You know what was funny about John MyFriend’s latest meltdown yesterday on the plane with reporters? Not that he lost his temper, as much as what he was saying was a fabrication.

NEW ORLEANS — Senator John McCain fielded a question at a public forum on Friday morning in Atlanta that he said he had never been asked before. Because Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, had approached him about being his running mate for the White House in 2004, would Mr. McCain now return the favor?

Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, who has long been distrusted by conservatives as a Democratic sympathizer, quickly said no he would not — and just as quickly said he had never considered sharing the ticket with Mr. Kerry, a friend.

Er, that should be “my friend.” But watch for yourself and then let me tell you why McCain was really so angry.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Actually, what “everyone in America” seems to have forgotten is that Kerry only asked MyFriend about his interest in being his running mate after McCain first floated the idea to the Kerry camp about becoming his running mate. From my post two years ago:

And this bombshell revelation yesterday from James Boyce (via HuffPo, via Democratic Daily) that “John McCain’s advisers thrust him in the middle of the John Kerry Vice Presidential selection process [in 2004] – the McCain as VP rumors started not in the Kerry camp but in the McCain camp.”

Why? “The possibility of McCain running as John Kerry’s Vice President forced Rove to deal with McCain. Because with the pending launch of the Swift Boat veterans teed up, Rove simply couldn’t let Kerry pick McCain. Two veterans, running together, unifying the country in a time of war would have been virtually unbeatable. Would McCain have really switched and joined Kerry? The White House couldn’t afford to wait to find out. Was a true deal struck? Was McCain promised the power of running as an incumbent Vice President in 2008?”

It was McCain who floated the idea that Kerry was interested in him, not the Kerry camp, so that he could extract leverage from Bush for ’08?

In a word, yes. No wonder MyFriend blew a gasket yesterday when the topic came up.

Did you think we were gonna forget, Johnny Mac, that you floated the idea to Kerry first in order get Bush’s goad?

That, MY FRIENDS, is what we call “selective amnesia.”

Cross posted from AoF

I hope last night’s Democratic debate was the last one. Ever. I can stands so much till I can stands no more. But it really has become, as the Times notes this morning, a parody. A parody of a parody, complete with idiotic questions, followed by the attendant “insight” of the MSM pooh-bahs who have shown how dense they really are.

Flat out, I’ve never liked Tim Russert. A supremely confident blow-hard who’s managed to create a reputation as the “toughest questioner on television,” Russert finally had his lunch handed to him in the best part of last night’s debate, when Hillary Clinton dissected his slipshod questioning. And a red-faced Russert nearly exploded.
          

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe–

MR. RUSSERT: But this is reality.

SEN. CLINTON: No — it isn’t reality. You’re — you’re — you’re making lots of different hypothetical assessments.

MR. RUSSERT: We’re going to get — we’re going to get to Senator Obama, but I want to stay on your terms — SEN. CLINTON: Well, but that — but that is important –

MR. RUSSERT: — because this was something that you wrote about as a real success for your husband. You said it was good on balance for New York and America in 2004, and now you’re in Ohio and your words are much different, Senator. The record is very clear!

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you don’t have all the record because you can go back and look at what I’ve said consistently.

LOL. You can’t handle the truth! When you look at the line of questioning and read the transcripts, Russert browbeats Clinton and throws softballs to Obambi the entire night. His set up to the questions gets longer and longer with Clinton as he attempts to “trap her” (did doofus get the memo that this wasn’t an episode of Meet the Press, but instead, a DEBATE last night?), where his questions get simpler and shorter with Obama as the night goes on.

“Gotcha” journalism isn’t “hard-hitting” or particularly all that clever. And asking hypotheticals over and over and over again is shoddy debate preparation, and lets us know nothing about the character of those being questioned.

Ironically, I saw Russert earlier in the evening on Hardball, angrily denying that “Saturday Night Live was accurate” in its portrayal of the MSM (him included) being “in the tank with Obama.” For real! He was pissed, red-faced, with an aura of “how dare they accuse me?” of such a thing (side bar: this follows Monday’s rage against SNL by Keith Olbermann).

And this morning on Today he again defended himself against the “SNL charge,” as it’s becoming known, by saying “Y’know, Matt, the problem wasn’t with the questions, the problem was with her answers,” regarding Clinton.

Uh, no, gasbag, the problem was definitely with both the questions and the questioner.

In reality, of course, the SNL parody continues to haunt because the writers finally came back to work and called the MSM out: Russert, Olbermann, Williams, et al, (Mo Dowd?) have been punked by the Obama campaign, hustling his talking points, treating him with kid gloves.

These guys just can’t handle an “uppity woman,” apparently. And the snickering sexism in the way the MSM has dealt with Clinton is simply astounding (keep in mind, I write this as Obama supporter, of all things).

I am not into identity politics at all, but as I’ve noted over the past year, the country would more than likely elect a black man over a white woman (or any woman) any day of the week. Because gender trumps race in terms of discrimination. And that’s become quite painfully clear the past couple of months.

We’ve come a long way, in that regard, with race relations in this country, but the gender gap is still Grand Canyon in scale, especially in the MSM.

Cross posted from AoF

What a helluva weekend Barack Obama had, sweeping Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska and the Maine caucuses, and besting Bill Clinton for a Grammy Award last night (spoken word). With news that Hillary Clinton “swung the ax,” firing her campaign chair and replacing her with a longtime aide, it would seem Obama was on his way to a big victory this Tuesday (expected to sweep Virginia, Maryland and D.C.) and a seeming lock on the lead in delegates.

And while I’m excited, I’m also troubled by the seeming “cult of personality” that seems to be springing up around Obama’s supporters, particularly those in the MSM as they jump on the Obama bandwagon and do what they can to slam the Clintons.

I’ve already noted MSNBC and its long-running thread of “white man’s burden”. Now you can add the former drama queen, er, critic Frank Rich to the mix, as he slips whatever credibility he had in Sunday’s op-ed with this laughable assertion regarding Democrats’ “civil war”:

“Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have “not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was “making a historical statement.” It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists.”

He then provides flimsy “evidence” showing rare instances where Latino voters have supported black candidates, none of which refutes the assertion made by the Clinton camp, and backed up by about 150 years of evidence, that African-Americans and Latino-Americans don’t like one another very much, and have a high degree of suspicion towards one another.

Carrying water for the “white man’s burden” crowd, Rich falls into the same trap that the other over-paid, white media dilettantes do: if we can over come our racism and vote for a black guy, what’s wrong with these brown people? Doesn’t being a minority automatically make you blood brothers with other oppressed minorities?

Uh, no, Frank, it doesn’t. African-Americans have a long history of suspicion and discrimination against Latinos (not to mention gays and Asian-Americans) going back to pre-Emancipation and the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), when “conquered” Mexicans on our side of the newly drawn border were granted full citizenship, while slaves continued to toil in the fields. And from there, with 150 years of immigration (legal or illegal), the “jobs war” and so forth, the two groups have loathed one another since.

Moreover, Rich doesn’t seem to even read his own newspaper, which a few weeks ago ran this article citing the “history of often uneasy and competitive relations between blacks and Hispanics.” As I’ve said repeatedly on this blog, Obama has really got to reach out, over 150 years of history, to win the Latino vote if he expects to beat Clinton and win the presidency. But having morons like Frank Rich use the term “civil war” to describe their fight for the nomination, in that sense, is itself a “racist and bigoted lie.”

As Paul Krugman points out today, this “hate springs eternal” coming from Obama supporters like Frank Rich, the entire crew at MSNBC, and other MSM sycophants (see Bill Kristol’s extolling of Obama today as well) makes one want to puke. In fact, when Rich and Kristol are “pimping” for the same candidate, you know the four horsemen are on their way.

Take a breath, Obama people. I want dude to win too, but there is no “civil war”, nor “dirty racist tactics,” nor any of the other hysterical pablum coming out of the “death to the Clinton’s” MSM quarter.

It’s a race between two fine candidates, both of whom are fighting like hell for the nomination. Yes, it might get dirty, but that’s hardball politics. Stop acting like such full-diaper toddlers every time someone dares to slam our guy. If he can’t beat the “Clinton machine” ultimately, wtf do you think is gonna happen to him when he goes up against the Republican smear army?

Let’s take our victory, keep hope alive, and stop acting like such sore winners.

Cross Posted From AoF 

Just below Stuart has a post explaining how he’s gone over to the Clinton camp. I thought I’d post a similar explanation on how I’ve gone over to Obama’s camp, and cast my vote for him here in Georgia today (and thank you, Pamela, for encouraging dissenting voices on the Dem Daily).

First, this isn’t really an “endorsement” as much as it an explanation of why I think Barack Obama is the right person for the job at this time.

The best way for me to explain why I’m for him is to first explain why I’m not. I’m not for Obama because of the anti-war loony left (like Move On) and others who are still proffering straw men arguments over the distinction between his opposition and Hillary Clinton’s support of the IWR in ’02. What matters is that both want to end this bloody mess post haste and that’s the only thing that matters regarding Iraq.

I’m not for him because I support the Hillary-haters or the Clinton-haters either. Stanley Fish hits it out of the ballpark yesterday in the Times with a blistering column called “All You Need Is Hate.”

This is why I’m going to great lengths to distance myself from those on the the loony left and the cuckoo right who are as obsessed with the Clinton’s as they are. Let me reiterate: the fact that I support Barack Obama does not in any way mean I agree that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be president. For if she does win the nomination, I will vote for her enthusiastically. Hell, I’d vote for my dog enthusiastically before I voted for John McCain.

That said, it’s precisely the hateful attitudes and polarizing feelings people seem to have of the Clinton’s, and the misogyny running through so much of the vituperative comments made about her (even by people I normally otherwise respect), that makes me want to go in a different and new direction. While Erica Jong maee some interesting points on this, it’s precisely those points that push me elsewhere. It’s not ultimately about “the patriarchy” for most voters, but about the past.
This election is about repudiating and eradicating the last 8 years of Bush and anything remotely connected to him or his “legacy” of war, death and fear. And while it may be unfair to lump Clinton in with any of that (forget the IWR, what about the Patriot Act or her initial support of the NSA program?), the fact of the matter is that she and her husband represent a continuation of the dynastic Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton lineage that I’m just tired of.

When young voters talk about having never known anything but a Bush or Clinton in the White House, I can relate to that. Certainly from a coming of age standpoint, and counting Bush Sr.’s eight years as Veep, 2/3 of my life has been spent with a Bush or Clinton in, or with proximity to, the Oval Office.

Obama offers a fresh re-direction from all of the past 28 years. He provides an opportunity for a new direction away from the morally degenerate, ideologically bankrupt philosophy known as conservatism, and its philosophical doppelganger “triangulation”. Obama offers a progressive agenda and will put good, solid, progressive judges, who don’t legislate a conservative bias from the bench, in the courts and on the Supreme Court, of which he could easily fill three slots in his first term.

The experience issue is also a non-starter. Compared to the current occupant of the White House, who was the most unqualified, unprepared, ill-equipped person to ever be “appointed” president, Obama is already supremely qualified to hold the office. We survived 9/11 with such a simpleton in the Oval Office, we’ll be just fine with Barack Obama in there too. Check out Michael Chabon’s WaPo op-ed for a much better-written reason on why to vote for Obama.

My vote does come with qualifications, however:

• While I appreciate all the wonderful rhetorical flourishes Obama makes from the pulpit, I’d like to see more details about what he’s actually going to do regarding healthcare, economy, prison reform, and Iraq.
• The fact that many Republicans are supporting him makes me suspicious.
• And while race is a non-issue for most Democrats, you can expect it to get ugly once the racists in the Republican party come out en masse to “Swiftboat” him using the issue. If you thought South Carolina was ugly, that wasn’t even a warm-up for what these “scum-sucking bottom dwellers” on the right (h/t John McCain) will cook up for the fall.

But I don’t care about that either. I welcome that fight. What I don’t welcome is fighting over the 90′s or the 60′s (or ’02) again. I don’t want a continuation or a “third term” for Bill Clinton, and fighting the same culture wars that the Boomers have been fighting since the decade I (and Obama) was born nauseates me as much now as it did 20 years ago, when we had to suffer through the first wave of 60′s nostalgia.

And ultimately, that’s what it boils down to for me: it’s generational, more than anything else. I’ve written several times on this issue over at AoF that the generational appeal I feel about the guy transcends much of the campaign minutiae and boring, trite culture wars rhetoric that Baby Boomers still want to keep fighting.

It’s time for a change, time for the proverbial “torch to be passed to a new generation.” I harbor no illusions that the guy is “another Kennedy”, but frankly, I never thought we Gen Xers would get our chance, given how big the Boomers and their kids, the Millennials, are.

But this is it, this is our chance. At the end of the day, Obama will no doubt make “rookie mistakes” and have his share of screw-ups. I imagine the “learning curve” on the presidency is staggering. But just as the Giants dumped the storied Patriots Sunday night, there is a real chance for Obama to score a big victory today. I believe there’s a good chance the “nothing will be different on Wednesday” prognosticators will be wrong.

To borrow the phrase, his time has come and the torch should be passed. Then pass me a cigarette.

Cross posted from AoF

Once again, the most prescient comments from last night’s coverage of the Republican primary in Florida came from the more conservative analysts, Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough. As it became clear John McCain was going to win, Buchanan and Scarborough had this exchange:

JS: “There is no way conservatives are going to rally and turn out big for McCain if he’s the nominee.”

PB: “Look at his proposals, Joe. He’s said the jobs are gone and aren’t coming back; the illegals aren’t going home; and we need more war!”

JS: “Less jobs, more war, I like it, Pat!” followed by much hilarity.

But it was true. Not so much the “conservatives won’t rally line” (c’mon, they’re gonna do what, drift to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or Mike Bloomberg?), but in his proposals. McCain’s ideas are as tired and worn out as he is. Last night in Florida virtually guaranteed a Democratic victory in the fall, so unlike eight years ago, thank you, Florida.

Thanks too for continuing to roll out the carpet and welcome New Yorkers to your state as the place to retire.

Giuliani Set To Withdraw From Race: “After his third-place finish, Republican officials said Mr. Giuliani was expected to drop out of the race and endorse Mr. McCain, possibly as early as Wednesday.”

Sweet. Even Republicans had grown tired of the candidate for “President of 9/11″.

And what’s with all the “If Mike Huckabee stays in the race, he hurts Romney” claptrap? The evangelical kooks who support “Change the Constitution Huckabee” are never going to vote for a Mormon, who they see as one step above Beelzebub himself, for president. Huckabee does nothing to Romney, save make the Republican Breck Girl seem more telegenic.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton showed up for a “victory speech” last night in some place called Davie, Florida, even though her “victory” was delegate-less, campaign-less, and roundly dismissed by Keith Olbermann and other Obama supporters on MSNBC as “meaningless”.

Think again, Keith (yes, I’ve just about had it with Olbermann these days; he’s great on Countdown, but unscripted during live coverage? Sophomoric and trite). Not only did Clinton win, she received more votes (850,000+) than John McCain did on the Republican side (693,000). In fact, almost as many Democrats voted in Florida yesterday (1,730,000) as did Republicans (1,920,000) and their entire nominating process was on the line.

That says two things: number one, Democrats are itching for a fight in the fall. And number two, Keith Olbermann needs a refresher course in how to count and interpret numbers (something you’d think a sportscaster would know) and how to remain somewhat objective as you shill for the Obama campaign.

Put it this way, if Obama had won Florida last night (and I say this as one leaning towards Obama) you can bet he would have been crowing in similar fashion. And while I don’t think Clinton stands a chance of getting the Florida delegates seated or their votes counted at the convention, the childish reaction by the Obama campaign (“a beauty pageant”) struck the same idiotic chord that his snub of her at the SOTU the night before did. Not to mention, the “beauty pageant” theme is easily a sexist slur, given that “the woman” won.

It’s time for Obama and his advisers to grow the hell up. Even John Kerry, who Dem Daily readers know is revered around here, sullied his name last night, barking, “it’s not a legitimate race.” Nice. Way to slam those 1.7 million voters who traipsed to the polls yesterday, Senator.

You Obama folks aren’t making it easy for this voter to walk into the booth next Tuesday and pull the lever for you, I’ll give you that. Send me more pro-Clinton emails. I’m waffling.

UPDATE: John Edwards is dropping out of the race.

Cross posted from AoF

I don’t watch Dan Abrams as much as I should, but I caught his opening segment last night, and the dude absolutely nailed why this entire alleged “Racial Row” between the Clinton and Obama camps is nothing but a fabricated story, completely generated by big-Washington media, designed to sell soap and bump ratings.

For another case in point: look no further than today’s WaPo op-ed page to see all these “wise sages” going on and on about absolutely nothing.

In fact, for a contrarian read on race and politics, take a gander at this Times article on the “real racial” story of this election so far: Obama having to sell himself to suspicious Latino voters, and the long-simmering tensions between African-Americans and Hispanics.

Unlike the Clinton/Obama fabrication, this latter story speaks volumes of the racial tensions and problems in this country. The real problems, that is.

Cross posted from AoF

Wow. I’m not completely surprised by this email from John Kerry (and I’m sure Pamela will have the details), but it is newsworthy.

“Dear Todd,

“Martin Luther King said, “The time is always right to do what is right.” So I’m choosing this time to share an important decision I’ve made, one I believe is right for this country.

“The JohnKerry.com community has been very important to me and very important to the Democratic resurgence over the last couple of years, so I wanted to let all of you know my decision before I confirm it with anyone else. I want to share with you my conviction that in a field of fine Democratic candidates, the next President of the United States can be, should be, and will be Barack Obama. Each of our candidates would make a fine President, and we are blessed with a strong field. But for this moment, at this time in our nation’s history, Barack Obama is the right choice.

Please join me in supporting Barack Obama’s candidacy.

“I’m proud to have helped introduce Barack to our nation when I asked him to speak to our national convention, and there Barack’s words and vision burst out. On that day he reminded Americans that our “true genius is faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles.” And with his leadership we can build simple dreams, and we can turn millions of small miracles into real change for our country.”

There’s more to the email, and as I said I’m sure Pamela will have the inside-Kerry camp scoop shortly. CNN is reporting the news, among others.

This is  getting ridiculous, the idea that voters told pollsters (anonymously) they would vote for Barack Obama, an African-American, for president, only to turn racist once they went into the voting booth (anonymously) and pulled the lever for a white woman instead.

Also known as the “Bradley Effect”, this phenomenon says that white voters will lie to pollsters and say they support a black candidate (to assuage racist guilt, one would assume), only to go into the voting booth and vote for the white candidate (to act on racist feelings).

In some rather infamous elections in the past (the name derives from Tom Bradley, Democratic nominee for Governor in California in 1982), this hypothesis was used to explain why black candidates went into (general) election days with huge leads, only to either barely win or in fact lose (see also: elections of Douglas Wilder, David Dinkins, Harvey Gantt, et al).

I mention that this is a hypothesis because there has never been any evidence to show that it happened in those races above. From a methodological standpoint, in fact, it’s virtually impossible to measure and prove anyway. And in the races mentioned, all were general elections. The idea that this would happen in a Democratic primary, with a bunch of granola tree-hugging liberals (!), is even more ludicrous. Why Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center would not even mention this in his op-ed this morning is stunning.

Does or could race have played a part? For a small, statistically insignificant population, sure. In fact the race of the pollster and how the questions were being phrased could also effect the outcome as well. But frankly, the best evidence that this “Bradley Effect” is wrong comes from the very polls that are being so disparaged today from before the election (see also: Michael Fauntroy).

I refer to my post here regarding the predictions, but if you look at them closely, virtually every poll put Obama as receiving between 35-40 % vote, which was, within a point or two, close to the actual 36% he received (factoring in the margin of error, it’s a wash).

In other words, no one flocked away from Obama who said they were going to support him. Statistically, it wasn’t even measurable. However, the large undecided contingent definitely moved, and seemed to go with Clinton (for reasons outlined here yesterday) and in fact, people left Edwards and the other candidates in droves as well (this is an odd story, but the collapse of Edwards’ support isn’t really being discussed anywhere).

I’ll be the first on it when the “race card” gets pulled out (and you know it will if Obama wins the nomination and goes to the general election), but the notion that Democratic white folks up in New Hampshire “freaked out” at the last moment and voted for a white woman instead, is as laughable as it is outrageous.

Cross posted from AoF

Remember my recap the other day regarding polling in the Dem race? And the only poll out there showing Clinton would win came from Suffolk University?

* Suffolk University : Clinton 35%, Obama 33%, Edwards 14%

“But as Carpetbagger notes, “Come Wednesday morning, the pollsters at Suffolk University are going to look remarkably good or embarrassingly bad.”

Looks like the kudos of the day goes to Suffolk University. What’s their mascot, a slide rule or something?

New Hillary Clinton campaign motto: S’uffolk U!

Cross posted from AoF 

Pamela’s already mentioned Tweety Mathew’s stupid comments from this morning. I just wanted to chime in with some thoughts in general about how, across the board last night, MSNBC was full of morons and nincompoops who got it so wrong regarding the Democratic vote in New Hampshire, it defied belief.

I tuned in around 8ish and was stunned to watch the next hour or so as Mathews and Olbermann sat there denying the obvious: that Hillary Clinton was coming back from the political graveyard to win.

As the numbers kept widening (at one point, she was ahead by 6), Tweety and Doofusmann first ignored the results, then discussed that many precincts weren’t in yet, then focused inordinately on McCain’s win, then finally, around 10pm, they began discussing [gasp!] the unthinkable: “Are we seeing something no one predicted?” Olbermann intoned in great baritone.

Well, if you and Tweety had opened your eyes about two hours earlier, the bottom of your screen showed she was on her way to a big victory for like 120 minutes or so.

And what’s with Olbermann and his defense of the sexist coverage of Clinton “choking up”? As Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow sparred back and forth over the story’s “relevance”, Keith jumps in with this take:

“I think you’re both wrong. The real story was what happened after, how she went from showing emotion in one breath to going back into attack mode and slamming Obama the next breath. Isn’t that the real story everyone is missing?”

What story? That we might be electing a president who can show emotion and empathy one moment, then turn around and lead the next? The horrah! Then he kept trying to change the topic off his own sexist comments/coverage back to Clinton’s supposed “al-Qaeda” reference, which no one but he, apparently, thought was newsworthy either.

I like Olbermann as much as the next guy, but his allegiances were rather clear, and he was off his game and just plain stupid last night on the air.

Ditto Mathews, Brokaw and every other pundit on that network. I particularly loved both Charlie Cook and Chuck Todd, the so-called “political experts”, who were on in the 8pm hour talking about how they’d “never seen a candidate like Obama” in the history of politics and that his momentum was “unheralded”, while simultaneously dude was getting stomped right below them on the screen as the vote totals scrolled by.

The inability of these guys, men, to see what was happening right in front of them as the hours ticked by, was astounding. My wife said at one point, “Why aren’t they calling it for Hillary? She’s kicking Obama’s ass,” and this was at 8:30pm or so. As Jeff Fecke summarized it, “Clinton won tonight because in the last few days, the level of misogyny directed toward her had reached a fever pitch, and the women of New Hampshire decided that they’d had enough of it.” Apparently this was missed by the male anchors at MSNBC all night.

And btw, my posts yesterday on this topic weren’t the product of any “male guilt” or whatever (as some readers have emailed me about). My reaction was based on the two most important women in my life: my wife and my mother, neither of whom you could call “devout feminists”, but both of whom were outraged over the treatment of Clinton in the last 48 hours or so leading up to Tuesday. Even Joe Scarborough, of all people, referenced the Steinem piece this morning and said “she nailed it!” And Clinton won because the women in N.H. were just as outraged.

If you want to vote against Clinton (as I probably will, btw) then defeat her because you think she’s a triangulating, “Third Way”, retro-empty suit who will caved on Iraq (and Iran) to get elected.

The message of N.H. last night, however, was “you can’t defeat her just because she’s a woman,” and woe unto you who try henceforth.

Cross posted from AoF