I heard Contessa Brewer use the word "props" on air yesterday. I felt so embarrassed for her. It was like a geeky high school girl trying to look cool but failing miserably.
Yeah I know. I've been called a xenophobe, racist, and bigot. Bring it on. I'm still for closing that f*cking border fence.
Well, David Shuster has been suspended from MSNBC ... http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080007?f=h_top But I doubt that's gonna end it.
Obama should agree to clinton's proposal to debate once a week . . . . . . . . . exclusively on MSNBC. I guess he should sit for a bit. If you are going to be a journalist covering presidential politics, you shouldn't be using any form of slang. It's not really in the style book, is it? Still, part of me believes that this installment of clinton martyrdom again exposes the generational gap that is forming. I guess when the candidate herself tells her supporters to "party hearty" after NH, it is not surprising that they might not fully grasp how certain terminology has evolved since the golden era of leisure suits. This is yet another example of where team clinton reminds me more and more of the bushes. Instead of allowing the substance to be addressed, you attack the hell out of the evil media. Shuster's point was at least worth a few moments of discussion. It is one thing for family members to be out stumping for their wife, mother, husband, father. Calling super delegates seems a bit odd to me. It doesn't really matter as that will be forever lost in the godless, heartless comments of a mad man.
Fair enough, but then candidates' offspring like Mary Cheney and the fabulous Romney Brothers must be held to the same standard. It would be one thing if Obama was taking his kids (how old are they? Under 10, right?) and thrusting them into the spotlight a la Santorum, but by and large the adult offspring of the candidates who work for them should be as much off-limits as any other campaign workers, unless they step out. Chelsea Clinton did nothing more than anyone else in her position and she certainly didn't deserve to get called a whore for it.
Yes and no. I think it's very common for adult children to stump for their parents. Shuster's specific question concerned children of candidates chatting up super-delegates. I don't know if that's actually that common, but I'm not convinced there's anything particularly objectionable about it either.
I think the implication was more that her mother is an ex-Soviet bloc mobster brutally forcing her to work as a sex slave.
I guess this is the question. Do other campaigns have their children calling superdelegates? I'm asking because I honestly don't know. It does not sound like an appropriate practice to me but if everyone is doing it . . . . Like everything else involving the clintons, however, they just push the envelope of fair play and then get all sanctimonious about it later. "Bill is just a passionate spouse like all of the others." Bullshit. Bill was out there as an attack dog and playing slight of hand with racial politics. You don't see other spouses doing anything remotely close. The other day, Chelsea was handing out donuts and coffee to campaign workers. Swell. That is appropriate as she stumps for her mom. Personal calls to superdelegates? I'm not so sure. I think it is a safe assumption that the bush or kerry girls were not filling similar roles. Then again, this is brought to you by the same campaign that will take your money and then sell your name to tele-marketers, so who the hell can be surprised. I don't think it is humanly possible for her, BUT if Hillary could have broken away from clinton politics as usual and simply ran like the other campaigns she would have done very well and probably would have won over a lot of people to her side as well. I keep going back to it, but I said at the beginning that I would be happy to support her if she won the nomination. Now -- assuming my brain could convince my hand to actually blacken the oval -- I would likely vote for her while throwing up in my mouth. Contrary to what people think, its not that I "hate" her. I don't. she actually seems engaging when she is not trying to fill the latest poll-tested image. I hate the idea of 8 more years of government as usual and divisiveness and scandal that will surely follow. It's depressing. Will she get health care done? probably. Will there be some shifts in policy from the current government. Surely. Still, despite her protestations to the contrary, there will be no change. The lobbyists will just change their stripes to blue and we will see incremental policy shifts to the better to the extent that democrats are placated. Would Obama be different. Absolutely. Will government change in the way that I want it to? That is a tall order and yes it is based on hope, but its a damn site better than the alternatives that are out there.
The Bush girls were teenagers or college kids during both elections. The Kerry did absolutely did sit in on their father's strategy sessions and do more besides. And what about Mary Cheney? Who was an active strategist in her father's campaign? Or her sister, Elizabeth who injected partizan politics into the State Dept during her tenure as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State? There's lots that the Clintons have done wrong, but it's blinkered in the extreme to hold Chelsea Clinton to a standard that no other candidate's offspring has been held. And again, absent screwing up, why is it a problem for Chelsea Clinton to do i) what any other campaign worker would do and ii) what any other offspring have done heretofore? iii) what, indeed, is the sin in calling superdelegates? Are they somehow sacrosanct? That only the holiest of the holies can look them directly in the eye? Furthermore, no superdelegate has complained and no one has alleged or proven any impropriety in doing so. And Chelsea handing out coffee and donuts? Emm, she's worked for McKinsey and now for a hedge fund. I would think that those jobs allied to her degree from Stanford just might make her more qualified to hand out coffee and donuts. Criticize the Clintons for their other sins and peccadillos, but this is nothing more than hypocrisy to go after Chelsea Clinton for helping her mother get elected. This criticism is nothing more than that of John Derbyshire writing in the National Review, "I hate Chelsea Clinton because she is a Clinton", and "Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint."