McCain Calls Hillary a Pig

Via Glennzilla:

Disgraceful, huh?

So Many Lines To Cross, So Little Time

This literally makes me feel sick to my stomach:

Hillary Clinton today cited the assasination of Robert F. Kennedy during the 1968 presidential campaign to explain why she was remaining in the race despite long odds.

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," Clinton told the editorial board of a South Dakota newspaper. " I don't understand it," Clinton added, alluding to the calls for her to quit.

At long last, have you no sense of decency, ma'am?

I'm ready for my closeup, Mr. Dean.

By edthered at 2008-05-09
Okay, I've been keeping my metaphorical mouth shut these past two months, waiting for the Democratic primary to play itself out, because I found myself on the verge of saying some pretty harsh things about Senator Clinton, and, well, I didn't want to add to the intra-party vitriol when there was a chance she'd end up as my nominee. That, and my wife gave birth to our first child in mid-April, so I've been a bit preoccupied.

Now, however, I can no longer hold my peace. Hillary can no longer win the nomination by any means that won't tear the party apart at the seams (more than it's already been rent asunder). She just can't. Moreover, if she continues to campaign aggressively, and Obama somehow does manage to self destruct before the convention, she's just damaging her own chances of being a palatable savior to Obama's delegates, who would probably page Al Gore to report to the convention floor before handing anything to Hillary.

With her speech this past Tuesday ("Full speed on to the White House!"), Hillary has entered into Norma Desmond territory. Here are a few soundbites you can expect to hear in the near future, as this sad spectacle plays out:

County Fair Livestock Judge: Hey, I know you. You're that politician, Hillary Clinton! You used to be in politics! You used to be big!
Hillary: I am big! It's the politics that got small.
***
Hillary: They took the idols and smashed them, the Kennedys, the Clintons, the Roosevelts! And who've we got now? Some nobodies!
***
[January, 2011, Hillary attempts to convince Joe Trippi to run her 2012 campaign.]
Hillary: Here, I was going to give it to you at midnight.
Joe Trippi: Hillary, I can't take it, you've bought me enough.
Hillary: Shut up, I'm rich! I'm richer than all this new Washington trash! I've got 109 million dollars.
Joe Trippi: Keep it.
Hillary: Went on a worldwide speaking tour. I've got books on Amazon, selling, selling, selling! What's it for but to buy us anything we want!
Joe Trippi: Cut out that "us" business!
Hillary: What's the matter with you?
Joe Trippi: What right do you have to take me for granted?
Hillary: What right? Do you want me to tell you?
Joe Trippi: Has it ever occurred to you that I may have a life of my own? That there may be some candidate I'm crazy about?
Hillary: Who? Some state senator, or shuck and jive artist?
Joe Trippi: What I'm trying to say is that I'm all wrong for you. You want a Rove, somebody with dirty tricks, a real bastard!
Hillary: What you're trying to say is that you don't want me to run again. Say it. Say it!
[slaps him hard across the face]
***
[February, 2011, Hillary Clinton press conference]
Reporter: I didn't know you were planning a comeback.
Hillary: I hate that word. It's a return, a return to the millions of people who have never forgiven me for deserting the campaign.
***
Joe Trippi: Tell her, Mark. C'mon, do her that favor. Tell her there isn't going to be any inauguration. Tell her there are no superdelagate endorsements other than the ones you write. Hillary: It's not true! Mark!
Mark Penn: Madame is the greatest politician of them all.
***
Markos Moulitsas: I understand she was a terror to work with.
Robert Reich: Only toward the end. You know, a dozen press agents working overtime can do terrible things to the human spirit.
***
Hillary: And I promise you I'll never desert you again because after 2008 we'll run another campaign and another campaign. You see, this is my life! It always will be! Nothing else! Just us, the cameras, and those wonderful people out there in the dark!... All right, Mr. Dean, I'm ready for my close-up.

NYS NOW: Still Crazy After All These Weeks

Woo-hoo! It's always a good day (or evening, in this case) when my inbox is graced with a Marilyn Fitterman press release:

Mr. Obama's experience and education can't hold a candle to that of Hillary Clinton, who has had the opportunity to actually live and work in the White House for eight years, and to work in the Senate for six years. Damn it, how much more should one have to know to be able to run this great nation of ours?

Hey, yeah! Say, how'd that health care reform work out? Oh, too soon? Seriously, Hillary didn't even have a security clearance when she was first lady...how can you put out a press release railing against sexism and misogyny, and in that very same press release, claim that being the wife of the president qualifies you to be president more than being a state senator?

Plus, education-wise, it's pretty damned snobby to say that a J.D. from Harvard "can't hold a candle" to a J.D. from Yale: ooooh, big difference...plus, and having gone to law school myself, I can say this with certainty, law school does pretty much nothing to prepare you to be president, aside from maybe artificially inflate your sense of self esteem. You know, assuming that Hillary's time as First Lady evens out Obama's time as an actual, you know, elected state senator, then according to Ms. Fitterman, Obama's four fewer years in the U.S. Senate mean he "can't hold a candle" to Hillary's experience"...and if that's the basis for your campaign, then good luck against McCain in November.

I'm not saying she wouldn't make a better president, I'm just saying that statements like this from your supporters don't really help.

New Primary Boogie

Please don't dominate the rap Jack
If you got nothing new to say
If you please don't back up the track
This train got to run today

* * *

One way or another
One way or another
One way or another
This darkness got to give.

The never-ending primary campaign rolls on today...and, regardless of the outcome, will keep on rolling through Pennsylvania. Which wouldn't be so bad, if the MSM election coverage wasn't so Drudge-influenced it resembles the work of TMZ and Perez Hilton more than that of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite...and of course, the blogosphere ain't much better.

Not that the campaigns themselves are much help, either.

In fact, I'm not really sure why I pay attention at all...

At any rate, here are some predictions, for posterity:

Clinton wins the overall Texas vote by a few points - say, 52% - 48% - but because there are more delegates allocated to districts in cities like Austin and Houston, ends up not netting more than one or two delegates. She'll carry Ohio by about 8-10 points, but again, only net maybe 5-10 delegates. Obama will win big in Vermont, netting 5 delegates. Hillary will win Rhode Island by, say, 55-45, and net 3-4 delegates there. Overall, Hillary will come out of the day netting 5-10 delegates...which, of course, only reduces Obama's lead to around 90-95...and of course, Obama will make up all of those delegates in North Carolina.

I don't see how Hillary can win the nomination at this point without things getting ugly at the convention, but I don't see why she would (or should, really) bow out before Pennsylvania. I just really, really hope she doesn't continue down the "McCain has more experience than Obama" route, since, you know, I'd hate to have to watch clips of her in McCain's campaign ads next fall (probably already too late for that, sadly).

How Can You Be So Obtuse?

When I read articles like this one, I'm not surprised by the post-Super Tuesday flameout of the Clinton campaign. Since I'm not a Serious Columnist like, say, David Broder, I can only speak for myself, but when Hillary's campaign started floating the idea of challenging the DNC's decision not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, it made me less likely to vote for her. The kicker is that they started with that talk before things really started spiraling away from them...so if I were, say, David Broder, I might say something like, "To everyday Americans, and especially the salt-of-the-earth backbone of the old Democratic machine, this sort of legalistic noisemaking served as a not-so-pleasant reminder of the Clintons' propensity to seek victory by any means necessary." I'm also partial to this one: "One friend of mine, a lifelong Democrat, emailed me last night to say that she was starting to see what her Republican friends have always found so infuriating about the Clintons."

Like I said, though, I'm not a Serious Columnist, so I'm stuck with just my opinion, which is this: by threating to challenge the Texas system in court, before the Texas primary even happens, the Clinton campaign is likely to drive a fair-sized number of voters into the Obama camp by driving home Obama's argument that we need a new kind of politics for him. At the end of the day, the only people in the Clinton campaign who would benefit from a lawsuit would be the lawyers (curse our oily hides!), who get paid win or lose.

I guess desperate is as desperate does.

[EDIT: h/t to memorandum. Where are my manners this morning?]

Taylor Marsh's Commenters Strike a Blow For Feminism

You know what's really great about the comments over on Taylor's "Michelle Obama is an America-hating traitor" post? All the comments comparing Michelle Obama (unfavorably) to dogs. Wow, way to go, ladies! I'll be so thankful if Hillary wins - what a victory for feminists everywhere! Huzzah!

As for the post itself, well, it's chock full of Malkinesque gems. Here's a good one:

The love I have for my country does not include following yet another political huckster down a path where he gets the glory he craves, while my blue collar family gets the shaft... again.

Oh well said, Taylor. All hail, your blue collar family, and their American pride...how dare some nouveau riche social climber (whose not-so-distant ancestors may well have arrived in this country wearing actual iron collars) show any disrespect to The Homeland?

FFS, this drivel is from a site that describes itself (right up there at the top of the page, no less!) as "The Antidote to Right-Wing Talk."

It gets even better: The quote from Michelle Obama was this: "For the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change." Not "For the first time in my adult lifetime I really love my country." Of course, Taylor's entire post is a list of things that her More-Patriotic-Than-Thou love of the Homeland does not depend on. Like this: "The love I have for this country does not depend on ignorance of what patriotism requires to serve a personal goal." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigt. Listen, Taylor, honey, I hate to break this to you, but it's possible to love something, and not be proud of it. Ask just about any parent out there - there are times in nearly every child's life when his or her behavior is nothing for a parent to be proud of, yet parents keep loving their children all the same. Pride and love are not the same thing.

And as for this: "My uncle Dick certainly didn't serve his country and get battle fatigue in WWII so people could pick and choose pride in this nation based on personal association to some politician, forgetting the greater glory we all serve through our country's ideals."

I hate to break it to you...that's exactly what your uncle Dick served his country for - to preserve for those of us who came later the right to express their disappointment in their country when they see it veering off track. Not so that future generations could be forced into public expressions of "pride" when the Commander-in-Chief orders the torture of prisoners and the destruction of the evidence of that torture, or the illegal surveillance of citizens, and so on and so forth.

I haven't been proud of a lot of things our country has done these past seven years. Got a problem with that? Well, that's your right. But accuse me of not loving America, just because I'm, you know, ashamed of little things like war crimes, and you can fuck off along with all the other authoritarian nutjobs.

(h/t: John Cole)

New York State NOW...NOW With Even More Crazy!

Courtesy of a friend, the latest press release from our pals at NYS NOW. Feel the crazy! I seriously think Marilyn Fitterman has a lucrative second career in front of her as a writer for the WWE (the erstwhile WWF...or is "erstwhile" sexist, as it implies that the WWE changed its name when it got married?). Just check out the gem of a lede! Race vs. Gender! Oh yeah! Feel it coming! Can you smellllllllllllllllll what BARAK is cooking?!!!! No you can't, because he doesn't cook, since he's such a womyn hater that he thinks only womyn should cook! RACE WAR! GENDER FIGHT! Only on PAY-PER-VIEW!!!

EDIT: I posted this as soon as I got it, just 'cuz I like to scoop Drudge whenever I can, but for your benefit, I've now gone through and bolded some of my favorite passages:

Deja vu: Race vs Gender 1870-2008

By Marilyn Fitterman
NOW NE Regional Director & Past President NOW-NYS

The press, the media, the pundits, everyone is saying the Democratic presidential race should not be about race vs. gender. How ridiculous is that? We look at Hillary Clinton and we see a possibility of the first woman in the white house. We look at Obama and we see the first man of color in the white house. Therefore, to say it is not about race vs. gender is to deny reality. Let’s get real, and from there it will be easier to make the right decision, which of course is to put women first in a women’s organization. We must, as women, unite.

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when? [You forgot the rest of the quote! "If not.. I'm sorry, Pat, what was that question?"] Back in the early 1820s and 30s there were numerous women fighting for and speaking up for abolition. Women saw the inhuman cruelty of slavery. Lucretia Mott, Maria Chapman, Lucy Stone, Sojourner Truth and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, to name just a few, spoke up against slavery at the very real risk of physical violence. In 1833 the American Anti-Slavery Society actually barred women from speaking. So what did women do? They started their own anti-slavery society throughout the country and even had conventions in 1837, 1838, and 1839. In 1840, when some of these women went to England to attend the International Abolition Convention, they were barred from attending and, after fighting to get in, were barred from speaking even though some were there representing an American Society of Abolitionists. It was not long after this that Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton realized that women had to unite and fight for themselves. They met to discuss a movement for equality and suffrage, and this historic meeting was the impetus for the 1848 first Women’s Rights Convention in Senaca Falls. Those women asked:

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

In that period married women had no right to their paychecks, their children, or their property, let alone the right to vote. For a time the women’s movement and the abolition movement worked together. In fact, Frederick Douglas, a freed slave, was a frequent speaker at women’s conventions. While women were struggling to attain the vote, Douglas spoke for them and sided with them that women and Black men should have suffrage.

However in 1869, when Congress offered up the Fifteenth Amendment giving only Black men the vote, Douglas betrayed women by making the concession. Some women even agreed with Douglas that it was o.k. for Black men to leave us behind instead of holding fast for suffrage. In much the same way today, some think it is o.k. for Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, et.al. to support Obama. [Ummm...what? I mean, I'm not going to sit here and defend the fact that women didn't get suffrage until 1920, but the fact that the 15th Amendment passed in any form in 1869 is pretty impressive...also, I don't seem to recall women having to deal with more than a century of Jim Crow after being granted the vote.] Back then, because of that betrayal [You keep saying this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.], women had to wait another fifty years. Not until 1920 did we get the vote. That betrayal caused a split in the suffrage movement which is mirrored in today’s race vs. gender situation in the Democratic Party and in our current women’s movement.

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

Recently, a famous TV personality declared that the United States owed more to Black men than it did to women, this being his reason for supporting Obama. I found that to be one of the most repulsive reasons for not supporting Hillary Clinton.

Women have been second class citizens since recorded history. The internalized misogyny that rears its ugly head and so insidiously creeps into our everyday lives will never end until women stick together as do other oppressed groups. Recently I was reminded that pre Roe vs. Wade women had a great uniting force in that all could be forced to complete unwanted pregnancies. I remember how women who were strangers would help and support other women to find a doctor or a back alley abortionist. Women then understood the importance and the value of joining together to help each other control their own reproductive lives. However, since Roe vs. Wade many young women don’t have that very common problem of forced pregnancy, a problem which crosses all economic and social lines. They have forgotten the importance of uniting for each other. And with the loss of this camaraderie we have apparently also lost the knowledge that forced pregnancy could return with a single US Supreme Court vote. And to get Hillary elected, we could sure use a revival in some of that old girls’ club camaraderie.

The current circumstances of race vs. gender are very much alive in spite of media denials. Just looking at the results of Super Tuesday one can see that Black communities were hands down for Obama. Meanwhile women, who are more than fifty-two percent of the population, did not do the same for their sisters. The charisma and preacher-like emotional speeches that Obama gives enrapture the younger generation. [That...that...that snake oil salesman! "And all week long your River City youth'll be frittern away, I say your young men'll be frittern! Frittern away their noontime, suppertime, choretime too!"] But there is very little information in the rhetoric. Were Hillary to show this same agitated style, she would be ridiculed for excessive emotion. She is caught between a rock and a hard place. If she shows emotion, as does Obama, she is vilified, as was recently demonstrated. So even though she is enormously qualified and experienced [especially counting those eight years as the president's wife, no?] for the presidency, all that goes by the wayside when Obama enchants the youngsters with charming rhetoric that says little. [What is he, the freaking Pied Piper? And wait, are you suggesting that young people, including young women, who are Constitutionally granted the right to vote, actually shouldn't be allowed the franchise, because they are too emotional and impressionable? How very forward-thinking and non-paternalistic of you.] If Hillary were to be “charming” she would be disparaged. Women just can’t get it right, can we? [Well, some women can...but judging from this press release, not all of them are capable of getting it right all the time.]

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

Many young women today have forgotten or do not know of the sit-ins, the hunger strikes, the marches, the tears as we lost the Equal Rights Amendment, the thousands upon thousands of women, mothers and grandmothers who died having illegal abortions. Those many young women have forgotten the women’s movement and all the gains we have made. They have abandoned us and instead have fallen for the charisma and charm of a Black male instead of the experience, dedication, and proven life’s work of a White female. ["Oh laws, massa! The missus done run off with that bad negro Catcher Freeman! When will them White Women learn!"] Will it take losing Roe vs. Wade to get back that old camaraderie? We’ve got to realize that and ask:

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

But, it’s not too late. It’s up to all of us who care about women’s equality to educate each and every young woman we meet, and remind her that all the freedoms she has can easily be lost if women don’t unite for full equal rights. We should remind young women that we have a long way to go because even today women are only making seventy-seven cents for every dollar a man earns. This pay inequity hits single mothers and retirement-age women. They should know that it’s about time young girls had the role model of a woman in the White House. Yep, women’s equality is very important and we’ve got a long way to go.

DAMN IT, we woman have been at the forefront of every progressive movement in this country. It’s about time we stand together for ourselves and stand together at the forefront to elect the first woman president. After all:

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

We must unite for Hillary.

Hillary vs. Shuster

Assuming (and it's a very safe assumption) that Hillary's calls for NBC to fire David Shuster are a calculated ploy to win over voters, I don't see how it really helps her. At this point, the portion of her base that would be inspired by Hillary standing up for her daughter against a stand-in anchor's insult is already rallied, and folks who might be on the fence about another Clinton administration might see an attempt by Hillary to cow the press as a reason to vote against her. For what it's worth, I think Shuster's comment was out of order, but would likely have passed without notice had it been delivered on FoxNews, where Hillary is apparently eager to debate. Not that FoxNews should serve as a bearer of journalistic standards, of course.

Did Shuster deserve to be suspended. Yeah, probably. Is he taking the heat because notorious Hillary basher Chris Matthews is untouchable? Yeah, probably. Does he deserve to be fired? No, not really.

Will the spectacle of the Clinton's bashing (MS)NBC while cozying up to FoxNews help win over undecideds in the upcoming primaries and caucuses? I doubt it.

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.

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.

Pick Flick!

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

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.