Patterico's Pontifications


He’s Only 1/15 Off . . .

Filed under: Morons — Patterico @ 3:35 pm

Alcee Hastings:

At the beginning of our great country’s history my ancestors were counted as only 2/3 of a person.

(Via Tully at Stubborn Facts.)

See Dubya: What’s Stopping Obama from Going to Iran Now?

Filed under: 2008 Election — Patterico @ 3:01 pm


What an Obama Administration Will Look Like: Wrap Yourself in Your Most Secure Straitjacket Before You Read Any Further

Filed under: 2008 Election,General — Patterico @ 2:03 pm

A Telegraph story about the possibility of a dignified exit for Hillary, perhaps with an offer of a Cabinet position, has this passage:

Another Democrat who has discussed strategy with friends in the Obama inner circle said that Mr Obama was openly considering asking Mrs Clinton to join his cabinet, alongside two other former presidential rivals: John Edwards, who is seen as a likely attorney general; and Joe Biden, who is a leading contender to become Secretary of State.

Mr Obama hinted at the plan last week. “One of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln,” he said. “Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his cabinet because whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was ‘how can we get this country through this time of crisis?’ And I think that has to be the approach that one takes.”

(Via Tully at Stubborn Facts.)

Now, it’s not really news that Obama has been considering John Edwards for Attorney General. Nor is it news that Obama has been considering Joe Biden for Secretary of State.

Still, there’s something about seeing those two possibilities together on your computer screen, together, mentioned as a very real possibility . . .

I don’t know. It kind of makes you want to curl up into a fetal position and whimper incoherently.

Or maybe run out of the house into the street, pulling huge tufts of hair from your head as you scream hysterically: “OBAMA IS TALKING ABOUT MAKING JOHN EDWARDS THE [expletive deleted]ING ATTORNEY GENERAL!! OBAMA IS TALKING ABOUT MAKING JOE [expletive deleted]ING BIDEN the GOD[expletive deleted] MOTHER[expletive deleted]ING SECRETARY OF STATE!!!! HOLY MOTHER OF CHRIST, WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS COUNTRY!!!! AHHH!!! AHHHH!!!!”

Because that would be the rational response.

Instead, I find myself just sitting here at my computer calmly typing out a post about these possibilities.

Now that’s crazy!

UPDATE: I was screaming so hysterically that I mislabeled Edwards as the putative Secretary of State in my screaming rant. Thanks to a commenter for pointing it out. Man, this is a bad day for brain freezes.

L.A. Times Finally Understands What Was So Offensive About Wright — Now that Obama Has Resigned from Trinity Church

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 1:23 pm

Back in March, when Obama initially had to deal with the controversy over his pastor’s remarks, the L.A. Times minimized their incendiary nature. As I noted on March 15, the relevant L.A. Times article on the topic:

doesn’t even bother to tell readers that Wright screamed “God damn America!” in a sermon, or that Wright suggested America deserved to get attacked on September 11.

This article focused on other less incendiary remarks, and tried to draw a parallel between that controversy and the McCain/Hagee controversy.

It was weird that the article didn’t even mention the “God damn America” statement. Even the editors, in a later editorial, said they could tell right away that this phrase was the real issue:

When the first tapes of Wright began making the rounds, it was quickly clear that they were bad news for Obama — rarely do presidential candidates enjoy the sight of their mentors shouting “God damn America.”

How odd, then, that one of the paper’s first stories on the controversy omitted any mention of that particular clip.

It is true that articles and opinion columns in the paper since that time have mentioned that “God damn America” language — such as an article that tried to explain away Wright’s statements as springing from a complex tradition of black churches. But I never saw an article that clearly coupled the “God damn America” language with the noxious sentiments about September 11, in the way I did in my March 15 post.

That is, until today.

I guess, now that Obama has resigned from his church, the L.A. Times feels it’s now okay to make it clear exactly what the controversy was about:

Wright can be seen in Internet videos shouting “God damn America” and asserting that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were brought on by U.S. foreign policy.

Oh, was that the problem, then?

What’s going on here? Is it OK to make this clear now that Obama has fully disassociated himself from the church? Or is it just that the L.A. Times initially just didn’t grasp what was so offensive about Rev. Wright, whereas conservatives like myself instantly understood?

Whatever the reason, now that Obama has resigned, the paper now seems to understand what the problem really was.

Ickes: Hillary May Contest the Less-Than-Three-Fifths Compromise

Filed under: 2008 Election,General — Patterico @ 12:49 pm

Hillary Clinton supporter Harold Ickes says Clinton may end up challenging the Florida/Michigan Less Than Three-Fifths Compromise:

Clinton’s campaign objected to the rules committee decision on Michigan’s delegates, saying it had arbitrarily taken four delegates away from the former first lady and awarded them to Obama. As a result, officials said she may seek a decision on the issue by the convention credentials committee, which meets shortly before the convention opens in Denver.

Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Clinton, said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” no decision had yet been made.

“I have not had a chance to talk with Senator Clinton at any length about it, and obviously this will be a big decision. But her rights are reserved,” he said.

He’s dead right about the arbitrariness of the decision on the Michigan delegation. Awarding Obama delegates in Michigan is based, not on what Michigan voters actually said, but what party officials want to see happen.

Nobody told Obama he had to take his name off the ballot in Michigan. Candidates signed a pledge that required them not to “campaign or participate” in certain states, including Michigan, but it did not explicitly require them to take their names off the ballot.

Why did some of Hillary’s opponents take their names off the ballot, then? Because they knew she would win anyway, and judged it better to question the legitimacy of the election, rather than participate and lose. As Bill Schneider explained it, Hillary’s opponents “don’t want a Clinton victory in Michigan to count.”

Well, that’s not how they decided to handle it. They decided to make it count — and then just arbitrarily give Obama some delegates, too.

As for what the vote actually said, that was brushed off as a trivial detail.

I hope she does contest it.

UPDATE: Thanks to a commenter for noticing that I mistakenly used the word “supporters” when I meant “opponents.” The error has been fixed.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0672 secs.