"If he were white, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?"



Oh - oops. That's not Gerladine Ferraro, it's that other noted racist, er... Barack Obama - quoted by the LA Times - on his own senatorial web site. "Obama, acknowledges, with no small irony," says the piece hosted by the senator's office, "that he benefits from his race." I guess the irony has got somewhat smaller, since the Obama campaign is using exactly the same sentiment to smear a Clinton supporter.

All's fair in love, war, and the sleaziest possible campaign strategy, I guess. Meh - I'm just pissed off because yet another winning Obama supporter suggested earlier today that anyone who doesn't support Obama - no, sorry, any white person who doesn't support Obama - is "petrified with an irrational fear of a Black President". And they call Hillary Clinton divisive!

I am, frankly, sick to death of the Obama campaign playing the race card - and they've been at it non-stop since the New Hampshire primary. It'd be really, really cool if a few Democrats could just settle down and talk about an issue every now and again. Fat chance, what?


So, anyway, I've been thinking of actually registering with a political party for the first time in my life so that I can participate in Pennsylvania's closed primary (I have until the end of the week to decide). Nine times out of ten, I vote for Democratic candidates, mostly due to lack of options, but I've never been able to lower myself to actually joining their ranks. But I figure, if the Obama camp is promoting the "Democrat for a Day" campaign to get votes for their candidate from Republicans, maybe someone should be a temporary Democrat to balance their skulduggery a bit.

Poll #1154868
Open to: All, results viewable to: All

Should I...

Tags: political rant, poll
humour: pensive

Damn - this primary process is one phantom firestorm after another. Now it's Michelle Obama as Target of the Day - and, seriously, she hasn't been getting much press since her "Nevada! Nevada Nevada Nevada - Nevada! Nevada Nevada Nevada!" moment a few weeks ago. This time it's for a statement she made in Milwaukee yesterday: "People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and ... for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

She amended the speech slightly for for the Madison audience: "Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change." A difference without much distinction, especially as it was that "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country" line that's been getting all the heat.

It's been getting a ridiculous amount of criticism ranging from "stupid" to "despicable" and, of course, endless lists in the blogosphere and among the punditocracy of things that uppity chick damned well should be proud of.

Come on, folks - I'm still waiting for some sense of unqualified pride in this godforsaken country in my adult life - and I'm older than Mrs. Messiah by a good ten years. I take a certain pride in about 15% of my country's history - and about 3% of that is a source of remarkable pride - but most of our advances as a country over the past hundred and fifty years or so - especially our humanitarian advances - have been a generation or more too late, often well after the rest of the developed world has made similar or greater advances. In many areas, we're still waiting. When we lead the world in human rights, equal justice, open government, individual liberty, fair elections, and access to basic services, I'll join Michelle Obama.

Meanwhile, it's worth remembering that Pride is a Deadly Fucking Sin - especially, I would think, when it's unsubstantiated pride based on an accident of birth.


I hope Pat Buchanan doesn't read this - or I'll never get rid of him.

Tags: media, political rant
humour: incredulous

Baphomet's Advocate over at America's Debate mentioned a week or so ago that Senator McCain bears a striking resemblance to Iron Maiden's occasional album cover mascot, Eddie the Head. And, sure enough, he does:


We heard - yet again - tonight, from both Barack Kumbayama and Nibbles McCain himself (during their triumphant victories as New Messiah and Next President, respectively) what a great American hero McCain is. We've been hearing for weeks - and it seems to go without question - that McCain is the one candidate who is "ready to be Commander in Chief on Day One" and that he has all this military expertise and so on.

Okay, he served and served more or less honorably, but - hello - he was CAPTURED. He was shot down and fucking captured. During our last illegal, unnecessary, cripplingly expensive, life-wasting war of aggression. In which he volunteered to spray the brains of Vietnamese civilians across the Southeast Asian landscape.

McCain started out as a sub-par flier and crashed an A-1 Skyraider into Corpus Christi Bay during a practice run in 1959. In 1962, he flew a plane into power lines in Spain and crashed again. So they made him a flight instructor at Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi. In 1965, he experienced a flameout over Norfolk, Virginia, and crashed another plane.

In 1967 - and this one wasn't his fault (unless one considers the very real possibility that the man is a freakin' jinx) - McCain was serving on the aircraft carrier Forrestal at Yankee Station in the Gulf of Tonkin. The crew was preparing to launch an attack when a Zuni rocket from an F-4 Phantom was accidentally fired across the carrier's deck. The rocket struck McCain's A-4E Skyhawk, dislodged two bombs and ruptured the fuel tank. He escaped from the burning plane, but seconds later one of the bombs went off, killing 132 sailors, wounding another 62, and destroying twenty aircraft.

Less than three months later, while attempting to attack a thermal power plant in Hanoi, his plane was shot down by an anti-aircraft missile. McCain ejected from the plane and parachuted into Truc Bach Lake, where he nearly drowned. The rest, of course, is history: Presto! Instant Hero.

But, come on - this is supposed to be the guy with all this military expertise? Dude can't even keep a god-damned plane in the air. Sorry, but his distinguished military record does not exactly inspire confidence. And, heh, this is his biggest selling point?

We are in so much trouble...

Tags: photo/graphic, politburo, political rant
humour: seriously uncertain

During this evening's Democratic debate, Barack "it's not a swipe" Obama took a swipe at Hillary Clinton when asked about his health care plans. Referring to Clinton having formulated her health care plan in secret back in 1993, Obama said he would provide insurance for people who did not have it by "bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are."

Clinton fielded the question reasonably well when Lamb Blitzer lobbed it back to her and also mentioned that "we'll have to persuade Congress to put all of those deliberations on C-SPAN."

If I were either of these candidates, I'd avoid all mention of the public service broadcast from Capital Hill. Frankly, I'd rather see more of them on C-SPAN - and less of them on CNN. I mean, are these guys still collecting their senatorial paychecks? If so, might I ask

WHY?

Tags: media, political rant
humour: annoyed

After years - decades - of being ridiculed and dissed for practically every opinion he has voiced as a US Senator by every talking head and op ed columnist in the mainstream media, the eminence gross of the Kennedy clan is now being treated, by the same people, as the elder statesman of the global community. Why? Because, in endorsing Barack Kumbayama, he tacitly criticized the Clintons. Carve that man's words in stone!

And of what did Teddy's Terrible Tirade consist? Well, he only mentioned Clinton in one paragraph:

But first, let me say how much I respect the strength, the work and dedication of two other Democrats still in the race, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. They are my friends; they have been my colleagues in the Senate. John Edwards has been a powerful advocate for economic and social justice. And Hillary Clinton has been in the forefront on issues ranging from health care to the rights of women around the world. Whoever is our nominee will have my enthusiastic support.

Damning stuff. But I guess the fact that Kennedy later singles Obama out as the with the best campaign slogan, it means that Hillary Clinton has the worst:

I am convinced we can reach our goals only if we are "not petty when our cause is so great" - only if we find a way past the stale ideas and stalemate of our times – only if we replace the politics of fear with the politics of hope – and only if we have the courage to choose change.

Barack Obama is the one person running for President who can bring us that change.

Barack Obama is the one person running for President who can be that change.

But, gee - what's someone supposed to say when they endorse a candidate? "Barack Obama is one of several people running for President who can bring us that change," I suppose. I remember when endorsements used to mean endorsing one candidate, not attacking another candidate of the media's choosing. I mean, isn't Kennedy's endorsement equally a denunciation of John Edwards? And Mike Gravel?

Yeah, well, I suppose it's nice to see good ol' Teddy in the spotlight again. Maybe, in another twenty years or so, someone will cover something of substance about the Massachusetts senator...

Tags: media, political rant
humour: irritated

I just finished watching the most recent Republican Presidential Tap Dance (or whatever these wastes of time are being called) - and much of the follow-up commentary. Why is it so difficult for our political analysts to even recognize truth? There is only one Republican candidate who even seems capable of being honest - and that, of course, is Ron Paul. Not coincidentally, he tends to be treated as more of an object of derision than the only Republican contender who's ever read the US Constitution (or, at least, understood it).

The same goes for the Democrats - and the commentary surrounding their campaigns. The only serious leader among them is Mike Gravel. And who does the media treat like a joke? Well, okay, Dennis Kucinich. But Gravel runs a close second.

Frankly, Paul and Gravel are the only two candidates I could possibly support at this stage. The rest - those who aren't criminal idiots - are either liars, god-damned liars, or god-damned fucking liars. Or, I don't know, maybe a few of them are just so deluded that they should be institutionalized. But I really can't imagine that they believe all of the crap they spew. If I heard one more reference to America being the envy of the world or the "last best hope" of the known universe, I thought I would puke up everything I've eaten since 1972. This myth of exceptionalism seriously needs to be sunk in the Mariana Trench and buried under several megatons of nuclear waste.

As a side note, I would love to see Al Gore enter the race and bump Hillel Hillary from the ticket - which would mean that Giuliani and Romney would have wasted weeks debating a phantom Democrat rather than debating the other Republican candidates (which I thought was the point of these pointless exercises). Sadly, it doesn't look as though even Gore is capable of doing the right thing any more. You wanna save the planet, Al? Then run for the fucking presidency or shut your ineffectual mouth.

Would someone please put this country out of its misery?

Tags: political rant, tee-vee
humour: suicidal

Apologies to my more conservative friends for this entry, but I have long felt that conservatism was a form of mental illness. While that has not quite been proved, there appears to be evidence to suggest that conservatives are, at the very least, fearful, whiny-assed babies who never quite grew up.  :)  An article in the last issue of Psychology Today examines various studies that highlight the ideological and psychological differences between liberals and conservatives - and concludes, rather obviously, I would have thought, that "those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative." But one of the studies, in particular, struck a chord with me:

In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

It has long been evident that there are deep-seeded temperamental differences between liberals and conservatives. George Lakoff's excellent Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think used two different models of family morality to define the two schools of political thought. As one critic digested the thesis:

The "Strict Father" model of family morality that conservatives subscribe to is based on the hierarchical authority of the father who sets and enforces rules of behavior. Children are expected to learn self-discipline, self-reliance, and respect for legitimate authority. Obedience is emphasized; questioning of authority is little tolerated. Governmental social programs are seen by conservatives as rewarding a lack of self-discipline, of failing to becoming self-reliant. However, spending for the preservation of the moral order, for protection of the "nation as family," whether it is for defense or for building more prisons, is morally required.

Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to a "Nurturant Parent" model. Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for, respected, and, in turn, caring for others. Open communications is emphasized; even the questioning of authority by children is seen as positive. Desired behavior is not obtained through punishment. Empathy and a regard for fair treatment are priorities in this model. Social programs are seen by liberals as helping both individuals and the greater society. The maintenance of fairness is a priority for government.

Particularly instructive is the role that competition plays in these models. For conservatives, competition is essential to determine who is moral, that is, who is sufficiently self-disciplined to be successful. Understandably the prototypical conservatives are businessmen who have succeeded in the competitive marketplace. They are at the head of a hierarchical moral order, of a "meritocracy of the self-disciplined." Interestingly, governmental largesse for economic elites is viewed as deserved, unlike assistance for the poor.

But liberals view fierce competition as bringing out aggressive behavior that is hardly consistent with a desirable nurturant personality. Liberals would also contend that there are class and social forces that are essentially inescapable by those on the lowest rungs of society. The ubiquity of the conservative "Ladder of Opportunity" is largely a convenient myth.

Lakoff's hypothesis went a long way toward helping me understand quite a few conservative positions - and allowed me to see many such positions as somewhat reasonable (if unacceptable), rather than just stupid or selfish. But it didn't tell me who would actually want a strict disciplinarian as a parent - or why - and why this desire would extend to the greater body politic.

The Block study may actually answer those questions. I suppose that it makes perfect sense that this difference is formed in childhood - that liberals are more confident and self-reliant from very early on and that conservatives have always longed for a strong father figure (or go running for mommy when things look a bit threatening). It makes some warped sense that those who are afraid - of terrorists, of blacks, of homosexuals, of Jews, whatever - would want the state to protect them, no matter what they have to give up: "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy - Saddam is calling me names!" or "Help me, Mommy - Kim Jong-Il stuck his tongue out at me!"

This response may make sense to small children who can't - or won't - take responsibility for