Running from the Center

The indispensible Glenn Greenwald is upset that the media frequently label St. McCain a centrist. Greenwald is particularly peeved that he's seen as a foreign policy centrist. As always, Greenwald is right on the money. McCain is no centrist. He's pro-life, pro-business (though he doesn't really understand how or why), pro-war, and most recently pro-torture (yippee!). Labeling McCain a "centrist" is endemic of the mainstream media. The Saint has occasionally shown some proclivity for moderation so he is eternally a centrist. The same label is applied to Joe Lieberman's foreign policy. Now, a half-assed examination of Lieberman's foreign policy views reveal that he is in lock step with George W. Bush, Bill Kristol, and John McCain on this i.e. a neoconservative. However, since Lieberman is an independent Democrat he's seen as between both the Democratic and Republican parties; therefore, he must be a centrist. Anyways, the same logic can of course be applied to McCain. John McCain believes the state of war is good for the country and he supports escalation of the Iraq war and bombing Iran. These are, of course, neoconservative viewpoints that align him perfectly with the right-wing of the Republican party. As much as I'd like to blame this on the media's love affair with John McCain, I think that it's probably more appropriate to chalk this one up to ignorance via laziness. Brian Beutler, has a very persuasive theory along these lines:

...the line connecting the most liberal politicians in Washington to the most conservative politicians in Washington really does, on social issues, run relatively smoothly from the left flank of the Democratic party through the right flank of the Republican party with a break between blue and red somewhere close to a "center". That, probably as much as anything else, explains why traditional media uses the system it uses. In effect, of course, this puts a ton of emphasis on party distinctions, placing, for instance, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman shoulder-to-shoulder on the spectrum even though one's foreign policy views are fairly at odds with the other's.

Well said, Mr. Beutler. The media just doesn't have the will, by way of laziness or outright apathy, to differetiate between the line on social issues and foreign policy. In terms of social issues, Lieberman really is a moderate Democrat or a "centrist", if you will. On the contrary, he has a neoconservative foreign policy in lock step with his good buddy St. John McCain.

Anyways, I know this is a long post but you must bear with me a little longer. The catalyst for comrade Greenwald's ire was this article by Michael Hirsh in Newsweek, and this segment in particular:

Lieberman, [McCain's] fellow centrist, recently seems to have assigned himself the role of McCain's monitor. Just two weeks ago, when McCain mistakenly said Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq fighters, it was the Connecticut senator who again pulled him aside, gently reminding him that the Iranian regime has been accused of training fellow Shiite extremists, not Sunni Al Qaeda.

I return again to Brian Beutler. In Mr Beutler's opinion that segment should have been presented as such:

"Lieberman, his fellow interventionist hawk, recently seems to have assigned himself the role of McCain's remedial tutor on terrorism issues, reminding him that Shiite-led Iran is emphatically not training Sunni Al Qaeda troops in Iraq or anywhere else."

Once again, well said Mr. Beutler. Ok, now I'm done, you can go have fun now!

Review: Stop-Loss

This past Saturday I saw Stop-Loss. The film is Kimberly Pierce's, the director of Boys Don't Cry, effort to explore the effects of the military's stop-loss policy ordered by the President. In case you don't know, a soldier is stop-lossed when they are reenlisted in the military against there will. This policy is ordered by the President when recruitment goals are not being met and no draft is in place. It amounts essentially to a "backdoor draft" a term that is used throughout the movie and appears frequently throughout the media. The stop-loss policy can only go into effect in a time of war. Now that we've got that covered, let's move on the movie. The central character in Pierce's film is that of Staff Sergeant Brandon King, expertly portrayed by Ryan Phillipe. He is an all-American, good-ol' Texas boy. He is a squad leader in Iraq. His squad is made up of some of his friends from his hometown, including Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum) and Tommy Burgess (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Stop-Loss opens with a particularly greuling episode in Iraq that results in a number of deaths in King's squad. King feels personally responsible for the loss of his men and is greatly troubled upon his return, with his squad, to Texas. Shortly after his return stateside, King is informed that he has been stop-lossed. This of course does not sit well with King who had planned on leaving the army and beginning a civilian life. King leaves with his best friend's (Shriver) fiance Michelle (played by Abbie Cornish). He hopes to meet with a senator and convince him to pull some strings so he can avoid another tour in Iraq.

This movie has been getting mixed reviews. I personally thought it was extremely well done. The movie combines a traditional cinema format with home video shot by King and his squad in Iraq. These videos were very effectively edited into the film and are repeatedly flash-backed to (did I say that right?) throughout. Phillippe is at the top of his game in Stop-Loss. He certianly has come a long way since I Know What You Did Last Summer. Phillippe's portrayal of King is layered in emotional depth and haunting guilt. Tatum is developing into a great actor and his role as the unstable Steve Shriver is belivable. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is another one of those underused actors. Aside from Phillippe his performance is the best in the film. Abbie Cornish was powerful as Michelle and I liked how there was no romance forced between her and Phillippe. These movies are so much better when they aren't afraid to leave the love story out. While the film definately comes off as anti-war, its loving and respectful portrayal of American soldiers will certainly playcate any kneejerk critics. Stop-Loss is definately a film worth seeing for both those in support and against the war.

Rating: ***

*Uwe Boll/Michael Bay bad **Keeanu Reevesish ***Great ***Fantastic

P.S. I guess I should note that if I give something a **1/2 rating, that counts as "good."

We Want War! More More War!

I realize that I've been linking to Ezra Klein a lot, but here's another good post from him on John McCain. As readers of this blog are aware, St. McCain hates war. Ezra points out:

Between 1995 and 2008, McCain has advocated full-scale war in Kosovo, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. He has repeatedly sought to ratchet up tensions with Russia and China, and has advisers who've called for air strikes on Syria. And those are only the instance I can remember offhand. His horror of war has led him to advocate no fewer than four full-scale wars in the past decade or so. And his recognition of its dangers has spurred him towards an aggressive, threatening stance against two of the largest, most powerful countries on earth.

Good point. These are interesting stands for an individual to take, especially when that same individual seeks to reassure voters of their hatred of war. Ezra also links to a great column by Spencer Ackerman that's currently up on the Washington Independent site. Spencer articulates how McCain's foreign policy is basically the same as W's, except for one little caveat, IT'S WORSE!!!

Huh?

Everyday I always wander over to the New Republic website to see what's up. I often find a number of good articles, but I also usually find a lot of crap from Marty Peretz, Jamie Kirchick, and a bunch of other wankers. Today, I read a truly puzzling piece by Sacha Zimmerman. Zimmerman's little ditty is one part lament and one part diatribe. Bascially Sacha is all worked up that MSNBC canceled Tucker. I know, boo hoo, right? This is, of course, the lament portion of her article. Her argument for Tucker goes like this:

Whatever bad memories you may have of Tucker Carlson's "Crossfire" days, the most recent iteration of his show on MSNBC allowed him to return to expressing the kind of nuanced insight that first got him noticed as a young conservative writer. Carlson has certainly inflamed his share of liberals (among other things, he called the NAACP "a sad joke that should be shut down" and called Bill Clinton a "sanctimonious jerk"), but then he's not exactly reliably conservative, either. In the olio of dependably left- or right-wing voices on cable television, Carlson went his own way-and it's too bad the audience didn't go there with him. He retracted his initial support for the Iraq war, believes gay marriage is good because the institution of marriage is good, is pro-life, anti-death penalty, and won't abide any discussion of the sexual peccadilloes of politicians no matter what their side of the aisle. In the Obama parlance of our times, Carlson was "post-partisan." It made him an excellent choice to exchange blows with opinion leaders on the topics of the day. Of course, this is also exactly why the iconoclastic Carlson doesn't fit into MSNBC's left-wing makeover.

Touching. But wait, MSNBC is going left-wing? That's news to me! Zimmerman accuses MSNBC of having no conservative pundits. Pat Buchanan isn't a conservative? What about Joe Scarborough? Buchanan is as right-wing as they come. I'll admit that Scarborough is fairly independent and criticizes Republicans from time to time, but he's definately a conservative. Also, MSNBC is certainly not a liberal news outlet. Stroll on over to Media Matters and you'll find plenty of evidence that challenges Zimmerman's claim. Anyways, now that we've thoroughly debunked MSNBC's "liberal bona fides", let's move on to the subject of the supposedly liberal David Gregory.

Here's Zimmerman's analysis of Gregory:

After cutting his teeth on the O.J. Simpson circuit, Gregory began his White House press corps duties with the kind of gusto and drama rarely seen in the stuffy halls of power. Zachary Roth depicted a classic Gregory "hissy fit" in an otherwise flattering profile in this magazine last year in which Gregory famously called White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan a "jerk." But Gregory has also initiated shouting matches in almost every exchange he had with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and generally allowed histrionics to set the tone for his coverage. Despite his often piercing and on-point questions, this behavior has cemented David Gregory as a liberal-media-conspiracy incarnate in the eyes of conservatives and a kind of tough-questioning hero to many on the anti-Bush left. The conservative Accuracy In Media even started a letter-writing campaign aimed at shunning Gregory. But no matter your view--and no matter Gregory's personal political beliefs--the decision to use the journalistic lightning rod further distances MSNBC from the cause of good political analysis.

First, to be fair, let's also give credit where credit is due. I agree with Zimmerman when she states that his true talents lie in the art of the interview. Gregory asks pointed questions and he doesn't back down. I'll also agree that his weakness is in reporting. He often rushes through crucial elements of a story and repeats claims from politicians without context. However, he's no liberal. Gregory has repeatedly allowed Republican talking points to filter through his reports and interviews. Whether this is a function of an agenda or ignorance on Gregory's part is subject to debate. I suspect a combination of both, but admittedly, that's the safe, PC choice.

I guess what puzzles me the most about Zimmerman's piece is I don't understand what she's going for with it. It's not all rant, and it's not all lament. It's just a crazy hodge podge of both. What do you want Sacha? I guess maybe she wants more connies on MSNBC because she feels that will lead to smarter political analysis. As I stated above, MSNBC has plenty. Keith Olbermann is basically the only liberal on the channel, because I don't know what Dan Abrams is other than all over the place. There's nothing wrong with pointing out a lack of diversity in viewpoint, just make sure that your aware which side isn't being represented.

War...What is it good for?

Ezra Klein has a great post in response to McCain's new assertion that he "hates war."

McCain may hate war, but like your buddy who professes to hate his ex-girlfriend, he sure does fall back into its arms a lot. He supported the grievously misguided war in Iraq, continually advocates its escalation, and professes comfort with a literally endless occupation. He wanted ground troops in Kosovo and an attack on North Korea. And however much he proclaims his hatred of war, his dip into song -- "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..." -- certainly wasn't a somber treatment of life's most detestable outcome. At a moment of high tensions with Iran, asked whether he would support a catastrophic war with a major Middle Eastern nation based on fearmongering about their nuclear ambitions that turned out to be false, McCain not only agreed that he would, but he broke into song over the idea. McCain may say he "hates" war. But that's different than having an aversion, or even a reluctance, to go to war. As it is, what McCain has is a statesman's political persona and crazed hawk's policy positions. And that's, if anything, more dangerous.

The Dynamic Duo

Yay! St. McCain and Holy Joe to the rescue! Yay! Alright. Anyways, via the great Ezra Klein, I was lead to this amazing column by Harold Meyerson in today's Washington Post. I really can't add any commentary to this because Meyerson's piece is exquisitely well-written and I couldn't possibly convey this argument anywhere near as effective as he can. Please read it, it's an important take on a man that is running for a very important position.

Hillary, PLEASE STOP!

The picture is becoming clearer everyday: Hillary Clinton does not care about the Democratic party. She's jumping on the meida bandwagon trying to condemn Barack Obama over his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. Josh Marshall has a great post about all of this. Clinton is turning to her sworn enemies to help her smear Obama. I mean the American Spectator, come on Hillary! She's granting interviews to right-wing rags now!?! It's baffling that Hillary Clinton is either completely ignorant of, or apathetic towards the damage she's doing to the Democratic Party. If she somehow manages to steal to the nomination by convincing the superdelegates that she is the more electable candidate, she will have suceeded only in shrinking the Democratic coalition that she will need to win the general election. There is a lot of resentment out there between Obama and Clinton supporters. I'm personally considering staying home, or writing in "Wolverine" or "Batman" if she's the nominee. This has ceased being a matter of convenience and transformed into a matter of political survival. Clinton needs to realize that the longer John McCain has to consolidate his base, the smaller our chances become of gaining the presidency. Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi need to get off their asses and take action. It would also help if Al Gore and John Edwards would just endorse someone already. It seems to me that each would most likely endorse Obama, but I've heard otherwise from some. Either way, their endorsements would lend huge credibility to either candidate and would also likely be accompanied by renewed or additional support. I think we should look into starting a fund to purchase a Wrap It Up Box for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton: McCain Cheerleader?

Jonathan Chait has interesting post up at the Plank examining whether or not Clinton would prefer a general election victory for John McCain over Barack Obama. I guess I'd like to think that Clinton wouldn't want this, and I doubt she does, but you never know. Chait makes a good point that Clinton would be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2012 if Obama were to lose the general, but I think that her chances would be even more lackluster then than they are now. Granted, that assumes that McCain would have a successful first term. I doubt that would be the case, since McCain has shown recently that he has little expertise in pretty much any policy area, leadership included. However, as I've mentioned countless times, the media's love affair with the Saint would likely result in them painting a lovely portrait of a McCain presidency.

Anways, I digress, Chait also hammers on the fact that Clinton really has no shot at picking up the nomination. If she does (somehow) get the nomination, she will have gained it by convincing the superdelegates that Obama is a wanker. If she does that, I really think its safe to say that the Democratic Party will fall into civil war. Clinton has damaged herself in the eyes of many Democrats that would've otherwise supported her had she won the nomination fair and square. It should also be noted that independents and Republicans find Clinton more or less radioactive. It has to suck to be Hillary Clinton, I do still have some sympathy for her as there is no way to determine how much damage the media's coverage of her has done to her campaign. That being said, what's done is done and we have to move forward. Hillary needs to realize that her continued presence in this primary is damaging the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. In short, she just got reelected to another term in the Senate, she should look to the best interests of the people of New York and return to her duties as one of their elected voices.

Bacevich on Obama and McCain

Via Matt Yglesias, I found this great article by Andrew Bacevich. Bacevich, a conservative, argues that Barack Obama would be a better president for the conservative movement than George W. Bush has been, or John McCain ever could be. It's really very intriguing, I wouldn't mind Bacevich's wing of the conservative movement returning to prominence in the Republican party. The article goes into how true conservatism has been slowly dying since 1980. He argues that the Republican Party's devotion to corporate excess and American empire has brought about it's doom. Bacevich believes that as the common sense candidate, a Barack Obama presidency would bring about a political climate ripe for the destruction of neo- and corporate- conservatism.

I concur, and while I certainly have little sympathy for coservatism in any guise, it seems like the paleocons or traditional conservatives, if you will, are the more inherently reasonable people in the tent. These are the guys that are against premptive war, the police state, and corporate excess. They certainly have a number of disturbing cultural and economic beliefs, but they are much more open to compromise than those that currently dominate the Republican Party. Bacevich certainly is a reasonable fellow. His book, The New American Militarism should be widely read by conservatives and liberals alike.

A Possible Solution

Via Marc Ambinder I found this interesting tidbit regarding the Florida delegate fiasco:

This comes from the ranking Democrat in the State Senate, Steven Geller (who hasn't endorsed anyone), and State Sen. Jeremy Ring. Half the delegates would be awarded on the basis of the Jan. 29 primary; the rest would allocated according to any number of scenarios, including an even split, a split reflecting the national popular vote, a split reflecting the national earned delegate count. To work, it would require both campaigns to sign on, and would require the DNC's credentials committee to approve it, a process that would not really begin until July.

Sounds like it could work. Obviously this means that Hillary Clinton would get more delegates than Obama, but let's face it fellow Obama supporters, if the DNC decides to seat the delegates at all, she's gonna win the state. However, Obama would still get a substantial amount of delegates, and I don't think this would effect his lead too much. At the same time though, it would seat the delegates, and shut the Clinton campaign up.

Delayed Response: Obama's Speech

Well, two days after the fact I still haven't said anything about Barack Obama's landmark speech on race in America. I thought it was brilliant and I can only hope that it will put the Jeremiah Wright controversy to rest. Obama managed to balance the speech very well. I was particularly impressed by how he explained that African-Americans' anger was justified. He also mentioned that the anger of some white Americans was justified. I'm not going into nearly enough detail on this, but I really don't have the time right now. So you should watch the speech and draw your own conclusions.

Five Years

I realize now that I neglected to mention in my previous post that today marks the 5th year anniversay of the Iraq war. Nearly 4,000 Americans have died and thousands upon thousand more have been greviously wounded, many of those individuals have likely suffered permanent damage. I would be remiss not to mention that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have also been killed in the ensuing violence. Frankly there isn't much that I can say that I haven't articulated before in previous posts to this blog. There is no doubt that the war in Iraq has been one of the largest foreign policy blunders in American history. The fact that hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost or permanently altered, both American and Iraqi, in a war that was predicated on lies is a tragedy beyond my comprehension. I simply do not posess the ability to transcribe into words the profound sadness I feel whenever I think of the war.

I suppose what I could reflect upon on this 5-year anniversary is what I've personally learned over the past 5 years. In a way, I've finally understood how meaningless war is. The fact that countries (not just the U.S.) resort to violence and killing to solve problems or to reach a stated goal is a particularly barbaric reality. I can understand when wars are fought in self-defense; as it is necessary for one entity to respond appropriately to another that is trying to destroy it. I can also understand when war is necessary to stop regimes such as the Nazis or the Japanese Empire. These enemies were hell bent on killing millions simply because said millions were different from them, or because they occupied a territory that the aggressor desired. Enemies like this can seldom be reasoned with and war becomes a necessity rather than a means to an end. However, we should never go to war unless we've exhausted every other avenue that might lead to a peaceful resolution. This did not occur in Iraq. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator but he could have been dealt with had the UN been given the time and resources it needed. We should've exhaustively considered the consequences of our invasion. It's clear now that our government either was not aware, or more likely did not care about, the violent tensions between the Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish peoples of Iraq. It's also clear that there are those in our goverment whom to this day still don't understand the complicated ethnic and religous divisions within Iraq, John McCain chief among them.
I've learned that sometimes we are too quick to strike. We let our anger and our ignorance consume us, and rationality is left by the wayside. I believe that this is what happened with Iraq. 9/11 was still fresh in our minds and too many of us supported a war simply because we bought into the Bush Administration's lies that Saddam Hussein was partially responsible for the attacks on American soil.
I've learned that in times of crisis we often equate patriotism with supporting whatever the government does. We forget that one of the core principles of our democracy is our freedom to criticize our own government when we think it is wrong. Indeed the patriotism that existed after 9/11 through the first year of the Iraq war more closely resembled nationalism. Nationalism is a truly dangerous sentiment. It leads us to believe that we are superior to others, that we know what is best for other people. I consider myself a patriot, I love my country, but I am no nationalist.
I've learned that sometimes being a patriot isn't good enough. If your against the war you get questions like this: why don't you support the troops? Don't you know that your opposition helps the terrorists? Why do you hate America? I believe that we are better than this and that we have already begun to move past this. Unfortunately there are those in positions of power such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman that will probably never understand this, and that is too bad for them.

This post/note should not be read as a mea culpa or a condemnation of anyone. It is simply my reflection over the past 5 years of war. I think we have all learned a lot and hopefully we have all emerged from this experience as better individuals. I suppose only time can tell. It is clear that war is terrible. Even when a war is successful there are many that are left dead and many of those that survive do so with lives that are for all practical purposes destroyed. It is true that there are those that return from war as better people. I would be remiss to deny such a thing. However the fact that so many lose so much as a result of such senseless violence is a calmity of the human condition.

St. John the Idiotic

Yet more evidence that John McCain is a complete moron: he said yesturday in Jordan that it is "common knowledge" that Iran is training al-Qaeda operatives in Iran. Wait a minute...what? See, I was under the impression that Iran was a Persian country full of Shia muslims; whereas al-Qaeda is a terrorist group dominated by Arabs that also happen to be muslims of the Sunni sect. Why would Persian Shiites aid Arab Sunnis? Once again, my impression was that these two demographics have been in conflict with each other for upwards of a thousand years. Look, Iran is not exactly our biggest ally, nor should they be, but to say that they are training al-Qaeda operatives or even working in anyway with al-Qaeda is simply ludicrous. It would be like saying that the Orange Order and the IRA were banding together to expell the British from Northern Ireland. That just wouldn't happen. It's even more disturbing that the media is calling it a gaffe. As Max Bergmann writes at Democray Arsenal:

Many in the media seem willing to dismiss McCain's statement that Iran is training Al Qaeda as a simple slip of the tongue. This is wrong. McCain did NOT misspeak. If he had simply made the statement once, he could perhaps expect to be given a pass.
But he didn't just say Iran was training Al Qaeda once. He said it in his initial statement. He was then asked about it in a follow up question where he repeated it. It is not a simple slip of the tongue if when challenged on the "slip" you then. [He also repeated it on Hugh Hewitt's radio show] That is not a gaffe. That is called believing something that isn't true. It is called being confused. And being confused about the differences between Shia and Sunni when claiming that you should be elected president of the United States on your foreign policy knowledge and experience, is simply not okay. This is a big deal.

Indeed, this is a very big fucking deal! This is a very disturbing occurence. There are two possibilities here:

1. John McCain believes that al-Qaeda is being trained by Iran. In this circumstance that is quite alarming and I agree with Matt Yglesias: perhaps John McCain isn't really paying much attention to what is happening in Iraq.
2. McCain know that Iran and al-Qaeda are not in league but he is willing to lie about it anyway, IN FRONT OF A CROWD OF MUSLIMS IN JORDAN!

Look, I understand I'm biased and I obviously am not a fan of John McCain, but this is a truly dangerous situation. McCain doesn't know squat about the economy (by his own admission), taxes, healthcare, or really any other important domestic policy issue. Apparently, he also knows very little about foreign policy and national security (his professed strengths). Now, I know you may be thinking, "give me a break Scott, this is just one time!" Yes, this is just a single occurence, but if he doesn't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni muslims, and the shaky dynamic between the Persian and Arab ethnicities; then in reality everything he thinks he knows about the Middle East and the Arab world is probably wrong. This is stunningly idiotic. I hope for the sake of this country and this planet we elect either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to the presidency over this know-nothing fanatic.

A Note of Explanation

Sorry for the slow blogging. The past two days I've been at the Take Back America Conference right here in DC. I'll be there again tomorrow. It's my hope that I reach my normal blogging output by Thursday. Until then I will try to post when I can. Thanks!

Review: 10,000 B.C.

Well, 10,000 B.C. was pretty bad. Roland Emmerich is such a hit or miss director to me. I loved Independence Day, Stargate, and The Patriot; The Day After Tomorrow was ok; and Godzilla totally sucked. Well, ok, I guess that's mostly hits, but I'm gonna stick with my "hit or miss" label anyways. I just couldn't get into this movie. The script, co-written by Emmerich himself, was just painfully bad. The guy goes on perilous journey to save girl plot is beyond cliche. The character development is lax and the acting is terrible. Some of the visuals were kind of neat, but today it's your run-of-the-mill CGI. I would avoid this movie if at all possible, and if you must see it, rent it on DVD.

Rating: *1/2

* Uwe Boll/Michael Bay Bad **Keeanu Reevesish ***Great ***Fantastic

Our Conquering Hero

Via Matt Yglesias, I stumbled upon this Reuters article that includes this fancy little tidbit:

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."
"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

Wow. Where to start. Actually, nevermind. You all are smart enough that you know that what Bush said is beyond preposterous and it would be insulting of me to point out all that's wrong with that statement. That being said, look on with a mixture of wonder and disgust at our glorious commander-in-chief.

Um, Brilliant

By way of Jonathan Chait's recommendation, I read Michelle Goldberg's brilliant column for the Gaurdian deriding certain feminists for alleging (in so many words) that refusing to support Hillary Clinton is sexist. Finally! Look, this is just a great piece, and I agree with Chait, you need to take 10 minutes out of your life to read it, because you will emerge smarter. I consider myself a feminist. Yes, I'm a straight male that has no problem saying that I'm a feminist. I am really offended though that people like Gloria Steinem are accusing those of us that support Obama of forgetting about the victimization of woman. There is no doubt that the MSM's treatment of Clinton has been deplorable, but it's not fair to group Obama supporters in with the media. Many, if not most Obama supporters will enthusiastically support Clinton in the general election if she is the nominee. I very highly doubt that this will be the case, but it's true regardless. It's especially unfair for older women to accuse younger women (that overwhelmingly support Obama) of abandoning them. The cold hard truth is that Obama appeals across gender and racial lines, especially among young people. Clinton's base consists of older women, Latinos, and working-class whites. Clinton's lack of support among young women is more a result of demographics than anyone abandoning or shunning the feminist cause.

This is all the more frustrating because people like Steny "I really kind of suck as the Majority Leader" Hoyer are worrying that the ugly gender and racial attacks are hurting the party. What? Which gender attacks are you speaking about Steny!? The Obama campaign has not made gender an issue. As I stated above, the MSM certainly has, but it is patently unfair to accuse the Obama campaign of making gender-based attacks. That's simply not the case. Conversely, the Clinton campaign has made race a centerpiece of their attacks on Obama. The latest example is the public meltdown of the once great Geraldine Ferraro.

In conclusion, it's not fair, and frankly, it's wrong for Clinton supporters to accuse those that don't support their candidate of being sexist. I like Hillary too, and I think she'd be a great president, but please, she's not so great a candidate that the only reason that anyone wouldn't support her is because they are sexist. That's just an offensive and illogical argument. This race has been divisive enough already. Clinton's continued presence has become increasingly toxic. While I consider the fearmongering of Steny Hoyer and others that the campaign will fatally damage the party overblown, the continued racial attacks can only hurt. Hillary needs to accept a dose of reality and end her campaign.

20 in a row!

Over at the Plank, Isacc Chotiner has a great post up describing his elation at the Rockets' win last night, which marked their 2oth in a row. I have to admit I haven't been paying too much attention to the NBA this year, as the Bucks have been beyond lousy. However, it is not lost on me how amazing it is for a team to win 20 games in a row! Houston's 20 game streak has propelled them into a tie with San Antonio for first in the Western Conference's Southwest Division. This streak continued even after Yao Ming was lost for the remainder of the season a couple of weeks ago. Moreover, as Chotiner points out, Houston is doing all this with a very likable group of guys. Tracy McGrady is an extremely likable and talented player that is as socially conscious as he is gifted in the art of basketball. Chuck Hayes, Shane Battier, Steve Novak (yeah Milwaukee!) and the rest of the crew are the epitome of class and professionalism. I hope these guys beat out the arrogant and chronically boring Spurs for the Southwest title and roll over Kobe and the Lakers to the finals. Only time will tell!

The Love Affair: Bush and McCain

Juan Cole has got another great article over at Salon about John McCain. Cole compares Bush to McCain and it turns out that, at least in terms of policy, they are quite similar. McCain has bought into the neoconservative mantra hook, line, and sinker. McCain supports an ever toughening stance on Iran, staying in Iraq for hundreds if not thousands of years, and perpetual war in general. As I've said before St. McCain loves war. War, in his eyes, is not a means but an end in itself. He believes that the state of war is good for the country. All this is very disturbing to the sane mind.

While Cole is a foreign policy expert by trade, he also delves into holy John's support for tax cuts and radical conservative economic policy. McCain use to oppose Bush's tax cuts, but now he supports them, stating that his previous opposition was concentrated on the absence of offsetting spending cuts. However, at the time, McCain stated that his opposition was based on the fact that only the very wealthy stood to benefit much from the cuts. What this means is that St. John McCain, son of God, heir to the throne of the Lord, is the ultimate flip flopper. He is just as flip floppity as Mitt Romney. McCain has sold his soul in order to lock up the GOP nomination. Interesting that the meida's ongoing love affair with McCain allows them to continue labeling him a "maverick."

Tune Her Out

Over at the Plank, Jonathan Cohn has an interesting post suggesting that the Obama campaign should just ignore the musings of Geraldine Ferraro. I agree. Granted, it is frustrating that the brilliant Samantha Power had to resign after calling Hillary Clinton a monster (off the record!!!) and the Clinton campaign is making no such move in regards to Ferraro. Ferraro's comments were made on the record and have a clear racial connotation. "Monster" is not a gender or racial specific label, so calling Hillary a "monster" could not be implied as sexist. Moreover it should be noted that what Ferraro said is, for the most part, accurate. Barack Obama more than likely would not be were he is today if he weren't a black man. At the same time, if Hillary Clinton wasn't the wife of a two-term president she probably wouldn't be were she is today either. My boss pointed out to me that this was a great year for John Edwards to run for president, but the presence of strong African-American and female candidates did much to destroy the luster of his campaign. I think this is correct, and I would go so far as to say that if either Obama or Clinton had decided not to run, John Edwards would be the current Democratic nominee for president.

Anyways, I digress. Obama should ignore Ferraro because she's just destroying her own credibility and making herself look like a jerk. She now even is alleging that the only reason the Obama campaign is attacking her is because she is white. What? This is an odd thing for a liberal Democrat to say. Seriously, turn on your television and watch Ferraro destroy herself. Plus, in the end, this is just going to make Clinton look bad. As Cohn points out in his post, the exit polls in Mississippi showed that the vote broke down on racial lines and it makes sense (though it's dirty as hell) for the Clinton campaign to keep Ferraro around for Pennsylvania where similar working class racial divisions exist. My point is that Obama should just ignore this and turn all his guns in the direction of John McCain. Obama is the frontrunner. He has a substantial delegate lead that it is very unlikely that Clinton will ever be able to surmount. It is the role of the Democratic nominee to respond to attacks from the Republican nominee. Obama shouldn't bother himself with the nagging attacks of dying campaign.

When Facts Get in the Way

Warren Strobel has got an article about a Pentagon-sponsored report tomorrow that proclaims that Saddam Hussein had no link to al Qaida. This is, of course, fairly common knowledge these days but the report is based off of review of captured documents and interrogation of thousands of former Iraqi government officials.

I wish I had more to say on this, but it's just so unbelievably obvious that the war in Iraq has been a meaningless one from the get go. Thousands of American soldiers have died and tens of thousands have returned home permanently maimed. It should also be mentioned that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died. This is all just too sad to put into words.

I hope George W. Bush, John McCain, and the Republican party are proud of all they've accomplished in the name of fighting terror.

Damn You Spitzer

I agree with Ezra Klein the fact that Wall Street is celebrating the discovery of Eliot Spitzer's involvement with a prostitution ring really makes me want him to weather this, however, I just don't think its gonna happen. As Matt Yglesias points out, they have recorded evidence that he solicited a prostitute. We can all say what we want about whether or not prostitution should or shouldn't be illegal, but the fact is, in most of the country, in this case New York and Washington, prostituion is illegal. Therefore, if Spitzer committed a crime, he will most likely be subject to prosecution, and in that case, he should resign.

It's very frustrating because Spitzer was waging a hard fought battle against corruption in a state capital that is infamously rife with it. Spitzer had made a promise to make capitalism fairer for the common man, therefore it is no surprise that the corporate execs on Wall Street are popping the champagne corks and celebrating the downfall of their great adversary. We expected more from Spitzer. Like Ezra says:

...what irks me about Spitzer's actions is similar to what I've always held against Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal -- it's not the act, but the audacity and selfishness of committing it when so many powerful adversaries were watching so closely. To be sure, it's hard to live your life with the knowledge that the public good is more meaningful than your private pleasure. These are men, after all, and they slip. But at the end of the day, they chose this road, they asked for our votes, and our support and our defense. When they let these appetites get the better of them and destroy everything they've worked for, they betray their supporters, and then humiliate many of them by asking for their continued defense.

Well said. No one is infallible. In the end we are all human, and as a result, we screw up sometimes. However, the Spitzer episode is particularly disconcerting because of the blatant hypocrisy involved. Spitzer had busted up and prosecuted prostitution rings in the past and spoken out strongly against them. For him to be done in (which remains to be seen, as he has not yet resigned) by his involvement, as a client, with a prostitution ring for wealthy individuals reeks of hypocrisy. It turns out that Spitzer himself was partaking in the very excesses of corporate culture that he so publicly proclaimed to detest. The people of New York, and America for that matter, had a governor that stood against overt corporate influence in government. Now that governor has been done in by placing his own personal pleasures before the public good.

Regulating the Media

I should've linked to this column by Eric Alterman last week, but here it is, better late than never, right? Alterman details how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has enacted a massive deregulation program during the Bush administration. Television and radio stations are now fewer in number than 10 years ago, and they are owned by fewer entities. According to Alterman, Clear Channel owns over 1200 stations! That's obscene. Clear Channel has also been known for its generous contributions to GOP candidates. This is a huge problem that very few people now about. The mainstream media is where most Americans receive their information regarding matters of state. Any idiot can tell you that the fewer ownership oppurtunities there are, the fewer viewpoints there will be available to the public. Scary stuff...

St. McCain the Angry

Mark Benjamin wrote a very interesting piece for Salon about the temperment of St. McCain, son of God, heir to the throne of the Lord and the other presidential candidates. Although you never hear about it from the mainstream media that adores him and grovels at his feet, holy John is known for having an extremely short fuse. The guy literally explodes in anger when pressed. Some of the accounts that Benjamin details in the article are truly fascinating. McCain completely loses it and screams obscenities at people. Benjamin then relates McCain's temper to his readiness to make split-second military decisions. A number of senior military officials (albeit retired ones) expressed serious reservations about McCain's fitness for leadership to Benjamin. The article also goes into the personalities of Clinton and Obama and leaves readers with the sense that Obama has the calmest temperment.

Light Blogging

Sorry for the lack of blogging today. Work beckons and I'm still trying to make sense of last night's results. Harold Meyerson's got a good but worrisome piece up at the American Prospect that's well worth a few minutes of your time. Also, check out this column and this one at ESPN.com about Favre's retirement. Both are very good!

We Love You Brett!

Brett Favre is retiring. Well, what can one really say? I've been a Packer fan my whole life, at times I have to admit, I was a fairweather fan, but I always loved Brett Favre. As a Wisconsin native I can honestly say that Favre is one of the most beloved figures in the state. It's hard to explain to non-Wisconsinites just what Favre and the Packers mean to us. Favre had an illustrious career and he enjoyed a sort of rennaisance in his final season. Although the Packers fell short of the Super Bowl, one can definately say that Favre retired at the top of his game.

I think Aaron Rogers is ready to take the reins. He was extremely impressive when he took over for an injured Favre in the Dallas game. That being said, Favre was an enormous presence on the field and in the locker room and he will be sorely missed.

Thanks for all the memories Brett.

Selling Wrigley

Gene Wojciechowski has an interesting column up at ESPN.com regarding Sam Zell's sale of naming rights for Wrigley Field. While I could take the classy route and say how this is an affront to baseball lovers everywhere, but in this case it's much more fun to be honest; and I have to say as long as it hurts the Cubs and Cubs' fans it sounds like a great business move to me.

Review: Be Kind Rewind

Now, there are movies that you walk away from thinking, "wow, that was good," and then, on rare occassions there are those movies that you leave feeling better about the world around you and life in general. Be Kind Rewind is such a movie. This movie had been receiving a lot of buzz before its release and it has lived up to that buzz, at least in my humble opinion. The movie revolves around a video store owned and operated by Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover). When Mr. Flecther has to go away for a few days he leaves his clerk Mike (Mos Def) in charge of the store. After an attempted sabotage of the local power plant goes wrong, Mike's friend Jerry (Jack Black) becomes magnatized. When Jerry comes to visit Mike at the store, his magnatized body erases all the tapes. All this is happening while Mr. Fletcher is out of town and the store is in danger of closing. In order to save the business Mike and Jerry must remake all the movies, or at least the ones that customers wish to rent. Needless to say, hilarity ensues. Mike and Jerry, with the help of Alma (Melonie Diaz) attempt to do justice to such classics as Ghostbusters, Driving Miss Daisy, and Robocop among numerous others.

After seeing him in three different movies (The Italian Job, 16 Blocks, and now Be Kind Rewind) I am convinced that Mos Def is a very capable actor. He is clearly the brains of the Mike and Jerry Duo. Jack Black has never been funnier. The banter and bickering between in Mos Def and Jack Black is extremely funny. Melonie Diaz is an actress to watch. I was very impressed with her take on Alma, as she was, in my opinion, the most likeable character in the film. It was great to see Danny Glover (I miss the Angels in the Outfield days) and Mia Farrow back in action again.

Overall, Be Kind Rewind was a great film. I highly recommend you check it out!

Rating: ***1/2

*=Uwe Boll/Michael Bay bad **=Keeanu Reevesish ***=Great ****=Fantastic