In [Fair] Elections, There Is No Such Thing As 'Cutting In Line'


Just one more thing before Senator Clinton hands leadership to Senator Obama tonight:

He didn't cut in line. There is no such thing in a free and fair election. In job promotions, it exists. In chairing a congressional committee, it exists. In presidential appointments, it exists. But in a fair election, there is no such thing.

Take 1960 for example. John F. Kennedy seemed to come out of nowhere and defeat Lyndon B. Johnson for the Democratic nomination. LBJ had been a member of Congress since Kennedy was 19 years old. He was the Senate Majority Leader at the time of the election. LBJ represented the Democratic establishment, while Kennedy represented a new generation, promising modest change and a new direction for the nation in the Cold War era. His appeal ultimately prevailed. Then, as we know, he had to defeat another establishment candidate, sitting Vice President Richard M. Nixon. For similar reasons, he won by a nose.

Now did he cut in-line before two future US presidents? Does history record it that way?

I think not.

We can accuse Obama of being cocky. We can call him a rock star. Some can call him an asshole. But he did not cut in line. There is no such thing in a democratic and fair election.

The Smart Car Passion Coupe Reviewed



Say hello to my litte car.

 

Dhalgren here. Thanks to Ary, President of geniusride.com, I got my hands on a Smart Car ForTwo Passion coupe last week, and drove it nearly 200 miles in 28 hours. Here is my review.

 

After nearly 10 years, the Smart Car has finally come to the USA (and nearly 4 years after arriving in Canada). I first saw a Smart Car in 2005 when I was in London. In fact, I saw two models - the ForTwo coupe, and the Smart Roadster, which I thought was an outstanding sports car for those on a strict budget (and didn't mind a less than sports car top speed). Sometime between then and now, Smart even introduced a short-lived ForFour sedan, which seemed to be their best product. But it has been the ForTwo coupe that has been the iconic, best-selling model in their lineup since 1998.

In 2006, Smart's parent company, Mercedes-Benz, announced a redesign of the Smart ForTwo coupe, to go on sale in January 2008. While four models of the ForTwo coupe are offered in Germany, the US has received two models - the Pure and the Passion. I was able to rent the Passion for a 28 hour period.

Before I get into all the exciting details, here is a high-level summary:

Pros:

  • Ultra-compact, cute, stylish, well-made minicar.

  • Fun rear-wheel drive + tight turning radius = great city handling

  • An attention-grabber. You'll make lots of friends and have conversations with strangers wherever you go.

  • 40MPG overall is achievable if you drive conservatively and shift perfectly.

 

Cons:

  • With hard pedal action and no power steering on most models, driving can be a bit of a workout. Older drivers should steer clear unless they can find one with the power steering option.

  • Audio system is high quality. But only two speakers? They need to double that to four!

  • Unless you sacrifice some of the precious 10 cubic feet of cargo space, there is no spare tire storage. Smart car expects you to use the tire repair kit, or call for help if you get a flat.

  • Highway driving is never a relaxing experience. The car cannot go faster than 80MPH, making passing a rare occurrence. Stay in the right lane and don't stray too far from home.

 

The Smart car is clearly not for everyone. Stop considering one if you expect to have more than one passenger, carry more than one standard rolling luggage piece and a large duffel bag, do a lot of highway driving, or are not open to the idea of a daily drive being a calorie-burning experience. If you are OK with the criteria above, and are looking for all of that plus the unique ability to park in more places, and make a lot more friends (and possibly envious enemies), read on.

The Smart ForTwo comes in two trim levels, the Pure and the Passion. The Passion is by far the more popular model, and I think the only one worth considering, given the excellent standard features it adds for a modest price increase over the Pure. In fact, given that the Pure doesn't include a radio, it is clear that it is targeted at the food delivery market. The Passion comes standard with quality features including air conditioning, a lexan, transparent roof, paddle shifting, power windows and door locks, heated electric side mirrors, a leather-wrapped 3-spoke steering wheel, a single-disc CD player and radio with axillary audio input jack (in the glove compartment), and very nice, attention-grabbing, 9-spoke 15" alloy wheels with low profile 155/60 tires in the front, and 175/55's in the rear. If you are patient, you can find some Passion models with a 6-disc CD player (my test vehicle did), power steering, fog lamps, additional gauges, and a hard-to-find comfort package, which adds leather heated seats, automatic rain-sensing wipers, and auto-off headlamps (a must for a forgetful guy like me).




 

 

When the Smart Car Passion was delivered to my home in Inwood (a.k.a. "Manhattan's Peak"), I was given a quick tutorial on how best to drive it. The key is to listen to the engine revving behind you. I love listening to a car as it runs - that's why I love 5-cylinder cars like Audi A3, Volvo S40, and any horizontally-opposed engine - they make great purring sounds. But with the Smart Car, you have to listen a little more carefully for an important reason. You're listening for the gear shifts. Fortunately, the gear shifts process so slowly, that you can tell when they begin. If you lift your foot off the pedal as the shift begins, you can smoothly return pressure to the throttle and accelerate into the next gear. If you don't, your passenger's head will be thrown forward and back as the car makes a slow-motion shift at consistent throttle. Roger Penske might be the USA distributor of these cars, but the shifting action would be completely worthless in any race car anywhere. I would think most motorcycles have a smoother shifting action.

 

As I practiced lifting my foot off the gas at the start of a gear shift, I made the move to be more pro-active. The Smart Car Passion has a tiptronic semi-automatic transmission with steering wheel-mounted paddle shifting. By flicking the floor-mounted gear shift to the left, you engage tiptronic mode. A large gear indicator in the instrument panel shows the current gear as a large LCD numeral, which changes to a big up or down arrow when it is time to execute a shift. Unfortunately, there is no option to accompany the arrow with a audible alert. Of course, I wouldn't need an audible alert if I had a tachometer. But that's an option that was not installed on my car. But I figured it out. If I drove with the radio off and got to listen to all the sounds the car made, I got it to run smoother, accelerate better, and even get into the middle lane of the Major Deegan (I-87) to do some passing.

 




Plastics are good for the price, and put Chrysler / Jeep / Dodge to shame. Window and mirror controls are taken directly from a previous Mercedes C-class model.

 

As I drove the car north on the Deegan to Tarrytown / Sleepy Hollow, I noticed other sounds. Occasionally, the electric fan for the front-mounted engine radiator would turn on. I also thought that I could occasionally hear gasoline sloshing around in the tank, which had to be inches from the engine and my seat. The AC worked great, but of course it is noisy in a tiny cabin. The transmission made some noises here and there. But I am happy to report that wind noise is not a problem up to 70MPH. The Smart Car is as good as any compact car in dealing with outside noises. I could close my eyes and think I'm driving a Ford Focus or Toyota Corolla.

 

A center-mounted ignition, just like a Saab, only a lot smaller.

 

No engine temperature gauge or tachometer here. A pair of sporty, dash-mounted instruments are optional ($130).

 

 

I took the car to Rockefeller State Park in Tarrytown to take some pictures. And I took the car to the Sleepy Hollow visitor's center to snap a photo of the car next to its big cousin, the Mercedes S550. I also took a break to read the owner's manual, which is stored in the rear door, leaving a little extra room in the already small, lockable glove compartment.


Cooling-off the tiny engine in Sleepy Hollow.
With no power steering installed on my test vehicle, turning the wheel required more effort the more slowly I drove. Each turn, whether normal or three-point, and each parking maneuver, required a little more muscle. Also, the brake pedal is atypical. Instead of being mounted at the top, it is floor-mounted, and looks like a lollipop. I found that the pedal responded to pressure best with my right heel slightly elevated off the floor. That took a little extra effort (yeah, I'm not in shape, I know). And the brakes didn't engage until I pushed the brake pedal two inches forward, which was an alarming experience at first. With my excitement in getting my hands on the car, and driving a jaw-dropping 180 miles in 28 hours, my shoulders and right leg were a bit sore when I had to give the car back.

The floor-mounted brake pedal took some getting used to.
I took the car back to the city and decided to drive as much as I could. I hit the West Village, Red Hook, downtown Brooklyn, the Lower East Side, East Village, Soho, Tribeca, and Times Square. Everywhere I went, I got waves, thumbs-up, and a whole lot of questions like:

 

"Does that run on gas or electric?"

"How fast can that go?"

"Can you take it on the highway? Is it scary on the highway?" (They laughed when I said, "Stay in the right lane.")

"What's the fuel economy?"

The reactions from pedestrians were priceless. I had people pointing, waving, laughing, and running-up to ask me questions. I heard comments like "cool," "smart," and some chatter about gas prices as I drove by with my windows down. In particular I spoke to some Latino youths in Red Hook who spotted me from 50 yards away, and ran into the street to ask me all sorts of questions. One expressed interest in renting it for himself. And another expressed an interest in seeing two Smart cars in a street race.

In Inwood, a guy and his girlfriend pulled-up on my left on a two-way street to tell me that it was "so cute" and that they want to rent it this summer.

In Times Square, I had bunches of people waving and giving me a thumbs-ups I slowly rolled around Wednesday at midnight. However, two big, seemingly drunk men on West 42nd Street weren't so happy to see me. They crossed 42nd Street in between 10th and 9th avenues to take swipes at the car as I sped past. One of them slapped my right side mirror into its folded position, but thankfully didn't leave a mark. I can only assume that was a rare occurrence, but a unique car attracts unique responses.

The USA version of the ForTwo is powered by a Mitsubishi 3B2 engine, the same aluminum block engine that powers Mitsubishi's successful 5-door minicar, the "i". However, the heavier Mitsubishi vehicle is powered by a turbocharged version of that engine. In the Smart ForTwo, the 1-liter, naturally-aspirated 3-cylinder engine generates a modest 71 horsepower.

While the engine does not rev any higher than a comparable 16-valve 4-cylinder, the heat generated by the engine can be felt in the cargo area after an hour of driving or so. It was warm enough to gently heat my groceries during a late-night run to the Fairway supermarket in Red Hook. I wouldn't advise putting milk or ice cream in the cargo area for more than an hour of driving. At the very least, get an insulated cargo tote, since items in the cargo area will bounce around, even during gentle driving around town. When I went to the rear hatch to retrieve my groceries, I noticed something else. Because the hatch is directly above the tailpipe, I got a whiff of both engine heat and exhaust. It smells a lot like a motorcycle...or lawn mower. Not a danger, but something I am not used to in a regular-sized combustion-powered automobile.


Take a whiff. With the rear hatch directly above the tailpipe, there's no way to avoid it.
When I finally parked the car for the night at 01:00 in Inwood, I carefully chose a street corner, under a street light. The car's small size allowed me to squeeze-in without blocking a crosswalk, gutter, or wheelchair ramp - all ticketable offenses in this town. I parked it just 200 yards away from where my best friends car was broken into and sabotaged. I was worried that the Smart car would practically beg vandals to come over and cause havoc.

 

Thursday morning at 05:00, the car was where I left it, undisturbed. I did what I intended to do with the car in the first place. I rented it so I could pick-up my girl from JFK and take her out for breakfast and a drive. I took it to my local car wash. As the workers there laughed and giggled, I rode through the car wash and most of the brushes made contact with the rear window of the car. So it passed the car wash test. Just be sure to remove the radio antenna before going through.


If you can remember, unscrew the FM antenna before putting the ForTwo through a car wash.
At JFK, I think my girl quickly realized how stressful driving the car can be. After a delay at the JFK parking lot toll booth -where we discovered that the car was too small to be photographed by security cameras when I got my ticket and entered the lot- we were on our way to Paramus, New Jersey. Again, the car performed well, and was smooth when I was pro-active in upshifting. After lunch, and nearly 180 miles driven, it was time to take the car home to be picked-up. Yes, geniusride offers free drop-off and pick-up service.

 

As I completed a tight parallel parking maneuver in front of my building, my girl asked, "Where's the spare tire stored?" I replied that the car didn't have a spare on-board. We agreed that was a big sticky point. Probably a deal-breaker.

Apparently there is a 12-month wait list for the Smart ForTwo at Smart Car of Manhattan. Geniusride, which is based out of the Englewood Mercedes dealership, says that they can import a Smart ForTwo in a matter of days at the sticker price ($14,000 for the Passion, about $14,500 for the model I drove with the 6-disc CD player). Geniusride is a car rental company for the Internet era. They accept payments via PayPal and soon they will have an online reservation system.

At $80 a day ($90 on weekend days), a SmartCar rental is the best way to test drive the ForTwo. You have to spend a full day with the car to master the handling and driving techniques.

A rental is worth the fun and discovery. But a purchase? You would have to weigh the pros and cons carefully, as well as check out these larger vehicles. While none of them can match the ForTwo's 35-40MPG overall fuel economy, all of them are priced at or under $15,000, carry more cargo, and carry a spare tire. They include:

 

And keep in mind that Ford has the Focus coupe ready to roll this summer ($14,000), as well as the very sexy Fiesta 3-door coming to the US from their Mexico factory in 2010.

 

Like the late 1970s, we are seeing an increase in the number of small cars on the market. Japan keeps the most beautiful specimens in its home market. But that might change. More American consumers have to do what European consumers have had to do with rising fuel prices, and that is embrace the hatchback. As the price of gasoline is expected to rise indefinitely to $4 and $5 per gallon and beyond, we should see more sleek, fuel-sipping hatchbacks. The Smart is about as small as a combustion-powered hatchback can get. In order for it to feel at home, a lot of people will have to buy it. In environmentally-conscious Manhattan, that won't be a problem. But we may never see European hatchbacks in Indiana.

Then again, considering this morning's news from GM, we might see more tiny GM hatchbacks like the Chevy Aveo. Hummer might be finished as a mass market brand. This is big news.

In some respects, the Smart ForTwo is a preview of cars to come. Manual controls and a minimum of electronics all contribute to a lighter car that saves energy. Today's electric cars have similar characteristics, such as a lack of power steering. My first car could conceivably be an electric hatchback. Instead of lamenting the loss of luxury car conveniences, I should look at the Smart as a training vehicle for the electrics that will hopefully come to market.


 

Relax Obama Supporters - The Torch Will Be Passed


It's how politics works. And we are seeing a shifting of gears and the rise of a new leader for the Democratic party.

The past few days may have been worrying for Obama supporters. On Saturday, Harold Ickies threatened to take Hillary Clinton's case to the DNC Credentials Committee at the end of this month, to appeal the 'hijacking' of four of her delegate votes. On Sunday, both Ickies and Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe, hinted that Senator Clinton would not be congratulating Senator Obama on Tuesday night. This morning, Senator Clinton said that the nomination race is not over until it is over, and that "her political obituary is yet to be written."

Well, she is correct about that last point. See, her political obituary would be written if she didn't get behind Barack Obama in the general election. And that's not even an issue. It's not because Obama will extort her support. It's not because the rabid Obama supporters will scream and yell. It's because Clinton will follow the standard political playbook for the Democratic party. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's take a brief look at the nightmare scenario that we've heard from Obama supporters.

Senator Clinton has long argued that Senator Obama is not as electable as she is. That could be interpreted to mean that if the Democrats nominated Obama, he would have a greater chance of being upset by John McCain than Hillary would. Taken further, it could mean that if Obama were nominated, then Hillary would be in a position to say, "I told you so," if Obama lost in November. And taken even further, it could mean what many ordinary Democratic voters have recently speculated - that Senator Clinton wants Obama to lose in November, so she can stage a run in 2012. This topic was debated back in March by several bloggers and pundits.

The argument goes like this. Hillary reluctantly endorses Obama and campaigns for him, but she secretly (or not so secretly) hopes he loses to John McCain. Then Hillary can stage a successful 2012 campaign for a nation weary of 12 years of Republican rule, high gas prices, and the occupation of Iraq in its 10th year.

There is a huge problem with this argument. It assumes many things that have little or no chance of happening:

1. It assumes that Democrats will be just as receptive to a Hillary campaign in 2012 as they were in 2008.

2. It assumes that there will be no other up-and-coming Democrat who would want to defeat John McCain, should McCain win this November. After all, Obama wasn't on the radar in early 2006. Ariana Huffington foresaw a Gore vs. Clinton 2008 nomination race, and wrote about it in October 2005 and January 2006. Barack who?

3. And most important, it assumes that there would be no blame assigned to Clinton in the event of an Obama loss.

That sinks the argument. Think about what Clinton has said since her 11-state losing streak (which essentially killed her campaign). She said that McCain was qualified to be president, and in the same breath refused to give Obama the same pat on the fanny. She floated the talking point that Obama was doomed to lose, like Gore and Kerry, because he is an elitist. She made sure to use the word "hard working" before the word "white" in describing the demographic in which she defeated Obama in the Appalachian states. Never mind that the core of the Democratic base nationwide consists of liberals and African Americans. She suggested that Obama give-up and become her running mate as VP after he had won 11 contests in a row. And let su not forget the unforgivable assassination remarks. Hillary and her campaign managers have said too many negative things about Obama to be spared any blame if he loses in November. That's not a threat from this or any Obama supporter. That's not a threat from Mr. Obama. That's just the way politics works in the Democratic party.

Bill Clinton has been the de-facto leader of the Democratic party since winning the nomination in 1992. He filled a power vacuum that was left when Gary Hart dropped out of the 1988 nomination race. He remained the leader of the party through 2008. And it seems that tomorrow, June 3rd, Bill Clinton will lose that title. He seemed to understand that possibility today when he spoke in Milbank, South Dakota.

Naturally, the Clintons don't want to lose their leadership position in this great party. People in power do whatever they can to keep it while they are still playing within the rules. In this case, there are no term limits. The unwritten rule is that the next major Democrat to win the nomination and subsequently the presidency will become the leader of the party. Obama is poised to replace Clinton in that role. In fact you could argue that the party belongs to Obama beginning Tuesday.

Losing their leadership position is painful enough. But they would be throwing everything away if they set-up Obama to lose to John McCain, an old, uninspiring, ignorant man who by most accounts is too angry, too conservative, and too much like George W. Bush to beat a Democrat in November. Hillary Clinton would be putting her senate seat and political legacy at risk if she left Obama twisting in the wind.

And so, despite some threats, tough words, and pleas for more time, the transition from the Clintons to Obama is already in-play. The Clinton campaign has begun to tell its staffers to stand-down, as Senator Clinton is preparing a primetime speech in New York City to be delivered Tuesday night.

Meanwhile, Senator Obama is telling his supporters that he is looking forward to working with Hillary on the campaign trail. She might need a vacation and some private time. But she will campaign for Obama. The second place finisher in a nomination race doesn't have a choice. Obama and Clinton supporters who think that she has options need to settle down, and give it time. Give it time, and soon all of us will jump on the team and come on in for the big win.

Aw shit, I quoted Michael Herr again! I often do that.

Drifty On Clinton's Slow Death Scene: Let It Play Out

Another beautifully written, and wonderfully entertaining post by Driftglass. When does he not disappoint?


The end was ordained...

...Or, rather, I stopped letting myself being baited into fights that were now meaningless. Like arguing over some trivial debt at a funeral, or shrieking on and on about the feng shui of the chairs in a burning house, the ridiculousness of it suddenly lifted me up and out of myself. And after that, regardless of the size and throw-weight of the ragebombs being fired in my direction, they no longer affected me. The words being shrieked at me with such calculated venom and the constantly furious person out of whom they flew began to feel surreal, preposterous and very far away.

Can Bill Clinton Smooth Things Over?


According to a Times-UK article, the Obama camp is looking to Bill Clinton to heal the wounds inflicted in this divisive primary race. I liked this re-use of the 'give permission' talking point, which was previously used to criticize Hillary (see my previous post below).

“If anybody can put their arms around the party and say we need to be together, it is Bill Clinton,” a senior Obama aide said.

“He’s brilliant, he has got heart and he cares deeply about the country. It’s tricky because of his position as Hillary’s spouse, but his involvement is very important to us.

“Bill Clinton will give permission to Hillary supporters to come into our camp and become one party. He is critical to this effort.”

I only wish. What I do know is that Hillary is so bitter and angry, that I don't expect her to be at the Denver convention unless Bill makes peace with the Obama camp. It could happen. In fact, it might be the only way Obama can win the support of Hillary's voters. It's frustrating, but the key to Obama's November victory is making sure a majority of Hillary's supporters vote for him. A few months ago, I assumed that was guaranteed. But it is clear that a large percentage of Hillary's supporters have no desire to vote for Obama in November. Those in the red states might switch their vote to McCain.

What we need in the Democratic party is unity. Obama can't win without those who voted for Clinton in the primary. Obama has a delicate task of seduction ahead of him this summer.

Senator Clinton's Inexcusable RFK Remark


Surely all of us know by know what happened Friday afternoon. Hillary Clinton repeated a comment she made in March regarding how anything could happen in the month of June that would remove Obama from the Democratic nomination contest. The example she used then and yesterday was the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in June 1968. She made the comment during a private interview with the Argus Leader newspaper in Sioux Falls, North Dakota.

I let the comment go when I first read it at CNN/Time in March, assuming that she would quickly regret it. Also, I assumed that she would quickly realize the incredible implications of such a remark. It is unthinkable that a Democratic candidate for President of the United States would publicly comment that a possible route to the nomination would be the death (or murder!) of her opponent. It's the kind of comment that suggests that Clinton has spent a little time thinking or wondering about it. I dare not say she fantasized or hoped for it. She has not and will not.

We live in a nation that enjoys a high degree of freedom of expression. Surely, Hillary Clinton has the right to talk about RFK's assassination, and how it derailed a charismatic, star candidate, who looked poised to win the nomination and excite the nation. She herself is in a desperate, must-win situation. She must somehow derail a similar candidate, who has more momentum, more campaign cash, and more votes than RFK ever did, in a 50-state primary system (which didn't exist in 1968).

However, presidential candidates do not have the luxury of being able to say whatever they want in public. And the potential assassination of an American political candidate or elected official is one of them. Imagine if a Senator or Congressman had made such a comment about George W. Bush. She or he could have said, "He's in the final days of his second term. He's probably home free. But anything can happen between now and January 20th. He wouldn't be the first president to assume he was going to live-out his tenure. Lincoln was assassinated early in his second term. So was McKinley. We could have a late second-term event. It's not impossible." I would assume that hypothetical politician would be censured for such a remark.

There are certain topics that American politicians cannot touch. One of them is the assassination of a rival or colleague. It just cannot be touched, ever.

But why is that? After all, Hillary Clinton was only repeating a historical fact. Hillary was only stating the truth. And the truth is that the only way she can win the Democratic nomination is if Obama becomes seriously ill, dies, or quits the race. That's the truth. And besides, she was talking about RFK, not Obama. Right?

Wrong. It's all about context. Clinton was being asked why she was being hounded by party insiders and Obama supporters to quit the race. She was asked why people are trying to push her out. Her response was that it made no sense, especially when other races were not resolved at this point on the calendar. She raised two examples. First, she said that her husband didn't secure the nomination in 1992 until the California primary in June. (Her interviewer seemed to verify that answer, but it is in fact inaccurate. While Jerry Brown did not drop-out of the race until June, Bill Clinton secured the 1992 Democratic nomination in April.) Second, she brought up the 1968 race, which was just heating-up in June when New York Senator Bobby Kennedy won California.

And she could have said just that, and it would have been fine. But no. She said something else:

We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.

When I first saw this, I froze as soon as the words "Bobby Kennedy" left her mouth. I thought, 'where on earth is she going with this?' I still don't know. She had nothing to gain by mentioning it. And I don't think she was trying to impress the interviewer with her knowledge of 20th Century US history.

I will say again, she wasn't openly expressing a wish to see Obama die. I do think she is wishing Obama to quit or otherwise go away. But the way it came out. Why? Why, when there are so many other historic examples to draw from? The 1984 Democratic nomination was very close. The 1988 race wasn't settled until July 4th, when Jackson and Dukhakis brokered a deal to make nice. The 1976 race was extremely close as well. Why 1968? Why 'assassination'? Why?

She said something no American politician should ever talk about, unless it is a remembrance, an anniversary, or a part of a history lecture. Surely there will be members of Congress who will mark the 40th anniversary of Robert Kennedy's death with a few words on the Senate or House floor. But in the context of a political race, the mentioning of an assassination as an example of how the race can dramatically change late in the calendar, is completely unacceptable. This is because political assassination is one of this nation's darkest and most traumatic legacies (along with the Civil War, reconstruction, racism, and our involvement in Vietnam). Speaking about an American assassination as if it were a possibility to level a political contest is totally beyond the pale. It has no place in our national discourse, particularly among the candidates involved in the political race in question. And that's because any of the three candidates in the race could themselves become a victim of an assassin's bullet. It's a possibility we don't treat lightly and don't talk about in public. Rational Americans don't wish it on even their most hated politicians or political enemies. Most Americans don't even think about it.

And yet, there was Hillary Clinton, speculating why she was being pressured to leave the race. And in her verbal thoughts, she mentioned the assassination of RFK as an example of why she should remain in this race. Because, who knows, something awful could happen to Senator Obama. It was a cold, brutal, and utterly disgusting moment. It is right here:

And then there is Keith Olbermann's passionate, and very angry response less than 5 hours later. Perhaps this was a bit too harsh. But I trust Keith to be a rational man. And as this Saturday rolled on, I found myself becoming just as angry as Keith did Friday night. Here's Keith telling his viewers, "This, Senator, is TOO MUCH."


Asked if her continuing fight for the nomination against Senator Obama hurts the Democratic party, Sen. Hillary Clinton replied, "I don't. Because again, I've been around long enough. You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don't understand it. You know, there's lots of speculation about why it is. “

The comments were recorded and we showed them to you earlier and they are online as we speak.

She actually said those words.

Those words, Senator?

You actually invoked the nightmare of political assassination.

You actually invoked the specter of an inspirational leader, at the seeming moment of triumph, for himself and a battered nation yearning to breathe free, silenced forever.

You actually used the word "assassination" in the middle of a campaign with a loud undertone of racial hatred - and gender hatred - and political hatred.

You actually used the word "assassination" in a time when there is a fear, unspoken but vivid and terrible, that our again-troubled land and fractured political landscape might target a black man running for president.

Or a white man.

Or a white woman!

You actually used those words, in this America, Senator, while running against an African-American against whom the death threats started the moment he declared his campaign?

You actually used those words, in this America, Senator, while running to break your "greatest glass ceiling" and claiming there are people who would do anything to stop you?

You!

Senator - never mind the implications of using the word "assassination" in any connection to Senator Obama...

What about you?

You cannot say this!

The references, said her spokesperson, were not, in any way, weighted.

The allusions, said Mo Uh-leathee, are, "...historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer and any reading into it beyond that would be inaccurate and outrageous."

I'm sorry.

There is no inaccuracy.

Not for a moment does any rational person believe Senator Clinton is actually hoping for the worst of all political calamities.

Yet the outrage belongs, not to Senator Clinton or her supporters, but to every other American.

Firstly, she has previously bordered on the remarks she made today...

Then swerved back from them and the awful skid they represented.

She said, in an off-camera interview with Time on March 6, "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual. We will see how it unfolds as we go forward over the next three to four months."

In retrospect, we failed her when we did not call her out, for that remark, dry and only disturbing, in a magazine's pages. But somebody obviously warned her of the danger of that rhetoric:

After the Indiana primary, on May 7, she told supporters at a Washington hotel:

"Sometimes you gotta calm people down a little bit. But if you look at successful presidential campaigns, my husband did not get the nomination until June of 1992. I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process."

And at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, on the same day, she referenced it again:

"You know, I remember very well what happened in the California primary in 1968 as, you know, Senator Kennedy won that primary."

On March 6th she had said "assassinated."

By May 7 she had avoided it. Today... she went back to an awful well. There is no good time to recall the awful events of June 5th, 1968, of Senator Bobby Kennedy, happy and alive - perhaps, for the first time since his own brother's death in Dallas in 1963... Galvanized to try to lead this nation back from one of its darkest eras... Only to fall victim to the same surge that took that brother, and Martin Luther King... There is no good time to recall this. But certainly to invoke it, two weeks before the exact 40th anniversary of the assassination, is an insensitive and heartless thing.

And certainly to invoke it, three days after the awful diagnosis, and heart-breaking prognosis, for Senator Ted Kennedy, is just as insensitive, and just as heartless. And both actions, open a door wide into the soul of somebody who seeks the highest office in this country, and through that door shows something not merely troubling, but frightening. And politically inexplicable.

What, Senator, do you suppose would happen if you withdrew from the campaign, and Senator Obama formally became the presumptive nominee, and then suddenly left the scene? It doesn't even have to be the “dark curse upon the land” you mentioned today, Senator. Nor even an issue of health. He could simply change his mind... Or there could unfold that perfect-storm scandal your people have often referenced, even predicted. Maybe he could get a better offer from some other, wiser, country. What happens then, Senator? You are not allowed back into the race? Your delegates and your support vanish? The Democrats don't run anybody for President?

What happens, of course, is what happened when the Democrats' vice presidential choice, Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri, had to withdraw from the ticket, in 1972 after it proved he had not been forthcoming about previous mental health treatments. George McGovern simply got another vice president.

Senator, as late as the late summer of 1864 the Republicans were talking about having a second convention, to withdraw Abraham Lincoln's re-nomination and choose somebody else because until Sherman took Atlanta in September it looked like Lincoln was going to lose to George McClellan.

You could theoretically suspend your campaign, Senator.

There's plenty of time and plenty of historical precedent, Senator, in case you want to come back in, if something bad should happen to Senator Obama. Nothing serious, mind you.

It's just like you said, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Since those awful words in Sioux Falls, and after the condescending, buck-passing statement from her spokesperson, Senator Clinton has made something akin to an apology, without any evident recognition of the true trauma she has inflicted.

"I was discussing the Democratic primary history, and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged California in June in 1992 and 1968," she said in Brandon, South Dakota. "I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact.

"The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy. I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive, I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."

"My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate in the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family. Thanks. Not a word about the inappropriateness of referencing assassination.

Not a word about the inappropriateness of implying - whether it was intended or not - that she was hanging around waiting for somebody to try something terrible.

Not a word about Senator Obama.

Not a word about Senator McCain.

Not: I'm sorry...

Not: I apologize...

Not: I blew it...

Not: please forgive me.

God knows, Senator, in this campaign, this nation has had to forgive you, early and often...

And despite your now traditional position of the offended victim, the nation has forgiven you.

We have forgiven you your insistence that there have been widespread calls for you to end your campaign, when such calls had been few. We have forgiven you your misspeaking about Martin Luther King's relative importance to the Civil Rights movement.

We have forgiven you your misspeaking about your under-fire landing in Bosnia.

We have forgiven you insisting Michigan's vote wouldn't count and then claiming those who would not count it were Un-Democratic.

We have forgiven you pledging to not campaign in Florida and thus disenfranchise voters there, and then claim those who stuck to those rules were as wrong as those who defended slavery or denied women the vote.

We have forgiven you the photos of Osama Bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad...

We have forgiven you fawning over the fairness of Fox News while they were still calling you a murderer.

We have forgiven you accepting Richard Mellon Scaife's endorsement and then laughing as you described his "deathbed conversion."

We have forgiven you quoting the electoral predictions of Boss Karl Rove.

We have forgiven you the 3 a.m. Phone Call commercial.

We have forgiven you President Clinton's disparaging comparison of the Obama candidacy to Jesse Jackson's.

We have forgiven you Geraldine Ferraro's national radio interview suggesting Obama would not still be in the race had he been a white man.

We have forgiven you the dozen changing metrics and the endless self-contradictions of your insistence that your nomination is mathematically probable rather than a statistical impossibility.

We have forgiven you your declaration of some primary states as counting and some as not.

We have forgiven you exploiting Jeremiah Wright in front of the editorial board of the lunatic-fringe Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

We have forgiven you exploiting William Ayers in front of the debate on ABC.

We have forgiven you for boasting of your "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"...

We have even forgiven you repeatedly praising Senator McCain at Senator Obama's expense, and your own expense, and the Democratic ticket's expense.

But Senator, we cannot forgive you this.

"You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

We cannot forgive you this -- not because it is crass and low and unfeeling and brutal.

This is unforgivable, because this nation's deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy, is political assassination.

Lincoln.

Garfield.

McKinley.

Kennedy.

Martin Luther King.

Robert Kennedy.

And, but for the grace of the universe or the luck of the draw, Reagan, Ford, Truman, Nixon, Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, even George Wallace.

The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton, you cannot and must not invoke that imagery! Anywhere! At any time!

And to not appreciate, immediately - to still not appreciate tonight - just what you have done... is to reveal an incomprehension of the America you seek to lead.

This, Senator, is too much.

Because a senator - a politician - a person - who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States.

Good night and good luck.


© 2008 MSNBC Interactive

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/

Did Clinton Give Her Appalachian Supporters A 'Permission Slip' To Act On Racial Prejudice?



This is not a question to be asked lightly. Hillary Clinton's campaign has done nothing remotely close to George H.W. Bush's Willie Horton ad of 1988. Her campaign has not explicitly said that a vote for Obama will result in the rapes of white women or hordes black hoodlums in our streets. But if we examine what her campaign did say explicitly, then we can draw the conclusion that racist impulses in Appalachian voters were, shall we say, encouraged. And that is not a charge to throw around lightly, either.

Let me try to explain.

I was openly wondering why there was such a difference in results between Kansas and Kentucky. Kansas was a big victory for Obama. Kentucky was a landslide victory for Clinton. Both states are over 90% working-class caucasian. Both states are in the heartland (Kansas more so). Both states are predominantly Christian, specifically Protestant. Both states are almost assured to vote for John McCain this fall. But both states have independent voters, who have tended to favor Obama in the primaries. So what happened? My girl chimed in: "There's a big difference between Kansas and Kentucky."

Indeed there is. What is it with Appalachia? I found two great posts from Driftglass and LowerManhattanite. Both are outstanding, even if Drifty is a little bitter. But he has history on his side. The inherent racism of white Appalachia is well-documented, and it is a shameful history. It is the birthplace and legacy of Jim Crow.

Enter Senator Hillay Clinton's campaign into West Virginia and Kentucky. For months (since March, I believe) Clinton, her advisors, spokespeople and campaigners have been making the argument that Senator Clinton is more electable against John McCain in the general election. The reasons for this argument seem clear. Clinton is a major brand name. Middle America hardly knows Obama. Clinton is a more conservative Democrat, known for taking a stand against violence in video games, a stand for the war in Iraq, and a brief stand against flag burning. More electable, sure. But when the campaign entered West Virginia and Kentucky, the 'more electable' argument underwent a subtle transformation. Analysts can point to a single Clinton quote in Kentucky back on May 7th:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Clinton only said "white Americans" once, but it was enough to plant the theme that she was on the side of "hard-working", white voters, while Obama, somehow, was not. Essays and books have been written that decode the use of "working" or "hard-working" in addition to the word "white people" or "white Americans." It implies a lot in just a few words. White people work hard. People who don't look like them presumably don't work hard. Cenk Uygur explains further:
The second way they gave their voters permission to be racists is by using thinly veiled code words like, "I'm looking out for people like you." The very thin veil on these code words was lifted when Senator Clinton flat out said she was looking out for "hard working white Americans." And presumably Obama wasn't. And why is that? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the implication that he wasn't looking out for people like them because he wasn't one of them.

So, when the voter in Kentucky stepped into that booth, he didn't necessarily think, "I'm going to vote against Barack Obama because he is black and I'm racist." He thought, "Hillary Clinton is looking out for people like me. Obama cares more about his own people. And besides which he's going to lose in the general election because who would elect a black guy as president?"


This is the art of encoding and decoding in communication. It was subtle and effective, not blatant and egregious. Clinton's campaign didn't run a TV ad darkening Obama's face (a-la OJ Simpson on various TV networks) or try to make white voters frightened of Obama. It was more of an arm around their shoulder - a reminder that Clinton can be trusted because she connects with poor and working-class white people who don't have college degrees (Obama's support among college-educated whites is very strong, by the way). It was almost as if Clinton's campaign was saying, "Look, we know Obama's support among blacks is very strong. They side with him because of his race. It's OK for you to vote with Clinton because she is white. They are doing it, so we can do it too. And since we are the majority in this country (the silent majority, perhaps, like Reagan's supporters), we know we can override their votes and beat their candidate. It's white people like you who will decide this election."

Ampersand, over at Atlas Blog, compiled an excellent sampling of how the Clinton quote was interpreted, and it is clear that it worked as intended. Elrod has a similar summary of how "hard-working" plus "white" made her comment a classic, southern 'dog-whistle' moment. We coffee-drinking, urban, liberal intellectuals aren't making this up. Clinton delivered a specific, encoded message to the white voters of Kentucky on May 7th. She gave them a green light to vote against the black man on the basis of racial prejudice.

That's a much different message coming from a Clinton, a member of a family that might not have enjoyed two terms in the White House if it wasn't for a solid base of support among African Americans. Listen to the Clinton quote again, straight from Clinton's teleconference with USA Today. Note how she makes sure to say "hard-working." It seems to be a carefully-chosen word by her campaign.

One of the problems I perceive with this tactic is that black Americans are not voting for Obama solely because he is black. The driving force behind Obama is his charisma, the promise of dramatic change, and the fact that he is slightly more liberal than Clinton and against the occupation of Iraq. Those qualities have attracted more votes than Clinton nationwide. But Clinton's strategists and managers must have thought that they had an opportunity to exploit a large population of people who deep down, don't want to see a black man become president. They tapped into it, and it has worked in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

To her credit, Clinton later told CNN/Time that she regretted that remark. But that was after she had won Kentucky.

Cenk Uygur and E.J. Escow explain this conclusion, that Clinton gave voters in West Virginia and Kentucky permission to vote on their racial prejudices.


Keith Olbermann and Dana Milbank discuss the Clinton quote the week it happened.

Friday Evening Bad News: Holiday Weekend Edition


Last night was no exception to one of the biggest rules in the era of electronic news media. If you have bad news to report, save it for Friday evening. We have two minor stories and one enormous 'holy shit' story to remember from last night.

1. New York governor David Patterson pardoned Slick Rick. Slick Rick had been sentenced and served five years for the 1991 shooting of two men. But this pardon wipes the conviction off his record, preventing him from being deported back to his native Wimbledon. It seems David Patterson is a friend to Old School hip hop artists. As we say in the Old School, he knows what time it is! Good for him. But I wonder what the two survivors of the shooting think, assuming they are still alive.

2. The Liberal Avenger: John McCain finally had his medical records of the past few years released, under tightly-controlled circumstances (what a shock, and on the Friday before a 3-day weekend, too). Cable TV news networks all declared McCain to be in great health. His BMI is a healthy 24. He had a pre-cancerous patch of skin removed early this year. Oh, and he takes a lot of mind-altering drugs. But never mind that last bit.

3. And in a much, much more important development, an internal audit found that the Pentagon cannot account for a new, combined grand total of $15 Billion spent on Iraq reconstruction and security training projects. We had heard a $9 Billion figure discussed for years. However, this revised total takes into account new data, and compiles the results of previous audits, without overlap. Needless to say, this is something that Henry Waxman's committee is going to have to escalate. His committee was already shown one example - a $320 Million cash payment for Iraqi salaries that was released with just one signature and no due diligence that the cash actually went to Iraqi personnel.

Complete Keith Olbermann Special Comment, May 14 2008

Twelve unforgettable minutes (and 2,000 words) of American television news. It is my hope that this is remembered by historians and media scholars as one of the most important and visceral TV news moments of this decade. Time will tell.


President Bush has resorted anew to the sleaziest fear-mongering and mass manipulation of an administration and public life dedicated to realizing the lowest of our expectations. And he has now applied these poisons to the 2008 presidential election, on behalf of the party at whose center he and John McCain lurk.

Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic president could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States." This ludicrous, infuriating, holier-than-thou and most importantly bone-headedly wrong statement came during a May 13 interview with Politico.com and online users of Yahoo.

The question was phrased as follows: "If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what's the worst that could happen, what's the doomsday scenario?"

The president replied: "Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States. The biggest issue we face is, it's bigger than Iraq, it's this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives."

Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes "cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?" They are those in — or formerly in — your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.

Through your haze of self-congratulation and self-pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve your political objectives? "This ideological struggle," Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country.

It is a struggle between Americans who cherish freedom, ours and everybody else's, and Americans like you, sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like "Patriot Act" is a brand name or "Protect America" is a brand name.

But wait, there's more: You also said "Iraq is the place where al-Qaida and other extremists have made their stand and they will be defeated." They made no "stand" in Iraq, sir, you allowed them to assemble there!

As certainly as if that were the plan, the borders were left wide open by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of "they'll greet us as liberators." And as certainly as if that were the plan, the inspiration for another generation of terrorists in another country was provided by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of letting the societal infra-structure of Iraq dissolve, to be replaced by an American viceroy, enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and then evade prosecution in any country by hiding behind your skirts, sir.

Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush!

***

It was a Yahoo user who brought up the second topic upon whose introduction Mr. Bush should have passed, or punted, or gotten up and left the room claiming he heard Dick Cheney calling him.

"Do you feel," asked an ordinary American, "that you were misled on Iraq?"

"I feel like — I felt like, there were weapons of mass destruction," the president said. "You know, 'mislead' is a strong word, it almost connotes some kind of intentional — I don't think so, I think there was a — not only our intelligence community, but intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was."

Flawed.

You, Mr. Bush, and your tragically know-it-all minions, threw out every piece of intelligence that suggested there were no such weapons.

You, Mr. Bush, threw out every person who suggested that the sober, contradictory, reality-based intelligence needed to be listened to, and fast.

You, Mr. Bush, are responsible for how "intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment."

You and the sycophants you dredged up and put behind the most important steering wheel in the world propagated palpable nonsense and shoved it down the throat of every intelligence community across the world and punished anybody who didn't agree it was really chicken salad.

And you, Mr. Bush, threw under the bus, all of the subsequent critics who bravely stepped forward later to point out just how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy you had embraced, and adopted as this country's policy in lieu of, say, common sense.

The fiasco of pre-war intelligence, sir, is your fiasco.

You should build a great statue of yourself turning a deaf ear to the warnings of realists, while you are shown embracing the three-card monte dealers like Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

That would be a far more fitting tribute to your legacy, Mr. Bush, than this presidential library you are constructing as a giant fable about your presidency, an edifice you might as well claim was built from "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" because there will be just as many of those inside your presidential library as there were inside Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

***

Of course if there is one overriding theme to this president's administration it is the utter, always-failing, inability to know when to quit when it is behind. And so Mr. Bush answered yet another question about this layered, nuanced, wheels-within-wheels garbage heap that constituted his excuse for war.

"And so you feel that you didn't have all the information you should have or the right spin on that information?"

"No, no," replied the President. "I was told by people, that they had weapons of mass destruction …"

People? What people? The insane informant "Curveball?" The Iraqi snake-oil salesman Ahmed Chalabi? The American snake-oil salesman Dick Cheney?

"I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction, as were members of Congress, who voted for the resolution to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

"And of course, the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes."

Mr. Bush, you destroyed the evidence that contradicted the resolution you jammed down the Congress's throat, the way you jammed it down the nation's throat. When required by law to verify that your evidence was accurate, you simply resubmitted it, with phrases amounting to "See, I done proved it" virtually written in the margins in crayon.

You defied patriotic Americans to say "The Emperor Has No Clothes," only with the stakes — as you and the mental dwarves in your employ put it — being a "mushroom cloud over an American city."

And as a final crash of self-indulgent nonsense, when the incontrovertible truth of your panoramic and murderous deceit has even begun to cost your political party seemingly perpetual congressional seats in places like North Carolina and Mississippi, you can actually say with a straight face, sir, that for members of Congress "the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes" — while you greet the political heat and try to run and hide from your presidency, and your legacy — 4,000 of the Americans you were supposed to protect — dead in Iraq, with your only feeble, pathetic answer being, "I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction."

***

Then came Mr. Bush's final blow to our nation's solar plexus, his last reopening of our common wounds, his last remark that makes the rest of us question not merely his leadership or his judgment but his very suitably to remain in office.

"Mr. President," he was asked, "you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?"

"Yes," began perhaps the most startling reply of this nightmarish blight on our lives as Americans on our history. "It really is. I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander in Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as — to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

Golf, sir? Golf sends the wrong signal to the grieving families of our men and women butchered in Iraq? Do you think these families, Mr. Bush, their lives blighted forever, care about you playing golf? Do you think, sir, they care about you?

You, Mr. Bush, let their sons and daughters be killed. Sir, to show your solidarity with them you gave up golf? Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn't give up your pursuit of this insurance-scam, profiteering, morally and financially bankrupting war.

Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn't even give up talking about Iraq, a subject about which you have incessantly proved without pause or backwards glance, that you may literally be the least informed person in the world?

Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn't give up your presidency? In your own words "solidarity as best as I can" is to stop a game? That is the "best" you can do?

Four thousand Americans give up their lives and your sacrifice was to give up golf! Golf. Not "Gulf" — golf.

And still it gets worse. Because it proves that the president's unendurable sacrifice, his unbearable pain, the suspension of getting to hit a ball with a stick, was not even his own damned idea.

"Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?"

"I remember when [diplomat Sergio Vieira] de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf, I think I was in central Texas, and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it any more to do."

Your one, tone-deaf, arrogant, pathetic, embarrassing gesture, and you didn't even think of it yourself? The great Bushian sacrifice — an Army private loses a leg, a Marine loses half his skull, 4,000 of their brothers and sisters lose their lives — and you lose golf, and they have to pull you off the golf course to get you to just do that?

If it's even true.

Apart from your medical files, which dutifully record your torn calf muscle and the knee pain which forced you to give up running at the same time — coincidence, no doubt — the bombing in Baghdad which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello of the U.N. and interrupted your round of golf was on Aug. 19, 2003.

Yet CBS News has records of you playing golf as late as Oct. 13 of that year, nearly two months later.

Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you 6 1/2 years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people, but the war in Iraq is not about you.

It is not, Mr. Bush, about your grief when American after American comes home in a box.

It is not, Mr. Bush, about what your addled brain has produced in the way of paranoid delusions of risks that do not exist, ready to be activated if some Democrat, and not your twin Mr. McCain, succeeds you.

The war in Iraq, your war, Mr. Bush, is about how you accomplished the derangement of two nations, and how you helped funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to lascivious and perennially thirsty corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater, and how you sent 4,000 Americans to their deaths for nothing.

It is not, Mr. Bush, about your golf game! And, sir, if you have any hopes that next Jan. 20 will not be celebrated as a day of soul-wrenching, heart-felt thanksgiving, because your faithless stewardship of this presidency will have finally come to a merciful end, this last piece of advice:

When somebody asks you, sir, about Democrats who must now pull this country back from the abyss you have placed us at ...

When somebody asks you, sir, about the cooked books and faked threats you foisted on a sincere and frightened nation …

When somebody asks you, sir, about your gallant, noble, self-abnegating sacrifice of your golf game so as to soothe the families of the war dead.

This advice, Mr. Bush: Shut the hell up!

Taller Elizabeth Scalia (a.k.a. The Anchoress) *

Thanks to Sadly, No! for bringing this to light. I had to make the summary longer than her actual comment, so this is 'taller' Anchoress, not 'shorter.'

The Anchoress:

  • Sex is an elitist, luxury pastime, like horse racing. The UN has no understanding of people's hierarchy of needs when it decided to send 200,000 condoms to Burma yesterday. These people need to die, not screw. That was God's intent with the cyclone. Now if you excuse me, I will resume lamenting that I'm not getting any while I'm shut-in my own home, waiting for the next deathly illness to strike.

Clif at Sadly, No! is absolutely right when he says:

Perhaps this poor woman can take her rosary, tie her hands together with it, and never touch a keyboard again.

Oh, we remember The Anchoress, right? She wrote that hot, wet ode to George W. Bush precisely two years ago. A little too hot for a Catholic, actually, talking about Bush's pitching arm and sweaty blue dress shirts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's Sacrifice


I'm speechless. Not surprised. Just aghast. The full transcript of the latest Bush interview is here.


Q Mr. President, you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it really is. I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.

Q Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it anymore to do.

Monday Workplace Blow-Ups (A.K.A. 'WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!!')

Oh my, Keith Olbermann is going to have a field day with this. Many thanks to Crooks and Liars and YouTube user, OllieZiggy, for making this go viral.

This is an early 1990's video of Bill O'Rielly blowing-up on the set of Inside Edition. He yells at a poor kid on the set for a poorly-written script on the teleprompter. On one hand, I have to point out that although Bill is a misogynist, pill-popping (or cocaine-snorting) asshole of the first order, he does a pretty good job re-wording the gibberish that was given to him. On the other hand, how has he been able to last in this businesses? And was this the audition tape he used for The Factor?

Bill-O: "FUCKING THING SUCKS!!!"

UPDATE: Of course CBS had the video removed from YouTube. But it has been duplicated enough. Expect Keith to do something with it this week. He can't resist. You can download the QuickTime / MP4 version here, thanks to Crooks And Liars. Over 400,000 people watched the video on YouTube before it was taken down after just a few hours this morning.

Commenters at C&L noticed how this could be the best viral tirade video since David O' Russell blew-up at Lilly Tomlin on the set of I Heart Huckabees. It is known that Lilly Tomlin has a strong personality (Brooklyn!) and is not the easiest person to work with. But she's no Joe Pesci. She finally made David O' Russell snap after probably more than a day of exchanges like this. But it reveals who the asshole is, and he is not liked within the industry, despite making one of the greatest films of the 1990's. As the NY Times pointed out in a long behind-the-scenes story, Russell put fellow auteur Christopher Nolan in a headlock over losing Jude Law from the set of Huckabees. Back in 2003, there was no YouTube. But now, this set rehersal video is just as famous as the movie.

Welcome to bigger movies, Mr. Schwartzman. Get your foot off that desk, and get away from Mr. Director. The girl cowering on the far right reveals a lot. Surely she had seen this behaviour before.


Worse than Johnny Mac

I think George Clooney explained Russell best. It isn't worth working with him or others like him at your workplace.


PLAYBOY: What made you want to do [Three Kings]?

CLOONEY: David Russell wrote as good a script as I've ever read. I fought to get it. He wanted a lot of other actors before me. They went to Mel and to Nic Cage. I wanted to work on this movie. David is in many ways a genius, though I learned that he's not a genius when it comes to people skills.

PLAYBOY: Did you learn about that the hard way?

CLOONEY: I did. He yelled and screamed at people all day, from day one.

PLAYBOY: Did he yell at you?

CLOONEY: At me often --- and at someone daily. He'd throw off his headset and scream, "Today the sound department fucked me!" For me, it came to a head a couple of times. Once, he went after a camera-car driver who I knew from high school. I had nothing to do with his getting his job, but David began yelling and screaming at him and embarrassing him in front of everybody. I told him, "You can yell and scream and even fire him, but what you can't do is humiliate him in front of people. Not on my set, if I have any say about it." Another time he screamed at the script supervisor and made her cry. I wrote him a letter and said, "Look, I don't know why you do this. You've written a brilliant script, and I think you're a good director. Let's not have a set like this. I don't like it and I don't work well like this." I'm not one of those actors who likes things in disarray. He read the letter and we started all over again. But later, we were three weeks behind schedule, which puts some pressure on you, and he was in a bad mood. These army kids, who were working as extras, were supposed to tackle us. There were three helicopters in the air and 300 extras on the set. It was a tense time, and a little dangerous, too. David wanted one of the extras to grab me and throw me down. This kid was a little nervous about it, and David walked up to him and grabbed him. He pushed him onto the ground. He kicked him and screamed, "Do you want to be in this fucking movie? Then throw him to the fucking ground!" The second assistant director came up and said, "You don't do that, David. You want them to do something, you tell me." David grabbed his walkie-talkie and threw it on the ground. He screamed, "Shut the fuck up! Fuck you," and the AD goes, "Fuck you! I quit." He walked off.

It was a dangerous time. I'd sent him this letter. I was trying to make things work, so I went over and put my arm around him. I said, "David, it's a big day. But you can't shove, push or humiliate people who aren't allowed to defend themselves." He turned on me and said, "Why don't you just worry about your fucking act? You're being a dick. You want to hit me? You want to hit me? Come on, pussy, hit me." I'm looking at him like he's out of his mind. Then he started banging me on the head with his head. He goes, "Hit me, you pussy. Hit me." Then he got me by the throat and I went nuts. Waldo, my buddy, one of the boys, grabbed me by the waist to get me to let go of him. I had him by the throat. I was going to kill him. Kill him. Finally, he apologized, but I walked away. By then the Warner Bros. guys were freaking out. David sort of pouted through the rest of the shoot and we finished the movie, but it was truly, without exception, the worst experience of my life.

PLAYBOY: Did you resolve things? Would you ever work with him again?

CLOONEY: Life's too short.

Follow-Up On The Former Guantanamo Detainee Turned Suicide Bomber

By Dhalgren

Last Week, Archetype posted a link to a story about a man who was freed from Guantanamo, and years later, blew himself up in Iraq, killing many civilians with him. Looking at the Wingnut response to the story, I finally realize that Archetype was pointing out that the US had produced a terrorist - not catch a terrorist and then let him go. Clif at Sadly, No! explains how Paul (”Deacon”) Mirengoff over at Powerline overlooks the use of the word "detainee" and argues that the detainee was a terrorist from day one.....or in case he wasn't, he still wins his argument!

Foo!

According to My Life in San Andreas>, I made it to mission # 66 today. I'm now over 50% complete. And I now like this mean-spirited classic.


I got another gang story to tell.
Peep, about how a black nigga was born in hell.
And right then and there it's no hope
cause a nigga can't escape the gangs and the dope.
Damn
And when its black on black, that makes it shitty.
Can't survive in the Compton city.
And fool thats bet.
Cause when you grow up in the hood, you gots ta claim a set.
Geah
Its not that you want to but you have to.
Don't be a mark, cause niggas might laugh you
straight off the mutherfuckin block.
Can't deal with bustas so they asses get clocked.
Geah
who gives a fuck about another.
Only got love for my fuckin gang brothers.
Geah
but I'm young so nobody would wonder
That the hood would take me under.

[scratching: always strapped and eager to peel a cap
The hood done took me under.]

Now I'm a few ages older
got hair on my nuts and I'm a little bit bolder.
And puttin in work, I has to do my fuckin part,
I'm down for the hood and its planted in the heart.
Foo
At school slappin on the girls asses
Fuck the white education so I skip a lot of classes.
Cause ain't no teaching a nigga white reality.
Teach me the mutherfuckin gang mentality.
Pop pop pop, drops the sucker
if he's from another hood I gots ta shoot the mutherfucker.
Geah
I'm in it to win it and can't quit.
Foo
And ready die for this shit.
One times can't fade the gang tuff.
Puttin my foot in your ass to make times rough.
I'm the neighborhood terror but I never wondered
that the hood would take me under.

Chorus:
+[police is hot, so I'm watching my back...]

I guess I'll watch my back cause niggas jivin'
Times heard this brother pulled a 187.
Who I thought was my homie dropped the dime.
So I gotta peel his cap with the nine.
Foo
so if its on then its on, fuck ya G,
because how the odds are looking, its either him or me.
So I loads up the strap and I step
cause my brain cells are dead and all I think is death.
Revenge. That's what its all about.
See the sucker, take the mutherfucker out.
Stare the fool down with the eye contact.
He try to swing so I draw on him with the gatt.
Blast was the sound that one times heard uh
Nigga 25 to life for the murder.
Was it worth it I've always wondered.
Maybe if the hood didn't take me under.

Billions Per Month.....For What, Again?

Ex-Guantanamo inmate in Iraq suicide bombing: TV

So Iraq is the breeding ground for terrorists, huh?

Looks to me like our boys in 'Uba are doing a fine job at it as well. I wonder if we can fire off another 500 Million per month to combat the "enemy combatant combatants"........

....hmmm sounds like Jimmy Two Times from Goodfellas..."I'm gonnah get the papers, get the papers."

Can we go back a second, 500 Million per month......500 Million. Wow. I guess you really don't get what you pay for these days. I cannot even imagine what it would take to actually buy every single homeless person a home, but I bet that 500 Million bucks per month might cover that and get them all a nice wardrobe, a decent transit system that could cross a new infrastructure of tracks and bridges, as well as things like food and proper health care.....

.....you know, to make them viable candidates for all those jobs we keep shipping all over the world.