Tina Fey tries to maintain a certain degree of neutrality, but it's pretty obvious which side of the ballot she wakes up on. Plus, she bolstered a career on lampooning Athena of the Right Wing. So I count her for the liberals.
On the Teabagger side, who was one of the featured “celebrities” onstage at today's big Tax DayTea Party in D.C.? None other than completely forgotten, one-dimensional, no-range-beyond-bimbo ex-SNLer Victoria Jackson.
Mrs F just asked me “if I heard about the guy in Georgia who slapped a stranger's two-year-old in the face?”
“No.”
I don't even have the full story, yet adrenaline is gushing into my body.
She continues, “This guy threatened a mom whose two-year-old was having a tantrum in WalMart, ‘if you don't shut that kid up, I will.’ He followed the mother and child into the next aisle where he slapped the child across the face four times."
Holy shit—if that was my kid—they'd've been vacuuming that man out of the carpet after slap number one.
This discussion took place just after the four of us returned from Target and Lowe's and it was easy for me to picture the whole thing going down.
I've never struck a person in my life, but you better believe the one thing that would trigger a Wolverinesque berserker rage would be someone striking my child.
Then Mrs. F goes to the story on CNN.com, hits the video, and I just about lose my shit.
On anchor Rick Sanchez.
His report starts with the words, "What would you do—" and my brain, naturally, finishes the sentence with, "if a stranger struck your child?"
But that's NOT what he says.
"What would you do—seriously—what would you do, to get a kid to stop crying?" Sanchez asks.
Are you for fucking real, you asshole? That's your fucking angle? Right after I'm done burying that child-abusing motherfucker in WalMart, I'm coming for you next, Sanchez.
"What would you do" about somebody else's tantruming kid is walk the fuck away. And when you report a story about some sadistic asshole that didn't, you check your "smug" at the fucking door. Yeah, this story is unusual, but it ain't a goddamn novelty—it's an outrage. To frame this as if the two-year-old is anything but a victim of violence is ridiculous.
--
Mrs F: "If someone laid their hands on my kid—that's the last time they'd have hands." [I laugh] "Seriously," she continues, "I'd head right to 'Kitchens' for a knife and give them a custom amputation."
Kudos and h/t to Supermom for the story and the Liam Neeson "Taken" reference.
I don't think there's another Senator in either party that can stand there and have that kind of discussion with a crowd—particularly a crowd of his political adversaries.
He's informed, he's engaged and engaging, he speaks clearly and directly and treats the people he's talking to like adults. He answered every question and treated each questioner with respect—and received it in kind.
Every one of those teabaggers will walk away from that conversation, at the very least, questioning what they thought they knew going in. Some might even walk away persuaded.
The GOP should be scared shitless of that guy—maybe they already are and that's why they stalled the election certification so long.
As for the rest of the Democrats—all the way up to Obama: Watch, and take fucking notes, you jackasses.
One could argue that Jon Stewart drove a nail in the coffin of Crossfire, or that Stephen Colbert held a long-overdue, uncomfortable mirror up to Bush and the D.C. press corps at that dinner a couple years back...but both of those occurred in the relative obscurity of unanticipated improvisation. No one saw them coming.
This Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer/CNBC thing has been 8 days in the making and has gone far beyond YouTube viral stages. It was above-the-fold on USA Today yesterday—don't even ask me if that furthers the irony here or not.
Anyway, last night was the showdown, and from everything I've read it didn't disappoint. I saw a few minutes "live" last night, and a clip on line, but I won't be able to sit and watch the whole interview until later. But that doesn't mean you can't...
Messing with Rush Limbaugh gets you some blowback...Messing with Jon Stewart gets you blown away.
If you need further proof that Jim Cramer indeed has no idea when, if ever, to cut his losses—he agreed to appear with Stewart on TDS tonite. I saw a few minutes live...as soon as the video's avalable, I'll post it.
The most striking part of the speech was its sheer – dare I say – audacity. Make no mistake – this speech was an unapologetic, undefensive, and full-bodied embrace of progressive policies. Obama walked up there tonight in front of the entire country and endorsed the most liberal legislative agenda since LBJ. I loved it.
In front of everyone, he stated that he would pursue major legislative efforts on energy, national health care, and education. Then he said he would raise taxes on rich people. Then he said he would cut spending on bloated defense and agribusiness subsidies. Then he reaffirmed that we would withdraw combat troops from Iraq. Then he reminded the country that he is closing Gitmo – and explained the national security rationale for doing so.
Say what you will about this speech, but there was nothing meek or defensive about it. It was a big speech about big things in historic times.
And it’s hard to translate into words how refreshing – how deeply satisfying – it was to see a President stand up and openly embrace such a progressive platform. Having watched the defensiveness of Clinton, Daschle, and John Kerry over the years, it’s just cathartic to see it on a national stage.
If it sounds like Jindal is targeting his speech to a room full of fourth graders, that's because he is. They might be the next people to actually vote for Republicans again.
Obama was fantastic - worlds better than his inaugural. He laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda of any Democratic President since LBJ, and did it so smoothly that you'd think he was just selling an incremental center-left pragmatism. I think that he has an acute sense - more acute than most people in Washington, probably - of just how much running room is open in front of him at the moment, and he intends to make the absolute most of it.
Obama’s effort wasn’t great oratory. Certainly no shades of Lincoln or Churchill but that wasn’t the role he was playing last night. He was the family lawyer explaining to the feckless family members (think of the WSJ Bancrofts) that because of their overspending, incompetent management and investment choices the family firm was on the rocks. He’d got a plan to get it off, it was going to cost a lot, it was going to involve some leaps of faith with new products, he’d hired new managers, it wasn’t going to be easy but he thought it had a good chance of success. And the family bought it both because of the superb poise and confidence he brought to explaining it but also because on the whole it sounded adult and grounded in reality. The subsequent carping by a rather geeky family nephew was dismissed as essentially silly and juvenile. I’ve been saying here for months as has Daniel that the GOP has no idea what they are dealing with in Obama and shows no signs of wanting to learn. Their only policy seems to placing a bet against the American people which I think they are going to lose.
This is about as mature and well-informed a discussion on the topic of gay marriage I've seen, but by the end—and I know I am biased—Stewart just takes Huckabee apart. Huckabee tries the slippery slope argument, the "gay as a choice" argument, procreation, childrearing, and everything he has up his sleeve...by the end of the discussion he's reduced to defending an entry in the dictionary over human rights.
Early voting opened Thursday and drew some 214,000 voters to the polls in the first two days, leading to hours-long lines in parts of the state and lengthy schedules for poll workers.
In the first few days, the balloting clearly favored Democrats, with those registered with the party making up 62 percent of those who had voted. Only 22 percent of the voters had been registered Republicans.
NC is one of two states in the country where straight ticket voting does not count for President. This unusual exception trips up tens of thousands of voters every 4 years.
North Carolina lost 92,000 votes for President in 2004 due to straight ticket confusion. Our state has one of the highest undervote rates for President in the Country because of this.
Voters have very little reason to know about this exception, since it is not intuitive, and it was not even mentioned in the 3 million + voter guides mailed to households all over North Carolina.
What fucking genius came up with that shit? (Answer: probably a Republican) I can only hope that this is pant-soiling news to me since I am new to North Carolina—the only reason I know about this is the Obama campaign sent a mailer to my house yesterday.
Here's my double-edged take on this: Hundreds of thousands of new voters have registered in NC—most of them Dems. Hopefully the fact that they are so motivated to cast a vote for Obama means that they zero right in on that choice and don't miss it. On the other hand, they are all first-time voters, so the likelihood of confusion or error with the ballot is high.
My mother has been working the polls in North Carolina for early voting [...] she says that in the last few days alone, she has personally seen at least 200 votes intended to go to Obama that were not being counted (in other words, people telling her how excited they are to see Obama elected, only to find out that by selecting the straight democratic line, they never even cast a vote for him).
Smitty, Bob—hold each other.
UPDATE 3—BETTER NEWS: If that shit has you down, this should help...
I squeaked in just before the 7pm deadline to find two very frustrated poll workers and a line of a couple dozen people, due to problems with the computerized voting system not accepting people's driver's licenses. It was taking about 7-10 minutes per person just to get the computer to accept them as valid and to print out their ballot, causing very long delays.
For me the most moving moment came when the family in front of me, comprising probably 4 generations of voters (including an 18 year old girl voting for her first time and a 90-something hunched-over grandmother), got their turn to vote. When the old woman left the voting booth she made it about halfway to the door before collapsing in a nearby chair, where she began weeping uncontrollably. When we rushed over to help we realized that she wasn't in trouble at all but she had not truly believed, until she left the booth, that she would ever live long enough to cast a vote for an African-American for president. Anyone who doesn't think that African-American turnout will absolutely SHATTER every existing record is in for a very rude surprise.
There were about 20 people in front of me but remarkably not a single person left the room without voting over the 2 hours it took to get through the line.
Letterman just hammers him—on Palin in particular. He uses disarming humor in many instances, but underneath it all he makes McCain try to defend the indefensible and McCain ends up looking like a fool, and all of his selling of Palin comes across like a watered down sales pitch for Obama. It's awesome television.
During the interview, McCain promises to have Palin appear on the show. Trust me when I say, there is no way in hell that actually happens. I would have put the chances of that at slim to none BEFORE Letterman ridiculed her selection to John McCain's face...After that? No fucking way.
...is all it takes to reduce John McCain' reputation of a Maverick™ and reformer to rubble.
How much would a thirteen minute ad cost?
Prediction: Look for some horrendously produced rip-off / response video from the McCain camp—only, unlike this one which is 100% true and skewers McCain with his own defense attorney—The GOP version will be complete fabrication about Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers rowing a boat out to Hawaii to indoctrinate an eight-year-old boy to be their Manchurian Black Panther candidate for President forty years later...
Don't leave Dave Letterman holding the bag and expect him to cover for you...
John McCain gambles and loses AGAIN. He cancels on Letterman, telling him "he's needed immediately in Washington and the campaign is suspended"...then he goes down the street and tapes an interview with Katie Couric.
Bad move.
Letterman leads the show with five solid minutes of just wailing on McCain, and then brings in Keith Olbermann to fill the time!
Which video is going to be passed around the internet and watched by more people? Letterman's drubbing or Couric's foot massage?
I don't think that's even close...
UPDATE: This morning on ABC News radio: A wrap-up story on Letterman hammering McCain, including a clip; zero coverage of Couric interview.
We've seen the worst of Bill Clinton these past few months, Tonight, we saw the best. And it's mighty good. Andrew Sullivan, noted Clinton-hater.
Yeah. It was that good. And Kerry gave the speech of his life tonight as well. Biden was strong, and then Obama brought it home with his cameo. All I could think is, "Who the fuck is voting against this?" And, "What can the GOP pull that can outdo this?"
Which inevitably leads to, "What the fuck is the matter with this country that this is even a race?"
In the throes of the move, so no time for blogging...Here's something cool via Andrew Sullivan: Scientific American interviews a guy who researched what it would take to become like The Dark Knight...
I am an unabashed member of the Wes Clark Fan Club, and this is the reason why: Watch Clark as he buries Bush, Lieberman, McCain and dismantles the incoming crap from Schiffer all while making the best possible case for Obama with ease and clarity.
He needs to be front and center as a leading surrogate for Obama. Nobody does it better. I would give him strong consideration for VP (brief bio here) and failing that, he certainly deserves a prominent role in Obama's cabinet or on his policy team. The guy fucking rocks.
Oh, and no, Bob, you stupid jackass, getting shot down does NOT qualify you for the office of President. A pathetic performance by a guy who usually does better. [h/t Sullivan for the source but not the substance. Sully misses the target here and conflates an attack on McCain by a blogger with Clark's legitimate responses to Schiffer's questions. Though Sullivan is on the Obama bandwagon, he conitues to pay far more respect to McCain than he deserves.]
UPDATE: I viewed this video without any knowledge of the hyped-up "controversy" about these remarks and accusations of a larger swift-boat campaign against McCain.
I didn't see anything wrong, innaccurate or unfair in Clark's comments, and the comment that is being used to crucify Clark, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president...” was in direct response to Bob Schieffer asserting Obama "hasn't ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down." Those were Shieffer's fucking words NOT Clark's!
Are you fucking kidding me? Is the level of bubble-wrap the media is going to place around McCain for the rest of the race?
One of the things Digby mentioned in her post was that Republican blacks (Powell, Rice) are inoculated from criticism, while Obama has everything to prove. Obviously this applies to war veterans as well: In 2004, John Kerry's wartime record was fair game for lies and media-driven slander, yet John McCain's record can't even be accurately addressed in response to a direct question?
This double-standard is bullshit.
UPDATE 2: Obama, or his campaign anyway, hangs Clark out to dry. Fucking pathetic. dday at Hullabaloo:
And this is why people get upset with politics. Wes Clark makes a perfectly legitimate statement and can't find a single national Democrat to back him up because they're all a bunch of scared little kittens. They got used by the combination of the conservative outrage machine and the media. It's a filthy little game and they fall for it time after time, and seemingly never learn.
Clark shows the Democrats how to effectively fight back, and they re-pay him by running and hiding. This is exactly what I just talked about this morning. Democrats only know how to show strength by sacrificing one of their own, and falling into line behind the opposition.
I am absolutely disgusted with the Obama campaign right now.
And earns herself a 'Special Comment' from Keith Olbermann...
"But in fact, Senator, you are now campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and YOU were the Republican.
As Shakespeare wrote, Senator, that way madness lies."
He actually goes easier on Hillary than he should, giving her an "out", and going harder on Ferraro and her advisors. Transcript. NOTE: If you never saw KO's FISA "Special Comment' watch it now -- UPDATE: Olbermann wrote a diary at Kos last night as well. It's mostly block-quoted excepts of the transcript, but with some additional commentary mixed in. Like this...
There is much in the decisions made by the Senator and her strategists that was obvious, mistaken, and damaging.
And there is the grimmer prospect. That these, as Howard Fineman suggested on Countdown last night, were not mistakes at all.
I agree. I think there is a pattern that is inescapable. These "regrettable" things just keep happening...
I'm not really sure if this was some commercial break, off-camera banter or part of the actual "Morning Joe" broadcast, but this is pretty good—Chris Matthews engages Scarborough on the GOP v. Dem patriotism/security double-standards...
Oh, Chris, why do you have to be such a moron the other 90 percent of the time?
Barack Obama won the primary in South Carolina Saturday, and did it in overwhelming, ass-kicking, resounding, empty-the-bench-for-garbage-time fashion. Obama doubled up Hillary 55 to 27 percent, with John Edwards finishing a distant third. Edwards is now effectively out of the running—this was his last stand. He will fight on, but he will have to rethink his strategy and goals, and after the last-minute robo-calls against him from Clinton, trust that he won't be coming to her defense in January 31's debate. His decision now is when it makes sense to pass his support over to Obama.
The Clintons pulled out all the stops and this result might demonstrate a backlash against their tactics. One of two things will happen as a result: They we redouble their efforts and get even nastier because they are more desperate, OR Bill Clinton will find himself campaigning in Alaska—or wherever the cameras ain't.
Is suspect the Clinton camp was ready to spin a narrow loss as a result of heavy black turnout in Obama's favor—which happened—but he beat them 8 to 1 among those voters. and he pounded the competition the younger the voters got...
For all the recent speculation about race and gender, here’s a tip about the real divide: age.
Among voters 18-24, Obama beat Clinton, 66% to 25% (a 41-point gap). Among voters 25-29, Obama beat Clinton, 70% to 21% (a 49-point gap). Among voters 30-39, Obama beat Clinton, 62% to 23% (a 39-point gap). Among voters 40-49, Obama beat Clinton, 61% to 25% (a 36-point gap). Among voters 50-64, Obama beat Clinton, 51% to 26% (a 25-point gap).
Oh, what about the race and gender?
* 61% of the voters were women, and Obama beat Clinton among women 53% to 30%.
* Obama did extremely well among African-American voters, but he also easily defeated his rivals among non-blacks under the age of 30 — 52% for Obama, 28% for Clinton, 20% for Edwards.
In heavily Republican South Carolina, Barack Obama alone drew more votes than the top two Republicans (McCain and Huckabee) combined.
Looking more and more like a viable candidate with a 50-state strategy available to him—something no other candidate can claim.
UPDATE: Go review these numbers at CNN. The only category Hillary won was whites over 65. You know, the old guard. Edwards won whites between 30 and 64, but Obama beat both of 'em combined among whites 29 and under. Are young Southerners turning the page on race?
