This could really hurt Al Gore. *crickets*
Update: So much for my powers of prognostication:
.38% in 2004.
I could get .38%.
Oh, snap! That’s gonna leave a mark.
Ok, so I missed the midweek linkfarm–my apologies once again. Feel free to sock it to me one time in comments. Oh, and go show the one Melissa M. some love–that teaspoon don’t shine itself, dig?
Saying Nothing Charmingly: Chelsea Clinton at UTA
A Creative Revolution: A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves
A Secret Chord: Headscarf Trees in the Misogyny Forest
Alaya Dawn Johnson @ The Angry Black Woman: “The personal history of the author is tangential at best” (must read)
Racialicious: Not Woman Enough
All About Race: We is us.
Creekside: So stick another ribbon on your H-o-C…
Official Shrub.com Blog: The double standard: “Doesn’t that perpetuate sexism?”
brown rab fish girl: Words, Lentils, Dates, Pork
Unrepentant Old Hippie: Kosovo pisses off lifesite
I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24, because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition; they didn’t have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. Now that’s a consequence of bad judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now who’s going to show the judgment to lead.
Dan Rather The Associated Press The New Republic Barack Obama is so lying! We measured the margins! Times New Roman font!!11 Jamail Hussein!!1 SCOTT FUCKING BEAUCHAMP!!111″
(click the prairie dog for the real fact check courtesy Jake Tapper @ Political Punch)
Sez (Iraq veteran) Phil Carter:
I talked this morning with two friends who led rifle platoons in Afghanistan. Both confirmed to me that they did, at times, use captured or found weapons or ammunition. One relayed the story of mounting a Soviet 12.7mm heavy machine gun (the equivalent of a U.S. .50 caliber machine gun) on his HMMWV because it was too difficult to get the spare parts needed to fix their G.I. (government issue) .50 cal. Another told me his platoon carried AKs anytime they patrolled with their Afghan counterparts, and that it was always much easier to get 7.62mm ammo for the AKs than to go through the U.S. bureaucracy for ammunition requisition. These stories are timeless; you’ll see similar ones in the narratives from WWII, Korea and Vietnam vets too. Anyone who’s dealt with the Army supply system – particularly at the pointy end of the spear – ought to be able to sympathize.
In light of my experience in Iraq, Sen. Obama’s comments last night are eminently believable. Sen. Obama is also absolutely right to use this anecdote as a critique of the administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq. It is incontrovertible that the war in Iraq diverted scarce military resources (manpower, equipment, etc.) from Afghanistan to Iraq. The cost for that diversion was paid by America’s sons and daughters, and our Afghan brethren, who continue to fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We owe our troops better.
John Cole FTW: “Seriously, is there a more useless bunch of douchebags than these right-wing hacks?”
I know the question was rhetorical, but, no, John, there isn’t a more useless bunch of douchebags than these rightwing hacks. Simple answers…
“We’ll find this mysterious so-called ‘Captain’ and his so-called ‘platoon’ if it’s the last thing we do!”
Chris Hedges on “secular fundamentalism” and creeping fascism.
This is definitely not a credible source. First of all, the website is called “bastard.logic.” Secondly, their news headline is “Obama ‘bout ta pop a cap in jeff Zeleny’s Azz!” It seems to be a personal blog, and apart from using a lot of profanity and slang, it also is full of typo’s [sic]. Furthemore, it lacks any credible outside sources.
If you’ll excuse me, I’ll be off in the corner crying alongside the folks @ Talking Points Memo (who apparently get no quarter re: credibility, despite winning a Polk Award earlier this week).
The truth, though disappointing from the point of view of journalism, is that the most promising humanitarian elements of foreign policy tend to be the boring ones. Timely and effective diplomacy can often avert humanitarian catastrophes before they break out at much lower cost than coercive force can end them once they’ve started. And the U.N.’s traditional peacekeeping operations, where parties to a conflict request third-party troops to help monitor and enforce a peace deal, have a solid track record of success but are perennially under-resourced by an indifferent United States. Greater commitment — political, financial, and (when appropriate) military — to these kinds of operations would bring much larger humanitarian benefits than would any hypothetic humanitarian wars.
– Matthew Yglesias, Kosovo and the Rise of the Humanitarian Hawks
The theramin hook alone kicks this one into the ‘win’ column.
As Rush and the rest of the rebellious right do a 180 by rallying ’round the Maverick (nothing says “common cause” quite like hatin’ on teh librul Grey Lady), Greg Sargent conducts a little thought experiment:
Let’s take the meat of the big New York Times story and substitute the words “Dem Presidential Hopeful” for “John McCain”:
Early in Senator Dem Presidential Hopeful’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
When news organizations reported that Mr. Dem Presidential Hopeful had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.
Mr. Dem Presidential Hopeful, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. Dem Presidential Hopeful led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
If these words had appeared on the front page of The New York Times, wouldn’t we all be yelling and stamping our feet about “panty sniffing” and condemning the use of anonymous sources who suggest a possible affair that may or may not have happened and wasn’t directly alleged by anyone?
That’s a sincere question. Wouldn’t we?
Conversely, would the wingnuts be circling the wagons in the name of journalistic integrity? IOKIYAR, natch. Regardless, even if there’s no substance to allegations of sexual impropriety, Stephen Bainbridge wonders if the “values” wing will eventually grow tired of GOP relativism:
The social conservatives in the base already have problems with McCain. Don’t you think that someday that part of the base is going to get tired of the “values” party being led by divorced womanizers?
Now that is a sincere question.
[W]hy can’t the press hit the man over his support for torture, his myopic views on the war on terror, his flipness about bombing other countries, or his campaign finance hustling? Why is it that only by cheating on your spouse can an American politician dishonor themselves?