Here's a doozy from McCain's appearance today on The View. He claims that Alaska didn't take any federal earmarks as governor of Alaska. Which is just colossal BS. Alaska, even under Palin, takes more earmarks per capita than any other state.
Also on The View today, he personally backed up the ads regarding sex ed and kindergarteners previously discussed here. It's so disheartening to see him personally vouch for such a misleading, sleazy ad. On the topic of the sex ed ad, Planned Parenthood came out with a response ad today that is very good and worth watching.
It really is sad that McCain is destroying his "Straight Talk" image so completely. I voted for the man in the 2000 primary season, but he's really blowing it. As the Obama campaign so wonderfully put it today, "John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election."
Friday, September 12, 2008
Way to go, MSNBC!
Congressman and former Republican VP short-lister Eric Cantor (R-VA) is on MSNBC right now. He said something very similar to (I don't have the transcript, as it's a random Friday afternoon interview on MSNBC) "Sarah Palin told the federal government "no, thanks" on the Bridge to Nowhere and sent the money back to Washington." This statement, of course, is patently false. Alaska kept the money and spent it on other things. MSNBC's anchor (apologies to her for not knowing her name) just called him on it. She asked him to clarify, "Are you saying she sent the money back to the federal government?", and then when he hemmed and hawed, stated clearly that they kept it.
Media correcting lies. Amazing
Media correcting lies. Amazing
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Palin-Gibson Interview #1
Here's a transcript of the first part of ABC anchor Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin. Rather than copy-paste the whole thing here, I'll make references to it and let y'all read it over there, or just trust me to not take the comments I'm responding to out of context. As I expect this to be a fairly lengthy, I'll bold the key points to facilitate skimming.
1. She engaged in a circular argument about whether she feels she's qualified to be VP
2. She's been outside of North America exactly once. Luckily, it was a life-changing trip.
3. She's never met a foreign leader.
4. She would add Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, even though Putin has said he would not tolerate such expansion, and even though including these nations would commit us to go to war to defend them.
5. Israel would have a complete carte blanche to attack whomever they pleased during a McCain/Palin administration
6. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is.
It's the most significant new American foreign policy in decades, and she doesn't know what it is. Actually, that's not surprising for someone whose running mate says her most prominent foreign policy credentials are commanding the Alaska National Guard and being geographically close to Alaska. Oh yeah, that reminds me...
7. She felt it necessary to point out that one can see Russia while standing on an Alaskan island.
1. She engaged in a circular argument about whether she feels she's qualified to be VP
PALIN: [O]n January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I'm ready.GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.
GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?
PALIN: I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink.
So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.
The definition of a circular argument. In effect, she said "I didn't blink when asked to be VP because a VP can't blink when faced with tough decisions." Oh, good. I'm glad that was cleared up.
2. She's been outside of North America exactly once. Luckily, it was a life-changing trip.
GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?I'm not saying that a potential VP must have been all over the world or anything, but can't we all agree that it would be way better if they have? Part of engaging in international diplomacy is having a sense of foreign culture and peoples, and one would have a much better sense of places one's visited. And it doesn't seem she did much more than visit US troops on this trip. Did she even meet any Kuwaitis or Germans on this trip?PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.
3. She's never met a foreign leader.
PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state.See what I mean about her nomination destroying McCain's biggest advantage over Obama?
4. She would add Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, even though Putin has said he would not tolerate such expansion, and even though including these nations would commit us to go to war to defend them.
As has been endlessly discussed over the past few years, the US military is being stretched thin by our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Palin wants to commit us to defending former Soviet republics against Russia, which, last I checked, has a substantially more advanced army than either enemy we've fought during the Bush Administration. This statement is another example of the blustering, belligerent foreign policy of McCain and the Republicans.GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
5. Israel would have a complete carte blanche to attack whomever they pleased during a McCain/Palin administration
Isn't that shocking? "We cannot..." Israel can do whatever they want to defend itself, even if that means attacking Iran, Syria or anyone else they perceive as a threat, and McCain/Palin won't second guess them. At his recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), John McCain reiterated a long-standing tenet of American foreign policy that we will defend Israel, through at least military aid and likely through direct intervention, if necessary. And Palin doesn't think that promise gives us the right to ask them to not to anything stupid, that might commit us to war.GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.
GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
6. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.
It's the most significant new American foreign policy in decades, and she doesn't know what it is. Actually, that's not surprising for someone whose running mate says her most prominent foreign policy credentials are commanding the Alaska National Guard and being geographically close to Alaska. Oh yeah, that reminds me...
7. She felt it necessary to point out that one can see Russia while standing on an Alaskan island.
So she thinks she has a unique perspective of how important it is to not piss of Russia, yet as previously discussed, she wants to extend our umbrella of protection right up to their border with Georgia, despite Russia's contention that they won't let that happen. What does she think is going to happen? We're going to say "We'll defend Georgia!", and Putin will respond "Oh yeah? You and what army?"GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
Republicans, Palin and Service
Today, as part of their efforts to be nice to each other for at least one freakin' day (after promising early on to be nice to each other for the whole campaign, but whatever...), Obama and McCain are both appearing at a forum on service. While the event will no doubt be a civil affair, Obama should be able to draw clear distinctions between himself and Republican thoughts on the topic.
Two of the three most prominently featured speeches at the Republican convention pissed on the concept of serving one's community. As the keynote speaker, Rudy Giuliani mocked Obama's work as a community organizer. During Palin's speech (I hesitate to call it her speech, because she didn't write it, but whatever), one of the more memorable lines compared her time as the mayor of Wasilla to Obama's years as a community organizer. "I guess a small-town mayor," Palin said, "is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
What an arrogant statement! Obama the community organizer worked for, among other groups and causes, factory workers who had lost their jobs and with it their income, healthcare and self-sufficiency. Saying that Obama, meeting with these men and women in church basements and working to help them find opportunities to be retrained and find new jobs, had no responsibilities while a community organizer completely blows any genuine concept of service. He had the same responisibility to help the less fortunate among us that all Christians have. It's just that he did something about it during his early career, instead of entering beauty pageants. Apparently, it's Palin's (and, presumably, McCain's, since he no doubt approved Palin's speech) opinion that only people in the government have any responsibilities.
While obviously Obama can't use this forum to campaign for votes, he can most definitely talk about the responsibility he felt as a community organizer. In fact, he should use the word "responsibility" tonight as often as possible when discussing service. As the whole "lipstick on a pig" controversy demonstrates, using specific words from Palin's convention speech gets people's attention.
Two of the three most prominently featured speeches at the Republican convention pissed on the concept of serving one's community. As the keynote speaker, Rudy Giuliani mocked Obama's work as a community organizer. During Palin's speech (I hesitate to call it her speech, because she didn't write it, but whatever), one of the more memorable lines compared her time as the mayor of Wasilla to Obama's years as a community organizer. "I guess a small-town mayor," Palin said, "is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
What an arrogant statement! Obama the community organizer worked for, among other groups and causes, factory workers who had lost their jobs and with it their income, healthcare and self-sufficiency. Saying that Obama, meeting with these men and women in church basements and working to help them find opportunities to be retrained and find new jobs, had no responsibilities while a community organizer completely blows any genuine concept of service. He had the same responisibility to help the less fortunate among us that all Christians have. It's just that he did something about it during his early career, instead of entering beauty pageants. Apparently, it's Palin's (and, presumably, McCain's, since he no doubt approved Palin's speech) opinion that only people in the government have any responsibilities.
While obviously Obama can't use this forum to campaign for votes, he can most definitely talk about the responsibility he felt as a community organizer. In fact, he should use the word "responsibility" tonight as often as possible when discussing service. As the whole "lipstick on a pig" controversy demonstrates, using specific words from Palin's convention speech gets people's attention.
So Angry at CNN
(note: this post is being originally written at about 9am today, but thanks to the SurfControl on WVU computers, even computers in the resident break room, I can't access my blog.)
CNN is covering the various 9/11 memorials happening today in NY, Washington and elsewhere. As always, CNN has a crawl at the bottom of the screen, where they usually go through whatever news stories can be summed up in one sentence. Right now, during the reading of names of those who died at the WTC, they are summarizing the total number of American and coalition deaths in Afghanistan, which is legitimate as that war was/is directly tied to 9/11. But they are also summarizing death totals for Iraq. Why are they bringing that up today? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? They're implicitly acknowledging the often- and widely-discredited Republican position that 9/11 and Iraq should be linked.
Way to be independent, CNN.
I only recently became aware of these statements, so (not to be immodest), I'd imagine some of y'all hadn't heard them either. And I'm sure most voters don't know that McCain was one of the earliest and most vocal advocates of the Iraq war. I wonder what it would do to his poll numbers if they were to find out.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Why Palin's a Terrible Choice for McCain
Sarah Palin's nomination for VP, while temporarily energizing McCain's campaign, will ultimately destroy any chance he might have had to win this election. The damage to his chances has nothing to do with Trooper-gate, her pregnant daughter, her views on abortion/creationism/etc., her questionable record on the Bridge to Nowhere, or harbor seal DNA (my first self-link. Big moment!). It has to do with Barack Obama.
What was the one real argument the Republicans had against Barack Obama? It wasn't Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers. In the current anti-Republican environment, it wasn't the issues. The "He's a Muslim" angle doesn't work outside of whack-jobs. It was experience. I'm as big an Obama supporter as you're likely to find anywhere, but he is, compared to your typical Presidential candidate, rather short on experience. We can argue all day about whether that deficit matters, but it's undoubtedly there.
Sarah Palin's nomination takes this line of attack and turns it into so much moose stew. A candidate's VP choice is the Presidential equivalent of choosing a godfather for one's children. "If something happens to me, here's the one person I think is best to take care of my country/child." And McCain chose Palin, who at best has as much experience as Obama. So the next time any Republican attacks Obama's resume, he only has to point to the woman Republicans seem to think is the 2nd most qualified person in the nation to lead it.
What was the one real argument the Republicans had against Barack Obama? It wasn't Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers. In the current anti-Republican environment, it wasn't the issues. The "He's a Muslim" angle doesn't work outside of whack-jobs. It was experience. I'm as big an Obama supporter as you're likely to find anywhere, but he is, compared to your typical Presidential candidate, rather short on experience. We can argue all day about whether that deficit matters, but it's undoubtedly there.
Sarah Palin's nomination takes this line of attack and turns it into so much moose stew. A candidate's VP choice is the Presidential equivalent of choosing a godfather for one's children. "If something happens to me, here's the one person I think is best to take care of my country/child." And McCain chose Palin, who at best has as much experience as Obama. So the next time any Republican attacks Obama's resume, he only has to point to the woman Republicans seem to think is the 2nd most qualified person in the nation to lead it.
DNA, Tax Dollars and You
During John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, the nominee stated the following:
"I’ve fought the big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on things you neither need nor want, and the first big-spending pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I will make them famous, and you will know their names. You will know their names."
If you've heard McCain's stump speech during the campaign, you've probably heard him mention bear DNA. The federal government, McCain points out, spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. He also had an ad up in November '07 centered on this example, and mentioned it during the forum with Rick Warren at Saddleback Church.
Turns out, in a summary of earmarks requested by Alaska earlier this year, Sarah Palin's government asked for, among other things, $3.2 million in "funds [for] monitoring of ice seal populations in Native villages, research on the species delineation and genetics of harbor seals" (found on the bottom of page 2 of the summary). More succinctly, $3.2 million to study, you guessed it, harbor seal DNA! When will McCain make her name famous as a pork-barreler?
Palin requested an earmark which is practically identical to McCain's prime example of government waste (after, of course, the Bridge to Nowhere, about which Palin's involvement has been discussed enough in the media recently that I'll just let y'all read about it elsewhere). Since the clear plan for the McCain/Palin campaign was the whole "real maverick", anti-earmark thing, isn't it obvious that Palin wasn't at all vetted? Frankly, I'm excited. God knows what could come out about her next.
"I’ve fought the big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on things you neither need nor want, and the first big-spending pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I will make them famous, and you will know their names. You will know their names."
If you've heard McCain's stump speech during the campaign, you've probably heard him mention bear DNA. The federal government, McCain points out, spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. He also had an ad up in November '07 centered on this example, and mentioned it during the forum with Rick Warren at Saddleback Church.
Turns out, in a summary of earmarks requested by Alaska earlier this year, Sarah Palin's government asked for, among other things, $3.2 million in "funds [for] monitoring of ice seal populations in Native villages, research on the species delineation and genetics of harbor seals" (found on the bottom of page 2 of the summary). More succinctly, $3.2 million to study, you guessed it, harbor seal DNA! When will McCain make her name famous as a pork-barreler?
Palin requested an earmark which is practically identical to McCain's prime example of government waste (after, of course, the Bridge to Nowhere, about which Palin's involvement has been discussed enough in the media recently that I'll just let y'all read about it elsewhere). Since the clear plan for the McCain/Palin campaign was the whole "real maverick", anti-earmark thing, isn't it obvious that Palin wasn't at all vetted? Frankly, I'm excited. God knows what could come out about her next.
Lipstick on a Pig
Here it comes, my first possibly anti-Obama post:
Tuesday, Barack Obama, in comments in Virginia, compared McCain-Palin's attempts to label themselves as change-agents to putting lipstick on a pig. "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," Obama said. While it's true that Obama has used this particular phrase, and McCain used it in reference to Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan, I think it fairly likely that Obama did mean it as an underhanded jab at Palin. I'm not in the man's head, but it does seem odd to use lipstick imagery in such a way after Palin so prominently used it.
Rather prominent political bloggers, who claim that Obama was not referring to Palin, have missed this important distinction. The one most memorable line from Palin's convention speech (which sucked, by the way, but I suppose I wasn't exactly the target audience) involved her beauty-queen lips. This makes any subsequent mention of lipstick far more loaded than in the past. Of course, Obama says thousands of words a day in public, and maybe he just slipped. I don't know. It certainly seemed like a bad time to draw attention away from all the other potentially damaging issues swirling around Palin, whether it was intentional or a slip.
While we're on the subject, what's the difference between Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney? Lipstick.
Tuesday, Barack Obama, in comments in Virginia, compared McCain-Palin's attempts to label themselves as change-agents to putting lipstick on a pig. "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," Obama said. While it's true that Obama has used this particular phrase, and McCain used it in reference to Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan, I think it fairly likely that Obama did mean it as an underhanded jab at Palin. I'm not in the man's head, but it does seem odd to use lipstick imagery in such a way after Palin so prominently used it.
Rather prominent political bloggers, who claim that Obama was not referring to Palin, have missed this important distinction. The one most memorable line from Palin's convention speech (which sucked, by the way, but I suppose I wasn't exactly the target audience) involved her beauty-queen lips. This makes any subsequent mention of lipstick far more loaded than in the past. Of course, Obama says thousands of words a day in public, and maybe he just slipped. I don't know. It certainly seemed like a bad time to draw attention away from all the other potentially damaging issues swirling around Palin, whether it was intentional or a slip.
While we're on the subject, what's the difference between Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney? Lipstick.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
OK, I'm back, and pissed
It's been a busy couple months, as my wife and I have been setting up our new home in Pittsburgh (to quote Indiana Jones' father, we are pilgrims in an unholy land) and I've begun my pediatric training at WVU in Morgantown, West Virginia. I haven't found much time for posting. But, we're down to 8 weeks before the election, and I'm going to make the time, dammit!
Today, the McCain campaign released an ad attacking Senator Obama on education. It's main line of attack is based on Obama's support for a bill in the Illinois legislature which would have required "comprehensive sex education" for all students K-12. Take a moment and watch the ad, asking yourself what Obama was advocating, according to the ad.
No seriously, go watch it; it's only 30 seconds.
Welcome back. The indisputable (go ahead, dispute it, I dare you) implication of the ad is that Obama, ya know, wants to force your 5 year old to put a condom on a banana. In fact, the bill explicitly stated that education in early grades would focus on good and bad touching. Put another way, it would teach kids that your uncle shouldn't touch your pee-pee. And McCain is attacking Obama for it.
Both Obama and McCain have promised to run a clean campaign, and both have failed to varying degrees. This ad represents a new low in this campaign, where Obama is being attacked for trying to teach kids how to watch out for sexual molestation. It's a despicable attack, one that was personally approved by Senator McCain.
Today, the McCain campaign released an ad attacking Senator Obama on education. It's main line of attack is based on Obama's support for a bill in the Illinois legislature which would have required "comprehensive sex education" for all students K-12. Take a moment and watch the ad, asking yourself what Obama was advocating, according to the ad.
No seriously, go watch it; it's only 30 seconds.
Welcome back. The indisputable (go ahead, dispute it, I dare you) implication of the ad is that Obama, ya know, wants to force your 5 year old to put a condom on a banana. In fact, the bill explicitly stated that education in early grades would focus on good and bad touching. Put another way, it would teach kids that your uncle shouldn't touch your pee-pee. And McCain is attacking Obama for it.
Both Obama and McCain have promised to run a clean campaign, and both have failed to varying degrees. This ad represents a new low in this campaign, where Obama is being attacked for trying to teach kids how to watch out for sexual molestation. It's a despicable attack, one that was personally approved by Senator McCain.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
A lesson for Hillary
The options before Hillary Clinton at this point of the campaign are rather similar to the options before one Senator Ted Kennedy in the 1980 race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Jimmy Carter had won enough delegates to secure the nomination, despite a strong showing by Kennedy. Kennedy chose to challenge for Carter's delegates at the convention, a move which luckily it appears Hillary will forgo. But there are other parallels with Senator Kennedy that she should consider.
Before the Dem convention in 1980, the Republicans had nominated Ronald Reagan, a champion of conservatives who were opposed to many traditional liberal positions based in the New Deal and the Great Society. With the prominent position of keynote speaker of the convention (a position which was most recently held by a state senator from Illinois who did a good job, I hear (side note: if you've never watched Obama's convention speech in full, may I suggest you do so now. I'll watch anything McCain's ever said in return)), Senator Kennedy gave the most highly regarded speech of his long political career in defense of those liberal positions and of the Democratic Party which he and his family have served for so long.
Following his unsuccessful presidential campaign, as you all know, Senator Kennedy returned to the Senate, where he fought and continues to fight for those ideals for the next 28 years. Often, when a Republican senator needs help from the other side of the aisle, he or she will seek out Senator Kennedy because they know he will work for what is best for the country.
So there is a lesson here for you, Senator Clinton. Something to take from another defeated Democrat from a family so revered within the party:
I hope you get fucking brain cancer.
I applauded the political skill and courage you showed when you fought back from a 3rd place showing in Iowa to pull of an upset in New Hampshire. I admired your ability to win every time you faced a must-win primary, such as Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. Even as I watched my chosen candidate lose in the state of my birth and also my current state of residence, I was so happy to have such strong candidates vying for my party's nomination.
But all that changed after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries on May 6th. On that date, the delegate math, and consequently the chances of your being the nominee, turned definitively against you. Nothing short of a Clintonian (Bill, not you) scandal or an assassination (the possibility of which you so sensitively raised a while back) would have delivered the nomination to you.
But instead of acknowledging that you were beaten, you continued to attack the candidate virtually assured of being your party's nominee. You were so successful in tearing him down (as I've previously discussed in this blog), at least among your own supporters, that in West Virginia as many of your supporters said they would vote for McCain as would vote for your party's nominee.
Finally, last night, after reaching the required 2118 delegates to secure the nomination (and getting to the point where he would have passed 2210, which would have been a best case outcome for you at the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting last week), you didn't even have the class to congratulate him on his victory. You didn't even fucking acknowledge it. Instead, you played coy, saying "I will be making no decisions tonight." Why the fuck not? It's over, whether you like it or not!
What do you hope to accomplish by staying in? Are you going to squeeze some concession out of Obama, out of the nominee of your fucking party?!? Even Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (who would be a great VP pick for a lot of reasons, by the way), one of your strongest supporters, said today “You don’t bargain with the Presidential nominee. Even if you’re Hillary Clinton and you have 18 million votes, you don’t bargain.”
And then today your campaign announced that you would suspend you campaign on Saturday. Why then? Why not now? Why not last night, when you were conclusively beaten by any ad hoc method of determining the winner that you could come up with?
Your actions since May 6th, and especially your actions over the past day and a half, have demonstrated that the tenacity that I and so many people admired after your losses in Iowa, and Virginia, and Maryland, AND WISCONSIN, AND WASHINGTON D.C. HEEE-YAAAH....
Oh, sorry, I channeled Howard Dean there. Where was I.... oh, right. Since May 6th and since yesterday you have demonstrated that the tenacity we all admired during this campaign wasn't tenacity at all. You are so blinded by ambition and self-delusion that you are utterly incapable of doing what is right for your party and for your nation. By polarizing the party so much, there is pretty much no way out for your party's nominee. Either he chooses you as his VP and his campaign themes of change and hope and all that are severely hurt, or he doesn't choose you and all those down-scale white voters take their lunch pails over to the GOP. And having him ask you and then declining makes him look weak and that his eventual choice is not his first.
OK, so maybe I was a little bit harsh earlier when I said you should get brain cancer. But with all honesty, I can't figure out any other way besides a medical one for you to get out of the race without pretty severely fucking over your party. It doesn't have to be anything fatal. Breast cancer would actually work pretty well. You take a few months off to get definitive treatment, "unfortunately" removing you from VP consideration, then release a letter while recuperating in Chappaqua urging your supporters to work for the Senator Obama. Finally come January you're back in the Senate ready to help President Obama work toward universal health care. You've got a month or two before he has to pick a VP. I know a guy who can give you a few hundred consecutive high-radiation mammograms. Think about it.
Before the Dem convention in 1980, the Republicans had nominated Ronald Reagan, a champion of conservatives who were opposed to many traditional liberal positions based in the New Deal and the Great Society. With the prominent position of keynote speaker of the convention (a position which was most recently held by a state senator from Illinois who did a good job, I hear (side note: if you've never watched Obama's convention speech in full, may I suggest you do so now. I'll watch anything McCain's ever said in return)), Senator Kennedy gave the most highly regarded speech of his long political career in defense of those liberal positions and of the Democratic Party which he and his family have served for so long.
Following his unsuccessful presidential campaign, as you all know, Senator Kennedy returned to the Senate, where he fought and continues to fight for those ideals for the next 28 years. Often, when a Republican senator needs help from the other side of the aisle, he or she will seek out Senator Kennedy because they know he will work for what is best for the country.
So there is a lesson here for you, Senator Clinton. Something to take from another defeated Democrat from a family so revered within the party:
I hope you get fucking brain cancer.
I applauded the political skill and courage you showed when you fought back from a 3rd place showing in Iowa to pull of an upset in New Hampshire. I admired your ability to win every time you faced a must-win primary, such as Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. Even as I watched my chosen candidate lose in the state of my birth and also my current state of residence, I was so happy to have such strong candidates vying for my party's nomination.
But all that changed after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries on May 6th. On that date, the delegate math, and consequently the chances of your being the nominee, turned definitively against you. Nothing short of a Clintonian (Bill, not you) scandal or an assassination (the possibility of which you so sensitively raised a while back) would have delivered the nomination to you.
But instead of acknowledging that you were beaten, you continued to attack the candidate virtually assured of being your party's nominee. You were so successful in tearing him down (as I've previously discussed in this blog), at least among your own supporters, that in West Virginia as many of your supporters said they would vote for McCain as would vote for your party's nominee.
Finally, last night, after reaching the required 2118 delegates to secure the nomination (and getting to the point where he would have passed 2210, which would have been a best case outcome for you at the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting last week), you didn't even have the class to congratulate him on his victory. You didn't even fucking acknowledge it. Instead, you played coy, saying "I will be making no decisions tonight." Why the fuck not? It's over, whether you like it or not!
What do you hope to accomplish by staying in? Are you going to squeeze some concession out of Obama, out of the nominee of your fucking party?!? Even Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (who would be a great VP pick for a lot of reasons, by the way), one of your strongest supporters, said today “You don’t bargain with the Presidential nominee. Even if you’re Hillary Clinton and you have 18 million votes, you don’t bargain.”
And then today your campaign announced that you would suspend you campaign on Saturday. Why then? Why not now? Why not last night, when you were conclusively beaten by any ad hoc method of determining the winner that you could come up with?
Your actions since May 6th, and especially your actions over the past day and a half, have demonstrated that the tenacity that I and so many people admired after your losses in Iowa, and Virginia, and Maryland, AND WISCONSIN, AND WASHINGTON D.C. HEEE-YAAAH....
Oh, sorry, I channeled Howard Dean there. Where was I.... oh, right. Since May 6th and since yesterday you have demonstrated that the tenacity we all admired during this campaign wasn't tenacity at all. You are so blinded by ambition and self-delusion that you are utterly incapable of doing what is right for your party and for your nation. By polarizing the party so much, there is pretty much no way out for your party's nominee. Either he chooses you as his VP and his campaign themes of change and hope and all that are severely hurt, or he doesn't choose you and all those down-scale white voters take their lunch pails over to the GOP. And having him ask you and then declining makes him look weak and that his eventual choice is not his first.
OK, so maybe I was a little bit harsh earlier when I said you should get brain cancer. But with all honesty, I can't figure out any other way besides a medical one for you to get out of the race without pretty severely fucking over your party. It doesn't have to be anything fatal. Breast cancer would actually work pretty well. You take a few months off to get definitive treatment, "unfortunately" removing you from VP consideration, then release a letter while recuperating in Chappaqua urging your supporters to work for the Senator Obama. Finally come January you're back in the Senate ready to help President Obama work toward universal health care. You've got a month or two before he has to pick a VP. I know a guy who can give you a few hundred consecutive high-radiation mammograms. Think about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)