I'm a little shocked...

Admittedly I've been avoiding most of the "you lie"/Rep. Wilson mess since it happened. I preferred not to contribute to what I considered low hypocrisy on the part of Wilson and the media frenzy that followed. Not to say I wasn't ticked, but I figured there were bigger things to worry about (i.e. my boss not eating me alive today for one).

Last night I stumbled across KO for the first time in a couple of weeks (I guess since the Wilson mess) and heard the dreaded R word - race. At first I sort of laughed a little. Race? Wilson was just being a jackass. How does that have anything to do with racism or race issues? Wasn't this just Keith being a little out there? I normally agree with most things Countdown but not always. And I thought maybe this was one of those "not always" bits. But then I read about Jimmy Carter thinking the same thing. And then I clicked on "white supremists" on jezebel and found out that Wilson has a history of supporting white segregationists with confederate flag complexes. I think that last bit is perhaps a stretch on calling Wilson racist or anything, but it does sort of get to the heart of the question: does race play a role in all of this vitrolic Obama hate from the right?

I'm one of those naive people who likes to say they understand the role race plays in modern America, all the while being white and middle-class and completely incapable of understanding the role race plays in modern America. I've never dared to say we're in a post-racial society though, because, quite frankly, I know better. I know people. I've heard things. We're not even close to being there. But I did think, again naively, that Obama getting elected meant there were more of us than them. And the "them" was not as vocal and/or adament as one might imagine.

I guess I'm a little shocked, because I've just realized I'm wrong. Or that I was wrong. Or stupid or whatever you want to call it. I didn't want to think these vocal minorities were inherently incensed because of race. (I still don't want to think it.) I also didn't want to be a person who screamed "racism" at every person who had some kind of criticism or complaint, regardless of its accuracy or not.

Aside: A repub friend of mine accused me of throwing out the racism label a little too freely a while back. We were having a discussion about Rush Limbaugh, and while Iwas completely right - that dude is racist (among a whole litany of offenses to pile in the racist column is the fact he was fired from Monday Night Football for making, ahem, racist comments and the lovely, lovely "Barack the Magic Negro" song he played over and over again on his radio show during the election cycle) - I was also self-aware enough to know that she was right. I could very easily throw out the word "racist" and have no qualms about labeling just about anyone I thought was a bit of an ass on the right. I didn't do that, of course, but I could have done that. Labeling a hate-monger or nut-job racist wasn't a big deal to me. Given my recent realization about my propensity to label, fairly or not, I didn't want to fall into the "cry wolf" category if I could help it.

All of this said, I'm not at all calling Rep Wilson a racist. I have no idea if he is or not. I hope he's not. But I've naively blundered my way into thinking the world is a happy, nicer place because Obama is president. It's not. And I'm beginning to think, slowly and haltingly, that race is playing more of a role in the diatribe than I'd ever cared to admit before.

What do you think? Are people calling it correctly?

Oh and I think Jezebel hit it right on when they gave Matt Lauer what for for asking if it's worse to be racist or to have the label of racist thrown around. Um, what do you think, Mr. Privileged White Boy? I'd say it might be worse to be abused than to be called an abuser. Let's ask Rihanna or Chris Brown who has it worse. Bad example. Let's ask Rihanna in 20 years once she's come to her senses who had it worse. (Don't get me started on that stupid Chris Brown song making the rounds because of some dumb wedding dance. People are idiots.)

Cartoon figures abound...

I missed King of the Hill last night. Boo. It's a good thing I didn't miss my completely unrealistic, animated character fix though, because I did get to see this goober:





I haven't seen anyone mention it yet but why the hell does he have to talk like that? I felt like I was back in my 9th grade geometry class when the teacher used to put apples with our names on them around the room for good grades.

I also heard Jindal speak on one of the morning news shows over the weekend and he was ridiculous. I hate to even dedicate 5 minutes of my time to discussing him but the fact that he's the Republican party's Obama is beyond laughable. Obama is post-racial. Accept it.

And for your reading pleasure, just in case you wanted to learn what a nutjob Jindal really is and let me just preface this with two words: exorcism and sex. Oh yeah.


FYI, the count down begins. I have approximately 74 hours left before I plummet to the ground in a self-induced mania. Wish me luck!

He's still ahead...

I give Obama a score of 101. (I'm giving him 1 extra point based on pure, unadulterated love.)

As of last Tuesday he had a +1 score for reasons discussed above. A recap (in no particular order and definitely not exhaustive) of points gained and lost in one week.

Gain - first dance with Michelle. Beyonce expressed real emotion and so did I. I was tempted to make this a loss, because it was too pathetic that Beyonce moved me but that's not really Obama's fault... I guess.

102

Gain - Mexico City Gag Rule Repealed (Washington Post article). I've been on about this issue since law school although I cared more about the loss of funding the UN Population Fund. But a gain nonetheless.

103

Loss - overuse of the phrase "an abundance of caution" by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. I happened to be home sick when his first press conference aired. The stupid pc word choice has already made its way into popular vernacular and I don't like it. If you're going to be in front of the press, Mr. Gibbs, learn new ways to say the same, old thing.

102

Gain - closing Gitmo.

103

Loss - taking a year to do it.

102

Gain - making sure Citigroup sent that goddamned jet back. He gets 2 points for this one, because he was just so cool about it.

104

Loss - caving to the conservatives re: birth control in his kazillion dollar relief package (or stimulus, whatever). This pisses me right the hell off. I'd take away 3 points for this but for the fact that both he and Pelosi said the legislation will be reintroduced at a later date. It ticks me off so much when I hear conservatives manipulate an issue like this. All the provision did was allow states to provide contraceptive services to poor women without a huge red tape hullabaloo. (States can already do this but it requires lots of paperwork.) Does he even need Republican support for his stimulus package? He can get it passed easily enough and if those idiot Repubs (not all but some) are going to block an entire package because of misstated socioeconomic bigotry, so be it. Let them be the asses of this story. As is Obama (and Pelosi) get their first serious black marks.

Final Tally: 102

So he's still ahead by 2 points, but I'm ending on a disappointing note. I felt really strongly about the Citigroup jet thing too, so I'll have to try and not let one weak moment cloud my judgment. Especially if he gets the legislation passed at a later date. He'll earn back those points then.

Signed, Sealed, Delivered, He's Ours...

And it's official! It's a good day. I'm officially NOT disgruntled - for once.

Some random thoughts:

1. I think I saw Starr Jones bragging on Fox News about being in the "orange" section to see Obama get sworn in. I have no clue if that's good or bad, but I'm guessing if she made a point to say it, it must be good. Lame. (Secretly jealous though.)

2. Alicia Keys wore a short dress to a very obviously black tie, possibly white tie affair. It's an inaugural ball, for god's sake. Wear something floor-length, will you?

3. I loved the silver, gunmetal color of Beyonce's nails. I really loved how she cried while singing to the First Couple. I cried too. I'm such a sap.

4. I love how they seem so intimate even though millions of people are watching them. If it's an act, it's an exceptionally good one. (I think it's real.)

5. There was one douche at the Youth Ball wearing a striped, polo shirt. Give me a goddamnned break, right? How did that guy get in? He couldn't get into a tacky Las Vegas club but he could get into an inaugural ball?

6. I'm not from Chicago or anything but the Cubs are my 2nd favorite team. I don't hate the White Sox or anything but come on, Mr. President (ooohh, I love writing that!), don't start off your Presidency hating on the Cubbies. They're cursed enough as it is.

7. Jon Stewart is exceptionally funny unless Samantha Bee is around and then he just plain sucks.

8. Saddleback sounds waaay too much like bareback for me to even begin to take Rev. Warren's gay-hating seriously.

9. The first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal church (on The Daily Show) is wearing a pink shirt and bares a striking resemblance to Elton John. Coincidence or bad joke?

10. Oddly enough, Fox News had way better inaugural ball coverage than any of the other news channels. Shocking. The coverage was incredibly public access, if you will, but extensive.

11. So that poem the female poet I should probably not admit I don't know read? Not the best. I'll have to read it to make a final decision, but rhythmic poetry just doesn't translate well to the masses.

12. Texas just gained a new full-time citizen. I guess you could say we're taking one for the team.

If I were going to the inauguration...

I'd wear this:



But with better hair and possibly in a deep, royal/peacock blue. I'd prefer a royal blue with the iridescent parts in peacock blue. Damn, I'd look good next to Obama. Not, you know, in place of Michelle, per se, just for pictures and what not.

Remember this little bit?

Well check this out:

See what I'm saying? I think it's the sunglasses. (There are better pics but you get the point.) This was Monday when he went to visit Bush. I saw about 5,000 pictures of him getting off the plane on the news yesterday and had to post them. Most presidents look like they're about to fall off the steps. Not Barack. He looks cool and determined and... did I mention cool?

He can most likely only disappoint from this moment on but for now? I'm impressed.

AAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!

I'm so freaking excited! I can't WAIT until tomorrow. I hope he wins, I hope he wins, I hope he wins....

*fingers crossed*

Oh and I'm at a standstill with my MOH toast. Big surprise, eh? I have a great story to tell but I hate to tell it plus I want to kill in the humor department. I could totally bash the groom and get a few guffaws but I want the crows rolling. Hmmm... how to accomplish, how to accomplish? The wedding is Saturday. Any suggestions? Oh and I can't sing very well so it would have to be something incredibly easy, musically, if it were to be in song. And the same goes for dancing. I can take sarcasm to an artform though, if that helps.

P.A.N.T.H.E.R.S.

Once again I'm taking the cheap way out and posting something I saw on Jezebel. Too bad. It's damn funny.

I'm offended.

By the moment in Palin's speech where she said that only one candidate has fought for "you." She paused strategically, of course, and then continued to say he was the only candidate who fought for you when the fight meant life and death.*

I'm offended.

I have a public service job and I'm offended by the notion that unless I put on a military uniform, I'm not fighting for the people.

I'm offended.

Obama worked in the trenches of one of the poorest areas in the country and to insinuate that he wasn't "fighting for America" is insulting to his work, those who do similar work, and those who are benefited by someone giving a rat's ass about them. And to further imply that someone in a socio-economically depressed environment isn't living in a life and death situation shows a fundamental disregard for both facts and human suffering, not to mention a complete lack of understanding of anything other than an upper, middle-class world.

I can tolerate a bit of dem/Obama jabbing at the RNC. I expect it. But to personally insult me, not just my candidate, and others like me sends me through the roof. I can assure you that it is not in my economic interest to do the work I do. I can also assure you that I made the decision to work for the public early on in my professional schooling. To insinuate that my contributions don't count, that I'm not "fighting" for my country (and the people within it) is something that goes beyond ignorance. It goes to the essence of understanding the world beyond you and why I'm a democrat without label and without hesitancy. Kindness and understanding are essential to my world view. Knowing that I'm not the only person in this world and that there are people who have much different experiences from me are what make up the basis of my decision to choose a political party that works for the poor, the under-represented, and the "fighters" of the world.

So fuck you, Palin. You may be one Sephora trip away from a pit bull but you're miles away from understanding what it means to be anyone other than yourself.


*I'd like to point out that if not for that comment, I wouldn't have a lot of negative things to say about her speech. I know what I'm getting into when I tune in to rabid Republicans, as they did a week ago.

Tom Ridge is a moron. Or is he?

I've searched and searched and searched and I cannot find any video evidence to document what I'm about to tell you but trust me when I say that I heard him (Tom Ridge) loud and clear.

I was watching the Republican National Convention last night when I saw Joe "I Swear I'm a Democrat Even Though None of Them Will Let Me Be One" Lieberman sell his soul to the devil. On an aside, I can tolerate JLie campaigning for McCain and touting his friend's accomplishments. I cannot tolerate him lying to people about Obama. Keep it to what you know, Joe, McCain's ass. (I tuned in 100% during the JLie speech because my man Gonzo lost to Roddick in the Open. It was over quite quickly and pathetically. Gonzo still looked good though. I be Chilean men really know how to woo American, slightly stalkerish, women.)

One of the MSNBC reporters, I think Andrea Mitchell, interviewed Tom Ridge after all the speeches were done. She was asking him about his take on Palin. I can't quote directly without a source, as I'm not that smart, but he basically said that Hillary voters, aka women, will vote for Palin because vaginas will vote for vaginas, regardless of policies.

I think this is what my friend B was trying to tell me when I was still in a sleep-deprived stupor Monday evening. Did McCain really pick Palin because he assumed we would all vote with our lady parts as opposed to our lady brains? I don't think many women who supported Hillary would support an anti-choice woman, regardless of her genitalia. Not to mention the fact that HRC was all about the semi-socialized healthcare and I have yet to meet a Republican who would support such things. (I'm sure they exist, I just don't know them.)

Back to my thesis: Is Tom Ridge a moron? Or is he a truth-teller? Or thirdly, does he have a case of sour grapes over not being chosen as the VP choice and attempting sabotage?

I guess only time will tell...

Sarah, Palin and Tall

Just a few, quick thoughts (keen insight to follow once my brain has recovered and I've become re-hydrated):

How hilarious is it that the "rumor" about this crazy christian, gun-toting ex-beauty queen is that her most recent kid is actually her 17 year-old daughter's kid and she's pretending it's hers? How very V.C. Andrews. How even more hilarious that she counters this rumor by saying her daughter is 5 months pregnant as we speak? As if that makes the likelihood of the above rumor lessened? But even if it's not true (and really the kid has Down's, which is much more likely to occur in older parents), how awesomely did the rumor mill work is terrible, black magic? "You will admit your failings as a parent Mrs. Palin, oh yes, you will." (so sayeth the black magic)

Brief text message conversation with my Repub friend at 8:00 a.m. Friday morning went something like this:

Me - NBC confirms the alaskan beauty queen.
Her - Woohoo! Change we can believe in.
Me - Change you can hang your tiara on.
Her - Not a beauty contest, a scholarship opportunity.

I later saw footage of Palin shooting an AK 47. I wonder what her talent was...

Ding dong, the Olympics are dead.

I love the Olympics as much as the next anti-nationalist gal. It's the only time I can truly get excited about the American flag, the national anthem, and random chants of "USA!" That said, I'm so glad they're over. Truthfully I'm so incredibly sleep-deprived from the event that I could be bordering on delirious. Last night was the first night I've slept more than 5 hours in over a week.

Here are some highlights/random thoughts about the whole experience:

1) Do Nastia Lukin's legs bend outward? (I got into a point and shout match with a couple of friends over this one. They couldn't see and everytime one of her legs bent inside out, I pointed and shouted, "See? Right there! Those should not be concave from that angle!" It was awesome.)

2) It's that damn Phelps squiggly kid again. I get he's got more medals than all the African countries put together but if a person has no knowledge base with which to compare the greatness of a mess of medals, does it really matter? Meaning - how the hell can so many freaking people give a rat's ass about this weirdo swimmer guy?

3) Except in the case of that amazing relay. That was straight up awesome.

4) I'm only a fan of basketball in All-Star game situations, i.e. the Redeem Team (dumb name though). And when I'm a fan I'm also suddenly an expert. It's only annoying to those people in the room who aren't me.

5) Gymnastics rules. Unless it's on a trampoline or uses a hula hoop. Then it's just dumb.

6) Speaking of gymnastics, how do those girls not have the worst shin splints in the world? Mysterious...

7) I'm secretly in love with Usain Bolt. He's too quick for me to catch up to him though. Get it? Quick? 'Cause he's, um, fast? Whatever. Nonetheless that dude seriously made the other runners look like they were mall walking. When he wasn't showboating and you could tell he was crazy nervous, he made me love him just a tiny bit more. USAin! What? It's similar.

8) What I wouldn't give to be a fly on one of the many walls at the Athlete's Village. Heard those folks got all kinds of busy.

9) How exactly do you break a sweat playing ping pong? And why isn't it called ping pong?

10) Way to make a girl feel old - change the rules to volleyball since she last played it (in junior high).

11) Why is beach volleyball an Olympic sport? I can't stand it on the beach and I especially can't fucking stand it on tv. Shoot me if I hear another commentator talk about hard it is to leap and jump from the sand. You know what would make leaping and jumping easier for you freaks? Being indoors on a real gym floor, that's what. Shut up.

12) Listening to boxing commentators is probably the most hilarious thing I've ever done (in the last 2-3 days). And I quote: "You better learn how to fight if your mom makes you wear a dress. Or run." But all in this slightly insane high-pitched Jersey accent. He was talking about a boy, in case you didn't put it together. It was damn funny.

Here's hoping the Dem Convention will be just as entertaining! MSNBC, here I come. Keith O better rule that jackass Chris Matthews or I'll be pissed.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

I've never dug the whole borderline homophobic Seinfeld episode where they harp on gay people and clean it all up with "not that there's anything wrong with that." The simple act of implying that there could be something "wrong" with being gay, although Seinfeld and his posse were way too cool to think such things (obviated by the constant need to defend their words and/or actions), always seemed to me to be more than a little offensive and hypocritical. It's like having a discussion about gay public affairs, current events, hell, even clubs or people you know but making sure to state that you (or me or them or whomever) are not gay. It's the guy who talks about going to a gay club one weekend but stressing how awkward he felt having guys hit on him. Or the girl who talks about girl-on-girl sex but follows it up with an explanation about how sexuality is more fluid with women, so same sex exploits don't equate with lesbianism.

All of this is a long way of saying that the above picture sucks. I like satire. I appreciate satire. I even love a good French farce (and don't lecture me on the difference between satire and farce - I know). But this? is not cool. The thing is that it's mainly not cool because it came from the New Yorker. I know this expectation of liberal open-mindedness from a pseudo-intelligensia magazine exposes some of my baser assumptions about media, and I guess that's the talking point to take away from all of this. I think racism is a real issue. I think we all have to constantly question our assumptions and thoughts about what is and is not okay about the way we think and portray ourselves (i.e. our externalization of our internal mechanisms).

I guess the moral of the story is that just because you consider yourself liberal, open-minded, non-racist (or non homophobic in Seinfeld's case) doesn't mean that a) you actually are (at least not always) and b) you get to be above reproach because you no longer clutch your purse tighter when a black man walks beside you.

And sometimes the response to the initial negative thing (the New Yorker says it's satiring all the misinformation out there) only creates a second, independent negative thing. But, like the editor from the New Yorker said on Morning Joe this morning, they totally didn't mean it that way. So you dumbasses out there who are offended, you're obviously not intelligent enough to read our magazine anyway. With that reassurance I guess we can all go back to reading our fancy media publications, drinking our lattes, and watching our Seinfeld re-runs. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

SATC - The Movie

I saw SATC Saturday night. It was a fun girls' night out. (I know people are making fun of those of us who used a movie about sex and overly priced consumer goods as an excuse for a girls' night but I say fuck off to those people. It was fun and I enjoyed it.)

We got dressed up to go to a semi-fancy restaurant and wine bar. We spiced up our wardrobe a tad in a nod to SATC itself, but mainly we dressed up for the dinner and bar portion of the evening. Except for J. She wore "beach-ware," as she described it. I did find a home for my beautiful Arden B shirt that is too small for my boobs and that I waited to long to take back. My friend L was wearing a similar color and it looked amazing on her. So she gets my beautiful, ruffly, sparkly, cleavage-creating shirt. I hope her bf appreciates it.

I wore a pretty, blue-green, vintage dress I got in NYC last summer (or was it the summer before?) and a pair of awesome, yellow wedges from Target. I put on extra eyeliner and earrings I normally don't wear because they're slightly heavy, and I'm terrified I'm going to have droopy earlobes when I get old. And, to top it all off, I wore my huge cocktail ring to show that I meant business (i.e. having fun with my girls and drinking as much as I wanted).

I'm here to defend SATC and my money-spending ladies on two fronts:

1) SATC was not a horrible movie like a lot of reviews are making it out to be. Yes there was consumerism and yes they made questionable choices in story-telling, but all in all, I really liked the female friendships in the film, which is what I think the show was always all about, no matter how many times Samantha sexed, Charlotte married, Miranda bitched, or Carrie pouted. In that regard, it did its job. I even cried a bit. (I mostly kept it in check and hid my face though, because I didn't want to get skewered by my ladies. They're very quick to point out my emotional neediness when it rears its ugly head - probably because I reap what I sew but that's another story.)

2) Women have just as much say over what movie will do well opening weekend as men, if not more so. I will occasionally see a movie I'm not terribly jazzed about with the bf, but I'm much more likely to put the kabosh on a film than he is. For Matt Lauer to get on the Today Show and talk about how men must have wanted to see SATC after all (since it topped the box office) is ignorant and slightly degrading. Women see movies by themselves. Women see movies with their girlfriends. Women make decisions about what movies to see with their significant others/guy friends. Women make enough money to buy their own movie ticket. Women make up more than 50% of the population of the U.S. Women watch god damned movies and are a fucking voice in this economy, okay? Okay. Perhaps one day when women are in charge of the movie companies, some of this dismissive attitude will change. Until then, suck it movie execs. You do me no favors.

*breathes in and out, in and out*

Oh and my tiny secret? I've always secretly hated Manolos. I think they look too old and frumpy for my tastes. I know that's not a popular opinion but I've yet to run into a pair that I thought was worth all the hype and/or money. And they're not well made. (This is not my opinion of all designer shoes, just MB in particular.)

Unauthorized campaign literature...

I totally stole this from Jezebel. If you can't read it for some reason, check it out here.

It's freaking hilarious!

Voting Day in Texas! Weeeee!!!!!

I'm proudly sporting my "I Voted" sticker right now. I went this morning and there was quite a turn out for 9:30 a.m. Usually there's less than 5 people in my polling location (and that's optimistic). Today there were 20-30. It was pretty shocking. I saw Obama tables/supporters on 3 out of 4 corners around the polling place. But no HRC supporters. It was weird. On one corner a woman was standing with an Obama sign. She had her kid (or kids?) with her as well. It was pretty cold this morning, so she must be very dedicated. Of course the kid(s) had their own pretty ride to hide out in if things got too hairy. The mom was the real soldier with a sign out and braving the weather all by her lonesome (sort of - do kids count as company?).

It was definitely exciting and I'm going back to caucus at 7:15. I wonder if there will be a long line then too? Sadly I missed all the blue hairs who usually run the election. Today it was mainly young 'uns with one old man who had earrings (as in more than one), so I'm not sure he counted toward my blue-hair demographic.

I can't wait to tune in tonight and see what happens! Go Obama! Or HRC if that's the way the tide turns!!

Summary of last night's debate...

First my thoughts: HRC looked great. Her make-up was excellent. I'm guessing Bare Minerals but I suppose it could have been something more with a professional make-up artist. Either way she looked great. It also occurred to me how hard it must be for Chelsea to get up and talk to people for her mom. She doesn't seem like the most outgoing person in the world. I bet she got used to keeping her privacy, given media scrutiny and all. She must really, really want her mom to win to put herself out there like that.

I'm here in Austin so it was really exciting that everything was happening in my town. Two complaints though - 1) only 100 tickets for the public to the debate? Insane. 2) Paying to go to the viewing parties where HRC and Obama showed up to afterward? Annoying. My couch was free. I drove by campus on my way home from work (can't help it, I live that way) and there were a lot of people mini-rallying outside the arena area. It was pretty cool. I honked and waved as I passed them, like I was in a parade. Lame but the main cause of the giddiness on the way home.

Moderators: yadda, yadda, yadda
HRC: Same thing I've always said.
BO (hee): And I agree.
Moderators: more junk about stuff, sometimes in Spanish
BO: More of the same.
HRC: And I agree.
Moderators: Stir up the pot.
BO: Plagarism is sheer sillyness.
HRC: No it's not.
Audience: *crickets* and a few boos
HRC campaign: aaaand you're fired, speech writer!
BO: I'm slightly agitated by your attack. Should we discuss healthcare more? Our plans are 99% the same but really, that 1% is HUGE.
Moderators: Can we be done now?
BO: Sure. I'm done. I'm cool and HRC totally didn't beat me.
HRC: Oh yeah? Here's your KO punch, Barack. Please don't remember that I'm lifting this "we're going to be okay" message from John Edwards. Hate to think I might be the pot and you the kettle in this little scenario.
Audience: OMG! That was like totally awesome!! I'm off to early vote!

I only wish they'd mentioned Texas more. I love that. I think I shall forget all about the debate tonight over a glass (or 3) or wine. It wasn't terribly exciting anyway. And I missed American Idol for it. Well, that part was actually okay.

Apparently it's a lovers' tiff...

If you haven't heard about the story the NYTimes did on McCain's shady girl love, check it out here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

It's pretty inocuous actually but you know I had to tune into Rush Limbaugh today to see what he had to say about it. According to him, this story is the result of a lovers' tiff between the New York Times and John McCain. Ha ha! See, the NYT saw McCain as a moderate Repug and since he's been catering to the conservative base in the past few weeks, they got pissed off and decided to print this "libel" against him. (Psst, I've read the entire article and there's no libel there but whatevs. Apparently a prominate newspaper doesn't know jack about how to protect itself from libel and, you know, check facts or what not.)

I find it highly amusing that a story that first premiered on the Drudge Report over two months ago (along with various other political/sensationalist websites, i.e. Wonkette), and that is only now being covered by a reputable news source (depending on your pov) is somehow the result of injured feelings. And is it not odd that the sources in the piece are from McCain's own campaign? Intereeesting.

I read the NYT. I like the NYT. But I'm under no delusion as to their journalistic integrity issues. I'm at least happy they struggle with ethical issues unlike other so-called "news" sources. However to imply that a newspaper that put off reporting about the Bush administration's failings in the Iraq war for months and months and months (at the request/insistence of Bush insiders) among many other damaging things, is now reporting a story over 9 years old (and 2 months old in the reporting world) because a Republican presidential candidate is attempting to solidify his party's base under his feet is not only illogical, it's preposterous.

And this, my friends, is why I listen to Rush Limbaugh - for the laughs. The man is so illogical and inconsistent that his entire rants are like millions of tiny fingers on my ticklish spots. Hee. He's a funny, funny guy.