the most humiliated presidential spouse in my lifetime, possibly in American history. Then she was a Senator from New York for going on 8 years, overall she’s probably had hundreds of national major media appearances, if not thousands, before the primary campaign even began. Plus she’s still married to perhaps the most well-known politician in the world. Can you think of ANY previous non-incumbent presidential candidate entering the primaries who has more name recognition, more of a national presence, than Mrs. Clinton? Eisenhower in 1952 maybe? She would certainly rival Reagan in 1976, perhaps in 1980. She’s probably more famous than GHW Bush in 1988. I’d even wager that when 2000 rolled around, she had higher name recognition than Gore.

    I believe that such an enormous visibility advantage mostly helps in the primaries, but once we shift gears to the general election in the fall, name recognition is not a problem for whomever the candidate might be. Instead, as the primary campaign gives way to the general election, the most critical struggle for any candidate is to win the ‘definition’ battle, i.e., how they are defined by the media, what are the dominant narratives that surface, that thrive in the media and become part of everyday stereotypes, about their character, their history, why they want to be president, etc.

    It seems to me that just as Mrs. Clinton is one of the most well-known candidates of the past half-century, she comes more pre-defined than anyone else in the field; some would say that she has more ‘baggage.’ I think the overwhelming weight of history she carries, and the extent to which opinions of here are (relatively) deeply embedded in the general electorate, is self-evident.

    What CAN be argued is it’s meaning, and relative advantage or lack thereof. I can go on about the particulars of why I think voters may feel one way or the other about her, but my estimate is that she starts with at least 40% of the national electorate who will never vote for her to be president. Some of them might vote for her as a Senator from their state, but the presidential vote is usually the most ‘stringent’ for party identification, and at the top of the ticket people usually stick closest to their prejudices. Furthermore, I think this 40% ‘no under any circumstances’ group is concentrated throughout the states that Bush won in 2000 and 2004, and also in several of the ‘swing’ states that a Democrat needs to win the electoral college. So the Republicans don’t need to run a national campaign to defeat her, they just need to reach that approximately 11% of potential undecided voters in their core and swing states to win.

    [Why 40%? Well, if you agree– based on polling data over the past year– that at present the (self-identified + significantly leaning ‘independents’) Democrats represent 40-45% of the electorate, and the Republicans slightly less, maybe 30-35% or 32.5-37.5%, this leaves about 15-30% of the electorate as ‘independent’ with my estimate probably at the low side of that range. Given that Bush has had a consistent group of dead-enders who approve of his performance that rates right around 30%, I’d estimate that there are AT LEAST another 10% from the moderate Republicans who dislike Bush, independents and Democrats who will NOT vote for her. And no, I don’t think in the end the Republicans will fracture and not turn out for McCain. Even if he loses a small fraction of Bush’s hard core, he will pick up that and more from the independents and Democratic columns.]

  • As a real liberated woman I am sick to death of all this faux sisterhood outrage stuff. If Hillary is critiqued all these women suddenly are screaming no fair and Hillary is a victim of those mean mean men and how much the media is so nasty to her. And she milks it for all it’s worth.
    In reality, no one is being sexist and no one is being mean.
    This past year has been nothing but an exercise for so many women to suddenly feel they are being treated unfair and that everyone is so against them and so afraid of strong women.
    No.
    Actually, most men I know like strong and independent women but, if Hillary wants to be treated equally than she needs to take her lumps just like the men have to.
    No one said politics is fair. And she more than anyone else who has run has had as many advantages and built in ups as Hillary. And yet you encourage her to use her sex for victimhood and poor me and all the while is probably laughing at you guys for falling for all this faux sisterhood crap.
    The equal rights was in the early 70s. It’s now 2007 and women are just as equal as men,
    it’s the women who are falling for the Bush style pumping up of Oh women are repressed crap being peddled just like Bush did with fear, that is making us unequal.
    Get a clue.

  • Language matters.

    Unless of course the language happens to be the uplifting words of Barack Obama…
    In which case, as this poster has insisted on four-score occasions, it is mere sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which is not to pick… and win… a cheap fight with this poster simply for the sake of a “gotcha.”
    But rather… to remind that the language, the verbal skill, the articulated kindness, and spoken vision of the President of the United States is not to be underestimated.

    Words can roil us to anger…
    And also: Inspire us to greatness.
    This poster is indeed quite correct.

    Language matters.

    Lastly:
    @ OhioDem : very nice posts.

  • OhioDem,

    That’s the kind of substantive discussion I had hoped to have over the pros and cons of the candidates. You didn’t bring up pardons once.

    I think the number of “Under no circumstances” voters is closer to 33%. I come up with this number because I have noticed that any time things go really, really bad for Republicans, and no sane person on the planet could possibly be on their side, there’s always a 30% that is that stupid on the planet — the 30% standing behind Bush now is the same demographic. And with that under-no-circumstances group, they were equivelantly vehement about Kerry and Gore, and those were close elections, with many factors working against them we don’t have now. Even if you don’t agree that they were that vehement about traitor Kerry, you’d have to agree they hated Bill that much, and most of the hatred for ozone Gore was about ridding the nation of Bill. And at that, Clinton had a 70% approval at the time of impeachment. At that time, that same 30% were the only ones still wanting to push the thing, and had held the rest of the country hostage. Play to the base.

    They can’t rile themselves up to the levels of the 90s, and even if they could, Bill Clinton won without the infrastructure we now have in place to answer a lot of the things that were in ascendence at the time: OJ Simpson Trial round-the-clock news coverage, Drudge, talk radio, conservative meme-generating think tanks.

    The Republican party has self-imploded in Ohio due to their corruption and electioneering. That alone would tip those elections, and the GOP is collapsing under their own corruption other places as well. They don’t have the money or means to cause as much mischief as in the past, and with all their political operatives trying to avoid jail time and the NRCC being investigated for money scandals, I don’t think they’ll be quite as eager to venture out on a limb, and if they did, it’s hard to sink lower than the ground floor. What haven’t they done? We’ve faced their worst and came to a near draw every election. Republicans are less popular, both Hillary and Obama are not going to have the same weak knees as Kerry, nor be as weak of candidates.

    In 2000 and 2004 we got to within fourth and goal, with impeachment and exploitation of 9/11 weighing us down. All we have to do is add a couple inches to those totals to get us in the inzone. It’s difficult to see how they accomplish that with a “rile the base” strategy.

  • Obama may be better at getting the votes we need in the General Election. But Hillary has the legacy, and she deserves the position. Obama should take a back seat to Hillary this time round. There will be time for him later.

    HIllary’s turn now. Obama take a back seat. I would support Obama in the General Election, but Hillary is the one whose turn it is.

  • This isn’t about sisterhood. And it sure as hell isn’t about treating women just like men, because I am not seeing or hearing this kind of crap being thrown at the men in this race; show me some of the lumps the men have taken and maybe we’ll have something to talk about.

    Tell us what exactly Hillary did – or Chelsea did – that either woman should be taking lumps for. Chelsea’s doing some campaign work for her mother – and by all accounts is doing it well. Yes, that sure seems like something that should make her the equivalent of a whore, and gosh – if Chelsea’s a whore, then I guess that makes Hillary…a pimp. Yeah, I guess that’s about right – after all, the media has been calling out Mitt’s kids and McCain’s daughter and Huckabee’s daughter and let’s not forget Cate Edwards. What? There have been no whore-pimp comparisons about them? Gosh – I wonder why?

    The outrage isn’t really so much about Hillary and Chelsea, it’s about the fact that there is still a boys’ club that feels entitled to take cheap shots at women, and this particular club is a major cable network.

    Not only do I not believe you are a “real liberated woman,” I don’t even believe you are a woman. Women are just as equal as men? Tell that to the women who are still making less money than men who are doing the same job. Tell that to all the women who still run into a glass ceiling in their jobs. Tell that to women who get different treatment from the medical profession.

    If people needed a clue, they sure wouldn’t be able to get one from you. Here’s an essential truth that seems to have escaped you: treating both men and women badly does nothing to legitimize the behavior – wrong is still wrong.

    Seems like a “real liberated woman” would know that.

  • ROTF – yes, language matters. And yes, I have said that while Obama has superb oratory skills, his words don’t move me, and my feeling is that there isn’t enough “there” there. He speaks, I listen, and I get to decide what the words mean to me. And you get to decide what they mean to you. It’s great that he has inspired so many, and I agree that he has brought a lot of people into the process, but I’m still not going to apologize for wanting more.

    Shuster’s words meant different things to different people – that’s pretty clear. But since the comment was directed at Chelsea and Hillary, I think they are the ones who get to decide if it was offensive to them. And I don’t think we have the right to judge whether HRC’s response was too little, too much, or juuuuust right – it’s her call.

  • A few late-night thoughts while Zero 7 streams from Radio Paradise:

    Hillary Clinton claimed part of the national spotlight in 1992 and has remained the most well-known female politician in the US since that time, over a decade and a half. She continued as Bill Clinton’s wife and has attained, arguably, a quasi-incumbent presidential status– as manifest by her own view of her years as First Lady and how they are enlisted into the political resume of her campaign, and her primary selling point of ‘presidential’ experience. She is an ex-president’s female spouse running for president, both unprecedented and historic.

    So how is Mrs. Clinton doing at this not-quite-halfway point in the primary election calendar? I’d say not so well. True, she’s essentially tied with Senator Obama in elected delegates, and she has a good chance of emerging with the nomination. But consider the TREMENDOUS advantages she began with, as noted above and in my previous post: unsurpassed name recognition; ‘inheriting’ her husband’s presidential contacts & campaign organization and counsel; nearly 8 years to build a legislative record and reputation in a major media market state and at the same time forget the several negative aspects of her years in the White House; the disastrous reign of a severely unpopular two-term incumbent Republican president whose economic and foreign policy record looks increasingly poor compared to her husband’s; and others.

    Yet…. If Mrs. Clinton is destined to be a strong general election candidate, why hasn’t she performed better up to this juncture? Consider the non-incumbent Democrats who have won the White House in the past half century (Kennedy, Carter, Bill Clinton): she has more advantages than any of them, yet at this point in the delegate race, she has not dominated her opposition as well as any of those three. If she were an incumbent president running for a second term, her current predicament might– in and of itself– be enough for the remaining higher-ups in her panicked party to consider dumping her; at the very least, there would be SEVERE internal questions about going ahead with her into the general election.

    It’s correct that Senator Obama has only tied her in elected delegates, but considering Senator Clinton’s advantages from the start and where she is now, I still believe that my assessment from last year is on the mark: she is not likely to make a strong candidate against the Republicans in the fall election.

  • Where are the missing delegates? There are hundreds not accounted for.
    To see Billary’s total.
    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#val=1746
    To see Obama’s total (gee can you guess who I voted for?:)
    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#val=1918
    Check out CA, it says there are 370 to be alloted by vote yet, only 152+195 have been alloted? This repeats for many states? There are several hundred not alloted yet?
    I am so confused!

  • Hmmmm…. I’ll try the impossible: a quick post before bed.

    Death to Memes:
    Why does anyone have ‘turns’ in getting the party’s nomination? At least a couple of the other Senators who were running have been in Congress longer than Mrs. Clinton, why should they not have precedence over her? They’ve been waiting as long or longer than her. Saying that it’s “her turn” implies some kind of moral rule, but which one is that? Your post implies that I ‘owe’ her my vote– how is that democratic?

    You referred to a legacy that apparently belongs to her, but I, like a number of others (and I think the men who wrote the Constitution), reject out of hand any kind of family legacy to the presidential office. Like everyone else I think we should nominate the person who is best able to win office, pick up congressional seats, and put in policies which will help the country– but I don’t think the question of whose ‘turn’ it is should be germane. Life’s too short to wait and not choose the best.

  • This is about sisterhood. This is about Hillary getting her deserved reward.

    Obama is a great candidate. He is for healthcare that is affordable for all. He wants tax cuts for the middle class. Obama believes our teachers deserve more for their effort.

    But Hillary has waited plenty long enough and now deserves her turn. What is wrong with Obama taking a back seat to Hillary? Obama should feel privileged to be asked to take a back seat to Hillary. Hillary has proven that she is the chosen one, she is the one we need to stick it to those republicans.

    Hillary is the only choice. Obama is a nice fairy tale, but he is not a real story like Hillary and Bill. Take a back seat, Obama.

  • Sorry my friends. 2 am, a little tipsy, might not even remember typing this in the morning. But, HIllary is the best. Obama is great, I would support him, but Hillary has waited her turn, and if we cheat her out of her turn, that just isn’t fair.

    I feel better now that I have that off my chest. Good night. I will post when I wake up this morning.

    Hillary Power!

  • […] the presidential vote is usually the most ’stringent’ for party identification, and at the top of the ticket people usually stick closest to their prejudices. — OhioDem, @83

    I’m afraid you’re right. My husband — as Southern as can be and as liberal as his 80-something years of Virginia life will allow him to be — will never vote for Obama in the primaries. He will vote for him in general — same as I will for Clinton, if necessary — but he’ll do it with no joy, because Obama is black. He proudly voted for a black Governor — first in the country — but president is something else; president is where he draws the line at. He’ll dress his prejudice in, often superficially persuasive, arguments but, in the long run… it’ll still be the prejudice which will rule, with arguments fitted in ex post facto.

  • OhioDem,
    If you’re referring to the troll posting under my name, obviously I don’t think it’s anyone’s turn — though I am flattered to have reached the level of nororiety that It get my own personal troll devoted exclusively to me — and I don’t even have to feed or potty train him! He just follows me around, and I don’t have to do nothing! Obviously I’m ruffling a few feathers.

  • Hey, I brought up the fairweather friends remark.

    Look, you can pimp out your car. But when you pimp out your friends, you gotta make sure they won’t take insult. Guess what?

    It was an insult as the saying, and then it was more of an insult for what saying it was. Idiots like that shouldn’t be being subsidized by the news.

  • Wow…based on comments above, that circular firing squad among the Dems has certainly formed.

  • John—are you prepared to suggest that every presidency that’s included a relative from a previous presidency is an oligarchy? Or did you simply find a word at Wikipedia that suits your fancy, and makes it easy for you to look “smart?”

    Oh, and John—your Gone Paul costume is showing. Better tuck that thing in….

  • John—are you prepared to suggest that every presidency that’s included a relative from a previous presidency is an oligarchy?

    Like a thought. You have no idea what the word means. Here, I’ll give you a helping hand (lord knows you could use one):

    oligarchy

    A form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.

    See, by definition it isn’t merely the fact that people in power are related to former people in power, it is whether or not that power remains wholly divested from anyone else. So when you have a situation where the presidency is held for 20 years by two families, that fits the definition rather nicely. If there are other examples of this type of power being consolidated into the hands of the few for such a long period time, by all means bring them to light. Let’s call the thing exactly what it is.

    If you think that Theodore Roosevelt and FDR are an example simply because of realtion then you aren’t taking into account that there were five other office holders between them that weren’t related in any way. And interestingly, after FDR was out of office, a constitutional amendment was passed to prevent power from remaining in the hands of one person for too long (I wonder why congress would do something like that). Even the Adams’ had power change hands several times between their presidencies. An entire generation and three two-term presidents passed between when John and John Q. held office, so even this seemingly egregious period doesn’t rise to the level of what we’ve seen recently.

    Oh, and John—your Gone Paul costume is showing.

    Considering I think the man is a buffoon, I’m not entirely convinced I would be donning a likeness of him. And the fact that I have already voted for Obama in my primary and plan to support which ever Democratic candidate is on the ballot in the fall only further undermines this nonsensical statement.

    I find it curious that someone who came in here attacking all the ‘trolls’ for ruinng the discourse is themself seemingly incapable of stringing together anything that resmebles a cogent argument. All you’ve done is throw around insults and random accusations based on flimsy evidence.

    You sound like a troll.

  • Oh, and if you are inclined (which I doubt) to further examine the central premise of my argument, have a look at the ‘iron law of oligarchy’. I’ll sum up for you (from Wikipedia):

    The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German syndicalist sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties. It states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into oligarchies. The reasons for this are the technical indispensability of leadership, the tendency of the leaders to organize themselves and to consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led towards the leaders, and the general immobility and passivity of the masses.

    Do you really think his doesn’t fit our modern history?

  • I cannot believe you people are still talking about this.

    I suppose this is the most important issue of our time. More than the endless war, more than the destruction of civil liberties and our Constitution, more than our tanking economy, more than the 45 million without health care, more than the crisis in our global climate.

    No, no. The great Pimping Out controversy of 2008 should overshadow all of that. Even though the man responsible has apologized twice and been suspended from his job, the detailed exegesis of his comments must continue to the exclusion of all else. Could he be capable of using age-inappropriate slang? Does he traditionally display the mindset of Merriam Webster or the Urban Dictionary? The probing must continue!

    Next time you all are scratching your heads, wondering why all those dumb regular-American voters out there decided to go with the Republicans over the Democrats, wondering why they’d ever “vote against their own interests,” just take a look at this comment thread. It’s clear here who and what you’re really interested in, and it’s certainly not their interests.

  • Michels was a twit. He wrote a premise that states, effectively, thus:

    “No matter what you do, you will do as I say.”

    Please—“the Iron Law?” He established a circular argument that, when approached from a lineal path of reasoning, is inherently non-functional. A “political oligarchy” in the United States, in order to be even minimally functional, would depend on total compliance of the People, and a willing subjugation by everyone to a unitary line of political thought. The very fact that you and I are having this discussion negates Michels’ theory. The idea that there are Republicans who will, for whatever reason, reject John McCain as a credible candidate for the nomination further erodes that theory.

    The existence of politically-active individuals who refrain from party membership completely evicts Michel’s works as non-applicable on the modern stage.

    Go back and look at Michel. Don’t just read the cute little Wiki thread; read his works. Study what the man said, and then try to tell me that he’s a sensible fellow.

    Ever wonder why most of Michels’ works were translated directly into Italian? Are you aware of the historical era in which they were translated? The man was a devout fascist, for crying out loud. He was one of the political instruments that brought about the rise of Benito Mussolini.

    You wouldn’t be one of those “loud-n-proud” fascist types, now would you? That Paul label I put on you a bit ago is starting to get some traction….

  • All of the above started over the word “pimp”?

    Every discussion, everywhere finds some way to descend into a bitter war of words about the candidates who shall remain nameless. Its growing old, especially since the whole thing is out of our hands…or most of our hands, anyhow.

    There are certainly reasons to debate the pros and cons of the candidates; unfortunately, they both have very different strengths and very different weaknesses…so “winning” an argument is not likely to happen. Never mind the issue of people speaking who have no intention of doing anything except instigating e-riots.

    But we may all be missing the point. I won’t argue that this election is the most important in a generation, but it is also a massive distraction.

    We still have to make it though almost a full year of the Bush administration; in my opinion, the most dangerous time because they have a limited window to accomplish their goals. The men who move this administration have been scheming, plotting and planning these goals for 30 years. This is it. There is still plenty of stuff that they could do which would either throw the whole election process into disarray or cancel it outright.

    There are still hundreds of thousands Americans fighting an insurgency in the colonies. There is still torture going on in our names.

    And we’ll be lucky if the Keynesian chickens don’t come home to roost before November.

    Come November, we’ll all go out and vote for the candidate of our choice, or second choice, or we’ll vote third party. But putting all of our hopes on a president is stupid…its a lot of how we got in this mess in the first place.

    Dennis Kucinich is in the fight of his life over his congressional seat right now: out spent and being attacked, even in the primary. Now is the time to start looking farther down the ballot. “We” need to be putting candidates out there for our local elections and getting involved there. Taking back our country will happen on city councils, school boards, and in state houses. Moreover, in the economic turmoil that looks to be coming straight for us, we’ll need excellent local government far more than a Democratic restoration to the White House. Hell, at the local level we actually have a chance to get third parties and independents into power…which we sorely need.

    If the progressive movement is about progress, then its high time that progressives get their eyes on the real prize. And i would be much more excited about either of these candidates (but one in particular) if they would stump the local involvement aspect more heavily.

    For the record, Shuster’s statement had no business being used in that forum. It is nothing more than another example of lowest common denominator America…and that’s our real fucking problem.

  • Steve-

    You are an idiot, and an abrasive one at that.

    I’m glad that the you finally managed to put up something that resembles an argument. Too bad it amounts to little more than a fancy way of calling me a brownshirt.

    This will be the last time I respond to an ass like you, unless you prove worthy of meriting a further response – which I doubt.

    A “political oligarchy” in the United States, in order to be even minimally functional, would depend on total compliance of the People, and a willing subjugation by everyone to a unitary line of political thought.

    Um, the People are compliant. Twits like you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that somehow electing yet another Clinton isn’t a big deal. Why, it’s perfectly meaningless to add another four years to the political rule by two familes we’ve already had for twenty years. No big deal! Way to play along. And sorry, but the inherent definition of an oligarchy doesn’t rely on a single line of political thought. It is entirely about where that power lies – not how it is excercised. The vacillation between Democrat and Republican is merely a ruse to convince the people that somehow this power is changing hands, when in fact it is not.

    The very fact that you and I are having this discussion negates Michels’ theory.

    Wow, and here I thought all your spewage is quite absurd, but this takes the cake. So the fact that we are free to have a discussion nullifies the obvious oligarchic nature of our present government? Interesting. There is nothing inherent in an oligarchy or an oligopoly that seeks to stifle freedom expression. In fact, they thrive on giving the people the illusion that they are making free choices. That is where they derive their power from – in lulling delusional saps such as yourself into thinking that despite the fact your choices are really made for you by a small elite group, that you are in control because you chose to vote for Hillary or selected a particular brand of cigarette.

    The idea that there are Republicans who will, for whatever reason, reject John McCain as a credible candidate for the nomination further erodes that theory.

    The idea that you are a buffoon further erodes any of your theories! But seriously, your nonsense keeps piling up higher and higher. First of all, McCain isn’t part of the Bush/Clinton familial dynasty, so GOP voters rejecting him has little bearing on the furthering of the oligarchy. This time around, the oligarchic powers that be have decide it is the Clinton’s turn at bat, so the only erosion (I can only hope) of my theory would be if the voters reject Hillary (the oligarchic choice). It seems they are trying, but it remains to be seen if we will be successful. Also, interesting that you bring up McCain because the fact that he is being accepted by voters while being scorned by the party establishment actually furthers my case. Higher up the oligarchic food chain are the two dominant political factions which have ruled this country for quite some time. The fact that the people have rejected the choice of those powers absolutely INFURIATES them. It has caused quite the rift – temporarily – until the GOP coalesces around McCain and pretend like that was their choice for the people all along.

    Go back and look at Michel. Don’t just read the cute little Wiki thread; read his works. Study what the man said, and then try to tell me that he’s a sensible fellow.

    I have, and while he devolved into quite the unhinged theorist, his theory on democracies morphing into oligarchies is quite sound. I realize that he turned towards anarchy and then eventually towards fascism, and I don’t happen to follow him in those choices. But his work Political Parties (which is a sound piece of work and what I am specifically referring to) was published in 1911 – when he was still a Social Democrat, and long before the rise of fascism in Europe. The central thesis of that book is that even the most egalatarian organizations committed to democracy are in fact oligarchical by nature, and dominated by a small group of leadership. You (well, maybe you) cannot deny that this is the case. Perhaps you are on of those types that rejects all of Nietzsche’s writings simply because Hitler liked them, I don’t know. What I do know is that I don’t have to embrace all Michel’s body of work and thought to think he was right about something.

    You wouldn’t be one of those “loud-n-proud” fascist types, now would you?

    You got me! Here I am railing against oligarchical government and urging my fellow citizens to restore balance to our democracy because I am secretly a closet fascist. Or maybe, I’m the spirit of Michel reincarnated who will eventually turn towards anarchy and fascism, jsut as he did. Or maybe you’re just a fucking idiot who doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about and postures like a know-it-all, hiding behind their condescension and derision hoping nobody will notice.

    Yeah, I’ll go with that last one.

    • Comments are closed.