The Washington Post has a well-reported article on St. McCain's connections to numerous lobbyists. It turns out that holy John the maverick has more lobbyists working on his campaign than any other candidate this election cycle, Democrat or Republican. That is what I think is most telling about this Vicki Iseman story. While the possible affair is interesting, and relevant, since it speaks to McCain's supposedly impeccable character, the real story is the favors he did for her clients. St. McCain casts himself as the enemy of lobbyists and special interests, he claims to be a "maverick" Republican that always puts the nation's interests before those of corporations and their beltway lobbyists. All this is clearly bullshit. With the possible exception of Mitt Romney, John McCain may very well be the fakest presidential candidate in decades. He's a hypocrite people, and a liar.
Gabriel Sherman has a fascinating piece over at the New Republic that details the run-up to the Times' publishing of the Iseman article. It's very unfortunate that Bill Keller decided to wait as long as he did before publishing the story. As Josh Marshall reported the other day, it seems that the Times nows much more than they are letting on. In a way, like Marc Cooper said yesturday, McCain should be thanking the Times. The conservative base, that was once wary of McCain, seems to be rallying to defend him. The media, especially the assholes over at MSNBC (of course with the exception of the great Keith Olbermann) are turing this into a story about the Times. Really it's all very sad. The media seems to be willing to do just about anything to defend their hero, John McCain. While I still think this story can be damaging to him, it's not going to have nearly the same effect on him as it would on any other candidate. This is a sad commentary on the state of media in this country, one can only hope for better days.
P.S. I know that Vicki Iseman isn't pronounced like Iceman, but honestly, who doesn't like Iceman? Wait to go, Bobby Drake!
At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it's had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought he was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on 'behaving inappropriately' but then, doesn't it always?) and promised to shape up. And whatever the personal relationship it was a stem wound about a lobbying branch.
I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go. But in a decade of doing this, I've learned not to give any benefits of the doubt, even to the most esteemed institutions.
Ezra Klein has two must read posts today, here and here. Hillary Clinton is a brilliant woman, a good Senator, and she would probably be a pretty good president. However, some of the tactics she's rumored to be planning to garner the nomination, as Klein lays out in his posts, would literally tear the party apart. If Clinton were to steal the nomination, it would just be more fodder for the Republicans to hurl at her come November. I'm not as of yet too concerned about this. Despite what the media says, Clinton is still in this race. In fact, Clinton still has a reasonable shot at winning the race. That being said, as Josh Green details in his fantastic report over at the Atlantic, the Clinton campaign is obviously in disarray. My thinking is that as long as Clinton doesn't win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, Obama pretty much has this thing locked up (that is, minus any shady dealings by the Clinton campaign). I'm hoping that Howard Dean, Clinton, and Obama can come to some kind of agreement. This election brings with it the best oppurtunity for Democrats to make huge gains that we're going to get for a long, long time. One can only hope that individual ambition does not derail this oppurtunity for the collective good.
P.S. Maureen Dowd has gasp! a very good and fair column on Hillary Clinton. I miss the old Maureen, but she's had a few good columns in a role now, I hope this means that she's back!
It was a great night for Barack Obama. Check out this fantastic post, from another one of my favorite writers (and his name is also Jonathan) Jon Cohn. It is very exciting to see Obama turn the heat on St. McCain. I do believe, contrary to Hillary Clinton's rhetoric, that Obama can face off against holy John and win. Obama is dead right on the war, St. McCain is dead wrong. Obama has in-depth knowledge of economic issues, by his own admission, crazy old man McCain has none. It's also exciting to see that Obama is talking about working Americans, as a supporter of the labor movement, I find that very encouraging.
I didn't see the victory speeches until this morning but I was struck by the difference between them. Obama had lots of energy and was surrounded by all types of people (whites, Latinos, African-Americans, old, young) whereas St. John McCain of Arizona was surrounded by old white people while he railed on about "liberal elites that hate America." On a side note, John McCain, is really, really, old looking!
I realize that this blog has been focusing a great deal on St. John McCain of Arizona, son of God, heir to the throne of Lord a great deal. I'll be upfront, I'm borderline obessessed with the guy. Also, he just so happens to be the almost certain nominee for the GOP's presidential ticket. So let's be honest...this blog will have many, many, more posts on holy John. In other words, if your sick of reading about McCain, then don't read the blog. But you should, because if you rely on the mainstream media for your information on the presidentail candidates, you probably have a certain perspective of John McCain that is, frankly, bullshit. Two articles that you should read on St. McCain of Arizona:
The first article will explain why I call John McCain, St. McCain. It is required reading, so consider it homework, it's very short, and you'll be smarter for reading it. Waldman is an expert on the media, and his dissection of the media's treatment of McCain is essential.
The second article, by one of my favorite political writers ever, Jonathan Chait, explains how St. McCain has changed his views on a number of key issues a number of times, usually taking whichever stand the political winds blow him (interesting for a supposed man of principle). In essence, John McCain is the ultimate flip-flopper.
Do yourself a favor and read these articles, learn who John McCain really is. Then do your friends and family a favor and pass the articles on to them.
...The neocons are Cold Warriors sorry that it was cold. Their policy vision is quasi-theological: Whether or not there is a God, there is most certainly a devil. The evil empire is gone, but the axis of evil is present. It would not do to compromise with the devil, or contain him. His territory must be pushed back, transferred to democracy and American hegemony. This way of thinking restores a sense of order when looking at the Middle East -- two sides, facing each other. Of course Saddam and Al-Qaeda were in cahoots: They are both bad, so they must be allies. In this conception, the new world order looks just like the old -- it is bipolar.Terrorism is a tactic as oppossed to a theology. That is why the label "War on Terror" is so misleading. It would be like calling a campaign to fight child obesity the "War on Eating", except we don't want to stop children from eating, rather we would like to discourage overeating and the consumption of excess amounts of unhealthy foods. There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists are evil. However, terrorism is a tactic used in a greater campaign. The goal of that campaign is not necessarily evil. Many terrorist groups have legitimate causes. Unfortunately, the utilization of terror has the effect of deligitimizing those causes in the eyes of the world. We also must be careful as to what groups we label terrorists. Insurgents fighting against Americans aren't terrorists. Bush and the media seem to define anyone that shoots at an American utilizing guerilla tactics a "terrorist." One problem, we used the same tactics in the Revolutionary War, and we take credit for that. If China, Russia, and Europe banded together to invade America, I'm sure we would cheer when American militias shot RPGs at Occupation forces. We would have reason to cheer, after all, our used of guerilla tactics has enabled us to mount an effective resistance against the Occupation. This seems to get lost in the fray of our conversation.
I'd rather see them go out like Tom Hanks in "Saving Private Ryan," pulling out his pistol and firing away at the German tank in a last desperate effort to save the bridge. Or show some of that same defiance as Denzel Washington in "American Gangster," making one last trip to Asia to import more heroin even though everybody's telling him the game is over.
Bravo! The Suns were the team in the West that I always really liked. I always felt that despite having a number of extraordinary players: Nash, Stoudamire, Marion, etc.; that what really drove them was there chemistry. Shaq has an ego the size of Rhode Island and that's exactly what Phoenix doesn't need. Plus, this trade is going to create a plethora of annoying headlines about Shaq and Kobe duking it out for the crown in the West. This is a tragedy folks, a down-right crying shame!
And Obama has already begun running away from Clinton and away from the Democratic party. This kind of thing, once started, won't stop here. Hillary and Obama are tied, and the gloves are going to come off - even Mr. Nice-and-Civil is going to get rougher as time goes on. This kind of thing also cannot be undone. We can't make this rhetoric, these flyers, go away during the general election. Every time Obama makes this campaign a referendum about Bill Clinton's presidency and/or personal characteristics, he's playing along with the GOP's favorite strategy.
And he will lose in November - to McCain, to Romney, to Huckabee or to a handkerchief with George Bush's morning noseblow on it. Because those Americans who don't live in DC, who aren't addicted to political coverage and who don't attend Georgetown cocktail parties want a choice - a real choice, not one between McCain's crazy brand of Republicanism vs. Obama's more genteel and civil brand of Republicanism-lite.Stephen should've read this fantastic article by Ezra Klein. Both Obama and Clinton have embraced the progressive cause. They have both utilize rhetoric that has sung the praises of positive government action. Barack Obama is not running away from the Democratic party, and neither is Hillary Clinton. Both candidates are far more liberal than Bill Clinton. Democrats should be excited that their nominee, whether it's Obama or Clinton, will be a standard bearer for the progressive movement.
I originally saw this over at TAPPED when Dana Goldstein posted it. After Matt Yglesias posted it as well, I had to jump on the bandwagon. In my sophmore sociology class my professor, whom I held otherwise in high regard, said that Ireland was a part of the UK. This is unacceptable. I'm not going to go into a republican (notice the small "r") rant about the independence of Ireland, other than to say that it is, in fact, independent.
Needless to say, Super Humongous Totalitarian Tuesday ended up being pretty indecisive. This thing is gonna go on for at least another month. The most interesting things to watch will be:
That's all for now, more updates as the day rolls on!
