Stay to the end, in case you think she was just unaware of what was behind her.

Update 2008-11-26: The story that just won’t go away (at least until after Thanksgiving) has a new chapter:

(Note: Bush had been speaking and you could hear a [fire? police?] siren in the background which Keith alludes to at the very beginning.

You can find more videos from Countdown with Keith Olbermann at his website.

Here is the full quote from John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog

Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn’t raise his standards, he will exceed Bush’s total before he is inaugurated.

Let’s examine this a little more closely:

“Obama thinks he is a good talker”

1. Mr. Hinderaker does not know what President-Elect Obama thinks. If he had written “Obama seems to think of himself as a good talker” that would have been acceptable, but Mr. Hinderaker is making a statement of fact (“Obama thinks”) when he doesn’t know that.

2. “…good talker”? Talker? Other than calling someone a “smooth talker” I can’t remember hearing anyone referred to as a “talker”. Yes, technically “talker” is a derivative noun that you can find in the dictionary, but it’s a fairly odd word choice.

he is often undisciplined when he speaks.

Really? Define “often”.

I’ve been following the campaign for several months and haven’t heard many slip-ups. I did see a clip where he said something about being ahead in “57 states”. At first I thought he was saying it as hyperbole. Perhaps not.

But… “often”?

I can understand “often” when talking about Sarah Palin, who couldn’t give a single interview without stumbling over her words.

He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not.

President-Elect Obama seems like a pretty smart guy. I bet he’s figured that one out already. But thanks for the tip.

But then the wheels fall off completely:

President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn’t raise his standards, he will exceed Bush’s total before he is inaugurated.

Um. What?

Bush is perhaps the least eloquent politician since Dan Quayle (who had a few very memorable gaffes).

They’ve even had a term for them: Bushisms, which you can find on Google and books of them at Amazon.com, with publication dates going back several years.

He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting.

It doesn’t sometimes seem halting. It sometimes is halting.

What’s worse? Sometimes he just plows right through the door.

See for yourself:

(If that video doesn’t work, try this link.)

Bush is to the English language what Freddy Krueger was to teenagers in the ’80s: a nightmare.

Anyone who isn’t embarrassed by Bush’s abuse of the English language simply hasn’t been paying attention.

Bush isn’t an example… he’s a cautionary tale.

See also:

Slate.com: The Complete Bushisms (which can be easily accessed at http://tr.im/bushisms).

What is marriage? This is an interesting topic, and not just because I will be performing a wedding ceremony in three hours.

This week, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages were legal, based partially on arguments that go back to arguments about interracial marriage. These are arguments that I have heard and made for some time.

If you remove the perceived restrictions of Judeo-Christian faith from the marriage laws of this country where we have laws to protect the church and the state from each other, then what, exactly, is your argument?

Opponents of same-sex marriage say they are uncomfortable with the analogy to interracial marriage bans. “It’s well suited to a sound-bite culture,” said Monte Stewart, president of the Marriage Law Foundation, which supports traditional marriage.

Sloppy writing there, since “traditional” marriage means different things to different people. “Traditional” in this context means little more than “the way we’ve always done it before.”

(At least he did not say “Biblical marriage” which is largely filled with polygamists.)

I presume the reporter meant “…Marriage Law Foundation, which supports marriage between one man and one woman.”

“Sure, it works at the surface level,” Mr. Stewart continued. “But it is actually defeated by the deeper reality of marriage itself. Marriage in its deep logic has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the union of a man and a woman. To apply Perez in the genderless marriage context is actually to betray it.”

It should be noted that Mr. Stewart seems quite well versed in speaking in sound-bites himself. He starts off by saying that he can understand why some people would be swayed by the argument, but claims that it is defeated by the “deeper reality of marriage.” What is the deeper reality of marriage?

Marriage in its deep logic has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the union of a man and a woman.

The argument here seems to hinge on the “union of a man and a woman.”

Let’s look more closely at that.

First, let’s ask: “Why a man and a woman?” Why not a man and a man or a woman and a woman? Does “union” mean something more than a penis entering a vagina? Are we still going to fall back into the understanding of sexual intercourse as basically a means of procreation? (That understanding, by the way, was “traditional” for a long time — does that mean it is better?)

Do married heterosexual couples enjoy the freedom to practice whatever kinds of sexual arousal/stimulation/etc that they both mutually agree to? If so, if we have agreed that sexual intercourse is something more than just procreation, but for shared intimacy and enjoyment, then haven’t we also agreed that “union” means something more than penis+vagina=marriage?

I was at a church-related meeting last fall when I heard a grown man make the argument that because the male genitals and female genitals are “meant to fit together” therefore it is clear that God intended men and women only to get married.

Do we understand “union” as something more than an issue of “plumbing”?

Stepping back further, does the Marriage Law Foundation understand “union” beyond sexual contact?

Do we?

What does union mean?

I’m no expert, but I have 13 years of practice in marriage, and 35 years of observations on the institution. Let me offer that “union” includes what happens in the bedroom, but only as one piece of marriage.

When I come home hungry from a long drive after a long meeting, and my wife offers me the plate of food she had just fixed for herself, she is practicing the union of marriage.

When I come home with both of my knees screaming for relief, only to find that my wife is sick in bed and one of us has to go pick up our son from preschool, and I go to get him, I am practicing the union of marriage.

When my wife goes off to a women’s conference and arranges for a friend to take our son for the night because she knows I have to finish writing a paper for a deadline, we are both practicing the union of marriage, even when we are not even together.

The union of marriage comes from dawn until dusk, in the decisions that we make each day. Will I stay at the office when everyone has gone because it is quiet and peaceful, or will I come home to help around the house? Will she expend all of her energy during the day with our son, leaving nothing left for us after he goes to bed? Will we do a little extra of something that needs to be done to give a bit of relief to the other?

Will we take time for each other, will we go the extra mile for one another? How will we talk to each other? How will we treat each other? How will we think about each other? How will we talk about each other to others?

All of these are part of the union of marriage. All of these symbolize two who have become one, caring for the other as if we were one, not being selfish, but being loving and kind, not be arrogant or rude, but being patient and understanding. Put the other’s needs before your own, not to the detriment of your own health and well-being, not to be walked all over or taken-advantage of, but because we love each other.

(Religious folks might add “…as God has loved us” to some of the above, but none of this understanding of marriage requires a religious understanding of marriage. You might do these things in part because of your religious beliefs, but the things listed above [and others] would be the same for religious, atheists, or agnostics.)

What part of this union involves genitalia? Here’s a hint:

Marriage in its “deep logic” and daily living has nothing to do with race or genitals specifically, and everything to do with the union of two people in the bonds of love that hopefully lasts in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, through expanding waistlines and the ravaging effects of gravity, as long as they both shall live.

It comes as no surprised that those who oppose equal rights for people who are gay or lesbian do not want to be lumped together with those who opposed equal rights for people who were not white. Instead they often try to rest their arguments on their understanding of religion. In the realm of the legal system, those argument are disallowed, so they are encoded with these words like “union of a man and a woman” with the wink-wink of “as God intended.” (Where does the “Marriage Law Foundation” get its funding? I have no idea, but I would not be surprised to find it was a conservative Christian church.)

But is that argument convincing?

If “union” has any deeper meaning than penis+vagina, then the argument about the exclusivity of marriage to the heterosexuals quickly falls apart.

If the “Marriage Law Foundation” and the other “Defending Marriage” people really wanted to offer some real protection about the institution of marriage, how about some better enforcement of the laws against spousal abuse?

How about creating a group that will monitor restraining orders to make sure that they are enforced and that penalties for breaking them are severe?

How about helping to create a culture where it is fundamentally unacceptable to assume that someone might be abusing his/her spouse and not do something about it?

How about making sure that evidence of marital infidelity is always admissible in divorce proceedings?

How about trying to create programs and networks that will help the young and poor in our country who want to get married and support their families and break cycles of abuse, welfare, etc?

How about trying to make sure there are enough well-paying jobs out there that the underlying causes of some cases of abuse and divorce might be addressed and reduced?

How about doing something other than wringing your hands over the fact that there are people who want to get married even though they are attracted to different people than you would be and might do different things to achieve orgasm than you do?

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to unite two people in marriage, a union that will matter in many more ways than just what happens in the marriage bed.

“I’m staying in this race until there’s a nominee and, obviously, I am going to work as hard as I can to become that nominee,” the New York senator said at a Shepherdstown, W.Va., news conference Wednesday.

Even beyond the point of being able to win it, even to the point of hurting the party.

Did you see John McCain’s gleeful smirk last night on The Daily Show when asked how he felt about the continued in-fighting among Democrats?

“I believe that I’m the stronger candidate against Sen. McCain. And I believe I would be the best president among the three of us running.”

I believe I can still wear a shirt with a 16” collar. And I can, as long as I don’t care about breathing.

Noticeably absent from these remarks are anything about having enough votes.

In the aftermath of a momentum-sapping week that appeared to turn the tide in her 18-month battle against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Clinton acknowledged that she will need some hefty assists to keep her hopes for the White House alive: more campaign cash; more support from critical, uncommitted superdelegates; more wins in the primaries ahead; and a favorable resolution on seating contested delegates from Florida and Michigan.

Which she will pursue whilst atop her magical unicorn.

By “more wins in the primaries” they mean something like 75%.

As soon as someone can explain to me how Florida and Michigan, which knowingly defied the rules of their own party for reasons which are still unclear to me, can be seated when a) 48 other states followed the rules and b) Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan, I’ll be glad to listen.

Hey, Michigan and Florida, you broke the rules, you pay the price. Get over yourselves. Going to vote Republican if you don’t get your way? Going to sit out the election entirely? In what way are you not acting like a spoiled 4 year-old?

p.s. Florida: Please stop fracking up our elections. Thanks.

Averell “Ace” Smith, who ran Clinton’s campaign in North Carolina - where she was defeated by double digits Tuesday - said Wednesday that for Clinton, quitting is not an option. “People expect her to battle on. She’s tough, she’s resilient, and I think these next contests coming up are good ones for her, particularly Kentucky and West Virginia,” he said.

Imagine that, WV and KY going to the white candidate. Someone please alert the media.

In the superdelegate tally, Obama reaped more riches as four superdelegates, including Inola Henry of California, declared their support, while only one did so for Clinton.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if the Democrats haven’t figured out that it’s a bad idea to appoint someone for president against the will of the electorate, then they deserve to lose.

Clinton - whose cash-strapped campaign took to the Internet to scour for donations after Tuesday night’s results - acknowledged that she had lent her campaign $6.4 million in the past month to stay competitive. She turned aside suggestions that it spelled weakness, saying, “It’s a sign of how much I believe in what I’m trying to do.”

I wonder if any of the people who are being fooled by her “I’m just like all y’all” act will realize that she just threw away $6.4 million of her own money.

Think about what that means.

Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s chief strategist, said her game plan for victory includes efforts that began Wednesday at Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington. She held private talks to “make the pitch to the uncommitted superdelegates that she’d be the better nominee” against Sen. John McCain in the fall, he said.

You know, this would save us a lot of time and energy and money! Instead of having people vote for who they think would be the best candidate, how about we just skip the primaries altogether for every future election and just go right to the convention where the super-delegates will appoint someone?

The Clinton team acknowledges that its candidate’s chances for survival depend on seating the Michigan and Florida delegations. She has now suggested that it should take 2,209 delegates to win the nomination, a number that would count those two states.

Yes, that would be completely fair, especially given that Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan, and didn’t campaign in Florida.

And I’m sure she’d be pushing for this equally as hard if they had split that vote, right? Or if Obama had won them. Right? We all believe that, right?

I love how she’s using the rules that suit her (aka superdelegates) but wants to ignore the ones she doesn’t like (see Florida and Michigan). This is a great sign for someone who is seeking to be our president. Because if the last 7+ years have shown us anything, it’s that nothing bad can happen when you have a president who ignores rules whenever he wants.

“I think that Sen. Clinton’s constant discussion about the process and seating Michigan and Florida has been instrumental in her weakness with the superdelegates,” said Simon Rosenberg, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based think tank NDN. “The superdelegates are, for the most part, from the other 48 states - and they don’t want to see bad behavior rewarded, because they were disciplined enough to follow the rules.”

Which, as any parent ought to know, is how you teach children about consequences. Sure, you have free will to do what you know you are not supposed to do, but please don’t come crying about how unfair it is that you burned your hand after putting it on the burner we told you was hot.

“It should go the full 12 rounds,” said Bob Mulholland, a California Democratic Party campaign adviser and one of 261 remaining uncommitted superdelegates. “This is a big plus for Democrats, having this race. … Democratic voters love these two, and they can’t figure out how to have them both.”

Translation: “I am as high as a kite.”

(That one’s for you Moltzy!)

The vast majority of Democratic voters that I spend time around on Twitter can’t stand Hillary. At least one has promised to campaign for McCain if Hillary steals the nomination.

I heard/read somewhere the other day that Clinton would love Obama as VP, and Obama would do just about anything not to have Hillary as his VP. That may be apocryphal, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

“It would be a failure of the Democratic Party to urge a woman or an African American to drop out,” he said.

Urging each candidate to act how we would urge any candidate to act, regardless of their race or gender, is the exact definition of equality.

If you are speed reading or scanning through this article, please stop and re-read the last two sentences.

Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party - and a superdelegate who, according to party rules, must remain uncommitted until there is a nominee - agreed. “I’m sorry, George who?” he joked, after being asked for reaction to McGovern’s calls for Clinton’s withdrawal. “A lot of people told him not to run in 1972, and he didn’t listen. He’s the last guy who should be giving advice.”

Um, Art, tell me, how did that work out for McGovern?

Delegate tally Obama 1,846.5 Clinton 1,696 Needed to nominate: 2,025 (Numbers include unpledged delegates who have endorsed a candidate.) Source: Associated Press

How did Obama get ½ of a delegate?

I would be willing to bet that most of the people who want this to continue think that it’s actually better for the Democrats because all of the attention is on them and McCain is getting ignored. Meanwhile, McCain is getting all of this free time to shore up support.

Last two points:

1) Hillary wants a “gas tax holiday” which, as you may have heard, every economist in the country thinks is a bad idea. She said something like “I’m not listening to the experts on this.” Which is great, because if the past 7+ years have taught us anything, it’s that nothing bad can happen if we have a president who is not afraid to ignore the advice of experts. What’s next? A “No Need for Condoms” holiday, where she promises that unprotected sex will not result in STDs or pregnancy?

2) Rush Limbaugh wants you to vote for Hillary. What more do you need?

You should definitely watch the whole show, if not to watch how painfully scripted Hillary was, how scripted-but-funny Edwards was, and then be able to accurately contrast how relaxed and groovy Obama is.

If the video above doesn’t work, try this one:

How bad is it when Germany is coming after you for war crimes? Read more at Time

A little interesting reading from ABC News: Crucial Virginia Canvass Begins with the cutesy subtitle “Virginia Is for … Lawyers”

Having been in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, Tracey received the news that Virginia is having a recount with the deadpan response: “So what you’re telling me is that we’re moving to Virginia next…” (No, but it’s funny.)

Here are some choice quotes:

“I do expect it will be a bit more orderly than Florida,” said Dan Takaji, an Ohio State University law professor and an expert on election law. “The difference in Florida is that you had a large state with punch card ballots and a number of big, urban jurisdictions. Those combined to make the process a mess. … We won’t have the problem of ambiguously marked ballots.” Tuesday was the first time all Virginians who cast ballots in person used electronic voting machines in a general election. Virginia uses DRE machines, optical scan and ballot-marking devices made by Diebold, Sequoia, UniLect, Advanced Voting Solutions, Hart InterCivic and ES & S.

Ah yes, the good ol’ voting machines, which saved us from the hanging chads, the pregnant chads, and (worst of all) the overly-tanned spends- all- his- time- at- the- beach- playing- volleyball chad.

Because as we all know, there are no problems with the voting machines.

Note: if you missed the sarcasm in the last sentence, please re-read it until it becomes evident. Then ask yourself why you never hear stories about these machines “problems” favoring Democrats.

“The issue in Florida was whether or not a recount should go forward,” he said. “Here both sides recognize that the other side has a right to a recount if they want one.”

I’m still unclear on this, and excuse me for continuing to harp on it 6 years later, but why didn’t the Republicans feel this way 6 years ago? Why didn’t they feel that the Democrats had the right to a recount? Why did they fight it every step of the way? Why was the party-line that Al Gore needed to concede so that the nation could move on?

Will the Republicans tell George “Macaca” Allen that he needs to concede for the good of the country?

No, they will not.

What they fail to understand is that it’s the hypocrisy that bothers people. From W to Haggard to Foley — and all the others in between and around…

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/12/robber.retirement.ap/index.html (printer friendly)

The Democrats ought to be telling this story at every camera they can find.