’08/12 Election – Page 30

Sucky Sucky

Published on February 6, 2007

What a catty little bitch of a genocidal wingnut welfare queen Michelle Malkin is. I wouldn’t normally take any notice of her, being as she is on the lunatic fringe of wingnuttia, except that she’s gratuitously attacked Amanda Marcotte.

Her nasty little video hit-piece is typical Malkin high-school bullying nastiness at it’s most infantile and childish. It sucks ass as a video too.

I wasn’t madly keen on Amanda working for Edwards, and said so at the time, and I also pointed out that when you join the political establishment you take what you get.

But this isn’t political – oh no, this is personal.

Envious much, Michelle? No Republican presidential candidate asked you to be their pet blogger? Ohhh, poor darling, you’ve tried everything including making your ‘O’ face on national TV, and still they don’t want you. What’s it going to take, pulling a train with the uncloseted members of the RNC?

And don’t anyone give me that reasonable, liberal ‘we’re all sisters under the skin’ crap. Fuck sisterhood. It doesn’t count for genocidal rightwing harpies.

If Malkin thinks the entire liberal blogosphere is just going to sit back and see one of its own abused in this way by such an unworthy heifer of wingnut-paid pundit she can think again, if her pretty little ventriloquist’s dummy airhead is capable of that without Jesse’s hand up her back.

Jesse's girl

If Ms. Malkin thinks liberal women are uncivil… oy, we haven’t even started yet. Ad feminam? You betcha.

Malkin the alleged ‘journalist’ may be on tv and may well be making a nice living but let’s face it, tv quality has declined markedly in recent years and she’s on Fox, which says it all. It barely qualifies for the name ‘news’. Any reasonably pretty woman (non-white for preference, that way they can point to their token ethnic to deny accusations of racism) who can rant rightwing talking points to camera will do for Fox. What else would explain the appearance of this ranting harpy on our screens?

Michelle Malkin is a no-talent, ethically-challenged, liar and Auntie Thomasina of an anchor baby who can’t write and who trades on her looks and the sexual fantasies of her wingnut admirers to make money from the rightwing crap her bad-tempered and reportedly violent husband can’t get published unless it has a exotic Asian babe fronting it. Eliminationist poison sounds so much nicer when there’a purty lil’ mouth spewing it.

But that’s right-wing women all over: small minded, petty jealous cows who’d tread on anyone in their discounted-wholesale Jimmy Choo knockoffs if they thought it’d get them more attention from the guys and/or push their ‘careers’. (And there was I thinking they should be at home ministering to their husbands needs and popping out sprogs by the dozen, like they want the rest of us to. Silly me.)

I predict Ms. Malkin, wannabe Bitch-Queen of All Wingnuttia, is going to wish she hadn’t made that video very soon. A lot of people like Amanda, but many more most assuredly loathe Michelle.

Pass the popcorn.

Wesley Clark Wants YOU!

Published on February 4, 20073 Comments

Wesley Clark Wants You!

Is Wesley Clark really a good primary votiing option for liberals who loathe Hillary, Obama and Edwards ?

Digby has been on a tear recently, pointing out just how useless those particular Democrats are and how tied to big money and special interests, particularly the increasingly bellicose Israel lobby. The Democratic presidential frontrunners are all on the same page as Bush and AIPAC as regards attacking Iran: “No options are off the table”.

A number of commenters have responded by saying “Ah, yes, but there’s always Wesley Clark”.

Wesley Clark? Wesley Clark? You mean the Wesley Clark that wants to draft civilians in wartime? From Clark’s campaign website:

Inside The Tent Pissing Out

Published on February 1, 20071 Comment

Inside the big tent

Best wishes in her new job to Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon who is (like her predecessors at the blog, Ezra and Jesse) moving on to pastures new, specifically to work as web supremo for the John Edwards’ Democratic presidential; nomination campaign. The blog of course carries on – Pam continues as senior member and a new roster of writers has been added.

I’n very pleased for Amanda and that her career is going so well: it’s always nice when nice things happen to nice people and I’m sure she’ll be an asset to the Edwards team. And I’m glad she’s not working for Hillary.

But.

I’ve been very favourably inclined towards Edwards so far, because he at least had something to say for the poor, and I’ve been insisting in argument that an Edards/Obama ticket could be a real possibility and perhaps something that wouldn’t be too bad. I had thought both were the perhaps least venal possibilities of a Democratic party that really is no better than the Republicans when it comes to being beholden to big money and special interests.

Even socialists can see the pragmatic value of opting for the lesser evil.

Bur recently Edwards showed he’s right up there with Lieberman when it comes to supporting Israeli and neocon – and therefore Bush’s – interests in foreign policy.

During a speech via satellite at a security conference last week in Herzliya, Israel, Edwards joined the chorus of those threatening the Iranian government. “Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world,” Edwards said, echoing a line peddled by many neoconservatives. “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.”

A few moments later, he strongly hinted at the need for possible US military action. “To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table,” Edwards said. “Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.”

Oh. Right. So it’s fine by him if Bush attacks Iran. He’s just another corrupt chickenhawk then. But why sabotage his carefully calculated, champion-of-the-little American and the netroots-choice image like that?

Thinkprogress:

There’s a few possible explanations. One, Edwards sincerely believes in a more confrontational Iran policy. Two, he’s pandering to win the support and money of hawkish “pro-Israel” voters and donors. Three, he’s trying to impress the foreign policy intelligentsia by talking tough.

Any of those is enough to make me drop him like a hot brick. But let’s name the real reasons: greed and ambition. Self-interested politrcal triangulation and a willingness to sacrifice lives for his political career. Remind you of anyone?

How could any self-respecting leftist support such a person, let alone work for them?

This goes directly to what I was writing about yesterday, the whole shift in blogging as the presidential campaigns and lobbyists co-opt the power of bloggers:

Power is very seductive, so I’m not at all surprised by the continuing co-option of the big blogs into the political establishment. It’s the way elites always work: co-opt, absorb and neutralise. Just so long as those bloggers co-opted remember that that they are no longer outside the system but within it we’ll all get along fine.

Still, we must all make our own decisions and lets face it, other people’s career decisions are not really my business. From the little personal knowledge I have of Amanda she doesn’t strike me as someone who’d make frivolous decisions. I’ve no doubt she’ll have weighed up the pros and cons of this move before making it. On a personal level I will never wish Amanda anything but well, no matter how much we disagree on politics.

But Edwards and his campaign, after his self-exposure as yet another Democratic stalking-horse for AIPAC, are another matter entirely.

Now Shakespeare’s Sister has joined the campaign too as netroots co-ordinator. Nailing political colours to the mast, (or at least getting paid for blogging) seems to be quite the fashion. Who will be the next to put a paycheck over principle, I wonder?

And if anyone thinks that’s harsh or uncivil, I can only repeat what I said in my previous post.

Liberal blogging is already producing its own insider elites even though it’s that which brought us to this pass in the first place. Although they’re much less well-paid (if paid at all) than the right bloggers, the money is coming. With the ascendancy of the Democrats in Congress and a record-funded presidential race on the way, bloggers are no doubt already anticipating a tasty slice of the ad-spending and political-consultancy pie. The Hillary blogads are all over the place already.

I suppose they might argue that that’s the way the system works and what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander., t’was ever thus, blah blah blah, don’t blame us, a blogger’s got to live and so on. Fine, make your living from politics if that’s what you want to do. I’ve no problem with that, it’s your choice.

But remember that the moment you start to make your living from politics you are part of the political establishment, not the counter-establishment, on the inside not the outside, and expect to be treated accordingly

NYT: Who’s The Internettiest? Obama, Edwards or Clinton?

Published on January 23, 20071 Comment

Eugene Robinson writing in the NYT gives it to Edwards by a blog-length:

[…]

So what do the Web sites HillaryClinton.com, BarackObama.com and JohnEdwards.com tell us about their namesakes? At first glance, they seem to confirm what we think we already know. Clinton’s site evokes a super-competent juggernaut, with every base covered and every hair in place. Obama’s is very much a work in progress. And Edwards’s Web site suggests the patience, attention to detail and willingness to take risks that you would expect from a trial lawyer who rose from nothing to become a self-made millionaire.

Clinton and Obama are first-name candidates on their sites — “Hillary” says this, “Barack” says that. Edwards is more formal — he’s “John Edwards” or “Senator Edwards,” if you please. Perhaps that’s a necessary reminder, since he’s not, technically speaking, a senator anymore.

As for overall tone and scope, it’s hard to evaluate Obama’s campaign cyber-HQ because it’s so clearly a provisional, placeholding site with not much but a couple of videos (the announcement; a biography) and a big button you can click to become a contributor. There’s a link to his Senate reelection Web site— he would have to run in 2010 — and if you find the link and click through, you get a fuller picture of the man.

The Clinton and Edwards sites, as one might expect, are largely about the business of getting elected. Clinton’s home page tells you how to “Join Team Hillary” or become a “HillRaiser” of campaign funds. Edwards likewise prominently advises how to join his team, but his home page also focuses on some issues — he’s against global warming, we learn, and opposes an escalation of the war in Iraq.

The real difference is depth and ambition. Both Clinton and Obama (he on his Senate campaign Web site) say they want to have a dialogue with the American people about how best to solve the nation’s problems. But Edwards has already started his conversation with the nation. His Web site is an exercise in social networking that includes not only a blog, where surfers can post their thoughts, but also cyber-diaries written by Edwards’s family members.

“The soft rain of last night has left the field behind the house dewy with a low fog. Maybe the gossamer meadow is the reason I feel contemplative this morning,” begins a recent entry by Elizabeth Edwards. Her diary posts generally draw more comments than her husband’s.

Somehow, it’s hard to imagine Hillary Clinton waxing about any gossamer meadow.

Edwards’s Web site is less YouTube than MySpace. It tries to take advantage of the Internet’s great paradox — that a technology so devoid of human contact can nevertheless create a sense of intimacy and connection.

So, Mama’s playing it safe, Obama’s not quite ready and Edwards is up to something interesting. In the “Second Life” sense, at least. We’ll see about the real world.

I’m hoping (though it’s a hope based on not much actual foundation) that Obama and Clinton are being encouraged to stand as stalking horses for Clark/Edwards, on the principle that they’ll keep the likes of Fox and the Right’s other swiftboating squads busy while the real candidates do an end run round the opposition. Let’s face it , Clinton or Obama won’t get through the primaries, because the voters just don’t trust them.

This is the most deliberately, wilfully and blindly incompetent administration ever: they’re almost proud of it, incompetence is a strategy for them – remember Grover Norquist‘s famous axiom about ‘drowning the government in a bathtub’? The Republicans refined that concept slightly and now they’ve almost but not quite waterboarded the government to death. The American public seems desperate for some saviour to rush in, free the captive and arrest the torturers, someone who knows the difference between right and wrong and knows what do do about it . Even more imporatant, that someone has to be someone the public trusts.

I can’t see how the DLC can hope Hillary will be the candidate even though her adverts are all over the blogs like a rash: no-one trusts her, everybody hates her, even her own side. If she’s depending on the loyalty of the sisterhood and female votes to carry her through, well she’s shit out of luck. Republican women hate her (and paradoxically enough, the whole ‘stand by your man’ schtick post-Lewinsky made them hate her all the more) and Democratic women don’t seem to be much moire enamoured, what with her support for the war and carefully triangulated non-positions on choice and reproductive freedoms.

As for Obama – other than oodles of charisma and photegeneity, what has he got? If elected he’d be another Tony Blair : a one term politician with little experience in national or international politics and with bugger-all managerial experience. And we all know how that turned out. Obama talks a good fight, he looks good, but can you see him running the country yet? 2 elections down the road when he has some solid experience under his belt, yes. Now, no – and I’ve yet to mention the regrettably ever-present possibility of a far-right assassin, something that goes for Hillary too.

Damn it. I hate it that the most viable ‘liberal’ candidates (and I use the scare quotes deliberately, because neither Edwards nor Clark fit my definition of liberal) candidates will be, yet again, white, wealthy middle class men.

But unless some deus ex machina in the shape of the perfect Dem candidate comes along, that’s what’ll happen.