The more I see of the Clinton campaign, the more I understand the burning hatred the right wing has always felt toward them, even if I don't (yet) share it. How can you not hate people who laugh and smile while they distort their opponents words and records? How can you not hate people who brazenly drag their opponents' race into the campaign repeatedly, and then feign indignation when their opponent calls them on it? How can you not despise the Clintons when they speak derisively of Barack engaging in identity politics, while at the same time reminding everyone at every turn that Hillary has ovaries?
The Clintons' latest not-quite-subtle attempt to marginalize Obama based on race:
Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
This was in response to a question about Obama saying it "took two people to beat him." Jackson had not been mentioned.
Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."
Obama did win the vast majority of black South Carolinians' votes. But how does Bill Clinton explain Iowa? Did Jesse Jackson win Iowa and the history books forgot to record that?
According to Mike Huckabee, his recent surge in the polls is due to divine intervention. But now we know Huckabee himself is divine, because the bookcase dressed to look like a cross floats right behind his head. I guess they thought stringing christmas lights around his forehead as if they were a crown of thorns would've been a little over the top.
Sometimes revelations that the President's been lying about WMD again and "can't recall" hearing about the CIA's torture-tape coverup make you want to write out a long, detailed, link-filled post. Other times, it can make you want to tune out and watch Steve Martin:
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.
...Last month, students [at St. Joseph's Catholic School] found that their favorite series had "disapparated" from the school library, after St. Joseph's pastor, the Rev. Ron Barker, removed the books, declaring that the themes of witchcraft and sorcery were inappropriate for a Catholic school. "He said that he thought most children were strong enough to resist the temptation," said one mother who asked that her name not be used because she did not want her family to be singled out. "But he said it's his job to protect the weak and the strong."
Way to go, Reverend Barker. Good thinking. Why, if you let some of your more feeble-minded students read Harry Potter, the next thing you know they're all going to be flying around on Norwegian Ridgeback dragons, trying to coax angry giants out of their caves, or shooting patronuses out of their wands at Dementors, left and right. It would have been utter chaos.
Next I propose they ban Dr. Seuss, just in case any of the slower kids get it into their minds to discriminate against un-starred Sneetches.
It didn't take the Oakland PD long to find Chauncey Bailey's assassin. If only Kennedy's real killer had been this stupid.
A suspect in the daylight ambush shooting death of Oakland Post editor Chauncey Bailey was being formally booked today on suspicion of murder, authorities said.
Devaughndre Broussard, 19, was in the process of being booked at the Alameda County jail in downtown Oakland in connection with Thursday's slaying of Chauncey Bailey, 57, at 14th and Alice streets.
Broussard was a handyman at Your Black Muslim Bakery who confessed to police Friday night that he ambushed and killed Bailey with a shotgun because he was upset with the journalist's coverage of the group... More...
Did Broussard think murdering the reporter was going to lead to better coverage of the group?
...Yet Fox News continues to rely on Victoria Toensing, the woman who, as far as I've been able to learn - has never spoken to either the CIA or Valerie Plame and has never seen any of the classified information regarding Valerie Plame's work or role, as an "expert" commentator.
And by the way, pay attention to the last minute and a half, where Hannity and Toensing try to tell us how it's Plame's and Wilson's fault that Plame's cover was blown. Plame apparently donated $1000 to Al Gore's campaign in 2000 and attended some (gasp) Democratic meetups. In Toensing and Hannity's warped world, Plame should've known that doing so was a dead giveaway that she was a covert CIA agent specializing in monitoring the proliferation of WMD. And Joe Wilson writing that op-ed exposing the lies the President told about uranium tubes from Niger? Well, he should've known better. Naturally the White House was going to expose the name of a covert CIA operative, as well as her entire network of contacts, seriously damaging our ability to follow WMD and possibly resulting in the killing of other undercover operatives - all to discredit a critic. Who wouldn't have expected them to do that?
Also, note how the "Fair and Balanced" network doesn't invite anyone to dispute Toensing:
Great news, movie fans! Now you can work as an extra in a new Wil Ferrell/Woody Harrelson/Andre 3000 movie, and you don't even have to pay them for the privilege! And look how fun they make it sound! You get food! Maybe, if you're really really lucky, you'll win a prize and get to catch a glimpse of some dudes you've already seen on TV! Did I mention you don't even have to pay them for the hours of work you'll be doing for them?
There's no shortage of ways to get screwed in this world.
I saw something on YouTube the other day (I've posted it below) that I found disturbing. But luckily, I had the foresight to pull out and leaf through my tattered copy of The Modern American's Guide for Interpreting Other People's Behavior: Women/Minority/Gay Edition™. I carry it with me everywhere I go. It comes in handy in department stores, for instance.
Just a few months ago at Target, I found myself wondering why a security guard seemed to be following me at a distance as I perused the cargo shorts aisle. I started to feel nervous. I kept walking, and the nerves turned to incredulity, the kind where the world sort of slows down and you start to feel detached, like your'e watching something absurd instead of living it. I saw his eyes poke around the corner behind the socks to look at me looking at black boxer briefs. I started to feel my ears burn as the detachment faded into anger. That's when the manual saved me. It was right there on page 92, under "The Target Security Guard." It said "He's not suspicious of you because you're Black/Mixed/Whatever-the-hell-you-are, he's suspicious of you because you're a teen-ager." That would've made sense years ago, when I first bought the manual, but what the hell, I'm not old yet. It could still apply.
Now that was a relief. Life is easier with the manual. People seem much less ridiculous. Sunsets are rosier. The air even smells fresher, somehow.
So when I saw a link that had the words "Fox" and "Obama" in the same sentence, I immediately reached again for that manual. I sure am glad I did. Watch this clip, and then I'll tell you how The Modern American's Guide for Interpreting Other People's Behavior: Women/Minority/Gay Edition™ helped me put it all in perspective:
Now, according to The Modern American's Guide for Interpreting Other People's Behavior: Women/Minority/Gay Edition™, there was absolutely nothing racist about any of this. Here's what it said, right there on page 18,978:
Clip from Fox News' allegedly satirical take-off on The Daily Show: "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" 1. Time index 01:01- Masses of dancing Africans are shown while Fox mentions Barack Obama supporters. This is not - we repeat, NOT - Fox News intentionally trying to scare White viewers with the thought of hordes of unruly dark people taking over the streets. They probably just couldn't find any other footage on such short notice.
2. Time index 01:14- "BO Magazine" This is not Fox using racial code words & concepts in an ongoing campaign to help as many of their viewers as possible get back in touch with their inner bigots. This is not - we repeat, NOT - Fox News dredging up the age-old stereotype about Black people smelling bad. That stereotype hasn't been widely used for at least several decades. Several years. Well, at least several months. So it's unreasonable to think anyone at Fox has heard of that stereotype, much less that anyone there would intentionally employ it.
2. Time index 01:37- "Organize Your House - and your Senate" Fox News is not trying to conjur up the image of a Black housekeeper. In fact, this is more evocative of magazines aimed at housewives. So maybe they're complimenting Barack Obama's wife. Have you ever stopped to think of that?
2. Time index 01:46- "Barack vs. Tiger Woods: Who's More Diverse? " This is not an example of Fox News mocking the very existence of mixed-race Americans in order to reinforce deep-seeded White resentment. They're actually praising diversity - showing how grateful they are that we live in a country where anyone can marry and raise kids with whomever they want ('long as they're not queer).
2. Time index 02:03- "Don't tell Mama, I'm for Obama" Nothing to see here.
Thanks for making life more bearable, The Modern American's Guide for Interpreting Other People's Behavior: Women/Minority/Gay Edition™!
A few questions to keep in mind while watching the latest salvo in the Faux News bombardment of Senator Obama:
1. So we haven't seen Obama smoke. Since when have we seen any politician smoke? Do they expect the Senator to fire up a Marlboro while he's on camera with Wolf Blitzer?
2. Why does the commentator who's apparently on this show because they want a Black man to comment on Obama make the argument that America only cares about the Senator because he's Black? Is this guy Fox's resident Irony Expert?
3. Where does the Media get off calling him "Barack?" Where do we all get off calling Senator Clinton "Hillary?" Do we routinely refer to White male Senators as "Trent," or "Edward," or do we give them the respect of using their title or at least their last names?
4. Since when does not smoking in public make someone duplicitous?
Faux News affiliates sure are subtle, aren't they?
Don't think subliminal crap like this works? Take a look at how well it works even on people who make their living at it (watch it through to the end for the payoff):
Ever since Mayor Newsom bravely fought for civil rights when he allowed gay couples to marry in 2004, the country's knuckledragger population has been speculating he's gay. These are probably the same dimwits who assumed that if you doubted Hussein had WMD, it meant you were secretly the founder of the "I Want Saddam's Love-Child" club. Anyhow, Newsom seems to have chosen an odd way of dispelling the rumors. Next time, he might want to try using someone who's not married to a good friend.
Dick Cheney, the man who's been consistently wrong about every major prediction, took a break from gathering flowers and candy from the Baghdad streets to weigh in on the '08 election:
US Vice President Dick Cheney said that Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton will not win the White House in 2008 and would not make a good president if she does.
I guess this is proof positive that Hillary Clinton will win the White House in 2008 and will make a good president when she does. I'm not much for dynastic presidencies. I think it's dangerous when running the country becomes a family business, so somebody, anybody, tell Cheney to shut up before his astonishing bizarro-powers jinx another Clinton into the White House.
By the way, if the President is serious about the need for less polarization in Washington, he might want to mention that to his hatchet-man:
Cheney, who in October had called Hillary Clinton a "formidable candidate" who "could win" the race to replace US President George W. Bush, told CNN television "I don't" think she would make a good leader.
Asked why, Cheney replied: "Because she's a Democrat. I don't agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint."
Barack Obama's week-old presidential campaign has been hit with a smear. Hillary Clinton's White House bid, launched Saturday, has been attacked with an unfounded accusation.
Contrary to what was reported in Insight magazine and then repeated on Fox News and in other news outlets, including a column that ran in the Sun-Times by free-lancer Mark Steyn, Obama was not educated in a radical Islamic school when he was an elementary student in Jakarta.
And there is no evidence whatsoever that Clinton's campaign had anything to do with spreading the damaging rumor that Obama hid a Muslim background.
The source for both slurs started in a report posted on the Web site of Insight, a conservative magazine published by the Washington Times. The article with no named sourcing alleged that researchers connected to Clinton dug up information about Obama as part of a "background check."
You mean Obama didn't attend a radical Islamist madrassa when he was six? Are they trying to tell us he didn't plot the destruction of America between nap-time and Play Doh lessons? Next the Lib'ral Media's going to try telling us he never actually burned the flag while cross-dressing when he ran that abortion clinic in San Francisco. They must think they're dealing with idiots.
OK, let me get this straight: If you criticize Sean Hannity and call for the impeachment of George W. Bush, that makes you an "Enemy of the State." (I know, I know, Hannity and his kind confusing a man - whether himself or the President - with "the State" isn't anything new).
I don't know what's worse -- the fact that Hannity chose to name a segment of his show after the favorite phrase of every dictator from Caesar to Hitler, the fact that anyone is actually watching that show, or the fact that I'm wasting my time commenting on it. At this point, commenting on the irresponsible behavior of the Fox News personalities may be no more necessary than pointing out how water is really, really wet.
There's been so much whine coming from the direction of the "Fair & Balanced" network that you'd think they were based in Napa. "Boo hoo, Bill Clinton raised his voice! Waaaah, Bill Clinton looked at me angry! Mommy! Mommy! Mommmmyyyyyy!" Today, Fox even tried to portray Clinton's forceful response to their interviewer as an attack upon all of journalism. Why Ailes confused Fox News with journalism, I have no idea.
To hear them tell it, Clinton ripped off his shirt, turned lime green and feasted on poor Chris Wallace's intestines before relieving himself on the First Amendment. That's not exactly how it happened.
Meanwhile Keith Olberman has a different take on it:
First the crocodiles are denied their chance to bring Steve Irwin to justice, and now this...
The information purporting the death of the world's most sought after terrorist is based on what the newspaper calls "a usually reliable source," stating that Saudi intelligence sources "are convinced" of bin Laden's death.
The French intelligence report goes on to say, still according to the French daily, that bin Laden died in Pakistan on August 23 after suffering "from a severe bout of typhoid fever," and a bacterial infection provoked a paralysis of his lower body.
The Saudi intelligence report states that bin Laden's geographic isolation "rendered all medical assistance impossible. Indeed, U.S. intelligence sources have long believed bin Laden was hiding in remote parts of Pakistan, close to the border with Afghanistan, areas where sophisticated medical help would be difficult to obtain.
The news of bin Laden's death reached the Saudi capital, Riyadh, on Sept. 4. If confirmed, that, in part, might explain the complete absence of Osama bin Laden from making any appearances on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon just outside Washington, DC.
The U.S. is skeptical, of course, as this wouldn't be the first time OBL has been reported to have gone to find his 72 virgins in the sky.
Sen. Jim Bunning made newspapers across the United States again yesterday -- this time in the funny pages.
A national cartoonist with a reputation for wry political humor took a swing at Kentucky's Hall of Famer after Bunning called for The New York Times to be charged with treason.
Candorville, which runs in about 50 papers across the nation as well as another in Ecuador and the Pacific Stars & Stripes, featured a faux political commercial yesterday from "Senator Bunting." However, the face on the TV is that of Bunning, a Republican in his second term in the Senate and a pitcher in the Baseball Hall of Fame. The strip's main character, Lemont Brown, hears the ad apparently from the bathroom -- the third panel features a flush as "Bunting" denies that his attack on the "Candorville Chronicle" is politically motivated.
Cartoonist Darrin Bell said Bunning caught his eye last month after condemning the Times' report on the Bush administration's not-so-secret surveillance of international banking transactions.
"Senator Bunning at the time seemed to be the GOP's point man for the treason charge against The New York Times, so he was the logical one to use as a representative for the whole party," Bell said yesterday. The flush was "the most appropriate" activity that came to mind, he said.
He had not gotten any feedback yesterday from Bunning's office on Capitol Hill. "I don't really expect to. Somehow, I really doubt they read Candorville," he said.
Bunning's office did not return calls or e-mails seeking comment for this story.
Bell said he doesn't see his work as falling into either the Democrat or Republican camp. In the 1990s, he was called a fascist for picking on President Clinton.
"I just go after whoever's in charge," Bell said.
As for Senator Bunting, he could make a return appearance, but that depends on Bunning.
"He's got my attention," Bell said. "The next time he gives me material, I'm going to use it."
Apparently, one reader was not amused:
I have always thought political cartoons to be inherently anti-Republican, and this has gotten to be even worse with all the nationwide progress witnessed in the last 5 years. It's even possible that this drawn criticism has in fact lent itself to limiting the progress we have had...because it's so treasonous and traitorlike. Posted by: Bill
This was one of the comments below the article (comments have since been removed, possibly because the argument got sort of heated. People stopped just short of burning each other in effigy. Barely.
The "treasonous and traitorlike" comment doesn't interest me as much as "limiting the progress we have had..." in the last five years. What progress is that, again? And if there is any progress, how can it be undone by a comic strip? If only Bill would have explained himself further. It would have been fascinating.
