On Hallow's Eve

I'm expecting trick-or-treaters any minute now. It's all very exciting. If some devilish youth arrives at my house dressed as Sarah Palin they will receive a splendid reward of chocolate goodies. Such a child would be quite precocious - and truly terrifying. My respect and admiration would be earned instantly.

On a related note, as the forever-stylish John Kennedy proves, one need not engulf themselves in masks and make-up to have a frightfully good time.

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

Wake me when it's over.

The looming election has, naturally, begun to stress me out. Oh sure, by logic, reason and faith, Obama's got this thing tucked away, but you try telling that to my night terrors.

Thankfully, for Obama, the world, and my own sanity, John McCain is a damned fool. When emotionally sober, as I am now, it becomes quite clear that Mr. McCain has made one-too-many missteps to be taken very seriously at this stage. Granted, he's found some of his old swagger as of late, and even the national polls are tightening, but they are doing so ever so slowly, mind you. Propelled by this "Joe the Plumber" degenerate, Mr. McCain has launched into his latest and, perhaps, most effective line of attack: Barack Obama is a, wait for it, wait for it...SOCIALIST!

et tu, comrade?

Mr. McCain seems quite at home with such pesky McCarthyism, in a way that he's never seemed comfortable with his previous divisive, race-baiting, fear-mongering, petty, shallow attacks. Indeed, it appears that he's rather found of this red scare creation. This is easily explainable. After all, it's apparent that, given his loathing of Russia and painfully obnoxious Churchill complex, the Republican candidate would love to re-ignite the Cold War. So why not spark some jingoistic fury at home to get things rolling?

Will it work? No. Not enough people are crazy enough to relive the Boomer wars - cold or hot. For Mr. McCain, though, the problem is not only the message - although it's terribly mumbled, ignorant and solipsistic - but where that message is given.

I can't help but laugh, then, as McCain parades around Iowa and Pennsylvania in these closing days. Iowa is absolutely nonsensical, considering Mr. McCain never contested the Republican caucus in January and, as a result, finished a distant fourth. Who beat him? Well, Mike Huckabee, a religious nut who campaigned with, I swear to god, Chuck Norris (and Jesus, of course); Mitt Romney, a millionaire Mormon with the intellectual prowess of a peanut; and, my personal favorite, "Dead Fred" Thompson, a gentlemen who, so deprived of charisma and consumed with indifference, that he entered the race just to show off his bodacious "trophy wife." That's who.

Oh, and did I mention that Barack Obama won his Iowa caucus? You know, the same one that launched him into the political stratosphere? What about the fact that Mr. McCain opposes (and does so correctly, I'll admit) the ethanol industry, a power-player in the Iowa heartland? And that Iowa, a small state of only 7 electoral votes, has been deep-blue since the summer? To top it off, Mr. McCain is a tool, so why the hell is he in Iowa?!

Pennsylvania, however, is even better. Why? Because of all the time and resources the Republicans have poured into the state. Mr. McCain, along with the gift that keeps on giving, Sarah Palin, have screeched, hollered and ranted incessantly from Pittsburgh to Philly, but little has changed. I'm sure that they're counting on every racist, bigot and backwards, bitter hillbilly to turn out, but even so, I'd say Barack takes PA by double-digits.

You would think, given the desperate nature of the race, that the Republicans would battle with their trademark gusto and determination. Nah. A simple bout of rain drops sent the Gruesome-twosome packing for the day, leaving a bunch of Quakers to shiver in the cold, muttering about Mooslims and Commies to themselves. Now Sarah, I understand your plight. You're off the hook this time. McCain, no such luck, buster.

Meanwhile, Barack was chilling in Pennsylvania that day too, but instead of taking cover, he fired-up a couple thousand hope-mongers, rain and all.

Hello sunshine.

The Audacity of Hope

Know Hope

Having a Sensibility

Well, my beloved Andrew Sullivan has managed to spare himself a minute or two to write an insightful essay on the importance of blogging. How he finished the damn thing without scathing Sarah Palin is simply beyond me. After all, she still keeps him up at night - and no, not in the way that she "keeps up" those festering fools on the lunatic fringe, like Rich "little starbursts" Lowry.

Palin's lack-of-presence aside, "Why I Blog," published in November's Atlantic, is a fascinating foray into the strange, spiritually-consuming vortex that is the blogosphere. So, he pretty much states the obvious: blogs are, for better or worse, the medium for the future. Yet Andrew's intellectual gravitas and mastery of the issue - he began blogging in the Spring of 2000 and is one of the most-read bloggers in the world - makes the piece a must-read.

I, like Andrew, think highly of blogging. That should be of no surprise. Consider this: Where would Barack Obama be without the Internet? Where would he be without the diatribes of grass-roots activists and intellectuals? It's quite difficult to imagine a successful Obama campaign - especially in the daunting primary battle - without the likes of Andrew, Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo and, of course, the Huffington Post behind him. Blogs are, without doubt, the most democratic and accessible form of writing, explains Sullivan:

To blog is therefore to let go of your writing in a way, to hold it at arm’s length, open it to scrutiny, allow it to float in the ether for a while, and to let others, as Montaigne did, pivot you toward relative truth. A blogger will notice this almost immediately upon starting. Some e-mailers, unsurprisingly, know more about a subject than the blogger does. They will send links, stories, and facts, challenging the blogger’s view of the world, sometimes outright refuting it, but more frequently adding context and nuance and complexity to an idea. The role of a blogger is not to defend against this but to embrace it. He is similar in this way to the host of a dinner party. He can provoke discussion or take a position, even passionately, but he also must create an atmosphere in which others want to participate.

Indeed. But the relationship between writer and reader, blogger and, uh, blogee, has always tickled my fancy. So perhaps out of interest, emotional longing or sheer envy, I found this commentary on the communal aspect of blogging most appealing:

That atmosphere will inevitably be formed by the blogger’s personality. The blogosphere may, in fact, be the least veiled of any forum in which a writer dares to express himself. Even the most careful and self-aware blogger will reveal more about himself than he wants to in a few unguarded sentences and publish them before he has the sense to hit Delete. The wise panic that can paralyze a writer—the fear that he will be exposed, undone, humiliated—is not available to a blogger. You can’t have blogger’s block. You have to express yourself now, while your emotions roil, while your temper flares, while your humor lasts. You can try to hide yourself from real scrutiny, and the exposure it demands, but it’s hard. And that’s what makes blogging as a form stand out: it is rich in personality.

I've come to realize that this space is more of an editorial page than a blog, really, and a poor one at that. I mean, with its impersonal nature and the infrequency of postings, it would be rather dubious to call this experiment blogging-proper, no?

That's not to say that it lacks personality or emotion. On the contrary, my self-indulgent prose and overzealous grandstanding surely enriches the experience and makes it, if I can be so bold, truly unique.

Then again, having absolutely no credibility or professional responsibility can be exceptionally liberating.

Zap! Biff! Pow-ell!

So it was written, and so it has come to pass.

Okay, Okay, so Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama has been a long time coming. No need then for the self-congratulations, right? I mean, duh, they're both black - and Powell ain't no Uncle Tom. How hard was it to figure out, really? Just one brother supporting another. Oh those "boys," always rollin' together, so predictable...

That, at least, has been the explanation of today's events from the lunatic fringe. Comedian Rush Limbaugh, the self-appointed mouthpiece of the cesspool class, mocked Powell's decision in a message to Politico, which read:

"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race. OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."

Ha, ha, ha. What a great guy. In between the tee-offs and the painkiller gorging, he still has time for some Sunday snark. Even George Will, a conservative who manages to maintain some integrity, echoed this nonsense. I can only assume the whiter-than-Wonder bread nuts at the National Review Online are saying the same thing, only with more sillyness and scorn.

Just for the hell of it, let's play along with these clowns. So, based on the aforementioned malarkey, conservative supporters of Barack Obama are, naturally, blacks adhering to race loyalty. That means that these conservative men and publications which have openly endorsed Obama are really black syndicates.

Andrew Sullivan
Matthew Yglesias
Michael Smerconish
Wick Allison
Wayne Gilchrest
William Buckley Junior
Christopher Hitchens
The Los Angeles Times
The Huston Chronicle
The Chicago Sun-Times

The Black Attack! It's overtaking America, one clueless Republican at a time. I wonder which unsuspecting conservative will go black (and never come back) next? Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, Chuck Hagel? Thankfully, El Rusho has been saved from this dark menace...for now.

Aside from the patently absurd right-wing spin, General Powell proved what it means to put "Country First." And, as a result, exposed John McCain for the conniving salesmen he has become. Poor Johnny Mac, getting upstaged and slapped down by a person with more integrity and prudence than he has ever known. Congrats, Mr. Powell, may you be redeemed, in part, for some rather poor decisions.

Regardless, this excerpt from Micahel Tomasky's political blog on the Guardian website demonstrates the profound importance of the endorsement and, no doubt, the sincerity behind Powell's decision:

He cited Obama's "steadiness" and "intellectual curiosity". When asked about the race issue, he said: "If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six or eight or 10 months ago," instead of taking the time to watch the two contenders on the trail and judge their performance under pressure.

But he really shone when discussing some of the smear tactics being used against Obama. No, the correct answer is that Obama is not a Muslim, Powell said. "But the really right answer," he continued, "is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?"

Stay Cool. Know Hope.

Postscript: If anyone remains convinced that McCain's story is a sad one, do yourself a favor and read "Make-Believe Maverick" from last month's Rolling Stone. Barack Obama's thrashing of this life-long asshole is indeed the feel-good story of the year.

Postscript II: It's rather trivial now, but for the sake of continuity, the last debate grades are as follows: Obama B+/McCain B. Clean sweep Obama.

A Thief in the Night

So comes word that Christopher Hitchens has struck yet again - but this time in a rather unexpected fashion. In his latest Slate column, the notorious intellectual and agitator shocked many by openly endorsing Barack Obama for President. And, as a consequence, "Hitch" resoundingly emasculated John McCain, to my great amusement, of course. As I've said, this was quite out of the blue, considering Hitchens' distaste for Obama and, moreover, his rather odd neo-con sympathies.

But, like some shadowy rogue, Hitchens swiftly - and brutally - pillaged McCain with no fair warning, flaunted his trademark gaudiness, and, in a crescendo of feverish banditry, left friend and foe alike in awe of his sharp tongue and lethal wit.

This was vintage Hitchens. Carnage and controversy are, after all, ends in themselves to this salient scoundrel. While I applaud his scathing assessment of the McCain campaign - and, more importantly, his endorsement of Barack Obama - I must confess that the article, when examined in context, reflects rather poorly on our beloved atheist. Still, I'm not complaining - yet.

Before daring to criticize Hitch, I'll first highlight some of his more venomous - and thus entertaining - passages. Needless to say the piece is as captivating as it is vicious. He begins, unsurprisingly, with a dig at Bill Clinton, a man the author considers to be a vile opportunist. Fair enough, I thought, but what say you about Mac Daddy and the Wicked Witch from Wasilla, Mr. Hitchens? In an interesting tidbit, he reveals that last week's debate seems to have cemented this decision:

Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience. McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him.

This does not shock me in the slightest. No person with a right-mind could, after weeks of cringe-inducing interviews, unflattering exposés and shameless pandering *wink*, think Sarah Palin a respectable human being. Yet, as Hitch properly notes, the real problem lies not with the puppet, but the puppeteer (I would never dream of calling McCain a "puppet master." That would be a fraudulently stupid claim. He's simply a feeble-minded puppeteer with the precision of a drunkard). McCain's spiteful tactics and jingoistic fury have truly ruined his chances and tarnished his once-admired character, writes Hitchens:

The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.

Hitchens, like so many conservatives and skeptics before him, has rightly condemned McCain for his mendacious campaign. However, this article is less an endorsement for Obama than a vehement thrashing of the Republican candidate and his dimwitted, rapture-loving, moose-shootin' sidekick. So in the end, in spite of his brilliant mind and fierce prose, Hitch remains a pompous ass. This is due, of course, to his tawdry sense of self worth and an overwhelming faith in his ideological dispositions. Such blatant egotism prevents Hitchens from giving credit where credit is due; in this case, with Barack Obama.

In fact, his "endorsement" consists of two, unflattering sentences near the end of the article:

Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke.

Wow, riveting stuff. Why not acknowledge Obama's strengths? His ability to inspire? His undeniably assertive handling of the economic crisis? It's all quite simple: such an admission would make Hitchens - who revels in his controversial persona - look like a damned fool. Not only has he joyously rebelled against the Obama phenomenon, but he's even trumpeted some nonesense against the man. Hell, at one low-point he even began blaming Michelle Obama for the Reverend Wright fiasco.

I could care less whether Hitchens loves or hates Obama. But I expect a gentleman - especially of the caliber of a Christopher Hitchens - to acknowledge their faults or missteps rather than cower from them.

Not that I'm asking him to, you know, repent.

Charade

I cannot wait until November 4, 2008.

Then and only then will this silly charade be over. After all, it's no longer a proper contest. There's only one man running for president, and his name is Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is to politics what Carey Grant was to cinema. He's obviously articulate and assuring, but also effortlessly charming and debonair. Obama, much like Grant's greatest characters, possess a curiosity and self-confidence that often gets him into some delightful quandaries. But, underneath the modern-man bravado, there's a quirky aloofness and spiritual warmth to him, which allows you to cheer for the man who's obviously going to get the girl, save the day and look damn good doing it.

Obama's ability to connect with the gullible proletarian and whimsical intellectual is a marvellous gift. One particular moment of awe was when he forcefully defended health care as a "right" and followed by discussing his mother's own desperate saga with the American insurance system. Right-wing fringe nuts aside, I can't think of a particular socio-economic group who would not be able to relate to that answer. It was as genuine as it was ingenious. Kudos.

In general, I thought he owned the discussion on national service - Correctly noting that Bush's post-9/11 "go shopping" rallying cry was a stupid farce - and, more importantly, dominated on the broader issues of the economy and foreign policy. Scoffing at the notion of letting bin Laden escape yet again showed everyone that this guy - this liberal Democrat - means business.

McCain, on the other hand, looked like a confused, muttering old man at a duck pond in the winter. Where are my ducks? Where have they gone? My fiends. I brought bread. I'm old.... What a strange, pitiful performance.

I was struck not only by McCain contemptuous posturing - not that it surprised me, though I thought he would be smart enough to conceal his irrational disdain for Barack - but by his nonsensical policy positions. Did he just propose nationalizing America's entire mortgage debt? Comrade or Maverick? Pick a side, McCain, we're at war! (Yes, I'm channeling Colbert).

What about his comment that health care was a responsibility? Or, even more odd, that he favored Teddy Roosevelt's policy of speaking softly and carrying a big stick? I thought Obama absolutely crushed McCain with his superb rendition of "Bomb, bomb, Iran."

I assume most mainstream media minions will score this a draw/slight edge Democratic. Preposterous. There was only one man worthy of praise tonight. This is all but over.

Debate Grades:

Obama A/A+
McCain B


Edited to add: McCain's "that one" comment was one of the stupidest, most repugnant moments I've ever seen in presidential politics. This man - nay, this indignant, warped little child - is beyond hopeless.

Campbell Brown Rules the Universe

Well, those Liberal Elites over at the New York Times are riding my conspicuous coattails yet again. Surely, you're in disbelief. How could a well-respected, world-renowned publication be so, oh, I don't know, unprofessional, you wonder. I assure you it's true, for how else could you explain this fawning piece on Campbell Brown from Friday's edition!?

Go ahead, read it. Sounds a little familiar, doesn't it?

Now, I can excuse the Times for their blatant thievery; everyone knows that the print-media business is absolute rubbish these days. What I cannot excuse them for is their ungentlemanly pursuit of my woman du jour.

The article, blandly titled "Weighing In - An Anchor Tacks Toward Commentary," was written by some Ivy-League educated, fancy-pants named Jacques Steinberg. I can picture this pretentious half-wit sipping on his low-fat latte and nibbling at some Danish pastry while obnoxiously flirting with Maureen Dowd. I'm sure he lives off Daddy's trust fund and spends his days whimsically walking about Manhattan, sometimes hobnobbing with the city's culturally and politically savvy citizenry.

It irks me a great deal. And oh how I envy him...

Anyway, his work re-hashes many of my well-made points, only without my narrative flare and unapologetic ignorance. That said, his laminated Liberal Elite all-access pass provided him with the opportunity to interview the ever-feisty Ca-Bro one-on-one. His description of the meeting is as follows:

In an interview in her CNN office, wearing jeans, her laceless Converse All-Stars tucked beneath a desk as seemingly cluttered as the cable landscape, Ms. Brown went to some pains to try to separate her approach from that of her cable competitors.

“They’re partisans,” she said of Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Olbermann in particular. “You’re not going to see me ever be partisan. I’ll never take a position on a candidate or an issue.”

This woman is a goddess. The image of Campbell rocking a pair of Chuck Taylor's and (what I image to be) low-rise, ultra-sexy blue jeans while chatting with this wanna-be GQ hack sends me into a tizzy. She's just a no-nonsense, all-American woman. What's not to love?

Well, according to Jacques, the blurring of commentary and news, that's what. Campbell immediately dismissed such a suggestion by this Jacques character - this pesky ragamuffin! And in a wonderful, totally Ca-Bro fashion:

“As journalists, and certainly for me over the last few years, we’ve gotten overly obsessed with parity, especially when we’re covering politics,” Ms. Brown said. “We kept making sure each candidate got equal time — to the point that it got ridiculous in a way.”

“So when you have Candidate A saying the sky is blue, and Candidate B saying it’s a cloudy day, I look outside and I see, well, it’s a cloudy day,” she said. “I should be able to tell my viewers, ‘Candidate A is wrong, Candidate B is right.’ And not have to say, ‘Well, you decide.’ Then it would be like I’m an idiot. And I’d be treating the audience like idiots.”

Owned. You heard it, party flakes, your days of mind-numbing incompetence is over. Well, at least on CNN, between the hours of 8-9. But, uh, yeah, take that.