the obligatory post-election post

.
i've spent more than a little time trying to figure out how to couch what i'm about to say in terms that won't seem churlish, because i know how much it meant to so many people, but since i (a) was so outta step with both the left and the right when it came to this election, and (b) am so completely dry-eyed and unmoved by its outcome, that's probably not possible. so let's just take the standard bullshit talking points one by one and be done with 'em, shall we?

1. this was the most important election of our lifetime.

no, it wasn't. there isn't an american politician alive who has either the ability or the guts to do what's necessary to avert the economic catastrophe that's about to engulf not only our country, but the world--it's the next election that'll probably matter.

2. we have been gifted by god with the most inspiring leader since jfk.

yeah. i almost wish i could cast my gaze upon our president-elect and see what the adoring masses see--but only almost. problem is, i don't get all misty-eyed and heart-swellingly sentimental over politicians anymore; my early enthrallment and subsequent disillusionment with the kennedy brothers long since cured me of such dangerous illusions. instead, when i try to plot a political candidate's future trajectory, i look past how telegenic they are, how well they comport themselves and how smoothly they talk about what they're gonna do, and instead focus on where they've been and what they've actually done. silly, right?

3. i'm so proud that my country was able to rise above its inherent racism and finally do the right thing.

bullshit. i've said it before and i'll say it again: you show me any other advanced culture in the history of civilization that has taken an entire race of people from abject slavery to full legal parity in 100 years--or hell, show me any other culture on earth in which a member of a racial minority can secure a free top-tier education and advance to the upper echelons of its society--do that, and then you can lecture me about how "racist" america is.

seriously--we're racist? as opposed to who else in the world? all this election did is confirm what i've known since nineteen sixty-fucking-four: we're one of the most progressive countries on earth as concerns race, and if this election has done nothing else, it has once and for all given me--good ol' mkf--the inalienable right to look the the racial-whiners in the eye and say, "we elected a black president--shut the fuck up already." [you can tell the alcohol's kicking in, right?]

* * * * *

i was not a supporter of barack obama--i didn't contribute to his campaign, nor did i vote for him in either the primary or the general election.

am i sorry he won? that's a complicated question; let us merely say that i'm grateful his election precludes the possibility of a president palin (at least this time around).

do i see any bright side to his ascendency? sure: our president-elect is demonstrably smart, sophisticated, focused, disciplined, and has at least a sense of america as it exists in the context of the world (a refreshing contrast not only to his predecessor, but also to his opponent).

may he rise magnificently to the challenge set before him; for all our sakes, i wish him godspeed (i.e., i figure a three-month honeymoon's fair before i start ripping into him).

back to politics for a minute

.
[this blog has of late been uncharacteristically silent on the subject of the sickening course of current events, preferring instead to find comfort in the sweet immutability of the past--but never for a second think i'm not payin attention.]

it seems mccain has finally gotten smart--realizing, belatedly, that america doesn't care about wright or ayers, he's recently taken to hitting obama where it might actually hurt by calling him out as a socialist (which, of course, he totally is).

and then, in the same speech, mccain goes on to address the problems faced by all the idiots who bought houses they couldn't afford via zero-down, adjustable-rate mortgages they lied to secure, by saying (and i hereby quote),

"We [as in you, the taxpayer] need to buy up these mortgages, give you a mortgage that you can afford, so you can pay your mortgage and realize the American Dream of owning your home."

which position, of course, isn't socialistic in the goddam motherfucking least, is it, johnny boy?

* * * * *

i cannot even begin to tell you how deeply i resent the dumbass american voting populace for putting me in the untenable position of having to choose between two assclowns who are, each in their own unique and individual way, so completely and totally unsuited to the task of leading my country outta the grave peril in which she presently finds herself.

the basic difference between obama & palin

.
[the following is is a paraphrase of a comment made elsewhere--but (a) it makes a point that needs making, and (b) otherwise i ain't got nothin--so it's going in.]

all public criticism of senator obama in this election cycle, regardless of the issue--rev. wright, bill ayers, annenberg, rezko, voting "present" when he shoulda taken a stand, etc.--has pretty much gone like this: (1) point is raised, (2) cries of "racism" are immediately and shrilly directed at whoever dared raise said point, (3) turmoil ensues, (4) after a suitable, politically-correct interval, barack eventually addresses the issue, peppering his wounded response with words like "divisive" (his code-word for "racist"), and (5) that's it--once barack's spoken on the matter, that's supposed to settle it, and any further questioning by anybody indicates nothing more than racism on the part of the questioner.

governor palin, on the other hand? say what you want about her--and i've said a lot--in the last three or so weeks, this ol' gal has taken a merciless beating on every minute aspect of her past by the press and the left, on a scale the likes of which i've never seen in american politics.

and, so unlike obama--and this is what stands out in my mind about her--regardless of what's been thrown at her, she hasn't whined even once about her treatment on the national stage; she evinces fearless toughness in a way the good senator can't even approach.

bottom line: he comes off like a whiny bitch, and the bitch takes it like a man.

and you really wonder why the race is so close?

i could write volumes about sarah palin

.
or i could simply post my most recent comment from over at bill in exile and be done with it:

problem is, in terms of her walk-the-talk integrity, this hillbilly bitch kicks the shit outta barack obama in several ways that i have no doubt will prove significant to the elecorate. for instance, in explaining the entirety of her life, she doesn't have to dodge, disavow or disinherit any element of her past--there's an arrow-straight line between who she was when she was a babe sucklng at her mother's breast and who she is now--she hasn't had to vote "present," or kick her pastor, political mentors, numerous former associates, political benefactor(s) or grandma to the curb in order to carefully and calculatedly justify her palatability to her chosen electorate.

for better or worse, that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

ok, back to politics

.
faithful readers of this blog will have noticed that ever since the candidate of each respective party was chosen, i've pretty much held my tongue, choosing instead to wait and see if my initial impressions of each might be altered by subsequent events.

and the result of all this careful due diligence? let's begin with

1. isn't he lovely?



click on the above picture--it enlarges nicely--and give it a minute of your attention before you continue with this post, because it's one of the most captivating political images you, i or anybody else will ever see (h/t).

and my god, that speech last night--is he not a silver-tongued devil? he had oprah crying, he had kanye crying--hell, he had everybody crying.

and as i sat there last night and looked at this picture--and i looked at it for a long time--all i could think was, if this guy looked like al roker (or john mccain, for that matter), nobody in america today would even know who the fuck he is.

and understand: i thought this very same thing at the beginning of barack obama's campaign--and lo these many months later, nothing he has done or said since has done anything but strengthen my original impression.

yeah, he beat hillary, but that was more about her flaws than his strengths; what that came down to for most democrats--and i'll argue this to the death--was a choice between a warm bath and a cold shower. the final result of that little match-up didn't surprise this country boy in the least.

but in his response to every other situation he's encountered--his past, criticism (by anybody), the new yorker cover, the saddleback church forum--he's struck me as nothing but whiny, race-baiting (fuck all this pansy-ass "divisive" nonsense, barack--go ahead and work up the cojones to fuckin' say "racist" if you really mean it) and weak.

[and i guess we can only hope that the likes of vladimir putin or kim jong il will also be moved by such whining--but i digress, right?]

and the more i find out about his activities and associations during the '90s--jeremiah wright, william ayers, the gamaliel group, the chicago annenberg fiasco--the more convinced i become that his views aren't merely left-wing, they're radically left-wing, and i cringe when i think of the policies he would craft and the judicial appointments he would make should he be elected president.

but even with all that, the thing that scares me the most about this guy is his naked arrogance.

think about it: even though he has the skimpiest of resumes, it's obvious--from the "president" he's had embroidered on the headrest on his throne on his private jet to the unabashed coronation he ordered up in denver--that barack believes that (a) he is the anointed, (b) he knows everything, and (c) once in office, he'll be able to fix everything that's wrong with the world.

god save us all from someone who's drunk his own kool-aid.

2. what was he thinking?



so i get up this morning, flip open the computer and head to drudge to see who mccain picked--and good god, is it uglier than i could've ever imagined: a young mother of five who until two years ago could count as her biggest political accomplishment serving as mayor of mayberry, alaska may be our next vice president.

i knew who sarah palin was, but only barely; after a quick look at her resume when her name first came up as a possible, i had dismissed her almost as quickly. and who could blame me--i mean, who in his right mind would pick this woman as his running-mate?

yeah she's female, but she's a pro-life creationist for god's sake--do mccain's people really think he's gonna get disaffected hillary-loving feminists to defect to his side for this broad?

and talk about inexperience--he's just destroyed the barack-as-inexperienced argument, which was the strongest arrow in his quiver (up until today). and while the gop faithful may say it's not about barack vs. sarah, everybody knows that, unlike the young and vigorous barack, mccain is seventy-goddam-fucking-two years old and could drop dead the day after the election--and then we'd be stuck with a self-described "hockey mom" as leader of the free fuckin' world.

and later when i calmed down, i thought, "ok fine--maybe johnny boy knows more than me; i mean, if he's picked her for such a crucial role not only in his campaign but potentially on the world stage, he must know her well, right?"

and i clung to that comforting illusion until i found out that he met her for the first time on the day he picked her.

and that's when i realized that this was a choice he allowed his campaign consultants to make--a bunch of highly-paid political hacks who ran a computer analysis and picked the candidate who checked off the most electability boxes on their list: young, dynamic, female, pro-choice, nra member, christian/creationist--without any regard to how qualified she might actually be to run the goddam country.

which tells me the following:

(a) john mccain is just as stupid and unreflective as i've always thought he was; and

(b) even (hell, especially) if this strategem wins him the white house, then god damn him to hell for rolling the dice in such a way as to potentially put his country's long-term interests secondary to his desire to be president.

* * * * *

all of the foregoing, of course, leads me inexorably back to the conclusion i came to (and stated here) way back when i realized what our choices in this election were gonna be: either way it ends up going,

3. we're so fucked in november.

edwards gets a pass from the msm

.

i mean, talk about a story--here we have a prominent senator and two-time presidential candidate

• whose family-man image has been a cornerstone of his every campaign;
• who has [allegedly] conducted a long-term clandestine affair resulting in a child with a woman his campaign hired and then excessively compensated for minimal services rendered; and
  
• who, when challenged last year, not only denied the affair but, in concert with various of his minions, [allegedly] orchestrated an elaborate cover-up of same, going so far as to set up one of his (married) underlings as the self-confessed father of the baby;
  

all while his wife is at home battling deadly cancer.

and it all came to a head the other night in los angeles at the beverly hilton on the corner of wilshire and santa monica boulevards, where the national enquirer--which had first broken the story a year ago and has steadfastly pursued it ever since--cornered the good senator like a rat in a trap after a[n alleged] late-night rendezvous with his [alleged] mistress and [alleged] new baby.

this should be big news, right?

well, apparently not if you're the new york times, the los angeles times, the washington post, the three major networks, cnn, time or newsweek--none of them are touching the story.

why? ostensibly, because it came from a "questionable" news source--you know, one of those tabloids who get a tip, doggedly follow it up, work their sources, send reporters out in the field and nail it down. in other words, the kind of thing that newspapers used to do but seem to be above now (and perhaps a major reason why they're all swimming in red ink while the enquirer's thriving, but i digress).

or then again, could it possibly be a little of that famous liberal bias that they so vociferously deny exists? especially, for instance, when you consider the innuendo-filled (but factually light--especially compared to this) smear piece the new york times ran earlier this year on mccain and that lobbyist he was supposedly fucking.

either way, it's pissing me off--this is a major news story about a major hypocrite who stands to become a major player in the next administration, and it needs a full, public airing.

[disclaimer: while i have great sympathy for senator edwards' wife (who seems to be a class act), i cannot nor nor have i ever been able to abide this pompous, fake-folksy, blow-dried ambulance-chasing socialist phony; therefore, my earnest desire to see this story get the full airing it deserves probably has as much to do with my personal distaste for its subject as with any love i might have for the truth.]

to jesse jackson: thank you, thank you, thank you

it was shaping up to be a grim, cheerless week--iran testing their missiles, russia rattling their sabers, the senate wiping its collective ass with the bill of rights, southern california poised to go up in flames at any moment--it seemed like every story that broke did nothing but contribute to my growing malaise.

then the right reverend jackson, god love him, with one semi-whispered aside that he assumed the mics wouldn't catch, turned everything around and gave me something to laugh about this week after all--because god knows that in this day and age of spin, hype and subterfuge, nothing cheers me up more than when some phony asshole's public mask slips and we get a glimpse of what's really underneath.

and he confirmed something i've believed for a long time: while barack obama might be beloved by the people, he is highly resented by the "blame whitey for everything" faction of the black leadership in this country, because he's preaching a dangerous new gospel that threatens to end the gravy train they've been riding for the last 40 years.

imagine--barack is going into black churches and talking to black crowds, and telling them that the key to their future is for black families to unite, black fathers to go home and raise their kids, and black mothers to stress learning over entertainment in the home--in other words, they actually have the power within themselves to change their situation.

and, to jesse jackson's mind, this constitutes "talking down" to black people, and is deserving of (at least figurative) castration.

really, reverend?

because, see, i've always considered your message--you know, the "it's not your fault; you're victims of a racist system" rationale you use to explain away any and all of the problems of african-american society--to be "talking down" to black people. i mean, i know it must be comforting to hear that others are to blame for all your problems, but consider the implications of that message: what "you can't succeed because the system's holding you down" really means is, "you're powerless and beholden to the superior white man, and you will never succeed until he does the right thing and gives you the jobs, education and money you deserve."

talk about perpetuating victimhood.

well, you've had a good run, jesse--you were able to shrewdly parlay your association with dr. king into a very lucrative gig shaking down big corporations for white-guilt money, and in the process feathered your nest nicely and lived high. but guess what? it's not 1968 anymore, and barack has figured that out--which is only one of the reasons he's drawing the huge crowds and ascending to heights you could only dream of.

and boy, you hate him for that, don't you?

and while we're doing the week in review, let's check in and see what cruella's been up to

and she's been a very busy girl--seems this paragon of patriotism and perfect timing decided it was time to take another swipe at michelle obama's "for the first time, i'm proud of my country" freudian slip misstatement this week. problem is, she chose to do it at almost exactly the same time laura bush was being lauded for her graciousness and magnanimity in giving michelle the benefit of the doubt for the same remark.

cindy, sweetie, as someone who lives in his own little glass house, lemme give you some advice: quit throwing this particular stone, because (a) it's tired and, in case you haven't noticed, the momentum has shifted; and (b) you keep taking swipes at michelle, before you even know what hit you it's gonna come back around and bite you in your homewrecking, drug-addicted, charity-embezzling, whistle-blower-firing, cover-up-orchestrating, all-the-pilates-in-the-world-won't-lift-it-anymore ass.

[oh, and quit troweling on the make-up like a trollop, you cunt.]

you paying attention, johnny?

while you were making your pallid little proposal for maybe opening up offshore drilling in florida and california, a million goddam people signed a petition to open up drilling everywhere--and, in case you and the lame-ass cretins running your campaign don't understand the significance of this (and even if they're exaggerating their numbers), lemme spell it out for you this way: in this disjointed, disinterested country, do you have any idea how hard it is to get anywhere near a million people to sign a fucking petition this fast for anything?

i'm telling you--get out there, unite your party and the people behind this singular, compelling issue by making the kind of speech i recommended in this post.

[or be gutless and cautious--run on this issue with the same level of passion that al gore ran on his record as clinton's vice president, and lose for the same reason.]

so what's up with our lord and savior this week?

[text]

well, today he announced that, contrary to his earlier pledge, he's eschewing the guarantee (and inherent limitation) of public funding of his campaign in favor of the risks (and potentially unlimited rewards) of private fundraising.

the spin: when he made that promise he didn't realize that, gosh darn, his opponent might fight dirty.

the reality: he made that promise back when he was weak and had no idea he'd ever be this strong (kinda like when hillary released all claim to the michigan and florida delegates back when she was strong and had no idea she'd ever be this weak, only in reverse).

the conclusion: he's no different than any other lying unprincipled scumbag opportunist politician who'd say or do anything necessary to win his office.

the message: open your eyes, people.

update: but you know what? right after i triumphantly hit "publish" and patted myself on the back for yet another post well done, i thought, "hell, mkf--you pride yourself on your objectivity; mix yourself another drink and look at it from his point of view for a minute."

so i did.

and what if barack is telling the truth--what if he did make that pledge in good faith?

then what that tells us is, he's a wide-eyed naif with a tendency to make rash promises on which he later has to renege once he actually understands the whole deal--which should make his first few months in the white house interesting not only for him and his rabid, credulous disciples, but for the nation and the world as well.

in other words--open your eyes, people.

[and understand, i'm not telling you not to vote for the guy; i'm merely telling you to open your eyes before you so wholeheartedly buy into all his happy horseshit.]

and the winning strategem is...

[see previous post for context]

picture in your mind john mccain calling a press conference tomorrow and giving something like the following speech:

"i feel your pain at the pump, my friends. what's more, i see billions of dollars going each year to the middle east, venezuela, canada and mexico that could--and should--stay right here, to be invested not only in finding new american oil, but in creating thousands of new, high-paying american jobs.

therefore, i'm declaring today that when i'm elected your president, my first priority will be to work with my fellow republicans in the congress [it'd be a nice touch for a few of 'em with shaky seats to be standing behind him while he's saying all this--shame they all hate your guts, huh, johnny?], and with those democrats who truly care about our economic future, to open up the ANWR province of alaska, and the oil-rich areas off the shores of california and florida, to new exploration and drilling.

it's an idea whose time has come--no longer can we afford to be dependent on others for our energy needs [and then he can hammer home this point for a minute or two, appeal to their patriotism and nationalistic pride and soften 'em up for the kill].

i feel i can say without reservation, my friends [you gotta put that in a few times, because you know he loves saying "my friends" a lot] that the minute the hedge funds and futures markets realize the seriousness of our resolve, the price of a barrel of oil will drop by at least $50, and the price of gasoline will follow."

and then, point made, he can blather on for awhile about how it's been the democrats with their wacko environmental ideas who have gotten us into this mess, how the drilling can be done in an environmentally-sensitive manner, and how doing so will restore america's greatness and the cheap gasoline which is our birthright as americans, yadda yadda yadda...

and you know what? i think it's a winner.

sure, the die-hard left would scream, as would california--but he's lost them anyway. the point is, after the hammering middle-americans have taken in their pocketbook lately, i think they'd abandon all the lofty environmental positions of the left in a fuckin' heartbeat if it meant even the mere promise of cheaper gas.

and the best thing is, there's not a goddam thing the democrats could offer in response, other than pallid wailing and gnashing of teeth about the "environment." which, as a happy bonus, would make them look like the hypocrites most of 'em are on this issue--expecting as they do to continue to use the majority of the world's oil output, but with a "not in my backyard" attitude about domestic drilling.

so there it is--even though i'm way behind the curve on this idea. the only excuse i can offer for my own myopia here is simple indifference: i haven't been paying attention to newtie and his boys on this one because, truth be told, i could give a rat's ass what gas costs; far as i'm concerned, the higher it goes, the more of the riff-raff it'll get outta their rattletrap cars and onto the buses where they belong so i can get to work.

so thanks to apollo over at snarky bastards for bringing it back to the forefront of my mind via this post--seriously, folks, i've thought this thing through six different ways from sunday, and i don't see how it could--if spun properly, of course (lee atwater, where are you when johnny needs you?)--fail to resonate with the public, endear mccain to conservatives and get him a lotta votes he would otherwise never see.

[unless, of course, the oil bubble bursts before november, in which case he'll be as fucked then as he is now.]

the third--and last--post about this story (unless of course it's not)

[this was actually a comment to another blogger's post about what he sees as over-the-top hillary-bashing re her assassination remarks; because i make a point about this story i haven't seen made anywhere else (and because it's the only thing i've written in the last two goddam days), i'm making it a post of my own.]

here's the thing--before she pulled this latest rabbit outta her seemingly bottomless hat, this subject got no airtime. people might have discussed it around the water cooler at work, but any tv or radio talk-show host--or, for that matter, any caller--who even dared make an on-air reference to assassination in the context of this election could probably have expected a visit from the secret service.

but then hillary, a public figure, opened her big fat mouth and, in a very crass and deliberate way (remember, she said it twice), did for assassination pretty much exactly what her horndog husband inadvertently did for fellatio--i.e., transformed, in one fell swoop, what was once a taboo subject into a legitimate news story. now everybody's freely talking about it, and god only knows how many nutjobs are out there listening.

and that, i think, is what bothers most reasonable people about this situation.

oh, this is rich

so now al sharpton, that master of diplomatic restraint, has taken it upon himself to instruct hillary in the importance of responsibly and judiciously choosing one's words so as to avoid saying anything that might be construed as an incitement to violence.

because, yeah, he would know something about that.

i'm telling you, this is just getting better and better.

i woulda given my left nut to be a fly on the wall when michele obama first saw this story, all i'm sayin

here's three possibilities:

1. tail-end of a long, exhausting, losing campaign, sometimes the mask slips and the real thought process peeks out (because you know damn well they've talked about this in hillaryland--"if all else fails, maybe we'll get lucky and somebody'll get off a good shot at that uppity motherfucker").

2. yet one more example of the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink ethos that is the hallmark of all things clinton: since nothing else has worked, how about "i'm a better long-term bet because i'm less likely to be assassinated"?

3. any headline's better than no headline (because, seriously, would anybody have been talking about her today otherwise?).

whatever--tell you the truth, her motives don't matter; what matters is, i have laughed for the last two days over this story and the resultant uproar, and it looks like it's only gonna get better.

thanks, hillary--i needed this.

sorry i haven't been around much lately

but i'm in one of those fine, dark moods these days--i've descended to that particular shade of depression during which i can't even manage to work up sufficient energy to maintain the illusion, so important to me usually, that shit like the the upcoming election will have even the slightest effect on the hell-bound course that this country and the world are on, and have been on for at least the past 100 years.

who knows--maybe if this mood continues i'll get into the way i really see the world. meantime, since i don't have shit today i'll offer up the following:



thanks to jamie over at snarky bastards--that made me laugh.

a dialogue (sort of)

reader noblesavage (a die-hard hillary supporter) had some thoughts about the candidates in general and yesterday's primaries in particular--i thought i'd respond to some of 'em:

It was a disappointing night for Hillary only because of the expectations game. If you were to say two weeks ago that she would win Indiana, that would have been a surprise as Obama was ahead in Indiana and way ahead in North Carolina.

i wonder, though, how different the outcome might have been had not many of its poor blacks been kept from voting due to the supreme court's recent upholding of indiana's version of the poll tax--or if rush limbaugh's "operation chaos" had not been in play.

Why should Hillary get out now? Obama now has enough damage that another hit would be potentially very devastating to his campaign. You will notice the Rev. Wright matter, part deux, was far more hurtful to Obama than the first dust-up.

she's gotta do the pleasure/pain equation, noblesavage--is staying in on the (increasingly small) off-chance that something bigger than wright will come along before the convention worth the hit she'll take to what's left of her prestige and stature within not only her party but the country as a whole? i mean, if at least a few of barack's supposed gay trysting partners don't get in front of a camera pretty damn quick, it's gonna be too late.

Hillary has stayed in so long, it appears, because she believes Obama is not tough enough and is not capable of managing the Fall campaign. She repeatedly told Bill Richardson that Obama can't win in the Fall.

if he can run this hard and this well against a team as smart and shrewd as the clintons, he can handle the debates with mccain with one hand tied behind his back. as far as the dirty stuff goes, i think the wright thing's done as much damage as it can (which may be considerable--we don't know yet), whereas the dems haven't even begun to scratch the surface of mccain's past.

I think Obama can win. I also think it would be a lot easier for Hillary to win. And the recent polls clearly bear this out. Particularly when you look at the cross-tabs and really get inside the polls.

i've been torn about this from the beginning: which would alienate middle-america least--the shrill woman with all the baggage, or the black guy who could be a closet racist? up to this point they've been playing to the choir--now it gets interesting.

In the meantime, MSNBC will be in high dungeon mode demanding Hillary get out because she is keeping Obama from his rightful nomination and all but calling her a racist for it (usually in very sexist terms).

that's both obama's weakness and his strength--post-wright, every attack against him is now gonna be characterized as racist. the repubs are gonna have to walk a fine line to avoid alienating the middle; and, frankly, if his back's against the wall i dunno that mccain's up to that kind of restraint.

I don't know much about Obama, but I find it interesting how so many people prefer the person they don't know in Obama versus the person they do know in Clinton as if Obama has no faults or shadow or human frailty.

baggage aside, the perceived difference between obama and clinton is, for lots of people, the difference between a warm bath and a cold shower. to me, the true tragedy of hillary clinton is that she always thought being the smartest girl in the class would be enough to take her to the top--hell, all those years around all those hollywood people, she never figured out what her husband always instinctively knew: that politics is show business. some voice and acting lessons, who knows where she might be right now?

The other part about Obama's message is he is either naive or feckless when he talks about bringing people together.

i couldn't agree with you more.

So, people are going to be "surprised" about Obama soon enough and disappointed if not "betrayed" by Obama soon enough.

He cannot deliver what he is selling. Even if he doesn't realize that.

yeah, this is the thing that's gonna be interesting--once he gets in, sees the big picture and reality sets in, and "hope" and "change" turn to politics as usual, there are gonna be a lot of very naive, very vocal, very disappointed people who are gonna feel very betrayed.

Get out?

Well, we shall see if Hillary takes your advice guttermorality. I doubt she will.

she has the opportunity to go out on a win, lick her wounds and regroup; it's my opinion she should take it. will she? that's anybody's guess.

so where do we go from here?

tell you the truth, i was looking to indiana as a litmus test for barack--i figured if hillary won big there, it would mean there was sufficient concern among middle-american democrats about his viability, in light of all this most recent wright ugliness, to justify her staying in.

but she didn't--and, apparently, there's not.

will barack's association with rev. wright matter to voters at large in november? i thought it would, but now i'm not so sure; i guess we'll find out.

regardless, the democrats have made their choice, so it's time to put those questions aside.

and it's time for hillary to get out.

i'm beginning to think that hillary's smarter than all of us

there's been all kinds of speculation these last few months as to why hillary refuses to wake up, smell the coffee and get out. some see it as selfish arrogance, others as denial, and still others think she's playing a machiavellian game to so weaken obama as to ensure his loss to mccain, thus setting her up for another run in 2012.

me? i'm starting to think that she's hung in there because she knew damn well what's happening to the obama campaign as we speak was bound to happen.

because, lemme tell you, barack's in a world of shit right now.

first, his new and more strenuous repudiation of rev. wright isn't holding water with anybody. i mean, seriously, he can say shit like "the person i saw yesterday was not the person i had come to know over 20 years,'' but all that really tells us is either (a) he's a credulous, unobservant, easily-deluded fool; or, more likely, (b) he's a liar--i.e., he has eyes and ears just like the rest of us, and what he's really upset about is that wright couldn't keep his mouth shut until after he was safely ensconsed in the white house.

either way, he's fucked with white middle-america.

oh, and he's starting to catch heat from black america too--or he will be soon, if al sharpton has anything to say about it. see, al's upset with barack's outrageous call for a nonviolent response from blacks in the wake of the sean bell verdict, characterizing his craven, chickenshit position as "grandstanding for white people."

so, lemme see: he's too scary for white people, and too white for black people--talk about a rock and a hard place; barack just can't win these days.

or, for that matter, in november.

and hillary knew it all along; she's just hoping the rest of her party will see it as well before it's too late.

jeremiah wright: the gift that keeps on giving

from dana milbank's column in the washington post:

Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama's presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.

Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.

In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

and then he went on to imply that, his public protestations to the contrary, obama secretly agrees with him.

and there's lots of other good stuff, too--i encourage you to read the piece.

but there's more--lots more.

not content to sing the praises of farrakhan, reverend wright then goes on to rhapsodize about his good friend james cole, a guy who makes farrakhan look like martin luther king by comparison.

haven't heard of mr. cole? well, lemme just tell you that he's a leading proponent of a school of thought known as "black liberation theology." these folks believe that blacks are the "chosen people," white people are "the devil," and that all white people are collectively responsible for all white oppression that's ever happened. cone has written, “what we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”

want more? cone “refuses to accept a god who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. if god is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him."

to reverend wright: thank you, you racist self-aggrandizing loon, for not knowing when to shut up. and please, keep talking--america needs to hear what you and your friends have to say.

why is everybody so worked up about pennsylvania?

there's no suspense here. i mean, whether she wins by two points or ten points or loses altogether, it doesn't matter--she's not getting out; she's gonna drag this out to the convention if she can.