A Chicken Is Not Pillage

That's A Damned Fine Question

Why DOES Puerto Rico get more Democratic delegates than the fine state of Montana?

A Peace Offering

Since I read it nearly everyday, I figured it was about time I added Shakesville to the blogroll.

Diarist and commenter Anna, over at Left in the West, has had a hard couple of weeks in the great online lovefest.  She's a Clinton supporter, and has been duly outraged by the sexism on display against her chosen candidate.  Some folks have tried to respond with a hearty "fair enough", but that just doesn't seem to be satisfactory.  I doubt she's likely to be happy for a while.  No faulting her here; I get about the same when candidates I favor lose as well.

Since the focus of Anna's drive appears to be the rampant misogyny of the American Democrat, I thought I'd offer a little fuel to the fire.  Melissa McEwan, zuzu and the other fine posters at Shakesville have been documenting the most egregious examples of sexism displayed in the primary race, and they're up to number 94.  I've been following the series since the beginning, and yeah, some of this crap is pretty bad. You'll notice that a number of these sexist attacks don't come from Democrats and next to none come from Barack Obama or his campaign (not that that's likely to make much difference in Anna-world).

But to any out there who don't think Anna has a point, you'd best warm up your clicking fingers and follow these links.

An Eulogy Of Sorts

First, Congratulations are seriously in order for the gang at Left in the West (and 4&20 Blackbirds).  Young Matthew Singer,   clever Jay Stevens and the always alluringly mysterious jhwygirl are off to Denver for fun and frolic at the Democratic National Convention.  Well done, my friends.  Well done and will do, indeed.

Second, I know many who are confused about who exactly signed Pat Williams' 'dear John' letter to Barack Obama.  You know the one; the one where Pat tells Barack that we don't need him telling the truth.  It seems last names have become a bit of a stumbling block for myself and others.  I accused Denise Juneau, candidate for the Superintendent of the Office of Public Instruction, of having signed that letter.  She did not.  State Senator Carol Juneau did.  Adjust your ire sights appropriately.  And Denise, I am sorry.

Finally, Matt gets emails.  It seems someone's 'Clinton' yard sign got burnt, and the pell-mell assumption is that it is more Obamabot nastiness (not an assumption on Matt's part, certainly).  ~sigh~

I've spent a couple of hours over the last few days amidst the scorched earth and salted ground of websites and web posters that supported Hillary Clinton.  They know they've lost this thing, and it certainly doesn't sit well.  It probably wouldn't sit well with me either.  They cry to the high heavens "let Hillary finish this race!"  Of course.  Who can stop her?  Who would stop her?  There really are those who want her to drop out (I'm not one) but no one can or will force it upon her.  She can run, she can run like the wind as long as the money holds out.  I'm truly stoked that some of that comes to Montana.  But let's not be delusional about this.  Her running is not equal to her winning, and even her supporters are getting this clue.  Crossing the finish line is a terrific personal goal (financed with her own money as well as yours, you folks who could have spent it on gas.)  But Obama will cross that line first.  There really isn't much denial about that anymore.  In stating that this race is over, no one is attacking Hillary Clinton.  They're just stating the obvious.

But there really is an audacity of hope, and to this bitterness some Clinton supporters cling.  If she wins Oregon and Montana and South Dakota and Puerto Rico, and gets a bunch of Superdelegates frightened about the country's latent racism, well then she can *maybe* pull this out.  Audacious as that hope might be, it is also fallacious.  No realistic model shows her winning Oregon, or Montana or doing better than 50% in South Dakota.  There's actually a reason for that, and I think that's what bugs Clinton supporters the most.  I'll get to that in a moment.  Even with Florida seated she doesn't win.  And there is no rational person on God's green earth that will hand her all Michigan's delegates  outright as a gimme, and think it won't destroy the Democrat party.  There are those demanding that, and they need to be slapped hard, because they are hysterical.  Nope, Clinton has lost.  Not because of FL or MI, or anything else but this:  people didn't vote for her in the numbers they voted for Obama.  That's it.  Nothing more, nothing less.  That. Is. It.

The Kids In The Hall did a great skit (Bruce McCulloch rocks) about 'better living through circular reasoning'.  That's what we've been seeing from Clinton supporters for the last few days.  The Unity ticket seems to be the rage, and completely stupid.  Even Pat Williams in a mea culpa op-ed has alluded to how awesome it would be to have a Superman/Wonder Woman team up for the general.  Uhhh, no.  Clinton has attacked Obama 15 ways to Sunday (and if Clinton supporters are to be believed, Obama isn't worthy to be Preznit.)  How in the hell would this work?  Obama can be President as long as Hillary is there to hold his hand?  *Fuck that*  That is not a White House dynamic I think indicative of what either Obama supporters want, or Clinton supporters want.  In purely strategic terms, Obama can do this without her.  He can whoop John McCain and take this nation in a new direction.  What exactly does Hillary bring to the table?  More disgruntled and bitter voters who think Obama unworthy of the office?  No thank you.  I don't want that.  I am concerned for the reason of any who do, (and yeah, I'm looking at you Pat Williams.)

But then again, Clinton supporters might vote for McCain.  Go ahead.  Really, go ahead.  This is nothing but a cheap threat to foster fear.  That is exactly what has gotten us into the state we're in under Chimpy McWorthless.  If Clinton supporters really want to go that route, let them.  There is notrhing to be gained by trying to convince them otherwise, because their identities are so tied to their own simple self-importance that they are no different from those who gave us Bush.  If any supposed Democrats are so irrational as to give you that line, wave and say bye bye.  You won't do anything save piss them off.  Their choice is so much cooler than yours that they will betray that choice to feel important.  Almost clinical, isn't it?

But the best of the circular reasoning at play is this:  Clinton would have won if people didn't really suck.  Think I'm lying?  The most recent and unbelievable argument coming from Clinton supporters isn't an argument at all.  It's an accusation.  Clinton didn't win because America is sexist.

No shit.  There are an abundance of Clinton favoring posters out there who are pointing the finger of sexism at America, and I say ... No shit!  America is sexist, vastly more even than we are racist.  We've learned it for thousands of years.   It's almost a habit.  I don't think there was one dumb sumbitch from California to Maine who didn't think we'd have a Black male President before we'd have a woman.  That doesn't make it right, but what damned planet do people live on when they can't even accept the obvious?  Hell, I'm a big dumb guy and I've been pointing out the sexism in this race.   That's why I pointed out that "Hillary" was inviting sexism by using her first name.  She drew it on herself, and one would suppose that we are to ignore that fact except against those who point out that that was stupid campaigning.

Which brings me back to burned up yard signs.  In reading the posts from Clinton supporters one gets the idea that all of this sexism comes from Barack Obama.  Some ass at Corrente even posited that you must disavow the sexists or you must agree with them.  I hate Republithink, and I can't abide that kind of BS.  Hillary supporters are now blaming Obama for his sexism that lead to Hillary's defeat.  "Better living through circular reasoning".   Did Obama play the gender card?  It's entirely possible, just as Clinton knowingly played the race card.  One cuts deeper than the other.  Care to guess which?

This is the thing that Clinton supporters netter get used to.  She is hated.  There are many, male and female, who hate her.  This is not a new phenomenon.  It's been going on since 19fricking92.  It wasn't created by Barack Obama.  It is the way it is.  We've couched it in all sorts of polite form, speaking so delicately of her "high negatives".  The fact is, there are a whole bunch of people out there who really hate her.  'Might be because of mysogeny.  Might be because of something else.  But it appears that many Clinton supporters have forgotten (or never knew) where we've been, or who the enemy is.  There's a shitload of Republicant dirtbags who will burn Hillary signs at the drop of a hat.  It isn't Obama who called that.  It most probably isn't Obama supporters who did it.  Get the fact:  Hillary Clinton is hated among many.

The saddest thing of all is that Clinton supporters want so desperately to think they've been thwarted by friendlies.  No.  Dressing up "Hillary's negatives" in polite speech probably did a disservice because it allowed for misappropriation of blame.  Clinton is reviled, and Obama can't fix that.  But Hillary's supporters need to come to grips with the idea that she is hated among many.  She has lost because of it.  She will lose Montana because of it.  This ain't ultimately about gender.  This is about her.  A lot of people hate her.  Get used to it, and understand that that's why we Democrats stand against them.

Mike Harris Wants US Aid To Israel Eliminated.

I know.  I was just as shocked as you must be to discover that.  The enormity of such a revelation makes me lightheaded.  But there it is, in black and robin's egg blue.

DEATH TO EARMARKS - zero tolerance for earmarks.

Only one problem with that bold new step for GOP 2.0.  US funding for Israel is an earmark.  I don't fault Mike for advocating such a foolish error as cutting off funding to one of our strongest allies.  After all, John McCain, supposed foreign policy wizkidgrampa,  makes the same bone-headed error.  McCain (25 years experience in the Congress and he didn't know this shit?)  was at least smart enough to back off on his promise to screw Israel.  Too bad he hasn't backed off his promise to screw soldiers.  You have to respect Harris' policy of 'screw 'em all'.   That's downright ballsy.

(Let's get real here.  There are good earmarks and bad earmarks, and far too often that defining factor is opined based on who benefits.   But if some idjit tells you that all earmarks are bad and *have* to be eliminated, then they're lying to you, and adding insult to injury because they think you're too stupid to know the difference.  I expect the inevitable wingnuts who will attempt to reinterpret John Tester for me, even though I heard what he said and all they did was read Iverson's e-brief about it.  I strongly suggest that they hie themselves to Mike's place.  They're likely just dumb enough to be his kind of audience.)

Picture Stories

Doughbob Loadpants, always incompetent at doing his own research, asked his readers to submit their suggestions for characterizing Bush's legacy.  The Bradrocket, ever helpful, responds with pictures.  Kinda puts a fine edge on that one.  Brad did miss a couple of the important ones, though.  Here they are:

We can't afford 4 more years of this shit, people.

What 'State's Rights' Really Means

Clinton supporters continue to wail about how they don't see Barack Obama discussing progressive policy.  Disregarding their selective blind-deaf-and-dumbness, there are differences between Obama's policy discussions and Clinton's.  Dave Crisp points to one that is near and dear to my heart, state's rights.

There are 12 states that have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana.  Montana is one of those.  The Federal government however has seen fit to tell our states that their anti-drug campaign trumps our medical law.  They've done this since the reign of Bill Clinton, for no reason that has been supported Constitutionally (the SCOTUS has so far refused to hear challenges.)  To me, this seems a clear violation of state's rights, but then I'm not the Constitutional scholar that most right wingers pretend to be (like SOS Brad Johnson who threatened rebellion to the SCOTUS over Heller v. DC.)   So, what we can hope for  is a President not so in love with  image that he supports the rights voted on by our state.  That would be Barack Obama.

As the candidates prepare for a May 20 primary in Oregon, one of 12 states with a California-style law, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has become an increasingly firm advocate of ending federal intervention and letting states make their own rules when it comes to medical marijuana.

His Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, is less explicit, recently softening a pledge she made early in the campaign to halt federal raids in states with medical marijuana laws. But she has expressed none of the hostility that marked the response of her husband's administration to California's initiative, Proposition 215.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee-in-waiting, has gone back and forth on the issue - promising a medical marijuana patient at one campaign stop that seriously ill patients would never face arrest under a McCain administration, but ultimately endorsing the Bush administration's policy of federal raids and prosecutions.

I know, I know.  Clinton supporters will bop on in and tell us all how Hillary isn't Bill (except as regards his CiC experience).   Conservatives will likely continue the same arguments about drug use (except Rush Limbaugh's Oxycotin) that they lost in 2004 when Montana voted overwhelmingly to allow the prescription of medical marijuana.  To any who chose to do so, let me tell you that I don't much care.  This isn't about potheads or Hillary Clinton and Bill's inhaling.  This is about whether or not states have the rights given them by the Constitution to set and support medical practices.  It's funny that the last refuge of anti-government folks is usually the cry of "state's rights".  Well here's an issue where it actually matters.  We'll see where those folk come down.

Clinton Supporters Should Vote For McCain In November

Proof's in the pudding.

Whomever Did HE Mean?

Who will John Edwards endorse?  What is the fate of Edwards' 19 pledged delegates?  Did John Edwards vote that MAN?  Uh yup.  I think he did.

Why Does Dennis Rehberg Hate His Mother?

Okay, so we're all very tired of our do-little Congress.  Our friendly Republicans would have us believe that  it's all the Democrat's fault; after all, aren't they in charge of Congress now?  The Righties here in state even want you to believe that the current state of the economy is all the Democratic Congress' fault.  (Here's a joke for you:  Texas oil-man President sends his Vice President to meet with his BFsF, the Suads to attempt a resolution to high oil prices.  The VP comes back, winks and claims his meetings were beneficial.  And oil goes up another $30/barrel.  ~wink~  Oh wait!  That's not a joke.  That's actually what happened.)  But this post isn't about the colossal failings of the Republicans in their leadership role (dare you to say that and keep a straight face).  No, it's about their hatred for the country, beginning with their own mothers.

I think we have a little insight into why this Congress is bogged down.  It's probably because it's over-populated with tantrumming Republican children.  Case in point:

Every year, Congress passes another resolution affirming their support for our National Mother's Day.  Now, I love my Mother, and I hope she knows that even if I usually am a slouch about the whole arbitrary Mother's Day thing.  But seriously, I'm not alone in thinking that such ridiculous Congressional rituals and resolutions are a huge waste of taxpayer's time and Representative's effort.  Fine, hold the vote and get it over with.  On Wednesday, the House did.  The resolution H.R.  1113  "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day"  passed the House by a unanimous vote, 412 to 0.  No problem and let's get on with the taxpayer's business.  But wait ...

The only thing more godawful wasteful than meaningless Resolutions are Resolutions voted twice, that serve no one but Congress itself.  The only thing that could be worse than that are voice-count Resolutions manipulated by one party for *no* reason other than to waste effort and time.  And which party did that?  You guessed it.  The party of hating mom, apple pie and condescending to Nascar did that; the Republicans.

Republican Representative Todd Tiahrt called for a recount  voice vote, and 177 Republicans  said "Nay", they are not  "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day".  And who should we find here?

Montana

Nay       MT-0 Rehburg, Dennis (R)

I guess Dennis doesn't like dear ole Mom or something.  If you think I'm going too far, just take the word of the House Minority Leader:

House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked yesterday to explain why he and 177 of his colleagues switched their votes, answered: "Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother's Day."

This couldn't be more plain; Dennis Rehberg is on record as NOT supporting Mother's Day.  At best, this can be seen as a huge flip-flop from the stupid among the House minority.  At worst, it is a blatant attempt to derail the honest efforts of the US Congress.  The next local righty who blames the Democrats for accomplishing nothing will get laughed at.  The next local righty who tells me that Dennis Rehberg isn't the lowest form of loathsome party suck-up will get pointed to this vote.  He is Montana's sole Representative to the House, and he just said that Montana doesn't support Mother's Day.  The worst part is that he said it just to disrupt the people's business for no good reason at all.

I don't mind that Dennis Rehberg hates his mother; I just wish he didn't hate his country enough to screw with its governance.

Needs Be Repeated

In light of the current political race, this needs be repeated:

What the hell is wrong with Progressives?