Watch for these stories to come out over the next six months, drip by drip:
In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called "Panther 21," members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of Feb. 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car.
I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn't leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: Free the Panther 21; The Viet Cong have won; Kill the pigs.
I have talked many times in the past about Bud Day, one of America's greatest heroes. Bud Day is the second-most decorated military man in US history, topped only by Douglas MacArthur. He is the sort of man for whom the Congressional Medal of Honor, which he received, seems ridiculously inadequate. He should be somebody that children learn of in grammar school.
Karl Rove has an anecdote about Bud Day and John McCain during their time in the Hanoi Hilton, that will bring tears to your eyes; I know they did to mine:
Mr. Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple."
The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted.
Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds.
(snip)
It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter.
Cui bono, the conspiracy theorists always say, and Hillary does undeniably benefit. But who benefits more? Who was the topic of conversation up until yesterday?
Well, no, it's his wife's plane. The New York Times tries to gin up a controversy, but as they admit, there's nothing to it:
The senator was able to fly so inexpensively because the law specifically exempts aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control. The Federal Election Commission adopted rules in December to close the loophole — rules that would have required substantial payments by candidates using family-owned planes — but the agency soon lost the requisite number of commissioners needed to complete the rule making.
Because that exemption remains, Mr. McCain’s campaign was able to use his wife’s corporate plane like a charter jet while paying first-class rates, several campaign finance experts said. Several of those experts, however, added that his campaign’s actions, while keeping with the letter of law, did not reflect its spirit.
Even if Obama doesn't personally believe these things, is it really "tired tripe" to ask why he seems so comfortable in the company of people who do? Is it really "extremely stupid politics" to wonder whether such people might play a role in an Obama administration? Rather than slam the few journalists who raise such questions, might it not behoove others in the media to follow suit?
It might, but then the media would not be playing politics and helping out the Democrats.
His words wear especially thin when he was dealt a defeat like Tuesday's. Mr. Obama was routed despite outspending Hillary Clinton on television by almost 3-1. While polls in the final days showed a possible 4% or 5% Clinton win, she apparently took late-deciders by a big margin to clinch the landslide.
And, as I noted in the same column, Clinton carries Jacksonians—the descendants of those Scots-Irish, Scots Lowlanders, and northern Englishmen who settled the Appalachian chain starting in Pennsylvania in the 18th century and heading southwest, ultimately to Texas, in the 19th. Clinton won 70 percent or more of the vote in 15 counties in the mountains, including the old anthracite country in the east and the bituminous coal country in the west. She won 74 percent in Lackawanna County (Scranton), the home base of Sen. Bob Casey, who endorsed Obama, and she won 79 percent in Fayette County (Monongahela Valley south of Pittsburgh). The latter is on the border of West Virginia, and the results here, as well as in earlier primaries in Ohio, Maryland, and Virginia counties adjacent to West Virginia, suggest that Clinton will win more than 70 percent of the vote in the primary there May 13. Sean Oxendine's excellent map makes this point graphically.
Barone points out that Hillary could possibly catch Obama in the popular vote total, if Florida and Michigan are included. Of course the Obamaniacs will squeal that it's unfair to count those states, and they have a point. And Floridians and Michiganders will counter that it's unfair not to count them, and they have a point. The idea that this is going to be over without lots of bad blood is a pipe dream.
My wife Barbara has begun yelling at the television set every time she hears Hillary Clinton. This is abnormal behavior, since Barbara is a meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic, and is inspired by Barack Obama's transformational appeal.
For Barbara, Hillary has become the screech on the blackboard. From First Lady to Lady Macbeth.
All the old 1960s radicals seem to be coalescing around Obama, which is reason enough to pull for Hillary (in the nomination, of course, not in the general election).
Obama: Ayers and Dohrn Respectable Mainstream Chicago Liberals
Oh, my. He should have stuck with the claim that the association was minor and meaningless:
AYERS AND DOHRN BECAME RESPECTABLE FIXTURES OF THE MAINSTREAM IN CHICAGO
Bill Ayers And Bernadine Dohrn "Became Respectable Fixtures In Mainstream Liberal Chicago Years Ago." Alexander Cockburn wrote in and op-ed for the Las Vegas Review Journal, "Late last week, the Clinton campaign was leaking stories about support for Obama from the former Weather Underground couple Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, both of whom became respectable fixtures in mainstream liberal Chicago years ago." [Las Vegas Review Journal, 3/2/08]
Yeah, respectable mainstream liberals say "Death to capitalism!" all the time.
The New York Times attempts another smear of John McCain, and fails. Of course, because of some sloppy writing, some liberal bloggers are outraged. Here's the key portion:
Mr. Diamond finally bought the land for $250,000 in 1999. He obtained an unusual guarantee from the Army that provided a generous water allowance outside the standard allocation process — a bonus that continues to rankle municipal officials on the dry Monterey Peninsula.
“Those guys got a sweetheart deal,” said Michael Keenan, whose family bought the housing complex from Mr. Diamond for nearly $30 million two years later. Mr. Diamond acknowledged turning a profit of $20 million.
Not surprisingly, some have read that passage to mean that Diamond turned $250,000 into $30 million, while others have read it to mean $250,000 into $20 million. But if you sell something for $30 million and you profited by $20 million, then what was your original cost, class? That's right, $10 million. You see, the $250,000 was the purchase price on a completely different transaction. The Times mentioned the purchase of the housing complex a page earlier in the story:
Tipped off by a fellow Tucson developer, Mr. Diamond had snapped up a housing complex there that had been built on land leased from the Army, giving him the inside track to buying the land when the base shut down.
Indeed. A "constituent matter." McCain's pal managed to snag this prime coastal land — complete with special water rights — for $250,000 and then sell it two years later for $30 million.
Captain Ed has more on this issue, pointing out that the Sierra Club, which lauded some of the transactions at the time, is now bleating about how unfair they were.
In the events, McCain’s legislation had broad support from both business interests and the environmental community. The Sierra Club endorsed both bills at the time, although Rutenberg has them complaining now. The Tucson Audubon Society supported the 1994 bill, which makes the pygmy owl issue rather moot (McCain has supported the protection of the pygmy owl). The National Parks and Conservation Association also backed both bills.
See also Tom Maguire, who points out that the Fort Ord land was not quite as attractive as the Times makes it sound:
Progress toward production of new workforce housing has been slow. Barriers to housing development such as complex regulatory procedures and approvals, antiquated infrastructure on the former Fort Ord, and environmental contamination and costly building removal have made the reuse of Fort Ord a particularly difficult challenge for any kind of development, including workforce housing.
Also, note that when you look at these transactions carefully, the Times' narrative doesn't make any sense. Diamond bought the housing units for $10 million in order to get the inside track on a piece of land worth $250,000? That's the tail wagging the dog.
Let me tell you what I would say to John McCain: neither of us is an expert on national defense. It's true that you went to one of the service academies but you were in the bottom of the class. It's true that you were a pilot in Vietnam, that you were shot down and spent most of the war in prison and we all sympathize with that and honor you for your courage. But you and I both had these battle experiences, you as a Navy fighter plane, I as an army bomber. I am not going to criticize your war record and your knowledge of national security but I don't want you criticizing mine either.
If I'd be allowed just one little dig at Senator McCain, since he gave me. I would say, 'John, you were shot down early in the war and spent most of the time in prison. I flew 35 combat missions with a 10-man crew and brought them home safely every time.'
McGovern claims that McCain said in a panel discussion on Robert McNamara's book regretting his involvement in Vietnam, that "Well we all know that George McGovern knows little about national defense."
My guess is that this panel discussion took place in 1995 on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Unfortunately the real audio and real video feed doesn't work so we can't check McGovern's recollection, and of course one word (a) before "little" would change the meaning of McCain's comment entirely.
It was early 1992, and the occasion was an informal gathering of a select committee investigating lingering issues about Vietnam War prisoners and those missing in action, most notably whether any American servicemen were still being held by the Vietnamese. It is unclear precisely what issue set off McCain that day. But at some point, he mocked Grassley to his face and used a profanity to describe him. Grassley stood and, according to two participants at the meeting, told McCain, "I don't have to take this. I think you should apologize."
McCain refused and stood to face Grassley. "There was some shouting and shoving between them, but no punches," recalls a spectator, who said that Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey helped break up the altercation.
Problem: Bob Kerrey himself (a Democrat) says that's not what happened:
Since I was mentioned in the Post story I can offer my account of the McCain-Grassley argument. First, I did nothing to intervene; the two Senators worked it out on their own. Second, the subject of the debate - the status of Americans held as prisoner in Vietnam - was one that always provoked violent, ugly debates. The precise point of disagreement between the Senators was over a man name Robert Garwood. Senator Grassley believed he was a hero whose reputation was destroyed by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Senator McCain believed him to a traitor who caused prisoners (like Senator McCain) to receive additional encounters with torture. Both Senators were extremely angry. Senator McCain was explosive (who wouldn't be?) but at no time threatening. Most important: McCain won the argument. My experience is that his anger always has a purpose and in this case the purpose was to defeat Senator Grassley's argument which he did decisively.
Posted By: Bob Kerrey | April 21, 2008 at 07:45 AM
Garwood is an interesting case. He claimed to have been captured by the Viet Cong in 1965, but this claim is doubted by many, and he was charged with desertion (although not convicted). By 1967, according to some POWs, he was assisting the North Vietnamese in POW camps. At his trial, the following evidence was included of his collaboration with the enemy:
"Robert GARWOOD had a multitude of jobs at the camps. He acted as a guard to some of the prisoners. On other occasions he acted as an interpreter for the commander or anybody that spoke Vietnamese and did not speak English."
"Robert GARWOOD carried a wallet or pouch that he had for his possessions, and he carried a picture of HO CHI MINH in it."
"...GARWOOD sucker punched HARKER in the ribs."
"'His' physical condition was better than that of the POWs living at the compound."
"PFC GARWOOD aided the enemy by acting as interpreter, collaborator, guard... He was also an interrogator."
Garwood apparently tired of life in Vietnam by 1979 and requested to be repatriated to the United States. He was placed under a military court martial and was convicted of being a collaborator and assaulting an American POW. At the time he made no claims about Americans still being held in Vietnam, although by 1983 he was claiming to have such knowledge.
He was interviewed in 1981 by the BBC, which includes this account of his original capture:
At each village, young boys threw stones at his head, at his wounded arm and at his testicles. Whenever he yelped in pain, they squealed in delight.
They would sneak up behind him and jab sharp bamboo sticks up his unguarded anus.
The VC marched him all through the second night in a cold, bone-chilling rain.
Garwood, wearing only his shorts, shivered violently as he stumbled along on his bleeding and swelling feet.
Ummm, wearing shorts, but his anus was unguarded? And if the VC had him prisoner, why did the kids have to "sneak up behind him"? Don't get me wrong, I am sure that American prisoners were treated horribly. But this has the aroma of a story that has been compiled from several others that don't mesh perfectly.
He describes a wounded arm, and yet despite appalling details that would lead one to suspect gangrene, somehow nobody describes him as a one-armed man:
By the third day, his would had become infected and his arm had swollen up to three times its normal size and it began to stink like rotting meat.
And get this oddball sentence:
He couldn't see the large dark circles around his sunken eyes.
Couldn't see the sunken eyes either, I'd wager.
If you're as surprised as I am at the MSM covering this story of Vietnamese atrocities, well, understand that it's only a prelude to covering American atrocities to poor Mr Garwood:
Recently declassified files prove that the Pentagon knew Garwood was alive after 1973.
He was abandoned by his own government!
They told his father he was dead.
On his own, he escaped and returned to the United States.
He was charged with Desertion. If convicted, he could have been executed.
The meme that there were still POWs in Vietnam had an oddball resonance with elements of the Left and the Right back in the 1980s. The Right, of course, loved it because it proved what dirty bastards we had been fighting in Southeast Asia. And the Left found a way to accept it as indicating that our government had lied to us yet again about Vietnam. It was one last thing to hate about Nixon.
So eventually the Left began to adopt Bobby Garwood. If what he was saying was true the government had railroaded an innocent and honorable man. And if what he was saying was false, he was a commie sympathizer and collaborator with the North Vietnamese. So either way he's a hero, in the eyes of the Left.
So a TV movie was made for him, starring Ralph Macchio (the Karate Kid) as Garwood. Did it have a liberal slant? I haven't seen the movie, but guess for yourself; the second actor billed is Martin Sheen. His story was also done in book form by a "former Emmy-winning 60 Minutes producer". Not that that means she's a liberal or anything. Except when you read this, you can kind of check off that box:
Now, in a newsbreaking new book, SPITE HOUSE: The Last Secret of the War in Vietnam, investigative reporter Monika Jensen-Stevenson, author of Kiss the Boys Goodbye, unveils the shocking truths behind a contemporary American tragedy. She reveals Garwood's innocence and exposes the U.S. government's dreadful initiatives against its own men in Vietnam.
I always remind myself to watch for confirmation bias, although I am not always successful at avoiding it. I found this discussion of Robert Garwood circa 1999-2005 compelling and very believable, despite the rather obvious fact that the author is the jilted former husband of Garwood's wife. It certainly indicates that Garwood has remained a lowlife.
Thomas Frank, who wrote the buffoonish What's the Matter With Kansas? has been hired by the Wall Street Journal as their designated liberal. He checks in with a column today on Barack's comments about Gods, Guns and Gays:
If Barack Obama or anyone else really cares to know what I think, I will simplify it all down to this. The landmark political fact of our time is the replacement of our middle-class republic by a plutocracy. If some candidate has a scheme to reverse this trend, they've got my vote, whether they prefer Courvoisier or beer bongs spiked with cough syrup. I don't care whether they enjoy my books, or would rather have every scrap of paper bearing my writing loaded into a C-47 and dumped into Lake Michigan. If it will help restore the land of relative equality I was born in, I'll fly the plane myself.
This is something that always amuses me about liberal commenters; because they always believe that things are bad and getting worse, they often engage in nostalgia for the past, which is (of course) a distinctly conservative trait.
Actually, as with most Obamaniacs, he takes up the bulk of his time Hillary-bashing:
Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!
Here's Bill and Bernardine being interviewed in Colorado; hence all the interest in Ward Churchill's claim to have taught the Weatherman people how to make bombs from the questioners. I do like the opening quote though from Ayers, revealing his unrepentant Marxism:
Asked how he feels about capitalism, Ayers replies, "Hate it. Do you want me to elaborate the point? Death to capitalism!"
Here's Ayers, Dohrn, Jeff Jones and Kathy Boudin (who later participated in the Brinks robbery that left two policemen and a security guard dead) in a documentary they made in 1975. It may seem comical at certain points, but it is important to realize that these people were deadly serious.
Bill talks an at SDS reunion at Michigan State. Note the "Cuba" baseball jersey:
Update: Michelle Malkin has a links-rich post on Ayers and Dohrn. Lots of info here; this story ain't going away.
The Washington Post runs an article on the legendary John McCain temper. They admit that (with the exception of the ridiculous Bumiller exchange) that it has not surfaced during this election. But get this bit:
During the early 1990s, McCain telephoned the office of Tom Freestone, a governmental official little known outside Arizona's Maricopa County. McCain had an unusual request. He wanted Freestone, then chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, to reject a job applicant named Karen S. Johnson, whose last governmental position had been in the office of a former Arizona governor and who had just interviewed for a position as an aide in Freestone's office.
According to two employees in the office, McCain told Freestone that the applicant's past political associations left her carrying unflattering baggage.
The pair of Freestone staffers thought it odd that a U.S. senator would even know that Johnson had applied for a job in their office, let alone that he had taken time out of his workday to pick up a phone and weigh in on a staffing matter so removed from the locus of Washington power. But McCain's disenchantment with Johnson was personal: A few years earlier, he had an angry exchange with her while she was the secretary for Republican Arizona Gov. Evan Meacham, who was impeached and forced out of office for campaign finance violations.
Around the time of Meacham's ouster, Johnson said, McCain paid a visit to him. Johnson recalled that McCain swiftly used the opportunity to lecture Meacham: "You should never have been elected. You're an embarrassment to the [Republican] Party."
A stupefied Meacham just stared at the senator. An indignant Johnson, as she tells the story, snapped at McCain: "How dare you? You're the embarrassment to the party."
As Johnson and another person working in Freestone's office remember, the surprised supervisor told Johnson about McCain's objections to her. "But I'm hiring you anyway," Freestone told her.
For Johnson, McCain's call raised questions as to whether he bore a lasting animosity against anyone who ever challenged him. "Everyone in [Freestone's] office thought it was all ridiculous . . . and petty," remembers Johnson, a devout Republican conservative who today is an Arizona state senator.
Hoo-boy. Karen S. Johnson is indeed a buffoon, and her boss was an embarrassment to the Republican Party, so much so that the Republicans themselves impeached the dolt. Let's talk a bit about Karen S. Johnson. She chaired Pat Buchanan's 1996 run in Arizona. She's a North American Union fruitcake:
Karen Johnson was named worst legislator of the year in 2002 by the Arizona Republic for abusing her authority as House Rules Chair to hold up bills. Karen is a big believer in marriage, she's been married five times so far. She has also sponsored legislation that would make it harder to get divorced.
“Ron Paul has been my hero for decades. I applaud his integrity as well as dedication to the principles of our sacred Constitution. Congressman Paul’s matchless service to our country and unparalleled devotion to the ideals of freedom and liberty, which this country used to represent, is noble beyond words.”
So yes, she's got a little baggage that might be considered a tad unflattering.
The Bill Ayers controversy hasn't died down as yet. See-Dubya at Michelle Malkin's notes that Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic bomber, is a better comp for Ayers than Tom Coburn.
Does Obama really believe that Tom Coburn is the moral equivalent of Ayers, or was he just caught unprepared and crammed his foot into his mouth? I hope it’s the latter, because this man might end up as our President and I’d like to think he knows the difference between a bomb-throwing, America-hating terrorist and a pork-slashing Senator from Tulsa.
Obviously, plenty of decent people don't detest Bill Ayers [quite the contrary], and no one is going to convince them that they ought to - Ayers' opposition to the Vietnam War gave him a moral blank check.
In fact, it's important to remember that while three members of the Weather Underground died at their own hands because of a failed bomb they were constructing, no one else died at their hands. The group scrupulously worked to make sure that their attacks were on property, not people.
So that makes it okay? Look, if you rob a bank and your accomplice gets shot by the cops, you will be tried for murder. And anyway, the bomb that went off was intended for a soldiers' dance at Fort Dix. It was only after they killed some of their own that they decided to pursue their means semi-non-violently.
Lindorff also brings up the defense that Obama used:
Ayers has long since earned the nation's respect, whatever one may think of his youthful radicalism, by devoting his life to the challenge of helping educate those who have a hard time breaking the cycle of poverty and ignorance, which makes it obscene to criticize Obama for sharing a boardroom with him (Obama was 8 when Ayers was in the Weathermen back in 1970).
And Obama was 40 when he served on a board with Ayers. He was 33 when he held a fundraiser in Ayers' home. And he was 43 when he spoke with Ayers at an event for Rashid Khalidi.
In Chicago, the Khalidis founded the Arab American Action Network, and Mona Khalidi served as its president. A big farewell dinner was held in their honor by AAAN with a commemorative book filled with testimonials from their friends and political allies. These included the left wing anti-war group Not In My Name, the Electronic Intifada, and the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. (There were also testimonials from then-state Senator Barack Obama and the mayor of Chicago.)
Day in and day out I go about my business, I hang out with my kids and my grandchildren, take care of the elders, I go to work, I teach and I write, I organize and I participate in the never-ending effort to build a powerful movement for peace and social justice; now and then (and unpredictably) I appear in the newspapers or on TV with a reference to my book Fugitive Days, a memoir of the revolutionary action and militant resistance to the Viet Nam War—the years of miracle and wonder—and some fantastic assertions about what I did, what I said, and what I believe. The other night, for example, I heard Sean Hannity tell Senator John McCain that I was an unrepentant terrorist who had written an article on September 11, 2001 extolling bombings against the U.S., and even advocating more terrorist bombs. Senator McCain couldn’t believe it, and neither could I.
Yeah, the only thing he repented was that he didn't do more, as he said at the time. Ayers is not one of the really bad people from the early 1970s, but he's on the borderline. The Weatherman/Weather Underground group plotted murder but only succeeded in killing a few of their own. Several of their graduates went on to do really nasty things, like the Nyack bank robbery, for which Ayers cannot be blamed as he had already turned himself in.
Still, a bad person, and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, is even worse. I can understand why a Democratic candidate for the Illinois senate might find their endorsement useful. But it is ridiculous that such a candidate would find himself in the lead for the nomination of his party.
Ah, it's nice to see this issue come out in the open. Barack Obama was forced last night to account for his relationship with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, two members of the 1970s group. Here's the question and answer:
And I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, general theme of patriotism, in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers. He was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He's never apologized for that.
And, in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." An early organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you are "friendly."
Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?
OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George.
The fact is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who, during his campaign, once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.
Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those, either.
So this kind of game in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, that somehow their ideas could be attributed to me, I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.
CLINTON: Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.
And, if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York and, I would hope, to every American, because they were published on 9/11, and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more.
And what they did was set bombs. And in some instances, people died. So it is -- I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about.
Obama notes later that Hillary's husband pardoned two Weatherman/Weather Underground members in one of his last official acts as president. David Corn follows up:
When it came time for questions for Wolfson, I asked an obvious one: Did Hillary Clinton believe that it had been appropriate in 2001 for President Bill Clinton to have pardoned two members of the Weather Underground as he left office? The two recipients of Clinton's munificence were Linda Evans, who was sentenced to five years in prison for her participation in a string of 1980s bombings, and Susan Rosenberg, who was charged with participating in a bank robbery that left one guard and two police officers dead. And, I continued, has Senator Clinton ever criticized this decision? Has she ever said anything publicly about it? Rosenberg, I noted, had been apprehended with 740 pounds of explosives in her possession.
Nice to see the Left suddenly realizing that those particular pardons were unconscionable; one wonders if Corn expressed reservations back in early 2001. Rosenberg, in particular, was a poor candidate for release.
But, as Clinton noted, Obama continued to associate with Ayers, even after his disgusting comments, which unfortunately for him, were published in the NY Times on 9/11/01 and in the NY Times Magazine section the following Sunday, at a time when support for terrorist actions against Amerikkka were, for some unknown reason, at an all-time low.
Consensus is that Obama got body-slammed, but of course the Obamaniacs are griping that the questions were unfair. They apparently think the questions should be solely about "issues" and not about character.
The winner of this debate? John McCain. Both Democrats came out of this diminished, but Obama got destroyed in this exchange. If superdelegates had begun to reconsider their support of Obama after Crackerquiddick, they’re speed-dialing Hillary after watching Gibson dismember Obama on national TV tonight.
In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.
And:
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.
Mitchell gripes that they didn't talk more about Iraq, but since their positions are virtually indistinguishable, I don't get the point.
A woman asks if Obama "believes in the American flag" because he doesn't wear a flag pin.
Charlie Gibson says that questions about the flag are "all over the internet" -- along with Pamela Anderson's sex tape, cats with bad grammar, and Rick Astley. Journalism at it's finest.
Obama says he "reveres" flag. Says he shows patriotism by trying to make America better.
"This is the kind of manufactured issue that distracts us from" the issues.
Keeping the score card, there's no way Obama could fared worse. Nearly 45 minutes of relentless political scrutiny from the ABC anchors and from Hillary Clinton, followed by an issues-and-answers session in which his anger carried over and sort of neutered him. But Hillary Clinton has a Reverse-Teflon problem: her negatives are up, and when she's perceived as the attacker, the attacks never seem to settle on Obama and always seem to boomerang back on her. So it would be unwise to declare that Hillary "won" the debate in the dynamic sense just yet. (How much money will Obama raise off this debate? $3m million? $4 million?)
9.51 pm. The big winner is John McCain. Then Clinton who seemed at least awake. Then Obama whose calm was nonetheless trumped by obvious exhaustion. Yes, the Clintons have shredded him. But that's what they know how to do. It's also what the GOP knows how to do. Obama has got to get used to this and find a way to withstand it and fight back without enabling the very cynicism it represents. That's not easy, and we are discovering if he has it in him. Tonight he looked and felt depleted beyond measure. Which is when his supporters have to take the weight.
Sully also gripes about the questions; it's as if the media are supposed to be in the bag for Obama.
John Hawkins really does a terrific job with these compilation posts, which take a long time to assemble unless you stay on top of them. Here's one I hadn't heard before, but which certainly fits the anti-American meme:
"And if that child should ever get the chance to travel the world and someone should ask her where is she from, we believe that she should always be able to hold her head high with pride in her voice when she answers, "I am an American."
That is the course we seek. That is the change we are calling for."
Doug Shoen wants you to know that Hillary's been running a high-minded campaign:
Hillary Clinton took an important step Monday toward winning the Democratic nomination by launching an ad targeting Barack Obama's recent comments about working-class voters clinging to "guns or religion." The ad is a marked change from her recent determination to use a positive message until the Democratic convention, but for Clinton to capture the nomination she needs to completely abandon her positive campaign and continue to hammer away at Obama.
Hey, look, I don't like Obama, so I'm temporarily rooting for Hillary. But the notion that she hasn't gone negative is rather absurd.
In response to Greg Ransom's discovery of Barak (Sr.) Obama's paper entitled Problems with Our Socialism, Ben Smith and Jeffrey Ressner labor mightily to convey the message that Barak pere was actually a moderate:
Elements of Obama's argument now seem prescient, others deeply dated, but his central aim – particularly in the context of the heady early days of African independence – was moderate and conciliatory.
And:
Obama Sr.'s 1965 paper, however, brims with confidence and optimism.
The article, with a loaded term in the title and a casual discussion of socialism, communism, and nationalization, has raised the hackles of some anti-Obama conservatives who have been discussing it online.
Boo! Those nasty anti-Obama conservatives. Lower your hackles!
But Kenya expert Dr. Raymond Omwami, an economist and UCLA visiting professor from the University of Helsinki who has also worked at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, said Obama Sr. could not be considered a socialist himself based solely on the material in his bylined piece.
"The critics of this article are making a big mistake," says Omwami, who read the document and the associated internet debate at the request of Politico over the weekend. "They are assuming Obama Sr. is the one who came up with this concept of African socialism, but that's totally wrong. Based on that, they're imbuing in him the idea that he himself is a socialist, but he is not."
Undercutting this notion is the actual paper itself, which the Politico kindly provides. Judge for yourself whether these passages sound slightly socialistic:
Wants public ownership of land, not individual ownership. Wants "equitable" distribution of economic gains.
Use taxation as a method of forced savings? Here Obama, Sr., seems to be saying that the government can tax more than it needs to accumulate capital. No limit to taxation? It would be hard to find a purer statement of socialism than that.
Look, the fact that Obama's father was a socialist, or even a communist, is not all that significant, except to the extent that it reveals Barack Jr.'s own thoughts. But the effort by Smith and Ressner to claim that his papa was a moderate is absurd.
And once again, after digging up the paper written in 1965 by Obama’s dad, the bloggers prove they don’t understand anything, and the paper, contrary to previous assertions of Marxism, proves nothing of the sort.
I'm going to guess that Cole didn't bother to read the article himself. Why should he? A liberal read it and told him there was nothing to the claims.
I had a nice conversation with Ressner, but his article is a typical left of center MSM embarrassment. The article attacks my headline unfairly, completely misrepresents what I said, and deals with none of the rest of the content of my article.
I received e-mails and phone calls from women voicing various strains of frustration: They told me about the sexism they felt coming from their brothers and husbands and friends and boyfriends; some described the suspicion that their politically progressive partners were actually uncomfortable with powerful women. Others had to find ways to call me out of earshot of their Obama-loving boyfriends. Some women apologized for "sounding so feminist." Interviewees expressed vexation at not being able to put their finger on what it was about Obama-mania that creeped them out so badly, while maintaining a deep assuredness that something was not quite right. Perhaps most surprising was that the majority of the women I spoke to were not haters: They were Obama supporters, or at least Obama-appreciators.
A close friend who's a registered Democrat confided in me that she had been unable to make up her mind between Obama and Hillary, and so she had not voted. When her 8-year-old asked her whom she'd voted for she stalled for time, saying that both of the candidates had good qualities, and so it was a tough decision.
He replied, "Well, I hope you didn't vote for that woman!" Of course, he got quite an earful from his mom at that point.
That said, I think at least some of what's going on here is more of the "get with the program" argument. Now that Obama is perceived as "inevitable" his supporters are getting more testy with Hillary's supporters. Of course, I have a perfect personal record on that score, having never played the inevitability card.
Clinton was at Bronko’s Restaurant having a beer when the bartender asked, “You want a shot with that Hillary?” After some deliberation, Clinton settled on a shot of Crown Royal, a Canadian whiskey.
She's a ma'am of the people!
Update: How did I miss that pick? Crown Royal? Could Hillary possibly have chosen a less elitist-sounding whiskey?
Jane Smiley checks in at the HuffPo with an oxygen-starved piece defending Obama.
So now, Barack Obama tells the truth about conditions as we know them--that the countryside and the small towns are dying in many places in our country, and that the corporatocracy doesn't care enough to do a thing about it. He points out that immigrant-baiting, gay-baiting, gun-baiting, and religious pandering have helped to destroy those towns and that countryside, that those being destroyed have been cynically enlisted by their very own destroyers to provide the votes that help accomplish the destruction.
Just plain hilarious. Obama's formulation was that people turn to immigrant-bashing and gay-baiting because economic times are hard for them; Smiley turns it around. It's immigrant bashing and gay baiting that have caused the economic hard times.
Here's an article on a new form of memory that could make it possible for an IPod to hold 500,000 songs. But on its face, this is a somewhat silly notion. Consider that the average pop song runs about 3 minutes. Times 500,000 means it would take you 1.5 million minutes to listen to all the songs on your IPOD (once). How long is 1.5 million minutes?
About a thousand days. And that's 24/7; assuming you might want to actually sleep eight hours a day (without your IPod running), it's over 1500 days.
Talking to the latte liberals of San Francisco about the knuckle-draggers of Pennsylvania:
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
And what state is voting next? Oh, that's right, the anti-immigrants and gun nuts and religious wackos of Pennsylvania!
Or is it the shocking inclusion of religion, of all things, in the litany of sins he recites? What on earth is that doing there, given His Holiness’s repeated invocations of the virtues of faith on the trail?
That's pretty easy; it's called tailoring your message to the audience. Obama may sing the praises of that ol' time religion when he's talking to rednecks and hillbillies, but in brie and brioche country it's just something ignorant people "cling to".
Update:
If I were a rich man, All day long I'd hang out with Obam, If I were a wealthy man.
As most of you probably know, SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, is supporting Barack Obama in the presidential campaign. But what you may not know is that SEIU head Andy Stern is putting the interests of his union members behind his drive for political power.
“An overly zealous focus on growth — growth at any cost, apparently — has eclipsed S.E.I.U.’s commitment to its members,” Mr. Rosselli wrote in a letter to Mr. Stern. Mr. Rosselli complained that Mr. Stern had had top officials negotiate deals with national health care corporations, depriving rank-and-file workers of adequate say in their contracts. In December, Mr. Rosselli quit as president of the union’s 600,000-member state council in California after he grew convinced that Mr. Stern wanted to push him out.
"California nursing homes are sweatshops, [and] a terrible place to live," said Sal Rosselli, president of California's largest healthcare workers' union local, Oakland-based United Healthcare Workers–West, during an online interview last week with the magazine Labor Notes.
While Rosselli's statement might sound like ordinary pre-strike cant, his words are actually much more radical than that.
Rosselli's criticisms are directed at America's most famous labor leader, Andy Stern, the celebrity president of the two-million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU). According to Rosselli, Stern's expansion of the union has cost workers the ability to complain or fight to improve conditions.
Stern also held up a buyout of a nursing home chain in an effort to unionize the workers. This delay cost the State of West Virginia's public employees pension plan over $1 million per day:
Manor Care says the delay is costing investors -- including West Virginia's pension fund -- more than $1 million a day.
So what's wrong with using a little political clout in order to unionize? Well, for starters, it appears that the workers don't want the union:
What is really going on here is that the SEIU has been able to persuade only about 1,000 of the HCA Manor Care's 60,000 employees to pay union dues.
Note in particular that on SEIU's home page, at the very top is an explicit endorsement of Barack Obama. As you probably remember, SEIU's support for Obama was a key in helping him win the Nevada caucuses (although he lost the overall vote, because of weird delegate rules giving rural districts more clout, Obama ended up with more delegates than Hillary).
The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Association today condemned the Service Employees International Union for targeting CNA/NNOC leaders and members with threats and intimidation, stalking them at home and in patient care units at hospitals.
In a statement today, CNA/NNOC -- the nation's largest RN union -- demanded SEIU International President Andrew Stern "immediately renounce the actions of SEIU staff and cease and desist these despicable attacks against anyone who speaks out against his pro-corporate agenda."
"SEIU's behavior, sending swarms of staff to threaten women in their homes, is especially disgraceful, and another illustration of their contempt for a predominantly female profession that they treat as chattel in so much of their activity, including trying to force RNs into his union," said CNA/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro.
And this specific incident sounds like something out of "On the Waterfront":
"I was home alone. Four people were staring at me through the window. When they saw me they started screaming and trying to scare me. I called the police and they ran off," said Keenan.
"I am a leader of CNA/NNOC. I am proud of my organization, and I will always stand by it in our common goal of fighting for my patients and my colleagues. I will not be intimidated by bullies hired by (SEIU President) Andy Stern."
These are the kind of people supporting Barack Obama's campaign.
"Hey Russell, did you know that Bob Gibson had a 1.12 ERA back in '68 and still lost nine games?" Torre asks.
Martin pauses, digests the thought and then, confounded, comes back with a really revealing question.
"They make a lot of errors behind him?" Martin asks.
Forty years ago, Gibson produced one of the most incredible pitching performances ever, a season so dominating that the only aspect more impressive than the raw statistics is the fact that he single-handedly changed the game.
Of course there is a simple reason why Gibson compiled that great ERA and still lost nine ballgames: scoring in 1968 was the lowest in any year since the deadball era. To give you a comparison, National League teams that year averaged 3.43 runs per game. Last year, NL teams averaged 4.71 runs per game, about 40% more than in 1968.
Second, Gibson did have a higher than normal unearned run average; 22% of his runs were unearned, as compared to the rest of the league's 11%, and the Cardinals average of 12% when not backing up Hoot.
The reason he lost nine games is because he pitched 304 2/3 innings in '68, racking up 28 complete games. Start after start, he worked into the late innings, with games on the line and decisions being earned.
And yet his ERA didn't suffer? Nope, I can tell you with some degree of confidence that Bob Gibson lost a bunch of low-scoring games, 1-0 and 2-1 games. It's obvious, isn't it? If you go 22-9 with a very low ERA, you can't be losing any blowouts, you've got to be losing those tight games.
Let me emphasize here, that I'm not saying "choker". Gibson obviously won some close ballgames two years later, when his ERA was a full 2 runs higher per game, and yet he went 23-7. And he did toss an astounding 13 shutouts that year. It's just one of those one-year things, probably caused by 1968 being the year of the pitcher. The second lowest ERA in the league that year was Bobby Bolin; he went 10-5. The third lowest ERA was Bob Veale at 2.05; he actually went 13-14, which is probably even more mind-blowing than Gibson losing 9 games; how exactly do you combine the third best ERA in the league with a losing record?
How many men become so good that a sport changes its rules as a result? In most of our lifetimes, we've seen only two: The NCAA banned dunking for a time in reaction to Lew Alcindor's dominance while at UCLA, and baseball lowered the mound from 15 inches to 10 after Gibson's extraordinary season of 1968.
Close. Alcindor (Kareem) did indeed change the rulebooks in college hoops. But baseball did not change the rulebooks in reaction to Gibson's season. They changed it in reaction to Carl Yastrzemski's season. Yaz won the batting title in the American League that year with a .301 average. Nobody much minded Gibby getting a very low ERA; they didn't want the batting champion to be a .290 hitter like Danny Cater, who came in second that season.
Gibson was an excellent player having an excellent year. But it was not some freakish season.
Neatly illustrated at the New York Times. This problem drove me absolutely batty when Marilyn Vos Savant discussed it in her Parade column one day; I was convinced that she was wrong, but a simple experiment (like that shown at the Times) proves that it's indeed right.
Basically, the Monte Hall problem goes like this: Monte (of Let's Make a Deal fame) shows you three doors. Behind two of them are gag prizes, while behind the third is a very valuable prize. You pick a door. Before revealing what's behind that door, Monte now opens one of the other doors to reveal one of the gag prizes. Should you change doors, or should you stick with your original pick.
The answer, as you'll see if you try it a few times, is that you should change doors. The reason is that by revealing where one of the gag prizes was located, Monte has given you additional information that you did not have when you made your original choice.
It's pretty easy to work it out. Suppose the car is behind door number one, with the gags behind the other two. You have three choices, and odds are only 33% that you will pick the right one. But if you pick one of the wrong doors, and then switch, you are now guaranteed to choose the right one. So 67% of the time, you should switch, and 33% of the time you should stick.
1. Mr. Smith has two children, at least one of whom is a boy. What is the probability that the other is a boy?
You might think that "logically" it's 50%. But this one's a little tricky, so it helps to map out the possibilities. There are four possibilities for a parent with two children:
1. The first child was a girl and the second child was a girl. 2. The first child was a girl and the second child was a boy. 3. The first child was a boy and the second child was a girl. 4. The first child was a boy and the second child was a boy.
But we know that the first possibility is wiped altogether as at least one of the children is a boy. This means that the other three possibilities are the ones we have to account for, and it's pretty easy to see that in only one of the three the other child was a boy. Note however, that if there were more information, the odds would change. For example if we knew that the older child was a boy, then the odds that his younger sibling was a boy would be one in two, or 50%
It goes to show you that logic can sometimes lead you to the wrong conclusion.
The question was: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"
Obama checked: "Yes" and wrote:
"In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
What he meant to say is that if he discovered he could raise more over the internet, the heck with what he said in February 2007.
Kathy Shaidle, one of Canada's top conservative bloggers, is being sued by Richard Warman under Canada's moronic Human Rights Commissions.
And fight it I will.
Richard Warman's friends at the Canadian Human Rights Commission say "freedom of speech is an American concept" they refuse to recognize.
Well, some Canadians DO believe in freedom of speech.
If you believe in freedom of speech, eh, consider dropping by the site and making a contribution to her defense fund(s). If you don't have the money, at least consider linking to her post and making the request of your readers.
The system is risk-free for the plaintiff: the Crown picks up the tab for the "complainant," while the "respondent" — i.e. defendant — has to pay his own legal bills no matter what the eventual verdict is. Ted Kindos of Burlington, Ont., has already spent $20,000 of his own dough defending himself against a "human rights" complaint and estimates he'll add another six figures to that before it's all done. Mr. Kindos owns a modest restaurant, Gator Ted's Tap and Grill. So what outrageous "human right" did he breach? Well, he asked a guy smoking "medical marijuana" in the doorway of his restaurant if he wouldn't mind not doing it. Mr. Kindos felt that his customers — including young children — shouldn't have to pass through a haze of pot smoke to enter his establishment. But apparently in Canada there's a human right to light up a spliff in some other fellow's doorway. The other man's grass is always greener, and in this case the plaintiff's grass will cost Mr. Kindos an awful lot of green. He faces financial ruin, while there's no cost to the complainant.
Warman's a kook lefty (he ran for public office a few times as a Green) who's stumbled onto a gold mine. Obviously this needs to be handled in some other manner, but for now the lawyers' fees are paramount.
While the crowd was indeed diverse, some students at the event questioned the practices of Mrs. Obama’s event coordinators, who handpicked the crowd sitting behind Mrs. Obama. The Tartan’s correspondents observed one event coordinator say to another, “Get me more white people, we need more white people.” To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, “We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.”
“I didn’t know they would say, ‘We need a white person here,’ ” said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. “I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn’t know it would be so outright.”
I don't mind the stagecraft, it's part of the game. But it is funny, nevertheless.
In 2006, the Arizona Republican congressional delegation had a strategy meeting. McCain repeatedly addressed two new members, congressmen Trent Franks and Rick Renzi, as 'boy.' Finally, Renzi, a former college linebacker, rose from his chair and said to McCain, "You call me that one more time and I'll kick your old ass." McCain lunged at Renzi, punches were thrown, and the two had to be physically separated. After they went to their separate offices, McCain called Renzi and demanded an apology. Renzi refused. Apparently this posture made McCain admire him, as they became fast friends.
This last part is of course very convenient, because Renzi is currently under indictment, and if the story was just that McCain scuffled with a corrupt politician, it wouldn't suit the liberal agenda. BTW, Renzi had been in office for at least three years at the time the supposed incident took place, so the notion that he was a "new member" is wrong.
Let me remind people that John McCain is unable to do some things, like comb his own hair, because of the torture he suffered at the hands of the North Vietnamese. The idea that he would engage in fisticuffs with Renzi is just plain nutty. And some of the other stuff (added for bulk) includes the shocking news that McCain once told Ted Kennedy to "Shut up". The only negative about that claim is that apparently it only happened once.
Update: Check out this list of other people McCain has reportedly had arguments with. Strom Thurmond, Robert Torricelli, Charlie Keating, Ross Perot... the man sure can pick his enemies well.
The spot features two regular surrogates: his half-sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, and his wife Michelle. We also hear from his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who helped raise him and, as he told us during his speech on race, “once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”
ABC News Manages to Find "Some" McCain Supporters Among Troops in Iraq
If you want a good example of media bias, it's hard to top this ABC News segment:
PFC Jeremy Slate said he supported Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., because of his stated intention to pull out of Iraq right away.
"That would be nice," Slate said, "I'd like to be home, yea."
SFC Patricia Keller also expressed support for Obama, citing his representation for change.
Note that in the text article, there is not one supporter of McCain cited, although in the video segment, the reporter notes (grudgingly) that they did find "some" supporters of John McCain, although she doesn't let the one that she highlights say his name. But not the focus on their "surprising" endorsements and that they had heard a "rousing speech" from Dick Cheney. Not too slanted.
3. Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on "the rich" even up to the 100% level, arguing that, "there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay" (p. 30) and that, "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." (p. 31)
Why is this important? Because Barack styled himself after his father:
There's a big mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams For My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. What was Barack Obama doing seeking out Marxist professors in college? Why did Obama choose a Communist Party USA member as his socio- political counselor in high school? Why was he spending his time studying neocolonialism and the writings of Frantz Fanon, the pro-violence author of "the Communist Manifesto of neocolonialsm", in college? Why did he take time out from his studies at Columbia to attend socialist conferences at Cooper Union?
Will probably be the first. Raw Story (no link) is pushing an ancient fabrication of an altercation between John McCain and his wife. For starters it is claimed that McCain referred to his wife as a trollop. And the precipitating event is so minimalist (but that's probably the point) that it's hard to believe anybody would get angry about it.
Still if the caricature of McCain is that he gets angry, and the caricature of Obama is that he hates America, I'll take the senator from Arizona in the finals.
The continuing contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has become a frenzy of debates and proclamations about democracy. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has been particularly vociferous in claiming that its candidate stands for a transformative, participatory new politics. It has vaunted Obama's narrow lead in the overall popular vote in the primaries to date, as well as in the count of elected delegates, as the definitive will of the party's rank and file. If, while heeding the party's rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama's supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart.
Wilentz goes on to point out that if the delegates were apportioned on a winner-take-all basis, Hillary would have a comfortable lead. Note that although Wilentz clearly thinks this would be a good idea, what he's really angling at is to counter the notion discussed above, that Obama's lead in pledged delegates and votes constitutes the will of the people. And there I agree with him. He also points out quite neatly that even in individual states, Obama's team doesn't hew to that rule; it's well-noted that Obama won the most delegates in Texas even though he did not get the most votes in that state, due to their convoluted half-primary, half-caucus setup.
Meanwhile, Kos checks in with a laughable article in Newsweek about Hillary's "coup" attempt:
No matter how you define victory, Barack Obama holds an insurmountable lead in the race to earn the Democratic nomination.
I define victory as the nomination. And Obama's lead in that race is not insurmountable; it is insurmountable without the superdelegates. But the superdelegates are part of the rules.
Hilariously, Kos goes on to claim that Hillary's "coup" attempt is good for the Democrats. Good, one presumes, only if Hillary fails. While likely, that is not yet a given.
Show me a prison Show me a jail Show me a man Whose face is growing pale
And I'll show you a young man With many reasons why And there but for fortune May go you or I
(Joan Baez, as performed by Phil Ochs)
Ochs specialized in these types of folk songs, which are so extremely liberal that they seem like parodies. The central message of the song is of course summed up in that last bit about "there but for fortune".
Forty years later, some leftists are still singing the same song, if to a hip-hop beat. Matt Yglesias apparently has written a book on foreign policy:
He echoes Osama bin Laden when he argues that Islamist anger against the West is a justified response to foreign powers that “occupy Muslim land.” This is a bold assertion, and yet Yglesias doesn’t care to explore why Iran and Syria—countries where foreign soldiers haven’t set foot for decades—continue to be the two most active state sponsors of international terrorism. In fact, he urges the United States to engage Iran and Syrian in diplomatic talks about the future of Iraq so that all three can “work together to secure their common interests in that country.” What “common interest” supporters of a democratic, federal, and secular Iraq might share with the ayatollahs and Assads is left unsaid.
To say that the review is scathing would be putting it mildly. Yglesias, like many of the Left, believes that the only real problem in the world is the United States. We don't have any real enemies, just folks "with many reasons why."
Why does Yglesias express such serenity when it comes to the malicious threats of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yet become apoplectic upon hearing the statements of Joe Lieberman?
Heheh, the Lieberman mania on the Left is well known, and the point of not condemning Ahmadinnerjacket is that one must never give support to the Bush Administration.
See also here, where there is a picture of boneheaded Matt in terrorist attire. If Matt were ever to meet a real terrorist, one hopes he would have an empty bladder. Further thoughts at Protein Wisdom.
Update: Here's a video of Peter, Paul & Mary getting gushy over that pale prisoner:
I'm a little concerned about this report that Fred Phelps' church is about to be seized to settle a lawsuit:
The $5 million penalty is the result of a lawsuit filed against three of the church's principals by Albert Snyder, the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, whose funeral was picketed by church members.
The senior Snyder contended the picketing caused emotional distress and invasion of privacy.
The Phelps' group is a bunch of sleazebags, with their "God Hates Fags" signs. They deserve little compassion from us. But at the same time, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that what amounts to protest activities may result in substantial penalties.
But this strikes me as a bad decision against bad people.
Freedom of speech is obviously a right that should be protected, but invading funerals to spread a message of hate crosses a certain line. Basically, if you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded movie theatre, you shouldn’t be able to yell “Fag!” at a funeral.
Fer Chrissakes, there's a reason why you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, and it's not because it will offend people.
As always, when the Left is outraged over something, it pays to look at the context. Congressman Patrick McHenry referred to a someone who insisted on seeing proper credentials before letting him into a gymnasium in Baghdad as "a two-bit security guard".
Yes, poor Patrick McHenry. An American stationed in Baghdad followed orders on Green-Zone security only to get mocked by a conservative lawmaker who never wore a uniform. Classy.
Somehow, I have a hunch that if McHenry were a liberal Dem, and he called an American serviceman or servicewoman serving in Baghdad a “two-bit security guard,” it’d be quite a while until we heard the end of it.
Well, first of all, the person was not a serviceman or service women, he was an independent contractor. You know, the guys who Kos was referring to when he said, "Screw 'em." But second, if you listen to the entire clip carefully, you'll see that Congressman McHenry is not characterizing the security guard; he's characterizing himself, deprecatingly. Note that shortly after he was refused entry to the gym, a rocket hit that building. Thus the guard ended up saving his life! Note as well that Congressman McHenry talks about how he stood there like an idiot when the "duck and cover" order was broadcast.
So maybe he did engage in a little DYKWIA with the guard at the time; he recognizes that he was wrong and tells an amusing little story at his own expense, throwing in the "two-bit security guard" to make himself look a little worse.
I'd love to hear the rest of the clip to see if he goes on to thank the guard. At his own website, the congressman has a clip of himself on Easter Sunday (the day of the incident), stating that it was right that he was refused entry to the gym. So as usual this is one of those things that the Left has ginned up that doesn't mean what they claim. Pardon me if I don't join in the condemnation from some conservative bloggers.
If you want to know why you can't bring more than three ounces of shampoo with you when you fly, blame these terrorist wannabes:
A British terrorist cell planned to detonate suicide bombs on seven transatlantic flights over North America, causing catastrophic loss of life, a court was told yesterday.
The flights chosen by the alleged terrorists – based in Walthamstow, East London – were scheduled to leave Heathrow Terminal 3 one afternoon carrying almost 2,000 passengers and crew.
I covered Randy Rhodes' obscenity-laced tirade against Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro a couple days ago; it's now gotten Rhodes suspected from Air America.
His second big mistake is bowling with others in Altoona, Pennsylvania. He ignored the risk every politician faces when trying to be one of the people if they're not, a risk that doubles if you pursue the official state sport when you've never worn a league shirt with your name above the pocket.
A savvy aide would have had Obama devote as much preparation to avoiding a 7-10 split as preparing for debates. Presidents know that if you aren't sure you can get the first pitch from the mound across home plate, better to toss it (like a girl) from the bleachers.
Of course, the next president to sit in the bleachers will be the first, but otherwise her take is pretty solid. You never can tell whether even the practice is going to work out; John Kerry tossed a baseball around on the tarmac for months in 2004, and still couldn't reach home plate at Fenway a few days before the convention that year.
Bush, of course, smoked a belt-high fastball across the dish at Yankee shortly after 9-11, even though he was wearing a bullet-proof jacket at the time.
Michael Barone examines Barack's appeal and notes it's mostly upscale and academic, while Hillary's is Jacksonian.
Academics and public employees (and of course many, perhaps most, academics in the United States are public employees) love the arts of peace and hate the demands of war. Economically, defense spending competes for the public-sector dollars that academics and public employees think are rightfully their own. More important, I think, warriors are competitors for the honor that academics and public employees think rightfully belongs to them. Jacksonians, in contrast, place a high value on the virtues of the warrior and little value on the work of academics and public employees. They have, in historian David Hackett Fischer's phrase, a notion of natural liberty: People should be allowed to do what they want, subject to the demands of honor. If someone infringes on that liberty, beware: The Jacksonian attitude is, "If you attack my family or my country, I'll kill you." And he (or she) means it. If you want to hear an eloquent version, listen to Sen. Zell Miller's speech endorsing George W. Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention. The academic who hears the Rev. Jeremiah Wright declaiming, "God damn America," is not unnerved. He hears this sort of thing on campus all the time. The Jacksonian who watches the tape sees an enemy of everything he holds dear.
Obviously a topic I take seriously. This looks to be part of a series of ads; I got the definite feeling that this is a stage-setting piece for what is to come.
A live hand-grenade was released threatening to blow up L/Cpl Croucher, 24 and the rest of the patrol.
The marine shouted "grenade" and as his friends dived for cover L/Cpl Croucher lay with his back on the lethal device.
But amazingly:
L/Cpl Croucher, who suffered a bleeding nose and shock, was saved by the special plating inside his Osprey body armour. He almost certainly saved the life of Marine Scott Easter who had "just completely frozen".
His backpack took the brunt of the explosion, but as noted in the story, there was no way he could have known that at the time.
Particularly heartening are the comments on that article. Highly recommended!
But Obama's supporters are starting to make me feel some sympathy for Hillary Clinton. Consider this (profanity laced, definitely NSFW) video of Randi Rhodes:
Can you imaging the outrage if some conservative started talking about Barack Obama as a pimp?
