Nuts to you

If you stop to listen for a moment, you can just hear the delicate sighs of fainting news editors and reporters across this republic, the rattle of pearls suddenly clutched, all in response to Jesse Jackson’s insufficiently-sotto-voced remarks about Barack Obama’s blast-to-the-left then sail-to-the-right campaign.

To be upfront: Jackson didn’t say anything about Obama that I haven’t thought twice a day, every day - though not in so many words - for a while now.

Any politician who reduces the absence of many black fathers from their families to a matter of “courage” while giving short shrift to the economic and cultural issues involved in that divide is merely moralizing, blaming the victim, playing lazy and pandering politics. Jackson is pissed and disappointed and honestly so, and - crudity aside, as its mixed company and all - he has nothing for which to apologize. Sadly and predictably, the vulgar novelty of the moment will obscure all else.

While we’re making assessments, let’s give Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. - co-chair of the Obama campaign - an award for setting a land speed record for throwing his father under the bus, to employ one of the most overworked phrases of the season. I’ll allow that Jackson, Jr. may have felt that he had little choice but to push the denounce-and-reject button as quickly and forcefully as possible. Doesn’t matter. If this son can’t grasp or won’t acknowledge the heart of his father’s concern - and if Congressman Jackson’s public remarks seem more focused on the effect his father’s remarks might have on him -

He should know how hard that I’ve worked for the last year and a half as a national co-chair of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

- well…it’s a good thing he’s not my kid.

And let us not overlook Fox News demagogue Bill O’Reilly, who fits himself for a sixty-watt halo as he brays that he has not revealed the nerve-shattering extent of Jackson, Sr.’s comments:

I want to tell everybody that we held back some of this conversation, and we did that because we didn’t feel that it had any relevance to the conversation this evening. I just want to make this very clear. We’re not out to get Jesse Jackson. We’re not out to embarrass him and we’re not out to make him look bad. If we were, we would have used what we have, which is more damaging than what you heard.

But O’Reilly damned well made sure that you knew that they had more - even as he presents a 437-stroke-R2 requisition form for a medal of statesmanship. What a tin-plated hero you are, Bill.

Twenty-three hundred

Flame on!*

So I was reading Kos yesterday, where the Great Orange Satan was giving it to Obama - or not giving it, as it happens - for having thrown the inarticulate but essentially correct Wes Clark under the bus. Kos said that he had been about to max out on campaign donations to Obama - twenty-three hundred dollars - but put his wallet right back in his pocket so far as Obama was concerned (that is, he figured he’d use the largesse on the Orange to Blue candidates).

Unlike a number of dissenting Kossacks, I’m down with Markos’ choice and his reasons for it. Why reward bad behavior, indeed? But that’s not what this post is about.

Rather, I’m thinking about twenty-three hundred dollars. That’s the max-out number, and some people certainly give it. I, on the other hand, certainly don’t. The very idea is laughable to me. It’s a case of giving what one can afford, of course, but…good Christ in a sidecar, that’s a lot of kitty litter.

My question(s) to the readership: Have you ever given that much to a campaign? Would you consider it?

*The Photoshopped (maybe??) image of Markos has nothing to do with my post, except clever DKossian Lava20 posted it in the thread there, and I just had to have it.

Way to go out on a limb, Washington Post

WaPo: “Could?”

Also tired of Ralph Nader

Shakesville: Ralph Nader: Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Your days of actual usefulness passed with the Corvair.

Bad optics?

A new article, this one in the NY Times, about the Obama campaign’s arm-length approach to Muslims. You have to wonder how many more of these have to appear before the candidate decides he has a problem.

As Senator Barack Obama courted voters in Iowa last December, Representative Keith Ellison, the country’s first Muslim congressman, stepped forward eagerly to help.

Mr. Ellison believed that Mr. Obama’s message of unity resonated deeply with American Muslims. He volunteered to speak on Mr. Obama’s behalf at a mosque in Cedar Rapids, one of the nation’s oldest Muslim enclaves. But before the rally could take place, aides to Mr. Obama asked Mr. Ellison to cancel the trip because it might stir controversy. Another aide appeared at Mr. Ellison’s Washington office to explain.

“I will never forget the quote,” Mr. Ellison said, leaning forward in his chair as he recalled the aide’s words. “He said, ‘We have a very tightly wrapped message.’ ”

No room in that wrapping for any optics involving Obama and Muslims (even the Congressional kind!), though Obama aides are quick to point out supportive statements on Islam (American-style), a radio ad for the Democratic candidate who became the second Muslim in Congress, and “a brief, private meeting” with the leader of a Dearborn, MI mosque. Reaching out to Muslims is fine for the campaign as long as there aren’t too many cameras nearby, apparently. In this light, last week’s insulting treatment of two Muslim women at a Detroit rally looks like policy rather than a thoughtless aberration by volunteers.

Obama ‘08 seems to feel that a perceived snubbing of the Muslim electorate is an acceptable price for avoiding reinforcement of the stubborn and erroneous “Obama is a Muslim” meme. It’s a political calculus that’s essentially driven by fear and caters to slurs hurled by opponents - unworthy behavior in a candidacy touting inclusiveness, and a bad optic in itself.

Stupid campaign tricks

Note to the Obama campaign: When your volunteers seat people as though they’re taking cues from Dunkin’ fucking Donuts, you deserve all the criticism you get.

As part of your image-tightening efforts, let’s see smarter volunteers, please - and while your at it, a more substantial apology to the two Muslim women in Detroit.

Nothing wrong with Rumsfeld’s memory, at least

The Hill: I guess calling Rumsfeld “one of the worst secretaries of defense in history” didn’t earn McCain Rumsfeld’s support. Go figure!

Ron Paul moves on

Ron, we hardly knew ye. Libertarian-ish GOP Representative Ron Paul wrapped his quixotic presidential campaign in bubble wrap yesterday, officially suspending the effort “for legal reasons” likely having to do with paying staff, creditors, and the like. Paul should have no problem doing that, though, as his campaign raked in $35 million - a tremendous online haul - through the end of April. Ben Pershing at the WaPo says Paul still has close to $5 million on hand.

Paul is moving from seeking an office to launching a people-powered movement through such patriotically-themed activities as a “Revolution March” and a “Campaign for Liberty.” Apparently, the revolution will be blogged.

Does the on-life-support status of the campaign mean that Paul intends to crash the gates of the Republican convention? Seems unlikely, as he is planning an alternative convention in the same city, Minneapolis, as the GOP gathering. He’s looking for 11,000 people to fill the hall. It will be interesting to see if fervor for Paul-the-man will translate into a broader political effort.

Meanwhile, the new reality show in the minds of party leaders is Win Ron Paul’s Money! Pershing speculates that the Republican Party hopes it’s possible to get their hands on some of Paul’s largesse - donations for GOP candidates in tough contests - and suggests that the party scale down its expectations:

Nothing in Paul’s history suggests that he will start simply doling out cash to whichever Republicans happen to need it most. More likely he will pick and choose his spots, looking for ideological bedfellows. His fellow House GOPers might want to try to stay on his good side, lest they end up on the wrong end of the revolution in their next primary campaigns.

Look for a new Republican commandment as the convention approaches: Speak no ill of Ron Paul. This should give his supporters a bit of swagger, considering how some of them were allegedly treated by certain state GOP organizations.

Lieberman camp pushes back against Obama

TPM: Nobody puts Uncle Joe in a corner.

Not all the news that fits

Surprisingly, it was the St. Louis television station without any sort of locally-based news commitment - ABC affiliate KDNL - that carried live coverage of the biggest (and only) political news of the day, Hillary Clinton’s speech in which she suspended her campaign and announced her support for rival Barack Obama. The station aired the network’s coverage, interrupting the Power Rangers: Jungle Fury episode that had been running.

How about other local stations? What programming were they running that was so riveting that they could not be interrupted for a mere major political announcement?

PBS member station KETC, whose mission statement says the station provides “quality content because it strengthens civic life,” aired Celtic Thunder, an all-male vocal group/concert special not to be confused with Celtic Woman. Both are staples of the station’s pledge drive programming.

NBC affiliate KSDK, “where the news comes first,” ran a cartoon called 3-2-1 Penguins!

CBS affiliate KMOV, which claims that its news reporting “never stops,” never stopped running an infomercial for a cosmetic procedure called the Lifestyle Lift.

And Fox News affiliate KTVI stuck to its airing of a 1992 episode of Saved by the Bell. For the curious: this would be the episode titled “The Teacher’s Strike,” in which the titular work-stoppage threatens the upcoming Academic Bowl.

« Previous Page — Next Page »