Washington Post Hates Freedom

The Post is in the tank for Obama, per the endorsement running in Friday’s fishwrap.

Now I am a junkie for endorsements. And this is a swing-state paper, on account of NoVa readers. But endorsements are overrated. No doubt about it.

Yet there is something here, as the Post editorial board was basically fellating Dubya on the war from the jump.  Disgusting stuff, really. But they have caught Hope, for which there is no cure but Change.  Paragraph No. 2 sets up the rest:

“The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain’s disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama’s relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.”

Like, ouch, dude.


Even now the GOP orcs plan to steal the election. Omens, auguries, and portents dire.

And just what exactly was Caligutard’s experience in national politics?

Thank you for using my favorite scene from Zoolander.

So the Post still thinks the invasion of Iraq and the surge were good ideas that Obama is going to mess up and that free trade overrides all considerations. Sounds to me like they had their endorsement of Sen. Clinton written years ago and had to tailor it a bit for Sen. Obama. Apparently the years of death and destruction in Iraq have been too good to give up. The pollution by our trading partners, the slavery in Saipan and the murders of labor organizers in Colombia just aren’t worth mentioning if they screw up trade deals.

I completely disagree with the Post that Sen. McCain would ever be an acceptable president. He has so much in common with the current unacceptable president in temperment and delusions of inbred superiority that it’s difficult to say either man is any better prepared to serve as president than the other. We know how one third generation American nobleman worked out. I’m not anxious to give another one four years to wreak havoc upon what’s left of this nation.

Well, it took Letterman, but finally SOMEONE brought up G. Gordon Liddy.

I agree (it was the only funny moment for me aside from the name Mugatu.)

Does this mean that PG is Mugatu?

@homofascist: Switched over at midnight, after Colbert unveiled the new portrait, and so far Dave’s letting McCain get away with all the evasions — including saying John Lewis crossed the line.

I don’t expect Dave to pick up the slack from reporters who should be doing their job, and maybe all the fun happened early, but I ain’t hearing anything new.

@homofascist: Ah, near the end. Okay. Good for him.

But during the post-midnight (er, 11 p.m. CT) stretch I saw, the most notable thing was McCain’s response to the “pals around with terrorists” line. I didn’t write it down, but it was something like “lots of things are said during a campaign.”

That’s a very curious remark. Is he telling us to ignore it? What else is he telling us that he doesn’t really mean?

@nojo: And speaking of Colbert.. I have recently discovered the “Play full episode” option on the site, and caught the opening credits.

I think it may just be me, but ooooo when Colbert whips off the glasses and stares down the camera?

It gets me all thingy, and for some reason makes me think of Pierce Brosnon.

@CheapBoy: You only just now noticed?

BTW. You’ve all probably run this grist through the mill but… OMFG! Hopey in last night’s bunfight with cardinals! He was brilliant. Hilarious. Who wrote that script? But he did it so well! It was like Cary Grant. Except the suit. Which looked rented. And the shirt was too big. Which was touching and altogether as it should be. What the hell was Hillz wearing? It seemed to be some kind of fleecey jacket over which someone had tipped sparkle. But Hopey! Wow. Geezer was stiff and awkward and sulky. Yellowing teeth and all.

That the event was cynical in the extreme did nothing to diminish my HOPE.

Now I have to go to NYC. Ugh.

really, you just noticed?
btw, stephen belongs to cynica, and SFL and i share jon.
and jamie will hurt you if you go after her keith OH.
i keed. glad to have you join the fantasy boyfriend club.

@nojo: I actually didn’t see the first part of the interview, but saw the next two segments. The second was all about Palin, and PG pretty much admitted that he didn’t know her well before he selected her. Then he talks about Todd having iron balls or something, and then he keeps saying how proud he is of her. WTF? I realize he is old enough to be her grandpa, but he isn’t, and I don’t understand how any woman can watch that patronizing bullshit and not want to slap him.

The other part I thought was good was that he brought up the “Pallin’ around with terrorists” line, which first Letterman asked if his running mate was using that line on the campaign trail, and McCain actually HESITATED (!) like he was thinking about whether to deny it or not (it was super awkward) but then realized he couldn’t deny that one and said yes. Dave basically said “so, the word terrorists is plural, so even if we let you have Ayers, who are the others?” And McCain just stammered something to the effect of oh come on, we say ‘millions of words’ in a campaign and you can’t scrutinize them all.

Whether you like Letterman or not (I haven’t watched that show in like…well….ever) he was not in a laughing mood and asked some tough questions. Not quite as much follow up as you would like, but he didn’t really let PG get off the hook easily. And he was floored by the Liddy question.

@Lyndon LaDouche: OMFSM that sparkly jacket!! my eyes. Thank heavens she was in a dark corner so no one was actually blinded by that Mafia wife montrosity.

@nojo: @homofascist: Did y’all notice the music for McCain’s entrance? “I Can’t Explain.”

CB, that moving picture is fantastic. I want to know where it is from.

Add a Comment
Please log in to post a comment