A lil' Real Time for your Sunday morning

Bill Maher's final New Rule on his show Friday night is one of the best I've ever heard him deliver:

And finally New Rule, now that you've lost Republicans have to agree not to waste everyone's time spending the next four years screaming for investigations of Barack Obama over made up bulls#*t. Let's not kid ourselves. The hard core Republican base is like a stalker. Rejection just makes them crazier. You think Matt Drudge was a vindictive p#%ck before. His headline Wednesday morning was Senior Citizen and Woman Beaten By Black Man. [...] And wait till you see Ann Coulter's new book, How to Field Dress a Liberal.

You know there's loyal opposition and then there's just opposition. Let's not do the 90's again except for the part where we have peace and prosperity. You know there was an entire industry back then dedicated to making Bill Clinton's life miserable over expensive hair cuts and old land deals and the Lincoln Bedroom and getting blown. But this ain't the 90's.

We've got two wars, a melting planet and the only thing keeping the economy from total collapse is Sarah Palin's shopping sprees. But you know what phrase I don't want to hear used frivolously for the next four years whenever Barack Obama forgets to put the kids in the car seat? Disrespect for the rule of law. Dick Cheney ordered prisoners tortured by name. That ship has sailed.

I don't want to hear Sean Hannity say that "Barack Obama announced that his daughters will be getting a puppy. A puppy from where? Probably a chihuahua that came in from Mexico illegally. And how do we know this isn't a dog that pals around with terriers?

You know when Obama starts a preemptive war and then f%#ks it up and makes torture our official policy and outs a CIA agent and purges US Attorneys and tries to put his cleaning lady on the Supreme Court and doesn't act on global warming and appoints at the head of FEMA an ex-d*#do salesman who was his college roommate, you know, that kind of stuff, believe me I'll be with you.

But until then I don't want to see Republicans freaking out if Obama isn't singing the National Anthem loud enough or they find out he gets his suits made in France. If he puts a moon roof in the Presidential limo, he's not making himself Fuehrer. He's just trying to get the smell of stupidity out of the seats. And mostly I don't want to hear about ACORN. Your guy lost by eight million votes. Just because you don't know any black people doesn't mean they don't exist.

So that's it. No Special Prosecutors. No trumped up investigations. If Republicans who really want to look into something for the next four years, my suggestion, try a mirror.

Don't hold your breath on Hannity, Bill - the neocons have already kicked the hate machine into overdrive, which is saying something, considering the number of blatant lies put forth by McCain and his enablers during the campaign.

My not-so-bold prediction is that Obama's victory will do plenty for hate radio - narrow minded people who don't want to give Obama a chance and who so despise him will jump into the metaphorical arms of Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill O'Lielly, Matt Drudge, etc. We'll see.

Bonus:

How can you not laugh at the above footage of Fox News announcing that Barack Obama has won the presidency? It doesn't get much better than this, & it's pretty telling that the network called the presidential race in this way. Heaven forbid that a Fox personality be associated with declaring Obama president. And the network (and the right) wonder why Obama has shunned the network.

Obama's first presser as President-Elect

Here's footage of President-elect Barack Obama's first press conference. (I never get tired of typing and saying President-elect Barack Obama - in a little over two months, saying President Obama will be second nature [easier for some of us than others], but for now, it's new, and I'm still reveling in Obama's victory.)

I think Obama sounded just the right tone in his first press conference. Most importantly, he emphasized that we have "one president, and that is President Bush until Jan. 20."

I'm also thankful for the 20th Amendment, the "Lame-Duck Amendment"; otherwise, we would have had to wait until March 4 for Obama to take office. And we really can't wait that long until Bush is gone. In fact, I hate it that we have to wait until Jan. 20.

There were not big surprises during the question-and-answer session following Obama's remarks, but I found this answer particularly encouraging:

QUESTION: Senator, for the first time since the Iranian revolution, the president of Iran sent a congratulations note to a new U.S. president.

I'm wondering if, first of all, if you responded to President Ahmadinejad's note of congratulations and, second of all, and more importantly, how soon do you plan on sending low-level envoys to countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, to see if a presidential-level talk would be productive?

OBAMA: I am aware that the letter was sent. Let me state -- repeat what I stated during the course of the campaign.

Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. And we have to mount a international effort to prevent that from happening.

Iran's support of terrorist organizations I think is something that has to cease.

I will be reviewing the letter from President Ahmadinejad, and we will respond appropriately. It's only been three days since the election. Obviously, how we approach and deal with a country like Iran is not something that we should, you know, simply do in a knee-jerk fashion.

I think we've got to think it through.

But I have to reiterate once again that we only have one president at a time. And I want to be very careful that we are sending the right signals to the world as a whole that I am not the president and I won't be until January 20th.

We can only guess as to why Ahmadinejad sent Obama a note of congratulations, but if he thinks that Obama is going to be rolled over and an easy mark, he had best think again.

Nader asks if Obama will be an Uncle Tom

There are many things I like about Ralph Nader during his long career in consumer activism - he's done a great deal of good and raised a number of important issues by exposing numerous cases of malfeasance in corporate America.

However, politically? Forget it. I'll always consider him a traitor for what he did in 2000 - it's not an understatement to say that President Bush is where he is today as a direct result of Nader. But, political fortunes have ways of reversing, and Nader hasn't gotten any traction since then, thankfully. He ran for president again this year, and I think I received more votes for president than he did.

Anyway, he was on Fox News the day before yesterday to talk about his comments on Fox Radio that were as follows:

To put it very simply, he is our first African-American president in this country, or he will be. And we wish him very well. But his choice, basically, is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.

I understand Nader's point, but did he really need to use racially charged language like that. Really classy, Nader, really classy.

As Nicole Belle said so succinctly on Wednesday, it's pretty bad when Shepard Smith of Fox News looks classier than you do, Nader.

And by the way, I don't disagree with all of Nader's points, specifically when he mentions how manufacturing in this country has been parceled out to dictators in third-world countries, but there's a right way and a wrong way to go about making a point. When you use racist phrases, your message, however sage it might be, gets lost in lots and lots of noise (as it should be).

Shame on you, Ralph Nader.

GOP propaganda machine in high gear

This morning, I thought I'd drop by Drudge's Website Republican Homepage to see what sewage he's spewing in the face of a pretty dreadful day for this party. It didn't take me long to find stories & rumors that are a best wild distortions, and at worst made-up crap that plays into the GOP's PR fantasy machine. Right at the top of the page, I read the headline, "REPUBLICAN ELECTION BOARD WORKERS THROWN OUT IN PHILLY..." so I clicked on the link.

After clicking, I was taken to a site that I hadn't heard about in a long time and that I care about even less, Townhall.com, a right-wing site that is even more blatant than Drudge about everything from climate change to voter fraud to Obama's associations and Ronald Reagan's papacy.

Anyway, the story, entitled, "A Repeat of 2004 Philly Voter Chaos, Fraud," has so many holes in it, I won't try to debunk them all. But, one thing did catch my eye.

In 2004, Drudge breathlessly reported, without doing any reporting, mind you, that machines in Philadelphia had started the day with thousands of votes already rigged for John Kerry. The media in Philly was hot on this story for about 15 minutes, and it died a quick death - not a shred of truth to it, period. In the meantime, before the veracity of the story was revealed, I got a phone call that day from a very good friend of mine, indignant that Philly was rigging the vote for Kerry. It's amazing and stupefying to me that a total frickin' liar and partisan like Drudge drives the news cycle in this country. Maybe someday legit media will wake up to his partisanship, but I sincerely doubt it.

Fast forward to today, and here's how Townhall's story reads at the bottom:

The City of Brotherly Love was roiled in controversy during the 2004 election because of rigged voting machines that showed nearly 2,000 votes for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry before the polls had opened. A man also used a gun to intimidate poll workers at Ward 30, division 11 in 2004.

I know for a fact that no machines were rigged with extra votes for Kerry, so that gun accusation rings more than a bit hollow, too.

On to today's story... According to Townhall:

GOP Election Board members have been tossed out of polling stations in at least half a dozen polling stations in Philadelphia because of their party status.

A Pennsylvania judge previously ruled that court-appointed poll watchers could be NOT removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, but that is exactly what is happening, according to sources on the ground.

It is the duty of election board workers to monitor and guard the integrity of the voting process.

[...]

"Election board officials guard the legitimacy of the election process and the idea that Republicans are being intimidated and banned for partisan purposes does not allow for an honest and open election process," said McCain-Palin spokesman Ben Porritt in a statement to Townhall.

Before we rush to judgment about what's going on in Philadelphia, perhaps a legit media outlet ought to do some actual reporting vs. partisan sites like Drudge & Townhall making wild, unsubstantiated accusations about voting conditions on the ground there. As for the '04 recap, both sites are no doubt counting on low-information voters, many of whom will witlessly read and/or hear what Townhall and Drudge "reported" and assume that all of it happened in '04.

To be clear, I abhor voter intimidation and suppression of any kind of any party, and I would more than publicly condemn it if this is indeed what's happening in Philly. But, I'm just more than skeptical because many GOP hack sites lack so much as a morsel of credibility considering all of the lies and innuendos that were spread in '04.

What's more, this is a classic play from Karl Rove's playbook. As wholesale election fraud is taking place around the country (plenty of reports are already coming in about it, and I will write about this at length later today and tonight), the right cooks up a story about poll workers being ousted in Philly, and that gets all the press. Well, it's not going work this time, at least if the Obama campaign has anything to say about it, and here's betting that it has plenty to say.

File this one away about Sarah Palin

Seriously, I don't know whether to be extremely happy or frightened that Sarah Palin is widely considered the "new face of the Republican Party" by many. She's proven over the last few months that there really isn't much that is out of bounds and that she won't say. Check out her comments at a campaign even earlier today - in it, she asserts that Democrats think that terrorists "are the good guys."

I've written it before, and I'll no doubt rewrite it over the next few days - McCain and Palin will do and say (and have done and said) just about anything to get elected over the last few months - reality and truth be damned. Yet, this is the woman that John McCain picked to be his running mate, while at the same time proclaiming of having the ability to "reach across party lines" and be bipartisan to get things done. Yes, I realize that this is the heat of a presidential campaign, but some bells simply cannot be un-rung.

We all need to remember comments like these in '12 (and beyond), when Palin undoubtedly makes a run for the U.S. Senate, or possibly even president. Because, most people won't remember 2008, when she made mindlessly partisan and hateful attacks against Obama, and when both her and McCain tried all they could do to divide America in order to win an election.

Sure, Obama has thrown some mud, too, but only to respond in kind to the attacks that he's endured. He had two choices - he could either take the "high road" completely, a la John Kerry in '04, or he could respond selectively as he did. I think, no matter what happens tomorrow, Obama took the wise course - responding to the more serious charges, and ignoring the more scurrilous ones. I think his strategy is about to pay off, big time.

Leading into tomorrow, I'm cautiously optimistic.

One of McCain's last, pathetic ads

This one was predictable times 10. The only thing surprising is that the GOP (Read: McCain) decided to run this ad so late. But, desperate times call for desperate measures. I've been seeing this ad multiple times during the last few days all over Philadelphia media outlets.

My guess? It will resonate about as well as Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, the Madrassa Story, countless stories about the Obamas' patriotism, etc. In the end, I don't think it will mean anything, because none of it has anything to do with Barack Obama's PATRIOTISM or his ability to lead this country. We'll know very, very soon.

Gallup: All signs point toward Obama

Happy Sunday morning, everyone. Here's hoping you enjoyed the extra hour of sleep; I just woke up an hour earlier. No complaints, though - it's more time to blog about one of the most important elections in recent American history - two days to go.

Anyway, despite what some GOP hacks are promoting - the idea that McCain is gaining on Obama - the polls are not bearing this out. Yesterday, Drudge pimped a one-day Zogby poll that had McCain ahead 48%-47%. One day? A pimple on the face of the electorate. Even this morning, Drudge has up a Zogby poll that puts Obama up by 6. In the national polls, Obama is up by an average of 7.8%, which is just a bit over yesterday. WaPo has a pretty revealing story about polls - in the last 159 national polls, Obama has led them all.

McCain seems to be narrowing Obama's lead slightly, including right here in Pennsylvania, but I believe it will be too little, too late. I'm not at all surprised that the race is narrowing, however - the last two presidential elections, nefarious vote counting tactics aside, have been very, very close, and I don't think this one will be any different. Of course, I would love to be wrong - I'd love to see Obama run away with it in a landslide, but I have my doubts about that.

We all have to keep fighting - e-mailing, talking to friends, donating some time on Tuesday or even donating a few dollars through Obama's Website. Remember, Obama will still need resources after Tuesday, especially if, heaven forbid, we have a replay of 2000, when the lawyers and ground efforts have to be dispatched if the election is disputed. So, even if you can spare $5, please donate.

There's some good news and bad news in the Senate races. On the bright side, Ted Stevens is going to get bounced out on his ass in his up north after being convicted on seven felony counts this past week; and Kay Hagan is leading the insipid, vapid Elizabeth Dole by five points after her despicable ads portraying Hagan as an atheist. A bit of bad news, though: Norm Coleman now has a small lead on Al Franken in Minnesota, and Saxby Chambliss is up by 5 in the latest polls over Jim Martin, BUT both races are still winnable by the Democrats, especially if Obama carries both states (he will in Minnesota, and he has an outside shot at carrying Georgia).

To that end, please support these Senate Democratic candidates (and of course, others, too) by clicking the links below giving a little bit of money. Even $5 can help to make a difference in the final days.

Jim Martin in Georgia
Al Franken in Minnesota
Kay Hagen in North Carolina

Getting 60 votes in the Senate would be a major plus to Obama if he gets in, and would obviously be useful in blocking some of McCain's more ridiculous proposals should he prevail on Tuesday.

Cool: My favorite musician backs Barack

As if I need another reason to admire Dave Matthews, my favorite musician ever, here's another one. Matthews has been openly backing and campaigning for Obama for months and months now, which makes me proud to be such a huge fan.

Many people, specifically those on the right, criticize celebrities who back political candidates. I understand a large part of their resentment, because when people pay good money, they are paying to be entertained, not preached to. But that's now what Matthews does at his shows. How do I know? Because I've been to close to 20 of his concerts. And just because someone is famous doesn't mean that he loses his right to have a political opinion.

Obama's cabinet will be "bi-partisan"

During an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson the other night, Obama openly talked about having a "bi-partisan cabinet," which would be a very refreshing departure from the Bush administration.

It doesn't sound like Obama is "measuring the drapes" to me, although you'd never know it by listening to McCain or the right-wing noise machine that passes for our corporate media.

Obama backers confront lying GOP protester

I know this might sound a little corny, but I'm proud of the Obama supporters who confronted Charles David Ficken, the jackass in the video above who carried a sign at an Obama campaign event imploring people to "wake up" and blubbering about how Obama's a "Muslim." As one of the confronting Obama supporters so sagely put it, "What difference does it make if he is a Muslim?" to which Ficken replied, "If that was true, I would campaign twice as hard." I really got a kick out of his contradicting himself.

Neocon artist DeLay slanders Obama on Hardball

For the life of me, I will never, ever understand why right wingnuts like Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich and the rest of former GOP "leaders" in Congress are continually invited on political talk shows to subject America to their brand of bullshit. It's beyond annoying.

On Hardball the other night, Tom DeLay took the opportunity to remind America what a vile, contemptuous piece of filth he is. During the broadcast, DeLay actually insinuated that the McCain campaign hasn't been sleazy enough in its portrayal of Barack Obama. As if his contention needed further explanation, he proceeded to tick off a shopping list of Obama's, ahem, attributes in his sick, twisted mind - that Obama's a Marxist, a radical, a black-liberation theologist, terrorist sympathizer and Constitution-hater, etc.

People like DeLay that make me weep for America. Thank God this guy is out of Congress. Too bad the Bush-appointed federal prosecutor in Texas didn't have the balls to take him to trial following his multiple indictments.

I wish Matthews would have taken it to him, as he's wont to do with gas-bag politicians, but he was notably meek and mild during this interview, which is inexcusable.

Actually, what's really inexcusable is that these talk shows keep giving DeLay air time. Funny how I don't see former Democratic Congressional leaders giving any interviews, save a few by Sen. Tom Daschle.

Also, notice the not-so-cleverly-disguised code phrases that DeLay uses, too, i.e. - "I think that when people go into the voting booth, they won't be able to bring themselves to vote for a radical." Why not just say "black man," you dirt bag?

I also find it amazing how Obama's 2001 interview has had the right-wingnuts hysterical this week. I also wonder how many people have actually taken the time to listen to what Obama actually said.

DeLay's meme that Obama called the Constitution "a charter of negative rights," as some sort of anti-American rant doesn't hold up either. It is, and if you actually look it up, it's a legal term. To wit:

In the Bill of Rights...

In the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

In the Second Amendment: ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In the Third Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner...

In the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

Those are examples of what is meant by "negative rights," yet despicable people like DeLay oversimplify and twist Obama's words, hoping that people won't do any homework to discover the meaning behind them. Sadly, there are a number of willfully uninformed voters who will take DeLay at face value, but happily, that number is shrinking. Perhaps some day people like Chris Matthews will realize that we really don't want to hear from people like DeLay anymore. (And most of us never did in the first place.)

Below is what Obama actually said about the Constitution in an interview seven years ago:

Differs pretty wildly from how the right has been portraying it during the last few weeks, doesn't it?

Obama's half-hour campaign event video

Well, that didn't take long - in one of literally dozens of examples of the Obama campaign being on-point with the Web - the full video of Obama's prime-time speech was online within an hour of its conclusion. (It may have been on sooner, but I didn't check - I didn't think they would get it online this quickly.)

I don't have too much to add to this one, other than to say that I was impressed. It's too bad about the timing, though - the potential deciding game of the World Series began just as his speech did. Of course, there's not much he could have done to control that, but it's a safe bet that the ratings for his half hour were next to nothing here in Philly, and most definitely in Tampa, too.

I can only guess how many millions it cost Obama to do this prime-time appearance for an entire half hour. Surely it was into the tens of millions, considering it was aired on multiple networks. CNN reportedly declined to air the ad, which sort of surprised me. I'm wondering how CNN will proceed with its programming moving forward - its half-baked attempts to capture State TV's viewers with the insipid Glenn Beck have proved fruitless. Actually, I don't really care, since I so rarely watch the once-great network anymore.

Of course, McCain is doing his best to try and paint Obama's half hour as a "premature victory lap," but he's been trying to say that about Obama all summer and fall, and it hasn't stuck. Just because McCain, like a cheap, skipping record player, continues to repeat over and over that "Obama is measuring the drapes," doesn't make it so.

Ad jabs @ Palin's winks, Mac's economic IQ

A new Obama political ad takes a subtle jab at Sarah Palin, for her stupid winking during the vice presidential debate. I love it.

Even more importantly, though, it features some pretty telling quotes from John McCain about his lack of knowledge on the economy.

From HuffPo:

Titled "His Choice," the spot begins with quotes from McCain admitting his lack of economic know-how. The last one has McCain declaring, "I might have to rely on a vice president that I select" for expertise on economic issues.

"His choice?" the script (no narration) asks -- before cutting to footage of Palin winking at the vice presidential debate. "On November 4th, You Get to Make Yours."

It is considered politically taboo for a presidential candidate to go after a vice presidential candidate. To be sure, much of the ad focuses on McCain's record on the economy. But the inclusion of Palin is indicative of just how large a liability the Obama folks -- indeed, the political community at large -- thinks she has become for the GOP ticket.

It might be considered taboo, but I think the underlying theme here is McCain's age. (And this is likely as close as the Obama campaign will ever get to discussing it.) I've been saying and writing this for months now - McCain's choice of Palin disqualifies both, and what's more, it offers us a glimpse of how he would select the people who surround him - his cabinet, advisers, etc.

Helping Obama finish up strong

I love this video - I found it on Crooks & Liars this morning, and it really is very illustrative of the mindset that I hope every Obama supporter has today.

McCain smears now coming fast & furious

The Obama campaign has articulated pretty clearly lately how it feels about Fersatz News, our State TV Network. On Monday, Matt Drudge, who functions as the assignment editor for our right-wing corporate media, ran with another phony news story - this time it's about what Barack Obama allegedly said about the Supreme Court during a 2001 interview. First, what he actually said:

You know if you look at the victories and the failures of the Civil Rights movement and its litigation strategy in the Court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I would be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical, it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf and that hasn't shifted.

And one of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

This is a far cry from how the right, led by Drudge and the McCain campaign, has been spinning what Obama said. Fortunately, the Obama campaign isn't letting the lies and smears go unanswered; they are responding swiftly and firmly, just as they should. Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, appeared on Fox on Monday to talk about the allegations:

This is a fake news controversy drummed up by the all-too-common alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months. In this seven-year old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all. Americans know that the real choice in this election is between four more years of Bush-McCain policies that redistribute billions to billionaires and big corporations and Barack Obama's plan to help the middle class by giving tax relief to 95 percent of workers and companies that create new jobs here in America. That's the change we need, and no amount of eleventh-hour distractions from the McCain campaign will change that.

Very well said - this is one of the many last- gasp, pathetic attempts to distract voters from the real issues by McDrilly's dying campaign, but it certainly won't be the last; McCain's handlers no doubt have plenty more tricks, misinformation and lies up their sleeves.

Honestly, every time I hear McCain or Palin talk about "spreading the wealth around" or "wealth redistribution" or "class warfare," I can't help but hope that Obama throws this right back in his face. What he really needs to do is force McCain to defend wealth concentration, which has risen to new heights under the Bush administration. Obama should go on the attack and force both of these economical morons to defend how the top one percent of wealthy Americans control 90 percent of the wealth in this country. Good God, would I love to hear their answers.

Actually, I'm guessing we'd just hear crickets.

Peggy Noonan not a "you must vote" person

This is a pretty interesting piece of vid from MSNBC last week, when Peggy Noonan (of Ronald Reagan sycophant fame) appeared on Morning Joe. The reason for her appearance is inconsequential (talented actor David Strathairn was promoting something), but her comments were pretty telling. (Strathairn narrated the video that introduced Barack Obama in Denver during the Democratic National Convention.)

First, she's not so sure that 18-year olds should have the same right to vote as a 70-year old businessman who has been paying taxes and running a business for years? Welcome to Democracy, Peggy. I'd like to know what she would like to do to "adjudicate" this "problem." And of course Noonan had to bitch and complain about the supposed "liberal bias" in higher education - more red meat for the neocon base. Whatever.

Also pretty telling that she's not one of those "you must vote people," coming from a career politico. That was borderline elitist. If I had to guess, I'd say she's referring to the people who are allegedly voting for Obama just because he's black. As a progressive liberal, I could have the same point of view about people who want to vote for McCain just because he was a POW, or people who want to vote against Obama just because he's black. But, I don't feel that way - everyone citizen has the right to vote in this country who is of age, and our democracy should do all it can to make it easy to vote. Tragically, there are much too many roadblocks being thrown in the way of people who simply want to vote.

More on that in a bit.

Absurd questions anger Biden in Orlando

I've heard and written about probably hundreds of interviews of all of the presidential candidates since the primaries began nearly two years ago, but the one in the video above has got to be one of the more outrageous ones I've heard during this election cycle. During an interview with WFTV Channel 9's Barbara West in Orlando, Florida, Biden did a pretty good job of keeping his cool - better than I could have.

Biden fielded a litany of absurd questions ranging from the Obama campaign's alleged influence over ACORN (including an inquiry asking if Biden was "embarrassed" by his campaign's alleged association with the group); whether Obama is a "socialist"; and then West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with his "spreading the wealth" comment. Following those queries, a clearly frustrated Biden asked, "I don't know who's writing your questions."

To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with tough questions being asked of any of the four candidates - too often, they all attempt to set up interviews with fluff, feel-good questions that inform voters of nothing. Some terrific examples of just this are Sarah Palin's interviews with Katie Couric & Charlie Gibson, which she bombed anyway. Biden answered more tough questions during the five-minute interview in the video above than Palin has since she joined the ticket.

Following the interview, the Obama campaign canceled a Jill Biden interview for the following day. Of course, the right-wingnuts decried this "censorship" of the media, but doesn't even hold up for a nanosecond.

A few weeks ago, McCain kicked New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd off his campaign plane for questions he didn't like, and there are numerous other occasions of media censorship during the Bush years justified by media treatment it wasn't thrilled with. Anyone remember Bush saying to Dick Cheney during the '00 campaign, "There's Adam Clymer, major league asshole from the New York Times"? Or how about Jeff Gannon, the conservative plant from Talon News, who Bush called on in 2005 during a press conference when the questions got tough? (He wasn't even smart enough to be low key, asking Bush a question that included a comment that the Democrats are "divorced from reality") Or how about the Bush administration signing conservative pundits to lucrative contracts using TAXPAYER MONEY to push its agenda in 2005? (Are you listening, Armstrong Williams?)

Getting back to the interview with Biden, for those of you who think that Channel 9's Barbara West is some impartial, tough journalist, watch how she handled an interview with John McCain on Oct. 14. I heard more softballs tossed at McCain during that tongue bath than I've heard tossed at Obama in the last six months.

Pretty hilarious that the very same media that McCain more than once has called "his base" is now the mortal enemy, totally in the tank for Obama.

Riiight.

Sean Goebbels pimps more Obama lies

Oh, how I get a kick out of listening to Sean Goebbels Hannity getting more and more desperate as the election draws neigh. One of his latest distortions outright lies is saying that Barack Obama would cut "billions of dollars" from the defense budget (see the video above), when in fact, he has stated on numerous occasions that he will "cut billions in wasteful spending."

As a cherry on the Hannity sundae of vomit, he mentions Obama "waving the white flag of surrender." What's a discussion about Obama's Iraq strategy without a mention about his wanting America to surrender? I'm almost tired (almost) of writing it, but it bears repeating - we cannot win in Iraq. I really wish that candidates Obama & Biden would frame this issue correctly, but I'm yet to hear it. If I were Obama, I would say it this way - we already did win the conflict, but we are losing the occupation. What's more, we will never, ever "win" the occupation, because no country in modern human history has ever won one of those. Even if at the present moment, we aren't losing it militarily, we sure are losing it financially. Actually, the two are linked.

How so? Well, the reason that many of our enemies are taking a break from shooting at us is because we are paying them not to. Yes, you read that right - in Anbar Province, we are paying our would-be enemies $300 per month to not shoot at us (it may even be per week - I have to go check, but I know we are paying them). That's no way to "win" a war, or occupation, or whatever our corporate media and the right-wing hacks choose to call it.

Oh, and I've love to see footage of Obama calling Iran "a small country and not a serious threat" and exactly in what context this supposed statement was said. What a load of b.s.

It also amuses me to no end that Hillary Clinton is now a credible argument to not electing Barack Obama, when for the last 20 years, hacks like Hannity have torn the Clintons down at every available opportunity, but now we are to believe him that Hillary is a sparkling testament to Obama's character? I have no problems with Hillary Clinton, especially what she said about Obama during a heated primary campaign, and no one else should, either. Anyway, this is what Hannity had to say about Hillary during the same clip above:

[To former Clinton White House special counsel Lanny Davis] Now, there's a very famous person, a good friend of yours, her name is Hillary, and she said that his positions on national security issues, quote, "are naive, dangerous, and irresponsible." I actually agree with her. I agree with your friend. She was right. Why - convince me why she's wrong.

You never have to dig very far to find an effective contradiction to Hannity's propaganda. In 1980, George H.W. Bush called Ronald Reagan's economic proposals "Voo Doo Economics," yet he accepted Reagan's invitation to join him on the ticket. Bush went on to serve Reagan for eight years. Primary punches should be viewed for what they are - slug fests to get the nomination, where hyperbole rules and candidates often play fast and loose with the truth at worst, or ratchet up the rhetoric at best, in order to get their party's nomination.

To Obama's credit, he hasn't used all of the crap thrown by Mitt Romney, Rudy 9iu1ian1 and and Mike Huckabee about McCain during the GOP primaries. Why? Because primary rhetoric often has very little street cred during the general election.

h/t to Media Matters for the video

Speaking of robo calls...

Speaking of robo calls, listen to this piece of garbage, courtesy of Joe Amato at Crooks and Liars. Among other things, it alleges that Barack Obama and Democrats would cut off funds for the military, that they've accused American troops of "war crimes," and that they pose a threat to national security.

The worst part about this is that the McCain camp has certainly not hit bottom, yet. With 9 days to go, there's little telling how low they'll go to try and turn the tide against Obama.

Oh, and this whole pseudo controversy about "Obama getting tested?" It's claptrap - all new presidents get tested early. Going all the way back to President Kennedy, to use modern examples, every one has been tested early on in their presidencies, and that includes President Bush. Everyone mentions 9-11, but Bush was tested before that. In the spring of 2001, the Chinese clipped a U.S. spy plane that had wondered too close to Chinese airspace, and it had to make an emergency landing in Chinese territory. Sure, in hindsight it pales in comparison to 9-11, but at the time, it was an international incident. It was resolved successfully and the pilots returned home safely, but it was a very early test of Bush.

And that Biden comment, where he mentioned that Obama "would be tested" early in his presidency? It's been manipulated and cut off by the media (surprise). His entire quote also included the phrase that he feels that Obama will respond accordingly and that he'll have a spine of steel.

A great video: I'm a Little Confused

This is a pretty good video, and if anything, it's a little conservative on the statistics it offers, too - the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party have both successfully registered millions of voters, even though there have been a few isolated instances of "Mickey Mouse" and "Tony Romo" registrations being submitted. (I'll have much more on ACORN, porn for Republicans, a bit later.)

Other than that, this video holds up and is an effective, stinging rebuke against how the press has been covering Obama vs. how it has been covering Palin.

I'm pleased that McCain's adultery is mentioned, as well as Obama's record on sex education. A very good friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, called me up all breathless a few weeks ago, outraged that Obama would support a bill that would allow sex education for first graders, which, according to U.S. News & World Report, is a gross distortion of the truth.

From the Fact Check section of the Voter's Guide in the Oct. 27, 2008 issue of U.S. News:

THE CLAIM:
A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's sole accomplishment on education was introducing legislation as an Illinois state senator "to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners."

THE REALITY:
This ad has been roundly attacked as a gross distortion and singled out as perhaps the worst of this election season. The portion of the sex-ed bill geared toward youngsters was aimed at teaching them hot to protect themselves from predators.

I also think it's a very good indication of how favorable the press has treated Palin but how little press coverage has been devoted to her husband's membership in a group until 2002 that wants Alaska to secede from the United States (and also a group that Palin addressed, as governor of Alaska). Talk about putting "Country First." (Which we all know is an empty, b.s. faux patriotic statement to begin with.)