Merit-bound Alley

You may remember my recent post on the Portland Obama rally that attracted over 70,000 people. A recent story on Newsbusters brings light to the fact that there was an extremely popular local band, the Decemberists, playing before the rally and questioned who was there to see the band rather than the charismatic candidate.

So, I did a little digging. I didn’t have to dig far (in fact, this is quoted in the Newsbusters article) to find that Obama is fairly popular with the Indie crowd.

Indie rock’s #1 candidate crush Barack Obama is sittin’ quite a bit prettier than he was a few weeks ago when the Arcade Fire and Bruce Springsteen went to bat for him, but the dashing junior Senator hasn’t quite clinched the Democratic party nomination yet. Next up on the primary agenda are Oregon and Kentucky, whose voters hit the polls Tuesday, May 20. Should Obama win a heaping majority of the delegates up for grabs that day, he’ll be within inches of securing the hotly-contested nom.

And look who’s arrived to give Obama the extra push he needs to get on the ballot in November. Why, it’s none other than those kings and queens of the month after, the Decemberists!

Shocking! An energetic young candidate who wants to fundamentally change discourse in our broken government? I can see how that would be Indie popular. However, also look at the last quoted line. It suggests that Obama was not quite following a popular rock band, but they were specifically there to play for the rally!

Can it be? Yes. From the Decemberists website:

Points of Order:
* The Decemberists to play set at Barack Obama Rally SUNDAY

For those in the vicinity of Portland, Oregon this weekend, The Decemberists will play an hour-long set at a Rally with Barack Obama

So, we have a band that was opening for Obama, and really nothing in the Newsbusters article that provides evidence that anyone was there just for the band. In fact, they provide evidence to the contrary with the “candidate crust” quote.

One other important point: should this information have been provided by the mainstream media? Of course it should have! However, there is plenty of evidence that some news venues are more than willing to skew in Obama’s favor. As this election progresses, it becomes more and more evident that we can’t count on the MSM to report the news without skew anymore. That goes for the liberal and conservative media.

Senator Clinton made a remark at an Ohio High School that sounds ominously familiar.

“And, yes, there are advisers. There’s all kinds of people who are saying do this and do that. But the president has to decide.”

Seriously, it’s like she doesn’t even want to win.

I don’t get it. In an election that could not be more important, people are still using race and gender as the deciding factor. For the first time in 8 years, we are going to have a change in executive leadership with candidates who can reverse a lot of the damage the Bushco has inflicted on the U.S., yet some voters can’t get past the fact that we have a black man, a white man, and a white woman running.

One might ask the dumbass voters, “What about the issues?” Does it matter to them that the Democrats have key differences in their policies on healthcare? On NAFTA? On the War in Iraq? Or does it only matter that the candidate is your favored color or gender?

Listen, I think it would be fantastic if there was a woman running for president had a favorable record on the war, or wanted to bring the government back together, or didn’t propose a nanny-state mandate on healthcare. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what race or gender a candidate is, so long as that candidate fits my perspective of “right on the issues”.

From the article, feminist activist and Chair of the Dallas County Democrats Darlene Ewing has this to say:

“They’re running to the rock star, to the momentum, to the excitement,” said Ewing, a family law attorney who chairs the Dallas County Democratic Party. “And I am worried that if Hillary doesn’t get elected, I am never going to see a woman president in my lifetime. I do think her chances are slipping away, and it [ticks] me off.”

Can you think of anything more short-sighted and self-centered than this? Or am I an idiot for wanting to see a President who inspires hope and confidence in our government? A President who consistently decried the War in Iraq. A President who is willing to meet with all heads of state. Should I instead be pissed that the white guy doesn’t stand a chance of winning?

Billie Jean King is quoted in TFA:

“I see my whole life going down the drain. A cute young guy comes in and sweeps away all the hard work that the older woman has done.”

Holy melodrama, Batman! Hey, Billie, rather than calling it quits on the whole life thing, maybe you could continue your work inspiring more women that may want to be a Presidential candidate one day. I’m just sayin’.

Maybe I’m being a little too harsh, having never been in a position where my demographic (white guys that Donviti hates)wasn’t presented. I can understand them wanting to see a black or female president; hell, I’d like to see that in my lifetime. However, that’s not going to keep me from voting for the person who I think would be the best President. If a woman who I agree with puts herself out there, and is the best person for the job, she gets my vote, plain and simple.

But it won’t be because of her gender. Ever. My vote is worth more to me than that.

According to a memo released by the Clinton campaign to “Interested Parties”, Obama’s streak is a prmonition of his inevitable defeat. Huh? Well, just take a look:

To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: Friday, February 29, 2008
RE: Obama Must-Wins

The media has anointed Barack Obama the presumptive nominee and he’s playing the part.

With an eleven state winning streak coming out of February, Senator Obama is riding a surge of momentum that has enabled him to pour unprecedented resources into Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday.

Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches.

If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem.

Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear:

Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.

So, what it comes down to is that Obama campaigned so hard in these states, if he only wins by a small margin, it only shows how weak he is as a candidate. Unlike a gyroscope, fast and furious spinning will not lend stability to the Clinton clusterfuck.

(/t to Wonkette)

Looks like the press is finally evening out the tough coverage. Take a look at this sample:

 Do your daughters Sasha and Malia ever ask about Britney Spears?
Actually, yeah. But they’re very sensible. They’re pretty down on Britney and Paris and all of that. They think that’s very “yuck.” They’re way more into Hannah Montana and Beyonce. They got to go backstage and meet Beyonce and they just love her to death.

BANG! POW! Holy shit! Way to crush him! Look out for the rest to this election, Barack! The wall has been breached.

I think I’ve made it fairly plain that I don’t suport Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for President. I’ve pointed out a lot of her bad points, and alluded to certain unethical practices that the Clintons have been guilty of.

Do you know why I have the freedom to do that?

Because I’m not in a position to have to be fair or balanced. I have the choice to support whatever candidate I like and tell anyone who will listen exactly why.

Debate moderators do not have that luxury. Their job is to ask questions and keep time. That’s it. Not so for Tim Russert, apparently. The debate started with Hillary being completely grilled on every campaign foible, then Obama being asked, compassionately even, how he felt about that.

Hillary was visibly upset rather quickly, as this set the theme for the whole debate. Throughout the debate, Clinton was privy to answering questions about every shady campaign move she’s made while Obama got more fair questions about policy. A couple of times, Obama rose to Clinton’s defense against the constant stream of stones being thrown by the “moderator” Russert.

I have never been made so aware of the skew in the MSM. MSNBC showed zero adherence to the ethics of journalism or to the foundation of debate. For that, I have no respect for them or any journalist who doesn’t point out the blatant disregard for neutrality in this debate.

If this is the type of “news” that MSNBC shovels out, then you can count on me to not be watching. I don’t give a shit how smart and funny Olbermann is.

In related news, I’ve used “sanctimonious” in a sentence!

Bob Franken wrote a story for the Huffington Post where he details the relatively unbalanced political coverage in the campaign correspondents. I’ve talked about this before. He then, however, waxes righteous about the power of the press:

Sooner or later we realize that and try to get back into balance. That’s what we’re seeing now, or at least beginning to see.

That helps explain all the negative stories that popped up about McCain in the last few days. There is a collective consciousness in journalism that causes all of us at pretty much the same time, to try and knock our icons off the very pedestals we created for them.

So, according to Franken, the media makes them then capriciously rips them down. Interesting. I remember a time when the media was supposed to present a balanced view, reporting only the facts. I also remember a more recent time where they at least still pretended to do that.

What about Obama? So far he has been this campaign’s easy rider. But you can bet that all of my profession’s proud social misfits are looking very hard for chinks in this Lancelot’s armor… anything that might knock him off his horse. That explains why we swarmed when he was knocked off his stride by the charges of “plagiarism” Frankly, he recovered his balance fairly easily, but it was a reminder we are just looking for an excuse to pile on.

Oh yes, the few, the proud, the men and women who report with gleeful egocentricity according to the whim of their calling! Warrior-poets, they are!

Too much of this election race is manipulated by the marketers we call political consultants. They’re hired to try and control every facet of the candidates’ image. Unless the wretches in media are willing to withstand the election peer pressure and be true NON-believers, we might elect someone who has no business being our national leader.

Yes,  ye nobles of hearty constitution! Resist the pressure enacted upon you by the political consultants… unless it’s negative sotries or outright rumour, of course. Then, let the pressure wash over you and drown in it’s moist embrace!

That lesson is that journalism in the United States is supposed to be about skepticism. It’s time for us to help make sure we don’t neglect our obligation to try and make sure voters avoid placing a fraud at the highest level of government. The candidates for the most powerful job in the world need to withstand a tough challenge not just from their opponents, but from us.

Oh, and the voters.

Clinton campaign advisers are showing a very different side to the Hillary Clinton campaign than is forwarded by her recent optimism.

“One adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak freely, said Obama’s 17-point Wisconsin victory on Tuesday had started to sink in as a decisive blow, given that the state had been viewed weeks earlier as a level playing field.”

“‘The mathematical reality at that point became impossible to ignore,’ the adviser said. ‘There’s not a lot of denial left at this point.’”

“Despite Clinton’s public pronouncements of optimism, this adviser said: ‘She knows where things are going. It’s pretty clear she has a big decision. But it’s daunting. It’s still hard to accept.’”

After 11 straight wins for Sen. Obama, the Clinton campaign faces an uncertain future. There doesn’t seem to be much support at this point for the continuation of her campaign, unless she scores decisive victories on March 4th. Also narrowing is he gap in superdelegate support, with Obama adding 25 superdelegates in the last two weeks and Clinton losing 2.

Clinton’s pledge to take the race all the way to the convention is not provoking the support that she expected either, with some in the party viewing her perseverance with a jaundiced eye.

“Some Democratic political sources said discussion has begun about encouraging Clinton to transition into a different party leadership role, one that could carry her on a path to becoming Senate majority leader. That course had been discussed even before Clinton announced her presidential campaign. ‘People who care about her are worried about her long-term future,’ the adviser said.”

In other words, it’s looking fairly grim for the Clinton campaign. The current feeling seems to be that a continuation of the Clinton campaign will be so divisive as to damage the party. I giess being a Clinton is less important than being a Democrat after all.

Read the full story via the Washington Post here.

At Clinton’s Ohio rally, Machinist Union president Thomas Buffenbarger* had some unkind words for Obama and his supporters. Indeed, the screed was so long and vitriolic, that it earned boos and jeers from the audience. This just blows my mind:

“The Barack show is playing to rave reviews sold out at college campuses after college campus. Standing room only crowds to hear his silver-tounged orations. Hope, change, yes we can? Give me a break! I’ve got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak. This guy won’t last a round against the Republican attack machine. He’s a poet, not a fighter.”

Well, that’s a great way to alienate half of the Deomcratic public, you braying jackass!

Also, it bears telling that yet again, Hillary Clinton neglected to mention her losses in WI and HI or to congratulate Barack Obama on the wins.

* “Buffenbarger” sounds like “Barfenburger”. I love that!

Last night, the call fo change was heard and embraced yet again as Sen. Obama widened his delegate lead over Sen. Clinton by decisive victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii.

Wisconsin:

Obama: 58% of the popular vote and 38 delegates

Clinton: 41% of the popular vote and 27 delegates

Hawaii:

Obama: 76% of the popular vote, no delegate count yet

Clinton: 24% of the popular vote, no delegate count

The speeches have started to use stronger wording, with Obama taking a shot at the  quagmire (giggity) in Washington, D.C:

It is going to require more than rousing speeches. … It is going to require something more, because the problem that we face in America today is not the lack of good ideas. It’s that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die

And McCain taking a shot at Obama:

I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change

Absent from McCain’s speech was any mention of Senator Clinton. It seems he knows who will be his opponent when the conventions are said and done.

Onr thing I just thought of: where was Huckabee last night?