"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Monday, June 21, 2010

It depends on what the meaning of "deadline" is
Posted by Jill | 5:14 AM
One of the first things I have to do when I get a new project is to come up with a timeline. The timeline is built by going backwards from a pre-set "live" date decided by people way above my pay grade. We have to deliver by that date or else it comes out in OUR reviews the following year. Yes, there are many other people who have to provide information, feedback, and approvals, but people who do what I do are the ones who have to answer if a deadline is missed.

I deliver data entry screens for clinical trials data. The development process is more complicated than it sounds, and there's a lot of people involved. I take my deadlines seriously; that's one reason for the 80-hour weeks and such.

Rahm Emanuel doesn't think a deadline is a deadline, just a "guideline" for more talk when it comes to withdrawal from Afghanistan:
TAPPER: So what exactly does the July 2011 deadline mean? Is it going to be a whole lot of people moving out, definitely, as Vice President Biden says? Or could it be more nuanced, as General Petraeus says, maybe just a couple of people leaving one province?

EMANUEL: Well, no, everybody knows there's a firm date. And that firm date is a date -- deals with the troops that are part of the surge, the additional 30,000. What will be determined at that date or going into that date will be the scale and scope of that reduction.

But there will be no doubt that that's going to happen. And I know actually -- I look at both of those, and they're not inconsistent. But remember where we were on Afghanistan policy, that war had waxed and waned. And there really hadn't been a focus on how to bring that war to -- and the effort (INAUDIBLE), even with al Qaeda and Taliban, to a point given what was going on in Iraq.

The president raised the troop level and civilian participation to 30,000. This was creating a window of opportunity for Afghanistan. We are now at that point in Afghanistan, and in fact for the first time in eight years, nine years, they're actually meeting their police recruitment requirements as well as their army recruitment requirements. So they themselves can take more and more responsibility for the security of that country.

Second is we're also -- about a half of al Qaeda has been eliminated in this last 18 months. So we're taking the pressure to al Qaeda, taking the pressure to the Taliban. And we're making progress as it relates to, as you know, after the president's meeting with President Karzai, went back to Afghanistan, held a peace jurga.

There is also progress being made on that side. All of this has been predictable in the sense that we knew once we created this window of opportunity, we were going to focus on what are the resources that are necessary, where are we going to be making progress. But the July '11 date, as stated by the president, that's not moving. That's not changing. Everybody agreed on that date. General Petraeus did. Secretary Gates did. As also Admiral Mullen agreed.

And the goal is to take this opportunity, focus on what needs to get done, and then on July 2011, is to begin the reduction of...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: But it could be any...

EMANUEL: ... troops.

TAPPER: But it could be any number of people.
EMANUEL: That's what you'll evaluate based on the conditions on the ground. That is -- but what had to happen prior to that was having a date that gave everybody, the NATO, international forces, as well as Afghanistan, that sense of urgency to move.

I wonder what would happen if next time I miss my deadline, I said to my boss that I don't regard deadlines as deadlines; just a "eense of urgency to move."

Perhaps this is why Rahmzilla is rumored to be leaving soon.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Time to donate to Joe Sestak
Posted by Jill | 5:18 AM
It's not unusual for a President to lend his supposed clout to state electoral contests. While political parties may have titular heads, a sitting president usually trumps the "official" head of the party. But while Jeff Zeleny and Adam Nagourney, the New York Times tag-team of journalistic hackery, may be fanning themselves on a chaise longue about how Barack Obama trying to influence state candidates is just SO un-bipartisan, they also point out that Obama is backing some pretty ugly horses out there:
The president’s top strategists have recruited candidates — and nudged others to step aside — in races in Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. They said they intended to continue this practice heading into the 2010 midterm elections, as well as with an eye to the redistricting fights that will go on within states early in the next decade.

The intense involvement reflects the tactics and style of the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who helped Democrats win the House three years ago as chairman of the Congressional campaign committee.

While some party officials applaud the White House for its efforts — there is widespread concern among Democrats that the party could suffer if Mr. Paterson runs — the actions are drawing alarm from some Democrats who believe they cross a line and run contrary to Mr. Obama’s often-stated pledge to rise above partisan battles.

“The Democratic Party under Barack Obama did not come into office because of political calculation; it got there because of audacity,” said Representative Joe Sestak, a Pennsylvania Democrat who ignored White House efforts to urge him to stay out of a primary race against Senator Arlen Specter. “To be seen like you are selecting winners and losers in a party-boss way will breed some resentment, and in a longer term it won’t bode well.”

[snip]

In Pennsylvania, the White House has rallied behind Mr. Specter, a Republican-turned-Democrat, as he faces off in a Democratic primary against Mr. Sestak. The support from the president reflects a promise Democrats made to Mr. Specter earlier this year in persuading him to switch parties.

“An endorsement by the president is a tremendous boost,” Mr. Specter said. “He’s the captain of the team.”

More than anything, though, the interventions reflect a controlling style of this White House and of Mr. Emanuel, who employed similar hard-ball tactics to recruit candidates when he was running the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In addition to Mr. Emanuel, the White House political director, Patrick Gaspard, and deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, keep close watch on all political races.

Yes, and Arlen Specter is nothing but a craven political opportunist. Backing him is textbook Rahm Emanuel -- forget about change, forget about anything but perpetuating the entrenched power structure.

We don't have to go along with this crap. If you have some shekels to spare, you could send some to help Joe Sestak break this monster. Choose your sponsoring organization here.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, September 03, 2009

Government By Leak
Posted by Jill | 4:43 AM
We're starting to see a troubling trend coming from the Obama administration. It's a trend of floating trial balloons that they must know are going to infuriate the Democratic base -- you know, those people who provided those millions of dollars in individual contributions and the shoe leather to get Barack Obama elected -- followed by a denial that the trial balloon is true.

We saw that Wednesday, when Politico reported that President Obama was backing off from insistence on a public health insurance option in an attempt to gain Republican support that anyone with half a brain who is paying any attention is simply not gainable.

As John Amato said yesterday in a post you simply must read, "I didn't vote for Rahm Emanuel, did you?" But Rahm Emanuel is what we've got. It almost seems as if Rahm is Obama's Karl Rove. He might not be Obama's brain, but he's Obama's spine, and unfortunately that spine is in thrall to corporate interests, not to the actual citizens who voted this Administration into office. Just as Rove used George Bush's insecurities about his manhood to manipulate policy, so does Rahm use Obama's issues about playing nicey-nice with everyone to serve his own corporate masters.

Now it seems that someone in the Administration read enough blogs yesterday to know that Barack Obama will lose one hell of a lot of foot soldiers in 2012 if he caves on the public option, for the New York Times today indicates that it's not dead (yet):
Administration officials said Wednesday that Mr. Obama would be more specific than he has been to date about what he wants included in the plan. Doing so amounts to an acknowledgment that the president’s prior tactic of laying out broad principles and leaving Congress to fill in the details was no longer working and that Mr. Obama needed to become more personally involved in shaping the outcome.

But the officials said Mr. Obama was unlikely to unveil a detailed legislative plan of his own. And they insisted that Mr. Obama had not given up on the provision that has attracted the most fire from the right, a proposal for a government-run competitor to private insurers, although many Democrats say the proposal may eventually be jettisoned.


Anyone paying any attention at all knows that the proposal WILL be jettisoned, because Democrats want their cash bribes from health insurers in their re-election coffers just as much as Republicans do. But once again, we're seeing the Democrats showing their weak hand and their willingness to be rolled by a party which was resoundingly repudiated in the last election.

It's hard to imagine how anyone could think, after all the subliminal dog-whistling Republicans are doing to their constituents by using the words "kill" and "Obama" in the same sentence, that any Republicans, even Olympia Snowe, are going to negotiate on good faith. Barack Obama and Senate Democrats have shown themselves to be wusses who can be rolled simply by threats. They are reminding me of that Family Guy episode in which Chris becomes part of the Cool Kids Club at school because the prettiest girl in school is pity-dating him. They think they're going to be accepted, but they never will be. The question, as it is in any high school, is just who anointed the Cool Kids and what on earth have they done, short of intimidating and bullying everyone else, to earn such bowing and scraping.

On Wednesday, Dan Savage came about as close as we've seen to pointing out how Republicans don't just want health care dead, they want Obama dead, and the Democrats have to (quoting Michelle Bachmann) man up and find their spines:




Indeed. If Obama thinks he can do business with people like this, then he's delusional.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Just sayin' is all
Posted by Jill | 7:23 PM
Perhaps if Barack Obama had just gone and danced with the ones what brung him, he wouldn't seem like such a hapless dupe of corporatist Blue Dogs in his own party now.

But instead he listened to that little Napoleon Rahm Emanuel, who put most of them in there. And now the media smells blood in the water and is determined to turn Barack Obama into Carter II: Electric Boogaloo.

Nice work, Rahmmy. Did you get paid to do it?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Is BarackObama really this bad, or is Rahm Emanuel running the country
Posted by Jill | 1:14 PM
With over 3/4 of Americans favoring a public option for health care, why is Barack Obama willing to capitulate to Republicans, corporatist whore Democrats, and the insurance companies from whom they're on the take?

Did Rahm Emanuel privately signal to Democratic Senators that the White House is prepared to drop the public insurance option from health care reform in order to get a bill passed? Two Dem Senators now say Emanuel is signaling exactly that:


White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel met last night at the U.S. Capitol with Senate Democrats and told them Obama is “open to alternatives” to a new government insurance program in order to get legislation overhauling the health-care system to his desk, said Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota.


“His message was, it’s critical that you do this,” Conrad said.


Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana said Emanuel urged the senators to seek Republican support and didn’t discourage them from pursuing the use of non-profit cooperatives, an idea Conrad has proposed.


That last line is key: The White House may be signaling that getting a public option is less important than winning bipartisan support. This would undercut Dems who want to bypass the GOP, arguing that bipartisanship as an end in itself isn’t as important as a public option.



We know what kind of sleazebucket Rahm Emanuel is. But is he really running the show, or are Barack Obama's "straddlling two worlds" issues going to be as much of an albatross around his neck in terms of policy as George W. Bush's daddy issues were around his? At what point does Barack Obama owe the people he serves more than he owes a Republican party that has made very clear that compromise is out of the question?

I knew we weren't going to get a progressive dreamboat in Barack Obama. All the screeching on the part of the right never once disguised the fact that Barack Obama is, and always has been, a DLC centrist. But you would think that 75% approval of a public option would be enough political cover -- unless he really DOES want to shovel a bunch of government cash into the pockets of insurance company executives.

I'm not convinced he doesn't.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, June 17, 2009

You don't have to be gay for this to piss you off
Posted by Jill | 4:50 AM
I've never understood why gay groups even thought Barack Obama was going to be a brave champion of gay rights, any more than I understood why anyone actually thought he was going to end the war and institute single-payer health care. Yes, he talked a good game on the stump, but then, so did John Edwards. And look where that went.

I'm in no position to lecture anyone else about falling for a good line instead of looking at the record, but even on the stump, I never saw Barack Obama as being someone willing to take political risks just to do something that's The Right Thing To Do. For me, Obama had a chance to seriously make a mark on the Senate after the 2004 election, when he was a brand spanking shiny new Senator. Stephanie Tubbs Jones moved to decertify Ohio's electoral college votes after the BushCo shenanigans there, and he sat down and let Barbara Boxer stand up and do it. At the time, people told me "Well, he's new, he can't do it right out of the gate." But I remember thinking what a shandeh it was that this most high-profile black Senator sat on his hands after black voters were denied the chance to vote.

Obama has given a few signals that he's not entirely comfortable with Teh Gay. He's given lip service to all the right things, but his vehemence about not wanting a "girly dog", and similar comments, have been cues to me that this is not a guy who's going to go marching during the Pride parade. At least John Edwards admitted that Teh Gay makes him uncomfortable because of his Southern Baptist upbringing, that it was something he was working on, and that he was happy that his kids didn't carry this baggage. I remember how hurt ModFab was about that remark, and was disinclined to give Edwards brownie points for finding him "icky". I think I said something about "Do you really think Obama is any different? At least Edwards admitted it." Of course now we know that John Edwards has absolutely no moral standing to make any kind of statement about what marriage means, but that's a different issue for a different post. But it's clear now that Barack Obama finds ModFab, and every other gay person in this country, just as "icky" -- and even as the first black president, is perfectly willing to deny rights to an entire group. And that makes this Administration's stand on DOMA and DADT that much more heinous.

I'm sure that the cynical political manipulations of Rahm Emanuel have something to do with this Administration's disgraceful moves over the last few weeks in regard to gay issues, but I don't think Obama is objecting to any of this. Emanuel has a history of deciding that wooing people who will never vote for you no matter what you do is more important than making sure your base turns up. Never forget that in Ohio, Emanuel knocked out a popular candidate, Christine Cegelis, in Illinois' 6th Congressional district in 2006 and instead moved a double amputee Iraq War veteran, Tammy Duckworth, into the district to run instead, believing her to be foolproof because no one would dare attack the patriotism of a veteran who gave limbs in the service of her country. Obviously Emanuel has never heard the name Max Cleland. If you want to read about what a vile, cynical, counterproductive POS Rahm Emanuel is, go spend some time over at DWT. And this is the guy who has Barack Obama's ear.

So combine a cheap political operative like Rahm (who as a former ballet dancer is probably plenty squishy about Teh Gay himself) with a cautious centrist like Obama, give them shovels, and they will not hesitate to throw the entire gay community under the bus (at the same time as they're trying to get money from them).

John Aravosis, who seems to have been foundering a bit since January 20, sitting back and letting Chris Ryan rant over and over and over again about how the baby boomers are to blame for everything, has found his mojo again over this. Six states have legalized gay marriage and not one person in those states has found him or herself divorced the next morning as a result. The world has not come to an end. We have not been visited by seven plagues, except in Bergen County, New Jersey (where gay marriage is STILL not the law), where Monday's hailstorm might have had me wondering for a while. And there's Barack and Rahm, still trying to win over the very same Christofascist Zombie Brigade that's been calling Obama a Muslim and a terrorist and appearing all over Fox Noise to whip gun guys into a frenzy -- and taking one of their most loyal groups of voters and telling them You Do Not Matter.

Nice tin ear there, fellas. And if you think that hastily slapping together a benefits package for gay federal employees that expires when you leave office is going to get you off the hook, guess again.

Note to the President: Jettison Rahm...the sooner the better. Because he is an albatross around your neck. He took credit for Howard Dean's 50-state strategy; a strategy he wanted to see dismantled. He thinks his political instincts are great, but he's just another cheap, glad-handing sack of shit who schmoozes and strongarms and thinks that's what's important. Perhaps you are too. But if you don't want to be thought of this way, get rid of this guy. Because he is going to steer you wrong every damn time.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, February 07, 2009

More on Howard Dean at HHS
Posted by Jill | 7:55 AM
This topic is too important to leave just as a funny lolphoto and a link to another post.

Back in the 1980's, the Mets had a player named Gregg Jeffries. Jeffries was picked by the Mets in the 1985 amateur draft and proceeded to tear up the minor leagues. In 1989, the Mets traded the beloved and scrappy second baseman Wally Backman to the Minnesota Twins to make room for Jeffries at second base, where the bonus baby proceeded to hit a mediocre .258 that year.

Jeffries quickly gained a reputation as a whiner among his teammates, and in 1991 he wrote an open letter that was read on WFAN:
"When a pitcher is having trouble getting players out, when a hitter is having trouble hitting, or when a player makes an error, I try to support them in whatever way I can. I don't run to the media to belittle them or to draw more attention to their difficult times. I can only hope that one day those teammates who have found it convenient to criticize me will realize that we are all in this together. If only we can concentrate more on the games than complaining and bickering and pointing fingers, we would all be better off."


Instead of realizing that Gregg Jeffries was a troublemaker, the Mets organization responded to Jeffries' troubles with his teammates, even before the Infamous Letter, by trading away or jettisoning everyone who did not get along with Gregg Jeffries. Gary Carter and Keith Hernandez in 1989, along with the horrific Lenny Dykstra for Juan Samuel bungle. After the 1990 season, Darryl Strawberry was allowed to walk. In 1990-91, tit was Bob Ojeda and Tim Teufel.

By the time Jeffries was 23, his career in New York was already over, his nemeses long since scattered to the four winds. And the Mets were a mess. Jeffries was traded to the Kansas City Royals after the 1991 season for a past-his-prime Bret Saberhagen. Jeffries went on to have a couple of good years with the Cardinals, but retired in 2000 with a .289 batting average -- solid, but hardly the mark of the kind of star that he, his hard-driving father, and the Mets thought they had when they traded an entire team in an effort to make him happy.

I bring up all this because President Obama has his own Gregg Jeffries in the person of Rahm Emanuel. Rahmmy seems to resent having to live on the same planet as Dr. Howard Dean. If Rahm Emanuel had had his way, Barack Obama would have run the same campaign that John Kerry did in 2004, with probably the same result. It was Rahm Emanuel who decided to ditch the well-known Christine Cegelis in Illinois 6th district in 2004, instead moving in Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth, whose opponent managed to paint her as a traitor despite her having left both legs in Iraq. Duckworth didn't get much support from Rahmmy either, against these attacks, and he pretty much left her high and dry. Because in the end, for Rahm Emanuel, it's all about Rahm.

So here we are, with the Obama Administration having a chance to at least partially redeem his cabinet choices after throwing the entire netroots that worked tirelessly to get him elected under the bus, by naming Howard Dean to HHS. And there is no way that Obama's Chief of Staff is going to let that happen.

Jonathan Cohn explains why:
Howard Dean is not going to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

As best as I can tell, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is not about to let Dean in the same zip code, let alone the same branch of government. That is the political reality.

Still, writers should do more than reflect the political reality. They should try to change it--or, at least, explain why it's flawed. With that in mind, here are two very key assets that Dean would bring to the job--the job, I know, he'll never have.

The first is management ability. Ever since Tom Daschle withdrew his name from consideration for HHS Secretary, most of the discussion hs focused on what it meant for the president's health reform agenda. Daschle was a gifted communicator and deft political operator. Everybody wants to find a replacement who has those skills. Dean doens't have them.

But it's not essential that the HHS secretary be one of the key players, privately or publicly, on health reform. Other advisers and officials can take up that role, as can the president himself.

On the other hand, it is essential that the HHS secretary take charge of an agency with wide-ranging responsibilities, a vast bureacracy, and a recent history of neglect. Head Start is part of HHS. So are the Centers for Disease Control along with the Food and Drug Administration, two agencies that represent our first line of defense against disease. For the last eight years, they've struggled under an administration that, at best, ignored them and, at worst, used them to advance a socially conservative agenda.

The next HHS Secretary must do better. And one way (albeit not the only way) to guarantee that is to find somebody with a proven track record of managing organizations that work on health care. As the five-term governor of Vermont, Dean did exactly that. And while Vermont is a tiny state, the record he complied there was exemplary, not just on health insurance but on the whole range of issues dealing with human welfare.

Don't forget, too, that Dean showed pretty good management skills--not to mention judgment--at the Democratic National Commitee. With virtually no support from the political establishment, which held him in nearly universal disdain, Dean was true to his vision and--because of that--helped build a grassroots network that's paying real political dividends today. (Anybody laughing about the 50-state strategy now?)


Yes. Rahm Emanuel is. Because as far as he's concerned, anything good that happens is his doing. I hope Barack Obama realizes this over time. Because if he has to, Rahmmy will be the first in line to throw HIM under the bus if it's to Rahmmy's advantage.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, February 05, 2009

Thursday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said
Posted by Jill | 7:58 PM
Today's honoree: Howie Klein, for making the case for Howard Dean for HHS Secretary.

Money quote:
But, aside from protecting Wall Street and Zionism, Emanuel has no real ideological objectives. He's a process guy, not a policy guy. People who do care about policy-- like health care, for example-- might be giving the president different advice than what's he's being offered by Emanuel. We're hearing every disastrous reform-killing name you can think of from the HMO Industry's Dollar Bill Frist and puffed-out elitist Newt Gingrich to Tennessee's reactionary quasi-Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen. And then there are the decent, if not stellar, candidates like Kansas Governor Katheen Sebelius and Oregon ex-Governor John Kitzhaber. And Howard Dean, the logical choice? What about him? Just Emanuel's scream in the night and threat to hold his breath 'til he turns blue (not a bad idea).

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, November 06, 2008

For those who thought Obama would put us bloggers out of business
Posted by Jill | 5:29 AM
Rahm Fucking Emanuel?

This is the best you can do?

Rahm Emanuel? The guy tho fought Howard Dean, without whom the next president would be named "John McCain", tooth and nail about the 50-state strategy and tried to have him booted from the chairmanship of the DNC? The guy whose idea of strategy in presidential politics was to pour money into states that were a sure bet anyway and hope that maybe Florida and Ohio might go your way and get you the victory?

Rahm Emanuel? The guy who drove a nascent Democratic star in the person of Paul Hackett out of politics for good after insisting that Sherrod Brown, a good "party man", should run against Mike DeWine in Ohio in 2006? Sherrod Brown is a perfectly good Senator but Paul Hackett was a potential star who could have sold the Democratic brand for decades to come to the very swing voters that are always wooed so heavily at election time.

Rahm Emanuel? The guy who decided that a good, honest, well-known and popular progressive named Christine Cegelis wasn't the right candidate for Illinois' 6th district because you don't dare run against Captain Codpiece's war? It was Rahm Emanuel, having learned absolutely nothing from the infamous Max Cleland/Saxby Chambliss race of 2002, who machinated the moving of an Iraq War vet named Tammy Duckworth who had lost both legs in Iraq into the district under the assumption that no one would dare criticize a war amputee. No one knew who Duckworth was, so no one was there to defend her when her opponent, Peter Roskam, accused her of wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq. Duckworth is a brave and good woman who was as ill served by Barack Obama's would-be chief of staff as she was by Peter Roskam.

Rahm Emanuel was quick to take credit for the Democrats' takeover of the House in 2006, but as Paul Lukasiak pointed out at the time, if Rahm had had his way, the Democrats would have spent the next two years still in the wilderness. But hey...Rahm would have still been on the talk shows, and isn't that all that really matters?

The Hackett/Brown and Cegelis/Duckworth fiascoes is what makes Rahm Emanuel, as far as I'm concerned, the poster child for the Democratic Party's long sojourn in the wilderness. The future of the party is with Obama and with Howard Dean at the helm of the DNC, bringing the kids into the fold and showing that we don't have to be the party of glad-handing and hackery. Choosing this odious hack as his chief of staff is not the most auspicious of beginnings for Obama, though it's one that was predictable. After all, only Republicans thought Obama was the most liberal Senator. The rest of us knew better.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share