Lieberman sees progress for the millionth time.
Read The Full Article:
Joe Lieberman showed up in Iraq today, and did a John McCain - toured a market, visited troops, then got the hell out. It will be interesting to see the photos of Lieberman’s “market walk” - and if they show the same things that McCain’s did. The brief screenshot I saw on CNN showed [...]
Read The Full Article:
It's been decades since I read Nora Ephron's Heartburn, her novel based on the crumbling of her marriage to Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein, so I don't have a ready answer as to whether Bernstein is a sexist. But judging from his new book on Hillary Clinton, I wouldn't be surprised.
Check out these passages from the book:
“The prospect that she could not bear a child, which seemed increasingly likely in the first two years of her marriage--and which she probably feared even earlier—could have been as frightening to her as anything she might conjure….Hillary suffered from a condition called endometriosis, which often makes conception difficult, can cause infertility, and frequently results in extreme pain during and after intercourse.’” (P. 149-50)
“‘She’s not a heavy-duty intellectual. He’s much brighter than she is. She’s bright, but she’s not very bright…” (p. 275).
“Her ankles were thick.” (p. 32)
“‘At first, she didn’t wear stockings….Her hair was friend into an Orphan Annie perm….There wasn’t one…feminine thing about her.’” (p. 130)
“Hillary’s weight was a regular topic of conversation, spurred by her inability to shed the few pounds that would have made her more attractive.” (p.130)
“Many colleagues of the Clintons had concluded that Hillary was not as intrinsically bright as her husband.” (p. 274)
“[S]he was rarely, if ever, deferential. It had never been her style nor would it ever be.” (p. 130).
“‘She had an opinion on everything.…Issues. People. Where Bill was going to speak. I mean everything.’” (p. 165)
“[S]he was no longer wearing her trademark headbands…she had ‘zipped her lip’ and now gazed lovingly and silently at her husband from a wifely vantage point.” (p. 208).
“No first lady had ever addressed a president’s cabinet and staff with such unvarnished political candor.” (p. 268)
“Sometimes Hillary sounded like the national nanny.” (p. 447)
“In both her talking and her written voice there is a kind of grown-up Girl Scout-speak….It Takes a Village is often banal.” (p. 448)
“Some aspects of motherhood did not come easily, including breastfeeding.” (p. 152)
“Hillary had been understandably preoccupied by her pregnancy and then the care of their baby, born two months in to his governorship, when he could have greatly benefited from her help.” (p. 155)
“Six weeks after giving birth, Hillary went to Memphis and left Chelsea.” (p. 153)
“…Hillary in her Coke-bottle glasses of the moment, wearing striped bell-bottom trousers, her hair a mangy tangle.” (p. 59)
“It had been a bravura performance. She had looked pretty in pink.” Pp. 381-82 (emphasis in original)
“Hillary devolved into ‘kind of the classic bitchy wife…not quite putting her hand on her hip and finger-wagging at him, but practically…’” (p. 27)
“The décor” of their house in Hillcrest was a “testament to Hillary’s lack of domesticity.” (p. 162)
“‘Give me a break, when’s the last time she took a casserole to a grieving friend?’” (p. 449)
“Over the next year, Bateson and ... Houston ...struggled to get the first lady onto a new, more ‘positive’ track and off her ‘negative’ woman-warrior path.” (p. 414)
This is a book we're supposed to take seriously? Give me a break.
Goddamned stupid fucking school district.
Today is the last day of school. Have to pick up younger son at 11:45.
So, just what the fuck were they thinking when they set up the goddamned school calendar?
"OK, we'll have the long Memorial Day weekend, then the kids can go back to school for a fucking day and a half to finish up the school year. Yeah, they'll get a lot of valuable study time in that day and a half!".
Summer day camp doesn't start until next Monday. Meaning one is just SOL about child care for the remaining 2.5 days of the week.
Fucking fuckheaded fucktards.
Read The Full Article:
From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...
Funniest Comedian Alive?
Last May Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen informed his readers:
First, let me state my credentials: I am a funny guy. This is well known in certain circles, which is why, even back in elementary school, I was sometimes asked by the teacher to "say something funny"---as if the deed could be done on demand.
That sounded too good to pass up. So, after working feverishly with his agent for a year, Cheers and Jeers is proud to present its first-ever Stand Up Comedy Wednesday. If this goes well, we'll make it a regular feature. I've been asked to suggest that you put down your coffee cup, lest you do a spit take on your monitor. Fair warning.
Now without further ado...ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the Daily Kos Comedy Connection stage...Riiiichard Cooooohen!!!
George W. Bush. He's more liberal than you might think.
Allow me to make the case that this is also true when it comes to Iraq.
I acknowledge that the war is a catastrophic mistake and was incompetently managed. But if you don't think it was waged on behalf of oil or empire, then one reason for our involvement was an attempt to do some good---rid the world of a really bad guy and make life better for Iraqis and others in the region. This "liberal" intent may have left Dick Cheney cold and found Don Rumsfeld indifferent, but it appealed to Bush and it showed in his rhetoric and body language.
[Laughter. Applause. Standing ovation.]
Join us next week for Thomas Friedman, who takes the stage as part of his F.U. Party Tour! Please tip your server! Drive safely and good night!
Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]
Bush has gotten some of the worst judges ever nominated for anything confimed and we'll be suffering the consequences for years to come, not just on the Supreme Court but throughout the judicial system. In terms of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, though, Bush's nominees have been so gratuitously unqualified and extremist that thety have been unable to win confirmation. Even Republicans were choking on a radical right ideologue like Charles Pickering and when the Bush Regime moved to replace that dismal nomination with the even more bigoted Michael Wallace that flopped too. And it isn't getting any better. The latest
nightrider nightmare that Bush is trying to foist on us is former Mississippi Court of Appeals Judge Leslie Southwick, a racist amd bigoted asshole ever bit as unacceptable to normal Americans as Pickering and Wallace.
A couple weeks ago Judith Schaeffer sent up a warning flare at Huff Po, alerting the public to Southwick's homophobia and racism-- and the fact that he seems proud of both traits. Next week the Senate Judiciary Committee-- rushed into this by Miss McConnell's threats to try up the Senate if some Bush appointees don't get confirmed fast-- takes up the case of Leslie Southwick and will decide whether or not to send this controversial nomination on to the full Senate, where he will be able to count on a handful of reactionary Democrats (and a reactionary ex-Democrat) to support Bush's goal of stuffing the courts full of pro-corporate, anti-civil rights judicial activists.
We can't let Democrats, now ostensibly in the majority, cave in and let us down on this one, the way they did on Alito and Roberts. As Ralph Neas of People For the American Way said today "regrettably, Southwick also has a troubling record and appears to be cut from the same cloth as [Pickering and Wallace]... Just like Pickering and Wallace before him, Southwick appears ready and willing to turn back the clock on fifty years of social justice progress in our nation. Southwick had an opportunity at his recent hearing to demonstrate a commitment to Americans? individual rights and freedoms, but he proved that he still doesn?t get it. The Senate Judiciary Committee must reject Southwick?s confirmation.?
Two of the cases that best illustrate the danger of confirming a character like Southwick are these examples from the Mississippi Court of Appeals:
? In 1998, while on the Mississippi Court of Appeals, Southwick joined a ruling in an employment case that upheld the reinstatement, without any punishment whatsoever, of a white state employee who was fired for calling an African American co-worker a "good ole nigger." The court's decision effectively ratified a hearing officer's opinion that the slur was only "somewhat derogatory" and "was in effect calling the individual a 'teacher's pet.'" The Mississippi Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision.
? In 2001, Southwick joined a ruling that upheld a chancellor's decision to take an eight-year-old girl away from her mother and award custody to the father, who had never married the mother, largely because the mother was living with another woman in a "lesbian home." Southwick went even further by joining a gratuitously anti-gay concurrence which extolled Mississippi's right under "the principles of Federalism" to treat "homosexual persons" as second-class citizens. The concurrence suggested that sexual orientation is a choice and stated that an adult is not "relieved of the consequences of his or her choice" -- e.g., losing custody of one's child.
On Friday, Nevada MoveOn members got this action alert:Last night, Sen. Harry Reid gave George W. Bush a blank check for endless war in Iraq–supporting the same bill that just days earlier Reid called "weak tea."Reid needs to know we're disappointed–we expect stronger leadership from him, not weakness. Can you send Harry Reid a [...]
Read The Full Article:
In March, Harold Meyerson wrote:
In effect, what the protesters are doing is making the unattainable perfect the enemy of the barely-attainable good. Because Obey is quite right: The votes aren't there to shut down funding for the war. What he and Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership in both houses are about is finding some way to curtail the president's determination to pass the war on to his successor regardless of the continuing cost to U.S. interests and lives.
Did the Iraq Supplemental do that? Of course not. But on to Meyerson's Plan B, from:
It took the Democrats, and their dovish Republican allies, four full years to pass a cutoff of funds for U.S. ground forces in Vietnam. . . . Pelosi is steering the same course, for a war even more reckless and absurd than Vietnam.
What is Meyerson saying? That Congress can not end the war 'cuz they don't have the votes.' Well, why not just say that in the first place? As it happens, most of us always knew that. And many of us advocate an approach that requires strong Democrat support only, not waiting for phantom GOP support. This is what galls. The stupidity of it all.
In March, Meyerson wrote:
Over time, as the war drags on, either enough Republicans will join their Democratic colleagues to put an end to U.S. intervention, or they will stick with Bush, thereby ensuring there will be a sufficient number of Democrats in the next Congress to end the war.
What is a sufficient number of Democrats? We have 232 seats in the House now. Is the magic number 290, a veto proof majority? Is that realistic? Oh, not to mention 67 Senators. But a Democratic President will end the war. Ok. I am sure a Democratic President will be eager to be accused of cutting and running and being blamed by the GOP for the predicted rise in violence in Iraq after a US withdrawal. Suuuure. It will all be lies of course, but Dems seem to fear lying smears the most.
Let's cut to the chase -- Meyerson advocates an approach he knows will fail and rejects one that may not work - the Reid-Feingold framework.
Pelosi is a politician herding cats. I think we all know that she wants to end the war. No one says otherwise. What many of us criticize is her failure to adopt a plan that MIGHT end the war, instead sticking to plans that are doomed to failure. It is possible that Dems may reap political dividends in 2008 using this approach, I think not, but it is possible. What it will not do is end the war.
If your primary goal is electing more Dems, perhaps you can see merit in the Dem Congress' approach. I don't but I could see where some might.
But if your primary goal is to end the Debacle, then you can't see merit in the Dem Congress' approach. It so happens I also believe that it is not good politics. I don't see where the Dem Congress improved its political standing with the Iraq Supplemental. And a repeat performance on the 2008 appropriation won't help either.
The answer from Democratic politicians, progressive pundits and parts of the Netroots has been to berate the base. I dunno, but that sounds like bad politics to me.
Here's the bottom line to me, the Democrats will want to be positioned as the Party that fought to end the war. If folks disapprove of ending the war, they will not vote for Democrats. If they do, they more than likely will. The best way to be politically posiitoned to be the party that wants to end the war is to actually try to end the war. What Meyerson suggests has no chance of ending the war, and everyone knows it.
The Iraq Supplemental battle was deeply scarring for the Democratic base. They won't be fooled again by a Democratic Congress going through the motions.
Time to wake up and deal with the political reality. Scolding a disaffected base is not a smart political move.
As the Bush administration completes secret new rules governing interrogations, a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.
Illegal, immoral, ineffective. Why do it? Revenge? Sadism?
Sound too good to be true? Well, if you’re completely set on never changing one thing about your personal lifestyle, then it probably is. But with a few small changes, you too can fight terrorism, and you don’t even have to leave your home!That’s because you… well… don’t leave your home. [...]
Read The Full Article: