election

She keeps going and going and going.... But at this point, does she's sounding like Bush does when he talks about Iraq.

She's lost her grasp. Either that, or she's actually fighting a bloody fight for control of the Democratic Party, election be damned. I can't see her continuous attacks on Barack Obama any other way.

I don't like Hillary Clinton for many reasons, mainly: her slippery non-positions on some issues, her demagoguery on other issues (even when I might agree), her "taking responsibility" for her support of the war on Iraq while not taking any responsibility, and the smarmy tone of her campaign more worthy of a Rove than a progressive.

Yet this kind of misogynistic crap:

“Nixon in a pant suit” is an anti-Hillary meme that Andrew Sullivan, longtime stalwart of Tricky Dick’s party, has successfully propagated. And James Wolcott, with presumably better intentions, has followed, um, suit.

Google this:

hillary pantsuit OR “pant suit” OR “pantsuits” OR “pant suits”

By last count, there are over 300,000 web pages referencing this candidate and garment choice.

What does this fixation with “pant suits” mean?

Indeed. A loaded phrase. Because women aren't supposed to wear pants. Or, maybe, do other things men do?

After spending nearly 25 minutes talking mostly issues with John McCain, George Stephanopoulos, Cokie Roberts, George Will and Sam Donaldson proclaimed themselves above criticism in pretty much ignoring issues when it comes to Democrats.

Watch them congratulate themselves on feeling generally superior to the Democratic presidential candidates. They're just "the messenger," don't you know?

Cokie was especially strange today, saying that Barack Obama was unappealing when he started challenging the inanity of the questions fired at him by Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson. In my mind, that's when Obama started to find his footing.

George Will was predictable, offering grade-school-level economic analysis in grand proclamations about how a capital gains tax affects the economy. (We'll just pretend that nothing else affects the economy. We'll just pretend that everything happens as a result of capital gains taxes. There's a bridge in New York you might be interested in buying, too, by the way.)

ABC obviously made a power-play investment in moving the show right off the Washington Mall. The best part of the show was at the end, when the camera pans off of George's relieved (or smug) smirk and shows glimpses of the old Smithsonian and the Capitol. But there's no denying that the Beltway news as we know it is in for a comeuppance.

That is, unless the corporate media kill net neutrality and make the Internet more like TV.

On This Week, Republican candidate John McCain defends his flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts: He opposed them because they weren't combined with spending cuts.

But he would push through his own tax cuts, even without spending cuts.

Straight talk? Ha!

And you have to hear him defend his embracing of his own controversial pastor's endorsement. More straight talk there, too. Yep.

Yes I mock, though I think the nervous liar's giggle was probably genuine.

Video.

[Memo to George: I note that McCain isn't wearing a flag pin, either. So why didn't you ask that, too, if it's such an important issue?]

100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 year? Is John McCain kidding? No. None of the Republicans (nor a few Democracts either) is kidding. America, to them, is to be a colonial empire.

Never mind how America was founded, as a rebellion against colonialism.

Iraq is to be an American colony, replete with military bases, a hand-picked government, and precious little involvement of the international community.

Unlike the British Empire, though, the American Empire is supported by mercenaries. The American military is not enough for Republican ambitions, so we have private mercenaries armed with superior weapons, with little oversight, being paid four times what our youngest and bravest adults are offered for putting their lives on the line.

It's like the Roman Empire, except that now our mercenaries collect booty not from the vanquished but from our own taxes. Both concepts are horrid. Both concepts are without honor, at least the honor that we talk about when we talk about it amongst ourselves.

John McCain supports colonialism. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at least claim they are against it.

NIXON ... When it comes to experience, I want you to remember I've had 173 meetings with President Eisenhower, and 217 times with the National Security Council. I've attended 163 Cabinet meetings. I've visited fifty four countries and had discussions with thirty-five presidents, nine prime ministers, two emperors, and the Shah of Iran...

CHOTINER (privately) Jesus Christ, has he told them how many push-ups he can do yet? What the hell happened to him?

In last night's debate in Austin Texas, Senator Clinton sounded like the scene from the film Nixon.

Don't get me wrong. I like Hillary, but last night in the Austin debate with Obama, she bombed.

Hillary suffers from the malaise of resume-itis. It's what books like, "Getting into the Job Market Past 50" warn us about ... we have too much experience, most of which won't resonate with the young and restless who are interviewing us. Moreover, if she's got all this experience, "where's the beef?" It's all so passive voice, with her, without technically being passive voice. All these things she's worked on, in, with, and through. To what end?

I am old enough to remember JFK when he ran against Nixon who had been Vice President under Eisenhower, and thus Nixon campaigned on having more experience than did the challenger, Senator Kennedy. The more Nixon told of his accomplishments, the more satisfied Nixon seemed. Kennedy did not question Nixon's "resume," but rather underscored that this was more of the same-old, same-old, whereas we needed a New frontier. He said in the first debate with Nixon, "I am not satisfied ..."

This is a great country, but I think it could be a greater country; and this is a powerful country but I think it could be a more powerful country.

I'm not satisfied to have 50 percent of our steel-mill capacity unused.

I'm not satisfied when the United States had last year the lowest rate of economic growth of any major industrialized society in the world--because economic growth means strength and vitality. It means we're able to sustain our defenses; it means we're able to meet our commitments abroad.

I'm not satisfied, when we have over $9 billion dollars worth of food, some of it rotting even though there is a hungry world and even though 4 million Americans wait every month for a food package from the Government, which averages 5 cents a day per individual.

I saw cases in West Virginia, here in the United States, where children took home part of their school lunch in order to feed their families because I don't think we're meeting our obligations toward these Americans.

I'm not satisfied when the Soviet Union is turning out twice as many scientists and engineers as we are.

I'm not satisfied when many of our teachers are inadequately paid, or when our children go to school part-time shifts. I think we should have an educational system second to none.

I'm not satisfied when I see men like Jimmy Hoffa, in charge of the largest union in the United States, still free.

I'm not satisfied when we are failing to develop the natural resources of the United States to the fullest. Here in the United States, which developed the Tennessee Valley and which built the Grand Coulee and the other dams in the Northwest United States, at the present rate of hydropower production--and that is the hallmark of an industrialized society--the Soviet Union by 1975 will be producing more power than we are.

These are all the things I think in this country that can make our society strong, or can mean that it stands still.

I'm not satisfied until every American enjoys his full constitutional rights. If a Negro baby is born, and this is true also of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in some of our cities, he has about one-half as much chance to get through high school as a white baby. He has one-third as much chance to get through college as a white student. He has about a third as much chance to be a professional man, and about half as much chance to own a house. He has about four times as much chance that he'll be out of work in his life as the white baby. I think we can do better. I don't want the talents of any American to go to waste.

When Hillary cites her resume, she seems satisfied with where things have gone and the implication is that we can expect her to dish up more of the same.

Obama's supposed inexperience is going for him since he can say that he's not satisfied, no matter how lofty Hillary's resume makes her.

But let's face it, Obama has the power to attract. Again from the film, Nixon, when he speaks of RFK,

Bobby's got the magic, like a goddamn rock star. They climb all over each other just to touch his clothes!

Obama has that magic. He is not running on his resume. He is running on his vision and frankly he comes off looking more presidential than Senator Clinton.

I could see Hillary as a CEO of one of the Dow Jones Industrials, but not of the United States. She defends her ability to get things done, but what things need doing? A set of programs is not inspiring when there is no vision.

Her high point in the debate was when she did not let go of the topic of health care. Kudos to both candidates, especially Hillary. Her low point was the plagiarism argument against Obama. Hardly presidential.

Hillary does not have a vision. She has facts at her fingertips and plans that are ready to go. Yet, does the United states need a Strategic Planner, or does it need a leader who can rally everyone? Not as long as her resumes lacks real accomplishments.

Hillary does not have the tragic flaws of Nixon, but I close on one last scene fro the film,

PAT: You want them to love you ...

NIXON (interjects) No, I don't. I'm not Jack ...

PAT But they never will, Dick. No matter how many elections you win, they never will.

Unlike Nixon, at least the fictional one, Hillary could get to be loved, but she's got to get away from the resume, and the past, and her satisfaction with things as the were and the looking backward ... the question remains, has she run out of time to show us that side?

Tech blogger Dave Winer writes, "What woke me up about the Clintons":

I didn't think it was an issue until Bill started throwing the mud so aggressively. Then I noticed that Hillary was talking about the first two terms as a plural accomplishment, as if she were in office then. The more he attacks and the more she takes credit for the first two terms, the more I think they're fucking with the Constitution.

Further, there are good reasons why the first lady (or first spouse) isn't actively involved in running the government, so we don't have to understand how good their marriage is, and they get a tiny bit of privacy. Then we remember how their marriage was in the middle of everything when they were in charge, and god damn we don't need that mess now. We've got so many other things to deal with.

I'm so opposed to them that depending on who the Republicans nominate I could actually see myself voting for a Republican if Hillary is nominated. I can't believe that after listening to her on Meet The Press a couple of weeks ago I was almost ready to vote for her. What a mistake that would have been.

There is no way I could vote for any Republican running. What woke me up about the Republicans? Let's see....

Flagrant spending.

The war on Iraq.

The Terri Schiavo spectacle.

The big collective "huh?" when Katrina hit.

Bankruptcy "reform" (but only for the poor).

Torture. And not just any torture, either! Better torture! And let's double Guantanamo, while we're at it!

Government establishment of religion.

Invasion of privacy.

Forced pregnancy.

Restriction of the internet.

Privateer profiteering.

The bridge to nowhere.

Impeaching a president over a blowjob. (Yeah, "and god damn we don't need that mess now.")

The list goes on.

So let me restate in my own words what Dave says:

I'm so opposed to the Clintons but no matter who the Republicans nominate I could never see myself voting for a Republican even if Hillary is nominated.

The media are spinning this as mutual attacks, but what I see is Barack Obama taking issue with the Clintons' attacks.

Take what you want from that. It's a debate, and of course the frontrunners are going to challenge each other. I don't care for Bill and Hillary's mischaracterizations of Obama. Really, it's a cheap shot going off on claiming that Barack was endorsing Reagan by claiming that the Republicans (including Reagan) were the party of ideas.

Duh! Any progressive knows that the Democrats have been pretty much asleep since Michael Dukakis sputtered, "I-I-I-I am n-n-n-not a l-l-liberal!" The Democrats have not been a part of ideas, they've been a party of hesitation and timidity and complicity.

--Be that as it may, debate is debate, and Hillary was out to score points and got a bit nasty and petty and not at all presidential, but let's face it, not everyone is smooth in the heat of the moment. So give her a pass: live and let live in politics....

But then I look at this....

I can't help it. It's certainly going to set some of you dear readers off. But this is the behavior of an abuser who's trying to criticize the abusee of "wanting conflict" just for resisting the abuse. Sure, Barack Obama is just supposed to wimper and cower under the Clinton attacks. Just like a beaten spouse. And apparently we're supposed to buy into that.

This whole thing has gotten me really upset. Why? Because Hillary Clinton may still win this nomination, and dammit, right now I don't think I want to vote for her. No, I really don't want to. And it's because all of the Republicans running are 5000% worse and more scary do I know that, in the end, I have no choice. I will vote for the Democratic nominee. Even Hillary Clinton.

Hilary, I thought you found your voice. If this is it, I don't want to hear it. Been there, done that for 7 years and counting.

Of course, the cynical side of me says that sleazy politics wins elections. Look at George. He's a fucking idiot, but he won. Twice! Maybe Hillary is playing the winning hand?

I hope not. I don't think it's "false hope" to want better from our politicians. Maybe Barack Obama will live up to that hope. Maybe not. But I'll be damned if I ever feel that just hoping is an empty dream.

Examples in history of this kind of governmental enforcement of religion are not all that appealing.

Their chosen juggernaut -- the "inevitable" candidate -- has won New Hampshire to nix the ghosts of Iowa. Not only that, they get to have more high ratings from Americans tuning in to see what's what.

And, of course, more millions upon millions of paid political advertising.

Oh what a lovely election show!