Will Democrats really support a Republican filibuster of health reform?

Olbermann and Howard Fineman discussed the need for Democrats to get 60 votes to shut off debate on the senate floor for health reform.

Fineman concluded that if the public option is included in the Senate Finance Committe bill, the Democrats "could lose" the support of two or three of their own senators.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Let's be clear about what we're talking about here.

No bill needs more than 51 votes for passage in the United States Senate. The 60-vote threshhold that has become the de facto standard for legislative success in the senate is merely what is needed to end debate on a measure and bring it up for a floor vote. It is, essentially, what is needed to overcome the threat of a filibuster.

Once upon a time, the Republicans insisted, and the news media agreed collectively, that every bill and every nominee deserved an up-or-down vote in the senate. This was when Republicans controlled congress and a Republican president was in the White House. The up-or-down vote narrative created the perception that any Democratic filibuster of a Republican legislative priority was nothing less than an affront to democracy.

That was then. This is now.

Now, the Republicans hold just 40 seats in a 100-member body that requires only a simple majority, 51 votes, to pass legislation.

In order to compensate for their lack of power in congress, the Republicans have begun rountinely issuing filibuster threats against Demcocratic legislative priorities. In fact, it has become so automatic that lawmakers and the news media assume now that any significant Democratic bill will be subjected to a filibuster. What was once considered an aberration has become the new normal. The Democratic majority is so cowed by this procedural tactic that they are willing to gut their own legislation pre-emptively to account for the likelihood of a Republican filibuster.

This would be pathetic even if the Democrats did not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster threat.

But with the appointment of Paul Kirk to replace Ted Kennedy, the Democratic majority has the 60 votes it needs to beat back a filibuster and bring a strong health reform bill to a floor vote in the senate. With 60 votes, the Democrats can shut off debate and bring a bill containing a public option to the senate floor where it would pass by a comfortable margin.

The 60 votes are needed only for the routine act of ending debate and bringing a measure to the senate floor for a vote. Any senator who disagrees with the bill, Republican or Democrat, who disagrees with the bill would be free to vote "no."

When pundits like Howard Fineman warn that the Democrats "could lose" some of their own members by including real reform in the reform bill, what they are talking about is Democrats supporting a Republican filibuster against their own party's legislation. What does it even mean to be a member of a political party if you support the opposition's effort to keep your own side from even voting on its top priority?

This dynamic literally allows a 40-seat minority to control the process in a 100-member body that passes legislation by simple majority. It renders moot the results of the elections that handed the Democrats such an overwhelming majority in the first place. It is complete surrender. It is obscene.

The majority must begin to change this dynamic now. The Democrats should pass out of the Senate Finance Committee a health reform bill with a strong public option. The leadership should make it clear that any Democrat who doesn't like the bill is free to vote against it during final passage.

But they must make it equally clear that there will be severe consequences for any Democrat who supports a Republican filibuster.

Truce? What truce?

Keith Olbermann is back from vacation and is calling the New York Times, Fox "News", and several  sources within General Electric liars.

A highly-publicized front-page story in the New York Times on Saturday reported that Keith O had laid off the merciless teasing of his arch nemesis Bill O'Reilly at the instruction of the corporate suits at G.E.  NYT reporter Brian Stelter did stipulate that Olbermann told him by e-mail that he was "party to no deal," but Stelter reported nonetheless that pressure from higher ups had caused the host of Countdown to leave Bill-O alone.  The motivation was, according to Stelter, O'Reilly's retaliatory reporting on G.E.'s business dealings in Iran.

O'Reilly's reports were said to be so alarming to G.E. that the executive suits worked out a deal with the House of Murdoch wherein in Olbermann would stop teasing O'Reilly and Fox "News" would back off G.E.

Several critics, Glenn Greenwald notably, savaged the Fox/MSNBC truce as an unacceptable intrusion of corporate interests in the integrity of the newsroom.  And if there were such a truce, the critics would be, of course, absolutely correct.

But in his Worst Person in the World segment Monday night, Olbermann said that there is not, and never was, any deal to end the war between himself and O'Reilly.

And for emphasis, he devoted the entire segment to the truce story, targeting specifically Brian Stelter, Rupert Murdoch, and none other than Bill-O The Clown.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Not only does Olbermann say he was never a party to such a deal, but that his bosses never asked him to be.

Says Greenwald:

"Really surprised by the Olbermann denial -- there's lots and lots of evidence that the NYT's description about what GE did is 100% accurate."

I suspect that the last word on this story has not been written.

Janeane Garofalo on the teabaggers: 'You can tell these type of right wingers anything and they'll believe it, except the truth'

My vocabulary is indequate to express how much I adore this woman.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sarah Palin has no idea what a vice president does

Palin's literal inability to describe the duties of the office she seeks should be the biggest story of the day.

And yet, all anybody seems to care about this morning is how much her clothes cost.

This is at least the third time that Palin has demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the constitutionally defined duties of the vice president of the United States. She actually seems to think that the VP has legal authority to influence or even control the agenda of the U.S. Senate. I suppose she reached this conclusion by observing the way Dick Cheney has operated, and not knowing any better, thinks this is the what the constitution says. But she is wrong. Journalists should be saying she is wrong.

Instead, I heard Tamryn Whatever-her-name-is on MSNBC describe Palin's answer as not exactly accurate.

No, it's completely wrong. It is not possible to be more wrong than that.

The subsequent discussion was about the politics of Palin's latest gaffe.

But it's not a gaffe. It's a wrong answer. And she should know the right answer. We have a right to expect her to know the right answer.

Sarah Palin is running for vice president of the United States, and she literally has no idea what a vice president does.

I would think that repeatedly failing to correctly describe the duties of the office you seek would disqualify you from that office. I would think that journalists would be sufficiently alarmed by Palin's repeated inability to describe those duties that they would explicitly question her qualifications for the job.

But I guess that's expecting too much. After all, she wears really expensive clothes.

[Cross-posted from comments at Life's Journey]

'Senator McCain, these people are speaking for you'

Olbermann's Special Comment on the moral failure of John McCain.

1:25 p.m. Eastern Time, today, in Scranton, Pennsylvania. During the warm-up act by a red meat Congressional candidate aptly named Chris Hackett, Hackett mentions Obama and a Palin audience member shouts, “Kill Him.”

And Gov. Palin, as usual, does nothing about it; says nothing to these thugs and psychos. She may not have heard this one. It is impossible to believe that by now she has not heard about the other ones. Her silence is deafening. Just as, Senator McCain, you have done nothing when violence has been asserted. Correction. You have done one thing.

Asked why, in real time, you do not repudiate this hatefulness, you act as if you are the victim. Speaking today to our NBC Station in Washington:

McCain: “Sure and I repudiated it as I have on several occasions. Unfortunately, Congressman John Lewis is an American hero who I admire who made the worst, most unacceptable statement a couple days ago that I have ever heard. He accused me and Sarah Palin of being involved in segregation, George Wallace and even made reference to a church bombing where children were killed. Senator Obama has not repudiated that statement. Senator Obama should do so immediately. Its the most outrageous thing that I have heard since in politics…it is disgraceful.”

Disgraceful?

Obviously, Senator, you haven’t heard your own speeches, and Gov. Palin’s, and what people shout during them. And you haven’t heard your state GOP Chair in Virginia, Jeffrey Frederick, giving talking points to 30 of your field- operatives heading out to canvass voters in Gainesville, Virginia, with a reporter present, telling them to try to forge a connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden to emphasize bombings and terrorism. And you haven’t heard those volunteers, your volunteers Sen. McCain, shout back, “And he won’t salute the flag” and “We don’t even know where Sen. Obama was really born.”

Sen. McCain, these people are speaking for you! And how dare you try to claim Congressman Lewis was linking you to Gov. George Wallace’s segregation? He was linking you, aptly, to Gov. George Wallace’s lynch-mob mentality.

“As public figures with the power to influence and persuade,” said Congressman Lewis, “Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all.”

Sen. McCain, your supporters, at your events, are calling Obama a terrorist and traitor and are calling for him to be killed. And yet you keep bringing back these same rabid Right Wing nuts to deliberately stir these crowds into frenzies. And then you take offense when somebody who remembers the violence in our political past, calls you on it. You, sir, are responsible for a phalanx of individuals who are shouting fire in a crowded theater.

There are some things to respect and honor about you, Sen. McCain, but on this you’re not only a fraud, Senator, but you are tacitly inciting lunatics to violence. If you want to again grand-stand and suspend your campaign here’s your big chance. Suspend your campaign now, until you, or somebody else, gets some control over it and it ceases to be a clear and present danger to the peace of this nation.

Olbermann: Palin throwin' stones

Last Wednesday, Sheriff's deputies arrived at the home of a woman in Akron, Ohio named Addie Polk, in order to evict her. After 38 years in that house, Ms. Polk had fallen behind on paying the mortgage. It was so bad that the company that held that mortgage, Fannie Mae, had foreclosed.

In fact, it was far worse than anybody knew. Addie Polk couldn't bear it any more. So, rather than be evicted, she shot herself in the chest.

Evidently she will survive. And, after Congressman Dennis Kucinich brought her plight to the floor of the House, Fannie Mae, the mortgage giant you and I and all the rest of us pretty much own now, agreed it would forgive Addie Polk's debt and, when she gets out of the hospital, let her go back and live in her home again.

That this is already a gothic horror story, you'll agree. But I left out one detail. Addie Polk is 90 years old.

In the self-pronounced area of expertise of the Governor of Alaska—energy—the real experts of both parties are at a loss to figure out any way, even'drill, baby, drill', that might lower gas prices before 2018. We are at war in two countries and a lame duck President with no reason to check his own imbalance still has dreams of one more.

And a 90-year-old woman, trapped in the middle of a financial meltdown, shoots herself and she's still in better shape than the economy. Yet, the Governor of Alaska wants to talk about somebody Barack Obama doesn't know very well, and what this somebody Barack Obama doesn't know very well, did, during the year Obama was eight and the Governor of Alaska was in pre-Kindergarten.

And she wants to talk about Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And she doesn't object to being introduced with a reference to Barack Obama's middle name. Well, this is my suggestion. In much the same way we, America, in the corporate persona of Fannie Mae, have forgiven poor Addie Polk of Akron, Ohio.

We, America, also need to forgive poor Sarah Palin of Wasilla, Alaska. They are both in situations that are beyond their ability to cope. They are both stuck in a crucible caused by forces they cannot comprehend. They are both unable to understand what they are doing.

After stumbling through a clumsier version of it at Englewood, Colorado, the Governor of Alaska said Saturday at Carson, California:

"Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country.”

She later defended the remark by adding this was an "association that has been known but hasn't been talked about.”

Governor, Conservative groups have thus far spent ten million dollars this year trying to make something, anything, out of the brief interaction on a charity board between Sen. Obama, and a rehabilitated former domestic radical from the '60s and not even Conservatives have been stupid enough to buy the snake oil, that this was either a close relationship or a nefarious one.

But of course, you know better, Governor. You're smarter than the rest of us. A reporter asks you a horrible gotcha question like'which newspapers do you read' and it takes you four days to come up with an answer, and somehow it's the reporter's fault.

The reporter asks you to name one Supreme Court ruling with which you disagree other than Roe vs. Wade and even though you'd commented on just such a case from Alaska no less not three months ago your eyes turn into a big neon sign reading "Vacancy” and you insist it's because that evil media asked the wrong question.


So you're the genius Governor, and it's your supporters and the undecided voters who are the dopes who are now going to believe the same mickey-mouse crap that Sen. Clinton couldn't get to stick, and Sean Hannity couldn't get to stick, just because it's you adding that word "terrorist” and that phrase "palling around” and dropping the "g” in pal-ling.

And of course, Governor, those same dopes, and we media morons, we are not smart enough to ask about that pesky Alaskan Independence Party, and why you recorded a speech for its convention last March, and why your husband remained a registered member of it until 2002, even though it was founded by a man named Joe Vogler who wanted Alaska to secede from the United States. The way the South seceded, precipitating the Civil War.

The same Joe Vogler who once said:

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government, and I won't be buried under their damn flag.”

And who also said:

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions.”

Shoot, Governor, them's strong words, hah? Did he wink as he said 'em? You betcha! So, where does Joe Vogler rank on the scales of "terrorists who would target their own country?" Your opponent's guy Ayers wound up on a volunteer anti-poverty committee in Chicago.

But your guy Vogler wound up founding a group that wanted to rip one of the stars off the American flag! Well, ok, Governor, Vogler's more your husband's guy. So it's your husband who's been "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

But I'm assuming you've been "palling around” with your husband. But, gee willikers, Governor, you know what's best. You're not one of these Washington insiders who would notice that though that's a straight line connecting you, your husband, and this Alaskan secessionist, you're*standing under a banner with the campaign slogan "Country First” and if somebody out there puts two and two together they might just ask, "which Country dja mean? The Country of Alaska?”

"The heels are on,” you said with another smile. "The gloves are off.”

Well, if you're telling William Kristol you want to talk about Jeremiah Wright fer sure! So, Governor you don't mind addressing whether this Pastor Muthee is a terrorist? Do you? We've told you before about Pastor Thomas Muthee.

He's the preacher who visited the Wasilla Assembly of God church a couple of times while the Governor was there, ironically enough, just about as many times as Bill Ayres has met Barack Obama and, see, there was this one time where Pastor Muthee actually laid hands on the Governor.

And I'm sure that sounds like just some crazy anecdote, except there's videotape. And of course the Governor talked about this moment, the laying on of hands, just last summer.

It was in October, 2005, as the video indicates, when Muthee put his hands on Sarah Palin's back and said, "make a way for Sarah, even in the political arena. Make a way, my God. Bring finances her way, even if for the campaign in the name of Jesus.

"Every form of witchcraft, it will be rebuked in the name of Jesus. Father, make her way now. "

And the Governor said that "bold” approach of Pastor Muthee was one of the reasons she became Governor and she gives him just oodles of credit for puttin' her on the path.

The problem for the governor is that in 1999 The Christian Science Monitor reported that Pastor Muthee had gotten his start a decade earlier in Kenya, in the Nairobi suburb of Kiambu.

Kimabu was crime-ridden. So this character Muthee showed up, and announced it was the fault of this woman in town who he had decided was a witch. And Muthee gave the witch a choice: either be saved, or get out of town.



And the woman initially chose none of the above, but this became less than a viable option when Muthee got 200 of the townspeople together and they decided, heck, you know, Muthee's right, she probably is a witch, and the next thing you know the police are raiding her house and reportedly shooting her snake because if she was a witch, the snake had to be a demon, and then the woman left town and everybody said crime went down and most of the bars closed and this is not only how Pastor Muthee got started but he's proud of it and he tells the story in his testimonial videotapes and people in that church in Wasilla where he laid hands on the Governor knew all about it.

And they think it was just a Joe-Six-Pack, Hockey Mom kinda thing to do, to let a guy who branded some woman in Kenya a witch, demand that God make some different woman the Governor of Alaska!

Governor, what would you call someone who arrives in a suburb, blames a resident for the local crime, organizes a mob to threaten the woman, convinces the authorities to go and raid her home, and then chases her out of the suburb?

C'mon Governor, just give us one answer that has something to do with the question you were just asked. That's right you'd call him a terrorist. And since it was in his own country, that would make himmmm? Yes, very good, a domestic terrorist.

So, you, Governor, you've been "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” Say it ain't so, Gov! Say it ain't so! Of course it is.

The Governor of Alaska ignores Addie Polk and the American tragedy that is a 90-year old woman shooting herself out of shame and panic and who knows what else. Over the mortgage!

Instead the Governor of Alaska wants to start calling people terrorists and insisting of Sen. Obama that quote "this is not a man who sees America like you and I see America” and whose rhetoric like that, and the "pallin' around with terrorists” line were rightly described by the Associated Press yesterday as a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing kind of way of slipping racism into the equation, because it's a nifty trick to remind the white folk that (psst) Obama is black.

But overriding this sleaziness and dog-gone it, the Governor of Alaska has got to be the sleaziest politician working the stage at the moment, there is the sheer blessed stupidity of letting herself become the bomb-thrower when her own life is full of domestic terrorists.

Governor? Bill Ayres? Your hubby was in this secessionist hate group for which you recorded a video.

Governor? Jeremiah Wright? That pastor you credit with helping you become Governor, is either a con man or a psycho who believes he can tell which woman in the village is the witch, and which woman is the governor.

And Governor, there's also "The U.S. Council On World Freedom.” You should ask Sen. McCain about that outfit and why he had to scat away from it 22 years ago.


Or, ask him why yesterday his own brother Joe referred to Northern Virginia as quote "communist country.” Or you could ask him about Pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Or about why Sen. McCain said about introducing Jeremiah Wright into this campaign, "there's no place for that kind of campaigning, the American people don't want it, period.”

Or don't ask. You know best. You're the one selling the patent medicine. Those of us out here, we're just the suckers pulling out our greenbacks. Go on talking about this man Ayers and trying to link Obama to that word "terrorist.”

But be prepared for others to ask you about your pastor and terrorism. And for still others to ask you about the First Dude and terrorism. But not me, Governor.

I forgive you. You are about as guilty here as poor Ms. Addie Polk in Akron. And I hope that after what you've done to yourself, you recover as well as she seems to be doing, and that you too get to go back and live in your own home again.

Because if you think the terrorism con, and the racism sting are going to do anything but bury you and Sen, McCain, you need to pick up one of those how-many-ever newspapers you reed and check the headlines to find out what people are really worried about right now.

Otherwise, when you said "the heels are on, the gloves are off,” you got as close to telling the truth as you've ever gotten, and without really knowing it.

Because, for you and Sen. McCain, Governor, it's not the gloves that just came off.

Obviously—it's the wheels.

'You've sold them all out, Senator'

Context.

Tonight, a Special Comment on Sen. John McCain’s conclusion that it’s "not too important" when American forces come home from Iraq.

Thoughts, offered more in sorrow, than in anger. For two full days now, the Senator and his supporters have been outraged at what they see as the subtraction of context from this extraordinary remark.

This is, sadly, the excuse of our time, for everything. Still. If the Senator claims truncation, we will correct that, first.

"A lot of people," Matt Lauer began, "now say the surge is working."

"Anybody who knows the facts on the ground say that," the Senator interjected.

"If it’s now working, Senator," Lauer continued, "do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"

"No," answered McCain. "But that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany.

That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way. And that way they will be safe, and serve our country, and come home with honor and victory — not in defeat, which is what Sen. [Barack] Obama’s proposal would have done. And I’m proud of them, and they’re doing a great job. And we are succeeding. And it’s fascinating that Sen. Obama still doesn’t realize it."

And there is the context of what Sen. McCain said. Well, not quite, Senator.

The full context is that the Iraq you see, is a figment of your imagination. This is not a war about "honor and victory," Sir. This is a war you, and the President you support and seek to succeed, conned this nation into.

Yes, sir. You.




Of the prospect of war in Iraq, you said, "I believe that success will be fairly easy –" John McCain., September 24, 2002.

"I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time –" John McCain, September 29, 2002.

Of the ouster of Saddam and the Baathists: "There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators – " John McCain, March 24, 2003.

Asked, about a long-term commitment in Iraq, "are you talking about something in terms of South Korea, for instance, where you would expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq for decades?"

"No," you answered. "I don’t think decades, but I think years. A little straight talk, I think years. And I hope that we can gradually reduce that presence – " John McCain, March 18, 2004.

You were asked about the troops, and the future.

"I would hope that we could bring them all home. I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."

"…I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence. And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be – " John McCain, January 31, 2005.

When a speaker at your town hall, five months ago, referenced the President’s forecast that we might stay in Iraq for 50 years, you cut him off.

"Make it a hundred! We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine by me … – " John McCain, January 3, 2008.



And your forecast of your hypothetical first term.

"By January, 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won – " John McCain, May 15, 2008.

That, Sen. McCain, is context.

You have attested to: a fairly easy success; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; in which we would be welcomed as liberators; which you assured us would not require our troops stay for decades but merely for years; from which we could bring them all home, since you noted many Iraqis resent American military presence; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, not being injured, for a hundred years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is not that important.

That, Sen. McCain, is context.

And that, Sen. McCain, is madness.


The Government Accountability Office just released a study Tuesday that concludes that one out of every ten soldiers sent to Iraq, takes with them medical problems "severe enough to significantly limit their ability to fight."

In five years, we have now sent 43-thousand of them to war even though, they were already wounded.

And when they come home, is not that important.

Jalal al Din al Sagir, a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and Ali al Adeeb, of the rival Dawa Political Party, gave a series of interviews last week about the particulars of this country’s demand for a "Status of Forces," agreement with Iraq, a treaty which Mr. Bush does not intend to show Congress before he signs it.

The Iraqi politicians say the treaty demands Iraq’s consent to the establishment of nearly double the number of U.S. military bases in Iraq,from about 30, to 58, and from temporary, to permanent.

Those will be American men and women who must, of necessity, staff these bases - staff them, in Mr. McCain’s MCEscher dream world in which our people can all come home while they stay there for a hundred years but they’ll be back by 2013.

And when they come home, is not that important.

Last year, a 20-year old soldier from the Bronx, on the day of his re-deployment to a second tour in Iraq, said he just couldn’t face the smell of burning flesh again. So, Jonathan Aponte paid a hit man 500 dollars... to shoot him in the knee.

Mount Sinai Hospital in New York reported treating a patient identifying himself as another Iraq-bound soldier, who claimed he had accidentally swallowed a pen at the bus station. No one doubted his story until examinations proved there was a second pen in his stomach bearing the logo of Greyhound Bus Lines.

In 2006, says his sister, a 24-year old Army Specialist from Washington State, on the eve of his second deployment, strapped a pack full of tools to his back, and then jumped off the roof of his house, injuring his spine.

And when they come home or more correctly all those like them who did not risk death or disability to avoid going back, when they come home, is not that important.

You’ve sold them all out, Senator. You.

You, whose sacrifice for this country was as all-encompassing and as horrible as the rest of us can only imagine in our darkest moments.

You, who survived, so that you could make America a better place where young men did not have to go and die in pointless wars or be maimed or be held prisoner or have to hire hit-men to shoot them in the knee because that couldn’t be worse.

You, who should know better.

Where, Senator, is the man who once said "veterans hate war more than anyone else, because veterans know, because veterans know these brave Americans, and others, know, that there is nothing more painful than the loss of a comrade."


Where is he, Sir? Where is the man who described that ineffable truth?

Oh, so long ago you touched the essence of the reality of Iraq. Your comments about your lost comrades, yesterday.

The men and women in Iraq, today, Senator, they are your comrades, too.

And you are condemning them to die.

To die, for your misdirection, for Mr. Bush’s lies, for whoever makes the money off building 58 permanent American bases and all the weapons and all the bullets and all the wiring so costly and so slip-shod that it electrocutes our comrades as they step, not to fight freedom’s enemies, but into the shower at the base.

That, Senator, that is context.


It is an easy thing to dismiss Sen. McCain as a sad and befuddled figure, already challenging for some kind of campaign record for malaprops.

Just yesterday in Philadelphia he answered Sen. Obama, not by defending or explaining his own "not that important" remark, but by seizing upon Obama’s "bitter" remark - or trying to.

Obama had foolishly said that some, in despair, in small towns, cling to their religion and their guns.

Sen. McCain vowed he’d go to those towns and tell them, "I don’t agree with Senator Obama that they cling to their religion and the Constitution because they’re bitter."

It was hard not to dismiss with a laugh, Sen. McCain, or any Republican, for even accidentally implying that he’s clung to the Constitution, not after the last seven years.

It was hard, the day before, not to become almost bemused when the Senator tried to say he would veto every single bill with ear-marks, but wound up, instead, vowing "I will veto every single beer."

It was hard, this week, not to laugh at how Sen. McCain could offer any serious defense against the accusation that he is running for President Bush’s third term, when a 2006 interview suddenly surfaced in which McCain said he would consider Dick Cheney for a position in a McCain administration.

"I don’t know if I would want him as Vice President. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah."

These are all very funny, in a macabre yet unthreatening way.

And then one remembers Sen. McCain’s inability to separate Sunni and Shia, or his insistence that Iran is training Al Qaida for service in Iraq, and then being corrected about it, and then saying the same thing again anyway.

And then one is, inevitably, drawn back again to the overlooked substance of yesterday’s remark...

"If (the surge) is now working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"

"No."

No?


The surge is working and even that still tells Sen. McCain nothing about when we can ransom our soldiers?

Wasn’t that the ultimate purpose of the surge? To get them out?

If we cannot tell, if McCain cannot even guess, doesn’t that, by definition, mean... the surge isn’t working?

And ultimately we are drawn back to the "not... too... important" remark, in its full context:

The context of the kaleidoscope of confused rhetoric, and endless non sequitur, and mutually exclusive conclusions—and what they add up to: a veritable tragedy, a microcosm of the American tragedy that is Iraq, a tragedy of a man who himself will never understand… "the context."


Your tragedy, Sen. McCain?

No. I’m sorry.

This tragedy is of Justin Mixon of Bogalusa, Louisiana. And it’s of Christopher McCarthy of Virginia Beach. It’s of Quincy Green of El Paso, and Joshua Waltenbaugh of Ford City, P.A. The tragedy is of Shane Duffy of Taunton Mass, and Jonathan Emard of Mesquite, Texas. It’s of Cody Legg of Escondido in California, and David Hurst of Fort Sill in Oklahoma. The tragedy is of Thomas Duncan the 3rd of Rowlett, Texas, and Tyler Pickett of Saratoga, Wyoming.

And who are they, Senator?

They are ten Americans, who have died in Iraq since the first of this month. There are four more. The Defense Department has not yet identified the others.

And while you, Senator, may ask for all the context you can get, those ten men... will never know any of it.

Because the true context here, is that if you could ask those American war heroes, or the family and the friends that loved them, if they have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq…

They could rightly say, "No. But that’s… not… too… important."

McCain-Clinton '08?

If Hillary Clinton really thinks John McCain would be a superb president, she should just drop out of the race and urge her supporters to vote for the guy. Then, maybe he'll offer her the VP slot and she can re-enter the White House on the arm of another man. Sure, it won't be as president, but it will be similar enough to her previous tenure there.

After several days of the blogosphere howling about it, the establishment media are taking notice of Hillary's tactic of comparing Obama unfavorably to McCain with regard to national security.

Keith Olbermann spent the entire first segment of his show on it last night, speculating that it seems that if Hillary cannot have the nomination, she would rather see McCain become president.



See also this piece from ABC News about Clinton's scorched-earth campaign tactics.

"Sen. McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign; I will bring a lifetime of experience; and Sen. Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002," Clinton said today after her event with the military leaders.

Republicans do not mind it one bit.

"Everything that Hillary Clinton has been saying over the last couple weeks are all great soundbites and cuts for John McCain to use in the fall," said political analyst Matthew Dowd, a former senior adviser to President Bush.

Obama is only nominally fighting back, apparently thinking he can rise above it.

I hope that this is not what Obama is thinking. It is impossible to rise above such tactics. They must be fought. Otherwise, all you do is let your opponent define you as a target and a victim.

But leaving Obama aside, what does Clinton think she is doing? Attacking your primary opponent is one thing, debate as we may the relative merits of the way you choose to do it. But to actively build up the opposing party's candidate is beyond the pale. Has it not occurred to Clinton that, if she succeeds in destroying Obamas candidacy (and remember that he leads in delegates, states, and total votes), then she will have to face McCain in the general election? How on earth does she plan to make the case that the man whose foreign policy experience (longer and more substantive than her own) she has been praising should not be president?

Hillary Clinton needs to remember that she is a Democrat. If she does not, she risks becoming the Joe Lieberman of 2008.

Eugene Robinson: O'Reilly's statement was 'casually racist'

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson joined Keith Olbermann on Countdown to discuss Bill O'Reilly's latest outbreak of foot-in-mouth disease (via Media Matters).



ROBINSON: Hi, Keith, and let me warn you upfront, I'm -- even though I'm black, I'm going to speak standard English tonight. So I don't want you to be surprised or shocked, and I'm actually going to think for myself too, which -- I know you'll be stunned. But -- I mean, this is -- this is incredible, but this is O'Reilly, this is the guy.

OLBERMANN: And it's textbook prejudice. I mean, he expected something because of the color of people's skin. Doesn't matter if he was pleasantly surprised or had his prejudice reinforced. Is this the most insidious part of this that he doesn't know that that is racism, by definition?

ROBINSON: Well, you know I'm not going to go inside of Bill O'Reilly's head -- you know, is he racist, what does he know? You know, all I know is that it was, at best, a casually racist remark. But you know, what really ticks me off is that when you say that, when you point that out, you know, immediately you get charged by O'Reilly and cohorts with, you know, you're the thought police, you're the thought Gestapo, you're the word Nazis, you're interfering with free speech, and somehow cutting off an honest debate about race. Well, tell me what in the year 2007 is debatable about whether or not black people can use a knife and fork. I don't think that's debatable at this point.

Touchy Much?

Fox "News" is not reacting very gracefully to the fact that Keith Olbermann is beating Bill O'Reilly in the key demographic of viewers aged 25-54.

Mediabistro blogger Chris Ariens got on the frosty side of one of their p.r. flacks.

When asked to comment for this story, Fox News spokesperson Irena Briganti wrote, "Does Mediabistro know you're on two payrolls — MSNBC's and theirs?"

(of course, I haven't been on MSNBC's payroll since I left the company in January.)

Oooooohhh. I know you are, but what am I?