Wednesday, May 28, 2008

GOP waterboyz

I wonder if the A-hole Listers realize the kooky arguments and sliming of Hillary Clinton that they're making are in the "isn't it great that people are so stupid that they'll swallow this horsesh*t" category.

That's a deep thought.

Hillary, RFK, malignant absurdity

Via VastLeft, two commentaries on Hillary and her RFK assassination in June remark. First, the cogent, rational Avedon (with emphasis in bold):

I really look forward to the day when I don't get up in the morning and find my formerly favorite blogs littered with so many stupid posts attempting to twist statements by Hillary Clinton into Proof of Evil. When the Republicans say stupid things about Obama, everyone is perfectly capable of seeing through it and tearing it apart - in fact, y'all do it so well that I have little to add. Why can't we do that for Hillary? And why is it that when I try to do that, I get attacked as a "Hillary supporter", even though I've made it clear that I can't choose between her and Obama? What's wrong with you people? Do the Republicans spend half their time trying to destroy the reputation of the Reagans, or Gingrich, or any of their standard-bearers? Do you think they would spend five seconds doing this kind of self-immolation? Pull yourselves together - you're just joining in with a favorite Republican sport, and you are not helping clinch the nomination for Obama. The corporate media is always going to attack the Clintons, and they don't actually need your help. [And, for the record, HRC was talking about nominating races that ended in June, as she clearly emphasizes that word in the clip. And she picked the two June races that were most memorable for her. Now, if you can't figure out why the '68 and '92 races were particularly memorable for Hillary Clinton, you should consider the possibility that your prejudices are clouding your judgment.]

Duh! How biased, stupid, and/or ignorant of history can people get? Here's how: the MSNBC clown act from Rachel Maddow when the conversation turned to Clinton as Obama's veep.

MADDOW: I think that it makes you think that it would be very awkward for a vice president to be on a ticket—for a vice presidential candidate to be on a presidential candidate‘s ticket after she‘s made repeated references to his potential death. Yes, that would be weird.

But the other—but I think it‘s important also that you raised this prospect that she‘s talked about other assassinations in modern American history during this campaign.


MADDOW: I think for the superdelegates, I think John Harwood‘s point is well taken, which is that this shows a lack of discipline at best here. This shows—this is a gaffe and a big mistake from a remarkably disciplined candidate.

And if this was a mistake, it‘s a big an uncharacteristic mistake. If it wasn't a mistake, it‘s disgusting.

Project much, Rachel? Maddow video and transcript link at Corrente.

POSTSCRIPT: The Obama campaign stirred up the press corps by circulating lowlife Olbermann's wacky doodle commentary about Hillary's RFK assassination reference. Hey, it's a new kind of politics! When Obama plays lowdown, dirty tricks--and why would he if he's truly the inevitable nominee?--the words, change, hope, and unity, appear inside the O'Kool-Aid sippy cup.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Sexists on sexism

Ah, wonderful harp music is playing as my news media boycott continues. Speaking of...

How does a news network further undermine its credibility? By asking two punditheads who have made sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton to evaluate whether sexism has played a role in the presidential campaign. I kid you not! Who orchestrated the nonsense? MSNBC, of course!

During the May 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski asked MSNBC political analyst Mike Barnicle, "[D]o you think we'll be looking back on the coverage and on the conversations pertaining to [Sen.] Hillary Clinton's run for the White House and will sexism play a key role in what went wrong?" Barnicle responded: "No, I think the further we get from this election cycle, I think reality will play a much larger role in what has happened in this election than reality is playing a part now." Later, MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan stated: "[T]here's resistance to a woman being the nominee, but by and large, I think the fact that she's a woman has helped her here." But as Media Matters for America has noted, on the February 26 edition of Morning Joe, Buchanan made the admittedly "sexist" comment that when Clinton "raises her voice, and when a lot of women do, you know, it's -- as I say -- it reaches a point ... where every husband in America ... has heard at one time or another." Additionally, on the January 23 edition of the program, Barnicle had said of Clinton: "[W]hen she reacts the way she reacts to [Sen. Barack] Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court, OK? Looking at him that way, all I could think of ... was this fall, if it's [Sen. John] McCain that she's facing, McCain is likable. She's not."

After Buchanan criticized Clinton's voice on the February 26 Morning Joe, Brzezinski responded: "Oh, Pat, you're lucky you're not in the studio, I'm telling you." Buchanan said: "I know that's a sexist comment ... but there's truth to it! ... There's truth to it." He continued: "It's very difficult for women to reach those kinds of levels effectively, as it is to make them sort of a rally speech. They're not good at that." Brzezinski replied: "There is something so wrong with what you're saying, and what I fear is that the effect may be exactly what you're saying because of this double standard that people can't hear strength from a woman without using the B-word, and quite frankly, if that is what people are going to take away from this, it just seems to me as, well, everything that the Clinton campaign is arguing then." Buchanan had stated earlier: "[I]t's very tough for a woman. You see two men going back and forth at each other, you say, 'Boy, they're really going at it.' ... And you see two women or something, and say, 'Boy, what a catfight this is.' " During the April 23 edition of the show, Buchanan said of Clinton's speech following the Pennsylvania primary the day before: "[O]nly once or twice did that voice start rising to the level that every husband in America at one time or another has heard. You know, where it starts going up."

Barnicle made his January 23 comment during discussion of the January 21 Democratic presidential debate, among an all-male panel that included co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist, and correspondent David Shuster. [Emphasis added.]

They also talked as if Hillary is out of the race by refraining NBC Tim Russert's edict that Obama is the nominee and "no one’s going to dispute it." Bah!

Watch the Barnicle & Buchanan circus show in living color at Media Matters, a lot more including an noxious reference to President Billary.

Honestly, can news programming get any dumber and more clueless about its sexism?

Hillary still leads in key swing states

Quinnipiac University poll:

Plagued by a defection of Clinton supporters and white working class voters, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the leading Democratic presidential contender, trails Arizona Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican candidate, in Florida and Ohio, according to simultaneous Quinnipiac University Swing State polls released today. Sen. Obama is six points ahead in Pennsylvania. New York Sen. Clinton wins handily in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College. Results from the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University polls show:

  • Florida: Clinton tops McCain 48 - 41 percent; McCain leads Obama 45 - 41 percent;

  • Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 - 41 percent; McCain tops Obama 44 - 40 percent;

  • Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 50 - 37 percent; Obama leads McCain 46 - 40 percent.

In the McCain-Obama matchups, 26 to 36 percent of Clinton supporters in each state say that if Obama is the nominee they would switch to the Republican in November. Only 10 to 18 percent of Obama supporters say they would defect to McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

Lawsuit filed to seat Florida delegation

Via Jerome Armstrong, the Miami Herald reported:

Florida's history of discrimination against African Americans should force the national Democratic Party to count all of the state's delegates at its national convention, a federal lawsuit filed Thursday claims.

The suit, filed by state Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller and two other Democrats, claims that the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits the national party from stripping the state of its convention delegates.

The Civil Rights-era law requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn't disenfranchise minority voters. Geller argues that includes the Democratic National Committee's demand that Florida switch ''from a state-run primary to party-run caucus system'' to avoid losing its delegates.

''The purpose of this lawsuit is not to support one candidate over another; it's to enforce one of the most basic tenets of our democracy: Count the votes as they were cast,'' Geller said in announcing the lawsuit.

Geller, a Cooper City lawyer, said the Democratic National Committee has repeatedly argued that the reason it is punishing Florida is because it held its primary before the February date authorized by the party and then refused to conduct a post-primary caucus to designate delegates.

Geller argues that a caucus would have replaced the vote of 1.75 million Floridians with an event that was expected to capture only about 100,000 voters at 120 polling sites, thereby disenfranchising thousands of Florida Democrats, including those serving in U.S. military based outside Florida.

See how caucuses disenfranchise voters? Florida provides a significant example, another reason why I give more weight to Clinton's primary victories. Will the Democratic party learn this lesson and change over to closed primaries? One can hope.

Geller is an uncommitted superdelegate. The other two Democratic plaintiffs are also delegates, one for Clinton and the other for Obama.

The lawsuit also says that by penalizing Florida, the DNC is violating the constitutional protection on equal application of the law and a federal law that requires parties to write their own rules and then follow them. The lawsuit argues that DNC rules require it to conduct an investigation into questions involving state action, such as the premature primary date, but the DNC failed to conduct any investigation.

The lawsuit comes as the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee is scheduled to meet in Washington May 31 to hash out how to settle the delegate dispute involving both Florida and Michigan.

Geller, and two other plaintiffs, sent a six-page letter to the DNC accusing them of failing to understand the legal and practical problems of stripping the state of their delegates and demanding they restore the delegates to the convention.

Geller believes the strongest argument Florida Democrats have in the legal challenge is how it relates to Section Five of the Voting Rights Act. The 1965 act was designed to protect blacks, primarily in southern states, from discrimination by banning literacy tests, poll taxes and unfair redistricting that had denied them access to the voting booths.

Seems the ball is no longer in Howard Dean's court (pun intended) if the May 31 DNC meeting fails to decide to seat the Florida delegation. How can the Democratic party live up to its name by violating the Voting Rights Act? Did I just hear Donna Brazile's head explode?

Earlier today, BTD at TalkLeft quoted Obama on Florida's delegates:

...Sen. Barack Obama said Wednesday that "a very reasonable solution" would be to count Florida's disputed primary votes and cut the state's delegation to the convention in half.

Betcha Florida voters would disagree with Obama's "very reasonable solution" and we will soon discover the outcome from the May 31 DNC meeting. Something tells me the committee will rule against Obama's thievery suggestion. Just guessing.

POSTSCRIPT: This lawsuit on behalf of the Florida delegation wasn't the first.

UPDATE: Edited to reflect that the other two Democratic plaintiffs are not superdelegates. Barbara Effman (for Clinton) and Percy Johnson (for Obama) are pledged delegates.

Racial pretensions

Now more than 36 hours into boycotting TV news, I can always check the pulse of the Obamasphere--these days an extension of the mainstream press--to discern what the air waves have blasted as the latest propaganda spiel. So I'm enjoying music in lieu of hype blaring in the background from tee-vee punditheads. Who needs 'em? I don't.

With that said, onward to race-race-race, a recurring campaign media trope.

Riverdaughter posted terrific commentary this morning on an "annoying theme from yesterday’s sweetie attack... that Kentuckians pretty much admitted that they were racists in exit polls." Garychapelhill followed up with an argument that I also support:

By repeatedly crying wolf on the race issue, Obama lessens the impact of the charge of racism when it really occurs. Despite what the pundits and the Obama campaign say, this exit poll data is of no use when trying to determine the racial attitude of voters. Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at some numbers.

Gary then examined exit polls from Wisconsin, Georgia, Connecticut, and Florida to demonstrate that building an argument about racism (and sexism) in the primaries--and specifically Hillary's "racist" voters based on exit polls--is not only stupid, but dishonest and destructive in trivializing the real-world problems of post-civil rights era racial injustices.

For further edification, see also Richard Thompson Ford, professor at Stanford and author of the book, The Race Card: How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse.

I left a comment at Riverdaughter's post about the alleged racism of the Kentucky primary, which I'll re-post here with additional remarks, revisions, and panels from the KY exit polls via CNN.

Looking at the exit polls, the Blog Boyz and the media have ignored the nuances. I suspect their motive is to undermine Hillary's huge win in KY in protecting The Precious (h/t Anglachel) and his march to the nomination. Pffft. Pffft. Shield your eyes from the electoral map and how it favors Hillary in the general election. Ignore the argument that Obama isn't as strong in defeating McCain. Instead, they jam the public discourse with race scandal-mongering as a diversion from the issue of Obama's electability.

First, eyeball the vote by race of the exit polls.

African-American voters broke large for Obama, a greater percent than whites who voted for Hillary. But who would be silly enough to criticize AAs for voting for Obama? It's a historical opportunity, a no-brainer.

Next, the specious argument du jour about bluegrass state racism via this exit poll question.

Of the 18% of whites who said race of the candidate was important, 9% of them voted for Obama, 2% voted uncommitted. So that whittles down the argument that one in five bluegrass voters are "white racists." A portion of those 18% whites--9%--voted for Obama because his race was important to them. What's that tell you? Are the alleged racists confused? More sexist than racist? Seriously, wonder about how the question was phrased and whether people say the darnest, dumbest things to end a research survey as quickly as possible.

Additionally, 2% of the 9% of AAs--or 22%--said that the race of the candidate was important.

Of Black Democrats (9%), 91% of them voted for Obama.

Also notice the breakout of party affiliation. Looking at the vote by party and race, the exit poll lumped All Republicans together (6%) and All Other Party (1%) without identifying their race. I suspect these cohorts are white but we don't know because the exit polls didn't provide the data.

What the exit polls didn't analyze is how many of the white group (18%) who said race of the candidate was important came from All Republicans and/or All Other Party. There are no party affiliations attributed to these white voters. None.

Only 7% said that race of the candidate was most important while 14% said that race was one of several factors contributing to their voting decision. What's the race of the 7% and 14% of these respondents? We don't know.

Of the latter 14% group, which said race was one of several factors, 19% of them voted for Obama and 2% for Uncommitted.

Based on this data, to claim that Kentuckians are racists is simplistic and erroneous. I don't fault the overwhelming majority of AAs who voted for Obama. Do the Blog Boyz? Or the media? Hell, no. They're busy shrieking their heads off about Hillary's racist voters.

Is there racism in KY? Probably, just as there is racism and sexism in America. But how deep the racism is--who, what, and where--these exits polls don't probe.

However, it's malignant absurdity to use exit polls to declare "that Kentuckians pretty much admitted that they were racists." What we're seeing mostly, IMO, is racial identity with a candidate. You can see that vividly in how Black Democrats voted--91% for Obama.

Assuming that whites who voted for Clinton aren't voting for Obama because he's African-American dismisses and discounts what Hillary offers to Americans as POTUS.

Violet at The Reclusive Leftist wrote on March 10 about... for Obama from the African-American community, a phenomenon with which I’m deeply sympathetic. Just as millions of women (of all races) see their gender reflected in Hillary, millions of African-Americans (of both sexes) see their race reflected in Obama. You can call it identity politics, but what I call it is the chance to finally feel represented after 200 years in a so-called representative democracy. I begrudge no one that yearning.

Neither do I.

I support Hillary first and foremost because of her policies, her knowledge, her experience, her can-do attitude, and her tenacity. OMG, we need a fighter in the WH when our nation faces crises on so many fronts: the economy, energy, foreign affairs, and national security with two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also identify with Hillary as a woman, trusting her to represent the interests of half of America better than a man with a sexist attitude who refers to us as sweeties.

So sweetie darthlings, take your racial pretensions about Hillary voters elsewhere. My teevee news programming is dark and Beethoven is playing. Da-da-da-duh.

Boycott TV news

Enough of the sexist, misogynistic speech of the media.

Since when is it acceptable to call Hillary a white b*tch?!

I can live without TV and radio. In fact, I turned off radio in 1990 and I haven't missed it. Not once. That is for certain. I have the Internet to pick and choose news and information from reliable sources and bloggers.

Egalia offers the background so go read and learn.

Republican pundit Alex Castellanos who called Hillary the B-word needs to go. Pronto!

CNN has capitulated "to pleas from the Obama campaign to suspend pro Hillary pundits Paul Begala, James Carville and Robert Zimmerman in the interests of being fair and balanced." Can you believe it? Screw CNN. Off with news networks. They offer hype, propaganda, and anti-female narratives.

I'm expressing my dissent by boycotting the media and it has been 24 hours. I do. Not. Miss. It. At. All.

No more BS. No more misogyny. No more junk allowed in my home.

Watch the YouTube courtesy egalia.

The boycott is on! Will you join me?

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Hillary's interview: racism, sexism

Joseph of Cannonfire alerted me to a WashPo interview with Hillary Clinton by Lois Romano. He zeroed in on two questions about racism and misogyny (full transcript of the interview at Editor&Publisher).

Lois Romano questions and Hillary Clinton answers:

Q. Do you think this has been a particularly racist campaign?

A. I do not. I think this has been a positive, civil campaign. I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either. The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists. [Emphasis added.]

That's Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, the cast of punditheads at NBC, MSNBC, CNN, the vain and vicious of news orgs across America and beyond to the cyber-rants of the Obamasphere.

Today Bob Somerby dissected Dana Milbank's wacky doodle attempt to downplay Clinton's charge of misogyny in media:

There’s no bigger hack than the Post’s Dana Milbank, which explains today’s consummate hackistry. Has Hillary Clinton encountered misogyny in this campaign? Duh! Whatever you think of the overall race, everyone knows that she has; denying that would be like denying the presence of ice in Alaska. But Milbank is paid by the cable “news” network which has been Ground Zero for the campaign’s gender-trashing. So watch a pure hack go to work! In today’s column, he pretends that the claim of misogyny only makes sense if you’ve drunk “the Clinton Kool-Aid.” Here’s one numb-nut example:

MILBANK (5/21/08): Supporters were just entering the ballroom when, at the stroke of 7 p.m., CNN's Wolf Blitzer, on the projection screen, forecast "a dramatic win for Hillary Clinton...perhaps by 30 points." The gathering Clinton crowd was still cheering when CNN's Gloria Borger, at 7:05, reminded everybody that "the prospects are not great" for Clinton, and Donna Brazile mused: "Will it be enough? . . . I don't believe so."


To which, Somerby explained:

See how it’s done? Milbank finds a pair of statements about Clinton’s chances which didn’t seem to be driven by misogyny. That means that he’s free to ridicule the whole foolish notion! But read his whole column if you want to see the way a pure hack “reasons.”

Milbank speaks of mythical Clinton Kool-Aid but what does he know? He's been mainlining the Standard Big Media narratives so long, he couldn't possibly recognize reality through the haze of his habitual stupor.

Paul Lukasiak at Corrente documented "Misogyny, Sexism, & the Gender Gap in the 2008 Election" in a series that details attitudes and stats disfavoring a female candidate, quantifiable data that a lazy Beltway hackster like Milbank didn't bother to investigate.

Next interview question posed to Hillary:

Q. Isn't that how it's always been though.

A. Oppression of women and discrimination against women is universal. You can go to places in the world where there are no racial distinctions except everyone is joined together in their oppression of women. The treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world. If you look at the extremism and the fundamentalism, it is all about controlling women, at it's base. The idea that we would have a presidential campaign in which so much of what has occurred that has been very sexist would be just shrugged off I think is a very unfortunate commentary about the lack of seriousness that should be applied to any kind of discrimination or prejudice. I have spent my entire life trying to stand up for civil rights and women's rights and human rights and I abhor wherever it is discrimination is present. [Emphasis added.]

I am tired tonight so in lieu of posting and re-posting the proof of the war on women, I gathered a partial list of references that I've made on The RealSpiel that contain plenty of evidence and links to other notable feminist bloggers. Click the links and the embedded links for the entire picture:

And that's just for starters here. Melissa McEwan has a running tally--up to 97 incidents as of today--in her Hillary Sexism Watch, a comprehensive resource. Check egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women as well.

To wind up Romano's interview with Hillary, Joseph offered an observation worth examining:

On a few occasions, I've pointed out that Colin Powell could have won the presidency in 2000 just by pointing at the White House and saying "I'll take it." Not one reader has disagreed with that assessment, even though people love to disagree with everything else I say. Can you name a single woman in the history of this country who could have strolled into the oval office that easily?

Hardly. In fact, the press went all a-twitter when a Time/CNN poll in 1995 showed that Powell could potentially beat Bill Clinton by 10 points if he decided to run as a Republican. The article opened with this telling statement, "To be born poor and black and into an inner city neighborhood does not mean you can't achieve your highest ambitions."

And Geraldine Ferraro was right though Joseph expresses it succinctly, "Being a black male in this race is an advantage -- compared to being a woman of any heritage."

POSTSCRIPT: The audio interview, "Sen. Clinton Discusses 'Sexist' Treatment."

Sullivan's Clinton shtick

Andrew Sullivan suffers. And oh, how he wants us all to suffer with him. His neurosis could make a brawny man weep a-boo-hoo for Sully's CDS-afflicted cerebal cortex. Obsession, sending a cascade of neuropeptides through his neural tissue, may cause him to gasp like a hooked fish but his hankie quick to remove any hint of lickspittle beguiles him into the quiet, insidious work of deposing his darkest, deepest fear: The Clintons.

Denigrating The Clintons feeds his raison d'être, a crutch against otherwise mediocre political meanderings. Woe is he, a fine writing talent wasting his craft on polemics that rival Jonah Goldberg's wacky farragoes. Yet, what is a conservative to do in an era when rightist ideology lies scattered like withered petals on the lawn of the Rose Garden? His former war hero, the talking codpiece, has been unmasked as a proven idiot. And worse.

In the archives of Salon, one can find anti-leftist, antiwar Sullivan harangues. Two examples: in 2003, "Idiocy of the Week: Sheryl Crow, brain-dead peacenik in sequins," and his immortalizing column in 2000, "Why is this race even close? Because George W. Bush has campaigned better, proposed more forward-thinking programs and proved, in the end, that he's smarter than Al Gore." Cue up the laugh track.

Sully wailed a post-9/11 "shriek, hitting an ear-piercing decibel that, whether intended or not, [drove] out the possibility of rational discussion," by acting as a self-appointed inquisitor "to evaluate whether his fellow writers and commentators [were] sufficiently patriotic." David Talbot summarized in October 2001, "Sullivan has often fallen to his own knees before President Bush in Salon."

In May 2001, gay columnist Michelangelo Signorile derided Sullivan for his plagiarism and Bush-worship:

...attacking the gay left after first pilfering its ideas and claiming they are his own, the writer Andrew Sullivan wrote a critique of Hollywood's closet. Sent to me by several perceptive readers of this column and my other work, it appeared on his Web site, where Sullivan licks the boots of George W. Bush daily. . . Perhaps we shouldn't expect fairness, let alone admissions of intellectual growth and a change of heart, from someone so self-obsessed and seemingly insecure.

Fast forward. The New York Review of Books wrote last year:

For more than two years, Sullivan relentlessly shilled for Bush and for the war on terror, including its "central front" in Iraq. It wasn't until the early months of 2004 that he broke with the "shrewd," "quiet," "underestimated" figure of the President, first over Bush's endorsement of a constitutional ban on gay marriage, then in moral repugnance at the evidence of government-condoned torture at Abu Ghraib. In October 2004, he "endorsed"—as he rather grandly put it, as if he were an editorial board—John Kerry as "the lesser of two risks." Since then he has attacked the administration with all the vehemence he formerly lavished on its detractors. Nowadays, on Sullivan's blog, Rumsfeld is labeled a "war criminal," Bush a "boneless wonder."

What may sting the "odd duck" more than the loss of idealized Daddy Bush now transformed into modern history's most unpopular American president was Sully's exposure "by the gay press for advertising for 'bareback' sex (unprotected by condoms) in an AOL chat room... denounced as a hypocrite by his liberal gay critics for engaging in risky sexual practices after attacking President Clinton for his own incautious behavior."

Oh, my. Does Andrew hold questionable moral standards: one for he, and another for thee?

Joining the Obama bandwagon under the guise of a post-partisan, post-boomer world, aka meet the new boss, same as the old boss, may distract Sullivan from reckoning with an existential strife as a gay conservative "small-government independent" without a political home save the media circus. Perhaps anxiety over having been so incredibly wrong about Bush has mobilized a return to a familiar diversion, his undying hatred for his pet scapegoats, The Clintons.

At his Daily Dish during last night's primary returns, his brain fogged at 11:27 pm by WWTSBQ resentment when he failed to calculate simple arithmetic. He prematurely announced that Oregon is "[a]lmost a mirror image of Kentucky tonight: currently a 60 - 40 Obama win." Ah, poor fact-challenged Sully. Almost? A 35-point victory for Hillary over Obama is more than twice as large as Obama's 16-point win over Clinton, n'est-ce pas? Of course, I don't expect a hit-and-run blogger posting fodder for sticky eyeballs to match the depth of analysis of the always-astute Anglachel.

Nineteen minutes earlier at 11:06 pm, Sully approvingly posted a reader's message under the headline, The Clintons And Race, which opened with wild-eyed wonder at "how horrible, how evil it is to vote against a black man -- because he's a black man?" Predictably, it was Hillary's fault because magically the reader through an inexplicable Vulcan mind-melding process knew that, like he, "Hillary saw the exact same exit polls and passed up a chance to speak out against them." Sullivan's response?

The Clintons have only one principle: their own power. Minorities are there to serve their purposes. If not, not. I saw this very vividly in the 1990s. They haven't changed. It's always only about them.

One should question how clearly Sullivan can see.

Peruse Sullivan's writings at the Times Online, a scornucopia of anti-Clinton vitriol:

Hillary’s suicidal gamble with race poison
Clinton's decision to stop chasing the black vote has become her undoing as shown in last Tuesday’s North Carolina primary

Obama-Clinton, a hate-filled dream ticket
The Democratic front-runner is no street-fighter, which is why Hillary would make a perfect running mate

Hillary and her old enemies cuddle up for a kill
Last week was officially the moment that the race for the Democratic nomination slipped through the looking glass into surrealism

Judgment Day looms for Hillary the wrecker
Pennsylvania could show that the paradigm that has reigned in US politics for at least two decades has been shattered

The Clintons, a horror film that never ends
The Clintons live off psychodrama. They love to push themselves to the brink of catastrophe and then accomplish the last-minute, nail-biting...

In the later March 9 article misogynistic hit job, Sully bared his adolescent fangs for Hillary, and because she is indelibly inked in Andrew's lexicon as the wife of Bill, he conjured a fright fest, The Clintons:

Put your own movie analogy in here. Glenn Close in the bathtub in Fatal Attraction – whoosh! she’s back at your throat! – has often occurred to me when covering the Clintons these many years. The Oscars host Jon Stewart compares them to a Terminator: the kind that is splattered into a million tiny droplets of vaporised metal . . . only to pool together spontaneously and charge back at you unfazed.

The Clintons have always had a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward, propelled by a bloodlust for Republicans or uppity Democrats who dare to question their supremacy. You can’t escape; you can’t hide; and you can’t win. And these days, in the kinetic pace of the YouTube campaign, they are like the new 28 Days Later zombies. They come at you really quickly, like bats out of hell. Or Ohio, anyway.

But that will never capture the emotional toll that the Clintons continue to take on some of us. I’m not kidding. I woke up in a cold sweat early last Wednesday. There have been moments this past week when I have felt physically ill at the thought of that pair returning to power.

Why? I have had to write several columns in this space over the years acknowledging that the substantive legacy of the Clinton administration (with a lot of assist from Newt Gingrich) was a perfectly respectable one: welfare reform, fiscal sanity, prudent foreign policy, leaner government. But remembering the day-to-day psychodramas of those years still floods my frontal cortex with waves of loathing and anxiety. The further away you are from them, the easier it is to think they’re fine. Up close they are an intolerable, endless, soul-sapping soap opera....

...And evil means that anything the Clintons do in self-defence is excusable – even playing the race card, and the Muslim card, and the gender card, and every sleazy gambit that the politics of fear can come up with. This is how they have arrested the Obama juggernaut. It’s the only game they know how to play.

Sully's self-delusions would never allow him to acknowledge the media inventions that viciously trashed Hill and Bill in the 1990s and freshly minted smears during the current 2008 campaign. Nor can he admit his willing and heavy-handed participation. The neurotic's prize is to be right more than anything and he will fight to prove that he's right even when he's wrong.

Lucid revelations would require an honest assessment, a self-introspection, but Sullivan, soaked in sweat from hidden abscesses stewing in his brain, hasn't nurtured the skillset or the awareness to give up shaking his waah-waah baby rattle at a politically powerful couple who have caused him no personal harm. Does he covet their clout? Or is he milking an established press corp melodrama to hasten his career trajectory?

What can one expect of a gay political pundit who, for years, ironed the wrinkles of the Emperor's new clothes and polished George's boots?

Someone has to pay for poor Sully's disappointments. So he dons his night vision goggles to hunt his perceived terror... The Clintons.

Imagined zombies have driven him mad but I suspect his shtick fetches a handsome fee.

UPDATE 5/22: Sullivan refers to people "who voted for the Clintons"--as he did 20 May 2008 09:48 pm at his Daily Dish (no, I won't link to his blog)--a sexist remark since Bill isn't running for office no matter how many ways the media darthling tries to spin his preposterous assertions. Sen. Hillary Clinton is the name Sullivan most often avoids. Why is that? You know why.

CREDITS: Illustration from the David Levine Gallery.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Hillary's huge win in Kentucky

The news orgs have already called the Kentucky primary for Hillary Clinton. I heard Wolf Blitzer of CNN predict the margin may be as large as 30 points.

With 51% of the precincts reporting, Hillary is ahead 22 points:

I'll update as the numbers roll in.

UPDATE 8:11 PM: Clinton is now up 32 points with 60% of precincts reporting:

Hillary is about to give her victory speech in Louisville, KY. Woo hoo! The crowd chants, "Hillary! Hillary!"

Here's a rough transcript:

"If we only had a president ready, willing, and able to lead..." [Yes we will! chants]...

She said she didn't stay in the race to "prove her toughness" but because of a "determination"... "by never giving up and never giving in... I'm going on now to campaign in Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico and keep standing up for the voters of Florida and Michigan.... they deserve to have their votes counted... and that's why I'm going to keep making that case for the nominee whoever she may be... [Crowd roars.]

"Kentucky has a knack for picking presidents... two terms to a president named Clinton... and it's often been said as Kentucky goes, so goes the nation... who's ready to lead our party at the top of the ticket... who is ready to defeat Sen. McCain in the swing states... who is ready on day one? ...Me.

"I'm thinking of all the women... to break the hardest glass ceiling in the land...

"We will unite our country... and thank you.. and God bless America!"

A CNN commenter remarked about a KY sign: "Kentucky says hold your horses."

8:41 PM: With 88% of the precincts reporting, Hillary thumps Obama in KY by 35 points.

8:58 PM: Hillary mentioned that Kentucky has "a knack for picking presidents." In general elections, the bluegrass state is 10 for 10:

Below are the lackluster KY primary numbers for John McCain:

A panel from the CNN exit poll in KY:

How to read exit polls

9:46 PM: Data from KY exit polls indicate that Obama doesn't appeal to Hillary voters.

Two-thirds of Clinton's supporters there said they would vote Republican or not vote at all rather than for Obama, according to the polls.

Forty-one percent of Clinton supporters said they'd cast their vote for John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and 23 percent said they would not vote at all.

Just 33 percent said they would back Obama in the general election, according to the polls.

Those numbers are even worse for Obama than in West Virginia one week ago, where 36 percent of Clinton voters said they would back him in the fall.

10:32 PM: With 100% of KY's precincts reporting:

Now the map. Of the two counties that Obama won in KY, he got 51% to Clinton's 46% in Fayette, and 53% to Hillary's 44% in Jefferson.

Consolation prize: at least he won two counties compared to a big fat goose egg in West Virginia last Tuesday.

SOURCES: Screen grabs of KY primary numbers and map from CNN.

Obama the divider

BTD of TalkLeft identifies an AP story, which reveals a political mistake of the Obama camp. The AP story states:

Barack Obama will reach a significant milestone Tuesday as he marches toward the Democratic nomination for president — a majority of pledged delegates at stake in all the primaries and caucuses.

A majority, eh? Is that something to celebrate since:

The Obama campaign will ignore Florida and Michigan. . . There simply is no getting around that. and for what? To declare victory on May 20 as opposed to June 3? This is simply stupid. The Associate Press of course is on Obama's side on this, but actually harms him.

The AP reporting mentions that Hillary Clinton is still fighting to get the MI and FL delegation seated, which "would increase the number needed to clinch the nomination," an endeavor that Obama has opposed. Why does Obama hate MI and FL?

When Obama takes the stage of his Spielfest in Iowa, he's dissing half of the Democratic coalition and 17 million Hillary voters. He's tossing off MI and FL. And he's pulling a political stunt that indicates his immaturity and inexperience, that broadcasts his arrogance. What a stupidly divisive move. His Spielfest decision demonstrates he's incapable of uniting a coalition behind him to win the WH.

To drive Obama the divider point further, egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women posted an ABC News story that...

...highlights a few of the misogynistic blows directed at Hillary Rodham Clinton. . . including one from Tennessee's own Congressman Steve Cohen. Cynthia Ruccia, founder of the group, Clinton Supporters Count Too warns that if Obama is the nominee, the group will campaign against him.

The women's group will boycott the election and abandon the Democratic Party too. [Emphasis added.]

Egalia also cites an ABC News-Washington Post poll in which "nearly 25 percent of Hillary's supporters say an Obama nomination will cause them to abandon the Democratic Party by voting for McCain."

Thus, a perfectly spot-on, one-line summary from egalia tells the story:

But, of course, the Democratic Party abandoned women first.

She also provides a cache of linked sources that range from piffle to protest. An example of piffle via Howard Kurtz, The Sisters are Steamed:

Numerous women -- journalists themselves and those interviewed by journalists -- believe the former first lady has gotten a raw deal, especially from the media. [Emphasis added.]

Under what rock has Kurtz lived to miss how the media has been sexist and misogynistic? At the same time with his subtle choice of verb, he dismisses the reports of female journalists. Just scan the criticism of Kurtz by Bob Somerby to realize Howie has been a protector of media misdeeds and is a completely unreliable witness.

Go visit egalia to watch the ABC News video, "Clinton supporters count too."

The revolution is just getting started.

That no matter what you have done
I am still here.
And it has made me dangerous, and wise.
And brother,
You cannot whore, perfume, and suppress
me anymore.
I have my own business in this skin
And on this planet.
--Gail Murray, 1970

Monday, May 19, 2008

Kentucky hearts Hillary

Photo by Barbara Kinney

Hillary remains poised to win the Kentucky primary tomorrow. During a campaign stop in Loretta, KY, Amanda Keith, wearing a T-shirt that proclaimed, "Step aside gentlemen, it's time for a woman to take over," explained why she supports Hillary:

"She's the one that can get us out of this mess," Keith said ahead of Clinton's campaign stop at Maker's Mark distillery that drew hundreds of supporters.

Keith, who had to drop out of college because it became too expensive, said Clinton's plan to help people pay for higher education won her support. "I've got tuition bills I can't pay, and I don't know what I'm going to do about my kids," said Keith...

Keith's reasons were echoed by another Kentucky voter.

"She's showed she cares about this state," said Angela Markum, who drove an hour from Louisville to attend the event. "I don't see Obama here. I don't see him anywhere."

Real Clear Politics shows that Hillary could win KY by as much as 30 points.

Stumping in the bluegrass state, Hillary conveyed the ultimate argument:

"I am hoping that Kentucky will send a big message to the Democratic Party and to the country," Clinton said as the crowd cheered, "that we know what kind of president we need and we know who will defeat John McCain in the fall."

We need Hillary Clinton.

Obama promised a new kind of politics and he has orchestrated one of the most divisive campaigns I've had the misfortune to witness in my lifetime. He has lost key swing states and will lose Hillary voters, whom he bragged he could get to vote for him. But he has alienated too many for him to win the general election in November. As Anglachel so poignantly articulated, The Electoral Map Trumps the Party Math.

Hillary--not Obama--can defeat McCain.

Hillary--not Obama--can win the presidency.

Hillary--not Obama--performs better in the all-important Electoral College map.

Hillary has the experience America needs to lead us into more prosperous times, protect our national security, and improve foreign affairs.

Only one Democratic nominee can win in November.

Her name is Hillary Clinton.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

No more sweetie

Obama supporter Cara at Feministe took offense at Obama's "sweetie" remark during his tour of the Chrysler Stamping Plant in Sterling Heights, MI. Cara posted a different video of reporter Peggy Agar and offered some remarks beginning with, "Not cool. Not fucking cool at all."

At GiggleChick, you can affirm this message:

Operation Turn Down continues. A message left in comments:

Please join us again Monday as we continue OPERATION TURN DOWN 3P.M EST... listen in via INTERNET or RADIO.... Steve Corbett Wilk Radio Network will hear state after sate Democrat after Democrat TURNING DOWN OBAMA. We will not let the DNC force Obama down our throats, we will not vote for a candidate that has exploited the race card for political gain at the [expense] of our country.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Clinton, Obama: Who can beat McCain?

Must read! Looking ahead to the general election, and more importantly, the Electoral College math, bringiton at Corrente provides a rich, lengthy analysis on who's more electable.

The last thing [Democratic] leaders want is to nominate another flawed candidate, one who can win the activist part of the Democratic Party but will fail in the general election.

Shorter version:

Hillary Clinton has the best chance of beating John McCain, and by a substantial margin.

Also check the update via Paul Maslin, former pollster for Bill Richardson and Howard Dean. His outlook on Obama's chances of beating McCain beyond 238 Electoral College votes are “a harder slog”.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Oregon, energy, and Hillary

Charles Lemos analyzes Hillary Clinton's new ad running in Oregon:

For me the brilliant part is that it highlights that Barack Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Plan that prevents states from participating in the siting process for LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) terminals. Oregon is now fighting three proposed LNG terminals. Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Hillary Clinton have introduced legislation to rescind that part of the Bush-Cheney Energy Plan. Now for the hilarious irony of all this. In Oregon, Obama is sending out a flyer stating how he supports the Wyden Plan on siting. He fails to mention that it is his fault to begin with and omits Clinton’s leadership on this issue, not to mention the fact that she voted against the Bush-Cheney Energy Plan. [Emphasis added.]

Click the image below to go to By The Fault to watch the Clinton Oregon ad.

To bolster Charles' statements, Blue Oregon served up the facts on the impact of Obama's vote that stripped states of their "regulatory role in siting liquefied natural gas terminals" and gave the federal government control:

Today, the Cheney-Bush Energy bill is responsible for no fewer than 3 LNG facilities threatening Oregon coastline, rivers, forests, fish, fishermen, farmers, and neighborhoods up and down western Oregon, and most of that natural gas will ultimately go to California.

Let’s see who was for this mess and who was against it [in the Senate]:

Opposed the Cheney-Bush Energy Bill [edited to include all 26 "nays"]
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)

For the Cheney-Bush Energy Bill [edited to include Democrats voting "yea"]
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)

The vote information is here and here.

In April, Wyden and Clinton took the lead by introducing legislation with co-sponsors Dodd and Lieberman to repeal the fed's role and give states the power to site LNG facilities.

“The end result of the Bush-Cheney energy bill is a federal process, dominated by corporate energy interests, in which Oregonians have no due process and no assurance that their concerns will be heard, much less addressed,” Wyden said.

400 Obama bloggers roundup

From HillBuzz, Obama hires 400 new bloggers to sway Hillary supporters:

Also, it's been noted by several HillBuzz readers, that Obama volunteers are being told to ratchet down the anti-Hillary hate, because someone in the campaign realizes Hillary Clinton supporters are not very likely to support Obama if he becomes the nominee.

Katiebird at The Confluence, 400 bloggers fighting for Barack Obama's desperate delusion?

News is spreading that the Obama campaign has hired 400 faithful friends to “throw elbows” at Hillary supporting blogs. My original thought was that this was an Obama-inspired rumor (like the one last week that Obama’s already got a Paid Transition Team) designed to make us tremble and go home....

...But, pay attention — you’ll be learning it this summer.... 400 Bloggers for Obama? I spit on ALL of you.

To follow up, Riverdaughter posted, Full Scale Schmoozy Trolling Already in Progress:

Look at what I fished out of the spam filter:

Madrugada Jones | | | IP:

I respect Hillary a great deal and think she’d make a terrific president. But I’m for Obama and I think you have to ask yourself, if the roles were reversed and Hillary was out ahead in the delegate count (not to mention the superdelegate count) and Barack was trying to get the delegates from MI and FL seated, do you honestly think she’d let them be seated?? You’ve got to be kidding me. She’d do the same exact thing he’s doing, which is well within the rules the DNC established. To me, this proves Obama’s political savvy.

Joseph Cannon, "The 400 Blow-hards" -- and Operation Turn Down:

The rumor is spreading throughout "the internets" that the Obama campaign has hired 400 bloggers -- or blogland loiterers...

...Which means, of course, that Obama controlled the Hillary-hate in the first place. His was the hand on the spigot. He is the one we must blame for the ceaseless smears and calumnies....

...I've received a truly bizarre barrage of anonymous hate comments, and not from my usual opponents. This hate-mail has had no hint of the conciliatory.

These "drive by" comments appear every hour. They never make a detailed argument, and they never make much sense. Judging from the writing style, only two or three individuals are involved. Some of these messages make threats. I've learned to delete these comments (mostly) unread; a whiff is enough to know what the rest is like....

Joseph also noted Operation Turn Down, an effort of Steve Corbett PA Radio host to inform the DNC that Democrats will not vote for Obama. "State after state voters calling and pledging they would under no circumstance vote for Obama."


Alegre wrote:

I don’t know if that 400 blogger bit is true but I’ve noticed a LOT of new Obama followers here on MyDD over the past few days so maybe there’s something to it. Not sure if they’re paid or if they even exist and frankly, I really don’t care. But I do care that people are calling for Hillary’s supporters to “give it up” and telling us “it’s over” when not one single vote has been cast in our party’s convention. That’s a few months off yet so why don’t we just let the rest of the states have their say, make our case to the undeclared superdelegates out there and chill?

Just know this - I'm not gonna stop as long as she's out there fighting for us. As long as she's standing up for us - I'm standing up for her. Get it?

Reclusive Leftist's Welcome, Operation Code Blue!

I’m not really welcoming Axelrod’s latest cadre of paid “opinion shapers.” I’ll just be handing out these convenient laminated Pocket Guides (note the blue section) and gently shutting the door in their faces...

...What’s that? We’re all Democrats? Oh, that’s nice. Okay, you have a nice day, you hear? Bye-bye! Thanks so much! Bye! Mm, you too! Bye! Thanks again! Okay, bye now! Bye!

Donna Darko added details about women threatening an Obama boycott.

Video here.

More votes in Democratic Primary history

Via HillBuzz, ABC News tallied up the popular vote total:

Clinton: 16,691,283
Obama: 16,647,926

Result: Clinton leads by 43,357 votes. She has now earned more votes than anyone in Democratic Primary history.

The total includes MI and FL according to The Fact Hub.

Railing against whitey

Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson at No Quarter confirmed that "three four sources close to senior Republicans" have obtained video of Michelle Obama "railing against 'whitey' " in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church.

Republicans may have a lousy record when it comes to the economy and the management of the war in Iraq, but they are hell on wheels when it comes to opposition research. Someone took the chance and started reviewing the recordings from services at Jeremiah Wright’s United Church of Christ. Holy smoke!! I am told there is a clip that is being held for the fall to drop at the appropriate time....

...Does Barack have an obligation to tell the Democrats, super delegates in particular, about this tape? Did Barack and his campaign do their basic homework and identify this tape as a potential problem? And, more importantly, do they have a copy? Probably better to deal with this issue before the convention rather than wait for October.

Ahem. Hello, superdelegates?

How much has the DNC vetted Barack Obama? Is anyone inquiring into whether this "whitey" racist clip exists? Or are the Democratic elites so euphorically gobsmacked over what they presume is a cakewalk to the WH?

Remember, the media favor Republicans. The right-wing noise machine is already preparing the anti-Michelle Obama story line.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Same-sex couples have right to marry

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images -- Gay and Lesbian couples hold a California flag
in front of the California Supreme Court in San Francisco. (LATimes)


In a decision 4-3, the California Supreme Court ruled that gays and lesbians have the right to marry. SFO Chronicle:

...the justices said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.

"The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in the majority opinion.

Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry "will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage," George said.

In addition, he said, the current state law discriminates against same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation - discrimination that the court, for the first time, put in the same legal category as racial or gender bias.

The ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall, where nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings were performed in 2004 before the state high court put a halt to the marriages while challenges to the California law worked their way through the courts. Today's ruling has no effect on those annulments.

Outside the city clerk's office, three opposite-sex couples were waiting at 10 a.m. for marriage certificates. City officials had prepared for a possible rush on certificates by same-sex couples, but hadn't yet changed the forms that ask couples to fill out the name of the "bride" and "groom."

City officials say they'll probably be unable to marry the same-sex couples for another 30 days when the decision fully goes into effect. But they're making appointments for those weddings now.

Oh, but wait. The forces against equality and freedom have mobilized for a ballot measure to amend California's state constitution:

The court's decision could be overturned in November, when Californians are likely to vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures on initiative petitions, and officials are working to determine if at least 694,354 of them are valid.

If the measure qualifies for the ballot and voters approve it, it will supersede today's ruling. The initiative does not say whether it would apply retroactively to annul marriages performed before November, an omission that would wind up before the courts.

Liberty Counsel, which represented the group Campaign for California Families before the court in arguing for the state law, denounced the ruling and said it would ask the justices to stay its effect until after the November election.

Chief Justice Ronald George "was joined in the majority by Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno." Dissenting justices included Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan. However, Corrigan wrote, "Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages." Baxter and Chin "accused the court majority of substituting 'by judicial fiat its own social policy views for those expressed by the people' " in which they noted that "California voters reaffirmed the state's ban on same-sex marriage in a 2000 ballot initiative."

The court "does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice," Baxter said.

But George, in a 121-page opinion, said California has already recognized, in its laws and public policy, that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal treatment in every legal area except marriage. He also noted that state laws and traditions banned interracial marriage until the California Supreme Court, in 1948, became the first court in the nation to overturn such a law.

"Even the most familiar and generally accepted of social policies and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed," the chief justice wrote.

The legal case dates back to February 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city clerk to start issuing marriage licenses to couples regardless of their gender, saying he doubted the constitutionality of the state marriage law.

Gov. Schwarzenegger responded to the court's ruling by saying, "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling." He also expressed his "opposition to the constitutional amendment that is likely to be on the November ballot."

The California Supreme Court's ruling is available as a PDF.

UPDATE: Sapphocrat's jubilant headline: "We won! WE WON! Marriage in California!" Celebrating with you and for y'all! Woo hoo!

UPDATE II: Just ran across an insightful post at The Confluence by garychapelhill who, in celebrating the CA court decision, reminded us why Hillary "gets" the LGBT community and Obama doesn't. And he's right. Just as I've argued here over Obama's mealy-mouthed interview with The Advocate, or his disconnect with our community, our press, and our clergy, and his association with homophobes. Hillary "gets" us and I affirmed my support for her because--in addition to her being the most qualified candidate--she understands LGBTs:

I solidly support Hillary who has marched in Gay Pride parades and openly declared her support for equal rights including a repeal of sections two and three of DOMA [cached text if the site won't load]. She's not a perfect candidate, but on LGBT rights coupled with women's issues among other positions, she eclipses Obama. [Emphasis added.]

Another mark against Obama was his introduction of a religion-based bigoted frame--like some GOP wingnut--to same-sex marriage as if our unions aren't equally sacred as those between a man and a woman.

Seriously, Obama doesn't get us. But Hillary does. Well said, Gary.

NARAL angers the Goddess

Riverdaughter at The Confluence remembered as I did that Jane Hamsher had talked tough about NARAL in the past. She posted the scoop on NARAL's endorsement of Obama and a bunch of links when Jane had excoriated NARAL in the past. Jane also wrote at HuffPost on Feb. 24, 2006, NARAL and Planned Parenthood Are Now the Enemies of Pro-Choice:

South Dakota has now passed legislation making it illegal for a woman to have an abortion even in the case of rape or incest. It's a law perfectly timed to test the new Supreme Court now that Samuel Alito has joined their ranks. How exactly did we get to this place?

Ask Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

They sat back, bilked their membership like an ATM then didn't show up to fight Alito's confirmation, frolicking in their mountain of hoarded cash even as they pissed and moaned. Worse yet, afterwards they told their members to thank those in the Senate -- like Joe Lieberman -- who cast their votes to let this happen.

Now women across the country are enraged and they're "irritated" by the phone calls and faxes they're getting. Their disconnect from the real world of pro-choice is both dangerous and astonishing.

Ronkseattle, also at The Confluence, provided an update on reactions from NARAL state affiliates. The executive director of NARAL Pro-choice Washington wasn't happy:

...To be clear, we at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington remain neutral in the race … We strongly disagree with NARAL Pro-Choice America’s decision to endorse at this time.

… To endorse Obama at this point in the race is an unconscionable slap in the face to Senator Hillary Clinton.

Indeed, it is, and I will take great pleasure in shredding NARAL mailings when they arrive at my home.

Guess who NARAL endorsed in 2006? Joe Lieberman. M'yeah, they endorsed wacky doodle dandy Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont.

As I said in 2006, I don't recognize the women's movement anymore. Time to start anew.

We've Come a Long Way, Baby!

By HRCin08

Via Susie.

No, never Obama

Obama demonstrates again why I will never vote for him. Ever.

A reporter asks Obama a question, and he tells her to hold on a second there, sweetie. [video.]

...Better still, it's not the first time.

While flirting with female factory workers in Allentown, he called one "sweetie," a paternalistic way to address a woman if there ever was one. It might have worked had he been trying to do his best imitation of Lily Tomlin's Ernestine, the telephone operator, but this was no spoof. This was Obama trying to relate to working-class women in a way that went directly south.

Huh. It sure doesn't sound to me like it's the women he's trying to relate to in that video.

Obama is the best the Democratic party can do?!! No, Hillary is the best candidate but the Dem establishment is determined to leap off the cliff.

I'm voting for Hillary in November whether her name is on the ballot for president or not. End of story.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Hillary thumps Obama in West Virginia

The chart says it all. Hillary's landslide victory racked up more than 40 points over Obama in the swing state of West Virginia.

Clinton won every county in West Virginia, an incredible feat.

WV was a Clinton blow-out!!! Wheeeeee-ooooo!

But this is funny un-ha-ha and says a lot about Obama. Via Lambert, BO "left Clinton a congratulatory message on her..." wait for it... "mobile phone." Can you believe it? Wow, how un-presidential. His arrogance is breathtaking. Or is his embarrassing loss too hard to face?

Some grafs from Hillary Clinton's victory speech at Charleston, WV:

You know, like the song says: “it's almost heaven,” and I am so grateful for this overwhelming vote of confidence.

There are some who have wanted to cut this race short. They say “give up, it's too hard, the mountain is too high,” but here in West Virginia, you know a thing or two about rough roads to the top of the mountain. We know from the Bible that faith can move mountains and, my friends, the faith of the Mountain State has moved me. I am more determined than ever to carry on this campaign until everyone has had a chance to make their voices heard.

I want to commend Senator Obama and his supporters. This continues to be a hard-fought race, from one end of our country to the other. And yes, we've had a few dust-ups along the way, but our commitment to bring America new leadership that will renew America’s promise means that we have always stood together on what is most important.

Now, tonight I need your help to continue this journey. We are in the homestretch. There are only three weeks left in the final contests, and your support can make the difference between winning and losing. So I hope you'll go to and support our campaign.

You've heard this before – there are many who wanted to declare a nominee before the ballots were counted or even cast. Some said our campaign was over after Iowa, but then we won New Hampshire. Then we had big victories on Super Tuesday and in Ohio and Texas and Pennsylvania, and of course, we came from behind to win in Indiana.

So, this race isn't over yet. Neither of us has the total delegates it takes to win and both Senator Obama and I believe that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated. I believe we should honor the votes cast by 2.3 million people in those states and seat all of their delegates. Under the rules of our party, when you include all 50 states, the number of delegates needed to win is 2,209, and neither of us has reached that threshold yet. This win in West Virginia will help me move even closer.

Now, in a campaign, it can be easy to get lost in the political spin and the polls or the punditry, but we must never lose sight of what really counts, of why all of us care so much about who wins and who loses in our political system. An enormous decision falls on the shoulders of Democratic voters in these final contests and those Democrats empowered to vote at our convention. And tonight, in light of our overwhelming victory here in West Virginia, I want to send a message to everyone still making up their mind.

I am in this race because I believe I am the strongest candidate - the strongest candidate to lead our party in November of 2008 and the strongest president to lead our nation starting in January of 2009. I can win this nomination if you decide I should, and I can lead this party to victory in the general election if you lead me to victory now.

The choice falls to all of you, and I don't envy you. I deeply admire Senator Obama, but I believe our case, a case West Virginia has helped to make, our case is stronger. Together, we have won millions and millions of votes - by the time tonight is over, probably 17 million, close to it. We've won them in states that we must be prepared and ready to win in November – Pennsylvania and Ohio, Arkansas and New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Michigan, Florida, and now West Virginia. It is a fact that no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia.

The bottom line is this – the White House is one in the swing states and I am winning the swing states. And we have done it by standing up for the deepest principles of our party with a vision for an America that rewards hard work again, that values the middle class and helps to make it stronger.

With your help, I am ready to go head-to-head with John McCain to put our vision for America up against the one he shares with President Bush. Now, I believe our party is strong enough for this challenge. I am strong enough for it. You know I never give up. I’ll keep coming back, and I’ll stand with you as long as you stand with me.

We're standing with you, Hillary.

Riverdaughter posted an ad in support of Hillary from the WomenCount PAC that will run in major newspapers this weekend. Click the link to read the ad.

At No Quarter, watch the video between Howard Wolfson and Donna Brazile. Whoa.

Egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women reminded us: "59% of Hillary Voters Will NOT Vote for Obama... And the backlash against the misogyny picks up steam." You betcha.

Violet at The Reclusive Leftist posted videos of Hillary's speech.

On to Kentucky!