Bad American

Watching Olbermann before the debate. Weird that I keep hearing my otherwise undistinguished alma mater’s name being mentioned over and over on network television. Not since the basketball team, fueled by recruiting violations and Kevin Mackey’s crackwhore fixes, made the NCAA Sweet 16 have we heard the venerable name of Cleveland State University mentioned in such prominence in the media.

Did I ever mentioned I once spent a quarter (and that was enough!) working as a student for the CSU Sports Information Department? I could see the wreckage of the Mackey years taking shape in the desperate win-at-all-costs atmosphere that led to the unseemly firing of a good man and good coach, Ray Dieringer.

Scumbags. And yeah, Merle Levin, if you ever read this, I did leak the firing to the Plain Dealer. That’s what you get for firing the man while he’s in San Diego doing his best and not to his face. Bastards.

But that’s another story. Tonight CSU almost looks like a place to be proud you attended.

Almost.

Lots of rumors tonight HRC may have a meltdown. Again, one can only hope for some exciting fireworks.

I know, its the political equivalent of watching NASCAR for the crashes.

They keep showing that banner “Cleveland State University - Engaged Learning” Which means exactly what? Oh well.

Well there they are and it seems we are ready to go. HRC is in a boring brown suit and Obama is resplendent in a blue suit and blue tie.

OK, bias out there - I’m for Obama. But I will try to be fair.

9 p.m. Here we go.

Brian Williams. Yuck.

Let’s thank the meteorologists who blew yet another forecast. Thankfully the weather wasn’t nearly as bad as forecast. Like THAT hasn’t happened at all this year.

No rules? Come on. The number one rule is no hard questions will be asked.

Tim Russert. Yuck.

Nice - HRC from honored to be with Barack to SHAME! SHAME! DIRTY SHAME! EVERYBODY KNOWS YOUR NAME!

he he

HRC: “this is a contested campaign”. . . . yadda yadda.

Uh oh here it comes - the flyers and mailers about the health care plan and NAFTA “have been very disturbing to me.”

Tries for an early haymaker on health care reform. She actually met some real people in Lorain who needs healthcare.

But what about forcing people to buy health insurance?

But what about forcing people to buy health insurance?

She never denied it.

Williams: what about that Obama photo? You’ve done the dress thing too - did you do it.

HRC: Denies, denies, denies. Hard to believe that she wouldn’t know it came from her campaign.

Obama: takes HRC at her word. Oooookay.

Health care: counterpunching. Alludes to repeated negative main from HRC campaign on leaving 15 million people off of health care.

(hey, what about Canadian single payer? Oh yeah, SOCIALISM!)

Ok Obama back to a MANDATE to purchase health care. FORCE people to purchase health care, even if its not affordable. Mispronounces ‘Massachusetts.’

Obama asks several questions about HRC’s healthcare plan. Good counterpunching.

Gets back to e-mail attacks robocalls - WE HAVEN’T WHINED ABOUT IT! ZING!!!!!!!

Good one Barack. Whining!

HRC: Mandate on parents in Obama’s plan to buy kids insurance.HRC fails to note the difference between kids and adults. Again, she makes a GREAT ARGUMENT FOR CANADIAN STYLE SINGLE PAYER - WHY DOESN’T MATTHEWS ASK THEM WHY WE CAN’T HAVE SINGLE PAYER!

She’s not answering the whining charge.

HRC: Accused GOP/healthco of writing Obama’s anti-hillary flyer. Nice try at a return jab.

Obama: I stand for universal health care. Of course it will be just like HRC’s plan - it will still make healthco fantastically wealthy while provided half assed care for Americans.

Returns to the MANDATE enforcement question and Mass. fines for people who can’t buy health care. Good job of returning to the main points of his argument.

Insurance companies love mandates - Obama has this right. Make it affordable for everybody.

Hillary: this is too important blah, blah, blah. She’s whining. There’s no difference here. Yes there is - adults can make their own decisions, kids can’t. She’s back on this ‘making social security voluntary’ argument again. Its getting old.

HRC: limits amount of premiums to % of income. Oh man, we’ll need another bureaucracy for THAT one!

Obama: argues his experts say he controls costs better. Says kids can be covered. Finally argues there is a difference between adults and kids. he’s starting to get a little testy. Needs to watch that - he’ll be playing into her game.

Hillary insists on getting last words. Claims young people think they’re immortal - 20 percent who don’t have insurance won’t buy it. What part of her ass did she pull that stat out of? St.nds patronizing to young people. Bad move on Clinton’s part.

Obama: up to 25 you can be covered under your parents plan. I like that.

NAFTA

Whines about getting the first question. Mentions SNL about Barack needing a pillow. Gets booed. She’s terrible - why say that? More whining. Yuck.

Claims she’s against NAFTA. Although she beamed at Bill when he signed it into law. Says she’s seen the pain in upstate NY. Too bad she didn’t think of that back in the nineties. Think NAFTA can be fixed with a ‘trade time out.’ Wants core labor and enviro standards and make it fair. Also unfair foreign competition. Says PD examined Obama’s attacks on NAFTA and that they were erroneous. I’m still not clear on Clinton’s plan to fix. This from the woman who served on the BOD of Wal-Mart.

Obama: inacc for HRC to say she always opposed NAFTA. Cites her Senate run remarks. Says he didn’t like it. Mentions Youngstown and Illinois and saw the devastation. Well? Well? Well? Not hearing what Obama would do yet. Ok, we get it, you feel the pain. Says will make certain every agreement we sign will protect workers and consumers. But what about NAFTA/CAFTA? Obama said it was too late to do anything about them - would hurt more jobs if we tried. I wish someone would answer that.

Matthews: Clinton did say NAFTA was good for NY when she ran and other cites of her love of NAFTA. Good job. OK - CAN WE GET OUT OF NAFTA IN 6 MONTHS.

HRC: said we would renegotiate

Matthews: gonein 6 months

HRC: we’ll opt out unless we renegotiate it beneficial to us. Claims NAFTA was good for some parts of NY but not all. Tried to bring it back to Obama, Matthews won’t let her - claims her words in Ohio much different record is clear. Clinton says not so. Claims she tried to fight effects of NAFTA, rings hollow. Back to PD critique.

Not enough to criticize NAFTA - plan on what we would do. Says we will opt out if we renego core agreement and enforcement mechanism. Sounds OK on face? What about CAFTA and other FTA’s?

Agrees NAFTA not worked in Ohio and upstate NY. Says she hasn’t voted on it.

Matthews: willing to opt out in 6 months?

HRC: we’ll renego it.

Matthews: hits Obama on his ambivalence.

Obama: I will make sure we will renego - I thin HRC’s answer on this is right. This is against what he said earlier in the campaign. Says Tribune endorsed him despite opposition to NAFTA. Believes in productivity of US worker, can’t shy away from globalization (uh oh). looking at what good for corps and multinationals - true - wants to advocate on behalf of workers. But won’t talk about Americans having to compete on WAGES.

Matthews: are you sure NAFTA not better for Ohio?

Obama: Not good for Ohio. Think Matthews is mixing up corporate profits with putting people to work at good wages in manufacturing. Obama wants to reinvest in education and infrastructure, green jobs (pipe dream like windmills). etc. Obama is weak here. Without capital investment you won’t see any of this in Ohio. Govt would have to pony up. Unsure govt wont be broke in ‘09.

Matthews to HRC: plan to create millions of new jobs for upstate NY - net loss of jobs. Told Buffalo News she might have been exuberant. Exuberant now?

HRC: No, thought Gore was going to be President. Hmmm. Maybe. Claims she has worked hard to create jobs. True upstate NY has languished under her Senate tenure. More talk about green collar jobs - solar panels, geothermal (pipe dreams). It sounds good but take it from me, it will never happen. You can’t run a country on windmills, we’re built for cars and we’ll live and die by the automobile.

I think both candidates are full of shit on the economy and jobs.

FOREIGN POLICY - to Obama first.

Williams so called question confuses me.

Obama: don’t think longevity equals experience. OK. Brings up his no on Iraq War. Al Qaeda stronger now than ever. Refers to 12 billion a month$ that could be spent domestically. Pakistan - new approach to Musharraf and hunting down terrorist.

to HRC

HRC: claims she has extensive experience in foreign policy. Hard to say her cites equal real experience but oh well. Talks about Obama’s 2002 speech - claims he didn’t have to vote. Said he agreed with Bush’s war plan in ‘04 and voted the same. When we both had responsibility where is the difference? Good point. Brings up his threat to bomb Pakistan. Was waiting for that. Good point for her. Wouldn’t meet with dictators without preconditions. Claims she will be better vs McCain on this issue.

She did well with this question.

Obama: my objections were not merely a speech - was running for the Senate (against light opposition). Calls Iraq a “big strategic blunder.” Claims Clinton made the decision to drive the bus into the ditch and gave in to Bush. Facilitated and enabled Bush. Claims never said he would bomb Pakistan but terrorists within Pakistan. Claims Bush admin did that a few days ago and killed an al Qaeda operative. Claims her decisions were similar to McCain’s until now. Not a bad comeback.

Matthews: what about the future of Iraq - pull out. What if Iraq said get out now? Leave?

Obama: If Iraqi govt says we cannot be there we should leave. But weasels - says we’ll be there anyway. For our “national security interests,” i.e. oil. More weasel words. Won’t be held “hostage” by the Irai govt. Um, we invaded them, right?

HRC: Absolutely would leave Iraq if govt asked (which they won’t since they are puppets).

Matthews: if US gets out and Al Q resurges and Iraq goes to hell would you reinvade?

HRC: Tim you ask a lot of hypotheticals.

Matthews: this is reality

HRC: no its not. its in both our interests to have an orderly withdrawal (but Matthews Q is still sound - what if it starts going to hell? McCain will pounce on this). Says the judgment will be what is in the best interests of America. Brings in NATO issue - Obama has held no oversite hearings on NATO involvement in Afg. Wants to get some kind of success in Afg. Not possible.

Obama: Notes he became chair of cmte in early ‘07. Wants more troops in Afg (oh no). Show were not maintining permanent bases in Iraq (we’re building them anyway). Would reserve the right for Prez as CinC to look out for US interests vs. Al Qaeda and protecting “der homeland.” Not good. Very bellicose. Hunt them down.

BREAK

HRC champing at the bit to get back to the question.

Personally, we again see the hold that militarism has on even the Democratic candidates. Must act bellicose and warlike so as not to appear ‘weak.’ Sad, really. You cannot have guns and butter, not any more. This isn’t 1950 and I don’t know if either candidate is willing to admit that they cannot have their domestic wonderland spending and war machine spending. But they feel that (see James Carroll’s column preceding this post) militarism and the Pentagon budget is off the table because the American people intrinsically support war. And war they will get.

BACK

Apparently they took a potty break.

Williams - shows Hillary mocking Obama’s hope talk.

Obama: sounds good! (nice shot).

Williams: played this tape in error for this segment.

Obama: Clinton showed humor (she cackles again - yikes!). Maintains his composure. Said he’s been working to help people achieve the American Dream. Lists accomplishments. I’m very proud of that track record - tell it to the wounded warriors at Walter Reed (have to bring in the troops) then on his passing on ethics reform bill (can’t relate how this means anything to the people). etc. Talks about meeting women in Cinci - middle aged women who did everything right but don’t have health care, job, looking after disabled parent, kids, etc. etc. “You realize nobody has been listening to them.” Very well played Mr. Obama.

HRC: I was having a little fun. Hard to find fun on campaign trail. (what?). Knows health insurance will be hard work. Well duh. Goes back to her (disastrous) fight back in 90s on health care. Perhaps she should avoid this. Talks about bleeding the fat cat interests. Wants to get that money back for the middle class. Would be nice. Don’t believe either of them can do this. Knows people are working hard, not getting ahead. Invisible people. Brought up votes on capping credit card interest rates, etc. Hammers special interest fight. Believes she is a fighter.

Williams: Um, we have tape right now. (Obama on Hillary selectively picking what she takes credit for from Clinton years).

Obama: She includes the 8 years she spent as first lady. But can’t take credit for good things but fudge on NAFTA. Take responsibility as well as credit. Back to earlier question. Claims he objected to entire credit card bill and she voted for it hoped it wouldn’t pass but voted for it. Can’t do backstory here - confusing point. Claims Clinton fought her own part on 90s healthcare and ruined it for everyone. Know that hope isn’t enough, know its not going to be easy. Exxon won’t give up profits easily. But believes we can get it done by mobilizing and inspiring American people - nothing romantic or silly about that. And go after the special interests. Agrees can’t wave magic wand but HRC is taking millions from those special interests (and he’s taking $ from Wall Street).

Matthews: on Obama would opt for public financing. But now, McCain calls your bluff and now waffling. Good question.

Obama: I’m not the nominee yet. If so, then I will sit down with McCain and make sure we have a system fair for both sides (impossible). Why would Obama do this when Dems can now outspend the GOP? Makes no sense. Obama says he didn’t take money from special interests (but did take money from hedge fund managers wonder if HRC will mention this). Waffles on breaking his word.

Matthews: loaned your campaign $5 million and won’t release tax return. Why not?

HRC: Claims American people bankrolling her campaign (oh please). Says she will release tax returns - upon becoming the nominee or even earlier. Oh geez, what is this? Matthews: when - before next Tuesday’s primaries? HRC: too busy.

Matthews: Nat Archives released 10k pages of her 8 years schedule as first lady. Release them?

HRC: says its a cumbersome process. All deliberate speed, yadda yadda.

Matthews: youve had it for more than a month?

HRC: As soon as possible. Weasel.

Matthews to Obama: what about Farrakhan.

Obama: I denounce his anti-Semitism. I didn’t solicit this support. I can’t censor him but I didn’t seek his support. Won’t say he will reject his support. (huh?) Sounds like Obama wants it both ways.

Matthews: Farrakhan on Judaism

Obama: I’ve denounced it.

Matthews: your church said nice things about Farrakhan. What about Jewish voters? (Isn’t he running for POTUS and not President of Israel? I always wonder about that).

Obama: Stalwart friend of Israel, their security is sacrosanct (like ours?). Wants to rebuilt relationship between blacks and Jews. Goes on about support of Jewish community and strong on Israel. Sounds like pandering. Bad.

HRC: re: NY run in 2000. I stood up for Israel then for support. Bravely put her political career at risk to stand up to anti-Semitism. Again, more pandering. Must be even stronger. Can’t let anyone say these things.

Obama: reiterates his waffling on Farrakhan. OK I will reject and denounce Farrakhan. (applause). Appears she brought him to heel for benefit of the Jewish vote. Why such pandering to one segment of the population? I seriously do not understand this? They don’t do this for the Catholic vote or the Polish vote but for the Jewish vote they fall all over themselves to demonstrate their fealty to Israel, seemingly ahead of their fealty to the USA.

BREAK.

I’m left with disquiet. No reasonable person supports anti-anti-Semitism but to see the way these two (and McCain) fall all over themselves to demonstrate their fealty to Israel makes me uncomfortable. How can any of them be honest brokers in the Middle East when they all readily admit that loyalty to Israel trumps every other consideration?

BACK

Williams: Nat Journal says you are more liberal than Ted Kennedy.

Obama: says these ratings are silly which they are. Why don’t we rate people on conservatism and attach the same negativity to that label that the media attaches to liberal? Says categories don’t make sense. Why am I attracting more Independent and Republican votes? People don’t care about the labels but who can do the best job. That may be naive. Oh well. A so-so answer. BE PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL DAMMIT!

Oh, HRC doesn’t get to answer a liberal question?

Putin successor?

HRC: He’s a hand picked successor. (no duh). Why is internal Russian politics a question for our Presidential candidates? HRC says this will affect how we deal with Russia. Says Russia reasserting their role and raising mischief with Iran’s nukes. Want a more realistic assessment of our policy to Russia. Can’t pronounce the name of the new Russian President.

Obama: agrees with Clinton (what, do we want to bring back the Cold War? Don’t we have enough enemies without making new ones or revisiting old ones?) Said we should have been tougher with Putin. Huh?

Matthews: What if Russian launches bid to retake Kosovo.

Obama: We would work with the European Community and Nato to deal with it. Weak answer. Agrees with former Clinton policy in the Balkans. Yech! Not good.

Last question - career in public service - take back a vote?

HRC: 2002 Iraq authorization - I would not have voted that way again. Regret deeply Bush waged a pre-emptive war I warned against and disagreed with. But this election has to be toward the future. Wanted questions on Darfur, China, and the Middle East and all those bad Arabs threatening little old Israel (sheesh!). Goes back to her experience and toughness.

Obama: Terri Schiavo. Should have stopped Congress interfering here. Hmmm. Mentions 20 debates. Says Sen. Clinton has campaigned magnificently, great public servant, yadda yadda. Want to deliver for American people. Talks about heartbreaking story and people’s expectations are modest - not expecting govt to solve all their problems (is he lowering expectations here? He probably should, we’ll be broke in ‘09 anyway).

Williams: no closing statement but question here to Obama first: what is the fundamental question HRC must answer to voters to prove her worthiness as nominee.

Uh oh logrolling time.

Obama: Clinton is capable and would be better than McCain whose service I continually honor (yechh!). Please Barack stop verbally shining McCain’s war medals for him. Doesn’t feel HRC should answer any question but that he can bring us together better. This is followed by a lot of nice sounding words meaning little.

I’m somewhat underwhelmed with Obama tonight.

HRC (same Q). We both feel strongly about country, yadda, yadda. Platitudes aplenty. Gets polite applause to be first woman president. But who can change country? Experience gives her the edge. Yawn. And that’s for both of them. Back to her mother in Lorain spending $3 million on daughter’s health care - will you help us? (HRC doesn’t really answer). Says she’ll be a prez for working class. I’m doubtful. But with Obama as well.

Its over.

Nothing inspiring from either candidate and I feel both played it relatively safe. HRC got her shots in early but I didn’t feel they we’re really all that stinging.

Olbermann: Obama closes with “the feel good group hug moment.” Indeed. It all seemed so touchy feely and stale and packaged.

Neither said anything we hadn’t really heard before. Olbermann brings up Lincoln-Douglas debates - either of them would have wiped the floor rhetorically with either HRC or Obama. But it’s a different era.

Both Keith and Matthews agree there were a lot of field goals and not touchdowns. Hillary was odd to comment about the order of the debate and I agree. Her sarcasm fell flat. Also Matthews can’t believe all the chatter about health care which he said is “Brigadoon” since we have nothing and he is right.

Said Hillary seemed to finally regret her vote on Iraq.

Nothing new. Boring. Dull.

Actually I expected better from Obama. He seemed, for the first time, to be playing it safe. By doing that perhaps he ‘wins.’  I don’t know. I guess we’ll find out next Tuesday.

I think HRC would have done better without the silly stuff. She did OK but not enough to really change anyone’s minds. Again, neither candidate really got it going. Obama kept his cool when I initially thought he might get wound up. HRC never really unloaded which probably helped her after she entered whining. They both settled down and got boring after the first half hour.

I do not believe that either of them are serious about opting out of NAFTA. I think they’re both saying what they need to to win Ohio. I think its a sham.

Oh well, my fingers are tired and so am I. Tired of the whole thing.

I guess I still support (weakly) Obama although I have little faith that he will be able to change anything. Knowing what the next President will have to deal with with the economy in 2009 which includes the continual implosion caused by the subprime crisis, peak oil and its implications, perhaps it might be better to watch McCain crash and burn. I still can’t bring myself to go with that but I really don’t see any of these three candidates with a concrete plan to even admit, let alone solve, the impending implosion of the American economy and the serious dangers we face in environmental and energy sustainability.

Its almost as if all of these candidates are living in some kind of cloud cuckoo world where its still 1968 - we have an unpopular war but the economy is wonderful and we will have decades more of happy motoring to the suburban ranch of our dreams.

And it just isn’t so.

I know, I expect too much. I always do. But as James Howard Kunstler, Mike Whitney, Paul Craig Roberts and Justin Raimondo continue to point out, the piper will be paid. And the day is coming soon.

I just read his latest column and it’s a jaw dropper.

Military power, that is, functions in America the way state religion has functioned in other societies. The Pentagon is the temple of this religion. It has dogmas, rituals, high priesthood, saints, cults of sacrifice, sacred language and a justifying narrative - what theologians call “salvation history.” Last week, John McCain, in his victory speech after Wisconsin, warned that his Democratic opponent would take “a holiday from history,” implying that the past is only a warning of terrible things to come. McCain, alert to “moral monsters,” sets the standard for national security discourse lately, but the Democrats must echo it. The political debate, which seems so defined by differences, actually puts on display the unquestioned orthodoxy of the deeper American consensus.

When politicians invoke the rote formulae of martial rhetoric, banging the drum of dire prediction, and promising best protection, they are only fulfilling the requirements of set rubrics, which produce in the electorate not the anxiety one would expect, but enchantment - the enchantment of the pew. Preachers warn of hellfire to offer rescue from it, which is available to those who submit. This feedback loop of damnation-salvation-submission serves the people by offering meaning, and it serves the elite by protecting the structure of power. In religion, all of this is overt. In presidential politics, it is implicit.

Thus, the entire electoral process has become centered on establishing the candidates’ “toughness,” as if the only “virtue” a leader must fully possess is unflinching willingness to declare war. Never mind the question of whether, since 1945, war makes sense. No surprise, therefore, that no presidential candidate questions the current Pentagon budget, which surpasses every record set during the Cold War. That would be apostasy - and political suicide.

This is not the candidates’ doing, but the nation’s. Barack Obama, in character as a liberal Democrat, manifests a certain skepticism toward the cult of military power, but, also true to that character, he cannot propose the elimination of the underlying ideology of power. Obama can suggest, as he did in his post-Wisconsin speech, that “it is time to write a new chapter in American history,” yet he must not revise the familiar chapters that already exist. But “history” is not a mere record of past events and choices; it is an interpretation of those events and choices. In today’s America, the “national security” interpretation is sacred.

When that consensus assumes, for example, that World War II was “good,” or that the United States arms build-up “won” the Cold War, it protects the militarized economy, the status of the military-industrial elite, the iron lock of incumbents on office. Any reinterpretation of this salvation history, it is feared, would undermine the economy, disempower the elite, unsettle politics - and deprive the citizenry of meaning in an otherwise meaningless world. Voters may want change, but not change at this level. Yet “national security” is bogus - part ghost story with which the nation scares itself at bedtime, part nightly prayer with which it then goes to sleep.

Beautiful. And he writes for The Boston Globe which is surprising - there is some great column writing in the mainstream.

Ariel Aleovich - NYTimes Blog

Hope so! I’ll be live blogging tonight.

In its debate primer, the Cleveland Plain Dealer suggests watching out for “whether Clinton continues the tone she displayed Saturday in Ohio. Upset by a flier depicting her health care and trade policies distributed by Obama, she accused her fellow U.S. senator of using Republican-style smear tactics. Obama says the facts are on his side.”

U.S. Rep. Dennis Eckart of Cleveland told the Columbus Dispatch that “the stakes are much higher here than any other debate. Obama can close it out on March 4 (or) Clinton can live to fight another day on March 4.”

Bill Carrick, a Los Angeles-based Democratic consultant who worked for former President Clinton’s 1992 and 1996 campaigns, said the Cleveland debate “is probably the last opportunity that Sen. Clinton is going to have to make the case both for herself and against Sen. Obama that will be unfiltered.”

Carrick said Obama, who has defined himself as a candidate of hope and unity, “would like to avoid a food fight” but almost certainly will press Clinton on the contentious issue of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Obama has criticized Clinton for supporting the trade agreement that he says has cost Ohio jobs. Clinton has accused Obama of distorting her position on NAFTA.

Dodd Catches Obamamania!

Washington Post

CLEVELAND — In issuing his endorsement of Barack Obama here this morning, Chris Dodd made abundantly clear — in the most decorous and senatorial of terms, to be sure — that he believes it is getting near time for the Democrats to call it a race.

“This is a moment of unity in our country, a time when we need to come together as the Democratic Party and get behind a candidacy that expresses the hopes, aspirations and ambitions of million and millions of Americans,” he said, standing beside Obama in a hotel function room. Dodd added: “I don’t want a campaign that’s only divisive. But there is a danger of it becoming that, not because the candidates want it to, but too often the advisers and consultants, others are seeking that divisiveness…. It is devastating in the longer term.”

Asked directly, Dodd denied that he was urging Hillary Clinton to quit the race. But he added a warning against any harshly negative attacks in the final week before the crucial March 4 primaries here and in Texas — a warning that comes as Clinton’s campaign is giving indications that it is in the midst of launching a final assault on Obama, at tonight’s debate and beyond.

Meanwhile, Cincinnati Embarrasses McCain

What can one expect from Bill Cunningham and the troglodyte right wingers in Cincinnati?

Associated Press

CINCINNATI (AP) — Republican John McCain quickly denounced the comments of a radio talk show host who while warming up a campaign crowd referred repeatedly to Barack Hussein Obama and called the Democratic presidential candidate a “hack, Chicago-style” politician.

Hussein is Obama’s middle name, but talk show host Bill Cunningham used it three times as he addressed the crowd before the likely Republican nominee’s appearance.

“Now we have a hack, Chicago-style Daley politician who is picturing himself as change. When he gets done with you, all you’re going to have in your pocket is change,” Cunningham said as the audience laughed.

The time will come, Cunningham added, when the liberal-leaning media will “peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama” and tell the truth about his relationship with indicted fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko and how Obama got “sweetheart deals” in Chicago.

McCain wasn’t on stage or, he says, in the building when Cunningham made the comments, but he quickly distanced himself from the radio talk show host after finishing his speech. McCain spoke to a couple hundred people at Memorial Hall in downtown Cincinnati.

“I apologize for it,” McCain told reporters, addressing the issue before they had a chance to ask the Arizona senator about Cunningham’s comments.

snip

Aside from using Obama’s middle name, Cunningham also mocked the Illinois senator’s foreign policy statements about his willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue nations. He said he envisions a future in which “the great prophet from Chicago takes the stand and the world leaders who want to kill us will simply be singing Kumbaya together around the table with Barack Obama.”

At one point, Cunningham compared Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Madeleine Albright, whom he said “looks like death warmed over.” He also commented on the difference between former Ohio Rep. Rob Portman, whose wife is named Jane, and Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay member of Congress. “Jane’s the main difference. But that’s a different story,” Cunningham said.

As Cunningham finished, Portman, who is mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate, took the microphone to introduce McCain.

“Willie, you’re out of control again. So, what else is new? But we love him,” Portman said. “But I’ve got to tell you, Bill Cunningham lending his voice to this campaign is extremely important. He did it in 2000, he did it in 2004. It was crucial to victory then and it’s even more important this year with his bigger radio audience. So, Bill Cunningham, thank you for lending your voice.”

Look, anyone who has ever heard Bill Cunningham knows what a complete asshole he is. But the numbnuts Republicans in Cincinnati, Neanderthal even by Republican standards, eat his shit up. And Rep. Bob Portman, after the whole thing breaks bad on him, suddenly starts backing away from his old buddy:

Speaking to reporters later alongside McCain, Portman said: “I was backstage so I didn’t hear everything he said. Bill Cunningham is a radio talk show host who is often controversial so it does not surprise me that he was controversial.” He added: “That’s, I guess, how he makes his living.“

Well, duh, but lets be more honest - he makes his living by being Cincinnati’s version of Bill O’Reilly on steroids: a punk, a thug and a know-nothing. A perfect representative of the bottom feeding right wingers on the Ohio River.

I strongly suspect that incidents of this kind will dog McCain throughout his campaign UNLESS the campaign goes very tightly into message control which will kill any genuine campaign spirit.

But I also think that Obama will be too tempting a target for the rabid race-baiting conservatives who will conduct guerrilla warfare against him through scurrilous e-mails and shady websites. Just watch.

Pain Dealer

It’s too bad you can’t see (here) the picture on A3 of John Campbell of Euclid saluting John McCain’s bus (no I’m not kidding). It’s so touching. . . and sad in a way. “That man has been through hell and back,” Campbell said of McCain. “He’s a war hero.”

And the look on Campbell’s is that of the True Believer. He’s wearing a US Army jacket with the requisite POW/MIA insignia, etc. And you just know he’s the kind of person who is going to be impervious to any logic or facts about what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He just needs to root for the home team, no matter what. Without that, what is there? The NFL?

And John McCain promises more of the same - more of the same war glory and hard earned national pride.

When, oh when, are we going to get our fill of militarism? How many have to die or come home maimed for oil pipelines and put options and government contracts?

Does Mr. Campbell realize who and what he’s really saluting?

Of course not. Any more than any of the McCainiacs understand how the life of the average Iraqi has been since the US brought them ‘democracy’ at the barrel of a gun.

So on with the star spangled show:

Sen. John McCain vowed that if elected president he will work to defeat what he called “the great transcendent evil of the 21st century - more widespread than it was before 9/11.”

Largely because our actions made it so. But of course, you can’t say THAT in polite company. Nor can you mention how the actions of our government largely created the Taliban and whatever you conceive Al Qaeda to be. Despite no further terrorist action directed at ‘der Homeland’ since 9-11, the boogie man is out there and we have to spend ourselves into a national poor house to ‘protect us’ from ‘them.’

Prompting a standing ovation from several hundred of his supporters Monday in the packed Don Umerley Civic Center Memorial Hall in Rocky River, McCain said that he would never abandon the war on terror.

“If I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden,” McCain declared to thunderous applause.

Hmmm. I seem to recall a US President who said pretty much the same thing in 2001 only to completely forget about him a year later. I wonder if the irony ever occurred to any of the people thunderously applauding?

And he said that under his administration, U.S. troops would never surrender to insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I’m sure Halliburton loves that kind of talk from “100 years” McCain. And the people who make body bags. And the Iraqis and Afghanis, but they don’t count.

McCain also outlined his strategy to re-energize the economy by giving permanent tax breaks to the middle class and by lowering corporate taxes to encourage companies to remain rooted in the United States.

If you believe any of that, I have a bridge to Canada to sell you.

McCain said that Ohio, ripe with manpower and manufacturing capability, could play a key role in exploring alternative energy sources to reduce dependence on foreign oil and mitigate the impact of fossil fuels on the environment.

Like all the other candidates, McCain lies to the American people by not discussing the impact that Peak Oil and Global Climate Change will have on our economy and our way of life. And since when has McCain or anyone of his ilk given a damn about environmental impact?

But when he was asked to speak on his urban agenda and the foreclosure crisis gripping Ohio, many of his responses were vague and circuitous. Answers to questions about the economy meandered back to the subject of tax breaks.

Earth to McCaniacs: he doesn’t give a shit about the people losing their homes. They are LOSERS in the American Game. His people are the “have mores” that George W. Bush so admired and let into his inner circle. And the cities can go to hell, which they are. They’re full of non-whites anyway. And yes, tax cuts will save us all. Right. Tax cuts and the tooth fairy.

McCain described a plan to bring more accessible health care to veterans but said he does not believe in the Democrats’ vision of universal health care or that government should interfere with the industry.

“We must let American families make their own choices,” McCain said.

Yes, they’ll choose whether to purchase health care or pay the rent. Whether they have to sell their home and all of their assets so their kid can get a life saving operation. NEVER interfere with capitalism!!! In that way you’ll give money to the losers and hurt Wall Street! Can’t have that.

But what the hell? You’re not voting for McCain for health care or any of those mamby-pamby issues where the Democrats are going to give your hard earned tax dollars to America’s losers! Your voting McCain so that hard earned tax dollars go into the gaping maw of the military-industrial complex (you remember, the one Eisenhower warned us about) where they belong.

And John Campbell can keep saluting all the flag draped caskets coming home.

But not at me.  A retired judge and his wife just came into the store on this Wintry day and the judge’s wife wanted me to buy her large print copy of John Grisham’s newest book The Appeal.

She hadn’t been able to finish the book, she so disliked the premise and the approach.

I let them browse a little while I read the inside cover of the book. Sounded interesting to me. I won’t type in the wording on the cover but I think this Amazon review sets it up well:

By	Ronald H. Clark (WASHINGTON, DC USA) - See all my reviews

It is obvious that John Grisham is up to more than spinning a fine yarn in this, his most recent legal novel. A former practicing trial lawyer in Mississippi, the setting for most of the story, as well as a member of the state legislature, Grisham is apparently, and quite rightly, concerned about a recent phenomenon relative to state supreme courts. As the novel illustrates, this is the increasing tactic of large business and ideological groups sweeping into various states and unloading large resources in elections for state supreme court justices–still not an uncommon way in which they are selected. Some states have adopted the so-called “Missouri system” where an expert panel recommends a slate of names to the governor, who must nominate one of the names, the individual serves a short term, and then stands for retention on a non-partisan basis. A simple majority of yes votes suffices to keep the judge in office for a full term.

But in Mississippi, and a number of other states, anyone can run in a competitive election for a seat on the state court. I expect this is particularly a hot issue in Mississippi, since it is the headquarters for gigantic tort recoveries in individual and class action suits returned by sympathetic juries. Grisham’s previous novel, “King of Torts,” was full of insights on this phenomenon. In the novel, business and ideological groups dissatisfied with the state court’s decisions combine to run a candidate they pick and believe will be sympathetic to their viewpoints in rendering decisions. The target is a female Justice, by no means super liberal or extreme by any measure–but that is before the millions of dollars invested in campaign propaganda distort her record. The novel is designed to exhibit several of the major problems with this system: the potential for extraneous “hot button” issues to be injected into the campaign; the disparity in funds between judges and interest/business groups seeking to dislodge them; will judges render decisions based upon what they feel voters will like?; could judges who receive financial support from groups ignore that fact when rendering decisions that impact upon them?; will this tactic emasculate the tort law system that has “cleaned up a lot of bad products and protected a lot of people”?(p. 337) When I asked specifically what she didn’t like about the premise, she said:

“He used to write entertaining books but now he has to have some kind of cause.”

As upset as she was her husband the judge, was livid.

As he described how much he liked the earlier Grisham books his voice rose to almost shouting levels. Apparently, nothing after The Pelican Brief was worth reading because:

“He used to write to entertain and I enjoyed that but now, like a lot of other writers he seems to have this overweening need to change the world,” the judge bellowed.

I had to stop myself from saying “oh, we can’t have any of that now.” Believe me, it was right on the tip of my tongue and it took a serious amount of self-discipline not to say anything.

“And I don’t need to read any of that,” the judge said now, practically yelling. “I lived enough of that.”

I could guess the politics of both husband and wife by this exchange.

And I felt genuinely sorry for them that they were so set in their preconceived notions of the world and the justice system that they refused to believe that the judiciary system is indeed for sale or perhaps, they simply didn’t want to be reminded of the fact in detail.

In any case, they were my examples of Contemporary Americana for the day.

And I think I’m going to have to read this Grisham book. I’d rather not have the large print, but with my eyes, maybe its for the best!