Friday, January 16, 2004

On The Daily Show last night, Senator Joe Biden said something that to me really illustrated why the Democrats keep losing. He said that a Democrat has never won and will never win on a platform that isn’t one of hope. Today Paul Krugman writes why that is no longer the case.
What makes Mr. Dean seem radical aren't his policy positions but his willingness — shared, we now know, by General Clark — to take a hard line against the Bush administration. This horrifies some veterans of the Clinton years, who have nostalgic memories of elections that were won by emphasizing the positive.
Indeed, George Bush's handlers have already made it clear that they intend to make his "optimism" — as opposed to the negativism of his angry opponents — a campaign theme. (Money-saving suggestion: let's cut directly to the scene where Mr. Bush dresses up as an astronaut, and skip the rest of his expensive, pointless — but optimistic! — Moon-base program.)
But even Bill Clinton couldn't run a successful Clinton-style campaign this year, for several reasons.

One is that the Democratic candidate, no matter how business-friendly, will not be able to get lots of corporate contributions, as Clinton did. In the Clinton era, a Democrat could still raise a lot of money from business, partly because there really are liberal businessmen, partly because donors wanted to hedge their bets. But these days the Republicans control all three branches of government and exercise that control ruthlessly. Even corporate types who have grave misgivings about the Bush administration — a much larger group than you might think — are afraid to give money to Democrats.

If we learned nothing about GOP ruthlessness during the impeachment, we certainly learned it during the 2000 election. But people like Biden are still playing by outdated rules. To be fair Biden also has a personal relationship with John Kerry so he can’t really be unbiased. It would do him well to remember that Kerry initially got a lot of support because he was questioning Bush and his cronies. The anger of Dean, Clark, and their supporters isn’t belligerent or directionless. It’s constructive and empowering. And the fact is acknowledging that anger has given people hope.

Thursday, January 15, 2004

Margaret Cho is one class-act ballsy rock star. When faced with rank, small-minded, hate, it takes a hell of a lot of character to come back with this:
If you say to me that I am an ugly, fat whore, God bless you. I love that you are doing what you want with your little, itty, bitty, teeny, tiny life. I embrace you with my fat whore arms, but don't forget, I want my money up front. I am looking at you lovingly with my chinky eyes.

If you actually believe I am stupid, well, surprise! I am even dumber than you will ever know, so take some satisfaction in that, because you really know how to party because you are super smart. You are so smart you think that this blog is about you.

Monday, January 12, 2004

Big surprise

Apparently, "Who ratted us out?" is a more important question than "Who broke the law and potentially put our national security at risk?"

I'll give Josh Marshall the last word on this.
Number of days between Novak column outing Valerie Plame and announcement of investigation: 74 days.

Number of days between O'Neill 60 Minutes interview and announcement of investigation: 1 day.

Having the administration reveal itself as a gaggle of hypocritcal goons ... priceless.

Sunday, January 11, 2004

I remember when Paul O'Neill left my mom and I speculated briefly that he might have pretty hurtful info on theBush administration. Apparently he did. Still it's shocking that he's gone public with these documents. If you missed the 60 Minutes segment there's a rundown of what was said here. The interview was conducted rather badly I thought, but there is some pretty damning stuff out there.

Also the book can be pre-ordered at Amazon. It's already number two on the bestseller list.