n a t b s

What was with that debate last night? I thought CNN was bad, but wow ABC takes the cake for most terrible news network (Fox isn’t a news network). Or at least worst debate moderation ever. Right off the bat they asked Obama about the bitter remark. After beating that one into the ground for ten minutes, they brought up Rev. Wright. Aren’t we past that one already? But ABC had a new take on it: “do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”[nyt] What, the fuck, is that? That’s not really an answerable question. How does George Stephanopoilous even pretend he’s a journalist? Other “important” issues ABC raised:

• Why doesn’t Obama wear a flag pin?
• Is he friends with William Ayers of the Weather Underground?
• Why they want to raise taxes when clearly that hurts everything

They were really adamant that raising the capital gains tax is clearly bad for the country. I didn’t think the news was supposed to take that kind of partisan position. And what do a bunch of out of work factory workers in PA care about the capital gains tax anyway?

In the second half there were more policy questions, but I found they were often given in an antagonistic tone. Overall I’d say it was 60/40 worthless-gossip questions to real policy questions. Terrible ratio, more than half that debate was worthless and stupid. The candidates should stick to holding their own rallies and q&a sessions. Or what if prominent Democrats moderated the Democratic debate? They would probably be less dickish to their colleagues. I’d like to close this with something Obama said in the debate:

What the American people want are not distractions. They want to figure out, how are we actually going to deliver on health care; how are we going to deliver better jobs for people; how are we going to improve their incomes; how are we going to send them to college?[nyt]

So now, becuase of the bitter comment, it’s being insinuated that Obama is a Marxist. And two of my favorite people are doing the insinuating: Joe Lieberman and Bill Kristol. Kristol said the bitter comment reminded him of this quote:

Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.[nyt]

And yeah, I can see that. So what? It’s not like every single idea Marx ever expressed was wrong. He said a lot of stuff, some of it made sense. Kristol also added:

Or, more succinctly, and in the original German in which Marx somehow always sounds better: “Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes.”

Kristol’s a strange guy, and he’s also a crazy asshole Republican. I don’t know why the Times hired him, but I digress. Liberman was then asked by Fox news:

Judge Andrew Napolitano asked Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) if Obama is “a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in todays New York Times?”

“I must say that’s a good question,” replied Lieberman [tp]

Lieberman! What’s this guy’s problem? Why did Gore ever pick him as his running mate? At least he added “I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist,” to the end of his speech, but it was still a stupid thing to say, just like “as far as I know” was a stupid thing to say Republicans, yes Lieberman counts, love playing dirty. They’re also not too original, always trying to bring up old fears.

There’s an article in Politico today entitled “What Clinton wishes she could say,” of which the basic premise is that Hillary has been holding her tongue on several issues that the Republicans will use to destroy Obama:

Republicans will also ruthlessly exploit openings that Clinton — in the genteel confines of an intraparty contest — never could. Top targets: Obama’s radioactive personal associations, his liberal ideology, his exotic life story, his coolly academic and elitist style.

I don’t know what campaign John F. Harris and Jim Vandehei have been following but clearly it’s not this one. Hey guys, want to see me deflate your entire article with a few quotes? Ok here goes, regarding his “radioactive personal associations,” ie rev Wright and Rezko:

He would not have been my pastor. You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend. [ptr]

I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Resco[sic], in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago. [cnn]

She’s clearly not been hands off with his personal associations. What about his exotic life story?

“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said. [politico]

Subtle? Yes. But is she staying quiet on this “issue?” No. Let’s keep going, what about his “academic and elitist style?”

I think his comments were elitist and divisive and the Democratic Party has been unfortunately, viewed by many people over the last decades as being elitist and out of touch

Wrong again Politico! And finally, his liberal ideology, the one issue his Democratic opponent and colleauge, couldn’t possibly criticize him on…right? Wrong. As anyone who’s been reading this blog knows, she has totally been criticizing Obama for being too liberal:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign has also started slapping the L-word on Obama, warning that his appeal among moderate voters will diminish as they become more aware of liberal positions he took in the past [washpo]

Well there you have it, Politico is completely wrong. Hillary has been attacking Obama on every one of the issues this article claims she can’t touch. Kind of sad really, as it illustrates how Hillary is playing this just like a Republican would. Hell, maybe he’ll do better against McCain because he’ll use the same attacks, but Obama will be able to point out way more policy contrasts between himself and McCain than himself and Hilldawg. And the fact that he’s been doing so well despite all these cheap attacks may demonstrate that he’s more than ready to take on grandpa in the election. If only he didn’t have a prominent Democrat constantly undermining him, he could be trouncing McCain right now.

There’s this new trend lately, to blame the Iraqis for the problems over there, and I think it’s kind of disgusting. This is from an article in BBC News:

Limited patience

The reconstruction of Iraq also relies heavily on US money, while Iraqi oil revenues are growing, with a surplus estimated at $30bn in US banks according to Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat and chairman of the armed services committee.

Democrats want to try to push legislation that would force Iraq to spend those revenues on reconstruction and in that there seems to be unusual bi-partisan agreement. Republican senators also asked why the Iraqis were not using more of their own money.

Republican Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming said: “We’re a generous people but our patience is not unlimited.”

Unless you control a country, you can’t really force it to spend it’s own money can you? But I guess it’s easy when you’ve installed it’s government, occupy it, and have all it’s money in your banks. Hey, why aren’t they using their own money? I mean, we’re generous, but come on.

Also, we’re generous? In some cases we are, but not with respect to Iraq. You can’t say that with respect to Iraq. That’s as absurd as it is offensive. We’re the aggressive invaders who now occupy and control their country with no mandate. Except, of course, that we’re bringing democracy to them as a gift from God. But other than that, no mandate.

It’s just crazy to lay the blame at their feet. They’ve inherited an impossible situation from us. Kind of like the next president is going to from Bush. I hope he can handle it. Speaking of Obama, he just said today: “it is time to bring them home, and to ask the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country.” That’s edging into this territory and it makes me uncomfortable without also adding, “and we need to take responsibility too, and help them with aid” or something. You’ve got to say that too because otherwise, you’re kind of being a dick. Sorry, I love Barack, but it’s true.

So in closing, all the problems in Iraq are the Iraqi’s fault! No need to worry Americans, no blame can be placed at our feet. Even though we did elect George Bush, twice.

And god help us if we elect McCain.

Hillary’s latest desperate move? Trying to define herself as the sole anti-war candidate:

One candidate will continue the war, one candidate only says he’ll end the war, and one candidate is ready, willing and able to end the war [source]

Umm…fuck you. Seriously. This is almost as bad as the “McCain and I are more experienced” line. It’s a little better because she’s not saying McCain is better than Obama in this case, she’s just saying they’re the same. She has to stop giving McCain sound bites for ads, and she has to stop kneecapping her colleague. And this is coming from the woman who voted to authorize the war! She’s just like Bush: say one thing, do another. You know Hillary, if you continually lie about something it doesn’t make it true.

Her basis for that assertion, by the way, is “Senator Obama says he will get American troops out in 16 months, but his advisor[sic] says you can’t count on that.” [source] It is true that recently some of his advisers have referred to his plan as a best case scenario that might not play out exactly as planned, and it is. Getting out of Iraq is going to be very difficult, and if Hillary is trying to suggest that it’s going to be easy than she’s flat-out lying to us. At least Obama’s campaign is honest.