Wednesday, March 05, 2008

A different kind of politics

A brief wrap-up for all you night owls

Steve Soto asked, "Senator Obama, did you want cheese with that whine?" as Obama attacks Clinton, dipping into the bag of the same ol' political tricks he so often promises he's not about. Oh, and of course, it's Clinton's fault as well as the media's for not having "cover[ed] the campaign properly." I don't think Obama was referring to blatant Clinton-bashing in the press or the right-wing freaktards. So could someone, please, call Barack a waahbulance. And get the smelling salts with a fainting couch for Donna Brazile before she hits the floor. She's highly sensitive to the politics of personal destruction.

Joebasic at Corrente offers some striking parallels to the campaign in 2000 vs. now in 2008. Scary!

Via Atrios, Laura Rozen adds a lengthy footnote to WashPo's publication of the sexist-laden "women are dumb" writing of Charlotte Allen. But just one thing's missing. Bob Somerby pointed out that barely a peep was uttered over the Post's equally-offensive Linda Hirshman. The explanation: "Allen, you see, is a pseudo-conservative; she writes for a string of kooky-con journals. Unfortunately, Hirshman is considered part of the 'liberal' team. In recent years, her work has appeared at the American Prospect, the New Republic, [Talking Points Memo]. Result? Liberal readers were allowed to learn half of what the Post did. They got to hear about Allen’s insulting piece, but not about Hirshman’s." Just when you thought liberal political pundits were--Ahem!--unbiased. . .Don't make us laugh.

Besides Hillary's stunning comeback, Avedon writes, "The best thing about Tuesday's results was the look on Russert's face." More goodies at Avedon's link.

This evening on CNN, I heard lots of talk about do-over primaries in Michigan and Florida. Let's hope they are not caucuses, which disenfranchises voters because the caucus system is less inclusive and prone to intimidation. For example, who wouldn't feel sheepish about standing up for a candidate that your boss hates. Secret ballots are the ticket, IMO. When I hear about all the caucuses Obama has won, I think of Geraldine Ferraro's point from this evening's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: "There are no caucuses in November." Oops!

I also worry about a Republican governor from Florida--a state that has had its share of voting problems--bearing gifts in a contest that could decide who wins the Democratic nomination. One would hope that Chairman Howard Dean would have a plan for Michigan and Florida. But he doesn't.

A House Divided: What if Hillary loses? What if Barack loses? "Exit polls conducted Tuesday showed cause for concern among Democrats. In Ohio, 26 percent of Democratic primary voters said they would not be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination and 32 percent said they would not be satisfied if Obama won it. The findings were similar in Texas."

OTOH, Paul Krugman offered sage advice about polls: "Nobody knows anything." Word!

Yuck, yuck, yuck! Well, it isn't all that funny in reality. Chicago Sun-Times headline: "Sen. Obama, time to call us about Rezko: (312) 321-2417." Yeah, they listed their telephone number in the headline! "For months, Sun-Times investigative reporters have had a standing request to meet with Obama, face to face, to get answers to questions. . ." So why does Obama's head honcho David Axelrod claim Obama has "talked to reporters from both papers several times in several sessions about" Rezko when clearly he has not? What's Obama hiding?

How's this for audacity: Obama campaign lawyer Bob Bauer crashed a Clinton conference call. Thanks, Shark-fu! I preferred your version of the conversation. "Party unity. . . "

Oh, it is a different kind of politics depending on one's definition.