Obama is a rock star

Do people want change?

You tell me.

The New York Times estimates that about 100,000 people came out to hear Barack Obama today in my old hometown of St. Louis, Mo.

Wow. 100,000 people ... in Missouri.

November 4 can't get here fast enough for me.

It's my blog and I'll swear if I want to

I read with great interest the article posted Friday on the New York Times political blog "The Caucus" regarding the use of obscenities in blogging. Titled "Easing Off Online Obscenities," the article presented the opinions of several A-list bloggers who appeared on what colloquially was called the "Fuck Panel" at Netroots Nation in Austin, Tex., last week.

So, naturally, as a Certified Uncivil Blogger™, I gave some thought to what role vulgarities play in my own writing. Then I thought, fuck that, I'm going to write whatever the fuck I want.

No, seriously ...

The thing is that I am firmly on the side of those who believe that the Democrats have been far too accommodating in working with Republicans, whether it's in Congress, in state legislatures, or even locally. We've been getting killed by being civil, and the Republicans certainly haven't been the least bit civil: where's the outrage about Dick "Dick" Cheney telling Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), "Go fuck yourself," on the floor of the U.S. Senate? Or how about Huggy Bear calling his wife a "cunt?" Is obscenity only acceptable when it's uttered by a Republican?

If I say "fuck" or whatever too often, fine -- don't read my sucky blog anymore. But whether you're Republican or Democrat, don't tell me that I'm "lowering the bar" or "stooping to their level" or whatever. I for one won't play the civility game -- it's a losing proposition. Sometimes, if you're talking about the heinous acts perpetrated by the Bush crime syndicate over the last several years, or discussing how Huggy wants to extend the death and destruction in Iraq, or any one of a number of blood-pressure-increasing topics, using foul language is not only appropriate, it's practically mandatory.

In short: fuck civility.

No one could have predicted that a New York Times blogger would get it wrong

Not just any New York Times blogger, mind you, but one from right here in America's Glans™.

Yes, Florida International University professor Stanley Fish seems to think that Huggy Bear not only would beat Barack Obama in the general election, he might also vote for Obama as well, were he voting in Texas or Ohio tomorrow, on the grounds that Obama would be easier to beat in the general than Clinton:

If it is McCain vs. Obama in the general election, look for something to happen that was unthinkable only a short time ago. The Iraq War will become a Republican plus.

The reason is that McCain’s position on the war, as on so many other issues, looks in (at least) two directions.

On the one hand, he voted to authorize the invasion. On the other, he consistently disagreed with the administration’s prosecution of the war in general and with the judgment of defense Secretary Rumsfeld in particular. And on the third hand, he advocated for a course of action that was at last implemented in the so-called “surge,” and with some success.

So, at any moment, he would be able to present himself as a strong patriot, and at another moment as a critic of the hard-line hawks, and at still another as a hard-line hawk with more experience and military knowledge than the others. And, depending on which position he was occupying, he could deny that he was an uncritical supporter of the war or that he was inattentive to the needs of the troops, or that he had nothing positive to offer.

[...]

With Obama as his opponent, McCain has the advantage every which way. He continues to get mileage out of the straight-talk express, and at the same time he also has the political flexibility that comes along with having taken a few detours along the way, and talked out of several sides of his mouth.

[...]

Still, I would bet that if McCain were pulling a lever in the Democratic primaries in Texas and Ohio, his vote would go into the Obama column.

Oh, I wish it weren't so easy to dissect the opinion of "the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago," but it is. Perhaps that's because I didn't even realize FIU had a law school (fully accredited just two years ago), but that's beside the point.

Okay, let's see where we start ...

1. The war can never be a Republican positive.

This one's easy. Around 70% of Americans believe we ought to leave Iraq and end this unnecessary war, and Huggy's vote to authorize the war, like that (I believe) of Hillary Clinton, can never be spun positively ... unless, like John Edwards, Huggy repudiates his vote, and you know that will never happen. Moreover, the "100 more years" quote by Huggy will dog him right through the election. No one, save perhaps the most laughably hawkish wingnuts (and, of course, Huggy himself) wants another 100 years in Iraq, and most want to be out now. I can give you links if you want, but I think you can Google all of this as easily as I can.

2. The "surge" is not a success.

This one's problematic because, of course, all the corporate-controlled media want to say that the "surge" has been successful, and naturally Huggy is riding that wave. But how do you define "success?" There's as much, if not more, sectarian violence as ever, suicide bombers still are murdering dozens at a time, and coalition lives still are being lost at almost precisely the same rate they have for the last three years. The "successful surge" is a myth, and one presumes the American people will get that, despite corporate media collusion, by November.

3. Huggy's connection to Drunky McStagger is, or should be, his Achilles' heel.

I'm not sure what the hell Fish means by this little observation:

And Obama will not even be able to saddle McCain with the legacy of an unpopular administration, given that more often than not he has been viewed as a Bush opponent, except on the war, and on that issue his loyalty to the president’s policy will do him harm only with those hard-core liberals who would never vote for a Republican anyway.

Of course Huggy bears the legacy of an unpopular administration, and it goes far beyond the "R" after his name. I don't know where Fish thinks that "more often than not [Huggy] has been viewed as a Bush opponent." Would your opponent let you give him a sloppy man-loving hug like this? Or share a birthday cake with you at the very moment thousands die or suffer catastrophic loss due to his negligence, like this?

Come on, Stanley. You're a smart guy. Wanna take another crack at this, to see if you can get it right?

What does Gore's Nobel mean?

So, I suppose it's old news by now ("old" meaning about three hours) that Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I can't say I'm surprised, but the question is what effect it will have on, well, anything.

The New York Times weighed in this morning with an interesting look at how the blogosphere already is buzzing about it ... although, predictably, the lean is to the right, with only the venerable Daily Kos representing the Good Guys:

Brace yourself for a hurricane of heated rhetoric. The Lede confidently forecasts that everybody and his cousin Ermintrude will be weighing in today on Al Gore and his Nobel Peace Prize, shared with the United Nations’s International Panel on Climate Change. Talk radio and television, print punditry, and especially the blogosphere will be in Category Five mode over a development that lands right in the sweet spot linking the two hyperpolarized worlds of partisan politics and climate science.

An equally easy prediction: The great majority of the commentary will follow the familiar ruts, touch the same touchstones, roast the usual chestnuts and jerk the same knees. It’s already well underway. Within an hour of the announcement you could already find exactly the right-wing jeering and left-wing cheering you’d expect.

Early samples include this from Kathy Shaidle’s Five Feet of Fury blog:

If Al Gore is a decent man, thirty years from now, having finally admitted he was wrong about global warming, he will endow a new prize, to be presented annually to a man or woman who tried to undo the incalculable damage done by An Inconvenient Truth.

Meanwhile, commenters on the left are impatient for Mr. Gore to take his prize and run with it, including this rapid post on the lefty warhorse Daily Kos, which had already accumulated 230-plus comments by 7:30 a.m. Eastern time:

No more excuses!!!!!!!!! Al Gore should finally jump into the 2008 presidential race. Next big victory for Gore — in November of 2008.

Pajamas Media rounds up much of the early reaction, pro and con, along with a bit of art imposing Mr. Gore’s head on a Superman poster.

Well, you know, if Kathy Shaidle were a decent woman, ten years from now, she'd realize that the global warming deniers are as credible as the Holocaust deniers. Hell, she ought to realize that now. But I digress ...

I do agree with the article in that the global warming dispute will be reenergized. But does this propel Gore into the presidential race? Should it? Is Gore still fat? What do you think?

Your "liberal media" explains it all for you

The Alberto Gonzales resignation can only be good news for Republicans.

At least according to an op-ed that appeared on the front page of the Palm Beach Post this morning (but I had to find it elsewhere online). In the column, Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times (I presume it was in the NYT yesterday) describes why the hasty departure of so many rats from the sinking White House ship is a net positive for Drunky McStagger and the Bush crime syndicate:

The announcement on Monday that Gonzales will step down as attorney general — coming on the heels of the resignation of Rove, the chief political strategist — effectively removes two of the biggest targets on Democrats' hit list. Both were close friends and aides from Bush's days as Texas governor, and both were being cast by Democrats as symbols of what they regarded as the Bush administration's political excesses and failures.

For Bush, the departures are a good-news/bad-news situation. On the one hand, he can go into the next battle with Congress over the Iraq war — as well as another looming fight over legislation authorizing his domestic wiretapping program — free of the baggage both men carried. If the resignations remove some of the partisan tension between the White House and Capitol Hill, and get Rove and Gonzales off the front pages, they could help get Bush off the defensive as he struggles to salvage something of his second term.

On the other hand, the moves leave an already isolated president more isolated. A third Texas loyalist, Dan Bartlett, the former counselor to the president, left not long ago.

"It will undermine many of the Democrats' constant lines of attack, because they won't have Al Gonzales to kick around any more," Bartlett said in a telephone interview.

He added that the president would gain the chance to have "some people around him that have fresh legs to help him sprint to the finish."

Good thing Sheryl didn't miss her spinning class yesterday.

I know the MSM's primary goal is to make sure everything is okay for Republicans, and that even the most egregious acts like, oh, I don't know, soliciting gay sex in a public bathroom, are presented in such a way that it looks like the Democrats' fault (or, more specifically, Bill Clinton's fault). But is a "fresh start" really going to help Drunky's miserable failure of a presidency escape the "worst ever" label? I can't envision any scenario where that's possible.

But, you know, Sheryl, keep clapping and maybe the Wingnut Fairy will bring you some good news ... for Republicans.

DINOs write letters, don't they?

The New York Times publishes a Democrat's letter. Allegedly ...

[NOTE: some links below are to the Times, which may be subscription only for you. I apologize in advance if you can't get to the linked material.]

To the Editor:

As a lifelong Democrat, I’m ashamed of this pullout vote. It neither serves the best interests of the country, nor will it shorten the war a single day. It may be good political theater, but it’s not leadership.

Iraq can no longer be isolated from Afghanistan, or from the wider war on terrorism. If car bombs are allowed to succeed in Iraq, they will be used elsewhere.

Terror is an idea; it knows no borders. Iraq may be a bloody civil war, but it has surely also become the central front of the war on terror, as the president claims. This is an outcome that many of us who opposed the war predicted, and that we deplore, but that does not make it any less true.

President Bush has made long overdue but well-regarded changes in leadership: his secretary of defense and his military commander on the ground. They should be given a chance.

If Democrats in Congress truly want to shorten the war, they should accept these realities and focus on areas where the president is still lagging, like jobs and economic development in Iraq and regional diplomacy.

Ron Cohen*
Waltham, Mass., March 24, 2007

Doesn't sound much like a Democrat to me. What do you think?

Perhaps some of his earlier letters offer some insight. After all, it turns out he's somewhat of a regular on the Times' editorial page.

To the Editor:

My grandparents came to this country to escape religious persecution. They had little formal education, but they understood better than many of us today the need for a wall between church and state.

When David Brooks suggests that a presidential candidate wear his religion on his sleeve to garner votes, he is asking that candidate to disrespect a basic principle of our Constitution.

He is also asking him to pander to a single group when the candidate should be running as president of all the people.

RON COHEN
Waltham, Mass., June 22, 2004

Seems reasonable so far.

To the Editor:

In "Left Behind" (Op-Ed, Aug. 17), Thomas Lynch eloquently decries the president's lack of remorse. If the president feels no remorse about the lies he told to get us into Iraq, then is it far-fetched to suggest that he feels no remorse about the armor deficit that is killing so many of our soldiers and marines there?

Otherwise, he'd pick up the phone, knock a few heads together and break the bureaucratic logjam that's causing the problem.

Remorseless, he feels no imperative to do so.

Ron Cohen
Waltham, Mass., Aug. 17, 2005

Okay, so far so good. Bush remorseless? I'm down with that. How 'bout another one?

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman says the coming election may be "suspect" if paperless voting machines are used.

What's to be done? State Democratic parties must sue in court to stop the use of these machines on the basis of the mounting, widespread evidence of their unreliability, and they must do so now. Any further delay will surely result in a lost election.

Ron Cohen
Waltham, Mass., Aug. 17, 2004

Still nothing to see here. Certainly there should have been challenges to the 2004 election ahead of time. Cool so far. Anything else?

To the Editor:

Everyone knows that the Democrats' Achilles' heel is foreign policy.

If the left wing is allowed to define the party's position on Iraq -- that the United States pull out all troops before the situation there is stabilized -- the party will forfeit any possibility of a comeback for another generation. No amount of ''vision'' will alter that.

Democrats should instead urge that the United States send in more troops in a spreading ''inkblot'' strategy to secure neighborhoods and deny support and safe haven for terrorists, as numerous military experts have advocated since the war began.

That would be a muscular policy, one with a good chance of success, and would discredit any Republican attacks on the Democrats as weak on foreign policy.

Ron Cohen
Waltham, Mass., May 10, 2006

Aha! I get it now! Ron is a "moderate Democrat," or as "some call them," a concern troll. Perhaps a Democrat on everything but, say, Iraq? Do you suppose he has a framed, autographed picture of Joe Lieberman on his office wall? It would be irresponsible not to speculate.

Yep, "everyone knows," Ron. Can't argue with you there. Just like "Some say," huh? Thank goodness Drunky McStagger is an expert in foreign policy!

* I am speculating that this is "our" Ron, since Waltham and Watertown are in close proximity. I can't be sure, though, so here's a disclaimer: this may be "the" Ron Cohen, but I don't know. There.