Richard Cohen "Earns" Another Paycheck

Oh joyous day, another Richard Cohen column in today's WaPo! Huzzah! Today, Richard turns to the (in-no-way-beaten-beyond-death) topic of race in the Democratic primary race. What insights await us? Well, his overall point is that the Clintons have been out of line (oh you think so, doctor?), but...wait for it...Obama is to blame, too! Silly man, he should have known better than to be born with an African father...that pesky dark skin is nothing but trouble in national campaigns!

Here's a gem:

The usual post-campaign books this time around may have a particularly interesting tale to tell. It will be how Hillary and Bill Clinton -- or is it Bill and Hillary Clinton? -- managed to turn Obama into the black candidate he never wanted to be. In South Carolina, Obama overwhelmingly lost the white vote.

Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that if post-campaign books "may have" a particular "tale to tell," it would be [your theory here], not "will be." FFS, you just said "may." That's neither here nor there, however. The real nugget here is the last sentence in the paragraph, which I have bolded for your convenience. Okay, let's look at the (oh-so-reliable in a state where the pre-election polls understated Obama's victory by 17% or so) exit poll data for white voters (all ages...Obama won the under 30 white vote, but Richard didn't get that analytical today): Clinton 36%, Obama 24%. Wow! what an old skewl butt-whuppin'! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! But wait...that only adds up to 60%...what about the remaining 40%? Must have been split between Dennis Kucinich and Jesse Jackson (as a write-in...I mean, Bill's got me convinced of Jesse's South Carolina electoral prowess), right? What's that, you say? John Edwards took 40% of the white vote? You mean, Hillary lost the white vote in South Carolina, too? But, but, but that could mean that a large segment of white voters, disturbed by Clinton's tactics, chose instead to vote for a different candidate (one who just happened to be a native son, and who won the 2004 South Carolina Democratic primary with 45% of the overall vote). I guess this didn't fit neatly into Cohen's theory of the day, so he ignored it. I've come to expect nothing less.

Moving on:

The turning point for Obama actually came in New Hampshire, when Hillary Clinton said that Martin Luther King's "dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964." This, of course, only reflected historical reality and was, moreover, a slap not at King, but at Johnson's predecessor, John F. Kennedy, to whom Obama is often compared. (Both Caroline Kennedy and her uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, have since endorsed Obama.)

Okay, to the extent that this statement "only reflected historical reality," it also conveniently ignored the equally important historical reality that none of Johnson's political maneuvering on behalf of civil rights would have been possible without the work of Dr. King, and thousands of others who were on the front lines of the civil rights movement. Which is, of course, what got many people so upset. And does Cohen really, honestly believe that Hillary was taking "a slap" at JFK? Seriously? I mean, warranted or not, what Democratic candidate in their right mind would take a swipe at JFK during a contested primary season? Plus, Cohen seems to (surprise!) ignore the second sentence of Hillary's statement: “It took a president to get it done.” What, Richard, you mean JFK wasn't a president? How can a supposedly Serious OpEd columnist for a major newspaper read those two sentences and conclude that Hillary was taking a swipe not at Dr. King, but at John F. Kennedy?

Moving on yet again:

Possibly we shall someday learn that Hillary Clinton's remark was diabolically intended to offend blacks. I doubt it. Whatever the case, though, some important African-Americans quickly reacted -- and the Democratic primary campaign was never again the same. Not only did the Clintons not back off, but they seemed to savor the moment. As for Obama, instead of adroitly taking the sting out of what Hillary Clinton had said by shrugging it off, he called her comments "unfortunate" and "ill-advised."

In the words of Andy Dufresne, "How can you be so obtuse?" Hillary's remark wasn't "diabolically intended to offend blacks," it was calculated (diabolically or not) to make whites view Obama differently - to say to them, "no matter how inspirational a voice he may be, he's not a Serious [read: white] politician capable of bringing about meaningful change."

Jumping ahead a bit:

In South Carolina, the Democratic presidential race turned a corner. Hillary Clinton went virtually white; Obama went black. In Iowa, in a much larger field, Obama had gotten about one-third of the white vote. In South Carolina, in a three-way race, the figure dropped to 24 percent. By the end, Hillary Clinton's events were nearly all-white affairs, according to reports.

Richard, do you for one second believe that the history, demographics, and politics of South Carolina are identical to those of Iowa? Do you? Because here's a hint: one of them was a slave state that seceded from the Union, and the other wasn't. And that's just the beginning! There are other differences, too! I know, I didn't believe it either, but then I opened my freaking eyes. Sheesh.

Et Tu, Teddy?

Seriously, this has to be from the Onion:

News from NOW-NYS

For more information contact: Marcia Pappas, 518-452-3944 - 518-469-2661
Senator Ted Kennedy Betrays Women by Not Standing for Hillary Clinton for President

Ultimate Betrayal Felt by Women Everywhere

ALBANY, NY (01/28/2008; 1101)(readMedia)-- Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). “They” are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.

This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who “know what’s best for us.”

Uhhhhhh...yeah, so, if endorsing anyone but Hillary is "the ultimate betrayal," I guess Judas, Brutus, and Benedict Arnold are off the hook, eh? And what exactly does that make the millions of women who have voted or are about to vote for any candidate but Hillary Clinton? I mean, Ted Kennedy isn't actually a woman himself, so he's not betraying his Own Kind...and wouldn't it be worse to betray your fellow women? I suppose not, since Kennedy's betrayal is "the ultimate," and "the greatest," meaning there can be none worse. Although, uh, not to dredge up old memories, but I'd have to think that the whole Chappaquiddick incident was maybe a bit more of a betrayal of women...but I guess it doesn't count unless the woman in question is politically tethered to Marcia Pappas and NOW.

This type of rhetoric is as reprehensible as the bile that is spewed from the right every time someone publicly opposes the foreign madness of King George XLIII. If you disagree with the wingnuts, you are a traitor to your country; if you disagree with NOW, you are "the greatest" betrayer of women. Whatever. Marcia Pappas needs to grow up.

Ted Kaczynski Would Be Proud

Jérôme Kerviel, a junior trader at a French bank secretly racked up $7.2 billion in losses before he was finally found out. Wow. And then there's this, from the end of the NYT story:

Adding to the mystery is the conclusion by Société Générale executives that Mr. Kerviel had not profited from his trades.

“We have no explanation for why he took these positions, and we have no reason to believe he benefited from a financial point of view,” the banker said. “We don’t understand why he took such a massive position.”

Hmmmm...Well, I can see why they're a bit confused...but let me posit a theory: maybe he was trying to lose money. Perhaps he was the ultimate disgruntled employee, or perhaps he was just so opposed to ze capitaleest peegs that he felt like taking down a major financial institution, just to Fight The Power. I mean, I'm probably wrong, but hey, at least it's a theory...plus it would make for a heckuva movie. You know, one of those artsy "indie" flicks directed by a mainstream actor as a sort of vanity project. The kind that actually turn out to be surprisingly decent, like Goodnight and Good Luck.

Best. Musical Guest. Ever.

Children's TV shows just ain't what they used to be, Beavis:



Bonus points for a young Ray Parker, Jr. laying it down on guitar.

David Broder: "Columnist"

From Broder's offering in today's WaPo:

While he was on his defensive spiel, Obama also urged people to ignore "crazy" rumors that he was Muslim, not Christian, or ever failed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or take his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Aren't quotation marks fun? Let's try using them with David's WaPo bio:

David Broder is a twice-weekly "columnist" for The Post, "writing" on national politics. His column appears on "Thursdays" and Sundays.

UPDATE: added quotation marks to "Thursdays," since, well, today is a Wednesday.

Oops He Did It Again

Today Richard Cohen turns from "I don't believe he's a Farrakhan follower, but here's a column about it," to "Britney gets too much media coverage, and here's a column about it." I don't know if this is progress, but at least it's movement.

The column begins by citing a Portfolio article regarding Britney's worth, not just to herself, but to the various leeches that make money off of her (cue Chris Crocker!)...which is vaguely interesting, though hardly the sort of thing I expect to read about on the OpEd page of the Washington Post. I guess Richard felt the same way, because midway through the column, he tries to tie his Britney statistics to the current primary campaign, and, well, just takes a detour right into Crazy Town:

The Britney Industrial Complex is a handy tool to examine more than just Britney Spears. It also explains why Hillary Clinton's human backdrop changed from Iowa to New Hampshire. On election night in Des Moines, Clinton surrounded herself with familiar figures, some of them not so young anymore, while Barack Obama had a backdrop of youthful faces radiating pheromones. By New Hampshire, Clinton had younged-up her crowd, suggesting she was now, like Obama, an agent of change.

Now, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone in Hillary's campaign actually did decide to get some younger folks on stage with her in New Hampshire (though where that fits into the whole "Aging Boomer Women Put Hillary Over The Top" meme is beyond me), but I seriously doubt they were thinking "Let's get ourselves some of that Britney-obsessed, TMZ-lovin' demographic!" when they made that call. Then again, what do I know, it's not like I'm a big shot columnist for the Washington Post, with numerous connections I could use to arrange an interview or two with insiders on this very subject. No, I'm left to idly speculate, without anything beyond anecdotal evidence that I collected while watching TV upon which to base my assumptions...before drifting back to the more important topic: the major role Britney plays in the 13.7 trillion U.S. economy.

"There's a Pattern..."

Hillary Clinton in last night's Democratic debate:

"Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any votes. That is a pattern."

George H.W. Bush at the October 19, 1992 Presidential debate:

There's a pattern here of appealing to the auto workers and then trying to appeal to the spotted owl crowds or the extremes in the environmental movement. You can't do it as president: you can't have a pattern of one side of the issue one day and another the next.

***

When you're president of the US, you cannot have this pattern of saying well, I'm for it but I'm on the other side of it.

***

This is my point tonight. We're talking about 2 weeks from now you've gotta decide who's gonna be president. And there is this pattern that has plagued in him the primaries and now about trying to have it both ways on all these issues.

***

My argument with him on -- the question was about the draft -- is that there's this same pattern. In New Hampshire Senator Kerrey said you ought to level, you ought to tell the truth about it. On April 17 he said he'd bring out all the records on the draft. They have not been forthcoming. He got a deferment or he didn't. He got a notice or he didn't. And I think it's this pattern that troubles me, more than the draft. A lot of decent, honorable people felt as he did on the draft. But it's this pattern.

And again, you might be able to make amendments all the time, Governor, but you've got to, as president, you can't be on all these different sides, and you can't have this pattern of saying well, I did this or I didn't, then the facts come out and you change it.

***

And then, Helen, I really believe where people are going to ask this question about trust, because I do think there's a pattern by Governor Clinton of saying one thing to please one group, and then trying to please another group. And I think that pattern is a dangerous thing to suggest would work for the Oval Office. It doesn't work that way when you're president.

Oh, there's a pattern here alright. There's this pattern of Hillary going to the Bush family playbook of insinuations in order to get herself elected. Nice use of the royal "we," too, Hil-Dawg.

The Doughy Pantload Speaks!

Courtesy of youtube user liberalubu (aka Sadly, No! commenter kingubu), a distilled version of Jonah's recent appearance at the Heritage Foundation (ubu watched so you don't have to!):

Come to Rudy, On an Inside Straight

Looks like Rudy's getting a bit desperate. Seeing as how he's not paying his top campaign staff this month, it's probably safe to say he's a bit low on cash right now, and having trouble raising more, what with that whole complete lack of momentum thing. I think his campaign needs a new theme song, but with customized lyrics:

If I had a spot for every ace I've drawn
I could air more ads about the terrorists
Don't you push me baby cause I'm polling low
You know I'm only in it for the ego

All that I am asking for is twenty three hundred dollars
I could pay you back with one good hand
You can look around about the wide world over
You'll never find another honest mayor

Last fair deal in the country, sweet Judy
Last fair deal in the town
Put your blood money where your love is, baby
Before you let my bid go down

Don't you push me baby
because I'm polling low
I know a little something
you won't ever know
Don't you read the papers just
a touch of Hannity
Gonna get up
in the morning and go

Everybody's bragging and spinning their lines
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines
Come to Rudy on an inside straight
I got no chance of losing this time
No, I got no chance of losing this time

Here's the real thing for you, from 8/4/76, Roosevelt Stadium, Jersey City, NJ (a wonderful version of a wonderful song, that really shouldn't be sullied with any connection to Rudy, but oh well):

All That's Missing is a Yacht Named "The Duke-Stir"

So much muck for a four-paragraph article...although I'm sure this link will later be updated with an expanded article. To quote David Bowie: "Sordid details following." Here's a taste:

A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

Allegedly, former Congressman Mark Deli Siljander (R-Mich.) was paid more than $50,000 for his lobbying efforts on behalf of the Islamic American Relief Agency. Where did the IARA get this money, you ask? Funny story, that. Allegedly (again with that word!), the money "turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development." Nice! These guys are almost ready to go to work for the DC government, only they need to learn how to spend the money they steal from children on things like fur coats, daytime visits to strip clubs for "planning meetings," and Bentleys.

Of course, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it turns out that this is a legitimate charity that ended up railroaded because some hack at Justice decided there haven't been enough successful "terrorism" prosecutions lately. Just sayin'.

The New American Bible for Skeptics

How have I missed this? h/t to commenter melior over at Lawyers, Guns, and Money.

Richard Cohen Remains an Idiot, or "The Stupid! It Burns!"

Good lord...how is it that this man continues to be employed as a columnist? He should be relegated to the fringes of the blogosphere currently inhabited by the likes of yours truly.

Here's a gem:

It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances.

Note the bolded text, which I emphasize because, well, this is in the column's third paragraph. One hundred and forty words into a 787-word column. Which, well, doesn't really count as "right off," especially coming on the heels of two lead paragraphs that seek to connect Barack Obama to Louis Farrakhan, and then highlight some of Farrakhan's nastier past statements.

There follow seven more paragraphs on the evils of Farrakhan himself and those who say nice things about him. But that's okay, because in the last paragraph, Cohen writes:

I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan. But the rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle. The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting "present" when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, "present" will not do.

You know something, Richard? If you don't for a moment think something, you shouldn't waste your column insinuating it. And if you don't for a moment think something is true, then why in the name of All That Which Does Not Suck should it be a "tough issue" for Obama? Because the only reason it would be an issue is if idiots like you, who "don't for a moment" think Obama "shares Wright's views on Farrakhan," write columns in major newspapers claiming that this is a "tough issue" where "'present' will not do" for a response.

Of course, it's important to state right off that nothing in Cohen's column suggests he harbors anti-Obama views.

Pick Flick!

This is just brilliant. From Slate (h/t Big Head DC):

As if People Don't Hate Lawyers Enough Already

Via Sullivan, in a Poseur Alert that really should be an All Points Poseur Bulletin:

On exhibit is Sloss, Kerr, Rosenberg & Moore (2007), a video made in collaboration with four practicing New York City attorneys John Sloss, Chet Kerr, Scott Rosenberg and Thomas Moore. The work features the lawyers performing a movement and vocal score that references their work and lives. The rhythmic sequences illustrate the performative aspects of litigating, the pressures experienced while working inside the juridical system, the contest, the service and ultimately the lawyers individual humanity. Highly formal in its spatial design and patterning, the work becomes a kind of twenty-first century folk dance.

There's even a picture!

I expect the performance resembles this classic dance cycle, shown in reenacted version here due to copyright issues...hooray lawyers!

Where's my hat tip, Mr. Robinson?

*Sigh* In truth, it's not likely that Eugene Robinson read my Marion Jones post, which went up nine hours or so before Robinson started this discussion thread over at the Post. And by "not likely," I mean there's less chance than Dick Cheney releasing the list of Energy Task Force members.

Ah well. Great minds and all that...

How Long Until Dubya Commutes Her Sentence?

Marion Jones gets six months for lying to federal investigators. Don't worry, the President was pretty clear that that sort of crime doesn't warrant prison time, since, you know, people finding out you committed a crime is punishment enough:

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

Don't worry, Marion. I'm sure the White House will be calling you up real soon.

Is Joel Achenbach Chanelling Ian Faith?

Via Sullivan, this gem from the Washington Post's own Joel Achenbach:

Clinton fought back, but she needs a radio-controlled shock collar so that aides can zap her when she starts to get screechy.

Golly, with this kind of positive press, I just can't figure out why so many women decided to go out and vote for Hillary...meanwhile, here's a scene from the upcoming release, "This Is Still Spinal Tap":

Bobbi Flekman: You put a *greased naked woman* on all fours with a dog collar around her neck, and a leash, and a man's arm extended out up to here, holding onto the leash, and pushing a black glove in her face to sniff it. You don't find that offensive? You don't find that sexist?
Joel Achenbag: This is *2008*, Bobbi, c'mon!
Bobbi Flekman: That's *right*, it's 2008! Get out of the '60s. We don't have this mentality anymore.
Joel Achenbag: Well, you should have seen the blog photo Chris Matthews *wanted* me to do! It wasn't a glove, believe me.

Maureen Dowd is Seen as Petty and Shallow

Maureen Dowd in today's NYT. Where to begin? Well, Glenn Greenwald already took care of the lede ("And in this one short passage, on vivid, revolting display is every repellent attribute that defines the Standard Modern Political Journalist"), so I'll jump to the corrupt heart of the thing:

She won her Senate seat after being embarrassed by a man. She pulled out New Hampshire and saved her presidential campaign after being embarrassed by another man. She was seen as so controlling when she ran for the Senate that she had to be seen as losing control, as she did during the Monica scandal, before she seemed soft enough to attract many New York voters.

Um, Maureen? Maybe she won her senate seat "after being embarrassed by a man," but she certainly didn't win it because she had been embarrassed by a man. She won it because Rudy bailed from the race for health reasons, and she ended up running against a relatively young congressman who was just completely out of his depth. At least, that's what I was thinking when I cast my ballot for her...not, "Well, Bill cheated on her, so she deserves my vote." Maybe several million New Yorkers are as shallow as you think, but I doubt it.

I also love the "[s]he was seen as so controlling" comment. Says who? Could you, you know, cite to a public opinion survey before you make such a sweeping statement about how New Yorkers perceived Hillary eight years ago? Just because you saw her as "too controlling" doesn't make it so for millions of other people. Here's an example: Maureen Dowd is seen as petty, shallow, and a symbol of everything that is juvenile and rotten in our political press.

How this kind of puerile drivel passes for informed political commentary is beyond me.

Primary Night...woo-hoo!

Well, looks like the fine folks in Iowa really fixated on that whole Pakistan situation, huh? Now it's on to New Hampshire.

Also, a moment of silence for the end of the Gibbs 2.0 Era. Maybe he's lost his fastball, but he took the 'Skins to the playoffs twice in four years the second time around, which is a darn sight better than the once in 11 or so years in between Gibbs 1.0 and Gibbs 2.0.

Caucus Night, Oh What a Night!

As I watch the results come in tonight, I'll be ever so thankful for the wisdom of Joe Scarborough, because I'm sure that as those Republican caucus goers stand in their respective corners, they'll be thinking, "Well, I'm pretty sure Rudy will do a better job dealing with the whole Pakistan situation."

Yep. Mmm-hmm.

Actually, what I really think is that Bhutto could have been whacked at noon central today and not more than five or six caucus-goers in the entire state of Iowa would have changed their minds because of it.

Yet and still, Richard Cohen is an idiot...

This time, BarbinMD at Kos beats me to the Fisking.

How does Cohen still have a job? Seriously...I mean, doesn't he at least have, you know, an editor? Or at least a fact checker. Someone to maybe point out that starting out a column about candidates lying with a lie is, um, ironic...really ironic, too, not just "ironic" in an Alanis kinda way.