Like radio waves reaching earth from some cosmic calamity millennia ago, the yarbling of Hillary Clinton sycophants who believe that her candidacy was gang banged into extinction by the mainstream media, right-wing bloggers and Barack Obama acolytes can be faintly heard, although it is so much background noise as Clinton herself and practically everyone else who is determined to take back America link arms and march toward November.

Has it only been five days since Clinton’s extraordinarily gracious concession speech? It seems like light years in this corner of the universe where the political landscape changes by the news cycle, and yet some diehards just can’t seem to face up to the reality that the fancy evening gowns they bought so they could dance the night away with Bill and Hill at her inaugural balls will have to be returned.

The most obnoxious of these diehards claim that their refusal to turn the page, let alone return their dresses, is a sign of gender solidarity, while the most extreme of the obnoxious howl that for good measure they will vote for Mr. McCain or not at all, even though that would improve the chances that it will be John and the woman he has referred to by the four-letter name for her sex organ might be tripping the light fantastic come the evening of January 20, 2009.

But come to think of it, how many old-line feminists have acted so ignobly in their lust to coronate the first woman president on their terms? Probably not as many as I think; it’s just that some of them have been outrageously outspoken:

Read the rest of this entry »

She and Ann Coulter should go on the road together.

From Blue Ohioan:

Leftwing Limbaughs

This is what I’m talking about:

“The Clinton campaign describes Hillary’s voters as older, white, and undereducated. Or as we called them in my neighborhood: white trash.”
–Randi Rhodes

How can this kind of s**t from those in the tank for Obama possibly be good for the Democratic party?

[asterisks added by me]

See here for my previous rant against Randi Rhodes.

See also MyDD on Rhodes’ latest.

Campaign 2008 has now claimed its first talk show host for going over the line: Air America talk show host Randi Rhodes, who was suspended from the progressive talk radio network after using expletives to describe Democrats Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro at a meeting of station affiliates, has reportedly quit the network.

Now the scramble among reporters will be to find out if she did indeed quit, was encouraged to resign, or just had enough and decided to leave the struggling network.

UPDATE: The Huffington Post offers new details. Here’s a key part of it:

The Huffington Post has learned that Randi Rhodes quit Air America after being asked by the network to apologize for her inflammatory remarks against Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.

A source at Air America, who asked to remain anonymous, said, “Many people screw up and then apologize and move on. Like Imus. Like David Shuster. Like Jay Rockefeller on McCain. Like Obama on Rezko. Like Hillary on Bosnia. Randi Rhodes refused to apologize for her obscene comments and has chosen instead to terminate her relationship with Air America.”

The source also said that there is no love lost between Rhodes and her colleagues at the network. “No one is upset. She made the move but there’s relief and joy.”

The official statement on the Air America website says this:

Last week Air America suspended Randi Rhodes for abusive, obscene language at a recent public appearance in San Francisco which was sponsored by an Air America affiliate station.

Air America Media was informed last night by Ms. Rhodes that she has chosen to terminate her employment with the company.

We wish her well and thank her for past services to Air America. We will soon announce exciting new talent.

Radio Ink notes that Rhodes is likely to land somewhere else rather quickly:

But Rhodes may not be off the air for long: On the KKGN website, PD John Scott had early word of Rhodes’ AAR exit and says, “We are bringing her back.” Scott says that on Monday, April 14, “it will be our pleasure to announce the return of Randi Rhodes to the Green 960 family.” Whether that return will be with KKGN itself or through a new syndication deal is yet to be determined.

Here’s the link to the San Francisco based station’s short post which now reads:

“We have been very frustrated the past few days in our efforts to rectify the Randi Rhodes Situation (her suspension by her network, Air America Radio). It is our understanding that today (April 9th) she is no longer an employee of Air America. So we are bringing her back.”

Monday, April 14th at 4pm… it will be our pleasure to announce the return of Randi Rhodes to the Green 960 family.

Be sure to read our previous post which put Rhodes’ suspension in perspective.

What’s most notable about this incident is that it shows that there is a line that can’t be crossed — particularly in a divisive election year.

Vigorous, even controversial discussions or characterizations could spark denunciations but aren’t on the same level as name-calling swearing (even if, as some argued, it was done to be funny or even satirical).

It also underscores the changing nature of Air America, which started out as a company in which progressives had great hope that they could challenge the conservative talk radio’s dominance in the marketplace or, at the very least, checkmate it.. The company has since had problems, reorganized, and was sold. Its present programming is not quite as far to the left as it had been when it debuted amid great fanfare.

Also: given its need to carve out cohesive progressive audiences, Air America could not afford to alienate Hillary Clinton supporters en-masse. Did that play a factor in the suspension and — if it turns out she was actually fired - -departure?

More details will come out via reports — and most certainly via Rhodes herself.

Was there a genuine impasse? Was she basically forced to quit? Or did she simply feel Air America didn’t back her and wanted to move on? Will she be picked up by the same company that syndicates progressive talkers Ed Schultz (who himself created controversy by calling Senator John McCain a warmonger, but that wasn’t quite on the same level as Rhodes’ problem) and Stephanie Miller? Or is she fated to be a local host or syndicated by a lower-profile company?

Stay tuned. Literally.

NOTE THE UPDATE: It sounds as if she was given an ultimatum — apologize or leave so she left. But Rhodes will most certainly have more to say about this at a later date.

We’ve said it before and we will say it again: some (but not all) of liberal and conservative talk radio is seemingly merging now into one big blur of partisan and intra-party demonization — and host and caller rage — that has little to do with political discussion or even show biz: and here, in the middle of Campaign 2008, we now see a glaring example of this in the suspension of Air America talk show host Randi Rhodes.

No, it wasn’t on the air…but it’s a symptomatic extension of the push-the-envelope, ratchet up the political rage talk show radio culture:

Air America radio has suspended talk show host Randi Rhodes for what has been described as an appalling rant against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro.

Rhodes used obscene language in her choice remarks during a March 22 appearance in San Francisco, sponsored by an Air America affiliate station. In a statement issued on the liberal radio network’s Web site, Air America chairman Charlie Kireker said that kind of salty talk has no place in the political dialogue.

“Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our hosts,” reads the statement by Kireker, issued on Thursday.

What did she actually say? Basically, she used a word that suggested Clinton and Ferraro are in the same class as the high priced ladies resigned New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer used to hang around with.

The Moderate Voice adheres to “newspaper standards” on language (although we occasionally slip). So we’ll pass on embedding the &%@$!-mouthed You Tube, but you can watch it yourself HERE. Enjoy.

There are comical — and quite serious — aspects to this story and what it reflects.
Read the rest of this entry »

Don’t take politics TOO seriously, enjoy it with the Capitol Steps!

TUNE IN your radio to these fine public radio stations for the April Fool’s Day edition of “Politics Takes a Holiday”

Resigned Clinton campaign official and former Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro on Democratic Senator Barack Obama:

“The enthusiasm that you get from the black community on this black candidate is wonderful, and I don’t think you can deny it.”

Slate’s Mickey Kaus boldly but carelessly suggests Geraldine Ferraro was right. In setting up his argument, Kaus accuses Obama-booster Andrew Sullivan of uttering the same sentiments as Ferraro in Sullivan’s essay, “Goodbye to All That.” Here are Sullivan’s words, via my excerpt of Kaus’ excerpt:

What does [Obama] offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan …

Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

OK. Now, here’s what Ferraro said:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

The difference couldn’t be more stark. Sullivan claims that after Obama wins the White House, the global impressions of his ethnicity would punctuate a powerful message. Ferraro claims that Obama has a chance of winning the White House because of his ethnicity. Sullivan speaks of the potential international recognition Americans would earn if they ignore ethnicity in their votes. Ferraro speaks of Americans being fixated on ethnicity in their votes. Sullivan’s argument is prospective, i.e., ethnicity is not central to Obama’s qualifications for the White House, but a potentially valuable asset once he is there. Ferraro’s argument is retrospective, i.e., an equally articulate and capable white man would not have gotten this far.

In other words, yes, ethnicity is inseparably part of who Obama is, but its power is a symbolic power, not a requisite power. Sullivan acknowledges the symbol. Ferraro makes it the root definition of the man.

The tactic is now well tested: A Hillary Clinton surrogate spouts something over the top and typically race laced about Barack Obama, Clinton looks the other way for a few days while the surrogate’s snark percolates in the media, and then when enough mud has stuck, she belatedly issues a statement of regret, repudiation and rejection.

And so it was yet again with L’affaire Ferraro.

In a campaign when the news keeps coming 24/7, nearly a week transpired from the time that Geraldine Ferraro did a pretty fair Archie Bunker imitation in claiming in an interview that Obama had gotten to where he is because he is black until Clinton finally distanced herself from the reprehensible remark. In the meantime, the news media was aboil with the story, which the unrepentant 1984 Democratic vice presidential candidate calculatedly kept ratcheting up.

Ferraro has now resigned from a position on Clinton’s finance committee but will keep on bloviating in the finest Gloria Steinem style about how unfair it is that a black man is upstaging the first serious White House run by a woman, Amazingly, Ferraro now claims that she is being criticized because she is white. (The victimhood thing is really getting old, gals.)

Meanwhile, a far younger and I daresay worldly-wiser woman, Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power, also did the resignation thing last week after calling Clinton “a monster” in what was supposed to be an off-the-record interview, but at least apologized on her way out the door.

There is a default position for the serial attacks that Clinton’s posse keep making against Obama with numbing regularity, but it makes her look just as bad: She just can’t seem to control her husband and other surrogates. If that is the case — and it isn’t since she could have made it absolutely clear at any point that such attacks are off-limits — what does that say about her claims that she has the managerial cred and experience to lead America?

I had a modicum of respect for Clinton coming into the campaign. I believed that she has been a not bad senator and while not my first choice, would be a not bad president. And Obama is certainly fair game insofar as whether he has what it takes when the red phone rings at 3 a.m., but not because he happens to be an African-American.

So it breaks my heart to say that while Power’s characterization was impolitic, she was right: Clinton is a monster.

Clinton is a monster who will tacitly approve any comment short of using the N-word that focuses unwanted attention on Obama. And she will employ any tactic necessary no matter how obscene or divisive in her lust for a nomination that seems to slip further from her slimy grasp with every passing day.

Clinton is a monster and that is truly horrifying when you consider the monstrosities that we have had to endure through over the last seven-plus years.

And you know what? Clinton’s monster mash just might work. She could conceivably slither her way to the nomination and then on to the promised land that eluded Ferraro and Walter Mondale 24 years ago through attacks that arouse the racist underbelly of American society followed by belated apologies. Do you think it’s an accident that so many hard-core conservative Republicans have been limbaughing over and voting for her in open primaries?

The beauty of this ugliness is that each time it is unleashed it is incumbent on Obama to fire back. And each time he fires back the focus shifts away from his message and what the campaign should be all about to his blackness.

Monstrously scary, isn’t it?

Senator Hillary Clinton has apologized to black voters due to the controversy surrounding the widely-condemned comments of now-resigned unapologetic campaign official Geraldine Ferraro, who basically said Obama is where he is because he is black.

News reports say Clinton’s speech was an uncharacteristically long and heartfelt apology.

But some are bound to note that it once again shoves the issue of Obama as an African-American into the news cycle. There have been accusations that this is why there have been so many instances of Clinton campaign associates raising the issue, then apologizing and resigning: to raise the issue and keep it in the news cycle. Either that or it’s an issue they simply can’t help hinting at or– in Ferraro’s case — all but discussing it complete with Al Gore-style slide show.

The New York senator, who is in a tight race with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, struck several sorry notes at an evening forum sponsored by the National Newspaper Publishers Association, a group of more than 200 black community newspapers across the country.

Her biggest apology came in response to a question about comments by her husband, Bill Clinton, after the South Carolina primary, which Obama won handily. Bill Clinton said Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina when he ran for president in 1984 and 1988, a comment many viewed as belittling Obama’s success.

“I want to put that in context. You know I am sorry if anyone was offended. It was certainly not meant in any way to be offensive,” Hillary Clinton said. “We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama.”

“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,” she said, acknowledging that whoever wins the nomination will have to heal the wounds of a bruising, historic contest.

“Once one of us has the nomination there will be a great effort to unify the Democratic party and we will do so, because, remember I have a lot of supporters who have voted for me in very large numbers and I would expect them to support Senator Obama if he were the nominee,” she said.

She also said this about Ferraro:

“I said yesterday that I rejected what she said and I certainly do repudiate it. I regret deeply that it was said obviously she doesn’t speak for the campaign, she doesn’t speak for any of my positions. And she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee.”

Too little, too late? Perhaps.

Particularly because Clinton’s own initial response to Ferraro was not pleasing to those outraged by the former Vice Presidential candidate’s comments.

It has now gotten to the point the point where you want to ask:

What is IN their water?…Is foot and mouth disease going around?…First Bill Clinton, now Ferraro: are two key Democrats intent on destroying their legacies?…If it’s a mistake and this is how the campaign is managed, how would a Clinton White House look?…Wasn’t there a time when Democrats of all persuasions lambasted, rejected and condemned the divide-and-rule politics practiced effectively by Karl Rove– and said Democrats would never campaign that way?

Add the begrudging, I-don’t-take-back-a-syllable resignation of Geraldine Ferraro to the growing list of Clinton campaign related incidents of the race card coming up…lingering in the air…followed by perfunctory Clinton campaign denunciations…and then a resignation.

A resignation that occurs after the controversy has been all over the media, consumed the blogosphere, provided great stand up interviews for morning news and cable news networks. And lingered. Raised as an issue. Memorably.

The REAL QUESTION now is: if you don’t think there is at least the appearance now of either some kind of a pattern or a serious lack of control of the Clinton campaign (why was Ferraro defended and/or not immediately bounced for the campaign as Obama’s “monster” aide was?) then precisely from what turnip truck did you fall off?

The upside for the Clinton side: this controversy these controversies suggest Obama is a black guy running for President. Obama has campaigned as a guy running for President who happens to be black. That is the difference and many Americans accept it.

But not Ferraro. In an apparent legacy-destroying race with former President Bill Clinton so that her name is associated with raising the race card, she resigned from Clinton’s staff defending her comments and painting Hillary Clinton as the TRUE victim. Just read the New York Times:

Geraldine A. Ferraro resigned Wednesday from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign finance committee but remained unapologetic for citing Senator Barack Obama’s race as the decisive factor in his success.

“I feel terrible for the fact that Hillary is stuck in this thing,” Ms. Ferraro said in an interview Wednesday night. “Why put her in that position?”

Ms. Ferraro said that she was not asked by anyone in the Clinton campaign to leave the committee but that she did it on her own, sending an e-mail message to the senator’s campaign Wednesday afternoon, as the political dust-up over remarks she made last week went into its second day.

Words continued to fly back and forth as the Obama campaign called on Mrs. Clinton to repudiate the remarks, Ms. Ferraro said they had been distorted, and Mr. Obama said they were “absurd.”

Ms. Ferraro, who said she and Mrs. Clinton had not discussed the matter directly, will continue to support the senator.

“I am stepping down from your finance committee,” she wrote, “so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what’s at stake in this campaign. The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won’t let that happen.”

CORRECTION: She is talking about TWO victims.

And how was the Clinton team reacting through all of this? Newsbusters has this interesting tidbit from Newsweek’s Howard Fineman talking to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC:

HOWARD FINEMAN: It’s clear to me the Clinton people aren’t going to back down. As you saw, they sent Maggie Williams out with a statement to defend Geraldine Ferraro who’s defending herself. So this is the fight the Clintons want, the way they want to fight it.

(Olbermann for the first time did a Special Comment against a Democrat condemning Ferraro and the Clinton campaign, although MSNBC is now viewed by Clinton supporters as the Obama network so he is not perceived as a neutral observer and his outraged Special Comments are now a fixture. Video here and here. Here is the TEXT.)

Hillary Clinton’s initial response was one that is likely to displease not just Obama supporters, but any voters who believe the race card needs to be torn up when it’s raised and immediately condemned without political qualifiers or an attempt to switch the issue.

Mrs. Clinton, saying she did not agree with the comments, called it “regrettable that any of our supporters — on both sides because we both have this experience — say things that kind of veer off into the personal.”

The boldfaced words are what will scuttle the impact of her comments — as well as the use “regrettable” — which sounds like something written by a diplomat or a corporation trying to escape legal liability after people died using its products.

NOTE TO MRS. CLINTON: Many independent voters will either stay home, vote for a third party candidate for vote for John McCain rather than vote for a campaign that is an increasing medley of negativity, racial innuendo and personal attacks rather than a discussion of the serious issues. And if the nomination is won with tactics such as this, many Democrats wills stay home. If you win? With so many bitter feelings, count on a one term Presidency.

Here’s how the media is playing and reporting the resignation:

Read the rest of this entry »