Obama's legislative trail

Via Andrew Sullivan, a post from Obsidian Wings about the legislation Obama worked on in the senate

Another case of Republican envy

Josh Marshall posts an item from a reader who is happy that the Clinton campaign responded forcefully to an MSNBC host's suggestion that Hillary has been "pimping out Chelsea":

Bush made sure the networks, and news media in general, knew that any disrespectful treatment of him like Bill Clinton was subjected to was going to bring results they would find very uncomfortable. That worked - of course in part it worked because the networks and media in general supported Bust no matter what he did. But, even if they don't support the next Democratic president we can't allow him or her to be treated with the dripping contempt that Bill Clinton faced. This episode was the first shot in that "war".

Does this make anybody else uncomfortable? The Democrats should be more like the Bush administration? We should freeze out the media unless they support our agenda? The press should at all times be reduced to parroting the administration's talking points?

We hate the Republicans! Let's adopt their thuggish tactics!

As usual, somebody else makes my point better than I do

An insightful blog entry from Josh Patashnik over at TNR, talking about Obama's refusal to play the game of polarized politics:

it's also true that polarization isn't ideologically neutral. As Obama recognizes, it favors conservatives--or, rather, favors a certain cynical, nihilistic strain of conservatism that wants not only to limit the size of government, but (for reasons almost passing understanding) to impair its capacity for performing even governmental functions broadly recognized as necessary. In a political system that is (appropriately) biased toward the status quo, polarization--which makes it all but impossible to develop the consensus required for any important policy change--plays into the hands of those who rejoice at the thought of a paralyzed, ineffective federal government.

This actually fits in quite well with my comparison of this year's primary with the War on Terror. Just as the administration believes that we need to fight the terrorists by becoming more like the terrorists, so some Democrats believe we need to fight Republicans by becoming more like Republicans. They champion Hillary as somebody who can fight the Republicans, who can do bare-knuckle scrapping. But the terrorists aren't troubled when we take away civil liberties and torture people--that can fit in quite well with their plans. And throwing rhetorical bombs at Republicans doesn't bother them, either--they live for the opportunity to pull out the macho bluster. And they don't mind that polarization keeps us from getting anything done.

Note that in the post, Obama says, "When I say I want to change politics, it's precisely because I want to make sure people have health care." That's the kind of person I want in office, somebody who realizes the goal of politics is not to score rhetorical points against the other side.

This would make more sense if I linked to something . . .

Here's what I've been noticing. Democrats at sites like "Washington Monthly" are criticizing Obama because he isn't attacking enough. He should be going after Hillary Clinton, going for the beat down, because his failure to do so means that he won't be able to make a convincing run during the general election.

For some reason, this reminds me of the war on terror: in order to win against the terrorists, we need to have the terrorists' disregard for human freedom and the perils of democracy. In order to defeat the terrorists, we have to become more like the terrorists.

Same thing for the election: to win against the Republicans, we have to become more like the Republicans. If we don't adopt their battering, macho, swift-boating rhetoric, we're going to lose. We'd feel better about Obama if he were just more like Giuliani.

I don't know. Gives me a bad feeling about the general election.

(Kelly Preston, dreadful as ever)

So I was reading a review of a movie here, and I came across the line "(Kelly Preston, dreadful as ever)." And I don't know why, but it's amazingly sticky. I don't know why . . . it's off-handedly snarky and kind of despicable, as if the movie reviewer has just kind of given up on the business of describing the movie, the actual work of letting the reader know what the performances are like.

Maybe that's what I like about it, the solidified misanthropic ennui. Or something.

Plus it's just kind of fun to throw about. Watch for it to show up somewhere on this blog!

A turning point?

This morning, on the way to work, I was listening to Paul Harvey reading (maybe a better word is "extruding") the news.

I don't listen to Paul Harvey, mainly because every time I've tried to in the past, he says something jingoistic or Bush-worshipping that I thonk the next station on the dial like an arrow to the apple on somebody's head. And usually that's one or two stories into the newscast.

But today I didn't change the station until the second commercial.

With regard to the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, he read a quote from somebody who had said the government has plenty of money to make sure all the roads and bridges are safe and secure. But we're sending all that money to Iraq.

Wait a minute, I thought. He's not saying it in the tone of voice that makes it clear that this congressman is an America-hating asshole. Where's the Bush love?

And then the next story is about government waste, which is along the lines of what you'd expect, but this time it's about the military having spent billions on weapons for Iraq and not being able to account for 30 percent of them.

Here's the administration's remarkable achievement: they've managed to be incompetent enough to lose Paul Harvey.

I would have sworn that he'd be a permanent part of the 24 percent of Americans who will never abandon Bush, not even if he interrupts the finale of American Idol to show America how to deep fry live puppies.

I mean, it may not be an actual turning point in perceptions of this war, but I'm amazed. Dumbfounded. Not just dumb - dumb and founded.

It would be nice if this blog had a reader or two, so I could ask, "When did this happen?" with a sliver of hope for an answer. Still, when did this happen?

What's wrong with my sexual life

In my spam filter this morning:

Make your sexual life more different and easier.

This is what's missing in my sexual life - it's too much work! All that complicated stroking and thrusting and sucking. Why can't I have maximum orgasm for minimum effort?