why didn't this run in January?

one worth asking Lizza.

did you see the cover? could it get anymore racist?

"... "[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game." ..."

I am livid, truly livid. Crude racist propoganda under color of edgy humor is not ok. serioulsy not ok.

this has consequences beyond Obama. What about the black guy who has a job interview tomorrow? or is meeting with a potential client? Or just needs to hail a cab? Ideas have consequences.

it is just sick

here you go--& there's already fauxtrage from Obama's campaign

I know the words "Irony" and "Satire" are frequently missused to rationalize stupidity and bigotry, but it's pretty clear to me that that cover is just ridiculing all the racist memes the media's thrown around about Obama. I mean the "fist jab?" That's obviously a joke. Though I could see, if someone made a cackling, big-butted harpy image of Clinton standing outside of a building labeled "Probate Court" with the same intentions, the "satire" argument probably wouldn't sit well with me. I doubt anyone at Obama's campaign or many of the people who post at HuffPo would bat an eye, however.

-- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13... --

Bush/Cheney as Oscar and Felix of Odd Couple, Ahmadinejad as Larry Craig...

"... And in retrospect, given the outcry, is he glad he made the art?

"Retrospect? Outcry?" he wrote. "The magazine just came out ten minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not..." ..."

I actually read it. Anyone else?

After thinking it over, over a sinkful of dishes, the article seems noteworthy more for what it didn't say than for what it did. Much of the Chicago background stuff was filling in details of an outline I've already seen a few times. How Obama got from law school to the state legislature was already kind of known; now we have more vivid detail of that. But Lizza doesn't attempt to go any further than that, not even really addressing the way the Senate campaign happened, let alone the Presidential one. I've just realized I don't even know how Obama came to give the speech at the 2004 convention. Is this common knowledge?

That's the biggest disappointment for me -- I don't think this rather long article really told me much I didn't already know, and the questions I still have turned out to be beyond its scope. The rather flip ending implies that the presidential stuff happened purely because of Obama's charisma, smarts, and ambition. I can't believe there isn't more to the story. Am I foily?

Then there are the things I do know that were left out, like the Rezko house-buying affair and the slumlord angle exposed in detail by the Boston Globe.

All in all, a well-written article that left me feeling that I would have been wiser to spend the time playing the fiddle.

Democrats Look to Lobbyist to Finance Convention

It was Durbin and Kerry who gave Obama the 04 spot, no?

Shouting "n****r" is ok as long as you mean it ironically.

that cover is a Earl Buzt, George Allen, disaster

Judy Black, wife of Charles Black, works with Steve Farber.

Steve Farber is as high as one gets in Denver in re lobbying power.

Hickenlooper's been the public face of 'oh, no, we don't want anyone to think we're selling access'. Guess they're replacing the peace chief with the war chief....

Mr. Farber’s firm also represents the former Liggett tobacco company and a trade group seeking to retain tax breaks for wealthy hedge fund investors.

Most recently, Mr. Farber’s firm joined forces, through mergers, with the leading law firm in Las Vegas representing gambling companies and the leading firm in Los Angeles representing water interests.

“I have my list of companies, not only my client list, but companies throughout Colorado and the Rocky Mountain region,” Mr. Farber said in a telephone interview. “We’ve got offices in Las Vegas and California, so I have clients that we can contact, and I have friends of clients that I intend to contact. And if they have given to the convention already, I try to get them to double their contribution.”

Mr. Obama’s well-publicized statements denouncing special interest money have done little to dampen Mr. Farber’s efforts. In Mr. Farber’s view, money to the convention — an issue Mr. Obama has not addressed directly — is different from money to the candidates themselves.

“The money to the convention doesn’t go to the candidates or the Democratic National Committee, but to the host committee to pay for the cost of the convention,” Mr. Farber said. “So what he has said doesn’t inhibit it.”

This ain't about local companies; he represents multinationals who perch in Colorado because of resources, regulations, or both. The NY Times article wasn't a warning; it was notice that the DNC's open for bidness.

BoG (pronounced like Bogey? Like the actor?)
Seriously, just keep pointing stuff out. Oh good, that's what we do here!

Because either 1)they know what they're doing and will admit it later (it was "just politics") or 2) they are prejudiced (against certain genders, against certain types of skin color, etc.) and we can let them know we see and object to it, narrowing the acceptable range--and maybe someday they will understand it themselves.

FrenchDoc, if we do political novels as a theme for next week's Book Review, will you write a review of "Jennifer Government" for us? I agree, an interesting book with some timely scares...

You are modest.

Perhaps you "gardin"?

Or like Chance Gardiner?

(Definitely keep your privacy!! I vote for internet privacy!)

DCBlogger, there's some discussion about racism in that piece here.

I don't think screaming RACISM is going to help the O campaign any more than the picture itself. All it does is inoculate conservative voters against any future, perhaps legitimate, accusations.

It's obvious that the depiction was meant as a look into the most fevered conservative imagination; MO is Angela Davis reborn, sworn to fighting the powers that control the awful U.S. that she's never been proud of before now, and BO is a secret Muslim, hell bent on turning the U.S. into a totalitarian Islamic State (as opposed to the Totalitarian Christian State that he's busy working on building). Remember the silly rumors that the 'fist bump' was some terrorist symbol?

Someone made a funny point, though: It would have been funnier (and perhaps more effective) had it been McCain and his wife instead of Obama.

C'mon, though: The 'Creative Class' is so sophisticated and above the usual rabble that they should understand this illustration for what it is: A portrayal of how utterly ridiculous the Right has gotten in its attempts to describe Obama to their constituents. Those who hate Obama will not be disappointed; those who love Obama will nod their heads knowingly. Those who don't get it are obviously not the kind of people Obama wants as his constituency, because they are 'unsophisticated', natch.

This cover is a complete litmus test, and it is helping to define EXACTLY who (or what) Obama's most vociferous supporters are. This outrage over this cover isn't about the color of Obama's skin; it's about the thickness of it.

might be a Henry James thing.

yeah--he's been playing that way nationally too. And it's so easy with the DNC right there.

Summary of the rules anyone?

Boston must be a weird town.

------------------------------------------------
“Just say NO! to Kool-aid.”

How could I have missed that?

You give these people credit for capabilities that I dearly wish they had. Afraid I'm unable to agree with you, as I see them more in the bumblefuck category. Not stupid people, but it does seem to me that rather than skillfully planning at multiple levels of depth and complexity they more often make things up as they go.

Did this Cabal of Prescience also foresee that Mark Penn would advise Hillary Clinton, and she would consent, that he could bring her the nomination without having to compete in every state? How far in advance did they know that? Did they know it before Hillary did?

Well before the time the primaries actually got underway, everyone knew which states were when and how many delegates were up for grabs in each. For that order of appearance to be part of some plot to shift the delegate weighting, both the states that hung back to gain bonus delegates and the states that moved up at the cost of those delegates had to be acting in concert. Were the Florida and Michigan Democratic Parties both part of the Stop Hillary movement? Wouldn't a cabal that massive and coordinated have been able to be more effective and gotten the victory wrapped up sooner?

Looking back at any complex event, patterns appear that seem to suggest coordination or collaboration where there isn't any and prescience where there was only happenstance. Much of what looks like cleverness on Obama's part actually depended upon, was driven by, Hillary's mistakes. Her screwups made him possible as much as anything else. Were they also foreseen?

I do wish that the Democratic Party heirarchy were this capable, but all the evidence available over many years argues against it. Right now it appears that they may have been so clever that they managed to turn a sure victory into a cliffhanger, maybe even a loss. Real smart bunch. I am so impressed.

Not.

Recent Democratic Convention Keynote speakers IIRC:

1976: Barbara Jordan

1980: Ted Kennedy

1984: Mario Cuomo

1988: Ann Richards (Bill Clinton gave the opening night address, for which he was roundly panned; his biggest applause line was when he said "And in conclusion...")

1992: A trio; Bill Bradley, Zell Miller, Barbara Jordan

1996: Evan Bayh

2000: Harold Ford

That would be 0/9 for Keynote speakers going on to become President, not a promising prognosticator for Barack.

And the idea that floating Obama was primarily (yes, pun) a way to grasp control of the Democratic Party (From whom? The Clintons? Were they in control when Gore or Kerry were nominated? Did they gain control after Kerry lost? How? In what way?) and that the Democratic leadership doesn't care about winning the Presidency only makes sense if you've been wearing the tinfoil hat while plugged into an electric fence.

No off-fence intended.

at least from me. I would argue that the Democratic leadership, which mostly consist of the non-Clinton block of the party like Pelosi and Dean, think they will win no matter who they put up this year. So the question becomes who benefits them most and that would be Obama. Would Dean get another term as head of the DNC under Clinton? Unlikely. But that's one of the first things announced after Obama secured the nomination. Coincidence?

They went with Obama because prior to this election he did not have his own block of power in the Democratic Party. He needed theirs. They gave it to him in order to keep their hold on power. That's politics, but to act like they sat around and made some logical, reasoned decision - when there is no evidence they did so - on what's best for the party (as opposed to themselves) is ridiculous. All you had to watch was 30 minutes of that Rules Committee to know these folks don't give a god-damn about what's best for the party. They could've arrived at the same end result (Obama as nominee) in a lot of less offensive and divisive ways, but they were more interested in putting Clinton in her place. That's the only explanation for the Michigan fiasco where they took votes away from her and counted them as Obama's. It gained him so few delegates, it was unnecessary to the end result and was one of the most divisive things they could do (even as they repeatedly screamed for Unity).

Nope, they figure they'll win in November no matter what (that's where all the "they have no where else to go" bullshit comes from) so might as well go with the guy they think they can control, who will raise them lots of money, bring in new voters, and let them no longer have to worry about the Clinton wing of the party. Whether they're right about any of that, is another matter. I tend to think the current leadership has a combined political IQ of, maybe, 35 points. But, hey, maybe they're really genuises and I'm too stupid to understand all their brilliant moves.