Saturday, August 30, 2008

Buyer Beware: Congressman Gets Feelings Hurt?

For somebody who touts his military service (of subpoenas) constantly to make us think he's tough as steel, Steve Buyer sure can be creampuff. Remember in 2006 when Buyer refused to debate David Sanders, his Democratic opponent, because he was "mean-spirited?"

Now Buyer says there will only be one debate with his current opponent, Nels Ackerson, because Ackerson allegedly violated a debate rule, though Ackerson has no idea what Buyer is talking about, nor does anybody in the 4th District. Buyer is supposed to issue a statement to clarify what he meant. Word on the street is that Buyer was upset that the Ackerson campaign advertised the debate, which was hosted before the Indiana Farm Bureau. WHAT!?!?!? Yes, you read this correctly. Buyer was upset the Ackerson was telling people they were going to debate. Umm....isn't that the point of a debate? To get people to attend so, ya know, they can educate themselves?

Anytime somebody attacks Buyer's positions, voting record, or the fact that he pledged to serve only six years in Congress over sixteen years ago, Buyer takes his ball and goes home. Certainly, any campaign can decide debate schedule, and it is a tactic used by both parties' candidates who are leading to duck debates for fear of saying something stupid. But you'll see me call out my own party members when they don't debate. You'll also see me give credit to "poll leaders," such as Mitch Daniels, when they agree to debate when they have, ostensibly, a lot to risk in doing so.

Sure, some candidates or elected officials might be extremely knowledgeable and completely in tune with their constituents and still come off poorly for want of television polish. I get that. But
debating is part of the ritual that is running for public office, and if an elected official cannot withstand the intensity of public scrutiny and criticism, I find myself questioning whether (s)he is up to the job. You have to have a thick skin in politics, or you'll start acting out in vindictive and petty ways against political opponents that will compromise your constituents' best interests. And that's what bothers me about Buyer. He's too sensitive, and as a result, he suffers from podium cowardice.

That's why I'm about to utter probably my most "mean spirited" remark of the year:

Congressman Buyer, grow a set.


Friday, August 29, 2008

Music Foretells American Struggle?

Did anybody else notice that the music played after Barack Obama's speech last night was the score from the 2000 movie Remember the Titans?

The movie is the true story of Alexandria, Virginia's T.C. Williams High School, which had a perfect football season in 1971, the first year of desegregation. In the movie, Denzil Washington plays Herman Boone, the black coach who replaces a popular and entrenched white coach, Bill Yoast (played by Will Patton).

Ultimately, a good number of the white townspeople, most of the players, and even Yoast accept Boone, but not before a lot of nasty racial incidents and soul-searching moments.

The concluding line from the movie:

"People say that it can’t work…black and white….here we make it work every day. We have our disagreements, of course, but before we reach for hate....always...always...we remember the Titans."
Does America have too much racial animus (and its cosmetically-covered sister, "mistrust") to accept Barack Obama as its Herman Boone?

As I see polling showing an increasing number of people who say race is a deciding factor in who they'll vote for, I sadly start to think the answer is yes. This isn't because there are so many white people in this country who are not ready for a black president. It's because there are just enough of them.

If we learned anything from Ralph Nader, it's the damage that taking away even 3.7% of the American public can do to a political candidate's chances in a close election.


Tuesday, August 26, 2008

The Woman Who Destroyed History When She Couldn't Make It

The Clinton sabotage saga continues...

Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star reports that only 47% of Hillary Clinton's supporters are "solidly" behind Obama. One Clinton delegate from Wisconsin already appeared in a John McCain commercial in which she urges Clinton supporters to defect. Given how clearly McCain's policies contradict Clinton's own, this reaction is can only be characterized as irrational, emotionally-driven "taking my ball and going home." Even ardent Clinton supporters, such as Indianapolis City-County Councilor Joanne Sanders see that.

(Am I going to be branded a sexist now because I called this woman's reaction "irrational?")

Now Clinton is set to take the stage to mend fences. I hope I'm wrong, but I detect "too little, too late." In cruel irony for Obama, the more spectacular Clinton is on the podium, the more she will fuel the discontent at what could have been. Clinton could have been on the phone all along directly to her key supporters, including this Wisconsin delegate, but did she do that? No. She just kept leaving the bread crumbs.

And that's why, according to the Star:

Republicans were hosting a "Happy Hour for Hillary" party Monday in Denver, inviting "open-minded Democrats" who might see McCain as the better qualified candidate.

In what other universe has one party's nominee been so easily torpedoed by its own people?

Respectfully, I must remind Councilor Sanders and those Clinton supporters who are upset that Clinton was not considered for VP of the divisive and insulting fear mongering that characterized the Clinton campaign. Had HRC wanted to be VP, she could have evened her tone and made it palatable for Obama to work with her. Instead, SHE chose to go for the win with scorched earth (though, admittedly, not as scorched as her consultant Mark Penn wanted to make to it).

Clinton can't cry now when she has to walk in ashes.


Monday, August 25, 2008


Everybody misspeaks. Not everybody always gets the rules of grammar right. But at some point, one becomes so inarticulate that you can conclude nothing other than this fact: (s)he is not intelligent.

Whoever gets elected in November...our standing in the world will HAVE to improve. I want to respect the office, folks, but our current president IS an idiot.


Some HRC People Are Losing It, and She's Paving the Way!

I said it because somebody had to say it.

Hillary Clinton could have CRUSHED Obama discontent among her supporters. But she knew it would be worth more if they stayed in a lather. When her supporters started pushing the idea of "casting a symbolic first ballot" for her at the DNC convention, she should have said the following:

"Look. We fought. We lost. Now we band together behind Obama. If you want to help me, that's what you do. I don't want to hear any of you talking about me anymore. Not a word. Don't hold on to grudges. Help me get Obama elected, maybe I can get appointed Secretary of State (or whatever), and from there, I'll become your next president."

INSTEAD, Clinton talked about the need for catharsis in a clip that went viral through YouTube to all her fans (who turned frenzied by her comments, as if to say NOT having that convention vote was a slight). I call it "dropping bread crumbs," and it applies to politics as well as relationships. If you want something to end, you unequivocally cut ties. HRC hasn't done that. Not even remotely. She's shrugged her shoulders and acted like it she had no control over her supporters. Bull (excrement)!

Respectfully, the catharsis remark might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard Senator Clinton make. Individuals compete every day and lose. Their proponents compete every day and lose. Only unadulterated arrogance makes Clinton (and her people) believe they're entitled to something special because they came close. Hey, New England lost to the Giants, but have a parade anyway! You need a catharsis!!!

Clinton and her higher ups have created an environment where everything that is done can now be churned by Republicans to make Clinton supporters even angrier.

You know how Obama was supposed to tell his supporters by text message of his VP selection BEFORE the media got the news. Well, when CNN leaked it, Obama's folks had to send out text messages in the middle of the night for fear of being perceived as liars. The Obama campaign 's thought process was, "At least our folks will have it first thing when they wake up."

How did it get spun? From CNN:

"Some Republicans and others suggested that Obama’s 3 a.m. ET email had been intended as a deliberate swipe at Hillary Clinton, who ran a primary season ad that referenced that hour of the morning to make the case she was more qualified to handle a breaking crisis."

I promise you, somewhere Clinton supporters will take this as an attack because Clinton let the "world against us" mentality fester instead of telling her people to "let it go."

Also, Clinton supporters are churning discontent because she was not on the Obama VP "short list." One quote from a "high ranking official" was that they knew she wouldn't be selected, but at least she should have been vetted. Ummm....was this the same person who came up with the catharsis comment?!? Why in the hell would you have a campaign devote time, money, and energy to vetting somebody who everybody knows will NOT be selected, just so Clinton can say, "Look at me! I'm being vetted! WHEEE!!!!"

I wanted Biden as president when this began, and when the primary came to Indiana, I voted for Obama. It was a VERY close call for me, though, because I've always had tremendous respect for HRC (she would have destroyed McCain in the debates). But now I lose more of that respect each day.

HRC is signaling through her actions and unspoken words that she would rather have Obama LOSE so she can fight McCain four years from now than to have to potentially wait for 8 years to go up against Biden.

To her credit, HRC has opted NOT to do the ceremonial first ballot. Let's hope that's the start of the REAL end of the HRC campaign.


The Washington Post Live Wire reports the following from Denver:

Hillary Clinton struck back today at John McCain's efforts to woo her supporters in new television ads. “I’m Hillary Clinton and I do not approve that message," Clinton said of the ads that suggest Obama passed over the New York senator because he was threatened by his primary rival.
Had Hillary shut it down, this ad wouldn't have worked. In fact, it would have sounded stupid. But because Clinton didn't speak more emphatically to her supporters to "get over it," Democrats are now wasting mental energy deflecting this non-story. Of course, Clinton loves it because she's in the spotlight, which you have to believe is what she knew would happen. The woman is many things, but politically stupid isn't one of them, except in the following regard. Obama supporters were gracious in victory, but I doubt they will easily forget her tactics when she wants a turn.


Saturday, August 23, 2008

It's Biden.

And I'm not disappointed. Well, I'm actually very disappointed because I thought Evan Bayh had this thing.

But I wanted Biden to be president when this whole shootin' match began. I'm just not sure how the Obama camp is going to help Biden finesse his earlier criticisms of Obama. Specifically, Biden said something to the effect that Obama was not ready to lead. Republicans are going to make Biden eat that statement like a sandwich.


Friday, August 22, 2008

Is It Bayh?

Barack Obama set forth four criteria for his prospective VP. Evan Bayh hits on at least three of those strongly and arguably the fourth as well. Joe Biden, likewise, can claim three easy and arguably a fourth. We have a two-man show, folks, and as strongly as Biden has claimed its not him, I'm cautiously optimistic.


Monday, August 18, 2008

Christian Marital Love Porn

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart is probably best known for saying that he could not define hardcore pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. Clearly, I can’t say the same thing regarding whether a photo is “too racy” for the Indiana State Fair.

The Indianapolis Star reports that Fair execs removed the work of its photography contest WINNER after two or three people complained each day that it was too risqué.

Please look at this photo, and tell me your thoughts. Here's mine. This guy says he’s a conservative Christian, which proves that those who want to censor will always devour their own because the next person’s sensitivity with be greater than the person before.

As is true with many life lessons, The Simpsons told the tale. Marge lead a successful protest against violence in cartoons (understandable), but when she wouldn’t lead a protest against Michaelangelo’s David because she thought it was a masterpiece that even children should see, she was accused of “being soft on full-frontal nudity.” That episode always cracked me up. Now it doesn’t seem so funny because those women apparently moved to Indianapolis.

Seriously, if this post-wedding photo is racy, how in the world does Indianapolis get away with the extremely mini, min-skirt wearing, sashaying woman in the electronic sign outside the Old Point Tavern on the South corner of Mass Ave? She looks like she should be in a hip hop video.

But what really amuses me about this story is that these are the same state fair execs who arguably brought you the first known example of "human-ing." (See fictitious rumors of "gerbiling" which dogged Richard Gere for years for comparison).

Specfically, the Indiana State Fair brought you a 40-foot long, four-foot tall model of a human colon with the porn name ("Coco") for you to "penetrate" fully, as you walk through it. No wonder Coco has hemorrhoids.

Also, no word on the number of complaints from the cockroach tractor pull. And, no, I'm not kidding.


Friday, August 15, 2008

Can Obama Blame Momma for Drama?

No Quarter, the pro-Clinton website that has brought you such blockbusters as "Wait Until You See The Tape of Michelle Obama Attacking Whitey" (which still has not materialized), now brings you an encore presentation entitled: "Barry Soetoro: Closet Indonesian Muslim!"

Right wing blogs, such as our very own Advance Indiana, are pushing a school record bearing the name "Barry Soetoro," not "Barack Hussein Obama." The same document says Obama's religion is "Muslim" and that he is an "Indonesian" citizen.

AI and the conservative blogocracy make several arguments against Obama, hoping and praying that one will stick, based on this document:

(1) Obama can't be president under the U.S. Constitution;

(2) Obama lied on his Illinois bar application because he didn't disclose other names he'd used; and

(3) Obama lied about being Muslim.

At the outset, let me say that as a family law attorney, I take a very measured approach to ANY document a parent fills out for a child. Often these records reflect "truth," only if by "truth," you mean the subjective beliefs of the parent filling out the form. Do you have any idea how many virgin births there would be in this country if we took as proof positive of this phenomenon each school record where no father was listed? Do you know how many living moms would now be dead if we looked at all the records dads completed? It's sad, but the answer is a boatload. Keep that in mind as you recall that Obama did not complete this form; it was a note from his mom.

First, here is the revelant excerpt from your constitution, Article II:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Until somebody files a legal challenge to the validity of Obama's birth certificate, the State of Hawaii has him as being born in 1961 in their state, and that's what Obama says as well. The fact his mother listed him as an Indonesian citizen means nothing. AI might say it proves that the Hawaii birth certificate IS a phony. To retort, it might also prove that Obama's mother was concerned about how her son would be treated in Jakarta as an American citizen, a belief which may or may not have been, itself, objectively reasonable.

I had a client with a son with mental retardation diagnosed through testing, but this was not listed in the school records. Why? He didn't want his child to be treated differently. Unless somebody talks to Ms. Obama and finds out her motivation, the fact she claimed him as an Indonesian citizen doesn't move me.

Second, when Obama filled out his bar application, was he thinking, "Wait! Some day I might run for president and somebody will not vote for me if they know people used to call me Barry Soetoro!?!" Of course not. More than likely, he either didn't know his mother had listed him under that name in this record, he was never called Barry Soetoro, or he was called it infrequently or so long ago, he didn't remember of think it reached any level of significance. When I was in law school, all my friends called me Gordo. Did I need to put that in my Indiana bar application? Of course not. Because I knew what my real name was, just like Obama did. (Seriously, folks, if he could have told everybody his name was NOT "HUSSEIN," don't you think he would have jumped on the chance to disavow it?!?)

The funny thing about this is that these are all childhood things that Barack can't control. His mom can call him Dimplecheeks Obama, but when you know your real name, that's what you list as names by which you have gone on an official state form.

Here's my challenge to all right-wing bloggers. Find me a document that Barack Obama has filled out IN ADULTHOOD with the name Barry Soetoro. What name did he use to apply for college? What about law school? Find Barry Soetoro on those applications. Then we'll talk.

You say, "But Chris, why would his mother have listed him as Barry Soetoro if his real name were Barack Hussein Obama?" Oh, perhaps because his father was absent from their lives, and she couldn't stand him. Or perhaps she wanted him to feel some kindred bond with his step-sibling.

Third, did he hide his Muslim faith? Again, that is his mother filling out the document, not him. If my mother filled out a document when I was a kid, she'd say I was Catholic. But when I filled out a college application when I was adult, I wouldn't. Nor am I sure what I would put if I was asked "in what religion were you was raised." To the extent I had one, it was Catholic. But I didn't go to church after I turned 14 years old.

Fair criticism is fair criticism, and when Obama started sounding squishy on the Iraq War, I started calling him out on it. But there is a fanatical desire to destroy his candidacy now with things that he couldn't even control because he was essentially a child.

I really do not want to point to race as right-wing bloggers motivation because if the Clintons showed anything, it's that white conservatives can REALLY drum up some deep-seated hatred toward other white people (a/k/a "Hillary"). But I don't understand how the hatred of this man has eclipsed even that level of venom.

We'll give a cocaine-sniffing, alcoholic GROWN MAN named Bush a pass to the presidency, but we'll try to destroy Obama with what his mom said about him, where she made him go to school, and what she might have made him do religiously to fit in with his peers in Jakarta.

Quite frankly, Scarlett...I don't give a damn. And you shouldn't either.


Monday, August 11, 2008

Black Votes for Obama Don't Bother Me

If you’re white and you attended a predominantly white college or university like I did, you might have had or heard a conversation like this in your dining hall:

White Person 1: "Look at how all the black students sit together at a few tables."

White Person 2: "Yeah! Why are they so separatist?"

As a white person, you might reflexively agree. At least until you interject some perspective.

If almost all the black students are sitting together at a few tables, where are the white students? Sitting together as well, of course, except at a LOT of tables. And yet, from the white majority perspective, it never occurs to many of us to see ourselves as being "separaters." At my college, there was never any allegation that the black students were stopping white students from joining them. They just didn't.

Many white people reading this will quickly retort, "Why didn't the black students come out of THEIR comfort zone to sit with some white students?" That's a fair point, but it's more emblematic of what a majority mentality instills in many: the notion that others must come to you and comform to you. You never start with the question of what must WE do.

Another idea that permeates the white American majority is that a group of people who have never had something should act like they have always had it, just like us.

This is all said as a preface to my critique of Pat Buchanan's recent question of whether it is wrong for black voters to consider Barack Obama's race, to any degree, to make their presidential decision.

Historically, African-Americans have supported the Democratic presidential candidate at around a 90% clip, so Obama likely has that locked up. What must be troubling Buchanan, therefore, is that the other 10% will probably go to Obama as well, and darn it, it's just wrong to vote for somebody BECAUSE he's black.

What Buchanan misses, but what my amiga at the American Values Alliance catches, is that the first national polls gave Obama 20% of the black vote to Clinton's 60% (the remaining 20% was spread around the other candidates). If race is all that mattered, Obama would have locked up 95% then. This is how we now know that African-Americans must have a credible Democratic African-American candidate first, and then they'll consider supporting him. They didn't at the start, and they do now.

But let's put our feet in the shoes of that other ten percent. We live in a country that says (but has not historically meant) "All Men are Created Equal." This is the only time in our history where we can actually elect a visibly non-white president. The repercussions of achieving such a milestone are significant.

What do white parents tell their kids to inspire them to do great things? "If you work hard, you can be whatever you want." How do black parents tell their children this and make them believe it when there has NEVER been a black president. (Of course, an equally compelling question is how do white parents make their daughters believe it when there has NEVER been a woman president).

Quite frankly, the question for me isn't why do African-Americans want to vote for Obama. It's how could they not? I am firmly convinced that IF McCain has black people working on his campaign (haven't seen any, but I don't hang out with McCain's folks), even they will pause when they get to the booth.

Many white people will be aghast at the suggestion that somebody should vote for a candidate, even in part, because of a group affiliation. Those aghast might include the Jews who supported Lieberman to help him become the first Jewish VP nominee, the Irish who supported Kennedy as their first President, the Chicago Poles who always voted Rostenkowski, the Italians who supported Cuomo, and the homosexuals who voted for Barney Frank.

In an America that frequently sees things in black and white, apparently its only when blacks don't see things white that it offends.

UPDATE: I forgot to add that while 20% of black voters said in a Wall Street Journal poll last month that race is the top factor influencing their "view of the candidates" and 14% admit it is a key factor, 8% of white voters said outright that race is the most important factor when it comes to looking at the presidential candidates. This is a three percentage point increase since Mr. Obama claimed the Democratic nomination. In other words, once a black man made it on to the ballot, race became an issue. An added 15% of white voters admit the candidates' race is a factor for them. If white people get exorcised about African-Americans' racial considerations, what we're really saying is: "We don't mind if you use race, black people, but just make sure you only use it as much as we do." No thanks. Instead of engaging in ridiculous line-drawing, I'll just avoid the hypocrisy altogether.


Friday, August 8, 2008

An Open Letter to Marion County Democratic Party Chair Ed Treacy: "Let's Make Slating Defensible" (Part I)

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Welcome back! I read that Marion County Republican Chair Tom John said we had taken you "out of the political graveyard." Talk about putting a stick in the hornets' nest! I think TJ will realize how fitting his zombie metaphor is once your pit bull political sense starts haunting him.

But enough about the Republican Party. With Mr. "Can't Find Seventy Million in Cuts" leading their way, the R's will be in your rearview mirror soon enough. I wanted to talk about the OTHER elephant in the room: a completely broken slating process.

Mr. Chairman, people HATE the slating process. Except for the people who benefit FROM the slating process. As you know, whether a person benefits generally hinges on his/her ability to induce you to engage in unfair electioneering and "vote packing" plans that would make FDR blush.

But don't take this as a condemnation of slating. I love it in principle. We have precinct committee people whose jobs are to canvass neighborhoods, find unregistered voters, get them registered, distribute literature door-to-door for the party and its candidates, and make sure people actually vote. This is a LOT of work, for which precinct committee people are paid in three ways: (1) gratitude in the form of pitch-in dinners; and (2) the right to pick his or her own vice committeeperson; and (3) the right to cast a "slating" vote for which candidates the party will endorse.

No disrespect intended to the baked beans and the authority to pick a "number 2" a la Dr. Evil, but the slating vote is THE meaningful thing we give our precinct laborers. But the way we handle slating conventions dilutes their votes to travesty levels. Mr. Chairman, it need not be so.
For the uninitiated, here's how it works. Marion County is divided into 590 precincts. In theory, each precinct would have a Democrat (and a Republican counterpart) who has been elected in a primary by the self-identifying Democrats (or Republicans) in that precinct. Under Indiana Democratic Party rules (written principally by yours truly, LaPorte attorney Shaw Friedman, and former Chairman Robin Winston), an elected precinct person selects his or her vice committeeperson.

For countywide offices, all 590 of these precinct committeepersons and vice committeepersons decide who the party "slates" (a/k/a "endorses"). If the office at issue were a state representative or city-council slot, only the precinct committee and vice committee people who reside within the district boundaries for those offices vote.

But, Mr. Chairman, you know we don't have 590 elected precinct committeepersons, and that's where the problem starts. You have the authority to fill vacancies, but you don't have to pick someone from within the precinct with the vacancy. In fact, you don't even have to pick someone in the same township!

Respectfully, it seems that you and your predecessors work hardest at filling precinct vacancies right before a slating convention. In fact, state party rules let you appoint up to 30 days before a slating convention, and candidates cajole you into appointing their friends from Center, Washington, Wayne, or Pike Townships to fill vacancies in Perry, Franklin, or Lawrence.

I know this happens because I was appointed before the last slating convention. I live in Center Township, and I was put in....well, I don't even remember where I was put because I NEVER worked in that precinct. My recruitment went something like this:

Candidate's envoy: "Hey, do you like (insert name here)?"

Me: "Yeah."

Candidate envoy: "Want to be a precinct committeeperson?"

Me: "Sure. What do I have to do?"

Candidate envoy: "Vote for (insert name here) at slating."

Me: "Okay."

Next thing I know, I'm a committee person.

You see my point, Mr. Chairman? We hold as a central tenet of our party's philosophy the preservation of everyone's right to vote, and yet, we endorse a process that dilutes the votes of precinct committee people who actually WORK for the party. Why would we do that, except for our own self-aggrandizement?

We bash people who "run against the slate," but this is what happens when there is no faith in how slating is conducted. Why WOULDN'T I run against what is essentially a corrupted process?
Some people will never like slating, but I believe most people truly committed to the party would back the results if it were truly fair.

I have some thoughts on how we get there, and I look forward to sharing them with you soon.


Monday, August 4, 2008

Woe is Me? Advance Indiana Severs Connection, But Easter is Here!

Here's what you need to know about me. I strive to get facts and analysis right, but sometimes I don't. So I need to be "checked" periodically. This is why I have a profound respect for opposing opinions; I don't censor them.

In the entire time I've operated this blog, I've never removed a single comment. I did warn somebody once who was trying to bogard my blog by posting a bunch of unrelated comments. So if people want to take issue with what I say, I let them, even when they keep themselves anonymous. Personally, I wish they wouldn't. But hey, if the authors of the Federalist Papers called themselves Publius, how can I hate just because "Publius" was facing potential death for treason while my posters only face the inconvenience of people discarding their argument because they believe the poster is crazy?

I posted an entry in which I said I thought Advance Indiana was being "dumb" for caring about what Obama has playing in his IPOD, and as retaliation, AI removed IPOPA from his bloglist.

In response, I'm keeping Advance Indiana up on mine. I encourage all readers who lean toward my party (Democrat) to keep reading Advance Indiana. I listen to Limbaugh AND Garrison, and I read a LOT of conservative blogs just to see what's going on and to challenge my own thinking. When we get afraid and want to shut opposing voices down, that when I know we've lost the argument.

AND on the subject of voices, let's give a round of applause to Jon Easter, the Decatur Township Democratic Party Chair, who has joined the blogocracy.

May you all make many happy returns to Indydemocrat!


Bayh VP is a Lock?

Bilerico's main essayist, Bil Browning, puts together pieces like he's Grisham in a CSI episode, and he's written a doozy of a story on Senator Bayh getting the VP nod. Its language is versed in speculation ("stick out my neck"), but the considerations raised, when taken in conjunction, makes the VP nod sound like Bayh fait accompli, which is probably why the Huffington Report fronted the story.

(But read it at Bilerico, and get the man well-deserved traffic credit).

The jist? Obama is in Elkhart with Bayh on Tuesday but Bilerico was told to stay available for a Wednesday morning event that isn't on the schedule but that the Obama campaign wants covered. Also, the timing makes sense, as there is good press to be had before the Olympics.

I've said for weeks I thought Bayh had a lock on this if he could pass the VP vetting. That was mostly raw gut, talking to people, and reading tea leaves. Kudos to Bil for serving the story in a more palatable by running it through "the Browning element."

Indiana just got a LOT more interesting, folks.


Friday, August 1, 2008

Advance Indiana Takes Two Steps Back on Ludacris Story

Just when you thought Advance Indiana couldn’t get sillier. BLAM!

Hip hop star, Ludacris, wrote a song favoring Obama that called Hillary Clinton the “b” word and was questionable in some other regards that I can’t remember. I’m sure John Price is somewhere with a stenograph going over each word, so get a report from him. Anyway, because Obama said he had Ludacris in his Ipod, Advance Indiana thinks Obama shouldn’t be your president.

Is that what it’s come down to? Deciding our president based on who is in his IPOD?

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read, and as a regular at Advance Indiana, that’s saying something.

I'm tired of guilt by association rants. I don't believe, support, or imitate everything I see or hear. If you accept Gary’s argument, though, you must. So....I feel very bad for you, and I can only caution you to avoid packs of lemmings near cliffs because you might go over with them.

I have seen thousands of violent movies, but I don't kill. In fact, I've never even been in a fight. I listened to Pink Floyd's "The Wall," and somehow managed not to disrespect the public education system. I have Lynrd Skynrd's "Sweet Home Alabama" on my Ipod. Here are some of its lyrics:

"In Birmingham, they love the governor,
Now we all did what we could do,
Now Watergate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you?"

In addition, the final chorus rhymes "where the skies are so blue" with "and the governor's true." The Governor of whom they speak? Rabid segregationist George Wallace. How am I not in the klan?

I’ve listened to Ludacris since he first came out. I challenge you to find ANYBODY who says I’m a misogynist or who has ever heard me use the “b” word. When I was in college, I listened to NWA's song, "F--- tha police," and guess what?!? I've publicly criticized those who disrespect police officers, and I've never been arrested. I loved Busta Rhymes’ song, “Pass the Courvoisier,” and yet, I’ve never drank it! How is this possible?

The next thing Advance Indiana is going to tell you is that watching Brokeback Mountain will turn you gay, so we should be worried about any presidential candidate with that movie in his or her DVD collection.

If AI is going to quote Ludacris lyrics, it can at least quote the good ones:

Shout out to Bill O'Reilly,
I'ma throw you a curve,
You mad cause I'm a THIEF,
and got away with words,
I'ma start my own beverage,
it'll calm your nerves
Pepsi's the New Generation -