Check This Out

http://hcsfjm.com/

A guide to insanity

This is why women like my mother, who subjected my brother to an uninterrupted, fifteen-minute, tear-filled, screaming rant last night, are completely unhinged. I ask you this: Which campaign is the cult now?

George WIll to Obama: Don't Choose Hillary

From George Will's column arguing against choosing Hillary:

"And the more she seems to be pushing Obama to choose her, the more resolutely he must resist. Otherwise, at the beginning of a contest in which McCain will portray him as a flimsy figure, Obama will define himself as someone who can be pushed around."

Hillary for VP and Obama's Judgment

From the WSJ Opinion Journal:

"There are many experienced Democrats who would make suitable running mates, and for the purposes of governing Mr. Obama needs to pick someone he can work with. Above all, he can't appear to bend to ultimatums from the House of Clinton. This is a test of Mr. Obama's political judgment and toughness. If he can't stand up to Hillary and Bill Clinton, forget about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

Would Republicans actually use Obama's selection of Billary for VP as a talking point of his judgment and weakness?

Harbinger of a landslide?

Read this interview with the leading evangelical P.R. guy in America, some guy named Mark DeMoss. All of it is interesting, but here's the most eye-catching part:

"If one third of white evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton the second time, at the height of Monica Lewinsky mess—that’s a statistic I didn’t believe at first but I double and triple checked it—I would not be surprised if that many or more voted for Barack Obama in this election. You’re seeing some movement among evangelicals as the term [evangelical] has become more pejorative. There’s a reaction among some evangelicals to swing out to the left in an effort to prove that evangelicals are really not that right wing. There’s some concern that maybe Republicans haven’t done that well. And there’s this fascination with Barack Obama. So I will not be surprised if he gets one third of the evangelical vote. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 40-percent."

George Will on Charlie Rose

George Will was on Charlie Rose the other night for the full hour. Here's a clip.

Where we are headed?

From Breitbart

"According to an official study, Egypt's six million government employees are estimated to spend an average of only 27 minutes per day actually working, reflecting a real problem with productivity."

I'm going to channel Mitt Romney and warn that this is where the road of big government, big taxes, big entitlement programs, big spending, and big liberals lead.

I think Obama is going to get less and less mileage from his "out of Iraq" mantra and will have to shift to parrying this sort of argument instead.

VA in a Nutshell

From a CNN article, a quote by Republican Delegate Saxman: "Summing up Obama's positions, Saxman said: 'I don't like guns. I'm going to raise your taxes. I don't like coal.' That's a tough sell in Virginia."

This is clearly how the general is going to be run. Think this sort of thing is going to stick?

Explain fully.

General Election Prediction: A Tidal Wave

Obama 333

McCain 205

It is a democratic year, we will all realize that McCain's time has past, and Obama will be unstoppable. Obama will win everywhere Kerry won, plus he will take CO, NM, IA, MI, OH, FL, and VA. But Obama is behind in polls right now in FL, VA, and OH you say? He was 20 points behind Hillary in Iowa until he turned on the jets. He will do the same to McCain. We will look back and think we should have seen it coming. The table is set for Obama to catch fire and stir up so much excitement and inevitability that McCain will be an afterthought.

Obama will win FL and OH because Hillary will be his VP. She wants the job and, frankly, I think he needs her. Obama, without Hillary, risks losing Reagan Democrats to McCain. But with the great lama of Chappaqua on the ticket, Obama will have the sidekick that compliments him nicely by solidifying his weakness.

Regrettably, Obama will not be stopped, and this will be a huge year for Democrats.

273-265 [and other possible scenarios]

Herein lies my first prediction [pre-VP selection] for what happens in the 2008 general election.

In total I think Obama loses the election if he lets McCain win both Michigan and Ohio. At that point it does not matter, delegate wise, even if he carries all of NM, IA, CO, VA, PA and NH. The best he can do is tie. I find it very likely that Obama will lose NH to McCain due to McCain's historic appeal there and his 'connection' w/ the state insofar as McCain as them to thank for making him the nominee. If he loses MI, OH, and NH he loses the election 273 to 265. Therefore my official prediction is that McCain will pour all his resources into securing NH, MI, and OH. The rest will be up to history to see if Obama can parry that onslaught. Perhaps this is an argument for Mitt Romney? [native son of MI, neighboring governor of NH, and economic guru that can tell OH how to fix their problems [MI too for that matter]]. Romney will also energize the base.

I think Obama must win OH to win the general election [I guess this is somewhat of a "duh" given the history behind that trend]. But I think it is worth restating because I sense a BIG resistance to courting the Reagan Democrats Obama needs. I don't think a winning democratic coalition can be formed w/o them, and I think if he tries it will not work barring some tidal wave of turnout in the south that flips places like North Carolina.

First Prediction: McCain 273-Obama 265. In sum if McCain can win MI, OH, and NH he wins the general election. I'm going to go ahead and predict this now for the sake of making a premature prediction.

Other Scenarios I see as likely:
Ok, I am going to start with the 2004 actual results map as a baseline here. I am now going to take the Obama supporters at their word and flip IA, NM, and CO to Obama outright. I think this is a big gift on my part. Currently he has a decent lead in IA and CO, but in NM the most recent SurveyUSA poll shows a dead heat [Obama lost a 9 point average he had in the middle of May]. I am also going to keep FL in the "red" column because it shows McCain w/ a healthy lead there and one that I think he will likely keep -- FL will stay red w/ Obama running.


Scenario #1 : TIE #1: Now first I am going to show why I think a tie is VERY possible. All it takes is for NH to go McCain. So now we have CO, NM, and IA w/ Obama and NH w/ McCain. I think NH to McCain is very plausible as he has long been a republican that resonates well up there [it also went red in 2000]. I think it is very possible he takes NH, but loses CO, NM, and IA. If the rest of the 2004 map stands and we get a tie. I think this is a VERY possible outcome [this makes Obama's current dead heat in NM even more troubling]. So that means: Obama-McCain Scenario 1: TIE

But lets backtrack a minute and look at other possibilities. Keep CO and IA for Obama. But I am going to flip NH back to neutral [it did go Dem in 2004 after all] and also NM [they are in a dead heat and it went red in 2004]. I am also going to flip MI, OH, PA, and VA to neutral as battlegrounds. So we have NM, MI, OH, VA, NH and PA being where the real battle in an Obama-McCain election takes place, as far as I can tell.

Scenario #2 -- NM Decides it [if so I predict Obama Loss]: Lets look at the current polling for the each state [from real clear politics averages].

NM -- TIE
MI -- McCain + 3
OH -- Obama + 1.3
VA -- McCain + 1.3
NH -- McCain + 1.4
PA -- Obama + 5.8

Ok, so lets attribute each state to the current "leader." I think this is generous to Obama because he faced 10 point losses in OH and PA to Clinton. But lets do it for argument's sake. This means, as goes NM goes the election. Right now they are tied there, and it is a state next to John McCain's home state w/ huge voting blocs that Obama has yet to woo successfully [Hispanic voters, for example [also of note here is Clinton's rout of him in PR]]. Add this to the fact that NM went republican in 2004.

All this does not give me confidence that Obama is going to win NM and thus pull though. But if the current leaders hold their lead in OH, VA, NH, MI and PA ... Obama MUST win NM to win the presidency. I officially predict [not knowing his VP choice] that Obama loses NM and: Obama v. McCain Scenario 2: OBAMA LOSS [267-271]


Scenario #3 -- OH and MI for McCain -- Obama Can Tie but not Win [I Predict Obama Loss]: But it is possible that NM goes Democratic. To protect against that, McCain should focus all his energy on making sure he wins OH and keeps his current lead in MI and NH. Lets suppose that happens.

McCain: OH, MI, NH
Obama: PA, VA, and
NM: undecided


If McCain does that Obama cannot win, he can only tie. If he loses NM it is McCain 278-260, and even if he wins NM it is McCain 273-265. So that leads us to: Obama v. McCain Scenario 3a: OBAMA LOSS [278-260 w/ NM to McCain] or [273-265 w/ NM to Obama]

Even if Obama wins NM [which is currently tied] and wrestles NH from McCain ... all we get is another TIE.
Even if he wins the rest of the contested states by picking up NM, NH, VA and keeping PA we get only TIE. So that tally becomes OH and MI to McCain. PA, VA, NH, and NM to Obama. Which leads us to Obama v. McCain Scenario 3b: ANOTHER TIE .


Likelihood of Obama Even Achieving the Tie if OH and MI go McCain:
I personally think that Obama winning both NM, NH, and VA are all "close calls" in and of themselves and that the likelihood of them all happening together is very very low [despite the fact that for the purposes of this example I put VA in Obama's column]. If McCain manages to win both OH and MI ... Obama is in deep doggy you know what.

We have already discussed NM -- I think it is an uphill battle for Obama there, especially given the current dead heat, his thus-demonstrated inability to really resonate w/ hispanic voters, and its neighbor-state status to John McCain's AZ.

NH is somewhat of another crapshoot for Obama. They love John McCain up there. The live free or die state is itself one that embodies the Maverick culture that the McCainiacs will tout all fall. It could easily swing his way -- especially because he can spend the entire general election thanking them twice for already voting for him [this time effectively making his nomination possible]. Then again, it did vote for John Kerry in 2004. But it also voted for George Bush in 2000 [general election]. Either way, it is definitely not a sure thing for Obama to win this state and is quite likely that he will lose it.

And it is also no guarantee that Obama wins VA, to say the least. Although VA is often considered one that Obama can also swing, lets look at VA's voting history. VA has not voted democrat in a presidential election since 1964 when Johnson routed Goldwater. The last time VA voted democrat before that was in 1948 when Truman carried the state [wartime president]. And VA has always been a major holdout among the south -- often the most reluctant to switch even when other southern states were voting Democrat. In 1952 every southern state save VA, TN and FL went Democrat. In 1956 you had NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, and AR vote Democrat -- but not VA. In 1960 add LA to the 1956 list of southern states voting Democrat -- still no VA. And finally, in 1976 Carter won EVERY SOUTHERN STATE EXCEPT VA. So VA has a trend of being the least likely of the southern states to go Democrat. There has never been an electoral map in modern history where VA was the only southern state voting Democrat, and I doubt it will happen this time.

But ... some argue that the changing demographics of VA prompt a new look at the state as ripe for a Democratic leaning vote this time. I actually am not so sure about that. I think both Obama and McCain get a "demographic boost" from VA. Surely there is large support from the African American voters for Obama, but there is also large support from veterans, current military members, people living on bases, and even people deployed overseas who will vote absentee in VA. Im not saying that this will in effect 'cancel out' Obama's advantage and make it a lock for McCain...I just think it makes it a bit of a close call at the very least. Furthermore, most of the counties that Obama won are also counties that McCain won in VA. You can look at both maps here. It is going to be a tough call and a close race, that is for sure. This could be a good argument for picking Jim Webb to be a VP for Obama [but if you pick Webb you can't pick Strickland].

Anyway, there ways Obama can win. I'm going to ponder and repost talking about those at a later time.

Gimme some truth

Eddie Rendell, right as always.

Electoral Prediction

If we're finally done making mountains out of molehills (laughter and groans at the use of such a cliche), let's move on to other things.

I don't think the popular vote is going to be very close. I think Obama will win something close to 53 percent; these days, that's a decisive victory.

I think the Electoral College may be closer. Right now, I think it'll be Obama over McCain 286-252.

For Obama: The Pacific Coast, the Northeast (including PA, NH and NJ), MI, MN, WI, IL, IA, NM, CO and VA.

For McCain: The traditionally red states (incl. NC and GA), WV, OH, FL, NV and MO.

Obama could win Missouri, Ohio or Nevada; McCain could win Virginia or New Hampshire. But contrary to Vitus's analysis, the Republican Party in Colorado is actually very weak (losses in the governor's race and state legislature in 2006, a Senate loss in 2004, another likely in 2008, a House loss in 2006 and another possible loss in 2008). I'll put New Mexico in the same column because, well, it's been the closest state the last two elections and I guess it's due back in the Democratic column. Plus, there are two very real pickup potentials in the House and one in the Senate, which can't hurt. Indeed, the state GOP just nominated a very conservative Senate candidate in a climate where moderation and post-partisanship (however ephemeral) are attractive selling points.

As for Virginia, I think demographic shifts have been so dramatic that Obama's message has great resonance in N. Virginia, where state elections are now won and lost. With Mark Warner on the ballot (and potentially Jim Webb on the ticket), I think Obama is going to win there. I think the concern about veterans is a legitimate one, but if Webb is on the ticket, and African-American turnout exceeds veteran turnout, VA should be Obama's prime pickup opportunity outside of Iowa.

I think Florida is clearly McCain's and Iowa is clearly Obama's; each candidate just doesn't have much appeal in the other state.

Ohio is the one true toss-up in my mind, particularly if the economy continues to sink. It'll be a battle between economic populism (trade and taxes for Obama) versus cultural populism (Rev. Wright and patriotism for McCain). Sherrod Brown ran a very populist campaign in 2006 to win his Senate race, so I don't think Obama's liberal economic agenda will hurt him here. If he goes down, it will be because of cultural issues. Then again, if Obama picks Ted Strickland instead of Webb to be his runningmate, he may be sufficiently inoculated on social issues to win. For now, though, I'll give it to McCain.

As for the marginal battlegrounds (MT, ND, KS, IN, NC and GA) -- I think Obama has his work cut out for him. At best, he may force McCain to spend resources in those states instead of devoting them to the closer battlegrounds (Colorado and Virginia, e.g.). We'll see. I think NC and GA could benefit from increased turnout among blacks and the same N.Va. voters in the Research Triangle and greater Atlanta. Still, I think McCain will hold these states unless something really changes between now and November.

MORE INSANITY

THIS JUST IN

*************
"I think you've been borrowing too many Hillary supporters' estrogen pills lately. Treating Jeff Gannon like he's a member of the press corp when in fact he's a paid GOP patsy isn't lying? The point of that anecdote and the Williams anecdote is to highlight the fact that the White House does do what you accuse the Post of doing: misrepresenting the truth."
*************


That is not the point. The White House, in this particular instance, either did or did not go back and edit the transcript to create a propagandistic lie.

Even if they have done this very thing in the past, that gives the Post no right to falsely accuse them of this now. I'm not treating Glannon like he is a member of the Press Corps. I am saying that whatever antics have gone on w/r/t him or anyone other White House fiasco does not give the Post to pull this kind of fake story.

This whole "well, the administration is bad so we as reporters get to say whatever we want that fits the mold of them being bad" is not journalism ... it is fraud and propaganda itself.

RESPONSE TO INSANITY

I'd like to highlight everyone's attention to the following response [to my post about the POST making things up re: the White House and presenting serious factual errors in their reporting]. Here it is

********************
Whether or not the Post is making stuff up, I have no clue. But what is true: this White House does change and manipulate the facts.

Jeff Gannon and Armstrong Williams. Gannon was a member of the press corp -- except that he was paid by Republican operatives to ask softball questions. That, and he was once a gay escort. Really reaching for the best and brightest.

Armstrong Williams, a "commentator" was enlisted by the White House to shill for No Child Left Behind on his radio show and newspaper column. Also, the White House got caught once by editing a transcript of a Bush speech to correct his grammar. Once caught, they changed it back (the exact anecdote escapes me, but I'm sure it's online somewhere).

So it's not like your implication is not without precedent of one form or another.
***********
That is an insane response.

First of all creating a situation where you look favorable is VERY different from going back and editing an unfavorable situation to turn it into a a favorable depicting. The former is called PR and Politicking, the latter is called lying.

Both are slimy, but one is much more serious than the other. In fact, all sides play the politicking game all the time. I wish they didn't, but they do. Like when Obama's people were heard yelling "we need more white people in view behind the podium" to do some damage control over allegations that he couldn't do well w/ certain demographics [in the wake of the PA-type primaries].

Furthermore even if the White House had gone back an actually edited transcripts in the past, that doesn't give news outlets the rights to claim that they are doing it again w/o any substantiation.

That is like saying it would be ok for the Post to run a story tomorrow headlining "Germany Operates Concentration Camp" because they have done so in the past. As you say "it's not like [the] implication is not without precedent of one form or another. " SO that makes it fine? I don't think so.

This knee jerk reaction to say "well, the administration is bad...so we can say whatever we want about them, whether it is true or not" is not reporting, it is insanity.

My Early Prediction

In line with the earlier proclamation, here is my early prediction (I reserve the write to adjust it, up to the deadline).

To save time, I use the following formula to quickly determine states for a candidate:

1) If Bush won the state in 2004, but Obama did not win the primary, that state is tagged for McCain; states Kerry won in 2004 are initially tagged for Obama.

2) If a candidate leads a state by an average of 10%+, that state will be tagged for the current leader regardless of the above rule.

3) Swing states will be individually analyzed regardless of the above two rules.


Rule 1 gives Obama the West Coast, the Northeast (incl. PA), Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Rule 1 gives McCain Texas (half for Clinton), Arizona, New Mexicon, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Dakota, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennesee, and Florida.

Rule 2 gives McCain Wyoming, Utah, South Carolina, Nebraska, Mississippi, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, and Alabama.

Rule 3 forces us to look closely at Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, and North Carolina.

Alaska: McCain is currently polling +6.6% (avg). That's good. A fairly respectable local Republican party and the fact that Horse Race blog says Obama isn't as competitive in swing-republican states as Clinton, and I'm going to give this to McCain.

Montana: McCain is polling +7 (avg). Montana's history and demographics point to McCain.

North Dakota: McCain is polling +4.3 (avg); again, history and demographics point to McCain.

Colorado: Obama is currently polling +3.1 (avg); however, Colorado has a fairly strong party and demographics are decidedly against Obama. What will happen? Right, I'm going with my gut and saying McCain, especially considering his Arizona ties.

Iowa: Obama is currently polling +6.7 (avg); thought demographics are not on his side in this state, he had a fairly energetic primary and not a single poll doesn't show him winning against McCain by +5% so I'm giving this to Obama.

Mizzou: McCain is polling +3.7 (avg), however, the demographics start to shift towards Obama in Missouri. My gut says McCain here, but I can't quite quantify why. Perhaps history.

Virginia: McCain is polling +2.1 (avg). So far, as far as demoraphics go, this state seems the friendliest to Obama of all the toss-ups we've looked at. However, McCain will probably have an ace up his sleeve with the Pentagon, Quantico, and the huge percentage of vets living in the state. My guess is that this is one of the two most competitive states. My guess? Demographics are a wash, leaving McCain to scrape this win out with a few percentage points.

North Carolina: McCain is polling +5.8 (avg), despite the demographics being as friendly to Obama almost as Virginia, history says McCain.

That gives a very close 281 to 257 McCain presidency, although I think we should all keep our eyes on PA, NC, and strangely, OH.

The Unfortunate Mr. Cheney

The condemnations were as swift as they were over-reaching. The governor was perplexed that a Vice-President could utter such an unkind slur; Senators and Representatives called for apologies and admonished the Vice President; videos circled the Internet.

Yet, it's still just a stupid joke. Dick Cheney said that he managed to have Cheney's on both of the family tree despite not living in West Virgina. Ha ha, hilarious, aren't accusations of incest uproariously funny? As I'm sure anyone on this blog can tell you, we West Virginians look upon West Virginia jokes with a disdain that hovers somewhere between raw outrage and moral disgust. Ironically, cousins cannot marry in West Virginia, but they can in such progressive states as New York, California, Massachusetts, and, yes, Maryland.

The thing that upsets about Mr. Cheney's remark is not necessarily the joke. What upsets me is that Mr. Cheney spent a large amount of time in West Virginia pushing President Bush in 2004, and every place he visited, West Virginians came out to welcome him and show him the respect to which he was entitled to as Vice President. Despite any personal or political opinions about the man, West Virginians never failed to show him respect and hospitality. I guess it would be too much to ask him to return the favor, even for a state that crossed party lines to elect him and President Bush.

The Speeches

I think all three speeches sucked ass. On points, I'd give it to Hillary -- but I think hers was by far the most damaging. To Obama. Great.

McCain started the night off with yet another halting, stammering, hamfisted speech. Nothing new. He even giggled every time he said, "That's not change we can believe in." McCain is gold in interviews and town-hall meetings, but is awful at giving speeches. Say what you will about George W. Bush in the other situations, but he is at least good at reading a teleprompter. As for the substance, I thought McCain was on to a few things and, ironically enough, it's the old geezer who spoke the most seriously about America in the 21st century and the great changes we must make to thrive within it. Still, the delivery was so poor (and, frankly, a little too smug viz. Obama) that it really stunk.

Next, Clinton. I think it was the best written and best delivered. Substantively, though, it was an outrage. I understand completely the need to rally your supporters, to congratulate them on their accomplishments, thank them for their work, etc. I understand that this election was hotly contested and was the vehicle for the hopes of millions of women. But how selfish was that whole display? "Invisible" voters? Invisible to whom? You mean Obama wasn't and will not support their causes and ask for their votes? No acknowledgment whatsoever that SHE LOST THE FUCKING ELECTION? "Oh, that Obama guy -- he's nice and got some dipshit college kids and ungrateful blacks to vote for him. But let's talk about what really matters: Me." The speech was devoid of anything remotely approaching unity, implied Obama could not win the general election without the "nearly 18 million voters" she spoke endlessly about (and seems to assume she holds hostage), did nothing to stop her rabid -- yes, rabid -- crowd of old women and gay men from chanting "DENVER!!!" Did John Edwards do any of this when he dropped out? Did Mike Huckabee? It was appallingly selfish, solipsistic, and, now that the numbers are in, delusional. The Clintons cannot do anything gracefully. But we'll hear the same old crap again and again: Obama isn't experienced enough, his supporters are fickle, he can't win important states. He needs Hillary. Does he? Does he need a woman who through her tone and even her words implies that he's not cut out for the job? Does he need a vice president who thinks of herself as president already? Does he need that maniacal sleazeball husband of hers running his mouth and hiding his financial statements? Enough. If you want four years of John McCain, then use this speech as a fucking bedtime story.

(I wrote previously that I think Hillary will go all-out to support Obama and that her voters will come home. I think that will eventually happen. The process should have begun tonight. That said, even when she does go all-out I think her conduct has been so pathetically self-obsessed and petty that it's hard to get too excited about her behaving like a professional).

All of that is not to say, however, that Barack Obama's speech was the jewel of the night. I'm getting tired, so I won't go on forever, but it was pretty lame. I think he is right to go aggressively after McCain. We were too young for Bush-Clinton in '92 and Clinton-Dole in '96 was more a foregone conclusion, but this election, I think, will be very personal. Personal in more than just Swift Boat attacks and Bush-bashing. After all, Kerry and Bush are of the same generation (the same ass-kissing secret society even). They differed, no doubt, on where to take the country, but the came from the same country. I think Obama and McCain look at one another as 1) full of crap, and 2) coming from a different America. Obama is right to take on McCain directly, answer his attacks and make the case for change. But the speech itself was yet another, soaring ramble through American history with the usual laundry list of goodies for various constituent groups weaved within. He needs to understand that sometimes less is more and that rhetoric does not mean vision. Compared to his speeches after Iowa and Super Tuesday, it was a reheated version of various leftovers. I was bored for most of what should have been a truly memorable occasion. To his credit, he did give Clinton more than double the praise she gave him, which I found to be gracious and appropriate.

The Smallness of Obama

Obama's speech tonight is yet undelivered, but the copy on the Drudge Report reveals this portion of the closing paragraph:

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that . . . this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

To suggest that we will look back on this era as the moment when Barack Obama saved us from rising oceans is absurd. Back when I was young, Manhattan was almost under water. That is, until Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton by 150 delegates, and soon thereafter his wonderful policies were in harmony with Mother Earth.

WASHINGTON POST Accuses White House of Orwellian Transcript Revision With No Facts Supporting Their Claim

Today on the Washington Post's website, Post Reporter Willian Branigin wrote an article on the political aftermath of Vice President Cheney's recent remarks concerning his ancestors and West Virginia. The article focused on Cheney's even more recent apology and the clamour of distaste that has risen as a response to his ill-conceived joke. You can read the full article here. However, in just the second paragraph Branigin [or one of his editors] lobs a bombshell.

The pertinent part reads: " The quip [Cheney's Joke] drew groans from the audience at the National Press Club, prompting the vice president to add, 'You can say those things when you're not running for reelection.' (The White House transcript of Cheney's comments, released last night, described laughter instead of groans.)"

The parenthetical citing the White House's version of the transcript is that bombshell. As I follow this paragraph, I read it to say that 1) Cheney's statement "drew groans" from the audience and 2) despite this White House paper version of the speech omitted any groans from its record and instead reported laughter.

I find this to be a serious accusation by the Washington Post. If this is true, this is a fascist moment on the part of the White House--even Orwellian. They are implying that the White House deliberately changed the transcript to reflect a GOOD reaction to Cheney's remark...instead of the BAD reaction that was reported to have actually happened [by the Post]. Propaganda anyone?

You may say that I am reading too much into the author's intentions here. I say, however, that by deliberately putting this discrepancy in parentheses right after talking about how Cheney's quote "drew groans" was, through an effective use of juxtaposition, making such an accusation.


But there is a big problem. To notice this problem you have to watch the video of Cheney's joke, as I did, which was posted on the website right next to the text of the article. You can watch the video here.


The problem is that I do not hear groans. I hear laughter. Maybe there is some inaudible "non-laughter" noise out there, but nothing to the level that the article suggests. Remember, the article reads that Cheney's comment "drew groans." Do you hear them? Even if you interpret the inaudible "non-laughter" noises as groans, they are clearly not the main theme of the audience's reaction -- the main theme is laughter. Laughter was the reaction. Not applause, not groans, not boos...laughter.

This is problematic for two reasons: 1) the Post mis-reported the audience reaction and cast it as condemning Cheney's remarks when it actually seemed to embrace the remark, 2) but more importantly the Post's accusation that the White House went in after the fact and changed "groans" to "laughter" on the transcript, thus implying an Orwellian effort on the part of the White House to manipulate the truth, is simply not true.

Call me a nitpicker, but I take this sort of thing very seriously. This is a big accusation on the part of the Post. Perhaps it was subtly tucked in the beginning of the article, not drawing much attention [surely not enough to force the editors to do their job], and doesn't deserve the effort that outrage requires. But I disagree. At best it is a grievous error by the Post, a self-proclaimed pillar of political journalism. At worst however, it is part of a deeper knee-jerk reaction to tell people what they want to hear -- so they buy your product.

Doesn't this narrative of the White House going back and changing the transcript in a propaganda-like fashion fit neatly with the narrative we've heard over the past 7+ years?

This is the overly secretive administration that started the Iraq war because Halliburton told them to and that distributed flyers with Valarie Plame's picture and CIA job title on it to get back at Ambassador Wilson. Doesn't this latest chapter fit nicely into their long line of deceit?

In fact, we haven't just heard this story a few times, it has been shoved down our throats. Political careers have been made of this stuff--people standing up to the tyranny that is the Bush administration! Former press secretaries, military brass and the like are writing books and making millions off of telling this story. It is a story that sells. And it sells because we buy it and can't get enough of it. It is no longer news, it has become entertainment.

Now don't get me wrong. I have enough more bones to pick w/ the Bush administration than you could find a Buffalo Billiards wing night. I am not one to find myself defending them. And in fact, I don't think that is what I'm doing. I'm chastising the Post, and in turn--Us; for checking our critical minds at the gate for the past 8 years and only wanting to hear what we already have decided is true - Bush is bad, I want a story that tells me how bad he is and I don't care about anything else. Conversely our conservative friends read the "Democrats support terrorists" news articles all day long. And at the end of it all, we go home each convinced that we are right and the other is wrong--and nothing gets done.

And who is laughing to the bank about our irrational and seemingly insatiable desire for televised, and printed, bloodsport between liberals and conservatives [instead of actual news]? I think you know who.

A Declaration: General Election Prediction

We the Contributors of this Blog, in order to Form a more Perfect Blog, do hereby Announce and Declare that a Prediction as to the Finally Tally of the Electoral College be Entered before June 5, 2008 by Each Contributor based upon his Independent and Considered Judgment with the Aid of 270towin.com.

It is so ordered.

Appalling

I am disheartened and angry (but certainly not bitter) at the outright condescension and disrespect shown to Appalachian-Americans, which I've heard one contributor describe as the most-maligned minority group in America. Appalling, I say!

A Surprise Entrance

This column argues what I said yesterday, that Hillary should make a surprise, pro-wrestling style, bring-the-house-down appearance at Obama's victory speech tonight. It would do more to erase the bad feelings and create unity than a hundred pre-scheduled appearances and contrived endorsement events.

Why Have Just a Single Standard When You Can Have A Double Standard Instead?

Not to have a PC pissing contest...BUT...I have to point something out about the following quote from a recent post: "shocking! -- an over-50 white woman hysterical that Hillary Clinton is not going to be president"

I'm not going to get in a long discourse about whether sexism is still "allowed" in this country or has contributed to Hillary's demise...

...or whether its more ok to trash Hillary and her supporters because she and many of they are women and women-based jokes are still ok [i.e. : iron my shirt controversy],

...or whether the media treats Hillary unfairly by focusing on her appearance, wardrobe and parading unflattering pictures of her

...or whether she is caught in the constant cross fire of being "manly" [too tough] or "whiny [too not tough]

...or anything else that

All I am going to submit is that if the tables were reversed...and it was Barack Obama that was losing...and it was a Barack Obama supporter, who happened to share Obama's demographic attributes, going nuts on camera -- you would be hard pressed to find someone who would dare write an analogous comment.

On women voters

So by now everyone surely everyone has seen that tirade from -- shocking! -- an over-50 white woman hysterical that Hillary Clinton is not going to be president. She closes by asking God to damn the Democratic Party (was she trying to be ironic?) and is confident that McCain will win because her ilk will stay home or indeed cross party lines.

I think this woman is full of shit. Maybe she'll stay home. Fine. In fact, the Republic would be better served by her doing so for every election hence. But let's remember: It's June. The election is in November. That's a butt-load of time for tempers to cool off, senses to return and people to make rational decisions. Turnout among white women generally is always higher than other demographic groups. When Election Day rolls around and Hillary supporters are faced with the prospect of four more years of Republican rule -- and potentially three Supreme Court vacancies -- I'd be shocked if they sat home or crossed over en masse. Obviously, there's no way to know for sure (or even to predict accurately) because this is the first time a woman has had a real chance at becoming a presidential nominee. Maybe there will be some Hillary supporters who hold their grudges to the end. But if Hillary -- as I suspect she will -- goes all out for Obama in the general election campaign I think enough of her supporters will come home by November.

(Perhaps the only thing the Clintons are obsessed with more than power is their legacy and if Hillary sits on her hands through November, she'll surely become one of the biggest villains in American political history -- right up there with Aaron Burr, Preston Brooks and Dick Cheney).

The Great Unanswered

Barrack Obama has now quit his church. I guess for all that education, he doesn't quite know what the words cannot disown mean.

Now we will face the great unanswered question for the next 5 months: what--besides his ambition and public opinion polls--has changed to make Barrack leave his church?

Quite frankly, I'll be surprised if it's ever asked, let alone answered. John McCain's life will be torn apart. His health/medical records, his wife's tax return and entertaining recipes, his former work for his father-in-law, every minute of his life will be considered vital to the national interest as OBSG (Obama's Biggest Support Group) goes to work on him. My guess is few if any major media members can be bothered to ask about the actual religious beliefs of their favorite son, or why he suddenly had a religious awakening on the Saturday he was essentially crowned the Democratic nominee.

P.S. I cannot help but think that this only reinforces my belief that Obama was a member of that church because it was expedient to his career and nothing more.