. . . at least, for poets who had access to time machines.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

(Dear Jennifer—whom I forgive for having nicer clothes than I do, and darker, curlier hair.)

Barack Obama accused John McCain of “smearing him” by claiming that Hamas wants Obama to be President. But this isn’t a smear, it is fact. A spokesman for Hamas, you will recall, did endorse Obama. [. . . ]

Matt Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition had this comment:

It’s understandable that Obama would like to make this go away. However, the reality is, Hamas is comfortable with Obama and they endorsed him. It’s the truth, not a ‘smear.’

As for the McCain camp, this will be an early test of their willingness to go toe-to-toe with Obama. Will they let this Obama remark pass? Or set the record straight and make clear Obama is, as he did in the “100 year” fight, fudging the facts? And we can expect more of this. Every bad fact for Obama or questionable association is a “smear” and every attempt by the McCain camp to set the record straight is “gutter politics.” It is up to McCain’s team to decide whether they will play along or call foul.

I subscribe to the theory that Obama has already made himself look bad by going after McCain. The better retort was, "ah, those crazy Hamas people; they have no idea what is and isn't in their best interests."

Or, as Michael Totten put it (Glenn quotes him here):

Obama could easily make this go away: “Hamas will be VERY sorry if I am America’s president. They need to be careful what they wish for.” He doesn’t have to say anything else, but I doubt it occurs to anyone on his staff to go after Hamas instead of McCain. To me, that’s the obvious fix. What could McCain possibly say after that?

Unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately), Obama is not that sophisticated. This could still end up being an advantage—after all, people may perceive him as "refreshingly naive" about the dirty, dirty business of politics.

But if he goes on the offensive every time someone brings up any little unhandy datum, he's going to look really bad by the time the general rolls around.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.

Iowahawk channels the good senator while dispensing love advice. A taste:

Dear Barry:

My heart has been crushed so many times before, I have almost lost count. It seems like every four years I get in a serious relationship with a new guy; it starts with infatuation but he invariably turns out to be a boozer, an abuser, or a loser, and I am left to pick up the pieces. I swear sometimes I must be cursed or subconsciously a masochist.

Finally, though, I think I may have met Mister Right. He's tall and dark and handsome, with this mysterious, dreamy, rugged faraway look in his eye that tells me he is THE ONE. Whenever he needs to borrow my car, or some money for his experimental jazz project, he always looks deep in my eyes and says "thank you" in that smoky baritone, and I swear I think I'm going to melt.

Long story short, we've moved in together. But now that I've finally found true love, some of my so-called "friends" have been less than supportive. Most of them are very positive, but a few have lately been "warning" me that he's no good, and hangs out with a bad crowd, and blah blah blah. How do I deal with this kind of petty jealousy? Also, when would be a good time for me to ask my new boyfriend what his name is?

Puzzled in Washington

Dear Puzzled:

Don't listen to the nay-sayers! I say follow your heart, and hop on your dreamboat tramp steamer for a mystery love cruise to Fantasy Island. Even if that Island is deserted and filled with tropical disease, you can still make beautiful experimental jazz together.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

He doesn't think our girl is going to pull out the miracle. Which leaves us with Senator White Wine. (Which, at least I hope it's something with a little oomph, like a Pinot Grigio; I don't want to see Chardonnay being served in the White House. That would just be too grim.)

• Mrs. Clinton may battle until June and possibly until the convention in August. There's nothing Mr. Obama can or should do about it. After a long, bitter struggle, losing candidates often look for reasons to feel aggrieved. There is no reason to give her one. No pressure from Mr. Obama or party Chairman Howard Dean is better than pushing her out of the race.

• The Democrats' refusal to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations at their convention is an unresolved problem. If they insist on not seating these delegations, Democrats risk alienating voters in states with 44 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. And here Mr. Obama is at greater risk than Mrs. Clinton, especially in Florida. He trails John McCain badly in Sunshine State polls today, while Mrs. Clinton leads Mr. McCain there.

• The length of the Democratic contest has been—in some ways —a plus for the party. The AP estimates that more than 3.5 million new voters registered during the competitive primary season. And the hundreds of millions of dollars spent energizing Democratic turnout will leave organization and energy in place for November. Mr. Obama is a better candidate for having been battle tested. And Mr. McCain has to fight hard for attention. He's mentioned in less than 20% of the coverage in recent months, while Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are talked about in 60% to 70% of the coverage.

• The length of the Democratic contest has been—in some ways —a minus. It has revealed weaknesses in Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton came across as calculating, contrived, stiff and self-concerned. Mr. Obama is increasingly seen not as the Second Coming, but as a typical liberal Chicago pol with a thin record, little experience, an array of troubling relationships and, to top it off, elitist sensibilities. Nominating him will now test the thesis that only a Democrat running as a moderate can win the White House.

The primary has created a deep fissure in Democratic ranks: blue collar, less affluent, less educated voters versus the white wine crowd of academics and upscale professionals (along with blacks and young people). Mr. Obama runs behind Mrs. Clinton's numbers when matched against Mr. McCain in key industrial battleground states. Less than half of Mrs. Clinton's backers in Indiana and North Carolina say they would support Mr. Obama if he were the nominee. In the most recent Fox News poll, two-and-a-half times as many Democrats break for Mr. McCain (15%) as Republicans defect to Mrs. Clinton (6%) and nearly twice as many Democrats support Mr. McCain (22%) as Republicans back Mr. Obama (13%). These "McCainocrat" defections could hurt badly.

State and local Democrats are realizing the toxicity of their probable national ticket. Democrats running in special congressional races recently in Louisiana and Mississippi positioned themselves as pro-life, pro-gun social conservatives and disavowed Mr. Obama. The Louisiana Democrat won his race on Saturday and said he "has not endorsed any national politician." The Mississippi Democrat is facing a runoff on May 13 and specifically denied that Mr. Obama had endorsed his campaign. Not exactly profiles in unity.

• As much as Mr. Obama's cheerleaders in the media hate it, Rev. Jeremiah Wright remains a large general-election challenge for Mr. Obama. Not only did Mr. Obama admit on "Fox News Sunday" that Mr. Wright was a legitimate issue, voters agree. Mr. Obama's favorable ratings have dropped since Mr. Wright emerged as an issue. More than half of Mrs. Clinton's supporters say it is a meaningful reflection on Mr. Obama's character and judgment.

• This will be a very difficult year for Republicans. The economy's shaky state, an unpopular war, and the natural desire for partisan change after eight years of one party in the White House have helped tilt the balance to the Democrats.

Mr. Obama is significantly weaker today than he was three months ago, but Democrats have the upper hand in November. They're beatable. But it's nonsense to think this year is going to be a replay of George H.W. Bush versus Michael Dukakis or Richard Nixon versus George McGovern.

• Mr. McCain is very competitive. He is the best candidate Republicans could have picked in this environment. With the GOP brand low, his appeal to moderates and independents becomes even more crucial.

My analysis of individual state polls shows that today Mr. McCain would win 241 Electoral College votes to Mr. Obama's 217, with 80 votes in toss-up states where neither candidate has more than a 3% lead. [ . . .]

Mr. McCain is realistic enough to know he will fall behind Mr. Obama once the Democratic nomination is settled. He's steeled himself and his team for that moment. And he's comforted by a belief that there will be plenty of time to recapture the lead. Mr. McCain saw Gerald Ford come from 30 points down to lose narrowly to Jimmy Carter in 1976, and watched George H.W. Bush overcome a 17-point deficit in the summer to hammer Michael Dukakis in the fall of 1988.

• The battlegrounds will look familiar. It will be the industrial heartland from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, minus Indiana (Republican) and Illinois (Democrat); the western edge of the Midwest from Minnesota south to Missouri; Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada in the Rocky Mountains; Florida; and New Hampshire.

Mr. Obama will argue he puts Virginia and North Carolina into play (doubtful), and may make an attempt at winning one or two of Nebraska's electoral votes (it awards its electoral votes by congressional district). Mr. McCain will say he can put New Jersey and Delaware and part of Maine (it splits its vote like Nebraska) in play. But it's doubtful he'll win in Oregon or Washington State, although he believes he can.

• Almost everything we think we know right now will be revised and even overturned during the next six months. This has been a race in which conventional wisdom has often been proven wrong. The improbable or thought-to-be impossible has happened with regularity.

Yup. We've only just begun: white lies and promises.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1073 words, total size 7 kb.

I have to admit that I'm rather surprised by how the arithmetic is different today than it was a few days ago. Mrs. Clinton was supposed to drop out of the race if she couldn't take Indiana. She did take it, but she's supposed to drop out anyway. Say what?

Insty responds to a reader: "I guess they weren't able to gin up enough votes in Gary, despite the extra time . . ."

Guess not.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:19 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

We know, Baby.

That's what we like about you.

Ask Huey: he'll tell you that it's hip to be square.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:27 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

And it has been good reality TV. But some Democrats are getting bored, and wish that the Tribe would speak, already.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Cunt-gate. Kuntuffle.

I don't use that word a lot, but I get flack at writer's group if I so much as place it in dialogue. I still don't get why it's so much worse than calling a guy a "prick." Or a "fuckin' asshole." Somehow women don't get called "assholes" quite as much; we tend to progress from "bitch" to "cunt" to whatever other [usually yawn-inspiring] phrases people want to come up with—I got "skanky gash" once, which I rather hoped was original with the guy who threw it out. It seemed inspired. I was also impressed when I read the term "cock-holster" on a discussion thread a year or so ago. I thought that was rather descriptive, though it all sort of boils down to the idea that women are containers, and intrinsically filthy. Which . . . okay. At least we can run without little jiggly bits jangling around. I mean, women can at least cross their arms, or just hold their breasts. Which is of course what I do when I'm going up and down stairs, and no one's looking.

Those who claim that "cunt" is lot worse than "prick" don't seem to get that they are fundamentally making female genitalia out to be dirtier and more offensive than male genitalia. If you call them on it, they say, "well, it isn't me. I'm only reflecting what's out there."

Well, no: you're perpetuating it by reaching for the goddamned smelling salts whenever someone utters a vulgarity that refers to the female body. The dirty, horrible female body, and the dirty, horrible genitalia thereof, which often harbors teeth; you knew that, deep down, right?

Back to McCain: I wish I lived in a world that would have permitted a politician to say, "not out loud, Buddy. By the way: you're single, aren't you? I can tell."

Remember that old Bill Cosby routine? "We have had some arguments. I've called her names I was proud I even thought of. And she's called me some that I've written down."

'Course, I also wish I lived in a world that would permit a politician to say "drug war? What the fuck were we thinking of?"

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:43 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 2 kb.