I'm So Bitchy About Working For Hillary

Reportedly The Rodster Gets Way Freaky At Parties.

"Non-partisan" State Dept. vet, David Rodearmel, is suing to revoke Hillary Clinton's Sec. of State appointment. He sez he can't be "forced" to work for Sec. Clinton because of a "fix" used to sidestep an archaic part of the Constitution.

What's predictably, nearly hilariously funny (at least to me) about this "fix"...drum roll please...

The Republicans Invented It!

Mad irony this. The very nub of Rod's suit, the Saxbe fix, was devised by GOP Prez. William Taft in 1909. Republicans have used it 4x: Once each by Taft (Sec. of State Philander C. Knox), Harding (Judge William S. Kenyon), Nixon (Atty. Gen. William Saxbe's post-Saturday Night Massacre nod) & Poppa Bush (Treas. Sec. Lloyd Bentsen for Bill Clinton). 1980 saw Carter tap Sec. State Ed Muskie to technically become the only Dem to hit the fix until this year.

It doesn't take a poly-sci degree to pinpoint the true motivation behind D-Rod's lawsuit. However, his cover story may originate with Reagan. Back before George W. Bush, the Judicial and the Executive Branches of our government were separate. When St. Reagan (R-Heaven) sought to appoint Orrin Hatch to The Supreme Court, Ronnie consulted the Justice Dept. Justice nixed the fix. Their opinion was "rollbacks" wouldn't appease the Ineligibility clause

On this singular point St. Ronnie (R-Heaven) seemed to effectively proclaim: "Republicans Shall Not Fuck with The Constitution!" Looks like "Rowdy" Rodearmel was the only one listening. This Reagan Justice Dept. ruling offers him the slimmest & only possible "non-partisan" pretense to contest Hillary Clinton's gig.

Just one thing doesn't quite make sense. If "Hot" Rodearmel was convinced the Saxbe manuever posed an imminent danger to our republic, why didn't he raise an objection to George Sr.'s 1993 "favor" to Bill Clinton? Inquiring minds want to know.

What you're really dying to ask is exactly where has this sexy bit of man candy been all your life? I've pitched all the boring stuff to give you the bullet points. The Rodman's State Dept. career started w/Pres. George H.W. Bush's administration. His years in the military include a USAF Academy Asst. Professor post. A Newsmeat search of his campaign contributions revealed a $250 contribution to the Swift Boaters. Perhaps worst of all, Roddy's a flat-out bald-faced liar.

Bankrolled by right wing sugardaddy Richard Mellon Scaife , it's brazenly disingenuous of Rodearmel to claim his suit is "non-partisan." The Rodster's sponsor, Judicial Watch, has waged an almost 17-year war against the Clintons filing 18 lawsuits against Pres. Bill Clinton and his peeps.

That says it all.

-AF
*Re-edited for clarity.

You Have To Be Fucking Kidding Me

...Or Look At All The Chickens Little Run.

The scale of the hand wringing and rending of garments I'm seeing over each and every one of Obama's cabinet picks is unbelievable. This is the shit we liberal/progressive/Democrat-types do every fucking single fucking time. I hate it with the force of a thousand suns.

I'm all about individuality, critical thinking and what have you. But just this once could we show the same unity, discipline and sense of purpose that's proven so effective for conservatives? Fuck no. We run around crying, "Maybe Hillary could bring in Michael O'Hanlon! The sky is falling The sky is falling!"

It's predictable. It's pointless. It's stupid. It's embarrassing. It makes the wingers rub their hands together with glee. It's well past time we ditched this chicken little act.

I'm only gonna say this once: Barack Obama just ran the smartest, most effective, most transformative political campaign in American history! Do you honestly think Obama's picking these candidates impulsively? He's not throwing darts. He's had 2 fucking years to put together his cabinet wish list. Chill the fuck out already.

Much of this angst seems focused on Hillary Clinton's Secretary of State nomination. Stupid. Stupid. And more stupid. I will genuinely miss Hillary Clinton as my Senator. Because she's done overall an exceptional job for NY, I selfishly didn't want her to win the Presidential nomination.

But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton puts her squarely on the world stage. Short of being President, this singularly prestigious cabinet position offers her the opportunity to make history like few before her. Do not underestimate the importance of this. It's Hillary's best and possibly last chance to silence years of muttering about the Clintons' "legacy".

We used to say in the music industry, "You're only as good as your last record." Let's face it, this could be Hillary's last go 'round in public service. At the end of Obama's first term, she'll be 64 years old.

Yes, she'll still be plenty young enough to serve her country but Obama will be running for re-election. The Senator replacing her will be running for re-election. For Secretary of State Hillary Clinton any office below Prezzie or Veep would be a serious come down.

Then there's those of you who persist in kvetching over potential ego clashes blah yak blah yak. Hillary will not fuck this up. She has demonstrated her honor of and sense duty to her country. Furthermore, Hillary and thus Bill's "legacy" is now inextricably, permanently tied to the Obama Presidency.

Her success depends on Barack's success and vice versa. There's no chance in hell that Hillary Clinton will be anything less than outstanding in her execution of Obama's foreign policy. The ego-thang is overblown. She will defer to him.

Get it? Got it? Good. Get over it.

Let's get back to the hard work of fixing our country. This includes showing great support for our and confidence in President-elect Barack Obama and his cabinet nominees.

Fer crissakes the guy hasn't even been sworn in yet.

-AF

Wherein Hillary Stakes Her Claim...

...To Be The Next Ted Kennedy.

Let's be crystal-fucking-clear about one thing, for their championing of social programs & social progress, FD-fucking-R & Ted Kennedy are hands down the two greatest Democrats (and thus party boosters) of the last hundred years. That's why the cons and neo-cons expend so much effort trying to cut them down.

Upon review we must recognize that if Sen. Kennedy had been elected prez on any of his multiple tries, he would never had nearly the astounding overall positive impact he had on our lives. Yet, as profoundly ill as he is and as he has done time and time again, last nite Kennedy smacked one outta the park with perhaps his most iconic speech. Obviously, sadly, Ted's time is drawing to a close.

But with her speech tonite, it seems Hill has more fully embraced her opportunity to grasp Teddy's baton and run with it. I can think of no other more noble role for New York's junior Senator.

-AF

Stop!

A special request for Hillary.
-AF
+Uncle Anacher's Trivia Vault: Five years ago while in Houston, TX, I bought Erasure's Andy Bell a tuna fish sandwich.

++Update 6/06: I just secured my Yaz(oo) tix for Saturday, July 19. Woo-hoo!

Andy Ostroy Sez: "Hillary Should Quit."

Dear Hillary:
What happened? No really, what the fuck just happened to you? I can't for the life of me figure out how a once-promising presidential campaign -- a sure thing for Pete's sake -- turned into a pathetic embarrassment?

My feelings exactly. Read the rest here.

I admire Andy Ostroy tons. He's not only an smart cat but he's also the husband of one of my all-time fave actors, the late Adrienne Shelly. (For the most part I act like a tough guy but it's because I can't help shed a tear watching her films that I haven't yet seen her directorial debut Waitress). For those of you unfamiliar with Shelly's work, run (don't walk) wherever you get yer DVDs and grab the astonishing Hal Hartley-directed The Unbelievable Truth (and Trust if you can find it).

In memory of Adrienne, Andy has set up The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. The Foundation's goal is to provide support for female actors, writers and directors. A very worthy cause I endorse it without reservation. Please donate what you can here.

-AF

Whereby Pres. Hillary Clinton Resembles Pres. George W. Bush

I'm probably not saying anything new here but I'm compelled to say it nonetheless...

The truth is the longer Hillary insists on staying in this race, the less attractive a candidate she becomes to this voter. (Can you say Senator John Hall, New Yorkers?) Her naked ambition, not to mention that of her husband's, lays her faults bare for all the world to see. What I find most disturbing is how Sen. Clinton, the candidate, has more and more come to resemble George Bush, the President. There, I've said it.

I've already discussed my other Hillary "problems" here and here. What should now be the most critical concern to Sen. Clinton's die hard supporters, and thus all Democratic voters, is two-fold:

1. Her penchant for statements that can easily be "misunderstood" or "taken out of context."
2. Her inability to take responsibility for these statements through a proper, timely apology.

Even if you believe that some of Hillary misstatements were not intentional, and I do not, have we not spent seven-and-a-half years living through a Presidency just like this?

Time and time again we've watched helplessly as our current President has made thoughtless self-serving statements with a total disregard as to how they might be received and/or misinterpreted. Statements that have ranged from those damaging to our country's international reputation (mentioning Hitler at Israel's 60th Anniversary celebration. WTF?) to those endangering our troops' lives ("Bring 'em on!").

For our next Commander-In-Chief, we desperately need the most thoughtful successor possible. Sen. Clinton has offered abundant proof she does not meet this criterion. A sample of Candidate Clinton's most damaging statements:

1. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."
   
2. "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964…it took a president to get it done."
3. Florida and Michigan primaries "don’t count for anything.’"
4. "(We have a) basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts" implying that the Democratic Party doesn't want every vote to count.
   
5. "I am not violating the pledge" referring to her decision to campaign in Florida after pledging not to.
6. "It is well within the Democratic Party rules to take this stand." Then she implied her opponents, who kept their pledges not to campaign in FL & MI, were comparable to those who were for slavery and against women's suffrage.
7. "We have to carry the states that I’m carrying, the primary states, the states that really have to be in the winning Democratic column” minimizing Sen. Obama's primary victories in traditionally Republican Western states i.e. only big states count.
   

All of this and more Hillary Clinton has said in either total disregard for or oblivious to how hurtful it was to individual citizens, certain states' voters, our entire democratic process and her Party. It goes beyond the self-serving. It's flat-out selfish. And the longer her campaign drags on, the more frequently we see this act from either Sen. Clinton or her surrogates.

This is not Presidential behavior, Hillary. It's just not. It is not when President George Bush does it. It definitely is not when Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton does it. There's no excuse for it. Period.

It's not Senatorial behavior either. There's precious little time left for Sen. Clinton to bow out of the race with a modicum of self-respect intact. By doing so sooner rather than later, she has an opportunity to regain some trust and respect from her constituents too.

-AF

PS If you still haven't yet seen it, what's wrong with you?, here's last Friday's Keith Olbermann Special Comment on Senator Clinton.

"It's Still Early Yet" And Other Election Ruminations

No, Hillary. It's too late for you. But early days yet for this election season. Today's Bob Herbert Op-Ed, "Party Like It's 2008", rips our clueless political establishment and punditocracy. Their antiquated pre-2000 notions have found them unable to "tell the difference between Facebook and, say, AOL." Blinded by nostalgia these dinosaurs of democracy are "too busy salivating over the Clintons’ vintage 1990s roster of fat-cat donors to hear the major earthquake rumbling underground."

These folks' state of oblivion is far-reaching and oh-so-painful to behold:

Hillary Clinton’s attempt to impersonate a Nascar-lovin’, gun-totin’, economist-bashin’ populist went bust: Asked which candidate most “shares your values,” voters in both North Carolina and Indiana exit polls opted instead for the elite and condescending arugula-eater. Bill Clinton’s small-town barnstorming tour, hailed as a revival of old-time Bubba bonhomie, proved to be yet another sabotage of his wife, whipping up false expectations for her disastrous showing in North Carolina. Barack Obama’s final, undercaffeinated debate performance, not to mention the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s attempted character assassination, failed to slow his inexorable path to the Democratic nomination.

This occurred despite the talking heads' and the (non-Obama) political strategists' best concerted efforts to ensure the exact opposite effect. What a bunch of witless bastards:

Almost every wrong prediction about this election cycle has come from those trying to force the round peg of this year’s campaign into the square holes of past political wars. That’s why race keeps being portrayed as dooming Mr. Obama — surely Jeremiah Wright = Willie Horton! — no matter what the voters say to the contrary. It’s why the Beltway took on faith the Clinton machine’s strategic, organization and fund-raising invincibility. It’s why some prognosticators still imagine that John McCain can spin the Iraq fiasco to his political advantage as Richard Nixon miraculously did Vietnam.

The year 2008 is far more complex — and exhilarating — than the old templates would have us believe. Of course we’re in pain. More voters think the country is on the wrong track (81 percent) than at any time in the history of New York Times/CBS News polling on that question. George W. Bush is the most unpopular president that any living American has known.

Our country's political topography is changing at a rate so fast it's leaving the dinosaurs in the dust:

The demographic reshaping of the electoral map, though more widely noted, still isn’t fully understood. From Rust Belt Ohio through Tuesday’s primaries, cable bloviators have been fixated on the older, white, working-class vote. Their unspoken (and truly condescending) assumption, lately embraced by Mrs. Clinton, is that these voters are Reagan Democrats, cryogenically frozen since 1980, who come in two flavors: rubes who will be duped by a politician backing a gas-tax pander or racists who are out of Mr. Obama’s reach.

No great shock. When you put a gaggle of simpletons in a studio, the only possible result is a simplistic (and completely wrong) assumption. Adding the sum total of their misperceptions and preconceived notions to the mix creates an intellectual quicksand of sorts. To wit, the harder these know-it-alls struggle to understand this new political paradigm, the further away from the truth they drift:

But this isn’t 2004, and the fixation on that one demographic in the Clinton-Obama contest has obscured the big picture. The rise in black voters and young voters of all races in Democratic primaries is re-weighting the electorate. Look, for instance, at Ohio, the crucial swing state that Mr. Kerry lost by 119,000 votes four years ago. This year black voters accounted for 18 percent of the state’s Democratic primary voters, up from 14 percent in 2004, an increase of some 230,000 voters out of an overall turnout leap of roughly a million. Voters under 30 (up by some 245,000 voters) accounted for 16 percent, up from 9 in 2004. Those younger Ohio voters even showed up in larger numbers than the perennially reliable over-65 crowd.

It's fascinating to watch these political "experts" ignore the demographic actually driving the upcoming election. Instead they choose to concentrate on older white folks like them. Through this classic Freudian projection, these "experts" have deluded themselves into believing they, and only people they perceive to be like them (read: blue collar), will be the arbiters deciding our next President. What's worse is that, intentionally or otherwise, they're working overtime to fool the rest of us into believing it too. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Herbert has plenty o' gold today. Read the whole thing here.

-AF

It's Only A Flesh Wound

After her drubbing in North Carolina and her close call in Illinois, can Hillary Clinton move the goal posts yet again?

-AF

Stephanopoulos Gets Questions From Hillary Before Debate

I couldn't resist. I totally swiped the basic concept from some months-old winger blog post.

-AF

You Fucked Up File: ABC

Welcome to the inaugural entry to ASIAF's YFUF. What's a "YFUF"? A dear friend and former colleague in the music biz has to deal with any number of challenging, demanding artists from baby bands to international superstars based all over the globe. Years ago he instituted what he calls the "You Fucked Up File." When the band inevitably fucks something up, it's added to their YFUF. This way if there are any disputes about why a third single isn't released from a disappointing album, tour support is reduced, etc., he whips out their YFUF and sets them straight.

Last night saw the worst ever piece of election coverage by any network not named Fox. After 3,492 Democratic debates you'd think ABC could get it right. Not that I watched it. I have read and viewed much of the press coverage. Sometimes that's more important than what actually happened. Because by all accounts your average American couldn't have tolerated more than 5 minutes of it, this was one of those times.

Yes, the candidates' performance was lackluster. But ABC's Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos acted like they had participated in some perverse pre-debate Right Wing Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. WTF was up with that?

You know ABC fucked up when the crowd actually and loudly booed Gibson. You know they blew it when Obama is asked about some badass he knew when he was 8 years-old. You know it was awful when Editor & Publisher's Editor Greg Mitchell calls it "perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years." You know it was bad when one of the many gotcha questions is supplied by Sean Hannity and NY right wing radio looney Steve Malzberg. You know it was terrible when Philly's Daily News' Will Bunch rips it not once but twice. You know it went well past weak when the "flag pin" kerfuffle and every other kerfuffle is resurrected. You know it was ugly when it took an absolutely unforgivable 51 fucking minutes for the motherf***ers moderators to bring up one policy issue(!?!). You know it was shameful when Keith Olbermann sez "The campaign may have seemed dirty. It had nothing on one of the moderators of the debate tonight."

Look, I know Stephanopoulos is ABC's DC bureau chief but he was Bill Clinton's senior political advisor and communications director fer chrissakes.
I don't want to say that George had a hard-on for Obama but he should have put a coat on to cover his naked bias. Fox's Hugh Hewitt would have been a more appropriate choice. Is Charles Gibson really so light that he couldn't have moderated solo?

The only good to come out of this unmitigated disaster is that every single debate henceforth will seem amaaazing.

-AF
++Update: Harper's Ken Silverstein provides one-stop shopping with Deep Throats: A Compilation of Debate Porn.

They Said It. I Repeat It.

We had two very good men, and men of faith, run for President in 2000 and 2004. But large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand or relate to or frankly respect their ways of life.

Hillary Clinton

By the way I have to say I think Al Gore won.

Barack Obama

Call me Captain Obvious but it's not a very smart move by Sen. Clinton to take any shots at Al Gore right now. Come on November!

-AF

They Said It. I Repeat It.

In terms of style, they all did just fine. But this is really not a Commander-in-Chief test. I mean the test is so low here it’s the question is have they flubbed it enough to embarrass themselves and therefore disqualify themselves as Commander-in-Chief. And as we saw in 2000, you can flub any number of times and still be considered to have passed some notional Commander-in-Chief test. And that didn’t work out so well.

Newsweek/MSNBC analyst Richard Wolfe*

*On Countdown with Keith Olbermann describing whether or not any of the Presidential candidates passed any Commander-in-Chief test while grilling Gen. Petraeus.

-AF

C'mon Hillary. Please Give It Up

Lookit. I like Hillary well enough. I was skeptical but voted for her when she first ran for Senator of my state. I enthusiastically cheered her reelection. With a few exceptions she has done an admirable job for NY. Yet with each passing day, my admiration for both Hillary and her hubby declines dramatically.

With or without superdelegates, Hillary's quest for the White House is fraught with obstacles. The Tuzla flap aside, her campaign posture has become a major turnoff. Even worse, it's disrupted Democratic voters' unity and our singular sense of purpose: to take back the White House. The Boston Globe has this:

A Gallup poll released yesterday indicated that 28 percent of Democrats supporting Clinton said they would vote for McCain over Obama in November, while 19 percent of Obama's backers said they would vote for McCain over Clinton.

That's just the acrimony (and mebbe the whisky) talking. I'm confident this is only temporary. No Democrat worth his or her salt would vote for crazy John McCain come November -- He's only gonna get crazier too as we near the election. Though through this infighting we do risk losing the so called "Obamicans" who would never vote for Hillary. Regardless, this poll is indicative of the divisiveness the Obama/Hillary war has caused. The Globe sums it up:

Clinton's campaign has been under pressure from some Obama partisans, citing his lead in delegates, total votes, and fund-raising, to give up because she has almost no chance of overtaking him in the contest for pledged delegates. With 10 contests remaining until June 3, Clinton trails Obama by 122 delegates, according to the Associated Press tally. Clinton holds an edge among the more than half of all superdelegates who have declared their allegiance.

The Clinton campaign, however, continues to send strong signals that it will not fold. Clinton said this week that voters do not want to "shut this race down."

Senator Clinton's chief surrogate, her husband, former president Bill Clinton, told voters in West Virginia yesterday, "My family's not big on quitting." He also downplayed concern over the campaign's tone, saying: "Let's just saddle up and have an argument. What's the matter with that?

Plenty, Bill, plenty. It reflects poorly on you both. Why give the Republicans the blueprint to weakening our nominee's candicacy and doing the early work for them? This is analogous to George Bush's stance i.e. putting yourself above party and party above country.

I disagree too with Hillary's contention that we voters don't wanna "shut this race down." If that were true, it would still be for the betterment of our party for her to step aside. Instead focusing on defeating the Republican nominee, this infighting is not only weakening our nominee(s) but also the party as a whole. More from The Globe:

...Some major Democratic fund-raisers who support Clinton sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi chiding her for publicly suggesting that the superdelegates should follow the will of the voters as reflected in pledged delegates and the popular vote - two measures on which Clinton faces long odds to catch up.

Chastising Speaker Pelosi for stating the obvious, right attitude is an unneeded distraction from her pressing business such as, oh I don't know, ensuring that the telecoms do not get the immunity they and the Bush Administration seek. While it may be in just some small way, this "chiding" does diminish Pelosi's standing. This comes at a crucial time in history when our party needs strengthening not weakening.

So c'mon Hillary. Please give it up. If you won't do it for your party, then do it for your country. Go back to where you can do the most good as the junior Senator for the great State of New York. Do it now before any more damage is done. Please.

-AF

+Update (3/28): Josh Marshall adds his two cents on Hillary, Bill, calls by Sen. Leahy & Sen. Dodd to step aside, the Clintons' fuzzy delegate math, shark-hopping. etc.

++Update #2 (3/28): TPM has deets on Sen. Leahy's call for Hillary to drop out.

What Kos Tells Us

If I have this right, Kos tells us that Barack Obama is Abraham Lincoln to Hillary Clinton's
Stephen A. Douglas. The Democratic Party stands in for the 38 states in turmoil. And me? I'm Mark Twain. Natch.

This has been an edition of What Kos Tells Us.

-AF

"Change We Can Xerox": The Pot Calls The Kettle Black

Last nite Hillary misfired going all super-stupid on us with a weak, poorly timed Obama "Xeroxed change" bash. She topped her gaffe liberally borrowing from John Edwards for her eloquent closing (see above vid). Obama wisely refrained from listing Hill's own obvious snatching of bits from John Edwards (health care well, hello?), her husband and others. This is what politicians do. People do it too.

In my perfect twisted little world Obama's response to Hillary's "Xerox" charge (with apologies to Mel Brooks) would be:

Obama: Come on, you do it. You love to do it. We all do it. You do it...
Hillary: No, I don't!
Obama: I do it, I love to do it. I just did it and I'm ready to do it again, don't tell me you don't do it!

But seriously folks...I like Hillary Clinton. With a few exceptions the Hillster has done an outstanding job representing the Empire State. She should have realized it's a far too late in the game to so lamely attack Obama's strongest point, public speaking. It's not as if Obama was lifting whole passages of Thomas Jefferson, René Descartes, The Dali Lama, Thomas More, mon héros absolu François-Marie Arouet, Frances Hutcheson or James Patterson without attribution.

Barack is a wordsmith (or wordsmythe in OE). He incorporates words into his speeches suggested by trusted advisors. Obama modifies others' tried and true phrases making them his own. No need to dial 911 -- This is what orators, musicians, painters, authors and other artists do. They have done so since the fucking dawn of language.

Let's use music as an example. One of these things is a lot like the other:

The VU's "Sweet Jane" lent its chords to The Who's "Baba O’Reilly"

The Chiffons' "He’s So Fine" begat George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord"

The Who's "I Can’t Explain" inspired "Clash City Rockers"

ELO's (and The Move's) "Do Ya" was lifted for It's Too Late by Bob Mould

Bob Marley copped the Banana Splits Theme "Tra La La" for "Buffalo Soldier"!

Without Iggy's "Lust For Life" there would be no "Are You Gonna Be My Girl" (Jet)

The Beatles' "Lady Madonna" imbues "What I Got"'s Sublime melody.

Oasis’ greatest songs are chock full o’ glorious melody & riff rip offs.

That's just off the top of my head on this mad snowy Friday. I'll try to slip some music links later. Other than George Harrison and Led Zep (who were repeatedly popped for their shameless plundering of the criminally under appreciated Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, Hownlin’ Wolf, etc.) artists rarely confront other artists over it. This is what artists do. People do it too. It's human nature.

In Obama's case plagiarism is a serious unwarranted charge. Methinks this is the last we'll hear Hillary speak of Obama's "Xerox." But you can bet your bippy John McCain and the GOP are already taking notes.

-AF