Oh Dear

Via Chris Hayes' twitter:

My wife and I both thought last night's Mad Men was flat, and that the writing has gotten really stilted. Anyone else feeling that?

Via Whedonesque:

Marti Noxon finally gets to write a Halloween episode. As long as we're passing around the Halloween congratulations, the woman who made sure Buffy kept fighting the good fight while Joss was adding Angel and Firefly to the Whedonverse co-wrote the "Halloween episode" of Mad Men that aired last night.

The combo of the two thoughts makes me even more nervous for her proposed new feminist show.

Coffee Beans for Starbucks

Chris Hayes and his wild gesticulations amuse me:



Also, Tuesdays With Rahm.

I have to admit that I have a love for Rahm Emanuel. I'm not sure why. It may be because he studied ballet. And because he was the basis for Josh Lyman, one of my favorite television characters ever, which also explains my love of Bradley Whitford. It's a cyclical thing.

The Highs and Lows of Keith Olbermann

Keith Olbermann has a lot of highs and a lot (like, a lot) of lows as well. These two are really just from last night's broadcast, because I was particularly struck by them as I drove into work this morning. First, Olbermann talks about the part contraceptives play in President Obama's budget:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The relevant part for me being:

And yes, all ye puritans among us, America will pay for contraceptives. Taxpayer dollars for evil condoms and horrible birth control pills. Contraceptives that states already have the option of providing for low-income fornicators. Fornication that would otherwise lead to untold, unwanted pregnancies, unwanted babies, unwanted abortions, unwanted drains on families, unwanted drains on, yes, the national economy. The congressional budget office estimates that $200 million saved in 5 years thanks to, yup, contraceptives and family planning.

I kind of feel like he should have been talking to Chris Matthews about how the government helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and diseases) is so completely different than a government working to "regulate the amount of kids people might be in the mood for".

And yet, on the top of this rather concise illustration for why contraceptives aren't completely out of place in a government concerned about budgetary issues and the quality of life for its citizens, Olbermann was just off the friggin' wall with this:

[Limbaugh] apologizes - or analogizes - the 'I want Obama to fail' to rooting for the Steelers in the Super Bowl, except - and you would think that a self-professed football expert would know - that the Steelers' coach and the Steelers' owner campaigned for Obama and they did so to such an extent that the second person the team owner, who was a Republican, thanked after they won the Super Bowl was Barack Obama. Does this suggest that this internecine battle is rattling Limbaugh to some degree?

This insane ramblings interrupt a segment of Chris Hayes:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This sort of eyerollingly ridiculous explanation of a pretty simplistic analogy is one of the things that makes Keith Olbermann seem unhinged. Instead of recognizing the analogy for what it is, rooting for the winner instead of the loser, Olbermann makes it about which football team supported which candidate.

Chris Hayes Is A Dork

I love the guy, and look forward to his editorials in The Nation with glee, but he is also totally a dork:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I actually think his dorkatude works to his advantage. It may just be that he fails to use contractions when he says, "I am obviously being sarcastic". It may have been more annoying had he'd said "I'm obviously being sarcastic", but the combination of that statement when it was indeed obvious and the lack of contraction really makes it.

Now, onto more important things; I'm starting to believe that what Chris Hayes says is correct, that many of the Republicans who have reached the upper echelons of their party's leadership have decided that the best way to win back some power in America would be to stymie Democratic attempts to fix America. If they obstruct many pieces of legislation, or, you know, the sitting of a senator, then they are playing on the hopes that it fails and that they can point out its failure in 2010 or 2012 without mentioning the part their obstruction could have potentially played in that failure. I have no doubt that Norm Coleman really wants to be Minnesota's senator. But really, at a certain point in time it is more than appropriate to throw in the old towel; and this, along with Republicans voting against the stimulus bill and then bragging about all the goodies they got in it, along with continued Republican lies about organizations like ACORN and what was actually in that stimulus bill, makes me a might bit suspicious.

The game many Republicans are now playing seems directly related to the game they play in regard to national security. I live in a blue state - not a blue dog state, just a true blue one. Our Republicans are for things like gun control laws and abortion rights (not that we have any more on the national scene), that's how blue we are. And even I have heard and seen plenty of talk about how Bush kept us safe for 8 years, because after 9/11 there hadn't been another terrorist attack. The problem with that is two-fold; it is trying to prove a negative in that it is trying to create a correlation between the policies that have ostensibly proven to create more terrorists with the fact that we have not had a terrorist attack, and it is playing the numbers game. There is no way to keep America perfectly safe, especially now that we've (we've) destabilized a nation in an already tumultuous region and tortured people; we can keep America fairly safe, even very safe. But what the Bush administration and those who have fixed upon their talking points have done is to ensure a climate where any hint of terrorism under Obama equals a fail for him, even if those engaged in terrorism had turned to terrorism because of Bush era policies. And that is as intellectually disingenuous as it is politically savvy. 

A less politically savvy aspect of this "My country when it thinks I'm right, but I hope it fails when it thinks I'm wrong" are things like Sean Hannity's poll asking what kind of rebellion his followers would prefer against the country, and Rush Limbaugh hoping out loud and often that President Obama fails; but the presence of such ideas in the overall dialogue lends credence to the thought that the other obstructionist stuff may be less based on principles and more on politics. It doesn't prove anything, but it sure does leave a bad taste in my mouth.

But back to Chris Hayes. Chris makes a point that "the town remains wired for Republicans. It still listens to Republican talking points. We saw this in the stimulus and when you had all these Republicans on the cable networks talking all the time about, you know, their objection to this part of the stimulus. That still permeates the institutional structure of elite consensus opinion in Washington despite the massive change in public opinion about how people feel about conservative ideas and the Republican party. The smaller, kind of insular, beltway establishment still is far more willing to cut Republicans slack than actual voters at large are." This is an echo, though less tinfoil hat extreme, of someone I thought was just insane on Bill Moyers' The Journal on February 6th. Says Glenn Greenwald:

I think it raises an interesting dilemma. Which is, if you look at what the media were saying about Obama favorably, both around the time of his election and subsequent as well, they kept insisting that he could continue Bush's counterterrorism policies that were so controversial.

They were praising him for leaving in place all sorts of Bush officials that the media wants to see is continuity, that he's not threatening to their way of life and to their establishment, for the reason that we talked about before. That's how he wins praise from them, is by showing that he isn't going to change things fundamentally, and therefore, isn't a threat to their system.

At the same time, as Jay said, what he needs to do more than anything to fulfill the commitments that he made, is demonstrate that he's a true change agent. And I think these objectives are very much in conflict, because the more he threatens the Washington system, I think the more hostility the press will feel towards him, and therefore, project to the public about him. And that, too, can undermine his political popularity.

And while Nancy Pelosi may have schooled Rachel Maddow about how effective the Republicans dominating the talking points during the stimulus debate was, I think at some point the dominance will affect American perception of the presidency and the legitimacy of the Democratic rule and liberalism in general. Liberal is already a damned dirty word, and I would like that to change. But as long as the Republicans can play keep away without being seriously called on it, that isn't likely to.

Michele Bachmann Is Why We Need To Elect More Republicans

No, seriously; that title isn't MST3000 material. I think Michele Bachmann is why we need more Republicans in Congress. Just listen to her crazy ramblings:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

A good democracy has more than one party, and at the moment the Republicans left - especially in the House - are tending toward the unhinged side with Michele Bachmann being the head of them all. And while that leads to fun Chris Hayes, I really think that bipartisan efforts and better legislation in general could come about if there were more moderate Republicans in the mix. I can't help but feel like maybe we (collective we, because I don't live there) shouldn't have voted Chris Shays out of representing Connecticut's 4th district.

Wednesday's The Hump Day, Right?

Work sucks, and I'm very, incredibly, mind-numbingly tired. So here's Chris Hayes:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This statement sums up how I feel about the whole thing: "That's what's so vicious about the entire logic that has guided this from the beginning; it's that if there are people who act unlawfully, the law no longer applies. Which is on its face absurd, right? I mean, the whole point of the law is to create a frame work to deal with people who violate it."

And I agree with him when he says, "I will say that I found it incredibly offensive that he referred to it as a symbol. The fact of the matter is there are actual people who were actually kidnapped and actually held and actually tortured away from their actual family members. So there is nothing symbolic about what has happened to the people in Guantanamo."

But at the same time, Dick Cheney is about half right as well; Guantanamo Bay is not just a symbol. The reason the Left is up in arms is not just because Guantanamo is symbolic of the Bush disregard for rule of law - unless it is their law - and lack of respect for civil liberties. But the fact of the matter is that while the reason for the outrage is the fact that there are actual people who have actually been tortured, with the benefit of this process actually discrediting the United States in the global community, it is also symbolic of a power structure gone horribly awry. Guantanamo also represents a greater injustice, or rather a series of greater injustices. There is the injustice of actually torturing people; and then there is the injustice paid to those who have actually been affected by terrorist acts allegedly perpetrated by the detainees at Gitmo. After all, because the military engaged in tactics that were tantamount to torture, Susan Crawford - the woman who decides who stands trial at Gitmo - has dropped charges against Muhammed al-Qahtani, the alleged 20th 9/11 hijacker. And although I am with Chris Hayes completely in that it is incredibly offensive and unacceptable for anyone to be tortured in the name of America's safety, it is almost more offensive for actual justice to be stymied because of that torture. Gitmo is a symbol as well as a terrible institution. It is the symbol of much of what went wrong in the Bush administration. It is bad enough to decide that the end justifies the means when those means include betraying some of the country's core values; it is just that much worse when the ends one has betrayed those values for turn out to be nothing more than an ideological mirage. Gitmo is just one example of the intersection of that insult to injury; it is also one of the most glaring.

First Sarah Haskins, And Now Some Chris Hayes

First, I have to say that I'm not loving Keith Olbermann's suit and tie combination in the first video. I usually think he's a pretty snazzy dresser (I like the grey suit-white dress shirt-purple tie combo in the second video), or that he at least has a really good wardrobe supervisor. But that yellowy brown striped tie? Not of the good. Now, onto Chris Hayes, who seemed to be tripping over his own tongue.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I gotta say, I like anyone who juxtaposes "talking a lot of smack" with the word "capitulate" within a sentence. And I agree with both he and Keith Olbermann here. The Democrats won! Why are they then being oddly obstinate? Is it just something akin to the post-Christmas letdown that occurs in my house, where they were all excited for election day and are now grumpy and cranky and sleep-deprived while being overly sugared? Because I don't really remember Harry Reid standing up too often to President Bush. And while I agree with what Reid said, in that Senate Democrats need to work with Senate Republicans and that Reid doesn't work for Obama, I think it is kind of odd that he felt the need to state that outright, right now. And I do love Hayes' eye roll at Reid's assertion that he will be Majority leader until 2015.

I have to say, Democrats shot themselves in the foot with the whole Roland Burris thing, but that's really all I want to say about it; and I'm hoping that what with Jesse White signing the document certifying Burris' appointment, this will all fade away into one of those crazy but innocuous stories we all tell each other in a few years if the world has managed not to go to hell in a handbasket. But while I understand not wanting to look like limp noodles going back on a promise not to seat anyone appointed by a corrupt public official, I have to imagine that it would have been more politically expedient to have just quietly done that and allowed the story to fade away rather than to allow a continuation of coverage of this whole mess. And to think, this could have been spared if only the Illinois legislature had voted to hold a special election.

The second video, about Sanjay Gupta and the lack of accountability when someone gets something wrong in a socially acceptable way. I have no real opinion about the Gupta pick one way or the other, but I do enjoy the conversation about what frustrates the Left about this whole process.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ralph Nader's Gotta Be Pissed!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Although Bush has turned into less of an ideologue over the economy - where he never truly was a fiscal conservative or anti-big government anyway (just for all those little people) - he is still doing a number to our country and those of us who have to live in it. When Keith Olbermann posed his question, he was discussing Bush's last minute environmental policies. But I think this sort of thing applies to the "doing as much damage to the country" thing as well. Call me crazy, but I would like my roof to not collapse on me in the event my car rolled over; and if my roof happened to, I would want the company responsible for such shoddy construction and design to have to pay - big time. Aside from my on-going intellectual crush on Chris Hayes, I do think he has a point in that one needs regulation or litigation in order to maintain a balance of power between corporations and citizens. I tend to like a mixture of both, but having neither is less than acceptable. Ralph Nader must be furious right about now.

Populist Minstrelsy

Chris Hayes makes essentially the same point I made yesterday, at some point in the last 3 days on The Countdown. Being a working gal again, I haven't gotten to see the show in "real" time, which equals sad for me, because I like seeing Keith Olbermann get all blusteringly upset about things. Anyway, Chris Hayes, making my point more succinctly and wittily:

"A Caricature Of Ordinariness"

I haven't done this in a while, but here's some Chris Hayes for the Friday:

I love Obama's face when he says, "And he's trying to suggest that a plumber is who he's fighting for" (I would consider it a classic Professor Cassidy face, along with Jessica Valenti's wonderful rendition), though I do think Obama needs to watch Moonstruck if he doesn't believe plumbers can make that much money ("We should have been plumbers like Castorini"). Beyond that, and the reason for this post, is that I am impressed by Chris Hayes' take on the matter of Joe the Plumber. When he said:

There is a tremendous gap between the mythical creature "Joe the Plumber" and the real life guy. And we see this time and time again. Sarah Palin's a perfect example. And what it shows is that the modern Republican Party and the McCain campaign and the right wing are so much more heavily invested in a caricature of ordinariness than they are in actual, real-life ordinary people,

I was nodding vigorously.

And on his own blog, he said he agreed with Atrios' take that "I really don't think the fact that someone talks to a political candidate and then gets mentioned by another political candidate in a debate is license to make every detail of this guy's life national news". I wonder how much of his position comes from the same selfish place I come to the Joe the Plumber controversy from -that being a deep sense of apathy about Joe as an individual and a resulting cynicism about mainstream media's frenzied feast:

along with a healthy sense of despair that the name "Joe" will never again simply be a nickname for Joseph (the most ironic part of the Joe the Plumber storyline so far has been that his first name is actually Samuel, with his middle name being Joe). And while I agree with Michelle Malkin in this instance, I can't help but feel as if Jesse Taylor hits the nail on the head by saying,

It isn't just the pot calling the kettle black, it's the pot wandering into the pot store and declaring all other pots black-tinged traitors to our great nation, then offering to run the pot reeducation camp to bring them in line with acceptable and decent container values.

My animosity toward Malkin has been years in the making, as she is often featured in my paper's editorial section. And maybe I should be kinder to her hypocritical turn around. After all, it is one thing to attack a side one hates with the fire of a thousand suns with such complete and utter tripe and defend it by saying, "asking questions and subjecting political anecdotes to scrutiny are what journalists should be doing". But it is quite another when a person you agree with is the political anecdote subject to scrutiny. However, this sort of thing makes me see red, and has the unfortunate tendency, given my temperament, to make me want to take the exact opposite position Malkin holds due to her double standards. But in the spirit of Chris Hayes and the Daily Show and just wanting Not-Joe the not-Plumber (apparently, he doesn't have a license) off of my television screen, I will actually maintain my philosophical viewpoint and state that Not-Joe really doesn't matter. We've lost a day in the news cycle clamoring over the facts and fictions of this one Ohioan, and I for one want it to stop. It is possible to give credence to Not-Joe's concerns, if they deserve such attention, and debate those on a national level without declaring fact or fiction about this one guy. Because I for one don't care about his record of paying taxes, whether or not he is actually buying the plumbing business, what his real first name is (okay, I'll admit to liking that one), or how much money a year he's making. Because suddenly, it isn't Not-Joe's economic philosophy that is the story, and neither is whether Obama's tax plan is or isn't bad for small businesses. It is just about Not-Joe. He should have faded away by now. So let's allow him to do that.

Chris Hayes Is Flabbergasted

Here's some Chris Hayes for your Friday afternoon:

"It's Pretty Maddening To Watch This Game Get Played Over And Over"

Some Chris Hayes for your Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

If you have 30 minutes, watch this question and answer session with Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. It is a little odd, since they are responding to each other -and presumably both Biden and Hillary are not only well-versed on these issues but also extremely literate in Obama's views regarding these issues- but it is a well thought out, well presented piece. I like the calm tone and the measured, respectful atmosphere.

And if you have 8 minutes after that, take a look at this video from Chris Hayes. I know that it is from February and that it details why we should have supported Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, but I think -since most of the points Hayes made were about Obama and not about Clinton- the point he makes still stands about how in 1980, the Republicans were able to push forth a shifting of national agenda through Ronald Reagan's rhetoric and overall vision; and how now, in 2008, we have the same sort of opportunity via Barack Obama to put forth a new national shift for progressivism. If nothing else, it is an interesting commentary, especially considering Hayes' belief that Obama's most crucial role would be in regards to foreign policy and fundamentally shifting our interactions with the rest of the world.

The Sarah Palin Bubble

I like highlighting people I have intellectual crushes on in blog posts. I'm looking into some treatment for that; but until then, here's Chris Hayes' latest appearance on The Countdown with Keith Olbermann discussing the Sarah Palin Bubble phenomenon.

A More Perfect Union

My father is more a fan of Keith Olbermann than I am; I prefer The Daily Show. But I do love some of what Olbermann does and I love how often Chris Hayes is a guest. And I love some of the issues that are brought up in segments such as this one.

This is the kind of attitude from Palin Obama and company have to attack. It isn't enough to keep chanting "4 more years" because although that is what we're going to be getting, the picture McCain and Palin are presenting is one of two genuinely likable people. And apparently Americans have forgotten that voting for the seemingly genuinely likable guy (with the surly VP choice) is what got us into much of the mess we face today both at home and abroad. Obama should be flooding the airwaves with the idea that not only is Palin mimicking a line from Bush, it is a line not even Bush publicly states any more. Any sort of connection between Iraq and 9/11 have long been disproved, and the fact that someone who is the potential #2 (wo)man in the White House (and could hold the #1 spot at some point in the next 4-8 years) either believes it or believes it still has enough political milage to parrot it more is more than scary. If she believes it, then we are in a terrifying situation. If she doesn't believe it but thinks it will help her side win, then - as Chris Hayes rightfully points out - it is morally repugnant.

We need to actually detail how the next four years will resemble the last eight if McCain and Palin are elected. We need to make it clear that we can't afford four more years of this. I hate the argument that we should vote for a president based on what will potentially happen on the Supreme Court. It didn't work in 2000, it didn't work in 2004, and it probably won't work in 2008. But I really think we need to emphasize the whole host of issues with a McCain and Palin picked Court, along with McCain and Palin foreign policy and McCain and Palin domestic policy.

We also need to seriously examine the fact that so much of our money goes toward military endeavors. The West Wing taught me why the military needed more expensive items when Jack Reese broke a $400 ash tray to demonstrate how the added cost created an extra safety measure. But I think Chris Hayes is right when he says, "what's really, really frustrating is the fact there is no other area of policy and political debate in which your prescription can be to just spend 12 billion dollars a month and keep a hundred and forty thousand Americans somewhere with no definitive strategic end point." We also need to firmly examine whether or not Chris Hayes' assessment regarding McCain's foreign policy as being even more extreme than Bush's current policy is correct. Because if it is, that is also something that needs to be stressed to the American public. Yes, this man is a POW. Yes, he is a respected and respectable man. Yes, he does genuinely want to do the best by his country and for his country. But that doesn't mean that some of his policies aren't just insane, and that his vision for our future may not, in point of fact, be the vision we require to carry us toward a better and more actualized version of this great American experiment.

Stop Picking On McCain (And Obama Too)

What has really begun to frustrate me this campaign season is how often remarks made by people close to, associated with, or even only loosely associated with the candidates is somehow taken to be an indication of the candidate's own feelings and beliefs. McCain has been hit hard over the last couple of weeks, and Obama hit hard in the months before that -and that isn't even touching Hillary. 

Obama's gotten more than his fair share of hits with the nitpicks. Months ago, it was Reverend Wright. Weeks ago it was Jim Johnson. Newsweek ran a cover story about Obama's arugula incident. And this week, it is Wesley Clarke's remarks about how McCain's military service does not qualify him for the White House (and really, did anyone ever think that military service alone did?). McCain disappointed me by saying that Obama should "cut him loose". And Orson Swindle has said, "This is now about Obama, not Wesley Clarke". Why should it be about Obama? This is Clarke's opinion and Clarke's statement. It should remain wholly about Clarke and what he personally feels is necessary to run for the office of the president. But that doesn't seem to be sensationalist enough.

The newest one on the McCain front seems to be a statement made by his chief advisor, Charlie Black. In case someone lives under a rock and did not hear about it, Black said during an interview that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil "would be a big advantage to him". The media took to this like my dog takes to cheese. But there are two questions here: 1, is he wrong? Traditionally, war and defense has been seen as a Republican strong suit. Attacks or threats of attacks have oftentimes played to a Republican advantage. Maybe not so much anymore with Bush's fear mongering, especially in the last election for Senate. But if we are attacked, I can see people going with the guy who seems tougher; tougher physically, tougher mentally, and tougher on terror. But more importantly is 2: Does this really reflect on John McCain as much as the media makes out? I don't think so. I don't think anyone who has listened to the man could honestly think he would want to win due to an attack on American soil. Even among the closest of friends, there are diverging viewpoints and ideas. So why hold McCain responsible for something his aid has said?

Then there was the uproar a while ago about a McCain fundraiser being hosted by Clayton Williams after it came to light that Williams had compared rape to the weather in his unsuccessful 1990 bid for governor. Reading some of the allusions in blog posts made it sound like McCain himself had uttered the unfortunate simile. Now, it isn't as if McCain is incredible on women's rights, but the outrage that McCain would accept money from this man was a bit ridiculous given the very nature of the political process. We should be more offended that this guy can raise money. And the McCain camp did the right thing by denouncing those remarks, made nearly two decades ago, saying, "These were obviously incredibly offensive remarks that the campaign was unaware of at the time".

There have been attacks on his military service, especially in the blogosphere, with criticisms coming about McCain having signed a piece of anti-American propaganda while a POW in Vietnam. Forget that this sort of response to his torture is what has made him a vocal opponent of torture in any circumstances and has led him to say that information gained under torture cannot be trusted because "every man has his breaking point".

And there was the latest kerfuffle over McCain's remarks that he didn't know how much he last paid at the pump, because he was no longer allowed to pump his own gas. That seems like a fairly safe statement. Question: "When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost?" Answer: "I don't remember". Seems simple enough. Answers the question effectively, and even gives a reasonable answer as to why he wouldn't remember. But everyone from liberal bloggers to Keith Olbermann took issue with it. And let me just tell you that when the Washington editor of The Nation Magazine, one of the last truly independent magazines out there and unapologetically as well as uber liberal, tells you that your focus is on the wrong issue, you've got problems.

That editor, Chris Hayes (who, by the way, is pretty darn cute), brings up where the real focus should be: on the issues. While on The Countdown, Hayes said, "I actually think that at a certain level, he's right. It doesn't matter. I mean, this authenticity competition we have every four years about which president... is the most ordinary, who you want to have a beer with, is transparently ludicrous... ...I don't care if he hasn't pumped gas in a year or 2 years or 5 years. What I care about is that he has some vision for an energy policy that isn't going to be so beholden to energy companies, that isn't going to be so beholden to fossil fuels".

And that is it, then, isn't it? The media should be focusing on that sort of substantial reporting: Does McCain (or Obama) have a comprehensive, workable, and positive policy on energy? Does he have one on health care? On women's rights? On taxation? On what to do about the war in Iraq? These organizations need to stop nitpicking the issues and incidents that, in the grand scheme of a political election, mean nothing and start focusing on the things that do. Because all it does is make them look foolish, and doesn't really say anything about either politician, or what good or ill they will do the nation as a whole.