Yeah, you can be a little cynical and realize this also was intended for a larger audience. Even so, the feeling of being on the inside is nice, and the whole thing is pretty inspiring.
Here's Barack Obama, speaking to his campaign staff on Friday, 6 June 2008. This is what real straight talk sounds like:
(h/t: TC, via email)
Via my buddy TwinSwords, watch what happens when Bill O'Reilly sends one of his toadies out to make his bones by ambushing Bill Moyers:
Epic Fail!
Could you not feel the little bastard's flop sweat? He probably kicked three puppies on his way home.
[added] TRex, quoting C&L, says the tool's name is Porter Barry. (And who wouldn't want to know that?)
... the stupid, it burns.
In today's installment, some of Hillary's completely reasonable (Motto: Yes we are, too!!!) fans are upset because, during Hillary's concession speech today, Obama was apparently playing golf with his wife.
To coin another phrase, I am not making this up.
Here's an excerpt:
OBAMA GOLFS DURING HILLARY’S SPEECH TO SUSPEND!
[...]
Show your power and stay in Hillary’s Camp.Do not move anywhere.We do not owe anyone anything.Not the DNC who is only worried about Money.Not Obama who has bought the superdelegate votes so he and Michelle can golf today during this great day in History.On the day of Hillary’s speech.
No, I don't have any idea why they don't use spaces after their periods on that site, either.
Oh, wait. I said periods. Sorry for my blatant sexism.
The capacity of some of these people to become outraged over everything remotely connected to Obama is just jaw-dropping. Had he not found some place to lay low while Clinton was speaking, you just know the same people would have been furiously typing, "Obama hogs media spotlight!!! Won't even show respect to Hillary while she's speaking on this great day in History!!!"
Next question: How long until one of those completely reasonable people comes over here to scream, "It wasn't a concession speech!!! She only suspended her campaign!!! She conceded nothing!!!"
The good news is, there's no need to worry about how these people claim they're going to vote come November. At the rate they're going, I predict an early summer epidemic of aneurysms.
Following Tim F.'s serious link to a serious article about a glitch that Mars lander Phoenix is experiencing, knowing full well the context of the story before and while reading it, I was still unable not to snicker when I read this phrase:
Or, it could be that incorrect readings from the vibrator made it look like it was working when it was not.
In related news, I can't say the name of the seventh planet of our solar system, using either pronunciation, without smirking.
Yeah, I'm still single. You had to ask?
The NYT has a long piece analyzing the Clinton campaign which makes for some interesting reading (or, perhaps, too close a look at the sausage-making process, depending on your tastes). This, in particular, caught my eye:
Unlike her opponents, Mrs. Clinton refused to make solicitation calls to donors and had to be talked into calling the party officials known as superdelegates.
Nothing is offered to back this up. Still, if true, it does not at all jibe with my impression of Hillary Clinton. She's been in politics virtually her entire adult life, she (her campaign) raised enormous amounts of money for her initial bid for the Senate in 2000, she's been a key player in everything her husband has done from the late 1970s through the late 1990s, she has a rep for building bridges in the Senate, and on and on. I can certainly imagine why making such phone calls would be tiresome or even unpleasant, but I'd think if anyone would have had had a chance to get used to it, it would have been her.
Huh.
[added] The article does say, later on, referring to the time around the Pennsylvania primary:
Mrs. Clinton was too far behind to catch up to Mr. Obama among delegates selected by primaries and caucuses, so she hoped to persuade the superdelegates that she would be the stronger candidate in the fall. Only then did she agree to start calling superdelegates personally, something Mr. Obama had been doing for months.
Excerpts from the transcript of the speech she gave today:
The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.
(APPLAUSE)
And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me.
(APPLAUSE)
I have served in the Senate with him for four years. I have been in this campaign with him for 16 months. I have stood on the stage and gone toe-to-toe with him in 22 debates. I've had a front-row seat to his candidacy, and I have seen his strength and determination, his grace and his grit.
In his own life, Barack Obama has lived the American dream, as a community organizer, in the State Senate, as a United States senator. He has dedicated himself to ensuring the dream is realized. And in this campaign, he has inspired so many to become involved in the democratic process and invested in our common future.
Now, when I started this race, I intended to win back the White House and make sure we have a president who puts our country back on the path to peace, prosperity and progress. And that's exactly what we're going to do, by ensuring that Barack Obama walks through the doors of the Oval Office on January 20, 2009.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I understand -- I understand that we all know this has been a tough fight, but the Democratic Party is a family. And now it's time to restore the ties that bind us together and to come together around the ideals we share, the values we cherish, and the country we love.
We may have started on separate journeys, but today our paths have merged. And we're all heading toward the same destination, united and more ready than ever to win in November and to turn our country around, because so much is at stake.
[...]
Just think how much more progress we could have made over the past 40 years if we'd had a Democratic president. Think about the lost opportunities of these past seven years on the environment and the economy, on health care and civil rights, on education, foreign policy and the Supreme Court.
Imagine how far...
(APPLAUSE)
... we could have come, how much we could have achieved if we had just had a Democrat in the White House.
(APPLAUSE)
We cannot let this moment slip away. We have come too far and accomplished too much.
[...]
It is this belief, this optimism that Senator Obama and I share and that has inspired so many millions of our supporters to make their voices heard. So today I am standing with Senator Obama to say: Yes, we can!
(APPLAUSE)
John McCain recently explained why his lobbyists aren't lobbyists in his usual fashion -- by serving up a string of random fragments of clichés, smothered in his patented soporific drone. My favorite comes at the one-minute mark:
I have a record of working with all Americans to bring this nation back to its future greatness …
Here is Matt Taibbi's promotional video for his new book, The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire:
Swiped from Guzman at JAZZ from HELL. Also from that post: a link to Guzman's October 2007 interview of Taibbi, which itself includes some more good links.
And speaking of things I refuse to get upset about, I see by TPM Election Central that Joe Lieberman has sent out a letter promoting his new grassroots Astroturf campaign, "Citizens for McCain," in which he refers to his erstwhile political allies as "the Democrat Party."
The TPM post points to a good essay by Hendrik Hertzberg on why the missing "ic" matters to some. I take the point that it's intended to be a slur, and so, yeah, choosing to use it marks yet another step in Lieberman's descent into utter zellmillerization.
Still, though, as far as I'm concerned, every time I hear some lame use this formulation on purpose, all I hear is "I AM A WINGNUT WITHOUT IDEAS!!! THEREFORE, I MAKE FUNNY OF YORE NAME!!1! LOL!!!" and usually not spelled that well. You know, instant loss of respect.
Assuming I had any left, I mean.
TPM Election Central headline:
Franken Apologizes For Writing "Porn-O-Rama" Essay In Playboy.
Eight years ago, mind you.
Up next: Franken forced to dismiss campaign worker who says "Shit!" after hitting his thumb with a hammer.
The limitless supply of feigned outrage in this country, and not just from Republicans, never fails to amaze me. I can only hope this post's title draws some of it.
If you feel like being more mature and constructive about this than I have just been, you can donate to his campaign at AlFranken.com.
Franken's reply, included in the post under the above headline, is pretty good. (He said as he calmed down a little bit).
One of the deranged Obama-haters over on NoQuarter was only too happy to feature a new RNC-sponsored web site called MeetBarackObama.com. It's about what you'd expect if you hired a graphic designer to pretty up the paranoid pantings of a political faction that has nothing to offer this election besides the FUD-raising question, What do we REALLY know about Barack Obama???
I was especially amused at the lameness of the poll that appears on the home page, a screen-capture of which appears below.
I suppose the first choice is arguable. About the third, I can only respond, Hey, you say that like it's a bad thing. And as for the second, let me just borrow this image from TRex and ask, how much does this look like the exemplary First Family to you?
Ruth Rosen has a medium length piece up on TPMCafe that's well worth a read. It concerns constraints on publishing during the early years of the Bush Administration, even for those writing for the opinion pages of a liberal newspaper.
Rosen's bio, TPM version, may be of some use for understanding where she's coming from.
It may sound like a cliché to say that censorship, whether from without or from within, is the quickest way to kill a democracy, but that doesn't mean it isn't still true. Given that we're just now learning about the false intelligence and other lies that the Bush Administration used to get us into war more than five years ago, it seems like we should be saying this more often.
(A sightly modified version of this post appears on the BloggingHeads.tv forums.)
You read this post, right? If that didn't creep you out enough, now there's video.
Via Krebs: Apple has released some security guides to help you learn how to further secure your computer. If you're using OS X Panther (10.3), Tiger (10.4), or Leopard (10.5), and you consider yourself somewhat technically adept, you might visit Mac OS X Security Configuration Guides.
I haven't gone through any of them yet, so this is as much a note to self as anything else.
If you can't beat 'em ...?
See also: Golf We Can Believe In.
(pic. source | h/t: The Carpetbagger Report)
That video I posted earlier wasn't enough?
Then read James Wolcott's review of McCain's big speech.
As soon as I published my last (admittedly mean) post, I came across some whispers. [Added: and more.]
Let's just say that I'll believe it when I see it, so I'm not going to delete the last post just yet.
Meanwhile, please enjoy some eye candy.
... how's this for an unfortunate image?
How fitting that, on the night Barack Obama finally claimed the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton delivered her non-concession speech from a concrete bunker. To reach the Baruch College gymnasium where Hillary spoke with such surprising defiance her supporters had to descend two flights below street level. The thick subterranean walls blocked out cell phone and BlackBerry signals, and no televisions were provided in the main event hall, thereby insulating Hillary’s cheering supporters (intentionally, some theorized) from the dispiriting events unfolding at the Xcel Center in Minneapolis.
Does it get worse? Uh ... let me just give you the first sentence of the second paragraph.
In the bunker there exists a different reality.
What? You want more? Read here.
What? You have no idea what the post title refers to? Well, then, time for a little Veracifier. (Thanks for the tip, twin!)
(h/t for the bunker link: Kevin K./rumproast. And, via Instaputz, see also Kevin's next post.)
As TPMmuckraker's Kate Klonick reports, Rohrabacher managed to use some variation of the phrase "panties on the head" eight times in his 13-minute statement.
-- David Kurtz
That's Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), as if you couldn't have guessed.
Maybe instead of just saying, "Hmmm," the thought that comes to mind is: Move over, David Vittner* Vitter!
* Thanks for the proofreading, twin.
(pic. source) | (post title explained)
[added] BAGnewsNotes has another shot from a different angle.
Here is our nominee, speaking in St. Paul, Minnesota, 3 June 2008.
(The video is a little choppy in places. Sorry. I'll replace it if I come across a better copy) (replaced video --bjk)
[added] Full text of the speech, as prepared, here.
Excerpt from the conclusion:
In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.
So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.
So it was for the Greatest Generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.
So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom’s cause.
So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that’s better, and kinder, and more just.
And so it must be for us.
America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then 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 we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.
Maybe you saw this story already, or maybe it's escaped your attention due to the excitement over the last day of the Democratic primary campaign. In case of the latter, I did want to note it for the record.
According to the NYT, NASA's assistant inspector general released a 48-page report yesterday that concluded that Republican political appointees "distorted and suppressed" data related to the problem of global warming.
Despite the snarky and world-weary tone of this post's title, I do want to say that I am happy to have "what everyone knows" officially documented. This is one of many steps that we must take to get a complete picture of the damage wrought by the Bush Administration's preference for pro-religion and pro-big business ideology over science. Let us never forget the name George Deutsch as a symbol of how bad a government can get, even in a democracy.
I haven't found a link to the report itself yet. If you know of one, please drop it in the Comments. Thanks.
(h/t: TPMMuckraker)
The NYT has a funny story about Phoenix, the Mars Lander, using Twitter. The story, posted a couple of days ago, says it is already the 30th most popular Twitter feed to follow.
As of this moment, according to Twitterholic (the same source the NYT used), it is now 14th. Have a look at Phoenix's Twitter page.
While looking at Twitterholic, I noticed that spot 29 is held by our good friend, Stephen Colbert. Lots of funny lines. When does this guy sleep?
Oh, and the third-most popular feed in the entire known Twitterverse? Hint: Yes We Can!
Someone else is 99th, but I'm sure Lanny Davis or Terry McAuliffe or Taylor Marsh or Larry Johnson will be along at any moment to explain how being 99th is actually ahead of being 3rd.
Not in the top 100? You guessed it!
How great is this? The guy who broke the world record for the 100-meter dash is named … Bolt.
Over at Too Sense, dnA quite properly refers to Tim Rutten as a "media critic." From Rutten's review of Scott McClellan's new book:
He should be granted part of the point on the press -- though only part. The news media, no less than the nation, endured a wrenching trauma on 9/11 and no less than any other institution in society felt the moral obligation to demonstrate solidarity with a country under deadly threat. In that situation, not giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, when it presented "facts" it said were based on the best and most sensitive intelligence available from the CIA and other spy agencies, would have been mindlessly adversarial. Moreover, since the media lacked the ability to do original reporting on the ground in Iraq, what basis would there have been for contradicting the administration's assessment of Saddam Hussein's aims?
The MSM needs no help in making excuses for itself for its utter failure during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, least of all from those who style themselves as watchdogs of the news media. As I noted in the comments over there:
You know who people like Rutten remind me of? All those top dogs in the MSM who were at the 2006 Correspondents' Dinner, who got properly reamed by Stephen Colbert, and spent the next week fluttering around assuring each other, "No. He wasn't funny. Not funny at all."
