"Yes We Did" - Andrew Sullivan
"Historic" - HuffPo
"Destiny" - NY Post
"Barack Obama is President of America" - Wonkette
"Obama Clinches" - Philadelphia Inquirer
"Taking Back the Story" - Purple State Blog
"The End of Clintonism" - John Dickerson at Slate.com
"I Will Be Making No Decisions Tonight" - Hilary Clinton
... wait wait... WHAT?!?!?!?!?!!?
"Senator Clinton may not have made any decision tonight, but the Democratic Party has." - Tim Russert
Fair enough, thanks Tim!
"I look forward to seeing you on Last Comic Standing." Jon Stewart to Terry McAuliffe on tonight's Daily Show.
"It's Our Time" - Barack Obama
I'm not gonna lie, I think this is all pretty damn exciting. Forget about all the sleazy sad bizarre no-decision-making etc. This thing is Over. Happy Math Day at The Best Way, folks!
... and good night.
WAIT! Let's end Math Day the way we started, with some stuff related to the new Weezer album. Their actual video for Pork & Beans turns out to be, well, awesome. Check it out here:
Why not celebrate with a who's who list of YouTube phenomena? And actually... let's end on a touching and intensely cool note from Andrew Sullivan.
Showing posts with label Democratic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Monday, June 02, 2008
Music to My Ears!
Ok... so the last post was mean to your senses... hopefully this one does a little repair!
I just saw this on HuffPo, had to toss it up. Bill Clinton said today, at a stop in South Dakota that this may be the last day he's ever involved in a campaign of this kind. One of many hints today that the end is potentially actually finally really no-shit here for what the Daily Show long ago aptly named, "The Long Flat Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March to the Whitehouse."
I won't hold my breath, but it would be nice, wouldn't it?
More Music:
From the AP via Teagan Goddard:
"It does appear to be pretty clear that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee. After Tuesday's contests, she needs to acknowledge that he's going to be the nominee and quickly get behind him."
-- Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a national co-chairman of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign
I just saw this on HuffPo, had to toss it up. Bill Clinton said today, at a stop in South Dakota that this may be the last day he's ever involved in a campaign of this kind. One of many hints today that the end is potentially actually finally really no-shit here for what the Daily Show long ago aptly named, "The Long Flat Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March to the Whitehouse."
I won't hold my breath, but it would be nice, wouldn't it?
More Music:
From the AP via Teagan Goddard:
"It does appear to be pretty clear that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee. After Tuesday's contests, she needs to acknowledge that he's going to be the nominee and quickly get behind him."
-- Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a national co-chairman of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign
Friday, May 16, 2008
Terry McAuliffe, One Craaaaaaaaaaazy Dude
This has been up at Talking Points Memo for a few days, and I just finally got around to watching it today. I'm going to admit, I never quite realized what a nut Terry McAuliffe is, but this little treasury of video clips certainly is a fun little intro if you, like me, haven't fully appreciated his zany antics. Once you watch it, let me know if you agree that America can likely completely eliminate our dependence on foreign oil if we figure out how to harness the energy stored in Terry McAuliffe. Patent pending on that brilliant idea, so don't go trying to steal it.
Here's the video:
If nothing else, be sure to catch the voice crack at 1:52!
Here's the video:
If nothing else, be sure to catch the voice crack at 1:52!
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Finding the Right Time to End It
I was part of a fascinating conversation last night with a group of engaged and informed Democrats all raking over the details of what happened Tuesday. The consensus of the group was that the primary is basically over now, but the conversation took an interesting turn (I described this in a comment earlier this morning, but then thought it was post-worthy). What fascinated me, and what I would love to hear others' thoughts on was the following observation:
Someone in the group suggested that it would make no sense at all for the Democratic Party to have Hillary drop out of the race now. If she did, there is a fair likelihood that she would still beat Barack in West VA, and also a good chance she would win in Kentucky. The idea being suggested was that it is against the interests of both the party and Obama's candidacy to have Hillary drop out just in time for Barack to lose two of the first three uncontested races. Instead it would look much better for her to stick around and play nice for a couple weeks.
What I found intriguing about this idea is that I think many people are eager to see this whole thing end, to see Hillary change her mind, hold a press conference, and close up shop today. It's been interesting for me to ponder whether she would serve her party better to stick around at least for another week or two. Still, this all ignores the question of whether altruistic thinking like this is at play at all in the Clinton Campaign's considerations this week.
On an interesting side note, check out this post on Talking Points Memo regarding repaying the Clintons for their "loans" to Hillary's campaign (hat tip to Amiercablog where I saw this discussed). I had not heard about this piece of the picture until today, but as one of the 1.5 million small donors to the Obama campaign, I can say with certainty that I never intended my donations to go for paying the Clintons back on the loans that kept Hillary running in spite of inadequate fund raising totals this spring. I find the notion this could possibly happen quite troubling.
Update: Check out a completely dweeby but fascinating discussion of super delegates and primary election math over at SUPERDELEGATELAND.
Someone in the group suggested that it would make no sense at all for the Democratic Party to have Hillary drop out of the race now. If she did, there is a fair likelihood that she would still beat Barack in West VA, and also a good chance she would win in Kentucky. The idea being suggested was that it is against the interests of both the party and Obama's candidacy to have Hillary drop out just in time for Barack to lose two of the first three uncontested races. Instead it would look much better for her to stick around and play nice for a couple weeks.
What I found intriguing about this idea is that I think many people are eager to see this whole thing end, to see Hillary change her mind, hold a press conference, and close up shop today. It's been interesting for me to ponder whether she would serve her party better to stick around at least for another week or two. Still, this all ignores the question of whether altruistic thinking like this is at play at all in the Clinton Campaign's considerations this week.
On an interesting side note, check out this post on Talking Points Memo regarding repaying the Clintons for their "loans" to Hillary's campaign (hat tip to Amiercablog where I saw this discussed). I had not heard about this piece of the picture until today, but as one of the 1.5 million small donors to the Obama campaign, I can say with certainty that I never intended my donations to go for paying the Clintons back on the loans that kept Hillary running in spite of inadequate fund raising totals this spring. I find the notion this could possibly happen quite troubling.
Update: Check out a completely dweeby but fascinating discussion of super delegates and primary election math over at SUPERDELEGATELAND.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Oh What a Night!
Well, I don't know if anybody else is having a hard time convincing their eyes to stay open after staring deep into the CNN ridiculousness until well after 1AM, but I think it was worth it.
While around 9PM it looked like Hillary had pulled out a somewhat reasonable margin in Indiana and Barack had hit one out of the park in NC, by the time I finally allowed my head to hit the pillow it was quite different, with the margin in Indiana down to 2% or less, and with NC staying up near 14%... a result I for one thought was quite decisive indeed.
Still, perhaps the most interesting development of the evening was CNN's discovery that Obama is, in fact, running against a space alien from Star Trek. Seriously, though, it's truly a new day today and if you need something to convince you of that, perhaps the best post I've seen around is this one from the Jed Report. The content is about changes to his blog, but the picture says it all. It's time to look forward to November and beyond.
While around 9PM it looked like Hillary had pulled out a somewhat reasonable margin in Indiana and Barack had hit one out of the park in NC, by the time I finally allowed my head to hit the pillow it was quite different, with the margin in Indiana down to 2% or less, and with NC staying up near 14%... a result I for one thought was quite decisive indeed.
Still, perhaps the most interesting development of the evening was CNN's discovery that Obama is, in fact, running against a space alien from Star Trek. Seriously, though, it's truly a new day today and if you need something to convince you of that, perhaps the best post I've seen around is this one from the Jed Report. The content is about changes to his blog, but the picture says it all. It's time to look forward to November and beyond.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Obama and the Harsh Realities of Pennsylvania Politics
I had hoped to make my first post something a bit more upbeat, but ideas for posts are starting to pile up and I figure it would be best to get a move on. How's that for an introduction?
The straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, was reading Dana Milbank's article in today's Washington Post about Obama's visit to McKeesport, PA yesterday evening. McKeesport, the "Second City of Allegheney County", was our father's hometown and a place we visited often growing up. We would take week-long trips out the length of the Pennsylvania Turnpike to see our grandparents, often finding time to visit Kennywood or the garden club where our grandmother was a member. By the time I started forming memories about the city, it was already in decline from the heyday of Dad's youth. Most of the steel mills sat silent. Stores were melting away from the downtown area. As we grew up, McKeesport sank deeper. Steel mills were torn down, blast furnaces toppled while grown men cried, and little grew up to take the place of the huge and rusty old factories. I recently visited McKeesport for the first time in ten years in order to show my wife where we had spent so much time as children. I was aghast to see how little had changed and how seemingly nothing had changed for the better. The Eat N' Park full of smiley-faced cookies is still right where we left it and with some searching I found the retirement homes my grandparents briefly occupied. Other than that, I didn't know what else to show off. There just isn't much there anymore. I feel a bit sad even for typing that.
So with that in mind, the Washington Post article didn't come as much of a surprise to me -perhaps just a sad reminder of the difference between today's McKeesport and the one Dad talked about all the time. When the furor over Obama's "bitter" remarks flared up, McKeesport is actually one of the places that immediately came to mind for me. With its shrinking, aging population and a lack of jobs, it's just the type of place where people might justifiably be bitter about their lot in life. Regardless of whether Obama misspoke or voiced an opinion he shouldn't have shared, the reactions in the article shows the problems facing his campaign: for people who have been battered by our economy for the better part of the last three decades, Obama will need to talk about something more tangible than hope if he wishes to mend the wounds of his comments and allay the voters' sometimes "illogical" peccadilloes when it comes to his candidacy. Hope is great, but it isn't creating jobs right now in McKeesport.
The straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, was reading Dana Milbank's article in today's Washington Post about Obama's visit to McKeesport, PA yesterday evening. McKeesport, the "Second City of Allegheney County", was our father's hometown and a place we visited often growing up. We would take week-long trips out the length of the Pennsylvania Turnpike to see our grandparents, often finding time to visit Kennywood or the garden club where our grandmother was a member. By the time I started forming memories about the city, it was already in decline from the heyday of Dad's youth. Most of the steel mills sat silent. Stores were melting away from the downtown area. As we grew up, McKeesport sank deeper. Steel mills were torn down, blast furnaces toppled while grown men cried, and little grew up to take the place of the huge and rusty old factories. I recently visited McKeesport for the first time in ten years in order to show my wife where we had spent so much time as children. I was aghast to see how little had changed and how seemingly nothing had changed for the better. The Eat N' Park full of smiley-faced cookies is still right where we left it and with some searching I found the retirement homes my grandparents briefly occupied. Other than that, I didn't know what else to show off. There just isn't much there anymore. I feel a bit sad even for typing that.
So with that in mind, the Washington Post article didn't come as much of a surprise to me -perhaps just a sad reminder of the difference between today's McKeesport and the one Dad talked about all the time. When the furor over Obama's "bitter" remarks flared up, McKeesport is actually one of the places that immediately came to mind for me. With its shrinking, aging population and a lack of jobs, it's just the type of place where people might justifiably be bitter about their lot in life. Regardless of whether Obama misspoke or voiced an opinion he shouldn't have shared, the reactions in the article shows the problems facing his campaign: for people who have been battered by our economy for the better part of the last three decades, Obama will need to talk about something more tangible than hope if he wishes to mend the wounds of his comments and allay the voters' sometimes "illogical" peccadilloes when it comes to his candidacy. Hope is great, but it isn't creating jobs right now in McKeesport.
Big Ole Day Down in PA
Well... it's going to be a heck of a day down in my home state. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the Keystone State doesn't turn out to be yet another anti-climax in this long drawn-out experience, but we'll see how it goes. Until we find out... here's a goofy little diversion:
And if you're not feeling the politics today, perhaps you should watch this one instead. I found it yesterday on You Tube in the "Featured Videos" section... funny little music video for a singer songwriter I hadn't ever heard of (Jack Conte, the song is, "YEAH YEAH YEAH"). Anyway, enjoy both if you like!
And if you're not feeling the politics today, perhaps you should watch this one instead. I found it yesterday on You Tube in the "Featured Videos" section... funny little music video for a singer songwriter I hadn't ever heard of (Jack Conte, the song is, "YEAH YEAH YEAH"). Anyway, enjoy both if you like!
Friday, April 18, 2008
Friday Political Rant
I was browsing through the NY Times yesterday and came across an interesting if disturbing article on the current food crisis. This particular article drew a connection between global warming and a shortage of rice. Fair enough. But what is more interesting is the following tidbit, tucked away in the article, far from the headline:
“The global agricultural crisis is threatening to become political, pitting the United States and other developed countries against the developing world over the need for affordable food versus the need for renewable energy. Many poorer nations worry that subsidies from rich countries to support biofuels, which turn food, like corn, into fuel, are pushing up the price of staples.”
Again, this is a completely fair point. Subsidies for biofuel, in particular corn-based ethanol are one of the worst ideas I’ve ever come across. (Beet ethanol is perhaps another matter). But honestly: would the Times have us believe that biofuel subsidies are the only ones that pit the developing world against the rich countries? I can’t imagine ANY agricultural subsidies in the, EU or Japan are very popular among the world’s poor.
Unfortunately, they are currently very popular among American politicians, especially Democrats. It’s all too easy to see why. Nothing gets votes like the promise of subsidies for you and higher tariffs for your foreign competitors. When you consider that Iowa is among the greatest beneficiaries of agricultural subsidies, then it becomes obvious why virtually every presidential candidate this year has spoken favorably of such subsidies, usually well bashing NAFTA and/or immigrants. Brazilian beet-farmers, on the other hand, can’t caucus in Iowa. Even Ox-Fam is mostly run by Brits.
I often wonder why this issue doesn’t get more press. Isn’t this as important as who is bitter, whose pastor said what, etc, etc? If one believes, as I do, that agricultural subsidies and tariffs contribute to the appalling gap between rich and poor countries, then one ought to demand better of our politicians and our press.
The contrast between the three major candidates could hardly be greater. Both Obama and Clinton have campaigned against free-trade, and both would undoubtedly continue the subsidies that pit the haves against the have-nots. (They will, of course, do this out of altruistic concern for the well-being of American farmers!) You can’t really blame them for it. As I said before, virtually every major candidate promised more biofuel subsidies while campaigning in Iowa. The one exception was Senator John McCain of Arizona, who told Iowans bluntly that he did not and would not support such subsidies. Anyone who truly cares about closing the global wealth gap ought to keep this in mind in November.
“The global agricultural crisis is threatening to become political, pitting the United States and other developed countries against the developing world over the need for affordable food versus the need for renewable energy. Many poorer nations worry that subsidies from rich countries to support biofuels, which turn food, like corn, into fuel, are pushing up the price of staples.”
Again, this is a completely fair point. Subsidies for biofuel, in particular corn-based ethanol are one of the worst ideas I’ve ever come across. (Beet ethanol is perhaps another matter). But honestly: would the Times have us believe that biofuel subsidies are the only ones that pit the developing world against the rich countries? I can’t imagine ANY agricultural subsidies in the, EU or Japan are very popular among the world’s poor.
Unfortunately, they are currently very popular among American politicians, especially Democrats. It’s all too easy to see why. Nothing gets votes like the promise of subsidies for you and higher tariffs for your foreign competitors. When you consider that Iowa is among the greatest beneficiaries of agricultural subsidies, then it becomes obvious why virtually every presidential candidate this year has spoken favorably of such subsidies, usually well bashing NAFTA and/or immigrants. Brazilian beet-farmers, on the other hand, can’t caucus in Iowa. Even Ox-Fam is mostly run by Brits.
I often wonder why this issue doesn’t get more press. Isn’t this as important as who is bitter, whose pastor said what, etc, etc? If one believes, as I do, that agricultural subsidies and tariffs contribute to the appalling gap between rich and poor countries, then one ought to demand better of our politicians and our press.
The contrast between the three major candidates could hardly be greater. Both Obama and Clinton have campaigned against free-trade, and both would undoubtedly continue the subsidies that pit the haves against the have-nots. (They will, of course, do this out of altruistic concern for the well-being of American farmers!) You can’t really blame them for it. As I said before, virtually every major candidate promised more biofuel subsidies while campaigning in Iowa. The one exception was Senator John McCain of Arizona, who told Iowans bluntly that he did not and would not support such subsidies. Anyone who truly cares about closing the global wealth gap ought to keep this in mind in November.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Love: Is it Wrong or Wright?
I'm going to label this post as a continuation of a theme that I find remarkably important, one that was stirred up quite a bit by last night's farcical debate on ABC. If you watched it, I'm sorry, because I caused my roommate to sit through it with me, and neither one of us enjoyed it one bit. Come to learn today apparently 9 out of 10 questions were written by Sean Hannity who was hidden beneath the moderator desk operating an Avenue Q-style puppet of George Stephanoplis. For more developed coverage of this mockery of what a debate is supposed to be about, visit Daily Kos or any other progressive blog. Take your pick!
Still, I was struck this morning by one piece of the picture, and that is an analysis of the Jeremiah Wright portion of the evening. A few weeks back I posted a quote I found on Andrew Sullivan's blog where Hillary Clinton's pastor lauded Pastor Wright as an important figure whose good works are done a disservice by sound bite politics. Today, Daily Kos highlights the military service that Obama mentioned last night in the debate. You can read their whole post here, but I was struck by the following:
"Who loves America? Jeremiah Wright loved it enough that while Dick Cheney was getting his string of five deferments, Wright voluntarily gave up his student deferment, left college and joined the United States Marine Corps. Wright was valedictorian of his class in Corpsman School. When asked about the sacrifices he'd made, Wright said he was inspired by the words of John Kennedy that he should 'ask what he could do for his country.' "
I hope that before this whole election season is over we see more people stand up and speak out for the sad smear that is being made of someone who seems like a pretty remarkable leader in his community.
Still, I was struck this morning by one piece of the picture, and that is an analysis of the Jeremiah Wright portion of the evening. A few weeks back I posted a quote I found on Andrew Sullivan's blog where Hillary Clinton's pastor lauded Pastor Wright as an important figure whose good works are done a disservice by sound bite politics. Today, Daily Kos highlights the military service that Obama mentioned last night in the debate. You can read their whole post here, but I was struck by the following:
"Who loves America? Jeremiah Wright loved it enough that while Dick Cheney was getting his string of five deferments, Wright voluntarily gave up his student deferment, left college and joined the United States Marine Corps. Wright was valedictorian of his class in Corpsman School. When asked about the sacrifices he'd made, Wright said he was inspired by the words of John Kennedy that he should 'ask what he could do for his country.' "
I hope that before this whole election season is over we see more people stand up and speak out for the sad smear that is being made of someone who seems like a pretty remarkable leader in his community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)