alternative hippopotamus

This is a hoot:

Have you dated liberals before? If so, any difference you can tell between liberal and conservative guys?

Absolutely. It’s kind of like night and day. I have always had a policy of not dating liberals, but once, after a bad break-up, I dated a couple of liberal guys…

First of all, they don’t have the same values and I find that to be a fundamental problem. I know a lot of people are willing to accept that, but I’m not. Their whole world view is different from someone who has conservative values and traditional values as a way of life.

Being focused on yourself, and your rights, and materialism, and no ultimate sense of morality — because I guess when you believe in a more secular way of life, a more liberal viewpoint, it’s all about what you can do for yourself and how you can be happy…and you don’t have any belief in absolute truth or religious principles to guide how you live. You get guys who are selfish and into themselves and don’t care so much about humanity, other people, or me — that just leads to a lot of problems. I also have a problem with guys who are into things like getting completely trashed and doing drugs…

I haven’t seen much coverage of this WaPo story on the blogs, at least yet. The point of the article is that HRC is indeed looking at taking her campaign to the convention in August:

A day after Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged the candidates to end the race by July 1, Clinton defied that call by declaring that she will take her campaign all the way to the Aug. 25-28 convention if necessary, potentially setting up the prolonged and divisive contest that party leaders are increasingly anxious to avoid.

“I know there are some people who want to shut this down and I think they are wrong,” Clinton said in an interview during a campaign stop here Saturday. “I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don’t resolve it, we’ll resolve it at the convention — that’s what credentials committees are for.

As that old sage once said: Timing is everything. It would have been a completely different gesture for HRC to insist on delegates being counted in Florida and Michigan back when it became clear that they wouldn’t be counted. I’ll be the first to say that I don’t like the way things have unfolded in Florida and Michigan. But, it was also clear at the time that these votes would amount to a protest of the DNC rules that put Iowa and New Hamphshire ahead of everyone else. It’s a good point. But, you can’t come back and say that this wasn’t really meant as a protest vote. We now expect it to count for real.

Since Clinton (meaning HRC) is bringing up the idea of taking this to the convention, I have to wonder if this wasn’t the essence of her strategy over the last 30 days? I have the same question regarding her position on Florida and Michigan. Right now they’re a done deal. If there’s a re-vote, that means legal challenges can drag on until the Democratic convention. At least.

I would love for someone to explain to me how this is going to help put a Democrat in office this year. Right now, it looks like a scorched earth approximation.

Colin Powell at a meeting yesterday of five former Sectaries of State, discussing the need to close Gitmo: (Think Progress)

“Our image abroad has dropped significantly,” Powell said. He put some of that blame on his former boss. […]

Guantanamo “gives us a very, very bad name, not just internationally,” [James] Baker said. “I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how we can hold someone, pick someone up, particularly someone who might be an American citizen, even if they were caught somewhere abroad, acting against American interests, and hold them without ever giving them an opportunity to appear before a magistrate.”

Bush, responding to a question by Joe Biden, concerning growing problems in Iraq: (NYT Magazine)

Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. ‘’I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,'’ he began, ‘’and I was telling the president of my many concerns'’ — concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. ‘'’Mr. President,’ I finally said, ‘How can you be so sure when you know you don’t know the facts?”’

Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator’s shoulder. ‘’My instincts,'’ he said. ‘’My instincts.'’

I often see the folks at certain Clinton-supporting blogs accusing the Obama campaign of “disenfranchising” the voters. To wit:

Despite the lies and the selectively quoted data, Hillary Clinton can still win the popular vote. Barack Obama’s apparently successful disenfranchisement of the voters of Florida and Michigan does not completely negate that possibility.

There are two questions here. The first is: is the Obama campaign disenfranchising the voters? The second is: how about the timing of the complaint?

With regards to the first question it would be more accurate to say that the two campaigns couldn’t agree on rules for a revote. As a result of this, and because of the actions the DNC took on primary violations, the votes of the Florida and Michigan delegations do not count. If one wants to argue that they are disenfranchised, the fault lies at the feet of many people, including their own. Is the Obama campaign somehow more to blame than the Clinton campaign? You’d really have to show me the money to convince me on that count.

Second. The timing of the complaint. As Carl Bernstein writes (my emphasis):

When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out — usually long after they have been challenged — the mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest — once and for all — in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC’s refusal to recognize those states’ convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.

I will add that if the Clinton supporters are genuinely concerned about voter disenfranchisement, and see it as a human rights issue, they have an opportunity right here in our fair city. It turns out that the people of DC are so disenfranchised that they have no voting representative to either the House or the Senate! The city can’t even spend city money without the parental supervision of Congress. I’m pretty sure that’s a more serious disenfranchisement than the current primary situation in Michigan and Florida.

Photo credit: WFB’s Ghost Laments.

I’m sure you recognize the image in the foreground. That’s Hillary Clinton. In the rear of the photo is Richard Mellon Scaife.

If you’re not familiar with the relationship between the two, in simplistic terms RMS is the human form of the VRWC. I think it’s fair to say that RMS spent a good deal of the family fortune in an effort to destroy the career of Hillary’s husband. And for that matter the Democratic Party, and certainly liberalism.

I believe this will be a historic photograph one day. Folks that were once the worst of enemies appear to be comfortable with the current state of affairs.

One of the most disappointing (even occasionally depressing) aspects of the Great Blog War of 2008 is watching blog authors who I used to read, go the way of spin over substance. I liked the idea of the left being more rational in approaching politics. I frankly think that the left’s claim to be the “reality-based” community has been mortally injured by the primary fight.

This CorrenteWire blog is an example of spin over substance. The notion that’s being posited is that TPM is applying a “new rule” to the contest: that leadership in the delegate count must decide the super delegate vote. As the blog accuses TPM: (emphasis mine)

What Josh is doing there is kind of like the poker game he describes, only the guy with four of a kind says, before everyone lays their cards down, that four of a kind beats a straight flush. If the guy with the straight flush folds, four of a kind wins even though it could have lost according to the rules. The Clinton Campaign is calling that bluff, and demanding that Obama (and his supporters) follow the rules as they are, which includes letting the superdelegates decide what they think is best for the party. Josh is certainly free to keep trying to bully the superdelegates into voting in lock-step the pledged delegates (but it is kind of funny that he never seems to ask superdelegates like Kennedy or Kerry to follow the will of the voters in their state).

Having followed Corrente for a number of years, I find it difficult to believe that any of the regular authors are inclined to believe that super delegates would have a clue what “is best for the party.” A suspicion that a DNC type might act to protect Democratic party insiders over the welfare of the country, sure, but that’s not the sense that I understood the blog author to mean by what “is best for the party.” I would say that the flavor of the blog over the years has been distrust of the elected in so far as they come to see themselves as elect.

And, of course, neither Josh Marshall nor Kos nor anyone else is proposing that there is an unwritten rule that the super delegates must follow the tally of the primaries. What they are saying is that the forseeable consequence of a super delegate selection differing from the delegate favorite is that many people would regard the result as the elect imposing their will upon the people. The People would be rightly pissed off. I think it would be fair to say that the prospect of dancing in the streets during the Democratic convention would be slim to none. Unless of course it’s the right-wing freak show doing the dancing- the NRO’s, Powerlines, and Malkins of the world.

MyDD has a cunning plan to refute the delegate lead: (emphasis mine)

A far more compelling argument to superdelegates, I would think, is to constantly remind them about Michigan and Florida. Not because they’re “two of the big four” necessarily but rather because had they moved to legal dates they would have represented two additional early Clinton wins, likely big ones, and the mere fact that Obama would have had to compete there would have meant fewer resources for him to expend in other states. In other words, Obama’s pledged delegate and popular vote leads, such as they are, have an unavoidable asterisk next to them, one that may not pay dividends for Clinton in the official tally, but one that absolutely would factor into my decision if I were a superdelegate.

But the DNC decision on Florida and Michigan was well known in advance. The two states were just as disenfranchised in January as they are now in March. But no one was claiming back in January that the outcome of the Democratic primaries would have an asterisk next to it. Or that the more legitimate claim to deciding the primary outcome should be in the hands of super delegates.

I hope you will forgive my snark when I say that I intend to support candidate Asterisk in the primaries. And all the little asterisks. And, in January 2009 I fully expect to see President Asterisk being sworn in.

Let’s pretend for a second that a bar-room brawl isn’t currently underway between two leading figures in the Democratic Party. No, really, pretend.

Now, let’s take a look at these words from a random member of the clergy from a city somewhere in our fair country: (in this case I’m stealing the quote from David Neiwert)

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

I’m pretty sure I’m right in saying that this is not crazy talk. But, it sure looks crazy if the only thing you leave in the quote is “God damn America.” Let me put it in slightly different terms. Disobeying the commandments, say by killing innocent people and by acting as if one is God, are acts damnable by God. That isn’t a controversial statement, it’s completely supported by the text of Exodus.*

It sure makes me wonder why folks didn’t provide the full quote when they were dissing Obama’s relationship with Wright. Particularly the right-wing media outlets like Fox News and MyDD.

At any rate it makes statement like this one from the blogsite This Makes WFB’s Ghost Sad particularly curious:

The fine folks over at Olbermann Watch have put together this video, contrasting Olbermann’s original nine minute rant about Clinton’s need to “reject and denounce” Geraldine Ferraro with his subsequent defense of Obama’s association with the Rev. Wright. The hypocrisy is breathtaking, even by Olbermann standards.

The line about “The hypocrisy is breathtaking” made my head cock to the side in much the same way that a dog reacts to a picture of a bowl of dog food. It’s that canine moment of contemplating how a thing can both occur in time and space and be unreal at the same time.

This is not a group of people who should use the word “hypocrisy.” Just like Karl Rove can never call a political dirty trick shockingly depraved (unless he’s trying to make a joke) the hacks, wannabees, and leftovers that make up the Corner roundtable can’t use the word hypocrisy.

*”it’s completely supported by the text of Exodus.” When I wrote this I was thinking of the 10 commandments, particularly (verses from Exodus 20:2-17):
3. Do not have any other gods before me.
13. You shall not murder.

Later I realized that this applies equally well to the story of Moses and Pharaoh.

The bigger point is that the statements that Wright made were intended for the context of both the Old Testament stories as well as the struggle in the US for class equality.

As you probably are aware, Politico did a straw poll that showed that 70% of the Take Back America attendees favored Obama in the upcoming election. On one hand, this doesn’t surprise me. The demographics of TBA are people like me, so it’s not surprising that I should identify with people like me. Still, 70% is a big number. That does surprise me.

Add to that, that bloggers who I also would describe as “people like me,” have not uniformly come out in support of Obama. I’d even say that there’s something about him they don’t like. Fair enough, I just don’t like the way some folks disrespect supporters of the dude.

Jerome Armstrong, for example, is out of line when he says:

But it’s even worse that, caught up in a presidential contest in which denouncing Wright has been seen only through the prism of supporting Obama, progressives have been silent about Wright’s wrong and divisive words. That’s a terrible precedent to have set.

Pull off the blinders that have you supporting a particular candidate, while being blind to the bigger issue. If progressives are not going to have the guts to call out those who foster divisive talk, and demand their renouncement, no matter where it comes from, it’s a bigger loss than an election.

Candidate love must be the blindest love of all- since 70% of progressives, at least the ones at Take Back America, would throw American society under the bus. This is a contemptuous view of his fellow progressives, and one that does Armstrong no credit. It’s certainly true that holding a minority view does not make you wrong. It may be reason, though, to take a moment and ask if there’s something that other people see in a candidate, and why they might see what they do.

Clearly, I don’t think I’m in the process of throwing American society under the bus. Why am I not bothered by Obama’s relationship with Wright? Because the two have completely different approaches to the issue of race in our culture. Perhaps you remember the Bill Moyers interview with Shelby Steele. Steele identified two approaches to race observed in our public discourse: that of bargainer, and that of challenger:

SHELBY STEELE: Well, the black American identity, certainly black American politics are grounded in what I call challenging. It’s basically, they look at white America and say we’re going to presume that you’re a racist until you prove otherwise. The whole concept is you keep whites on the hook. You keep the leverage. You keep the pressure. Here’s a guy who’s what I call a bargainer who’s giving whites the benefit of the doubt.

BILL MOYERS: Give me a simple definition of what you call a bargainer. And a simple definition of what you call a challenger.

SHELBY STEELE: A bargainer is a black who enters the American, the white American mainstream by saying to whites in effect, in some code form, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I’m not going to rub the shame of American history in your face if you will not hold my race against me. Whites then respond with enormous gratitude. And bargainers are usually extremely popular people. Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Sidney Poitier back in the Sixties and so forth. Because they give whites this benefit of the doubt. That you can be with these people and not feel that you’re going to be charged with racism at any instant. And so they tend to be very successful, very popular.

Challengers on the other hand say, I presume that you, this institution, this society, is racist until it proves otherwise by giving me some concrete form of racial preference.

BILL MOYERS: Affirmative action.

SHELBY STEELE: Affirmative action. Diversity programs. Opportunities of one kind or another. And so, there is a much more concrete bargaining on the case of challengers. And you go into any American institution today and they’re all used to dealing with challengers. They all have a whole system of things that they can give to challengers, who then will offer absolution.

The two have taken different paths in their lives: Obama is a bargainer. Wright is a challenger. Has Obama rejected Wright’s divisiveness? I’d say Obama has so much rejected Wright’s divisiveness on the issue that he has taken the other path in approaching how he deals with race.

Not really. But, I chatted with folks I haven’t seen for a while, and saw or met some celebs. Phil Donahue! Ariana Huffington! Bill Gates, Sr!

Bill Gates, Sr., is of course the father of the deranged billionaire, MisterSoft. For someone who sired that much money, Bill Gates, Sr. is surprisingly in favor of such class-leveling left-wing fantasies like the Estate Tax. It’s almost like he believes that a calcified class hierarchy is deadly to a democratic republic. Who knew?

With my Drinking Liberally hat on I pitched the concept of a Firedoglake Night to Jane Hamsher and Christy Hardin Smith. A benefit perhaps? For what, I don’t know. How ’bout for me? Mmmmh? I gotta eat too, ya know. Jane Hamsher countered with: how ’bout a Naomi Klein book night? I mentioned the idea to Naomi Klein. We’ll see what transpires. Her book, The Shock Doctrine, is fabulous, btw. I defy you to start reading it and put it back down.

Chatting with Eric Boehlert, I learned that he too, has a new book coming out in which the progressive blogosphere will be a featured element. This too, would be a book for which a party in our Fair City should happen. Again, we’ll see. The talk turned to the Great Blog War of the Democratic Primary of 2008. Remember when we were the “reality-based community?” Those were the days. It’s not for nothing we’ve been studying the scorched earth stylings of Little Lulu and Doughy Pantload.

Yesterday, I went to an actual press conference. With actual reporters from the Washington Times, Fox Noise, Politico, etc. And it wasn’t even all that icky. Except for the Laroushie who asked about how right Lyndon Larouche was when he predicted the upcoming (current?) recession. Robert Borosage, one of the organizers of TBA, countered with: “Lyndon Larouche has predicted 100 of the last 2 recessions.” The Politico article that was largely the result of the press conference: here.

Starting next Monday the Take Back America conference comes to the banks of the Potomac, Our Fair City, USA. There will be all kinds of media figures, bloggers, politicians, and hey, even my hero Norman Lear. I will be on blogger’s row, as I have been for the last couple of years. It’s as close as I get to the Cool Kids Club. And Candy Crowley.

In theory I’m there to learn how to be a better progressive, which may even include being more tolerant of other Democratic candidates. So, this is the last time for a while that I can say this: Your candidate’s pwnd, & my candidate r00lz! There, I’m glad I got that out of my system.

There’s also going to be a lot of parties. No $4300 call girls, or as Lewis Black would have it, used Hondas. Just a bunch of progressives sitting around talking. About our common vision for a Bush-free world. And, loving it.