Those thunderthighs gotta hit at least 110 inches.
Heh. Ol' BillyJeff may have to resort to doin' some toe-tappin' in the airport cans if this continues. Or rolling nickles through some of the finest trailer parks Arkansas has to offer.
Airing a documentary about the cultural icon of the New Democrat Party definitely has its benefits. Disenfranchised Koslings may be inspired to formulate and execute a coup in Koslamistan: Storming the Gates, so to speak.
After all, with the little Kooky Kult Kommandante embracing the DNC policy of all the votes don't count, there's much to become inspired about. Especially if it's taken into consideration that it was they who helped make it possible for Kommandante Markos to line his pockets. Heh. A revolutionary keeping for himself the fruits of labor that was donated by volunteers. How incredibly . . . typical.
At the very least, they'll get a one-hour break from the epidemic of Seasonal Weather Derangement Syndrome™ that continues to run rampant throughout the reality-based community.
With a budget that big, surely she can afford a stylist? And does it matter?
[....]
It is obvious to the point of cliche that Clinton is in a trickier position in many ways than Obama: when he is emotional, he is persuasive; when she is emotional, she is betraying her feminist roots. So just as Obama can cut a dash in his slimline, clearly style-conscious suits, Clinton has to hide herself in garishly coloured squares going under the name of "jackets" [And Mao jackets at that. ed.], or else risk being dismissed as so vain that she would be too busy putting on her lipstick to respond to an international terror threat.
But is this necessarily true? One need only look at Condoleezza Rice to see that, contrary to what some might think, American voters aren't always horrified to see a woman in power who doesn't look like Eleanor Roosevelt, and Rice has to placate a far more conservative group of people than the one Clinton is meant to be wooing. Nor did Rice's appearance several years ago in US Vogue seem to harm her credibility. Clinton, on the other hand, was so fearful of such a possibility that she backed out of a shoot with the magazine at the last minute last year, provoking a diatribe from Vogue's editor, Anna Wintour. To make matters even worse for Clinton, who should appear that same month on the cover of Men's Vogue but Obama, appearing very suave and relaxed, whereas Clinton now looked as if she was neurotically focus grouping her campaign to death.
When Clinton complained in a debate just before the March 4 primaries that she "always" got the tougher time from the press, there was another clue to her personal style. It is as if Clinton - incredibly, given what her husband went through - seems to be under the impression that the media is always fair. So last year, when there was a bit of a hoo-ha in the US press about Clinton showing some cleavage, instead of dismissing it as the load of misogynistic nonsense it was, she seems to have taken this to heart and buried herself ever since in shapeless, defeminised, frequently yellow (yellow!) suits.
Of course a woman shouldn't be denied the presidency just because she can't dress well, but that is not the point with Clinton - she has always carefully tailored her style to what she thinks the electorate desires. Just look back at photographs from when Bill was elected and Hillary was wearing pleated skirts and alice bands, looking very much like a Sloane circa 1984. In short, she is doing what she thinks she should as opposed to having a splinter of courage and being true to herself. Which kinda makes you wonder what sort of leader she would be. And that, Anonymous, is why it matters.
After a weekend of campaign adversity, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband separately prodded Democratic Party leaders on Monday to look beyond mere delegate strength in picking a presidential nominee at this summer's national convention.
"I don't know that it will be an easy decision, but that's what leaders sign up for," said the former president, declaring that a candidate's ability to win a general election should be considered.
The former first lady, who trails rival Sen. Barack Obama in the delegate chase, concurred. "I think it's a question about everything and I think people are going to have to take everything into account," she told reporters.
They have, dear, and so far they're saying that they don't want you and the fat hick as part of the equation.
Made in different settings, the remarks underscore the debate roiling the Democratic Party as the primary season nears an apparently inconclusive end - while Republicans have begun to close ranks around Sen. John McCain for the fall campaign.
They also ran contrary to sentiments expressed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the weekend. "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party," she said in an interview.
Compounding Clinton's delegate woes, Obama padded his advantage over the weekend at county conventions in Iowa, the state whose precinct caucuses kicked off the presidential race.
Obama gained nine more delegates in the state on Saturday, largely by picking up the backing of supporters of John Edwards, who has dropped out of the race. In addition, Clinton lost one Iowa delegate.
Obama leads Clinton, 1,617-1,498, in The Associated Press' count. That advantage masks a larger lead among pledged delegates, which are won in primaries and caucuses. Obama leads Clinton by 155 pledged delegates, 1,404-1,249, while she leads 249-213 among superdelegates, a margin of 36.
A total of 2,024 delegates is required to win the nomination. It has long been clear that neither Obama nor Clinton would be able to reach that level through primaries and caucuses alone, leaving the convention's 800 or so superdelegates with the balance of power.
But former President Clinton went one step beyond that when he suggested his wife may wind up trailing among delegates picked by voters.
"If Senator Obama wins the popular vote, then the choice (at the convention) would be easier," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "But if Hillary wins the popular vote but can't quite catch up in the delegate vote, then you have to just ask yourself which is more important and who's more likely to win in November."
A Native American gaming tribe in California is hosting a presidential forum for Democrat Party candidates this afternoon.
S-o-o-o-o, the Magic Negro and Senator Thunderthighs (Shrew-NY), well, they can't be bothered, just like a few others. "Scheduling conflicts", you see.
How does the Democrat Party save some face when the heavy-hitters, along with most of the lightweight no-names, have no time for the little people?
Send in the poster child for people-powered politics, the original darling and first successful national candidate of the reality-based nutroots community!
Former Vermont governor and one-time presidential candidate Howard Dean will join American Indian leaders for a historic presidential forum for democratic candidates today at the Morongo Band of Mission Indians Casino Resort and Spa in Cabazon.
The event, which will feature three of the eight Democratic presidential candidates -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel -- is scheduled to begin at 3:30 p.m. at the tribal conference center.
All three substantially trail Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the front-runner in the race for the Democratic nomination, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., second in the polls.
Dean also will attend today’s event and host a reception for tribal leaders following the forum.
Many of the democratic frontrunners declined to attend the forum because of scheduling conflicts, according to organizer Kalyn Free, a Choctaw from Oklahoma, who said Indian country was still “excited” about the event.
Be sure and stay excited. When it's convenient for them, you-know-who will stop by just long enough to grab a few bags of "love gifts". Just make sure that they're stuffed full, then bend over and kiss your ass good-bye because that is the only concern for Native Americans -- your money into their pockets.
Enjoy this Shrillary-free zone live, 6:30 EDT; 3:30 PDT.
Leading presidential contender Ron Paul is trying to figure out where the hell is California, otherwise he'd be in attendance.
Let's start with the ending: Barack Obama has just finished giving a stump speech to around 200 residents of Washington, D.C.'s impoverished Anacostia neighborhood. Wednesday's speech covered basic principles and dealt with poverty and wealth. Obama has said just about everything a candidate who wants to win the poor vote needs to say, delivering each speech with a healthy serving of what campaign managers call "soul food."
But the applause at the end is miserable. It begins in the first row, where the local dignitaries are sitting. It drags itself over to rows four and five, where a huddle of apathetic young people are lolling around. It struggles to reach row 14 at the back of the room. The man at the podium, who was earlier hailed as the "next president of the United States of America," is surrounded by silence as he departs. The applause doesn't even carry as far as backstage. His shoes make a clicking sound on the wooden floor.
The crowd gathered in the small lecture hall of the Town Hall Education Art and Recreation Center, less than 10 miles from the White House, was not merciless in its reaction, just honest. The senator from Illinois is recognizably not the product which he is being sold as. At the beginning he was described as a rising African-American star. That was back when people were still being modest. Then the political marketing people reached up onto the top shelf, and started referring to him as the new Kennedy, the new Martin Luther King Jr., the first black president.
And he remains Senator Thunderthighs' worst nightmare.
[....]
... Obama does exactly what populists like to do most: He compares apples and oranges. A kids project in Harlem that he would like to see extended across America costs $46 million a year -- the kind of money that is spent in just one morning in the Iraq war, he says. Let's invest this money better, he calls out to the audience. The applause speaks for the effectiveness of these kinds of comparisons. But it also speaks against the candidate.
Buying toys instead of weapons is the surest way for America to lose its status as a superpower. The conflict with an aggressive Islam could not be won in this way. Naturally Obama knows this -- that's why in an article for Foreign Affairs he writes that in his opinion the US military urgently needs to be "revitalized." That means more money, more soldiers and more ground forces -- he suggests an increase of around 100,000 men and women. "A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace," he writes.
Get ready, Ron Paul. You're about to inherit the nutroots.
But Foreign Affairs is hardly daily reading in America's poorest neighborhoods. The lack of education bemoaned by Obama the social policy specialist renders valuable services to Obama the foreign policy expert.
The candidate proceeds on the basis that no one in the audience is capable of mental arithmetic. After all, if his speech became government policy tomorrow, then the new president would have to head straight to the International Monetary Fund the next day to ask for a loan.
Not neccessarily. Madame Botox and Harriet Reid will celebrate winning the revolution by including in the budget bill, a minimum 35% reduced-index tax rate on individuals and small businesses; a Progressive tax, so to speak.
Obama is demanding what the Republicans call "big government," a free-spending state. He promises to bring in socialized medicinewithout mentioning how he will finance it. He wants to found an American bank for the poor based on the concept of the World Bank, he wants to give money to after-school centers and transform the minimum wage into a real living wage, which would automatically increase with any rise in inflation.
Italy had this "mobile scale" for decades. It proved to be a unique program for devaluing the currency, which is why the Italian politicians were so unsentimental in ditching the lira for the euro.
