Best Obama Endorsement Yet

From the UK Times Online on the critical Bob Dylan endorsement:

Asked about his views on American politics, he (Dylan) said: “Well, you know right now America is in a state of upheaval. Poverty is demoralising. You can’t expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor.

“But we’ve got this guy out there now who is redefining the nature of politics from the ground up…Barack Obama.

“He’s redefining what a politician is, so we’ll have to see how things play out. Am I hopeful? Yes, I’m hopeful that things might change. Some things are going to have to.”

He added: “You should always take the best from the past, leave the worst back there and go forward into the future.”

Dylan’s endorsement contains much symbolic significance. The legendary singer-songwriter, who has an art exhibition opening in London next week, became a focal point for young people worldwide when he released the album ‘The times they are a-changin’,” including the famous song of that name, in 1964.

Wow. He’s right. We’ll see how the Obama candidacy works out, but these are incredibly hopeful times.

For some reason, the video won’t embed here, so check out Bob Dylan here.

Elitism in Politics

Heh.

Tom Tomorrow nails it:

Random Music from the IPOD Friday

In honor of Indiana’s vote on May 6:

John Mellencamp – Rain on the Scarecrow

OK, so it’s not all that hip, but the video is well-crafted and represents the rural Indiana that I know.

Has McCain Support Reached Its Ceiling?

Maybe:

In fact, both Clinton and Obama performed almost exactly the same against McCain throughout–polling virtually even with him, at around 45 percent–no matter how popular or unpopular either was within the Democratic primary electorate.

But shouldn’t McCain actually be doing badly, given the state of the economy and the war? And doesn’t that just prove how damaging this campaign has been? As long as Clinton and Obama are fighting each other, the eventual nominee can’t attack McCain effectively. He’s getting a free ride.

Well, maybe. But look at those graphs again. If McCain is getting a free ride, it doesn’t seem to be doing much good. He’s running no stronger against either candidate than he was before the Wright story, Bittergate, or the Bosnia controversy.

It’s possible McCain’s numbers are stagnant simply because Clinton and Obama soaking up all of the media attention. But there may be another explanation, one I know I’ve read elsewhere (maybe in a Gallup analysis, though I can’t find it now): That 45 percent figure represents a ceiling of his support.

I’ve wondered about this. In the polling I’ve seen, McCain seems to be tied with both Clinton and Obama at a time when the two Democrats have been going at each other while getting something of a free ride from the media. Voters vaguely know that they like McCain, based on his ‘maverick’ reputation he earned during the 2000 GOP primaries.

But at the same time, people haven’t been reminded or informed of McCain’s policies and history (he wants to stay in Iraq, he doesn’t understand economics,  his temper, or his membership in the Keating Five, and more) and haven’t yet closely associated him with the George W. Bush legacy which remains wildly unpopular among voters.

It may be that McCain will be able to maintain his level of support and increase it enough to win. But if he’s tied with both of the Democratic candidates during a period when he has received little media coverage doesn’t bode well for him.

Photo of the Day

From Yahoo!:

PHILADELPHIA – Hillary Rodham Clinton ground out a gritty victory in the Pennsylvania primary Tuesday night, defeating Barack Obama and staving off elimination in their historic race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Disappointing, but not surprising.

Carl Bernstein’s Thoughts on a Hillary Clinton Presidency

From CNN:

What will a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?

The answer by now seems obvious: It will look like her presidential campaign, which in turn looks increasingly like the first Clinton presidency.

Which is to say, high-minded ideals, lowered execution, half truths, outright lies (and imaginary flights), take-no prisoners politics, some very good policy ideas, a presidential spouse given to wallowing in anger and self-pity, and a succession of aides and surrogates pushed under the bus when things don’t go right. Which is to say, often.

It’s hard to imagine that someone who has run her campaign as badly as she has would turn around and become a great president. I blogged about this issue here.

Roseanne Is Mad at You

Why I do this, I have no idea, except that I really enjoy my irritainment. I read Free Republic, Taylor Marsh’s blog, and Townhall.com for the same reason.

Of course, I’m talking about Roseanne’s blog. Yes, that Roseanne: the domestic goddess who had her own sitcom back in the 90s.

To read her blog when she writes about Hillary is to venture into a strange and unknown world where Hillary is the best thing EVER and where blog posts are usually no longer than a sentence or two and where capital letters are not welcome.

Let’s take a look at this post she wrote on April 3 about Randi Rhodes’ words (if you’re not familiar with that issues, click here):

what randhi rhodes said

(calling the working class’s candidate a whore) was equivilent to using the N-word in reference to Obama. How women can allow themselves to implode and spew out horrifying misogynism at a woman who has reached higher than any other woman ever has is the reason the dems will not win the presidential election.

Hillary has reached higher than any other woman? If you’re speaking about American women only, well, Senators Boxer, Feinstein, Mikulski, and Landrieu have all been in the senate longer than Clinton, so haven’t they, in a senatorial sense “reached higher than any other woman?” Don’t Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius (both accomplished and popular governors) have the right kind of executive experiences to become president, and thus have “reached higher?”

Haven’t Madeline Albright and Condoleezza Rice “reached higher” than Hillary?

Does Nancy Pelosi count? What about Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Barbara Jordan?

And internationally? Indira Ghandi, Michelle Bachelet, Margaret Thatcher, and Angela Merkel might disagree.

Every bit of this is the fault of Howard Dean, John Edwards, john kerry, bill richardson, Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama’s boy’s club. I am ashamed of what passes for “progressive”. It is the left wing anti female taliban.

Uh, no. Rhodes is responsible for her own words, no matter how reprehensible those words were. She said them as a comedian and certainly was not influenced by the “anti female taliban.”

The purge of feminists from the Democrat party continues…do not be deceived! The entire party has nothing but contempt for its female and blue collar base…they need to clean up their act in order to win will in November!

Sigh.

Roseanne, there is no purge of feminists from the “Democrat party” (and BTW, why do you use that right-wing phrase “Democrat party?” It’s the Democratic Party. Democrat is a noun, Democratic is an adjective, just in case you weren’t sure). When elected, I am certain that Obama will place many women in cabinet positions and there is still a good chance that he might even pick a woman as a running mate (I happen to think that Sebelius would be an excellent choice).

I am convinced that there will be a woman president in this country before I die. It’s simply inevitable, and that will be good for women and the country.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that Clinton will be that woman.

Many Democratic voters don’t like the idea of having two-family rule in this country for 28 years. Surely, you must agree that there are good people worthy to be president whose last names are not Clinton or Bush.

Other Democrats oppose Clinton for her vote on the war. That’s a serious issue. It’s not that she caused the invasion of Iraq, but rather that she supported it and now claims that Bush tricked her into voting that way. In the buildup to the war, I knew Bush was lying, why didn’t she?

Another subset of Democrats would rather that Clinton not get the nomination because they don’t want to have to re-live the drama of the Bill Clinton years.

But perhaps most importantly, most Obama voters think that he is the best candidate. No, it’s not his “turn,” but we’re Democrats and have never been ones to nominate the person whose “turn” it is. If that were the case, Lieberman would have been the nominee in 2004. Obama supporters tend to be behind him because they believe he has the right kind of experience, ideas, and temperament to be a good president, if not a great one.

So, please, you can hate Obama all you want. Do your damnedest to help Clinton get the nomination.

But please, don’t equate support for Obama with misogyny.

Obama the Elitist?

You’ve probably been hearing about this new firestorm surrounding some remarks of Barack Obama’s at a fund raiser in Marin County:

“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Mr. Obama said, according to a transcript that appeared Friday on the Hufington Post Web site.

Predictably, the Clinton and McCain camps went apeshit:

“It’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that’s not my experience,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience at Drexel University. “Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.”

Snip

“It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking,” said Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain. “It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.”

It was a perfect time for the other campaigns to spew fake outrage as has become so common in this campaign. Fake outrage is very much in vogue this election season, probably as campaigns have taken the lead from masters of fake outrage like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Michelle Malkin. If Barack Obama is perceived to have thought or said something the least bit controversial, you can expect Geraline Ferraro or one of her ilk to express outrage and twist the situation.

I largely agree with what Obama was expressing, but I was worried about the potential damage those words could have on the campaign until I read and then saw Obama’s response:

“No, I’m in touch. I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania, I know what’s going on in Indiana, I know what’s going on in Illinois,” Mr. Obama said, his voice rising. “People are fed up, they’re angry, they’re frustrated, they’re bitter and they want to see a change in Washington. That’s why I’m running for president of the United States of America.”

To get the full effect of his response, watch this:

Sure, the 527s are going to go after him on this one, just like they will on Wright, but I say, much as George Bush would: “Bring it on!”

Obama and Foreign Policy

In the last day or two, it seems that Obama has been getting a lot of flack for this statement:

Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton and Senator McCain.

It was taken a little bit out of context by the Clinton and McCain camps to demonstrate what a naive neophyte Obama must be. After all, McCain has visited 69 countries as a senator and Clinton traveled all over as first lady. While certainly those experiences have value, it’s hard to imagine how such official visits would give those senators a perspective on the world’s people and how they live that’s much deeper than a tourist visiting Europe on a package tour.

Obama, on the other hand may not have the extensive foreign policy credentials (in the official Washington sense) that McCain has, but the time he spent as a child in Indonesia and in Kenya with his family had a profound effect on him in understanding how people live and what they believe. They are experiences that go way beyond official tourism, as anyone who has lived abroad for any extended period of time knows.

In Obama’s words:

“This I know. When Senator Clinton brags, ‘I’ve met leaders from 80 countries,’ I know what those trips are like. I’ve been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There’s a group of children who do a native dance. You meet with the C.I.A. station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of plant that” with “the assistance of Usaid has started something. And then, you go.”

I knew what Sunni and Shia was before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

To be fair, yes, McCain did live in Vietnam for many years as a POW, and while his service was heroic, it doesn’t seem that kind of experience would be particularly helpful in forming a balanced view of the Vietnamese people.

In 2000, McCain said:

I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.

While he may have been referring to the prison guards, that kind of statement doesn’t demonstrate a strong understanding or sensitivity to people outside of this country that someone with Obama’s experience living and learning abroad might possess.

When Wingnuts Type

In some ways, I feel left out when I hear about wingnut spam making rounds in e-mail boxes all over the world. I mean, my friends and family are (for the most part) politically sane, so I miss a lot of grassroots wingnut spam.

So I was glad to read this post on The Plank which was described as an e-mail circulating among “little old ladies, who attend Baptist churches weekly and voted for Bush TWICE.”

Subject: LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THIS STRAIGHT:

HIS FATHER WAS A KENYAN, MUSLEM, BLACK-… WE HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF HIS AFRICAN “FAMILY HIS MOTHER IS A KANSAN, ATHIEST, WHITE-

WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF HIS KANSAN, WHITE MOTHER AND HIS WHITE GRANDPARENTS

WHO RAISED HIM. I HAVEN’T SEEN THEM!!!

HIS FATHER DESERTED HIS MOTHER AND HIM WHEN HE WAS VERY YOUNG AND WENT BACK TO HIS FAMILY IN KENYA HIS MOTHER MARRIED AN INDONESIAN MUSLEM AND TOOK HIM TO JAKARTA WHERE HE WAS SCHOOLED IN A MUSLEM SCHOOL

HIS MOTHER RETURNED TO HAWAII AND HE WAS RAISED BY HIS WHITE KANSAN GRANDPARENTS

HE LATER WENT TO THE BEST HIGH DOLLAR SCHOOLS, HOW???

HE LIVES IN A $1.4 MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE THAT HE ACQUIRED THROUGH A DEAL WITH A WEALTHY FUND RAISER. HOW???

HE “WORKED” AS A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST IN CHICAGO- HAS NEVER HELD A PRODUCTIVE JOB.

THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS POST! NOR IS IT SUBJECT TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SET ASIDES

HE ENTERED POLITICS AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THEN THE NATIONAL LEVEL WHERE HE HAS MINIMAL EXPERIENCE!!

HE IS PROUD OF HIS “AFRICAN HERITAGE” BUT IT SEEMS THAT HIS ONLY AFRICAN CONNECTION WAS THAT HIS AFRICAN FATHER GOT A WHITE GIRL PREGNANT AND DESERTED HER. I DIDN’T KNOW THAT SPERM CARRIED A “CULTURAL” GENE!!

WHERE IS THE PRIDE IN HIS WHITE CULTURE? I’VE NEVER HEARD HIM TALK ABOUT IT!!!

HE GOES TO A “AFROCENTRIC” CHURCH THAT HATES WHITES, HATES JEWS, AND BLAMES AMERICA FOR ALL THE WORLDS PERCEIVED FAULTS AND THEN REPEATEDLY COVERS UP FOR THE PASTOR AND THE CHURCH!!!! HE HAS SAT IN THAT “CHURCH” FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS, AND HAS NEVER HEARD WHAT HIS “PASTOR” HAS SAID????

HE CLAIMS THAT HE COULD NOT CONFRONT HIS PASTOR BUT HE WANTS US TO BELIEVE THAT HE CAN CONFRONT NORTH KOREA AND IRAN, RIGHT!!!

YEAH, I THINK I SEE HOW HE COULD BE A UNITER AND BRING US TOGETHER…. I THINK THE HOPE IS THAT HE HOPES NO ONE WILL PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER!!!!

I SURE HOPE EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING WHEN THEY VOTE THIS YEAR, I AM NOT A PREJUDICE PERSON, AND I SURE HOPE EVERYONE VOTES, BUT THIS MAN REALLY SCARES ME!!

Where to start?

It would be easy to bring up the spelling and grammar errors, and it would be even easier to point out the inaccuracies and gaps in logic. And let’s not even consider the abuse of caps-lock. It’s simply an incredible e-mail.

And one thing that gets me about it is that it seems like it could come from a wingnut (the 30% who still love Bush) or a Clinton supporter; those words would feel comfortable on Taylor Marsh’s blog.

I just hope that when Obama is the nominee (which looks more likely every day), the more rabid Clinton people will use their energies to achieve more positive ends.