1. Obama was for the holocaust before he was against it. Or some other such idiotic trash that is unbecoming a candidate such as John McCain .

2. Obama would gladly lose a war to win an election. Because he was against the surge. McCain was in favor of the surge. Of course, all of this ignores the simple fact that Obama was against the war from the get-go.

3. McCain says the surge helped bring about the Sunni Anbar Awakening, which has had as much to do - if not exponentially more - with calming the violence in Iraq as the surge itself. The problem is that the surge wasn’t even a glimmer in young Dubya’s eye when the Anbar Awakening began.

4. Obama is like Hitler. Of course, some locals have already said that.

5. Obama will say anything to gain the vote of members of the Israeli press. He mistakenly said the Senate Banking Committee was “his committee” when, in fact, it was that committee (of which he is not a member) that had passed a bill sponsored by Obama. IOW, it was his bill, not his committee.

Of course, because in the past 24 - 48 hours, McCain and his campaign have said several really stupid, offensive things, he did the only thing he could do.

He canceled his single press availability today so he wouldn’t have to answer any questions.

Via Vanity Fair, obviously.

John McCain has an video he’s released online that mocks the adoring coverage Obama gets in the press.

Ha ha.

It’s funny because the media have covered Obama just like…

…well, just like how they covered John McCain in 2000.

Haley Barbour on PBS in 2000:

Is the media soft on McCain?

HALEY BARBOUR: Oh, I think it’s probably more than that, Terry. I said last week that the news … the national news media were slobbering all over John McCain and that well known conservative correspondent Mary McGrory of the Washington Post said that absolutely it was true, that I was quite right, that the press has swooned for McCain. I’ve never seen anything like it. And I think what’s interesting for most viewers or people who are interested is that the press that is most pro-McCain are the most liberal press. The ones who are the biggest Clinton supporters like the New York Times and the Boston Globe have come out and said McCain is the anti-Clinton. The Washington Post actually ran an editorial that proclaimed that McCain was the conservative candidate in the race. It’s been a long time since Republicans looked to the Washington Post to tell them who was a conservative.

McCain is just jealous that the Straight Talk Express magic of 8 years ago is gone, and that his friends in the media have moved on to fresher meat.

John McCain in 2004:

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it’s a hypothetical, but it’s at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

The elected head of state of sovereign Iraq said this to Der Spiegel this past weekend:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

and

“So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat,” Maliki told SPIEGEL. “But that isn’t the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.”

The Bush Administration first blundered by promoting the Spiegel article to its press distribution list rather than an internal distribution list, and then sometime on Sunday, Maliki issued a “clarification” of his remarks, which was puzzlingly released through the US Central Command.

Oh, and did I mention that Maliki’s “clarification” came after the White House called him to tell him to “clarify”?

From the New York Times:

Mr. Maliki’s interview prompted immediate concern from the Bush administration, which called to seek clarification from Mr. Maliki’s office, American officials said.

Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., said that embassy officials explained to the Iraqis how the interview in Der Spiegel was being interpreted, given that it came just a day after the two governments announced an agreement over American troops.

“The Iraqis were not aware and wanted to correct it,” he said.

So, the Iraqis trotted out a guy to say that Spiegel screwed up the translation.

Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Mr. Maliki’s advisers on Saturday, said an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss what he called diplomatic communications. After that, the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine’s rendering of the interview.

The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Mr. Maliki’s words had been “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but it failed to cite specifics.

“Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation.”

But the interpreter worked for Maliki - not Spiegel, and the Times got a hold of the tape, and offers this direct translation from its original Arabic:

“Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

And all of this comes during a campaign where McCain and Bush have steadfastly refused to consider a timetable for American troops to leave Iraq, lest it be perceived as failure. The Republicans have been trying to apply the “cut & run” language they used against Kerry against Obama, but 2004 is different from 2008. So different, in fact, that the White House itself has had to acknowledge that some sort of pullout is going to happen, but they prefer to call it a “time horizon” or somesuch.

By talking pullout, Bush and Maliki have effectively removed one of the big rationales behind McCain’s candidacy.

(EDITS: Links added, corrections made)

HT Politico

It was revealed yesterday that US trade with Iran had grown under the Bush administration despite all the angry talk and axis of evil stuff. This trade includes appliances, cigarettes, and other consumer goods.

When asked about it, John McCain said:

Why would we want to kill average Iranian civilians? Even if we went to war with Iran, wouldn’t the objective be regime change? What’s so funny about that joke?

When Republicans cry with indignation at mistreatment of John McCain, let us not forget 2004. Back then, the GOP brought new meaning to “honoring service” of a veteran and political civility. Kerry received three Purple Hearts serving in combat in Vietnam. That’s three more than Bush, Rove, and Cheney combined. This is how, in 2004, Bush’s supporters honored his service:

So, the civility bar has been set remarkably low, and so far the only thing that’s been questioned is whether getting shot down over Hanoi is a qualification for the Presidency. When Wes Clark made that observation, Bob Dole awoke from Bob Dole’s slumber. Bob Dole said this:

“The attack by General Wesley Clark on Senator John McCain’s war record and qualifications for the presidency is beyond comprehension. Clark’s absurd remarks signal further erosion in our nation’s political discourse. He should have stayed in bed Sunday morning.

It’s unfortunate that a former General who ran for the presidency on his own war record thinks it appropriate to attack a distinguished veteran and former prisoner-of-war in this way. Senator McCain’s entire life has been devoted to public service. His achievement and experience constitute unparalleled qualification for America’s highest office.”

This is what Bob Dole said in 2004 about John Kerry’s service:

And last week, former Sen. Bob Dole, the party’s 1996 presidential nominee, brought more attention to the allegations when he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “With three Purple Hearts, he never bled that I know of. And they’re all superficial wounds.”

In other words, Senator Dole, the erosion of our political discourse was helped along by the likes of you.

I happen to think that there is no set of qualifications for the Presidency. If there were, we could just us a headhunter and solicit resumes. So the question itself is a dumb one.

But gasps of righteous indignation from the crowd that wore purple-heart laden Band-Aids ring very hollow indeed.

HT The Humanist.

As most everyone knows by now, Barack Obama has decided to opt out of the public financing system, eschewing federal matching funds so that his overall fundraising is not capped, and he can effectively battle against what is likely to be a brutal Republican onslaught from McCain, the RNC, and various swiftboat-flavored 527 groups.

Some people are upset about this because they demand doctrinal rigidity in a candidate, rather than pragmatism. I think Bush has shown us that doctrinal rigidity in the face of changing factual reality can be quite counterproductive. Others are upset because Obama had pledged to work out something with the McCain campaign whereby both would opt into the public financing system. McCain is, notably, upset, and going on the attack on the issue. It won’t be very persuasive, however.

Why? Josh Marshall explains:

McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC’s rules, we’re still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.)

I want to return to this subject though because this is not hyperbole or some throw away line. He’s really doing it. McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn’t — the Republican head of the FEC — said he’s not allowed to do that. He can’t opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.

The most generous interpretation of what happened is that McCain’s lawyer came up with an ingenious legal two step that allowed him to double dip in the campaign finance system, eat his cake and spend it too. But even if you buy that line, successful gaming of the system doesn’t really count as strict adherence. And the point is irrelevant since the head of the FEC — a Republican — says McCain cannot do this on his own.

Why I detest cable news and Rush Limbaugh clones:

The McCain campaign today let loose former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani as its attack dog on the issue of terrorism and Obama’s alleged softness on it. Not only with Jimmy Carter’s name be bandied about, but expect the dead of 9/11 to be used as a hammer against Obama at every turn.

But aside from the accident of Giuliani being the mayor of the city hardest hit by 9/11, what foreign policy/counterterrorism credentials does Giuliani boast?

Senator Joe Biden says it beautifully:

“It’s no surprise that it takes a man with zero national security and foreign policy experience to defend the policies of John McCain and President Bush. The facts are that the policies President Bush has pursued and Senator McCain would continue have not made us safer. We’re bogged down in Iraq with no end in sight and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan — the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 — have regrouped and are plotting new attacks. In fact, terrorist attacks around the world have increased since 9-11.

“When it comes to Guantanamo detainees, Senator McCain has been all over the map. A year ago, he recognized that Guantanamo was a stain on this country and joined me in advocating that it be closed down and recommending that the detainees be sent to Fort Leavenworth — where there has never been a question that they would have Habeas Corpus rights. Now, Sen. McCain insists that Americans must choose between our values and our security. That’s exactly wrong. Our values reinforce our security. Our failure to live up to them has been Al Qaeda’s biggest recruiting tool.”

Barack Obama has hailed the recent Supreme Court decision, which held that detainees in Guantanamo Bay’s detention camp are entitled to habeas corpus. The McCain campaign said,

Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mind-set . . . He does not understand the nature of the enemies we face,” McCain’s national security director Randy Scheunemann told reporters on a conference call.

Former CIA director James Woolsey, who is advising the McCain campaign, concurred, saying Obama has “an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism . . . and toward dealing with prisoners captured overseas who have been engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States.”

Remember the blind Sheikh, Omar-Abdel Rahman? Connected to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, we arrested him and his co-conspirators and convicted them under the rule of law. He rots in jail for life. Why can’t we do the same to Qaeda suspects? How do we reconcile our rule of law, our constitution, our moral and legal obligation not to torture, with what we’ve done since 9/11? How does 9/11 justify violation of principles that date to 1215?

Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists “within the constraints of our Constitution.” He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

“And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo,” Obama said. “What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U. S. prisons, incapacitated.

“And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.’

Obama is merely arguing that the United States needs to follow its own laws and treaty obligations when it comes to people imprisoned by the United States on American soil, (which the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base most certainly is). If we don’t do that, then what, precisely, are we fundamentally fighting for?

The McCain camp can accuse Obama of having a 9/10 mentality all it wants. They?

They have a pre-1215 mentality. A September 16, 1787 mentality. A July 3, 1776 mentality.

What the pretty blond women are saying to the older gentleman:

John McCain. The guy I backed in 2000 is a wounded shadow of his former self. His speech was dull, plodding, uninspired, intellectually dishonest, and defensive. And whoever picked the green background should be fired. He talks of our progress in Iraq, where Sunnis are working with us to fight insurgency - Sunnis to whom we reached out in a diplomatic manner, realizing that there is something each side needs from the other. In the next breath he criticizes Obama for wanting to negotiate with mean dictators. McCain paints Obama with the big-spending, big-government program brush - a brush that’s 25 years out-of-date. The Republican Party is now the big-spending, big-government party. The Republican Party is now the party of government intrusion into public life, into mismanagement of the economy and energy policy, of turning the US into a torturing, aggressive, clumsy fool who spies on its own citizens. That’s not change we can believe in. McCain as a change agent? Co-opting Obama’s tag line as “A Leader We Can Believe In”? Nothing new, nothing original, and the whole notion of “change” isn’t exactly going to fire up the conservatives, who aren’t all that thrilled about McCain to begin with.

Hillary Clinton. The Senator from New York was feisty, defiant, conciliatory to the race Obama “has run” versus the race he has won. She gave out her web address and asked her supporters to tell her what to do next because she’s not making any decisions “tonight”. (The crowd at times chanted, “Denver, Denver!” and at one point I heard one voice cry, “don’t vote for Obama!”) It was Clinton’s opportunity to concede gracefully and acknowledge that Obama was over the top. She didn’t . It was Clinton’s opportunity to throw her support his way wholeheartedly to unify the party - an opportunity to do so to a live, nationwide audience. She didn’t. That’s a shame. Go to her site and tell her what you think? It begins, by default, “I’m with you, Hillary, and I’m proud of everything we are fighting for.” When you hit submit, it goes to her contributions page. What does she want? Not “respect” for the 18 million who voted for her. What she wants is help paying off her campaign debt. I thought her speech was an opportunity blown; it might have been the right speech for Hillary Clinton, but it wasn’t the right speech for the Democratic Party going into the general election. Ultimately, Clinton’s speech was all about her. She didn’t coalesce her supporters against McCain. She helped perpetuate the Hillary-as-victim myth. CNN pundits were getting angry emails about how this night was supposed to be “all about Hillary”. Jeffrey Toobin expressed disbelief at that sentiment, and chalked it up to “deranged narcissism”:

Barack Obama’s speech. Compared to McCain’s rhetorical bunt, Obama hit it out of the park. He extended a hand to Clinton and her supporters. But what I really loved - especially after the lackluster, wonky campaign Al Gore waged in 2000 and the milquetoast, defensive campaign John Kerry waged in 2004 - was that Obama got right in McCain’s face. He held the speech at the arena in St Paul where the Republicans will hold their nominating convention later this year. Right in his face. He praised McCain for his service to the country and his accomplishments, “even as he chooses to ignore [Obama’s]”. He went right at McCain as “embracing” Bush’s policies in Iraq and with domestic issues. While McCain criticized Obama for not visiting Iraq, Obama suggested McCain go and visit places in America that are facing tough times. It was patriotic. It outlined that, as far as Obama is concerned, the race won’t use religion as a “wedge”, and won’t demonize and turn opponents into the enemy. What a great speech. What a great night.

Bring it.

My long weekend begins today, so posting will be appropriately light, although Mr. Buffalo Geek might hop on if he’s so inclined.

So, consider:

McKinley High School Principal Crystal Barton ought to start talking about what’s going on. Jayvonna Kincannon, on the other hand, is in desperate need of a time out.

County Executive Chris Collins says he’s not a political animal, but the evidence shows otherwise. Not that there’s anything wrong with a politician acting politically, but why keep up the charade?

I wonder why DA Candidate Ken Case is so untouchable, but the Erie County Democratic Committee unanimously endorsed Frank Sedita III - son of the Supreme Court Justice and grandson of the Mayor. There is no question whatsoever that Sedita is an outstanding prosecutor, and chances are that, as 1st Assistant, he has had much experience helping to run that office. I’m sure he’s a good pick, but would love to know why Case wasn’t.

I want to begin dispelling a myth - I think the conventional wisdom out there holds that the people at WNYMedia.net are snarky, sarcastic snipers and gripers, and don’t try to do helpful things. That could not be further from the truth, and I’ll put the civic activism of our members and writers up against anyone. Our people have been involved with Buffalo Homecoming, Broadway-Fillmore Alive, the Central Terminal, the WNY Coalition for Progress, anti-Flipping efforts on the East Side, Revitalize Buffalo, Santa’s Park, South Buffalo improvements, Buffalo ReUse, Buffalo’s dog park at LaSalle - just to name a few. Thesis: it’s perfectly ok to snarkily gripe when you’re out there trying to implement change. Frankly, it’s perfectly ok to snarkily gripe no matter what.

The American Axle strike is now over. The Tonawanda plant will close, but the Cheektowaga plant will stay open. For now. Probably not for very long.

The Erie Canal Harbor park officially opens today. You can go there and cross the truss bridge, look at the excavated canal terminus, read some historical facts about the canal, go to the park along the water, walk along the board walk, go to the naval museum, and see some ruins. It’s quite pretty and very well built. There are most certainly very pretty things to see - the problem is that there is nothing to do there. Construction on Canal Side’s retail, commercial, and residential phases can’t begin soon enough.

John McCain is a newbie when it comes to attracting the religious whacko vote, and has - in one week - had to repudiate Rev. John Hagee, who had some very strange things to say about Hitler, and now Rod Parsley, who has some very interesting things to say about America’s founding, is a raging homophobe, and can cure disease with his touch. Maybe the Reverend A-hole Parsley could be Surgeon General.

Finally, a LOLCat:

more cat pictures

Why does James Baker hate America?

UPDATE: Apparently, General Petraeus is also an America-hating, naive, inexperienced appeaser! CHAMBERLAIN!!@@##

Barack Obama will follow in the footsteps of the above-pictured reckless and inexperienced men:

Here’s the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn’t have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn’t we have the same courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies? That’s what strong countries do, that’s what strong presidents do, that’s what I’ll do when I’m president of the United States of America.

Wow. A grownup treating grownup issues in a grownup manner, and speaking to us grownups as if we were grownups. It sure beats the jingoistic grunting we’ve endured for the last 7 years.

McCain wants a debate about dealing with countries that are hostile to us? Bring it.

Um…

No sh1t.

No matter how many ignorant cretins canvassers and phone callers encounter this summer - no matter how many knuckle-draggers produce t-shirts depicting Obama as a chimpanzee, Obama will be the nominee. He will be backed by the Democratic party and establishment. He will out-fundraise, out-campaign, and outsmart McCain.

And 45 years hence, one more bit of Martin Luther King’s dream will have been fulfilled.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He was so toxic that he helped halt Obama’s momentum for much of April. The videos of him on YouTube were a dittohead’s dream-come-true, and put Obama on the defensive about his patriotism, his faith, and the sincerity of his message of change.

Ultimately, however, there is someone on the current domestic political scene even more toxic than Jeremiah Wright. Someone who is like Kryptonite to voters and would hamper the electoral chances of a 2008 Presidential candidate.

A recent Gallup poll…

finds that [John] McCain’s association with George W. Bush is more damaging than [Barack] Obama’s association with Wright.

Number of likely voters who say Bush makes them less likely to vote for McCain: Thirty-eight percent.

Number of likely voters who say Wright makes them less likely to vote for Obama: Thirty-three percent.

George W. Bush. More politically toxic than an angry preacher spouting off a bunch of crazy stuff.

The political fad this week seems to be a gas tax holiday. Politicians with ambitions as lofty as President and as lowly as county legislature are proposing that just about every federal, state, and county tax on gasoline be abrogated because, evidently, we are entitled to tax-free, cheap gasoline. Never mind that taxes on gasoline pay for things like road maintenance.

Aren’t you somewhat tired of politicians treating you as a stupid, sound-bite consuming clown? Because that’s what this does. Gas may be ridiculously expensive right now, but there are so many causes of that, none of which get addressed by this politics-as-usual, quick-fix pander which, according to Paul Krugman wouldn’t necessarily solve the problem:

Why doesn’t cutting the gas tax this summer make sense? It’s Econ 101 tax incidence theory: if the supply of a good is more or less unresponsive to the price, the price to consumers will always rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount. The McCain gas tax plan is a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers.

Is the supply of gasoline really fixed? For this coming summer, it is. Refineries normally run flat out in the summer, the season of peak driving. Any elasticity in the supply comes earlier in the year, when refiners decide how much to put in inventories. The McCain/Clinton gas tax proposal comes too late for that. So it’s Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies.

The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it’s pointless, not evil. But it is pointless, and disappointing.

In fact, there’s not one economist who thinks this is a great idea. (I’m sure there’s one out there. Maybe two. But they’re the Dr. Nick Rivieras of economics.) If you drop the price, demand will rise, and the prices will go up and the oil companies’ already swollen profits will swell further. Yay! In addition to all that, budgets already factor in gas tax revenue, and at least on the local and state level would need to be made up somewhere.

The idea of a gas tax cap in New York - where it runs on a sliding scale - makes some sense, to prevent windfalls when gas prices soar. But abolition is downright silly.

Do we really want to screw with the economy on the fly like this? If we want to abolish the gas tax, wouldn’t it be better to do it as part of the annual budget process, rather than pandering to voters during an election cycle?

Mike Hudson responded in comments to my earlier, Kunzian, jab at his weekly column.

thanks for the traffic alan! i think i got two clicks already!

…

by the way, i didn’t call obama “uppity,” hardly mentioned clinton at all, merely stated that irish, italians and jews have been voting their own for years so why shouldn’t blacks too? and, after pennsylvania, i’ll hold you to the importance you place on the popular vote, alan.

the column was not directed towards obama, who i will vote for if he makes it to the general election, or to his black supporters. it was directed against upscale white suburban twits whose support he would be better off without. you know who you are.

and as for mike, who wants to use a column item about eigth street i wrote two weeks ago to brand me some kind of racist, that’s my neighborhood, buster, and if you want a second opinion you ought to ask (the overwhelmingly black and decent) members of the block club who will tell you the same thing.

So, Mr. Hudson is a kind of free-tabloid, latter-day version of Tom Wolfe, providing biting commentary on white elites pandering to radical revolutionaries. Only with crappier suits.

Let’s begin with the article itself, which claims that Obama has built a unique coalition of:

poor, inner-city blacks and well-to-do white suburban liberals who fled the cities in order to get away from the poor inner-city blacks.

Taken within the context of the entire rest of the piece, Hudson is basically saying that black people are, by definition, poor inner-city denizens. The premise, evidently, is that there are no poor rural black people supporting Obama in places like Mississippi or Georgia. Nor must there by any middle or upper-middle class black people supporting - well, anyone.

After a brief lesson on the all-too-familiar concept of identity politics, Hudson goes after his pet peeve, limousine liberals.

The term “limousine liberal” is always a handy epithet to hurl when one supposes he has the moral high ground. If class struggle is your thing, then go for it. But the revolution is not coming, and if it does, it will be televised.

On Fox News.

Interestingly, and bringing it back to the presidential race, the term “limousine liberal” is now most often used by the right as an epithet against the left. Now, Mike, I thought you were a good anarcho-socialist who lives amongst decent black people, and I therefore figured that your anachronistic epithets towards me would be more current. I mean, they used that one against Lindsay in the 60s. It’s 2008. “Limousine liberal” is now thrown around by the likes of Limbaugh and Krauthammer. And Ostrowski, evidently.

On top of that, I’ve only ridden in a limousine I think 3 times in my entire life.

Although Hudson says the piece was more about ridiculing Obama’s white supporters (which is sort of sickening in itself), he does indeed decry the fact that Obama has mucked it up for Hillary:

Over the past six months, these vermin have combined to turn what was a certain Democratic victory in November into a question mark. The party itself is so badly fractured that the likelihood of everyone forgetting about what was said and done in time to unite against John McCain seems remote.

That’s the Obama coalition and, except for the black people, I don’t think I want any part of it. It’s about enough to make me support McCain myself, as a matter of fact.

There are loads of examples of very heated primary campaigns resulting in the ultimate uniting of the party behind the ultimate nominee, and there’s no question that will happen this year. In fact, Obama and Clinton are in headlines daily, getting their messages out there, while McCain is an afterthought deep in the national section of the paper. And to think all those disingenuous white people have the nerve to support Obama. Hypocrites! [/sarcasm].

Hudson’s allusion to a 40+ year-old short story where the protagonist is alleged to be prejudiced towards black people, instead of against is something I’m not comprehending.

I have my reasons for supporting Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, and the word “black” or “African-American” or whatever the fuck people would like to pin as my motive for said support is not even remotely on the list.

Perhaps I am rather shallow, easily swayed by a good speech and gullible in matters politic. Perhaps I am foolish to believe that a candidate might be able to transcend decades’ worth of idiotic political, racial, and gender cleaves to bring the country together after 8+ years of division so that we work together for a common good.

Perhaps I am naive not to support the wife of the former president, a woman who is despised by half, and adored by the other half. Perhaps she is whom I should support, lest I have too-cool-for-the-room tabloid publishers accuse me of being a reverse-racist hipster tool.

Luckily for everyone, I suppose, I trust Hudson’s judgment as little as he trusts mine. I value his opinion as little as he values mine. Because, as the old adage goes, opinions are, indeed, like assholes.

The moment someone touts his competence to bear witness to the plight of black people because he lives near black people, and that black people “love him”, it’s game over. Unless, of course, that person is, himself, black. Mike, last I checked, you’re as white as I am.

But back to the issue at hand. This blog began as a paean to a Presidential candidate from 2004. It has morphed into the garbage it is today because I like to write things about things that I find interesting. However, I have been finding political candidates who inspire me, or anger me, and I then write down what I think about all that. It’s what I’ve done time and time again for the past 4+ years.

Hudson continues:

[Obama’s] supporters have pointed to his opposition to the war in Iraq back when it started in 2003 as evidence of his great wisdom. I opposed it too, wrote a bunch of columns about it and everything, but