Campaign finance

A lot of criticism over Obama’s decision to opt out of the public financing system for the general election. To me, the criticism implies that the system was somehow working… but its obvious that it wasn’t.

Historically, candidates forgo federal funds during the primaries in order to out-raise and out-spend their way through the overcrowded nomination field. Once secured, they accept federal funding for the general election for the good PR they get by saying you’re taking federal money and are going to abide by the spending limits. That sounds great, even ignoring the fact that they refused to do the same during the primaries (which technically last until the convention, even if the nomination had already been secured). So, basically, after blowing through $200 million dollars in a couple months, they agree to spend around $100 mil during the final two. THEY agree.

But none of these rules apply to the national parties and their House and Senate committees which can raise and spend as much as they want, only rule being that they cannot “collaborate” with the campaigns. Same thing for 527s and other unaffiliated organizations. So public financing doesn’t take money out of politics, it simply puts it on different hands whom are unaccountable to the candidates. This is why “swift-boating” was so succesful in 2004 – the candidates had to abide by spending limits, but the SBVFT and other organizations were still able to flood the airwaves. Too bad for Kerry, Democrats were not on the ball and couldn’t fight back the same way, while the Republicans had funneled millions of dollars to them. And what happened was that the Kerry campaign couldn’t compete against the noise coming from those 527s, while Bush easily claimed ignorance and washed his hands from the whole thing.

By refusing public funds, Obama is simply amassing all the private money that was going to be out there anyway and using it himself instead of shadowy, mysterious, unaffiliated organizations that put out blatant misinformation. His campaign can control how it spends the money, the message, and his campaign is accountable for all of it – so if he says something stupid, he’ll have to answer for it. If we are unable to place mandatory limits on candidates and their campaigns – and the Supreme Court has made sure of that – then the next best option is to limit the noise by placing all the money in the same bucket.

Plus, and this is really important: WHO GIVES A SHIT? Until everybody plays by the -same- rules, there’s no point in following any of this bs. Obama should worry about one thing and one thing only: destroying the Republican party this November.  Once this is accomplished, we can tackle the serious issue of campaign finance and the influence of money on politics. Until then, though, do whatever is necessary.

Obama + Q-Tip

Tankosky: Indeed it was reported last month that Obama will make a cameo performance on the rap singer Q-Tip’s next album.

JBM: Is this going to be like the time he danced on Ellen?

Karl Rove

ABC News’ Christianne Klein reports that at a breakfast with Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club this morning, former White House senior aide Karl Rove referred to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as “coolly arrogant.”

“Even if you never met him, you know this guy,” Rove said, per Christianne Klein. “He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.”

I know exactly the type of guy Karl Rove is describing. Whenever I time travel back to the 1920s and hit up an upper-class country club, I can’t help but notice the sleazy man donning a dark velvet smoking jacket and handlebar mustache, standing against the wall making snide comments about everyone who passes by while holding a cigarette in one hand and a martini in the other. And I always think, “If Obama was an affluent, arrogant, White man during this period, that’s totally who he’d be.”

Seriously, what Karl Rove? Cigarette and martini? A country club? Snide comments? Did you just read The Great Gatsby? Is that why you’re comparing Obama to the Tom Buchanan character in that novel? Because that is the only explanation for your comment. That and you are an idiot.

Moron

Michael Ian Black Disses Sedaris

Per Gawker:

Actor/comedian/VH1 fixture Michael Ian Black is sick to death of memoirist David Sedaris hogging all the best-seller lists for himself, so he’s taking the NPR man down. To get the ball rolling on his would-be literary feud—and to promote his own book, My Custom Van: And 50 Other Mind-Blowing Essays That Will Blow Your Mind All Over Your Face—Black offers suggestions on ways to belittle Sedaris in casual conversation:

“At a cocktail party, a bottle of lousy champagne is uncorked. You take a swig, grimace, and say, “Send this swill back to France where David Sedaris is undoubtedly enjoying a baguette.” (I admit this probably doesn’t seem like much of a put down on paper, but if you say the word “baguette” with a sneer, trust me, this will be devastating.)

Hm, this is weird. Is Michael Ian Black actually jealous of David Sedaris? And not the fake kind of jealous, like how I’m jealous of Gisele Bundchen, but the real kind. Like my jealousy towards the person who got to the breakfast leftovers of another department’s morning meeting one second before me, claiming the last chocolate chip scone. Something that could have/should have been mine. Is this feeling of “if only I had gotten there first” comparable to Michael Ian Black’s feelings towards David Sedaris’ success? As if Black could have the life of Sedaris, had he gotten to NPR first? Methinks Black is living in a dream world.

Not to discount MIB’s comedy or comedic timing, he’s a funny guy. I was once a huge Stella fan and still think The State is great. But calling out the country’s most beloved humor writer for being pretentious, when you yourself are just as pretentious but not as good a writer, is a bold move.

Anyway, I think Michael Ian Black should get off his high horse. We all know he’s just as pompous as Sedaris, and looks down on most people. I’ve seen Black at live shows; he acts like a dick. So, whatever. The two are equally arrogant. IMO.

a guy talks about sexism

Hillary has disappeared from the news entirely. I don’t know whether to be happy or afraid. She and Bill must be plotting something, right? I’ve been a little disturbed by the notion these past couple of weeks amongst the Clinton people that the media’s sexist coverage of the race was unfair to Clinton and ultimately responsible for the demise of her candidacy. It’s no doubt true that a couple of these talking heads were definitely crossing that line… MSNBC in particular, having recently found out that having blatant Obama supporters on TV reading the news was a ratings hit, went a little overboard with it numerous times, saying shit like someone should beat her up and all the wife-bashing jokes. (Congrats, though, to MSNBC they’re well on their way to creating the liberal equivalent to Fox News Channel. Yay, progress!). But the discussion appears to suggest that, because she was a woman and not a man, Hillary had an electoral handicap that Obama did not. Of course, Obama has that other electoral handicap of being black and not white, and the media was as racist as it was sexist. But if you point that out, all you do is start a dumb argument over whether sexism or racism played a bigger role, over which is worse, over who has it hardest. I read so many articles about this for the past couple of months that I’m surprised my head didn’t explode. It’s about the dumbest argument I can think of, but whatever, for our species even being oppressed is a competition. In my view, they both kind of even out.

So then, It becomes clear that that the main reason Clinton lost was the war. She supported the war. This is not some small issue, it is a pretty big fucking deal. Of course, its only natural that a war that has never been taken very seriously by “serious people” would get looked over when talking about why some relatively unknown black guy with a funny sounding name managed to beat one of the most well known people on the planet for the chance to be the next president of the most powerful country (still) in the world. Her vote for the war, and perhaps more importantly her refusal to show any regret for it, immedietly disqualified her from a huge chunk of voters… voters who have been waiting like crazy to get a chance to vote again and finally end the war. Hillary lost because the Democratic party voter are against the war in Iraq, and not in a passing way but in a really passionate way. Right off the bat, she was not even an option for 45% of the electorate. That’s very hard to overcome and she wasn’t able to. It is as simple as that. Everything else is a mighta, coulda, shoulda, woulda but the big mistake was Iraq.

And let me extend this post even more because it’s just so hard to understand why she was so steadfast in her defense of her Iraq vote. Not even Republicans like the war, for god’s sake.. I keep hearing that her line of thinking was, “well, I’m a woman so I need to appear to be tough, to be a fighter” and this has been the model for female leaders so I don’t blame her for thinking that way. But I think it is really obvious that, at least for the moment, this country doesn’t want that macho bs anymore. If she had run a more feminist campaign, emphasizing peace along with universal health care and diplomacy, female values, she would’ve easily won the nomination.. and the general election would’ve been a breeze for any Democrat, no matter what supposed electoral handicap they had, because the Republicans party has basically collapsed along with Bush’s foreign policy. That’s essentially the campaign that Obama ran, and he won despite the persisting claims that he is too soft, too inexperienced, this and the other, the same bs Clinton was scared would be applied to her. This is what happens to politicians though, they are so secluded they are blind to what people outside their work are thinking. Turns out that, this year at least, people don’t want the tough, macho attitude because we’ve had eight years of extremely too much of it. We want a mom now and, given the choices, Obama was the best fit. It’s too bad the woman was trying to show she could be like a man, too!

And the media.. Oh the media… Like Colbert says, the media loves nothing more than talking about themselves. Were we sexists? were we racist? were we a willing partner in an elaborate propaganda effort to sell the American people on an illegal and dumb war based on lies? “Naaaaaaaaaaaah, we didn’t do it! We just talking out loud on tv……..”

John McCain: Latte-sipping elitist

Is that John McCain drinking a latte next to Karl Rove?

OMG. And here he is again:

Latte-sipping elitist! I wonder how this will play out in middle America, with the average voter, those hard working (white) americans, the real americans.

Outragous.. Drinking a latte.. that sounds foreign! this man is out of touch with the real America!

Office Tip of the Day

Tankosky: Man, pretending to do work sucks. I’d rather actually do work.

JBM: Yeah, I know. I had to do that all the time when I temped. That’s when I started writing emails in Word. So it looked like I was typing something up.

Hill

JBM: OBAMA!

Tankosky: WOOOT

Except HILLARY….she’s trying to hold the party hostage.

JBM: I know.

Seriously, though.  Hillary.  Stop.