Disgruntled? Join The Club, Scottie

Former Bush Press Secretary-turned author Scott McClellan is being called lots of things for his new best-selling press-and-tell book, "What Happened."

Among them, "self-serving," "disengenuous," and "unprofessional." (And that was all by the same person, mind you.)

I would also add, "smarmy little prick."

For even though McClellan now seems to want to "do the right thing" in terms of exposing White House malfeasance, where were his cojones when he had the chance to really make a statement?

Curiously, though, in all the administration's name-calling, in all the many ways different Bushies said the same thing (we're "puzzled," "sad") about McClellan, there is one word he has not been called once: liar.

The only thing more curious is the official word the White House has used to describe, and dismiss McClellan: "disgruntled."

Here is a former employee who is "disgruntled" after witnessing up close the train wreck
of the Bush administration. Get in line, Scottie. And join the 81% of the rest of us who have felt disgruntled for years, even while you were still smiling that piss-pants little grin of yours and daily doling out the same stinking stew of lies you now decry.

An(other) Inconvenient Truth

Hillary Clinton is fast-becoming that mythical person at an old-time wedding ceremony who, when the assemblage is asked if anyone would say why "this couple should not be joined in holy matrimony"--actually stands up and says just that.

It only happened in the movies. ("The Graduate," for instance.)
Now it's happening in politics.

The clear will (and popular votes) of most Democrats are with Barack Obama.
But Clinton has undeniably racked up huge victories over the past few months. "The Biggest Loser" she isn't. Winning primaries in California, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania is nothing to sneeze at.

And she keeps winning, basically going 1-1 with Obama with each recent week's slate of two primaries.

Not enough to stave off the inevitable perhaps, but enough to keep things mired where they are.
Tough to tell someone who keeps winning that they've lost.

Even if they have.
And that's the Dem's inconvenient truth.

McCain the Magnificent!

First, Hillary Clinton started referencing Rocky after her comebacks on the campaign trail.

Now John McCain is channeling Nostradamus.

In a speech in Ohio on Thursday (May 15), McCain envisioned how he saw the world in five years. In this near-future world, McCain is president, naturally. (Which is the first indication of his not-so-Nostradamus-like powers of prophecy.)

McCain sees the war in Iraq finally over (having now shaved 95 years off his original prediction), Osama Bin Laden captured, and, among other things, public education thriving.

He also foresees gas returning to $1.00 a gallon, Wayne Newton winning a Grammy, and Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill doing "Dancing with the Stars" together.

Asked by a reporter what his prediction was with respect to the Federal deficit, McCain put his hand to his forehead, closed his eyes, and said, "I'm thinking of a number...."

What Would Abe Say?

Sen. Hillary Clinton has challenged Sen. Barack Obama to a series of "Lincoln-Douglas"-style debates. Those debates, held in several Illinois towns in 1850 between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas for a U.S. Senate seat, became famous for their substance (slavery was the dominant issue; no record of any questions about lapel pins), their civility (there was no moderator) and their simple word count. (Each candidate spoke cumulatively for 90 minutes.)

I think Obama should agree to the proposal immediately, upon one condition: that Clinton actually starts acting like Lincoln. You know, dignified, respectful, scrupulously fairminded.

You want to debate like Lincoln?
Campaign like Lincoln.

"ABC." Stands For...

"Attack Barack Completely." Or, issues that have (A)lready (B)een (C)hewed (over.) American Broadcasting Company? Nah, a new low in American broadcasting history.

Alas, ABC's Philadelphia debate ended up telling voters a lot more about Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos than it did about Obama or Clinton. Will Obama wear a flag lapel pin once again? Does his former pastor love America as much as he does? Yeah, those are the burning issues that keep anxious Americans up at night.

This anxious American is only sorry he stayed up as late as he did last night, watching two men I used to respect tarnish themselves and a proud network. Somewhere, Peter Jennings is shaking his head.

Who You Callin' Condescending?

In attacking Barack Obama's "small town" comments with the zeal of a hungry horsefly on a pile of hot, stinking you-know-what, Hillary Clinton -- as usual -- reveals more of herself than she does of Obama.

Both Clinton and McCain, in the attacks on Obama, cite his comments as proof that he is "elitist" and "out of touch" with working people. That he is condescending to them.

How, by telling the truth?

And, in truth, Obama's comments ("inartful," as even he agrees) were easy to manipulate by his opponents. But it doesn't make them any less accurate. The real problem is, one must read in them a slight degree of nuance. As in, it is not that there is anything wrong with religion or guns, for instance, but rather that those things have been used as wedge issues time after time by those in both parties (but mostly Republicans) where the only (and usually intended) effect is to distract from larger economic issues.

Ever read "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

Obama apparently believes that people -- blue collar and otherwise -- are fundamentally intelligent enough to see and understand what's been done to them. Clinton and McCain clearly do not. Better to stoop down low and rant that Obama is being an elitist and belittling some hard working Americans' religion and their love of hunting. They not only know better, they're the ones being condescending.

We are soon to be done with eight years of an imbecile of a president who once famously said about himself, "I don't do nuance."

How deflating to realize that two of the three candidates to replace that man don't do nuance, either.

McConfused

Call him Senator John McConfused.
No, not about his now near-daily flubs about who's who (Sunni, Shiite) and who's
training Al-Qaeda (Al-Qaeda) and who's not (Iran).

No, it's bigger than that.
In his opening paen to Petraeus, John McCain once more observed that withdrawing now from Iraq would constitute a "moral and political failure in leadership."

Quick, Senator (and no coaching from Joe Lieberman!): then what does getting into the biggest foreign policy debacle in U.S. history constitute?