Saturday, October 23, 2010

The Fireside chat for October 23, 2010 (VIDEO)

The President hones in on the passage of Wall Street Reform over the ferocious lobbying of Wall Street banks as a pivotal moment in the last two years, and condemns Republicans in Congress for vowing to repeal it.

Count this among the many, many consequences for sitting on your hands and not voting this November.

Friday, October 22, 2010

According to Newsweek, we may just be fired up, and ready to go...

From Newsweek:

Despite doom-saying about Democrats’ chances in the midterms, the latest NEWSWEEK poll shows that they remain in a close race with Republicans 12 days before Election Day, while the president’s approval ratings have climbed sharply. The poll finds that 48 percent of registered voters would be more likely to vote for Democrats, compared to 42 percent who lean Republican (those numbers are similar to those in the last NEWSWEEK poll, which found Democrats favored 48 percent to 43 percent). President Obama’s approval ratings have jumped substantially, crossing the magic halfway threshold to 54 percent, up from 48 percent in late September, while the portion of respondents who disapprove of the president dropped to 40 percent, the lowest disapproval rating in a NEWSWEEK poll since February 2010. However, his approval rating, which is notably higher than many recent polls of the president’s popularity, may be evidence of a closing “enthusiasm gap” more than a sea change in voter attitudes, and may not substantially affect Democrats’ fortunes come Election Day. In 1994, NEWSWEEK polls showed a similar steep climb in President Clinton’s approval between late September and late October, but Democrats still suffered a rout in the midterms.

The United Kingdom goes full Anti-Keynes. And the British people freak out in 5-4-3-2...

Paul Krugman:

In the spring of 2010, fiscal austerity became fashionable. I use the term advisedly: the sudden consensus among Very Serious People that everyone must balance budgets now now now wasn’t based on any kind of careful analysis. It was more like a fad, something everyone professed to believe because that was what the in-crowd was saying.

And it’s a fad that has been fading lately, as evidence has accumulated that the lessons of the past remain relevant, that trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea. Most notably, the confidence fairy has been exposed as a myth. There have been widespread claims that deficit-cutting actually reduces unemployment because it reassures consumers and businesses; but multiple studies of historical record, including one by the International Monetary Fund, have shown that this claim has no basis in reality.

No widespread fad ever passes, however, without leaving some fashion victims in its wake. In this case, the victims are the people of Britain, who have the misfortune to be ruled by a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won’t admit that it was wrong.

Remember, I never argue with the Nobel Prize winner's numbers.

Unless of course, you're Andrew Sullivan, who's celebrating this as the rebirth of a geninue Thatcher-esque Conservatism:

Remember: Thatcher preceded Reagan. And Toryism can be radical if the circumstances are dire enough. So much for all that talk of Cameron's wetness. And remember also that this is a Coalition government, in which the Liberal Democrats have also placed their bets on fiscal retrenchment - and the Labour opposition is in great disarray.

Erza Klein:

Like Paul Krugman, I think Britain's decision to pair a sharp economic contraction that's outside its control with a sharp contraction in the part of the economy that's in its control (the public sector) will be a disaster. But it'll at least be an interesting experiment.

For one thing, it's a good test of whether austerity economics works amid a weak economy and low interest rates. Seems unlikely, and I think a lot of British people will suffer while the government tries to figure it out, but we'll know soon enough. But it'll also be interesting to see whether the fact that the government has a decisive plan creates some of the "confidence" that people are always saying we need.

What's gonna happen? We go back to Krugman for an overview:

Both the new British budget announced on Wednesday and the rhetoric that accompanied the announcement might have come straight from the desk of Andrew Mellon, the Treasury secretary who told President Herbert Hoover to fight the Depression by liquidating the farmers, liquidating the workers, and driving down wages. Or if you prefer more British precedents, it echoes the Snowden budget of 1931, which tried to restore confidence but ended up deepening the economic crisis.

The British government’s plan is bold, say the pundits — and so it is. But it boldly goes in exactly the wrong direction. It would cut government employment by 490,000 workers — the equivalent of almost three million layoffs in the United States — at a time when the private sector is in no position to provide alternative employment. It would slash spending at a time when private demand isn’t at all ready to take up the slack.

Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state. But the official rationale is that there is no alternative.

Indeed, there has been a noticeable change in the rhetoric of the government of Prime Minister David Cameron over the past few weeks — a shift from hope to fear. In his speech announcing the budget plan, George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to have given up on the confidence fairy — that is, on claims that the plan would have positive effects on employment and growth.

David Cameron is no Tea-Bagger, by any stretch. He would be considered a liberal by that set. At the same time, he's doing a watered down version of what the Tea Party says it wants, and what its been Jedi-mind tricked into believing will spur the economy.

Still more information from Think Progress on just who's trying to buy our elections (VIDEO)

Lee Fang has some more stuff up about the unlimited flood of Corporate Money flooding into this Election:

The numbers below reflect a bare minimum, and in many cases these corporations have paid ten times the amount of their regular dues to the Chamber in the past two years:

Microsoft’s corporate disclosures state that the company paid the Chamber up to $999,999 in 2009 and up to $999,999 in 2010 in its minimum dues.

Proctor and Gamble paid the Chamber $3.2 million in 2009.

Outsourcing giant CSC, which specializes in IT outsourcing, paid the Chamber at least $100,000 in 2009 and $100,000 in 2010.

Intel paid the Chamber at least $100,000 in yearly dues ($100,000 in 2010, and what appears to be $100,000 in 2009).

Drug company Merck paid the Chamber $234,000 in 2008, and still counts itself as a dues-paying member of the Chamber.

Utility company Dominion Resources gave the Chamber $100,000 in 2009.

On the Chamber’s Egypt Business Council website, Apache Corporation, British American Tobacco, The Blackstone Group, The Boeing Company, Cargill USA, CitiGroup, The Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil, Google, Microsoft Corporation, PepsiCo, Intel Corporation, Monsanto Company, Pfizer Inc, Philip Morris International combined committed an additional $375,000 to the Chamber for 2009-2010.

There is way more at Think Progress.

By the way, didn't Jon Stewart just talk about Coke vs. Pepsi in his Larry King Interview, and here they are donating large sums to the Chamber.

Second, about Citibank:

Earlier this year, U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue admitted to ThinkProgress that CitiGroup, a bailed out financial conglomerate that still has not paid back taxpayer TARP funds, is a dues-paying member of the Chamber. Many bailed out banks are in fact dues-paying members of the Chamber.

I may not smoke weed, but I certainly want it taxed! (VIDEO)

Believe it or not, I don't feel I have much of a dog in the fight over California Prop. 19. I don't much care to smoke pot, nor do I care about other folks wanting to smoking pot.

Still, I'm still going to vote in favor of Prop. 19, and my reasons can best be summed up in the new ad below:

All you have to do is watch HBO's Boardwalk Empire for a more expansive reason as to what prohibition just doesn't work.

Another great catch by Andrew Sullivan.

President Obama's Backyard Discussion on Women and the Economy (IVDEO)

President Obama holds a discussion on ensuring economic stability and opportunity for women in the backyard of the Foss family in Seattle, WA. October 21, 2010.

Highlighting a portion of his talk, that was aimed right at the Tea Party:

I think people have a legitimate concern, a legitimate worry, as to what are we doing to start -- now that we’re out of the immediate crisis but we’re only experiencing sluggish job growth at this point and sluggish economic growth -- how do we get back to a point where we’re living within our means? That’s an entirely legitimate concern. It’s a concern that I have. And we’re going to have to have a serious debate over the next several years about how to do it.

The problem I have with the argument the way it’s playing out right now in the country is that there’s a suggestion on the other side that somehow the problem with our debt and our deficits all arose magically the minute I took office, whereas in fact when I arrived at the White House I was inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit. We had taken record surpluses last time there was a Democratic President, and over the course of a decade moved to record deficits.

The big problems we have in terms of debt and deficits have to do with structural gaps between the amount of money we’re taking in and the amount of money we’re spending. And if we’re going to get serious about the deficit, then we’re going to have to look at everything: entitlements, defense spending, revenues. How do all those things fit together so that we can have a sustainable budget that invests in the things that we absolutely need for our long-term future, and we stop funding some things that are nice to have but we can’t afford.

And that’s going to be a tough conversation -- which is -- it’s interesting now when you listen to the Republicans talk about out-of-control government spending, and then you ask them, well, what would you cut, and there’s this deafening silence. And they’ll say things like, well, we’ll roll back health care -- except it turns out that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care bill is actually going to reduce our deficit by over a trillion dollars over the next 20 years. So that would add to the deficit.

Then they’ll say, well, we’ll pull back the unused portion of the stimulus. Well, first of all, that’s -- most of it has already been spent and a big chunk of what hasn’t been spent are actually tax cuts, which they say they’re for.

And then they’ll say, well, we’ll roll back spending back to 2008 levels, without being clear that that would mean, for example, a 20 percent cut in education spending.

So one of the things that I think as voters everybody here should be doing is constantly asking people, when you say you want to get the budget under control, what exactly do you mean? What exactly are you going to do? And if they can’t answer the question then it means they’re not serious about it.

Finally, on a lighter note, the President gave his autograph on an iPad...

Courtesy Gizmodo.

A brothah' did this too. Good for him.

I don't know what the app is he chose to use, but there are a lot of finger-drawing apps on the iPad. The results are here:

CNN: FBI says Powder in package sent to Arizona congressman is 'nontoxic' (VIDEO)

Coming off Keith's breaking news last night, I'd say a lot of us were worried.

Well, apparently it wasn't so "confirmed", this according to CNN:

The suspicious powder inside a swastika-adorned package sent to an Arizona congressman is "nontoxic," an FBI spokesman said Friday.

Staffers checking mail in the Tucson, Arizona, office of U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva on Thursday found a white, powdery substance and drawings of two swastikas inside an envelope, Grijalva campaign spokesman Adam Sarvana told CNN.

Almost a dozen people were in the office when the incident happened around 12:30 p.m. Thursday (3:30 p.m. ET), he said. All of them were checked on-scene by local authorities and sent home.

Scientists at an FBI laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona, conducted a full analysis of the substance, according to Sarvana. Those tests came back negative midday Friday, according to FBI Special Agent Manuel Johnson.

Johnson said the FBI would have no further comments, as "the investigation is ongoing."

The incident was the third security issue at Grijalva's district offices this year, Sarvana said.

Even though he's a fellow Liberal, I'm not the biggest Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) fan in the world (He was in the "Bill Killer" caucus for a time). Still, I want him safe, alive and in the Congress to keep on aruging with.

But we know who did this, and we know what they'll tolerate.

So, I'm guessing the President won't be one of the special guests at the Rally To Restore Sanity

According to the L.A. Times:

President Obama will return to Chicago for a Democratic rally at the end of this month, a source familiar with the plans said Thursday.

The Oct. 30 event will be hosted by the Democratic National Committee to benefit candidates nationwide.

The rally comes as part of the president's final push on behalf of fellow Democrats as they battle to keep their majorities in Congress. It also coincides with the last days of a competitive Illinois governor's race, though the DNC has not named the candidates who will participate on stage with the president.

Same day as the Rally To Restore Sanity.

Oh well.

Probably works out for the best, if he'd been there, the Security would've been a pain in the ass for the attendees. Plus, Jon said in his interview with Larry King, this wasn't a Political rally anyway.

Keith Olbermann's complete in-studio Interview with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (VIDEO)

One-stop shopping for all your Pelosi interview needs.

Part 1:

Part 2:

And now the New York Times is looking at who is buying this election (VIDEO)

From yesterday's New York Times:

Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce kicked off a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation’s financial regulations.

Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed rules that would impose tighter security requirements on chemical facilities.

And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has been critical of growing federal regulation and spending. These large donations — none of which were publicly disclosed by the chamber, a tax-exempt group that keeps its donors secret, as it is allowed by law — offer a glimpse of the chamber’s money-raising efforts, which it has ramped up recently in an orchestrated campaign to become one of the most well-financed critics of the Obama administration and an influential player in this fall’s Congressional elections.

They suggest that the recent allegations from President Obama and others that foreign money has ended up in the chamber’s coffers miss a larger point: The chamber has had little trouble finding American companies eager to enlist it, anonymously, to fight their political battles and pay handsomely for its help.

And these contributions, some of which can be pieced together through tax filings of corporate foundations and other public records, also show how the chamber has increasingly relied on a relatively small collection of big corporate donors to finance much of its legislative and political agenda. The chamber makes no apologies for its policy of not identifying its donors. It has vigorously opposed legislation in Congress that would require groups like it to identify their biggest contributors when they spend money on campaign ads.

Andrew Sullivan's poignant reaction to President Obama's "It Gets Better" Video #DADT

Sorry Andrew. Your piece was so well done, I couldn't resist putting up the whole thing.

Dan Savage should be beaming with pride about what he started. Here is the president of the United States reaching out to gay kids being bullied in their teenage years.

It's beautifully crafted and gently put. I think it's the first time in history that a US president has spoken directly to gay Americans in support from the White House. Which makes it a milestone.

It comes the same day that the procedure for expelling openly gay servicemembers solely for being gay has been made the responsibility of only five senior figures in the military, so that abuses do not occur, that the discharges can get rarer and rarer, that some of the country's servicemembers do not need to live in constant fear as they risk their lives to defend us:

In a memorandum dated Oct. 21, Mr. Gates said that “until further notice,” only five senior Defense Department officials, all civilians, would have the authority to expel openly gay service members. As the memo explained it, the relevant service secretary — either the Secretary of the Army, Navy or Air Force — has to consult with the Pentagon’s legal counsel, Jeh C. Johnson, and the undersecretary for personnel, Clifford L. Stanley, before the three can make a group decision on whether a gay service member should be forced out of the military. Until Thursday the decision was in the hands of a far larger number of less senior military and civilian officials.

I have been very critical of this administration for its slow and cautious approach to gay civil rights. That is not because I believe they are somehow not in favor of such rights, but because I feel strongly about our dignity and equality, and have always used whatever mouthpiece I have to make the case. But I have to say that this gesture from Obama and the practical reform within the military are important steps forward. The ban still needs to end.

But this is a real step in the right direction, and many of us are deeply encouraged by it.

I missed the story on how much DADT has been changed in light of the Court Ruling and subsequent appeal. I'll try to get something up on it, soon.

I've had my issues with the GLBT Community over the last two years, and every time I read something like this I start to feel better, that tensions whether they're between the White House and the GLBT Community, or between African-Americans and the GLBT Community might start to simmer down.

I agree that the ban needs to end.  At the same time, the Gay Community needs to understand that DADT is Law, and cannot simply be struck aside with the stroke of a pen.

On a side note, the MaddowBlog had this to say:

Americans who care about the rights of sexual minorities have plenty of reasons to be frustrated and even angry with President Obama and his administration. Still, I'm trying to think of another American president who could have given this talk -- and it is a talk, not a speech. This is a president, a father, talking to kids the same age as his daughters. President Lincoln in the YouTube age? President Clinton, plus 15 years? In a time when progress feels painfully slow, this counts.

I think its safe to say that the GLBT Community is pissed about there being slow progress, but at least feels represented today.

The Tea Party not only advocates Racism, but (if necessary) Armed Insurrection

...and will use the occasional black person to do it.

First, the meat of the story from TPM:

Stephen Broden, a Republican running for Congress in Texas' 30th District, said he would not rule out a violent overthrow of the government if the midterm elections don't cause a change in government, saying that "our nation was founded on violence" so "the option is on the table."

According to the Dallas Morning News, Broden said in a TV interview yesterday: "We have a constitutional remedy here and the Framers says if that don't work, revolution."

"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," he continued.

And yes, I'm well aware this man making these seditious statements is an allegedly fellow black man, he is not the only one.  So let me quote myself...for the third time:

Just because this Terrorist (let's call him what he is) is black doesn't mean that it this isn't about race. It still is. He may think he's giving this Domestic Terrorist organization racial cover, but these guys didn't feel the need to bring out their gats when the last few white guys were in charge at the Oval Office.

This is about a few Terrorist Douchebags responding to the worst stereotypes of African-American men, and resorting to threats of violence when they don't get their political way.

I said that back in August...of 2009!

This from the TPM Story about the guy who brought a gun to an Obama appearance in Arizona. And what was his quote?

"We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote."

It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what you want. It only matters what we (Republicans and Teabaggers) want. You (Liberals and Democrats) don't have a right to Govern, even if elected by a majority.  That is the Tea Party Philosophy in a nutshell.

Expect more on this on Countdown tonight, but in the meantime, Keith Olbermann's Daily Kos diary has this:

Now, you and I would expect that some kind of parallel comment from a Democrat or Progressive (if any such call to sedition is imaginable) would inspire a conversation in which the local head of the Party would be suggesting the candidate leave the country, or at least epoxy his own lips together.

Why am I thinking Mr. Neerman will settle for a quick "I apologize if you were offended by my suggestion that Republicans should violently overthrow the government, Vote Broden November 2"?

Here is the repudiation from the Tea Party:

Ken Emanuelson, a Broden supporter and leading tea party organizer in Dallas, said he did not disagree with the “philosophical point” that people had the right to resist a tyrannical government. But, he said, “Do I see our government today anywhere close to that point? No, I don’t.”

Emanuelson goes on to suggest that Broden's willingness to run for office instead of, say, try to shoot government officials or try to seize Fort Sumter or something, shows he's not really serious about this insurrection stuff.

Not excited about November 2? Feeling a little let down by the last 21 months-plus? Not really committed to getting one more Democrat to the polls for the mid-terms? Take a number. But as The Right Reverend Treason of the Texas 30th proves, this is no longer about timid Dems or unheard Progressives. This now boils down to keeping the nutjobs out of office.

The Conservatives newest "cat-toy": NPR

At the end of the day, I could live with Juan Williams' firing by NPR. If everyone else is getting fired for saying racist stuff (Rick Sanchez, Dr. Laura, Don Imus...somehow not Brian Kilmeade), then why shouldn't Juan Williams?

Oh, that's right. Bashing Muslims is okay in this country. How silly of me.

Anyway, we have this little nugget from Josh Silver of

The reactionaries of the far-right are clawing and scratching at their latest red meat: National Public Radio's decision to fire Juan Williams for comments he made about Muslims on Fox News Channel.

It's hard to work up too much sympathy for Williams -- a once esteemed journalist who has repeatedly embarrassed himself in recent years as a soloist in Bill O'Reilly's amen chorus. He was warned multiple times by NPR about providing commentary on Fox News that violated his employment contract. And his reward for the noxious comments that cost him one job was a new $2 million contract from Fox, announced Thursday.

But that hasn't stopped Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Malkin, Andrew Breitbart and, of course, O'Reilly from seizing on this contretemps to resuscitate a long-standing right-wing pipe dream: to gut NPR's federal funding altogether. And like clockwork, after a day of increasingly frenzied rhetoric from the usual suspects, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint announced he will introduce legislation on Friday to do just that.

Adam Serwer (posting at Greg Sargent's Plumline) had this:

For his part, Thinkprogress editor Faiz Shakir told me this morning that he wouldn't have fired Williams, and that the purpose of the original post was to "highlight a comment that was incorrect for a larger audience so that we all can better understand why that comment doesn't help us move in the direction of the kind of society we want to live in."

Since Williams was let go, conservatives have been calling for NPR to be "defunded" over the incident, with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner suggesting a "left wing radio network" shouldn't be receiving public funds. Sarah Palin has returned to her bizarre understanding of the First Amendment, which is that people who share her views have a right to be paid for them. I suspect part of the reason conservatives are upset is that they're not used to seeing a news organization react with such outright panic to transient public outrage from the left the way the media usually reacts to heat from the right. Few on the right thought CNN's hasty decision to let go of Octavia Nasr was a threat to freedom. Williams himself seems to think his own firing is the kind of thing that leads to Soviet-style forced labor camps, which is the kind of reasoning that really is more at home on Fox News.

However poorly NPR handled the Williams incident, the notion that NPR is "left wing" is ridiculous. Williams' presence on the network is emblematic of the network's milquetoast approach to political analysis. The reason Williams was let go wasn't because of the all powerful left, but because NPR is so concerned with the perception of bias that it didn't want one of its analysts associated with a network that works as a staging ground for Republican presidential hopefuls. NPR's commitment to a contrived form of journalistic objectivity may be counterproductive from the point of view of informing its audience, but there's no question that even prior to this incident Williams' appearances on FOX went against NPR's code of ethics, which advises employees to "not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist."

And now the President joins into the "It gets better" campaign (VIDEO)

Still more.

In Florida, Canadians and Western Europeans will be presumed to be here legally, and not required to document it.

How many times do I have to say it?  For the GOP, its completely about race.

Florida is one of at least 20 states designing an immigration bill similar to Arizona’s SB-1070, which requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they think might be in the country illegally. State Rep. William Snyder (R) introduced the legislation in August, and Rick Scott, the Tea Party-backed Republican candidate for governor, favors such a bill.

Snyder has denied criticisms that such legislation could be used to discriminate against Latinos, saying in a recent radio interview that “race, ethnicity, and national origin cannot be used in making arrests. It’s immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional.” However, the bill he introduced does appear to do just that — it exempts all Canadian and Western Europeans from extensive scrutiny. The exception, first reported by the Miami New Times, says a person will be “presumed to be legally in the United States” if he or she provides “a Canadian passport” or a passport from any “visa waiver country.” Four Asian nations and all 32 Western European countries make up the visa waiver list.

So under the proposed law, Canadians and Western Europeans will simply be presumed to be here legally, and they are not required to document it. “That language makes it clear that police are targeting only a specific minority,” Susana Barciela, policy director at the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, told the New Times.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Lawrence O'Donnell balances the Federal Budget...

...for Esquire Magazine.

Esquire magazine called on Senators Bill Bradley, Gary Hart, John Danforth, Bob Packwood and our very own host with the most Lawrence O'Donnell to balance the federal budget by 2020. (Yes, before his days moonlighting on cable TV, Lawrence worked as a Senate aide for Daniel Patrick Moynihan). They all came in to this project with a range of political beliefs and party affiliations.

For three long days in August, the guys toiled away in one conference room, hammering out solutions to one of the biggest problems facing our country today. There were raised voices and many disagreements. But, the guys powered through. They managed to balance the budget, add a surplus of $12 billion, reform Social Security and its longevity and maintain current tax rates for a decade.

Isn't it amazing what happens when you don't have to run for anything?

The article is here.

Joel Burns: He who saves one life, saves the world entire (VIDEO)

This is how lame I am. I'm just discovering this now.

It's not just Joel Burns, and it's not just the Secretary of State, there's a whole YouTube channel of these stories, all dedicated to helping young Gays survive and thrive.

He who saves one life, saves the world entire.

It's hard to believe Mr. Burns' brave speech hasn't done a lot more than that.

Former Alaska Judge Joe Miller is going to get someone Court-Martialed...

You'd figure that a former Judge would've known better that...I don't know...arresting a Journalist with your own private Security force, he is doing just that.

But I had to have private Security force. The School I hired out made me.


Was Joe Miller required to bring a security detail to his town hall meeting Sunday at Central Middle School in Alaska?

That's what Miller, the Republican Senate candidate, told two national cable news networks Monday in the wake of the arrest by his security squad of an online journalist at his public event.

But the school district said there was no such requirement made of Miller -- he only had to provide a hall and parking lot monitor, and advise participants of school district courtesy and food rules.

So that's one bald-faced lie.  He needed a teenager with maybe a flashlight.  Instead, he used a bunch of Active-Duty Soldiers to rough up a journalist.

And there's even a major problem with that:

Meanwhile, the Army says that two of the guards who assisted in the arrest of the journalist and who tried to prevent two other reporters from filming the detention were active-duty soldiers moonlighting for Miller's security contractor, the Drop Zone, a Spenard surplus store and protection service.

The soldiers, Spc. Tyler Ellingboe, 22, and Sgt. Alexander Valdez, 31, are assigned to the 3rd Maneuver Enhancement Brigade at Fort Richardson. Maj. Bill Coppernoll, the public affairs officer for the Army in Alaska, said the two soldiers did not have permission from their current chain of command to work for the Drop Zone, but the Army was still researching whether previous company or brigade commanders authorized their employment.

The Army allows off-duty soldiers to take outside employment if the job doesn't interfere with their readiness, doesn't risk their own injury and doesn't negatively affect the "good order" and discipline of their unit, Coppernoll said.

"They've got to be up front with the chain of command," Coppernoll said. "The chain of command needs to agree they can do that without affecting the readiness and the whole slew of things that are part of being a soldier that they need to do first."

Miller's chief guard at the Middle School event, Drop Zone owner William Fulton, said it wasn't his job to ensure soldiers complied with the regulations, though he said he informs them of their duty.

"They're adults -- they are responsible for themselves," Fulton said.

The fact that they were employed isn't the only problem, the fact that their employment involved them in a Political campaign, is what's going to get them into real trouble.

TPM: So who are you going to believe, the Mainstream Media asks, us or your lying eyes?

I'm flashing back to 2008, where every single news outlet was telling me that Hillary was winning the election, and my eyes were telling me that Barack Obama was winning.

Nowadays, the same Media is telling us how much the Corporate Money scandal doesn't matter to voters when the polling shows it obviously does.

Josh Marshall over at TPM posts this question from Alan Abramowitz about the modeling for the Gallup Generic ballot:

But that's not the most implausible result in the latest Gallup likely voter survey. Among nonwhites other than blacks, a group that comprises about 13% of likely voters, a generic Republican is leading a generic Democrat by 10 points, 52% to 42%. That's a group that voted Democratic by a 2-1 margin in the 2006 midterm election. Moreover, it's a group that has never given a majority of its vote to Republican candidates for Congress in any election since the advent of exit polling. According to the 2006 exit poll results, about two-thirds of these "other nonwhite" voters are Latinos. How plausible is it that at a time when the Republican Party is closely associated with stridently anti-immigrant policies that Latino voters are moving in droves toward Republican candidates? Not plausible at all, especially when Gallup's results are directly contradicted by other recent polls of Latino voters.

Why some black people continue to hate the Washington Post

Another, unfortunately ongoing series of overprivileged white bubble-dwellers telling African-Americans what do, say or think.

I now bring you Dana Milbank, who thinks its a bad idea for the NAACP to pick on the Tea Party.

Dana Milbank is a loathsome cockroach who should have been fired for his puerile video stunts with Chris Cillizza.  ("Mad Bitch Beer?"  And this guy is going to give me and my people advice on anything?)

What was that phone call from Ginny Thomas to Antia Hill REALLY about?

There was a New York Times article that appeared just a day before Ginny Thomas placed that ridiculous phone call.  The article's author, Jackie Calmes, is interviewed in the video below, along with Fort McHenry fave, Dahlia Lithwick.

The ethical questions are really starting to mount up, between this and the Koch Party Thomas and Scalia attended.

The New York Times article can be found right here.

The GOP's Anti-Latino "Western" Strategy?? (VIDEO)

First, go back and watch Rachel's report on the Southern Strategy. Then watch this:

Replace "African-Americans" with "Latinos", and tell me what you see.

Keith's Latest Busy Night...Part 3 (O, woe to those poor Confederates, Edition) (VIDEO)

I think this nicely dovetails with Rachel's report on the rise of racism in Republican ranks, don't you?

UPDATE: 2:50pm Pacific: Thomas Ricks also picked up on it.

Keith's Latest Busy Night...Part 2 (Secret Koch Party, Edition) (VIDEO)

One of the many, many Think Progress reports is right here.

Also here is short snippet Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), smacking the Chamber in their own their face.

The Think Progress story on Waxman's speech is here.

Keith's Latest Busy Night...Part 1 (Selling America out, Edition) (VIDEO)

Keith had a great show last night, and thus had a very busy night.

From Greg Sargent (long and's working, but slowly...maybe too slowly):

As promised, MSNBC's First Read gang releases its NBC/WSJ polling showing that voters do care about the secret cash funding attack ads, despite all the assertions you keep hearing to the contrary:

So how has the White House/Democratic campaign against the GOP-leaning outside groups that have been spending so much on TV ads this midterm cycle fared? Per our poll, 74% say it's a concern that outside groups have their own agenda and care only about electing or defeating candidates based on their own issues; 72% say it's a concern that these groups don't have to disclose who's contributing to them; 71% say it's a concern that the candidates who are helped by these groups could be beholden to their interests; and 68% say they're concerned these groups are funded by unions or large corporations.

First Read's Mark Murray adds this caveat: "Despite these concerns, our pollsters say that the White House/Dem campaign against these outside groups hasn't changed the overall dynamics of this election."

I think Admiral/Represenative Sestak would beg to differ.

Larry King's interview with Jon Stewart

CNN, for some reason, has blocked the ability to embed this video, so if you want to watch the complete interview, watch it here.

Why is the Justice Department defending a DADT Policy President Obama opposes.

Huffington Post (actually reposting an article from AP) commits an actual act of...gasp...journalism. I actually learned something I did not know (but certainly suspected) in this article.  (Too bad they didn't write it.)

President Barack Obama opposes the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military, so why are Obama administration lawyers in court fighting to save it?

The answer is one that perhaps only a lawyer could love: There is a long tradition that the Justice Department defends laws adopted by Congress and signed by a president, regardless of whether the president in office likes them.

This practice cuts across party lines. And it has caused serious heartburn for more than one attorney general.

The tradition flows directly from the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, says Paul Clement, who served four years in President George W. Bush's administration as solicitor general, the executive branch's top lawyer at the Supreme Court.

Otherwise, Clement says, the nation would be subjected to "the spectacle of the executive branch defending only laws it likes, with Congress intervening to defend others."

That is why solicitors general not only serve the president who nominated them but also have a special duty to Congress, "most notably, the vigorous defense of the statutes of this country against constitutional attack," Justice Elena Kagan testified to Congress in 2009 after Obama nominated her to be solicitor general. She joined the Supreme Court a year later.

UPDATE: 2:57pm: Steve Benen has more:

Jonathan Bernstein's Iron Law of Politics.

Great catch by Andrew Sullivan. It comes from Bernstein's "Iron Law of Politics (Beanbag, This Ain't Edition)" post:

Conservative activists believe ... Republican pols are a bunch of wimpy, half-hearted idealists who allow ruthless liberal Democrats, who play this game for keeps, to trample all over them. Indeed, this follows the Iron Law of Politics that everyone believes that the other side is better at the mechanics of politics: the other side is always more ruthless in their exploitation of the rules and willingness to ignore ethical niceties, more tactically adept, better at extracting money from their base, and (depending on who is complaining) either better at ignoring the policy demands of their crazy ideological base in order to win the center or better at addressing the policy demands of the base, while our side uses and then ignores the policy demands of the base.

Lawrence O'Donnell's interview with Bill Maher (VIDEO)

Bill makes it plain again. It's still all about race.

Rachel Maddow notices that there hasn't been much of a price to pay for racist comments this year (VIDEO)

This is what Rachel does well, broad historical perspective with evidence.

Followed up by an interview with Melissa Harris-Lacewell.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

HuffPo Land: where they treat a GOP Operative's word on the Midterms as gospel.

Uhhh, Huffington Post? You know the story you have up "14 Days to Go and the President Is Killing Democrats"? This as you run a story showing all the races are tightening across the country?

You do know that the article's author, one Steve Lombardo is, and I quote from the Bio of him:

Steve worked on the Presidential campaign for President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and contributed to communications activities at the 1996 and 2000 GOP conventions. Most recently, he served as a senior research and communications advisor to the Romney for President campaign.

The fact that I find his opinion worthless shouldn't be surprising. I'm just wondering why you do.

Oh yeah. All that matters to you is the clicks.

"Tomorrow will be better" (VIDEO)

Found this on Andrew Sullivan's site. I never heard the White House or the State Department promote this video. It doesn't have the same impact as Joel Burns' statement from a couple days ago, but the fact it was done without any fanfare gives it a lot of credibility in my book:

Once again, do you really want to make the argument that the Tea Party isn't racist?!??

Thanks, Houston (via TPM):

A group trying to register voters in Houston received threats and emails containing racist slurs after being targeted by a local tea party group accusing it of "voter fraud."

In emails obtained by TPM, the group Houston Votes was accused of being "a bunch of white guilt ridden assholes, NIGGERS and greasy mexican spics," "fraudulent Marxist pigs," and "American hating A-holes."

"We received a couple of threats and several harassing e-mails," Maureen Haver of Houston Voters told TPMMuckraker. "There have been several efforts, I think, just trying to race-bait and stir racial tension and part of that I think is just based on what we've received in messaging from them."

"It's really had a chilling effect on our office," said Haver, adding that one of the e-mails was reported to the FBI.

I accept the Washington Post's apology.

Did John McCain just violate McCain Feingold??

A new post from the Daily Kos makes a pretty convincing case that Senator John McCain (R-AZ), he of the 2008 Presidential Campaign and co-author of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law, may have just guessed it...the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law.

You think he'd know a little something about how the law works.

No joke.  The DCCC has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.

Is Harry Reid on his way to Victory?

Could be, according to the Las Vegas Sun (courtesy Daily Kos):

Everything that has happened this year in the Reid campaign has been on an uncomplicated checklist that has arrived at the final task. It reads something like this:

A. Raise a fortune.

B. Batter Sue Lowden during the spring so she comes out of the June 8 primary wounded, ready for the killing blow; if by some chance we get lucky and get Sharron Angle, all the better.

C. On June 9, begin campaign to equalize negatives — no-holds-barred, relentlessly on-message destruction of opponent.

D. On Oct. 16, turn the key on The Greatest Turnout Machine Ever, designed to drag Democrats out of houses if necessary to save the senator and blunt the enthusiasm gap.

Having crossed off the first three, with some of the most beautifully ugly execution in campaign annals, the Reid campaign is now working on the fourth.

To follow through on what the Daily Kos said, how are things looking now?

I have three days worth of data to peruse, just under a fourth of the 14-day total. Despite reports elsewhere, the Republicans have yet to show any unusual surge in voting, and The Reid Machine is holding its own.

There's more at the Sun and Daily Kos.

The IAVA Congressional Report Card for 2010.

IAVA (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America) is one of my favorite organizations, dedicated to helping returning Vets in any way they can.  They were major movers behind the new GI-Bill signed last year, and are keeping a watchful eye on Congress to see how individual members are doing when it comes to voting on Veteran's affairs.

Their current report card is out, and available here.  My own Congressman, Adam Schiff scored an A, along with my favorite California Senator, Barbra Boxer.  Dianne Feinstein...not so much.  She got a C.

(Side note to dear ol' one distinguished themselves from Texas.  Straight Ds.)

In case you had any doubts about rampant racism in the GOP...


Courtesy Talking Points Memo:

Virginia Beach Republican Party chair Dave Bartholomew forwarded a racist email comparing African Americans to dogs. The email, subject line "my, dog," consists of a racist parable about African Americans and welfare. In the first 24 hours since the email came to light, Democrats condemned Bartholomew and he resigned his position with the Republican Party.

The text of the message, in full:


I went down this morning to sign up my Dog for welfare.

At first the lady said, "Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare".

So I explained to her that my Dog is black, unemployed, lazy, can't speak English and has no frigging clue who his Daddy is.

So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify...

My Dog gets his first check Friday.

Is this a great country or what?

Echo...or how its possible to devastate your opponent on the issues without going into the gutter. (VIDEO)

From Jonathan Chait:

With all the talk about nasty or misleading political ads this year, it’s rare to focus on really good, really effective ads. But California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown has come up with one that is very effective without being nasty.

It features a long series of alternating video clips of current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Republican nominee Meg Whitman uttering banal outsider-business-executive talking points in identical or near-identical terms.

This approach is effective on three levels. First, the incumbent is very unpopular; the latest Field Poll, in September, gave him a job approval/disapproval rating of 23-68, which is very bad. Republicans don’t like him much more than Democrats, which is one reason why Whitman has largely ignored him.

Second, the ad shows that Whitman’s efforts to display her campaign as a fresh start towards a “New California” (a term also used by the incumbent) represents the same-old, same-old: A wealthy neophyte promising to run the state as a business and touting his/her wealth as a guarantor of independence. Her depiction as echoing Schwarzenegger also reinforces Whitman’s reputation for running a sort of soulless Death Star campaign based on focus-group-tested bromides.

Third, and most importantly, the ad virtually forces viewers to compare the risk they would take in electing the inexperienced Whitman to the realities of the Schwarzenneger years. The first and last clips nicely capture this theme, showing Arnold and eMeg saying: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting [hoping for] a different result,” and, “What’s the worst that can happen?” Thus, the outsider running against the guy who first won statewide office 40 years ago is tied closely to the political status quo in viewers’ minds.

The NAACP makes it plain: The Tea Party is a platform to anti-Semites, racists and bigots.

Following up on Tuesday's posting about the Grad Student who unilaterally declared that the Teabaggers were not racist (with the Washington Post's help), it seems that the NAACP officially begs to differ:

The NAACP reignited the debate over the extremism of Tea Parties on Wednesday, releasing a report alleging ongoing ties between hate groups and the movement, which the civil rights organization criticizes for giving a platform to anti-Semites, racists and bigots.

"The result of this study contravenes many of the Tea Parties' self-invented myths, particularly their supposedly sole concentration on budget deficits, taxes and the power of the federal government," reads the introduction to "Tea Party Nationalism," a joint project with the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights. "Instead, this report found Tea Party ranks to be permeated with concerns about race and national identity and other so-called social issues."

On a call with reporters, NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous was quick to point out that his organization has no problem with the Tea Party movement as a whole. "We have no problem with the Tea Party existing," he said. "We have no problem with the Tea Party expressing its views in the great debates in our great democracy. We do, however, have a problem when prominent Tea Party members who have direct ties to organizations like the Council of Conservative Citizens, are allowed to use Tea Party events to recruit people for those white supremacist groups. ... And most importantly, we have a problem when the majority of the Tea Parties stand silent and doesn't loudly condemn that sort of behavior."

The complete report/website is available here.

Like I said before, I have been on this earth for 40-plus years, I know what the code-words are.

Do the Thomases just have no shame whatsoever?

In case you were under the impression that Clarence Thomas was the most brazen, most shameless member of his family.

In case you missed the message that Virginia Thomas left for Anita Hill, it went something like this:

Good morning, Anita Hill, it's Ginny Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay have a good day.

The President and the First Lady get 'em fired up in Ohio (this past Sunday) (VIDEO)

It took a while, but they finally put up video of the Ohio rally where the President and First Lady spoke.

I know. I know. I should have watched it live, but I was too busy watching the Redskins lose to the Colts.  (A 170 yards rushing, really?!?)

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

It's Official. It's confirmed. Obama's doing The Daily Show.

Yeah, Baby!!!

I've been saying it. I've been saying it. I've been saying it. And now it looks like its true.

In the final week leading up to the midterm election, President Obama will appear on the "Daily Show" for the first time since taking office as host Jon Stewart takes his popular show on the road to Washington.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said Obama will tape his appearance on Wednesday Oct. 27, just three days before Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" on the National Mall.

It may not be a joint interview, but it is an interview nonetheless. Looking forward to it.

In case you wanted a list of what the Obama Administration has done to create jobs (VIDEO)

This site is pro-Goolsbee. We don't just do the quick hit White Board videos, we also do the dry questions from CNN Money Editors and Viewers.

First question was money. Direct. Straight on. Well asked. Well answered.

Austan Goolsbee and how we really don't want to go back to the Bush Policies (VIDEO)

I asked for more White Board, we got more White Board.

And somehow, I really, really doubt I had any influence over the decision.

This one explains the Stimulus, and like the last White Board, it does it really, really well.

The only technical problem? Get him out of that tinny echo chamber you're shooting this in. Also, ease up on the lighting. I know dude's a little pale, but he's coming off red in the posterframe.

This is what Mr. Market is really like... (IMAGE)

Benjamin Graham, in his book "The Intelligent Investor", which I'm still getting around to finishing, wrote how when you invest in Stocks, you're getting in business with a partner known as "Mr. Market". Mr. Market is a moody fellow, manic depressive actually. You're never going to know what his mood is going to be.  Things could be looking up, and Mr. Market will depress the market down.  Things could be looking horrible, and Mr. Market will just go out there and buy, buy, buy.

This is that cartoon form. Thanks, Gizmodo for spotting it first.

The Democrats are going to keep the House??

First Robert Gibbs, and now Robert Creamer.  Your lips to God's ears, fellas.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If you ever wonder why some black folks don't like the Washington Post.

If you ever wonder why some African-Americans (like me, like Dad) detect an occasional racial hostility from our hometown Newspaper, the Washington Post, you have to look no further than stories like these.

So let me get this straight, a Grad Student went to one rally, by herself, in one region of the country, took random samples of Tea-Party signs and judged that the Tea Party has no racial animus.  (I'm hoping Dad would like to comment on the sampling size of such a

On the subject of Tea-Party racism, this blog has made its beliefs well-known.  They're racists.  Deal.

We remember the Pimp Hat emailer, the Witch Doctor emailer, the "Superboy" cover to "Tea Party comix . There are others, but I'm at work, and don't really have time to plump the depths of Tea-Party racism.  This is who they are.  As long as someone else is on the bottom (preferably African-Americans and/or Latinos), then the country is working just fine.  Otherwise, they feel the need to "take it back".

Of course, but I want to know where the hell the Washington Post gets off publishing this garbage as if it were a proven fact.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Why we need an individual Mandate in Health Care Reform

NC Steve is a user at Talking Points Memo, he happens to be a Lawyer originally from Kentucky. He's a clear-eyed Obama Democrat, and is able to cut through a lot of the legal B.S. that's floating around out there. It used to be possible to follow his responses in TPM until they changed their constantly-broken commenting system.

Anyway, I saw him crop back up in a discussion of Health Care, and he wrote one of the best, simplest explanation for the Individual Mandate that I've ever read.

So this is the work of NC Steve 3.0 on TPM (real name unknown). Hat's off to you, Steve!

Insurance only works if the amount of income from premiums at least equals benifits+admin and overhead cost+(if the insurer isn't a non-profit) profits ("payout"). If payout exceeds income, the insurer collapses into bankruptcy and everyone is screwed.

In a group plan, income and payout are balanced because participation is not voluntary--good risks and bad risks alike will be in the plan, paying premiums, or having them paid for them by their employer. (I cannot opt out of my firm's plan and ask them to give me the money they give BSBC of NC. If I "opt out," the boses simply puts my premium in their own pockets, so of course, I participate).

In the individual market, however, participation is entirely voluntary and the money is actually coming out of the insured's own pocket. This means that sick people want insurance and healthy people, especially the young ones who think they're invulnerable and immortal, don't. In that market, insurers keep income and payout balanced by trying to avoid insuring people who are statistically more likely to need benefits (people with preexisting conditions) and by trying to revoke the policies of people who make claims on the grounds that they lied to them about what a terrible risk they were.

The law forbids insurers to deny or revoke. That means they will, by defintion, be insuring people who will increase the payout. Without a mandate, healthy people can just sit it out unless and until they are injured and sick, at which point they sign up, which means there will be no corresponding increase in income.

The point of the mandate is to make the economics of the individual market work the same way the economics of a group plan work. Without it, non-group plans collapse and everyone is screwed.

The Courage Campaign wants to get our thank-yous out to Joel Burns of Fort Worth, Texas

The Courage Campaign is a progressive group out here in California. They're collecting "thank you" notes for Mr. Joel Burns of Fort Worth, Texas, who made a speeech before the City Council, imploring Gay Teens to seek help when they need it, and assuring them "It'll get better".

Anyway, to send Mr. Burns your regards, click here.

Joe Miller: "If East Germany could, we could." (VIDEO)

Uhhh, never-gonna-be-Senator-in-a-million-years Joe Miller...are you sure that East Germany is something you need to be bringing up right now?

If you want to hear the comment for yourself:

The President believe in Science so much that... (VIDEO) much that he actually held a Science Fair in the White House.

Mathematics projects? Anyone? Anyone?

(Those'd be crickets you're hearing, Dad. The kids these days, all they're into is their cool robots.  I mean, if your profession held bring down the economy, would you want to be a part of it?)

The President announced his upcoming appearance on the December 8th episode:

"In the episode, 'Archimedes Solar Ray,' Obama challenges hosts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman to prove the ancient Greek myth that scientist and polymath Archimedes set fire to an invading Roman fleet using only mirrors and the reflected rays of the sun," Deadline writes.

The White House confirmed the report to the Associated Press. "Obama has already taped his appearance," the AP writes. "Discovery said that episode will consider whether Greek scientist Archimedes set fire to an invading Roman fleet using only mirrors and the reflected rays of the sun."

The New York Times notes that the Archimedes myth was previously "busted" in 2006, but will be revisited for the President's episode.

The 'Mythbusters' producers were tight-lipped to the Times as to how Obama will participate in the proving or disproving of the myth, although it was acknowledged that the President's appearance will be used to raise interest in math and science in tandem with a White House educational effort.

Yeah, the Republicans are fiscal frauds. Like we didn't know that already.

This from Andrew Sullivan, quoting Chris Wallace going after Carly Fiorina. Remember, whenever a Republican talks about going after the Deficit, ask them what they'll cut. They'll never tell you.

Same thing happened on Bill Maher over the weekend. He had a Teabagger on, and he asked her flat out, what would you cut. All she'd say is that National Security was off the table.

WALLACE: I’m going to try one last time, and if you don’t want to answer it, Miss Fiorina, you don’t have to.

FIORINA: It’s not a question of not wanting to answer it!

WALLACE: Let me ask the question, if I may, please. You’re not willing to put forward a single benefit – I’m not talking about the people 60 or let alone 65, or 70. I’m talking about people under 55. You’re not willing to say there is a single benefit eligibility for Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security that you are willing to say “Yeah, I would cut that?”

FIORINA: What I think we need to do to engage the American people in a conversation about entitlement reform is to have a bipartisan group of people who come together and put every solution on the table, every alternative on the table. Then we ought to engage in a long conversation with the American people so they understand the choices.

Of course, as Andrew pointed out, she was against the Bipartisan Deficit Commission.

The Dems pull a Rope-A-Dope?

Fingers crossed:

House Democrats have taken a page from Muhammad Ali and planned a rope-a-dope strategy for the midterm election, hoping it can save their majority.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) decided to let its Republican counterpart outspend it on political ads during the crucial month of September.

Now the DCCC has a big advantage in cash on hand to counterpunch Republican candidates in October. But will it be too late? TV time will become more expensive and the airwaves will be cluttered with third-party-funded advertising.

There are just over two weeks until the Nov. 2 election.

The Hill 2010 Midterm Election Poll found Republicans leading Democratic candidates in 19 of 22 competitive districts. But 12 of those races were within the margin of error, giving Democrats a chance to claw their way back to the top with a big spending push.

The DCCC spent under $16 million in September on independent expenditures paying for television ads, according to a committee aide.

Oprah's appearance on The Daily Show (VIDEO)

I really should've put this up Friday, but I got a chance to watch it again.

Plus, this might just be the only Daily Show video we get for a week, until the D.C. shows crank up, and the long awaited Rally to Restore Sanity.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear Announcement
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorRally to Restore Sanity

Obama! The Musical? (VIDEO)

Not bad, but I would ask current or former D.C. Residents if the guy looks like Obama or more like soon-to-be-former D.C. Mayor Fenty.