New York Post story nominated for "most ignored of 2008 award."

New York Post reporter Ginger Otis has been nominated for the prestigious Most Ignored Story of 2008 award, for her recent story, "Obama Robbed in New York." The story details how, in NYC, which happens to be Hillary Clinton's "home town," whoever counted the votes seemed not to notice that Mr. Obama had any.

From the article:

February 16, 2008 -- Barack Obama's primary-night results were strikingly under recorded in several congressional districts around the city - in some cases leaving him with zero votes when, in fact, he had pulled in hundreds, the Board of Elections said today
Unofficial primary results gave Obama no votes in nearly 80 districts, including Harlem's 94th and other historically black areas - but many of those initial tallies proved to be wildly off the mark, the Board of Elections confirmed.
Truth is, in some districts getting a recount, the senator from Illinois is even close to defeating Hillary Clinton...

In a predominantly black Brooklyn district for which Clinton was given credit for a 118-0 victory on Primary Night, the Board of Elections' latest figures indicate that she may not even come out the winner - Obama currently has 116 votes to her 118.

Since stories about possible electoral fraud are routinely ignored by the rest of the Media -- forgotten as if they'd never existed in the first place -- observers believe Ms. Otis's story has a fair shot at winning the award. "However," noted Brad Friedman, four-time past winner of the award, "it's early yet. We haven't even gotten to the general election, anything can happen." Indeed, Ms. Otis looks to be facing several other strong contenders. The story of 50,000 Los Angeles votes not counting has already been largely forgotten, and given the historic Democratic primaries and the omnipresence of school shootings, Britney Spears, and cleaver-murders, nobody seems to be paying much attention to stories about anything the current Administration or Congress are doing. But for now, Ms. Otis's story is an early favorite.

When asked for comment, Ms. Otis added: "What story?"

"Yes We Can" vs. "Me Me Me"

Obama may be more proficient in the vocabulary of leadership, but Clinton's speech proved her campaign right when they said she represents a real change. Most leaders use the words "we," "us" and "our" to draw in their listeners, to make them feel as if they're part of the team -- to make them feel invested in the leader's success. Not Clinton. Compare Obama's old school approach vs. Clinton's radically different one. She doesn't pander to the togetherist lobby. She turns conventional wisdom on its head by choosing language that gives the impression it's all about her. "I listened to you... I found my voice." That line in particular was brilliant. We know it was brilliant. If it had been a pathetic admission that she's given to falling out of touch with the American people, the Media would've told us so. But they told us it was brilliant, which, to me, was a big relief.

Let's compare Old School Obama to New Jack Clinton. Here's Obama's South Carolina victory speech...



...vs. Clinton's New Hampshire victory speech.



I have to admit, she lapsed a bit toward the end. A few "we" and "us" buzzwords crept in. But what a rousing start.

If only Bush had watched What's Happenin'

If this sort of thing had happened in 2000, it might not have cost me nearly $40 the other day to fill up the tank on my tiny Ford Focus, two towers might still be standing in New York, and the name "Greenland" might remain an oxymoron a little bit longer:

Clinton follows Bush's lead on the Media

This is exactly what we need -- four more years of this crap:

Reporters who have covered the hyper-vigilant campaign say that no detail or editorial spin is too minor to draw a rebuke. Even seasoned political journalists describe reporting on Hillary as a torturous experience. Though few dare offer specifics for the record--"They're too smart," one furtively confides. "They'll figure out who I am"--privately, they recount excruciating battles to secure basic facts. Innocent queries are met with deep suspicion. Only surgically precise questioning yields relevant answers. Hillary's aides don't hesitate to use access as a blunt instrument, as when they killed off a negative GQ story on the campaign by threatening to stop cooperating with a separate Bill Clinton story the magazine had in the works. Reporters' jabs and errors are long remembered, and no hour is too odd for an angry phone call. Clinton aides are especially swift to bypass reporters and complain to top editors. "They're frightening!" says one reporter who has covered Clinton. "They don't see [reporting] as a healthy part of the process. They view this as a ruthless kill-or-be-killed game."

Despite all the grumbling, however, the press has showered Hillary with strikingly positive coverage. "It's one of the few times I've seen journalists respect someone for beating the hell out of them," says a veteran Democratic media operative. The media has paved a smooth road for signature campaign moments like Hillary's campaign launch and her health care plan rollout and has dutifully advanced campaign-promoted themes like Hillary's "experience" and expertise in military affairs. This is all the more striking in light of the press's past treatment of Clinton--particularly during her husband's White House years--including endless stories about her personal ethics, frostiness, and alleged Lady Macbeth persona.

It's enough to make you suspect that breeding fear and paranoia within the press corps is itself part of the Clinton campaign's strategy. And, if that sounds familiar, it may be because the Clinton machine, say reporters and pro-Hillary Democrats, is emulating nothing less than the model of the Bush White House, which has treated the press with thinly veiled contempt and minimal cooperation. "The Bush administration changed the rules," as one scribe puts it--and the Clintonites like the way they look. (To be sure, no one accuses the Clinton team of outright lying to the press, as the Bushies have done, or of crossing other ethical lines. And reporters say other press shops--notably those of Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards--are also highly combative.)

So far, the strategy has worked brilliantly. In the current climate, where the mainstream media is under attack from both conservatives and liberals, Clinton may have picked the right moment to get tough with the press. But, as the murmur of discontent among the fourth estate grows--and Hillary's coverage has taken a sharper tone since a widely panned debate performance late last month--even some Hillary supporters fear that the strategy may produce a dangerous backlash.

Assuming Clinton wins the presidency, I'd just like to thank the Clinton team in advance for providing "Candorville" with at least four years of material.

Stephen Colbert Meets the Press

Decent satire, but Colbert should think about studying the renowned performance artist Tom Tancredo. Nobody does absurdist humor as well as that guy.

Losing as an art form

From Rolling Stone.

In head-to-head polling against the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, Clinton and Obama have managed to post only modest leads. Edwards, by contrast, not only bests every Republican candidate in the race, he trounces them -- by an average of twelve points.

Naturally, that means the Democrats won't nominate Edwards.

•
•
•

Obama's odd reason for opposing impeachment

Barack Obama on the incompetence and secrecy of the Bush administration, and on why impeaching them is unacceptable:

"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."
-USA Today

Well, no. Our system was actually designed so that we can remove criminal officials through impeachment.

He goes on:

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.

Illegally spying on millions of Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment, holding American citizens without providing access to counsel for years, torturing captives, evidence of felonious vote caging (aimed at denying Blacks their right to vote), etc., don't constitute "grave breeches"? Exactly what would constitute a "grave breech" in Obama's mind? And what does he mean "intentional breeches"? Does he think Bush spied on Americans by accident?

McCain jokes about bombing Iran

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb [Iran]..."
-John McCain


All I have to say about that is:



Thank God this guy has little chance of winning the primary, let alone the election.

Image Over Substance

Perusing the conservative blogosphere this morning, this caught my eye. To an extent, all candidates are chosen based on their image. It's why Barack Obama or Rudy Giuliani may someday be President, and Dennis Kucinich never will. What I found interesting is that these people at one of the leading Conservative blogs apparently see nothing wrong with that, and are in fact downright giddy about it:

In a sense, then, [Fred] Thompson looks like the perfect blend of the Allen/Frist/Romney/Gingrich and McCain/Giuliani "factions." He seems to combine the conservatism of the former cluster with at least some of the popularity and stature of the latter pairing. This is not to suggest that Thompson is a national hero like McCain and Giuliani. But in addition to a long and distinguished record of public service, he has the good fortune to play a distinguished public servant on television. Millions of Americans see Thompson exercise sound judgment every week as the district attorney on "Law and Order." I'm reliably informed that the show's creator, Dick Wolf, developed the persona of this fictional D.A. specifically for Thompson, and that the actor/politician protects his image by pushing back when he thinks his lines don't portray him in the proper light. But the point isn't whether we're seeing the real Fred Thompson on the show; the point is that, if Thompson runs, millions of America will see the character when they see the candidate, and to that extent will like what they see.

Clinton spins the war vote

Oh, please...

From The Hill:

Former President Bill Clinton yesterday complained that “it’s just not fair” the way his wife, presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is being depicted for her controversial Iraq war vote.

Speaking to hundreds of supporters on conference call, the former president said, “I don’t have a problem with anything Barack Obama [has] said on this,” but “to characterize Hillary and Obama’s positions on the war as polar opposites is ludicrous.

“This dichotomy that’s been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate.”

The ex-president’s aggressive defense of his wife’s position revealed frustration in the Clinton camp over how the issue is playing into the already-overheated presidential campaign.

On a conference call with Hillraisers, Sen. Clinton’s biggest donors, which The Hill listened to after being provided the call-in information, the former president said there was a stark difference between those who voted for the Iraq resolution and those who wanted to go to war.

In response to a question from one of the supporters on the phone about explaining Hillary Clinton’s Iraq vote to undecided voters, the former president jumped in front of former Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe, saying, “Let me answer this.”

He said he had re-read the Iraq resolution last week, and that his wife had voted only for “coercive inspections.” Clinton justified his wife’s refusal to apologize for her vote by explaining that she was acting out of concern that future presidents might need similar language authorizing “coercive inspections to avoid conflict.”

“It’s just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war,” Clinton said.

Does he think anyone's going to buy that? Technically, he's right. Congress voted to authorize "coercive inspections," and for the President to return to the UN Security Council for approval before launching his invasion, and the President did neither. He pulled the inspectors out (and then claimed Hussein expelled them) and did not return to the UN until after he'd invaded to demand the UN retroactively give him authorization. Nobody would've expected the President to do that, right? Nobody except the millions of Americans who were sure he was going to war no matter the evidence or excuse. If the Democrats in Congress who voted for that resolution were among the segment of our population who didn't accurately assess Bush's intentions (which couldn't have been more obvious), that casts serious doubt on their judgement.

Either Bill Clinton is wrong and Senator Clinton did suspect this was a vote for war, or he's right and she was too naive to realize it was a vote for war. There's no way to put a good spin on this, so please, Mr. Clinton, stop trying.

Desperate to Vote

At our precinct, voting was standing-room only. Or, more accurately, sitting-room only. Turnout was so much higher than expected that people were sitting on chairs (as I did) and on the floor to vote, because there weren't enough booths. People sure were desperate to vote yesterday:

READING, Pa. - Anna Urban has been voting since Franklin D. Roosevelt was president and wasn't about to miss an election.

When the 95-year-old Reading resident didn't have a ride to the polls Tuesday, she didn't hesitate. She dialed 911.

Dispatchers forwarded the call to the Berks County Election Services office, where it was considered a compliment.

"To call 911 and ask for help to vote really says a lot," said Deborah M. Olivieri, election services director. "It meant a lot to everyone in this office; it made us feel what we do is worthwhile."

County Commissioner Judith L. Schwank immediately picked up Urban, and Urban walked to the voting booth at Millmont Elementary School on her arm.

"All my life I voted," said Urban, a Democrat, who cast her first ballot in the 1930s. "You need to vote to be a good citizen."
-Philadelphia Inquirer

Hispanic voters targeted AGAIN?

In honor of the repeated attempt to disenfranchise Hispanic voters, I'll re-post that last cartoon:

Bradblog has posted a note from a Democratic voter in New Mexico. The voter's complaint prompted a judge to issue an injunction preventing the Republican Party of New Mexico from calling non-Republicans with precinct information. It seems voters with Hispanic surnames may have been specifically targeted:

Yesterday (11/04), about 1pm MST, I rec'd a phone message from the Republican Party of NM telling me that my polling location was John Adams Middle School. My polling place is usually Longfellow Elementary about 1 block away. John Adams is about 7 1/2 miles away. In my horror and disgust I quickly deleted the message.

Thinking that maybe my polling place changed, I then called the **Republican Party** here and simply asked if they could tell me my polling place. They asked my address only, I told them, and they said, "You vote at Longfellow." This is correct and I hung up.

About 5pm MST, the Republican Party of NM called AGAIN and left a message telling me that my election day polling place was West Mesa High School, even further away than John Adams. They gave the full address and zip code. My Caller ID shows "REPUBLICAN PART." I DID NOT DELETE THIS MESSAGE.

Then around 7pm MST, the same thing happened. The Republican Party of NM called and left a message telling me that my election day polling place was back to John Adams Middle School. My Caller ID shows "NEW MEXICO VICT." I did a Google search on the phone number and this entry came up:

New Mexico Republican Party :: CalendarSummary:, Contact your local county party or call the Victory Office
at (505) XXX-XXXX to find out what you can do to help our 2006 Republican candidates. …

I DID NOT DELETE THIS MESSAGE.

If you want the actual phone numbers, I can give them to you...

-Read more at Bradblog.com

So far this is the only complaint about this, but it certainly fits the pattern that's plagued our elections since 2000. There's something seriously wrong with your party if you have to keep people from voting in order to win elections.
•
•
•

October Surprise: the Saddam Death Sentence

October Surprises happen in November these days. After being delayed for nebulous reasons, the Iraqi court trying Saddam Hussein (a court whose logistics are largely controlled by agents of the United States) has decided to announce its verdict this Sunday, two days before the U.S. Congressional elections.

As President Bush faces mounting criticism over the war, a guilty verdict announced two days ahead of tight U.S. congressional elections on November 7 could reflect positively on him as a vindication of his policy to overthrow Saddam.

U.S. officials deny Washington had any say over the timing of the verdict or the court's decisions, saying the American role was limited to logistics and security.
-More...

Of course Washington had nothing to do with this timing. They'd never politicize something as important as this. Not this White House.

•
•
•

Vote and be deported

One reader wrote in to complain about today's strip, which he's absolutely, positively, "150% sure" is an example of Candorville "makeing up stuff all thu time!" (Since he was so creative with the spelling, I figured I'd leave it as it was). I was very surprised to learn that Mr. "Fuk off looser" (well, that's how he signed his letter) hadn't been paying attention to the news. Sadly there's no need to "make stuff up" when real life has become stranger than fiction.

I'm sorry about what you said I said.

What I learned this week:

1. John Kerry inadvertently insulting the intelligence of the troops is far worse than George Bush getting those troops stuck in Iraq without adequate manpower, armor, or planning. It's certainly far worse than Mr. Bush and his Congressional rubber stamps not having any plan (or intention, it seems) of getting our troops out of that bloody civil war he created.

2. Although John Kerry was a highly educated soldier who served with other highly educated soldiers, and has spoken on and on (and on and on and on) about the intelligence, nobility and capability of modern soldiers for more than thirty years, his one botched joke yesterday proves he thinks soldiers are morons.

3. John Kerry's gaffe is more newsworthy than 104 Americans dying in Iraq in one month.

4. It doesn't matter whether Kerry was joking about Bush or attacking the troops. He should apologize for what the Bush White House says he meant, whether he meant it or not.

5: The "I'm not going to stand for anyone distorting my awful, bungled jokes" Kerry is far more inspiring than the guy who ran for President in 2004:

How many of these does it take?

Bradblog.com has been covering multiple incidents of votes being flipped on the electronic voting machines, which will be used by well over 80% of voters next week. All of the reported incidents so far, just as in 2004 and 2002, are incidents in which votes for Democrats are flipped to the benefit of Republicans. Not some. Not most. ALL. Oh well. The Media says they're only "glitches." Besides, these "glitches" consistently doing what's statistically impossible - benefitting only one political party - is just the mother of all coincidences, I'm sure. I'll file this under "move along, nothing to see here..."

What a surprise...

This is all over the conservative blogosphere. Can someone explain to me how a person can actually be nonchalant - if not downright proud - of using divisive wedge issues to drum up support they otherwise wouldn't earn?

ROVE TIME
Staffers in the White House have been talking up the possibilities of an "October Surprise" or two leading into the mid-term elections. They say the President feels confident he can still play a role in the election, that he intends to campaign hard for Republicans, and that on the policy front, there are a couple of issues that can be used as wedges along the way.
-from the conservative mag, The American Spectator

Democrats on Bush on Osama

The Democrats have created yet another simple, effective advertisement. I wonder how long it'll take them to apologize for it.

Fox News finally notices the Diebold voting machine scandal

Now that the Democratic Party seems poised to retake the House, Fox News gets concerned about the voting machines. Where were they in 2002 and 2004, when the polls were nearly dead-even and every single Diebold "error" miraculously ended up favoring the Republican Party?



...and, a 10 minute video summarizing the Princeton study (which is one of many studies & tests showing how our votes are being stolen):

Reader mailbag - "But Lieberman IS 'moderate!' the Media says so!"

This is representative of the feedback to today's cartoon about Joe Lieberman and the mainstream media:

By candor do you mean your opinion?---no humor?

Most people do not want a time table to pull out of Iraq.The people who are against privitization of SS don't have an alternative solution.Most people don't want to raise taxes to supprt universal health care.I'm sure the people you surround yourself with don't think Lieberman is a moderate,but most Americans do,based on facts,not the"mass media".--Is your comic ever humorous?--it so one sided.

-Steve N.

...And my response...

1. As recently as last month, 57 percent of Americans supported a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
-source

2. The people who are against privatization of Social Security DO have an alternative solution: it's called Social Security. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. A plurality of the country believed in 2005 that the system wasn't broken, and modest changes to the system, along the lines of the changes made in the '80s, would keep it solvent for generations.
-source

3. Most people do want universal health care, even if it meant raising taxes.
-source

In short, you're wrong on every count -- which leads me to believe that your assessment of the humor in Candorville is probably equally faulty. Thanks for taking the time to write!