My American friends, the American president America has been waiting for...in America

I know what you're asking: "Sweet Jesus, doesn't it hurt when McCain's turkey wattles get all knotted up in his tie like that?" Or maybe, "Good Lord, how did McCain get Romney to mimic Nancy Reagan's vacuous, adoring, puppy-dog gaze with such disquieting accuracy?"

Sporting neither wattles nor ties, I can't respond to the first conjecture. But I know the source of the second: It's the Magnetic Maverick Mesmerizing Effect, my friends. And if it can turn the entire press corps into McCain's willing love slaves, can we really expect the Mittster to resist?

Anyway, the former rivals were stumping together in Utah, Romney generously lending his cred among the magical undie set and perhaps angling for a VP slot. True, the pair went all Tonya Harding on each other in Florida a few months ago. But everything is forgiven now. And since McCain is on record admitting his abject ignorance on the suddenly pressing topic of the economy, he could use a dude with some financial mojo on the ticket. At least Romney had the good sense to be born rich and stay that way.

McCain's new ad

If McCain wins the general election (god forbid), he needs to immediately go find the surviving members of the Vietnamese propaganda production crew who so tirelessly documented his POW interrogation sessions and offer them important cabinet posts -- because he will owe his election to them. Has he made an ad that didn't feature a clip from the Vietnamese propaganda workshop? Here's the latest:

Notice the deft lifting of both Obama's and Clinton's campaign taglines: the change we've been waiting for, and the readiness on Day One. If Bush the Elder and Bush the Sniveling, Bed-Wetting Chickenhawk Younger are known respectively as Bush 41 and Bush 43 (they actually have matching jackets identifying them as such -- I shit you not), McCain should be called Bush 44.

He offers almost nothing new -- more economic mismanagement in the service of keeping the dough rolling in for the very rich (also known as the Bush tax cuts, which McCain originally opposed but now promises to make permanent) and staying in Iraq on Day One and forever, as Bush advocates. The only thing he does offer that's in any way novel is a compelling personal biography.

Sadly, that may be enough in a country that routinely elects presidents on the basis of whether or not the citizens think the candidate would be fun to have a beer with -- even if he's a tee-totaling faux cowboy who was actually a former prep school cheerleader rather than the Jolly Rancher he pretends to be.

Denounce and reject

None of this is lost on the Repubican National Committee, which, while venal, is not stupid. They've been telegraphing their strategy lately, which is to milk McCain's Super American Hero and Patriot cred for all it's worth and use it as a shield to deflect legitimate criticism of McCain the politician. That explains their overheated reaction to this statement from Howard Dean:

"While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real
leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t
understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100
years," Dean said.

This prompted an RNC attack Chihuahua to go into high dudgeon mode, complete with Orwellian calls for denunciations of Dean from both Obama and Clinton:

RNC Deputy Chairman Frank Donatelli called the comment a "character smear,"
and said they are the "latest in what has become a troubling pattern where the
chairman of the national party has questioned Senator McCain’s character and
integrity."

"Howard Dean owes John McCain an immediate apology and both Senators
Clinton and Obama should unequivocally denounce this disgraceful attack,"
Donatelli added.

That's a bit rich coming from a party that has orchestrated electoral victories for a series of chickhawk Republicans by smearing the honor, integrity, service records and patriotism of Democrats like John Kerry and Max Cleland, who failed to use their daddies' connections to help them sit out Vietnam. Luckily, DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney was not cowed:

"Clearly the RNC recognizes that the biggest threat to John McCain, as we
heard loud and clear from voters in our recent focus groups, is the damage he
inflicted on his 'independent' image and reputation for 'straight talk' by
shifting his positions to make them more acceptable to the right wing of the
Republican Party," she said.

"The truth is that most Americans would likely agree that while we honor
Senator McCain's service, America cannot afford another Bush Republican who
doesn't understand the economy and who wants to keep our troops in Iraq for up
to 100 years," she added.

You go, girl. I hope Dean's remarks and Ms. Finney's salvo are a sign of things to come -- an indication of a new unwillingness to let the GOP and the love-struck press corp frame the terms of the debate. Either we continue taking it right to the bastards as Dean and Finney did, or we'll be road-kill under the tires of the Straight Talk Express, my friends. The choice is ours.

Baghdad Bush

Concerned about the recent turn of events in Iraq? Turn that frown upside down, you silly old worry-warts! The bombings, kidnappings and spiraling violence are proof that the surge is working! Or so said our preznit during a speech yesterday at the US Airforce Museum. Let's use the Media Reality-O-Meter to translate, shall we?

Bush: "Normalcy is returning back to Iraq."

Reality: Baghdad was on virtual lockdown Friday as a tough new curfew ordered everyone off the streets of the Iraqi capital and five other cities until 5 p.m. Sunday.

Bush: "The surge has opened the door to strategic victory."

Reality: That restriction didn't stop someone from firing rockets and mortar rounds into the capital's heavily fortified International Zone, commonly known as the Green Zone. One slammed into the office of one of Iraq's vice presidents, Tareq al-Hashemi, killing two guards.

Bush: "When it takes time for Iraqis to reach agreement, it is not 'foot-dragging,' as one senator described it. They're striving to build a modern democracy..."

Reality: A special session of the 275-seat Iraqi parliament convened Friday to discuss ways to stem the violence but fell far short of a quorum, blocking lawmakers from taking action.

Bush: "I would say this is a defining moment in the history of Iraq. There have been other defining moments up to now, but this is a defining moment, as well. This is a good test for them. I'm confident we can succeed unless we lose our nerve."

Reality: The Washington Post reported Friday that U.S. troops appeared to be taking the lead in the fighting in the Baghdad slum of Sadr City, with Iraqi army and police units largely remaining on the outskirts.

Has anyone been this delusional about events in Iraq since the former Information Minister, good ole Baghdad Bob? Truly, the mind reels...

Fucking morons

This story makes me mad enough to stomp Easter bunnies:

Police are investigating an 11-year-old girl's death from an undiagnosed, treatable form of diabetes after her parents chose to pray for her rather than take her to a doctor.

An autopsy showed Madeline Neumann died Sunday from diabetic ketoacidosis, a condition that left too little insulin in her body, Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said.

She had probably been ill for about a month, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness, the chief said Wednesday, noting that he expects to complete the investigation by Friday and forward the results to the district attorney.

The girl's mother, Leilani Neumann, said the family believes in the Bible and that healing comes from God, but she said they do not belong to an organized religion or faith, are not fanatics and have nothing against doctors.

She insisted her youngest child, a wiry girl known to wear her straight brown hair in a ponytail, was in good health until recently.

"We just noticed a tiredness within the past two weeks," she said Wednesday. "And then just the day before and that day (she died), it suddenly just went to a more serious situation. We stayed fast in prayer then. We believed that she would recover. We saw signs that to us, it looked like she was recovering."

Family members elsewhere called authorities to seek help for the girl.

"My sister-in-law, she's very religious, she believes in faith instead of doctors ...," the girl's aunt told a sheriff's dispatcher Sunday afternoon in a call from California. "And she called my mother-in-law today ... and she explained to us that she believes her daughter's in a coma now and she's relying on faith."

The dispatcher got more information from the caller and asked if an
ambulance should be sent."Please," the woman replied. "I mean, she's refusing. She's going to fight it. ... We've been trying to get her to take her to the hospital for a week, a few days now."

The aunt called back with more information on the family's location, emergency logs show. Police and paramedics arrived within minutes and immediately called for an ambulance that took her to a hospital.

But less than an hour after authorities reached the home, Madeline — a bright student who left public school for home schooling this semester — was declared dead.

She is survived by her parents and three older siblings.

"We are remaining strong for our children," Leilani Neumann said. "Only our faith in God is giving us strength at this time."

The authorities are now trying to sort out whether the parents were criminally negligent and decide what to do with the surviving kids, if anything. Both questions are a big fat DUH! to me.

As for the parents, I'd like to get medieval on their stupid asses. Perhaps a public flogging followed by being dragged through a pit of broken glass, dipped in a vat of sulfuric acid, stuffed into a cannon and fired into a toxic waste dump. And when they drag their broken, lacerated bodies out of the pit and request medical assistance, I propose refusing the idiots so much as a goddamned Band-Aid and recommending that they pray on it instead. Fucking dickhead creeps.

Full Metal Pantsuit

It's true. It's all true...

Sid and Nancy

Senile old lady Nancy Reagan has endorsed doddering old fart John McCain, my friends. It's a surprise move, too, cloaked in the sort of drama that surrounded Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama. Said Nancy herself:

"Ronnie and I always waited until everything was decided and then we endorsed. Well, obviously, this is the nominee of the party."

Gee, what a courageous pair, waiting until everything was decided and all. No wonder Republicans revere such flinty-eyed, steel-in-the-backbone resolve.

As for John "Huggy Bear" McCain, he was slobberingly grateful for that ringing, brave endorsement and had high hopes for its salubrious effect:

"McCain said he hopes the endorsement brings the fractured party together and said: "This is an important, most important kind of expression of confidence in my ability to lead the party that I could have."

At the same time, a Reagan nod also could help further align him with the former president who attracted Democratic as well as Republican voters. Said McCain: "The Reagan Democrats are very important and I hope every one of them and new Democrats will be watching."

Did you hear that, Taylor Marsh? He means you. But seriously, what is up with the Reagan fetish? Why would a luke-warm nod after the nomination has long been decided be seen as such an important and potentially game-changing event?

To those for whom Reagan conjures up images of choirs of angels and hosts of seraphim heralding Morning in America, I suppose it makes perfect sense. But it seems odd to those of us who remember Reagan as an ordinary mortal (and, in my case, as a supremely crappy president -- until George W. Bush came along and redefined the term). In fact, I think it's positively creepy -- in a Tom-Cruise-Scientology-recruiting-video sorta way, as is the Cruisesque impulse to give speeches under giant portraits of dead dudes. All that's missing is the salute.

A pox on all their houses (of worship)

I have about as much use for religion as my dog has for an oboe. Possibly it's a consequence of being raised in part by Southern Baptists who compelled me (a tomboy as a youngster) to put on a scratchy dress and pointy shoes to attend church every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening, where I sat on a hard pew, fidgeting miserably and nearly perishing from ennui.

Maybe it was the lurid sermons in which the preacher (my grandfather) relished the gory details of suffering sinners roasting for all eternity in the fiery pits of hell. Or the incessant warnings that Jesus was due to part the clouds at any moment and suck all the righteous up into heaven like a celestial Oreck, leaving the sinners and non-Christians behind to battle it out at Armageddon until the earth drips with heathen blood.

An Amish farm girl at Mardi Gras

As I said, it's not for me. I know not all people experience religion like that. It comes in endless varieties, and faith communities are extremely important to billions of people. I don't get it. But I'm cool with others' participation as long as it doesn't inspire them to screw around with my kid's public school science education, oppress my gay friends or insist that I submit to male authority because I sit down to pee.

Being a heathen in the most religious industrialized country on the planet can leave one feeling a bit like an Amish farm girl on Boubon Street during Mardi Gras. It's especially disconcerting when election time rolls around and candidates compete for the coveted Most Jesus-y designation. All I really want to know is what they're gonna do to fix things like the war and the health care mess.

The pious vortex

Since I find it all bewildering, I'm used to evaluating candidates on issues and ignoring the stupefying religious nonsense they're obligated to proffer except to the extent the candidate promises to make it an issue that affects me. Republicans ostentatiously do that, having traditionally made a point of kissing Jerry Falwell's ass and promising to stock the Supreme Court with judges he'd like until the sumbitch finally dropped dead. That made their religious fealty an issue to me -- a deal breaker, in fact.

But who am I kidding? I'm not a Republican anyway, and their political kow-towing to the Hagees, Robertsons and Dobsons of the world is just one of many reasons I won't vote for the bastards. Democrats have regrettably been sucked into pious vortex too, but generally their stance has been more reasonable -- they need to establish themselves as "people of faith," but by and large, they maintain a respectable separation of church and state.

Political opportunism and hypocrisy

Not this year. Thanks to political opportunism, Obama's nutty pastor has taken center stage, and Democrats are openly wondering whether a man who vehemently disagreed with his pastor's incendiary statements is fit to hold office since he didn't walk away from the dude. Geraldine Ferraro -- can someone please stuff a gym sock in her mouth and duct-tape it in place? -- had this to say:

“To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable. Obama gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred...What (Wright) is doing is spewing that stuff out to young people and to younger people than Obama and putting it in their heads that its OK to say ‘God damn America’ and to beat up on white people.”

Okay then, let's hold all politicians to account for what their church leaders do. When will Ferraro, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and others answer for the Catholic Church's unconscionable decision to ban the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS? Shall we hold them accountable for the Pope's decision to harbor the ringleader of a child rapist protection racket in the Vatican? Does this make progressive politicians who are also Catholics objectively pro-AIDS and pro-pedophilia? Not unless you're from Planet Stupid. Or the Hillary for President campaign, apparently.

The Dog Whisperer write-in option

Unlike brave Sir Kevin of Rumproast, who occasionally confronts rabid Clintonistas mid-circle jerk in their most odious dens, I mostly shy away from Obama-haters online. For one thing, I plan to vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination, and I don't want the legions of infuriating pinheads who support her to harden my opinion against the candidate herself, causing me to do something crazy should she become the nominee, like writing in Cesar Millan.

But this hypocritical flap over the Reverend Wright thing, which Clintonistas are busily making hay of both online and in real life, is pissing me off. I'm trying to maintain my equinamity, but it's getting damned difficult.

Newsflash, Ms. Ferraro: Just about ALL religions have extremist elements, including yours. Disqualifying candidates who are affiliated -- however remotely -- with kooky clerical statements or policies would mean wholesale rejection of practically every politician. The Democrats used to know that. This is no time to forget it.

Update:

It turns out Hillary Clinton has a few skeletons rattling around her clerical closet as well. The scoop is here. Also, via Rumproast, Rev. Wright in context:

American tribalism & why Obama will most likely lose PA

In his brave speech yesterday, Barack Obama gave us a preview of what it would be like to have a president who addresses US citizens as if we were adults capable of understanding complex issues and nuance. In stark contrast to what we've been exposed to for the interminable length of the Bush administration, not only was the speaker able to assemble multi-syllabic words into coherent sentences, paragraphs and themes, he did us the honor of assuming we were able to comprehend more than bumpersticker slogans and monochromatic portrayals of us vs. them, good vs. evil.

Obama staked his entire candidacy on our ability to get it. He must have known Fox News, the National Review and Rush Limbaugh would cherry-pick his speech to pair nuggets like "Jeremiah Wright is like family to me" with clips of Wright's unhinged rants. Obama must have known Limbaugh's sole take-away from the speech would be that Obama has become "the candidate of race."

But to Limbaugh and his regrettably numerous ilk, Obama or any other black man was always the candidate of race. The speech had nothing to do with that. To the Limbaughs of the world, Donovan McNabb, Doug Williams or Vince Young will always be the black quarterback propped up by a fawning media. It doesn't matter how many playoff games they win or how many white quarterbacks they outperform. A black quarterback could win the Super Bowl single-handedly, and Limbaugh would discern affirmative action in the referees' calls. That's just how Limbaugh rolls, and nothing will ever change it. Obama knows this.

Why Obama can win Iowa but not Pennsylvania

Obama's speech was a gamble. He's betting that there are enough of us who see through the tribalistic bullshit to carry the day. Is he right? I honestly don't know. But it was a smart bet -- the only bet.

As he mentioned in the speech, the Reagan coalition was built on a foundation of racial resentment, primarily in the South, but also in the Rust Belt and other places where working class anxiety could be harnessed, channeling the tribal impulse to serve political ends. It has worked like a charm since 1980.

This was what made Reagan a politically transformative figure. Obama correctly identified Reagan as such months ago, in a statement that was widely misunderstood by some Democrats as praise for Republican ideals.

But he was right then, and he was right to take the gamble in yesterday's speech. Obama is betting that the political coalition cobbled together in 1980 is about to break apart. He may be correct. But we won't know for awhile. He'll probably lose Pennsylvania big time, and the pundits who have been so complicit in creating the deplorable state of our political discourse will parse the polls to conclude, as they did after Ohio, that working class white Democrats won't vote for Obama. They'll ponder the mystery of Obama's ability to win lily-white states like Iowa while losing Rust Belt states.

I think it's pretty simple: In the South, as in many other states, the Archie Bunker types have been Republicans for nearly 30 years now. In the Rust Belt, it's a little different. Union ties and perhaps religious tribalism still bind large numbers of bigots to the Democratic Party. I think it's as simple as that. They'll probably vote for McCain in the general, but they'll turn out in droves to take Obama down in the primary.

We'll find out in November

So it comes down to numbers: Who is more numerous among the electorate -- the Archie Bunkers and Dittoheads who want to keep our politics mired in ignorance, stupidity and tribalism, or the people who are ready to move on? Today is the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war, which has needlessly killed tens of thousands of people and wasted around half a trillion dollars to date. We surely have more important things to talk about than whose pastor is selling the most obnoxious brand of crazy.

Like Obama, I'm still hoping we're smarter than that. Given our recent history, that takes a leap of faith, and faith is something that is generally in short supply at Chez Cracker. But you know, this is why Obama's gambit may actually work -- to accomplish something great, you have to first be willing to believe it is possible.

Obama's speech

Wow. He had to hit it out of the park. He did. I've been in the tank for Obama since way before Iowa. He's the first politician who has ever received a campaign donation from cynical old me, and the first candidate I've ever been proud -- proud! -- to support. I just hope people will hear what he had to say. Off to order more bumper stickers and yard signs, even though Florida won't get a re-vote...

Why is this fool tap dancing?

Because he doesn't know how to play the fiddle.

Showing some iron

A bench-clearing brawl erupted at yesterday's spring training game between the noble Tampa Bay Rays and the odious New York Yankees. Bad blood has been simmering between the two squads for ages, and recent contests were marred by hits on batters, collisions at plates, etc.

Then yesterday, Yankees goon Shelley Duncan, who had made threats via the media that he was contemplating some type of dirty play against the Rays, slid into 2nd, clearly aiming his spikes at Ray's 2nd baseman Iwamura's wedding tackle. An honest to god melee ensued, resulting in several ejections.

Of course, Duncan was all innocence later, claiming that he meant nothing by showing the iron and that he was sorry for the subsequent brouhaha. Duncan assured everyone that he was merely trying to dislodge the ball from Iwamura's glove to make a play. Yeah, riiiiiiigggghhhht.

That reminds me of a tactic employed by another prominent New Yorker: Senator Clinton, who yesterday issued an equally insincere apology about the race flap that has been roiling the nomination process. She addressed Bill Clinton's comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson following Obama's waxing of Senator Clinton in South Carolina and the tensions that have been exacerbated by Geraldine Ferraro's inability to shut her yap. Said Clinton:

"I want to put that [Bill Clinton's dumb remark] in context. You know I am sorry if anyone was offended. It was certainly not meant in any way to be offensive. We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama."

Get it? She's not sorry her husband made a boneheaded comparison clearly intended to marginalize Obama based on his race -- she's sorry if anyone was offended by it. Moreover, she took the opportunity of the non-apology to once again put Jackson and Obama in the same box, just in case anyone missed it the first time. She continued:

"Anyone who has followed my husband's public life or my public life know very well where we have stood and what we have stood for and who we have stood with."

I think she honestly believes that. So does Ferraro, who was aghast that anyone could accuse her of uttering anything that was in the least bit racist. And really, I don't think they are racists in the classic sense. But there's an offensive subtext to their remarks which can be summed up in the following sentence: I've always been good to you people!

They aren't stupid enough to come right out and say that. But you can see those words reflected in their genuine bewilderment when confronted with their own sleazy race-baiting. And you know what? For their time, they were on the side of the angels. In the 60s and beyond, the Clintons, Ferraro, Ed Rendell, etc., did fight the good fight and stood in sharp contrast to the David Dukes and Axe-Handle Maddoxes of the world. Good for them.

But that was then, and this is now. And the twin sense of moral preening and entitlement so apparent in both Clintons and Ferraro, et al, is one of the reasons I am so hoping to never again have to vote for a professional politician who came of age in the 60s. It's time to turn the fricking page already.

Stand By Your Man

Of all the questions the Spitzer scandal raises, the one I'm most curious about is this: How on earth did Spitzer induce his wife to stand wanly by his side after he'd just revealed himself to be such a cheesy, lying, cheating weasel? You just know she'd rather be putting his nuts in the panini press right about now rather than burnishing his family man cred at the zenith of his public humiliation.

I'm a live-and-let-live kinda gal, and it generally makes no nevermind to me what a person wants to do in his or her private life. But get a load of this "marketing" piece for Spitzer's tart-purveying outfit:

We specialize in marketing fashion models, pageant winners and exquisite
students, graduates and women of successful careers (finance, art, media etc…)
to leading gentlemen of the world. Catering to clients who will not compromise
in any area of their life.

Sweet Jesus, if you want a little on the side, get a little on the side. I don't approve, but it's not my business. But wouldn't you have to be an arrogant, entitled creep to see that kind of ad and think, "Hook me up!"? Gah.

Surprise, surprise, surprise: FL Republicans want to seat Dem delegates as is

Political shenanigans are as much a part of the Florida lifestyle as giant, indestructible flying cockroaches and wizened old farts shopping in their Speedos. So it comes as absolutely no surprise that the architects of the current Democratic primary mess -- the Florida Republicans who voted to move the primary up in the first place -- are now sanctimoniously "giving voice" to the potentially disenfranchised Democrats in their midst.

Sez Governor Charlie Crist (R-Confirmed Bachelor*), in a joint statement with Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (D-Clinton Supporter):

“The right to vote is at the very foundation of our democracy. This
primary season, voters have turned out in record numbers to exercise that right,
and it is reprehensible that anyone would seek to silence the voices of
5,163,271 Americans. It is intolerable that the national political parties have
denied the citizens of Michigan and Florida their votes and voices at their
respective national conventions.

According to the DNC and RNC, Florida and Michigan have violated
party rules by moving up their primaries. Today, we each will call upon our
respective state and national party chairs to resolve this matter and to ensure
that the voters of Michigan and Florida are full participants in the formal
selection of their parties’ nominees. We must restore the rights of the more
than 5 million voters whose voices have been silenced.”

How very touching. I'm sure their concern has nothing to do with the fact that Crist, a long-time McCain supporter, knows his candidate would beat Clinton like a rented mule in the general election. And heaven knows Granholm's furrowed brow has nothing to do with the fact that she has been in the tank for Clinton from, well, Day One.

Marco Rubio (R-Concern Troll), Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and former Huckabee supporter, adds that there's just no way to pay for new primaries. Clearly all these devoted public servants are acting solely in the interests of the people of their respective states. If not, may a swarm of giant, indestructible flying cockroaches and a scrum of geezers in Speedos invade their next picnic.

* I'm stealing this designation for our first closet-case guvnah from Sinfonian. Being gay is nothing to be ashamed of, of course, but as long as Crist insists on staying in the closet and playing footsie with anti-gay bigots, he invites ridicule.

Not dead yet...

So Clinton wins in three states, by a sizable margin in Ohio. Clearly, despite the unfavorable math, her candidacy is not dead yet. Looks like this fight will drag on all the way to the convention. Is that a bad thing? Many fear a protracted battle will play right into McCain's gnarled old paws.

I think that depends entirely on the outcome of the Democratic nomination fight. If it goes on to the convention and Clinton wins by swaying the superdelegates and/or seating the FL and MI delegations as they now stand -- which appears to be the only way she can win -- we'll see a continuation of George Bush's catastrophic foreign and domestic policies under President McCain.

Obama supporters will feel like they got screwed. Some of us (me, for example) will dust ourselves off and vote for Clinton anyway. But many won't, particularly many African Americans and the newly politicized young folks who are on the Obama bandwagon. I don't think they'll vote for McCain, but they might decide to sit this one out.

However, if it goes on to the convention and Obama wins, I think in retrospect the protracted fight will be seen as a good thing. Like many pundits are pointing out, the battle is preparing Obama for what he will face when the GOP cranks up its slime machine in earnest. That's conventional wisdom. But a second, less heralded advantage is the wall-to-wall coverage this battle is getting. McCain clinched the nomination last night, and there was a collective yawn. The Democratic race is sucking up all the drama, diverting the media, however temporarily, from giving full attention to the object of their collective adoration, McCain.

The longer we can postpone the media group-grope on McCain, the better off we are. After all, the McCain-besotted media will frame the narrative. Better that they should confine that activity from late August to early November than to stage a non-stop McCain lovefest for 8 months.

Reportage for Retards

The US media sucks. I suppose that should be "the media suck" since "media" is technically a plural noun. But the point is the suckiness, which often makes me want to use a beer bong to dispatch an entire bottle of Maker's Mark in one sitting and fall into a drooling coma for a week.

The "news" part of the media sucks, concentrating so breathlessly as it does on Mutilated White Women and Celebrity Strumpet stories to the exclusion of practically everything else. An iconic American city drowned in an epic storm while an incompetent government stood idly by? Why, who cares -- Paris Hilton's naughty bits were spied on Google Earth! A nation bamboozled into an illegal war that killed tens of thousands of people and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars? No time for that -- a blond chick went missing in Aruba!

And the political coverage, sweet weeping Jesus with the squirts strapped to the roof of the Straight Talk Express, does the political coverage ever fricking suck. Out loud. With gratuitous, nasty slurping sounds.

As the estimable Kevin of RumpRoast points out, no matter which Dem wins the nomination, we progressives are not only going to have to contend with the right-wing slime machine, we'll have to overcome the press corps' slobbering devotion to the presumptive GOP nominee. The press has the most awkward and embarrassing boner since Lysistrata for cranky old fart John McCain. In addition to the hagiographic BBQ boner bonanza Kevin mentions, here's another wee sample from Time's Michael Scherer, who really should know better:

Here's one thing you need to know about John McCain. He's always been the coolest kid in school. He was the brat who racked up demerits at the Naval Academy. He was the hot dog pilot who went back to the skies weeks after almost dying in a fire on the U.S.S. Forrestal. His first wife was a model. His second wife was a rich girl, 17 years his junior. He kept himself together during years of North Vietnamese torture and solitary confinement. When he sits in the back of his campaign bus, we reporters gather like kids in the cafeteria huddling around the star quarterback. We ask him tough questions, and we try to make him slip up, but almost inevitably we come around to admiring him. He wants the challenge. He likes the give and take. He is, to put it simply, cooler than us.

My god man, get some therapy. High school was a long time ago, and you are way past the bullies who used to beat the shit out of you behind the bleachers. Even if you must think such thoughts, at least keep them to yourself. Or recuse yourself from covering the object of your puerile man-crush. It's just...embarrassing. For you and us. Please stop.

Then there's this op-ed published in Sunday's Washington Post, which airily dismisses the Obama phenomenon as so much mush-brained female foolishness:

""Women 'Falling for Obama,' " the story's headline read. Elsewhere around the country, women were falling for the presidential candidate literally. Connecticut radio talk show host Jim Vicevich has counted five separate instances in which women fainted at Obama rallies since last September. And I thought such fainting was supposed to be a relic of the sexist past, when patriarchs forced their wives and daughters to lace themselves into corsets that cut off their oxygen.

I can't help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning makes me wonder whether women -- I should say, "we women," of course -- aren't the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial. Women "are only children of a larger growth," wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right?"

Yep, five people fainting at rallies that have drawn tens of thousands -- the faintings tallied by a wingnut talk show host, no less -- that's certainly a sound basis with which to smear slightly more than half the population in a country of over 300 million.

The National Review's Kathryn Lopez, who never met a pair of jackboots she didn't want to crawl up to and lick, predictably loved it. I didn't, so I emailed a smack-down to the WaPo ombudswoman, who replied:

"I'll be writing about this Sunday."

Well, that's fine and dandy, but really, what the fuck can she possibly say to excuse their decision to publish that sexist tripe masquerading as political commentary? That the editors have been fired? Not good enough.

We're in a pickle when the New York Times and the Washington Post hand megaphones to simple-minded twits like Bill Kristol and Charlotte Allen. The entire media establishment appears to have been Coulterized, which means, of course, that democracy is in peril.

But I'd rather light a candle than curse the media darkness, so here are a few tips to rescue American reportage from the depths to which it has currently sunk:

1. When a pundit has proved he is 200% less accurate than a stopped clock on a daily basis, don't give him a job writing columns for the New York Times. Yes, I understand even a wingnut welfare case like Bill Kristol has to earn a living. However, having been stunningly, catastrophically wrong on every utterance about the Iraq war should result in some real-life consequences. The food service and cosmetics demonstration industries should remain open to Mr. Kristol. But prominent placement in the punditocracy? Not so much.
2. Don't publish columns that gratuitously insult millions of people unless you have the statistical and intellectual chops to pull it off. Ms. Allen clearly fails that test. More well-thought-out, reasoned screeds regular line the pen belonging to my daughter's guinea pig. I wouldn't deign to let the little rodent crap on Allen's missive. It sucks that much. Media, round-file that shit. The wingnuts already have Fox News to tell them that women and minorities are inferior. Don't join that chorus in some misguided impulse toward even-handedness -- lies already have a Rupert Murdoch-financed forum; your job is to give voice to the goddamned truth, okay?
3. For the love of god, stop with the gotcha bullshit an concentrate on the issues! I personally couldn't give a shit less whether or not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama know how to pronounce the name of Russia's president-elect. For fuck's sake, stop with the traps and ask questions that speak to the issues! That means you, O Great Pumpkin (head) Tim Russert.

That's all I've got. But just imagine how much more efficient and less biased the media would be if they followed the Cracker principles. A gal can dream, right?

Most Floridians DON'T want the states' delegates seated

According to Senator Clinton, Florida Democrats are just hankering to have the state's delegates seated at the convention:

"The people of [Florida and Michigan] came out and voted. If they had
been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little
campaigning, if any, they would have stayed home. But they wanted their voices
heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a
primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because
of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my
delegates to vote to seat."

"...Both the voters and elected officials in Michigan and Florida
feel so strongly about this. Senator Bill Nelson, of Florida, early on in the
process actually sued because he thinks it’s absurd on its face that 1.7 million
Democrats who eventually voted would basically be disregarded, and I agree with
him about that."

So brave Hillary Clinton is selflessly taking up the charge on our behalf. And the voter turnout was all about supporting Hillary Clinton and had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a property tax amendment -- in which property owners could vote to double their homestead exemption -- was on the ballot.

But what do Florida Democrats actually think? Less than a quarter want the Florida delegation seated as is:

• 24 percent said the DNC should seat the delegation
  
• 15 percent said the delegation shouldn't be seated
  
• 13 percent said the DNC should seat the delegation so they can vote on party decisions made at the convention, but with their votes split equally between Clinton and Obama so neither gets an advantage
  
• 28 percent said the state party should hold another vote or caucus to choose delegates eligible to be seated - an option the party has rejected, saying it would disenfranchise the voters in the primary
  
• 20 percent said don't know

I've seen very little coverage of this issue. But if the nomination battle drags on past next Tuesday, I hope more people take notice of what Floridians actually want. (Of course, the rest of the country is probably still sick to death of freaking Florida and elections anyway. I wouldn't blame them if they dug a mile-wide trench at the border, filled it up with alligators and left us...)