A Rational Animal

McMaverick’s Slander

Administrator — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:43:50 +0000

I haven’t had the [dis]pleasure of seeing this ad on TV yet, despite the fact the McMaverick chose my state (WTF?) to launch it. However, all the coverage of it that I’ve seen thus far focuses only on the redundant ineptness of the wording - missing the real point. The ad’s closer:

"John McCain: The American president Americans have been waiting for."

It neglected to add:

"This slander brought to you courtesy of the StraitJacket Express^TM."

There. Fixed.

Seriously, here we have the first preview of what September will look like. Forget the swiping (OMG, plagiarizing!) of Obama’s "we are the ones we’ve been waiting for" sentiment. They key here is the racist, nationalist dog-whistle - one which, I guarantee you, will come through loud and clear to a large percentage of this state’s population:

"The American president . . . ."

Because, you know, that angry Negro with the funny name and the (ZOMG, Muslim!!!one!!eleven!!!) father from someplace in darkest Africa - well, we all know he’s not a Real American. After all, he’s African! (And black!) And Muslim! (And black!) And miscegenated! (And black!) And Muslim! (And black!) And with a crazy, racist, terrorist-loving Christian preacher! (And black!)

Note also the use of the article: "The American president," not "An American president." Just in case, you know, you were inclined to give McMaverick the benefit of the doubt or anything. Or, for the dog-whistle crowd, just in case you were thinking maybe he was including Obama in the pool of legitimate candidates.

No, to McMaverick, there’s only one legitimate candidate: the white guy. It doesn’t matter that he’s a hypocritical, ethically-challenged, bigoted, lunatic nut job - he’s white! He’s "The American."

And a few more bearings fall out of the wheels as the StraitJacket Express^TM rolls on down the highway . . . .

I wonder how long before it runs off the road, crashing into a public square and mowing down all the innocents in its path? Of course, when it does, the media will be sure to bring us The Whole Story, complete with expert analysis about how the fact that McMaverick was tortured makes him a Great War Hero, and thus, all the dead pedestrians are simply martyrs to the noble cause of perpetuating that narrative.

Walking the Western Road: For Z

Administrator — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:57:51 +0000

We’re going black again for four days . . . .

Let not the things of the earth that delighted you cause you to linger.
Do not allow the things of the earth that troubled you to hinder you now.
Now we release you, for it is true that it is no longer possible
For us to walk about together on the earth.
In Beauty’s Way, it is done.

Another sudden death in the family - this one, in the BF’s family. Too young; no warning. Now too many lives sundered by grief.

Gii wiijiiw Mishomis Migizii, Z. Giiwezhimon Gizhe Manitou.*

*Apologies for syntax errors.

Sorry, Wrong Answer

Administrator — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:02:29 +0000

A quick note on the yesterday’s media-related posts from Matt Stoller and Molly I: They’re both partly right. In different ways, they both miss the real point.

Referring to the testy exchange between McMaverick and Elizabeth Bumiller, Matt wonders why the sudden change in the coverage of McCain. I should’ve thought the answer was obvious: For Villager Media, anything St. McMaverick says goes - unless and until he makes One Of Their Own look bad. And since he got snippy with One Of Their Own - a stenographer who’s prostituted herself so publicly in the service of Bush’s agenda - he must be disciplined. Publicly.

You’re welcome.

Molly I., on the other hand, simply didn’t take her argument to its logical conclusion. [Disclaimer: I read Molly I’s takedowns of MoDo religiously. Hell, I read her takedowns of everyone religiously.]

Molly finally begins to suss out what’s really at work in MoDo’s "coverage" of Clinton and Obama: It’s The Graduate all over again. And she’s right.

Except . . . .

In MoDo World, Hillary is not Mrs. Robinson - MoDo herself is. And that’s why, in MoDo World, Obama must be disciplined, too. Good-looking younger guy - who the hell does he think he is, not recognizing that he must bow before the altar of MoDo? I mean, really - wasting all those looks and all that charm and all that oratory on the great unwashed voting masses, when he should know that the first priority of every presidential candidate (and every male) should be to court MoDo’s own twisted affections and affectations.

You’re welcome.

Mark Penn Firing Watch: Miscellaneous Edition

Administrator — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:25:57 +0000

[Ed. note: I’ve been saving these up for a week or more, since I’ve still been too sick to feel like blogging - or much else, for that matter. Still haven’t shaken it. Feh.]

Several new reasons to fire Penn over the last week:

First of all, that "3:00 AM" ad was just . . . fucking . . . stupid.

Don’t insult my intelligence by attempting to pander to - what? "womanly" emotions or some shit? "Worried-looking soccer mom slips into precious darlings’ bedroom to stand watch in the middle of the night" shtick punches all the wrong damn buttons. It says that the campaign of the first viable woman candidate for president thinks I’m so stupidly knee-jerk that emotive imagery about "keeping the children safe" is what will sway my vote.

So much for Clinton as feminist archetype.

Aside from that, the script: "Something’s happening in the world" - are you fucking kidding me? I mean, really; that’s just as insulting to my intelligence. If you’re going to go for the bed-wetting fear-addled constituency, at least offer up something as an example of the "something." Oh, and here’s my response to that statement: No shit. Something’s been happening in the world, like, forever, but especially for the last seven years - and where the hell were you when it actually mattered? Oh, that’s right - on the wrong side.

And then, to imply without even any minimal argument (much less facts) to support it that Clinton is obviously the person I want answering that phone - well, really, sez who? If you’re gonna tell me that I want it to be her, then at least do me the minimal courtesy of giving me a reason, however silly or transparent or fraudulent.

But the kicker (I thought at the time) was that it was nothing more than a rerun of the infamous Mondale ad from 1984. That was Roy Spence’s ad, and since Spence joined the campaign at the same time as Maggie Williams, I assumed that he stupidly thought 1) that his ad was so great the first time around that it should be recyled a quarter of a century later, and 2) that we were so stupid that we wouldn’t notice anyway. Sorry, Roy; I guess I owe you an apology, since we now know that you weren’t responsible for the drivel this time around. No, the singular honor of getting credit for [OMG, plagiarizing!] - the ad goes to the Idiot Boy "Chief Strategist."

No, that’s still not the kicker.

Worse, Penn - without overtly acknowledging that it’s his ad - wants credit for it for Clinton’s few recent wins. This from the guy who’s telling anyone who’ll listen that he has no power in the Clinton campaign (and thus, nothing that goes wrong is his fault). Poor Mark: He’s just "an outside message advisor with no campaign staff reporting to [him]" and he has "had no say or involvement in four key areas — the financial budget and resource allocation, political or organizational sides."

Nice try, jackass. Too late: Ickes has already outed you and your overweening ego, demanding to be called "Chief Strategist." Some "outside message advisor."

No, that’s still not the kicker.

The kicker is this: The guy who got 3.8 million from the campaign in January alone - this allegedly brilliant "Chief Strategist" - was so fucking cheap that he couldn’t even film his own damn ad. No, Idiot Boy buys eight-year-old stock footage from Getty Images, featuring a little girl who is now about to turn eighteen and - you guessed it - has been actively campaigning for Obama. Oh, and who wants to partner with Obama’s campaign to make a new ad for him.

Fucking genius.

And now, Idiot Boy’s going around crowing, "We broke [Obama’s] momentum completely." Oh, Mark? What about that little matter of Wyoming - with a 23% blowout for Obama? To say nothing of the fact that your candidate now actually appears to have lost Texas. Oh, and the projections that Mississippi will overwhelmingly go for Obama.

Of course, there’s much, much more: This stupid "only McCain and I are CinC material" meme comes to mind, as do the "I won’t accept a caucus" meme and the "Obama’s pledged delegates are up for grabs, too" meme. But those will have to wait, because I can only take so much of this guy at a time - and frankly, these days, I can only take so much of Clinton herself at a time, too. Knowing what I know now, if New Mexico were still in play, I think we’d be voting for Obama.

Mark Penn Firing Watch: Infinity!!1!EleventyOne!1!!

Administrator — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:52:11 +0000

Photo: AP/Jerry Lai/Burson-Marsteller.com

Okay, enough with the numbered days already. One, it’s kind of pointless after missing ten days due to illness (not that I couldn’t have filled those ten days with individual posts on Penn’s egregious conflicts of interest; believe me, I could); and two, it’s pretty damn clear that no matter how clear and contemptible his fuckupery, she’s not going to dump him.

For today, I’m just going to indulge in a bit of lovely schadenfreude, courtesy of the New York Observer. NYO has three - count ‘em; three - articles this week on the blithering idiot that is Penn.

Fittingly, Jason Horowitz (or his editor) slaps Penn around from jump with the headline "Micro Mark," in a piece that begins with Penn whining that people "misunderstand" his brilliant strategy:

“There was a misunderstanding that this campaign was about small things. It never was. If anything, the Obama campaign has microtargeted constituencies.”

This, from Mr. "Microtrends" himself.

“I think that virtually every schoolchild knows that she is ‘ready on day one,’ said Mr. Penn, referring to one of the slogans he designed for Mrs. Clinton. “If you look back—at the beginning she was ‘ready for change and ready to lead’ and that’s something that built a large coalition that carried her through Super Tuesday. Between then and now, there was a period where the campaign didn’t have resources to play ahead in those states it needed to campaign in.”

As he put it, his strategy had succeeded in the “biggest message-oriented states.”

‘Cause, you know, those caucus states don’t count, and shit. Seriously: "biggest message-oriented states"? WTF is a message-oriented state? It sounds like a Karl Rove’s number-one mental tic.

Oh, and that "not having the resources it needed" bit? Whose fault was that? Sweet jumping jeebus, but this moron has no sense of irony. Which, of course, is perfect, considering that he’s a DLC Boy, and therefore, the bastard brother of Rove’s GOP.

But the money line is this:

He reserves a special disdain for a group he identifies as the “impressionable elites”: people who can afford to pick candidates based on fuzzy feelings rather than on the impact the candidates’ policies will have on their lives. At a recent discussion of the book at the Strand bookstore in Manhattan, during which Mr. Penn said, “The theory of the book is that the era of big trends is over,” one audience member asked if Mr. Obama was not a “macrotrend.”

Yeah, "impressionable elites" - Penn’s sole audience. He exists purely by and for the chattering classes, of which he is a card-carrying member. And I’d really like to know who he is to be calling other people "elites" (see DLC Boy, above). Hell, he couldn’t even be bothered to stick around to play Chief Strategist the night before the Potomac Primary; it was more important to him to grab the shuttle to New York to plug his latest useless contribution to the deforestation of the planet.

I guess that $3.8 mil. in January alone wasn’t enough to keep him on-task. Nor, apparently was the $10+ million total that he’s raked in from Clinton so far, even with his continuing income from Burson-Marsteller Worldwide (and, thus, from John McCain’s chief strategist).

But to enjoy the schadenfreude more fully, don’t miss NYO’s other two articles. Ostensibly pieces about Leon Panetta and Harold Ickes, they’re actually [well-deserved] hatchet jobs on Penn. No, I have no illusions about Panetta and Ickes, either, but it’s a beautiful thing to see them go for Penn’s jugular for the sheer sport of it. (Okay, so maybe not "sport" - how about a little well-timed revenge?)

Ultimately, though, Clinton’s refusal to can Penn in the face of such an abysmally stupid performance makes me glad that Obama appears to be the likely nominee. Because if she insists on remaining joined at the hip to this sort of fuckwittery on her campaign, who do you think would be attached to her in the White House?

Bleah . . . .

Administrator — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:44:39 +0000

Image from here.

Strep and bronchitis - both of us. Trying to stave off pneumonia, which is rampant around here right now: The BF’s cousin, who I think is around my age, has been in the hospital for over a week, critical, on a vent. By comparison, we’re really lucky.

I spent much of last week and this week compounding herbal remedies for the BF, which I think helped him halt at bronchitis and avoid moving on to pneumonia, but there comes a point when Zithromax is required. I actually thought I might escape with a mild case, but no.

Fortunately, last week (the 19th) I began a traditional medicine used by local tribes (including members of his), and it’s boosted my immune system enough that even a bad case hasn’t done its usual damage to me. I’m cautiously optimistic that it’s working on my autoimmune disease, too - not a cure, mind you, but a better control than I’ve found anywhere else.

And if we feel well enough, we’re heading to the Santa Fe Farmer’s Market this morning to score some more herbs and organics.

Fingers crossed . . . .

Mark Penn Firing Watch: Day 4

Administrator — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:17:42 +0000

So Hillary’s in favor of clean coal, huh?

Leave aside, for the moment, that "clean coal" is an oxymoron. What interests me here is that a year ago, and one day after she proposed new funding for so-called "clean coal systems," her chief strategist was doing this:

In an internal blog at his other job, as chief executive officer of public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, Penn wrote of how Burson worked "behind the scenes'’ for TXU Corp., a Texas company seeking to build power plants fueled by pulverized coal, which some environmentalists say would be major polluters.

"Major polluters." A masterpiece of understatement. Also a vivid example of Penn’s real principles - which is to say, the principle of lining Penn’s own pockets. I doubt that Penn ever met a principle that he couldn’t jettison in a heartbeat in favor of money and power.

But it gets better:

Penn’s internal blog — several months of which were obtained by Bloomberg News — suggests that all along he has been working with multiple clients.

[Ed. not: Um, duh? Of course he has. And it’s not bloodly likely that many - or even any - adhere to liberal Democratic principles.]

He downplayed his role in Clinton’s presidential campaign, saying he is "not a policy adviser, I’m a communications adviser.'’

[Ed. note: WTF? The one is the other, dude. How stupid do you think we are - oh, never mind. We already know the answer to that one.]

Others say he’s the most powerful figure in the campaign, and an April 30 Washington Post profile said he "has become involved in virtually every move that Clinton makes.'’

[Ed. note: No shit. She’s losing, Q.E.D., Penn’s running the show.]

But the money line comes from Howie:

"The real question from the campaign perspective is whether Senator Clinton is comfortable with what Mark is doing, and the answer to that is yes, unequivocally,'’ Wolfson said.

Exactly. Which is why so many of us can’t support her.

Seriously, does she really think we want to nominate somebody who keeps employing this hideously expensive loser, who’s busily helping her lose her campaign, knowing full well that, once in office, she’ll continue to employ this same hideously expensive loser - with the major difference, of course, that we’ll be the ones losing at that point.

Not one lousy plugged nickel of my tax dollars should go into Penn’s pockets.

Mark Penn Firing Watch: Day 3

Administrator — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:44:01 +0000

Today’s edition isn’t a new example of Penn fuckup-ery, but it’s something that I just discovered a couple of days ago.

As the whole world knows by now, while serving as Clinton’s pollster and "chief strategist," Penn retains his sinecure as CEO of Burson-Marsteller Worldwide. (As though serving as Clinton’s pollster and chief strategist weren’t already a full-time job - which, for Penn, it evidently isn’t, but that’s the subject of a future post.)

The chart above shows the hydra that is Mark Penn; its many heads include, of course, Penn’s own polling firm, Penn, Schoen and Berland (also to be the subject of a future post). Yeah, yeah, I know; none of this is news to you.

But notice, if you will, the firm directly across from Penn, Schoen and Berland in the B-M Worlwide orbit: BKSH & Associates.

Who are BKSH? Funny you should ask.

You’ll also note that the chart lists BKSH’s principals, one of whom happens to be one Charles R. Black, Jr. And who might Mister Black be?

Besides serving as chair of BKSH, Charlie Black is also the "dean" of John McCain’s campaign inner circle.

That’s right. McCain’s most senior strategist and closest adviser also draws his regular paycheck from Clinton’s [allegedly] most senior strategist, Mark Penn.

Conflict of interest much, Mark?

Mark Penn Firing Watch: Day 2

Administrator — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:54:04 +0000

This one’s from a couple of days ago. It falls into the "C’mon, Mark, how stupid do you really think we are?" category:

“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois?” Chief Strategist Mark Penn said. “That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”

Okay, first of all, who you callin’ "insignificant?"

Would that be, oh, Iowa, maybe? Or how about South Carolina? Maybe Virginia and Maryland? Ooh, ooh, I know! D.C.! Your turf is about as "insignificant" as it gets, huh, Mark?

Nice job insulting some 2.5 million voters, in those five jurisdictions alone.

And what was that throwaway line at the end? “That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama”?

I’d love to have heard what you said after that. if you said anything at all, of course; I can picture you just throwing it out there into the conference-call ether with no explanation, and the stenographers on the other end dutifully transcribing it without asking the obvious follow-up:

"Um, what ’serious questions’ might those be?"

Actually, you’re right; Sen. Obama’s currrent record of wins does raise serious questions about him. Just one example:

With his current momentum, why should he even bother campaigning against Clinton, rather than moving straight to campaigning against John McCain?

Not, I’ll venture, quite the sort of "serious question" you had in mind.

By the way, Markie Boy, I’ve got a new slogan for your political consulting biz:

Mark Penn. When you want to insult your base.

Got that nice ring of truth, doncha think?

Mark Penn Firing Watch: Day 1

Administrator — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:50:05 +0000

That’s it.

Mark Penn must go.

Not because he’s hurting Clinton’s candidacy. Frankly, at this point I’m so fed up with her for keeping this moron around that I really don’t give one solitary flying fuck whether he hurts her candidacy or not.

But what I don’t want to have happen is Penn, like Bob Shrum, rising from the ashes of his latest Democratic incineration to pressure the unwary and unwise into believing that they neeeeeeed him.

Penn must go. NOW. He’s not even a real Democrat, for fuck’s sake - he’s an Ed Koch/Joe Lieberman pussywhipped "centrist" douchebag. And this party’s had all the douchebaggery from this crowd it can take for - oh, say, the next millennium or so.

To that end, I’m making it my personal mission to get this insecure and narcissistic little asshole drummed out of the Democratic Party campaign consulting business, once and for all. Let the Rethugs have him - underneath, he’s one of them anyway. Probably wears bright red magic underwear, too - with Jack Bauer in tights and a cape emblazoned on the front.

So, for the foreseeable future (since I have no confidence in the party establishment taking a single step to save themselves from themselves, ever), ARA will highlight Penn’s heresies and stupidities. (Yeah, I know; not enough years left in my life to highlight them all. But we do the best we can.)

Herewith, then, today’s edition:

Clinton’s chief strategist Mark Penn ratcheted up the debate in recent days by convening a rare two conference calls in three days with reporters to underscore the campaign’s focus on which Democrat can win in November.

“The kind of independent support that [Obama] had so far would evaporate relatively quickly once he faced the Republicans because of them filling in the totality of his record,” Penn said on Monday.

Two days later, after Obama’s eighth straight victory, Penn told reporters: “Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries.”

Um.

What . . .

the . . .

fuck?!

‘Kay, lessee if I got this straight. Winning Democratic primaries is no indication of who can win the general. Hmm. So, Mark, I can tease out two separate interpretations of that:

1) Mark thinks that losing Democratic primaries is a sign of who can win the general; or

2) Mark thinks that winning the nomination is not an incontrovertible prerequisite to competing in the general in the first place.

I have no doubt that Mark’s perfectly capable of "believing" both (that is to say, he believes that we’re stupid enough to believe both) - but for what it’s worth, my money’s on 2).

Why?

If you’re shilling for the candidate who appears to be losing in the pledged-delegates department, and you’re planning to force the nomination your way by strong-arming the superdelegates, then obviously, you’re not someone who genuinely believes that winning primaries (and thus, the nomination) is essential to becoming the party "nominee" who runs in the general election.

Somebody, please, shut him the fuck up.