Thursday, June 05, 2008

They Pay For this Kind of "Analysis"?

Steve Kraske and Dave Helling needed to team up to produce the ludicrous "analysis" that the Kansas City Star recently published, posted and presumably paid for. In it, they claim that the "hard part" for the Democrats may be piecing the party back together after the primary season.

I wish I had been there to see the article get written. Was it written over the course of a tequila shot drinking contest, with the winner getting to eat the worm and the loser being made to list his name first? That would be kind of funny to watch.

Or did they write it while grilling wieners in an enclosed space, not realizing that the carbon monoxide was slowing their brain activity to a snail's pace? I would have rescued them.

Regardless of the circumstances, it takes a special kind of opacity to worry about the Democrats on the day that Obama clinched the nomination. After a primary season that saw record numbers of democrats, including millions of new voters, come to the polls to vote for their favored brand of CHANGE, the Democratic party has never been stronger.

From the beginning, the overwhelming majority of democrats have voiced the opinion that either Obama or Clinton would be great, regardless of which one they were supporting. While an occasional few have fallen to the intoxication of partisanship, they are not representative of a trend, or even of their more sober sides. Give them a week or two to calm down, and they will be fine. (Mr. Martin, were you really fearing a heart attack while watching a rules committee? That's not normal, and a specialist of some sort should be consulted.)

Because expressions of anger between the Clinton and Obama sides were apparently so hard to find, these two journalists were forced to resort to quotations of anger toward - journalists! They quote Mike Sanders:
“I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton was held (by the media) to a different standard than every other presidential candidate who ran in this cycle,” said Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders. “Not just Barack Obama, not just John McCain, but every other candidate.”
Helling and Kraske are weakly attempting to portray Sanders' dissatisfaction with how badly journalists did their job as some kind of dissatisfaction with his fellow Democrats. I suggest that they ask Mr. Sanders if he will be voting for Senator Obama in a match against McCain, and I promise that the answer will be a strong "yes".

The fact of the matter is that the dissension among the Democrats is nothing compared to that among the Republicans. Of course, in the heat of the moment, a few petulant Clinton supporters are going to overstate their disappointment in seeing their candidate fall short, but nobody who supports Hillary's progressive agenda and Democratic values is going to fail to see those same qualities in Barack Obama.

Within a couple weeks, Obama will be riding high atop a surge of enthusiastic Democrats eager to bring change to our country. I hope Kraske and Helling invite me to observe whatever collaboration they dream up then. It appears they may need adult supervision.

(I enjoy making fun of Kraske and Helling, because I'm frankly jealous they get paid decent money to produce such mediocre foolish verbiage a couple times a week, while I produce high-quality foolish verbiage almost every day, for free. I know, deep in my heart, that the only thing separating me from the professional pundits is a j-school degree and a willingness to really dive down deep into the murky depths of obtuseness and emerge with pearls like the article discussed here.)

Labels: , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good points Dan. I spoke with Mike several weeks ago and it is very safe to say that he is a big Obama fan. His support of Clinton was based primarily upon a personal relationship dating back to the 90's. Without that, he would have clearly been behind Obama. BTW, a little known fact: Sanders own father was an Obama campaing volunteer in Missouri AND Iowa. So thus ends the conspiracy.

6/05/2008 11:29 AM  
Blogger craig said...

I don't know, I like Sanders, but his judgement is getting a little questionable. First Hillary, then a Rizzo. He may need an mental eval.

6/05/2008 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would have been nice if Sanders and Jolly had supported Obama from the start.

McCaskill supported him, however, and she deserves some credit for his Missouri victory. Once again, Claire, way to go!

6/05/2008 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

McCaskill supported Obama to shore up her questionable cred with african-american leaders. Period. This was no "crusade" by Claire, just plain-old politics.

As for Sanders and Clinton, I don't know that he had much of a choice given how close the Clintons had been with his in-laws.

6/05/2008 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not suprised that Sanders would support Rizzo at all:

1. Rizzo is going to win this time,
2. When Shields told the legislature at a meeting that Sanders was being investigated by the feds (she lied), only one person, Rizzo, stood up for him.
3. Rizzo has been a solid vote for all of Sanders' needed county reforms.

Not a far reach at all.

6/05/2008 5:36 PM  
Blogger craig said...


"3. Rizzo has been a solid vote for all of Sanders' needed county reforms."

That doesn't make any sense. Rizzo is for Rizzo, end of story.

6/05/2008 5:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL Craig. Maybe you are right. Just making the point about political loyalty.

6/05/2008 6:23 PM  
Anonymous Jack C. said...

We don't agree on everything but this is right on. Maybe they were too busy sipping Republican kool-aid and dreaming about a McCain love triangle to see that Democrats are turning out in record numbers everywhere!

What a bunch of morons.

6/05/2008 8:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bottom line: Hillary represents old school, it's-all-about-me politics; Obama represents (and is) progressive, transparent, self-less politics.

The country - and Missouri - is ready for a change from the same old crap. Claire recognized this, while other area politicians did not. There will be consequences for those sticking to the old ways.

6/05/2008 9:03 PM  
Blogger craig said...

Anon @ 9:03,
Well put. I support McCain, but I like Obama, and if the GOP nominee would have been anybody but McCain or Rudy, Obama would probably get my vote. This is the first election in a while where I won't be voting for the person who I dislike the least, but the person who I like the most. And whoever wins, I believe the country will be in good hands. I would not have felt that way with Hillary.

6/05/2008 11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 9:03, for you to say that "there will be consequences" for those who supported Hillary is EXACTLY what you are decrying as "old school, it's-all-about-me politics." What irony, you are espousing exactly what you are claiming to be against. Hmmmm.

For Obama to win, he has to look beyond the old-school tactic of providing "consequences" to the non-believers, as you are advocating for,and try to unite the party. Anything else, and its say hello to President McCain.

6/06/2008 12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 12:00 -
I wasn't clear. The "consequences" will not be inflicted by Obama. You are right - he is not that type of politician. The "consequences" will be inflicted by the voters.

6/06/2008 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see you still don't get the hypocritical nature of your post. It doesn't matter though as most voters aren't bitter and filled with hate like you.

6/06/2008 11:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Craig why are you voting for McCain? He supported Bush 97% of the time. His "Maverick" days died back in 2000. Since then he's been nothing but a greedy opportunist.

6/06/2008 12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 11:48 -

No, it is you who doesn't "get" it. I am simply pointing out that Obama stands for a new brand of politics - a politics that is transparenet and self-less. His brand rejects the old style of back-slapping, it's-about-me politics, which many attribute to Hillary and those KC politicians who supported her.

The voters have chosen a new way. I am not making a threat -- besides, an "anonymous" threat would be ineffectual anyway. I am making a prediction that those who practice the old way will find themselves out of office.

Things are changing. Politics is becoming about policy, not the politicians. I understand why some find this a scary development.

6/06/2008 1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:48. Get over yourself. More PEOPLE voted for Clinton than Obama, he won more delegates however. For you to act like this is some type of mandate for Obama is silly. HE has A LOT of fence mending to do before November, not the other way around. I and many other women like me have been VERY turned off by the subtle sexism of the campaign. If he wants our vote, he better listen and not think like or act like you. Otherwise McCain will win.

6/06/2008 1:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 1:31 -

Wow, and you are calling other people bitter?

I will not apologize for feeling optimistic about the new direction of politics. A move towards transparency and altruism is a positive development. Sorry you can't seem to agree. But this is a big, open tent party, and all types are accepted.

6/06/2008 1:45 PM  
Blogger craig said...

anon @ 12:02
Since you said this;
"Since then he's been nothing but a greedy opportunist"
I will assume that this reply is worthless, but WTH, I might as well try.
First, lets take your statement that McCain voted with Bush 97% of the time at face value. Then we would also have to take the fact that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate at face value. Therefor a moderate like myself should be dissapointed that they are the nominees. But, I have the ability to look past snippets of voting records and more into who I believe the person is. I also have the ability to look past the rhetoric like "McSame" and "Barrack HUSSEIN Obama" and recognize it for what it is, rhetoric. McCain has a long history of being able to reach across party lines and get things accomplished, I believe Obama has that potential. But given the choice, I will go with the proven commodity over potential every time.

6/06/2008 11:39 PM  
Blogger craig said...

I want to clarify something.
I meant to say imply the far right wingers that are fixated on Obama's middle name are using rhetoric, not disparage the man for his middle name.

6/07/2008 12:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah but craig you didn't respond to the point about "Maverick" dieing back in 2000. Those reach across the lines days are over man.

Look at his record post 2000. In particular post 2004. He has been all about money, power and politics. As a "moderate" McCain is the opposite of all things you should be standing for. He's far from a moderate.

6/09/2008 11:59 PM  
Blogger craig said...

anon @ 11:59
Ii was trying to be nice. But you mistook my kindness for weakness. First, your 97% is plain and simple made up left wing BS!!
McCain's voting record for this Congressional session is 88.3% with the GOP majority, Obama's is 96.5% with the Dem majority. That makes McCain 8.2% more moderate than Obama.
Now, I could stop there, but I will go ahead and run up the score. A few points about what McCain disagreed with the GOP about;
Legislative transparency,
Stem cell research,
EIC tax credits for low income families,
Earmark reform,
Now, to be fair, and to show you that I am not a partisan hack. Both candidates, due to campaigning have missed a significant amount of votes this session (McCain about 60%, Obama about 42%), so McCain could have masked his voting record with planned missed votes, but that is a stretch of the imagination.
Thanks for playing, pick up you consolation set of matching steak knives on your way out.

6/10/2008 6:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home