Christine O'Donnell wouldn't have won in November anyway, but even conservatives won't like this one. She's already canceled two Sunday news show appearances.

From one of her 22 appearances on Politically Incorrect (this one is 1999.)

"One of my first dates with with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it," she added. "I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that. We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar."

The White House has released the transcript of President Obama's remarks at a Greenwich, CT DNC fundraiser. Among his comments, this one is causing ire among progressives on Twitter today:

....Democrats, just congenitally, tend to get -- to see the glass as half empty. (Laughter.) If we get an historic health care bill passed -- oh, well, the public option wasn’t there. If you get the financial reform bill passed -- then, well, I don't know about this particularly derivatives rule, I'm not sure that I'm satisfied with that. And gosh, we haven’t yet brought about world peace and -- (laughter.) I thought that was going to happen quicker. (Laughter.) You know who you are.

Is the White House sending a message in releasing the transcript? What is it? Shouldn't Obama be encouraging progressives to feel included in the Democratic party and get out and vote, rather than belittling their concerns? Or, does he believe they'll come out to vote against Republicans no matter how they're treated by their own, so there's little downside?

Here's Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher's take yesterday on the speech.

On Monday, Paris Hilton will plead guilty to two misdemeanors to settle her Las Vegas felony cocaine possession charge.

It's a very harsh deal. She's agreeing to two suspended six month jail sentences, a year of unsupervised probation, and if she merely gets arrested (no conviction required) for anything other than a minor traffic offense, she agrees to immediately go in and serve the year.

The complaint against her will be amended to add a charge of obstruction of a police officer. The factual basis? She lied when she told the arresting officer that the Chanel purse she was carrying (that had less than a gram of cocaine inside it) did not belong to her. How do police know that was a lie? Because she posted a Twitpic of the purse on her Twitter feed a few weeks before the arrest with the caption, "Love My New Chanel Purse I Got Today." [More...]

The debate over the use of the phrase American Talban, which was always absurd, now reaches new heights of absurdity. The American Prospect's Adam Serwer writes:

I've written pieces with the intent of breaking down the very kind of arrogance that presumes the bad acts of our countrymen are different from those of our enemies, so I can hardly be thrown in that camp. I have no problem with pointing out individual instances in which conservative figures embrace the premises behind the arguments of religious extremists; I do it all the time. That doesn't mean that conservatives are "indistinguishable" from the Taliban "in their tactics and on the issues."

Serwer's argument appears to be it's ok if he, or some other American Prospect writer (Serwer, like all of the American Prospect writers, still ignores the fact that the American Prospect published Robert Kuttner's article "American Taliban") makes comparisons of American figures to foreign theocratic reactionaries, but it is not ok if Markos Moulitsas does. Of course, this makes no sense. Alternatively, one could argue that Serwer is saying pointing out one instance where American theocratic reactionaries resemble foreign extremists is ok, but pointing out serial instances of resemblance is not ok. Serwer does not explain this argument, so I'm not sure what reasoning underlies it. And again, since the Kuttner article published by the American Prospect does not focus on a single instance of resemblance, it seems to me that Serwer needs to address why it is ok for the American Prospect to do that which he is condemning. Glenn Greenwald writes:

I was 7-5 last week and now stand at 13-12-1 for the year. I start to take off today. Here are the picks:

Arkansas (+1.5) over Georgia; Army (-5.5) over N. Texas; Ga. Tech (+2.5) over North Carolina; Vandy (+12.5) over Ole Miss; Hawaii (+13) over Colorado; BYU (+10.5) over FSU; USC (-12) over Minnesota; Arizona St (+12) over Wisconsin; Nebraska (-2.5) over Washington; Air Force (+17.5) over Oklahoma; Auburn (-7) over Clemson; Miss St. (+7.5) over LSU; Mich St (-2.5) over Notre Dame; Boise St. (-24) over Wyoming; and Iowa (+1) over Arizon.

Go Gators!

Open Thread.

President Obama, hampered by political buffoons in the Democratic Congress, is sticking to his guns:

"I am urging the leaders of the other party to stop holding middle class tax cuts hostage and extend this relief to families immediately."

Obama can not say what we all know -- that a large part of his problem right now is found at Dem headquarters in the Congress. Josh Marshall explains:

Politico reports:

Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who heads Democratic campaign efforts, has argued behind closed doors for taking a political issue off the table by giving a short reprieve to wealthy folks before the midterm elections.

(Emphasis supplied.) Chris Van Hollen wants to take the issue off the political table, according to Politico. And he leads Dem campaign efforts. This is why the Dems are going to get creamed in November.

Speaking for me only

Think Progress has the money quote:

BAYH: [A]ll these other issues involving, oh, fairness and things like that can wait.

Bayh is retiring this year from politics. Thank gawd.

Speaking for me only

In the U.S. it would be a crime to enter a prison to visit an inmate under a false name. Apparently, it's not in Peru.

That's what Beth Holloway did , pretending to be a journalist, not using her real name, hoping to sneak in a camera to tape Joran Van der Sloot for yet another hyped TV movie by Dutch tabloid journalist Peter de Vries. The visitor's log does not contain her name. But even her lawyer confirms she entered Castro Castro prison in Peru and got into his cell -- for five minutes.

Good for Joran that he refused to discuss anything with her and handed her his attorney's card. Holloway and De Vries were thrown out when the camera was discovered. The Dutch media initially reported she was detained, but her lawyer says she wasn't and that she broke no laws.

Holloway's attorney says she didn't tell him she was going and is being "guarded" about the meeting. Sounds like she just wanted to threaten him:

"I think it was more to deliver the message that he might be in Peru but she hasn't gone away.

[More...]

Paul Krugman writes:

[B]ack in 2001, the Bush administration bundled huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans with much smaller tax cuts for the middle class, then pretended that it was mainly offering tax breaks to ordinary families. Meanwhile, it circumvented Senate rules intended to prevent irresponsible fiscal actions — rules that would have forced it to find spending cuts to offset its $1.3 trillion tax cut — by putting an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2010, on the whole bill. And the witching hour is now upon us. [. . .]

In response, President Obama is proposing legislation that would keep tax rates essentially unchanged for 98 percent of Americans but allow rates on the richest 2 percent to rise. But Republicans are threatening to block that legislation, effectively raising taxes on the middle class, unless they get tax breaks for their wealthy friends.

I think that is an accurate description of the state of play. But what is the policy rationale for tax cuts for the middle class? Krugman argues:

Matt Yglesias:

[Marty Peretz is] scheduled to be honored by Harvard University since a lot of his famous and important friends got together a bunch of money to give to Harvard in exchange for Harvard honoring their friend. Since Harvard is in the business of raising money, they have every intention of keeping the money and going ahead with the honoring[. . . .] It’s really too bad that Harvard has chosen to take this tack. [. . .] My alma mater is doing a disservice to their brand and to public understanding of the issues by deliberately obscuring things in this manner.

It would be more honest to say that Harvard is a business run for the benefit of its faculty and administrators. The business model of this business is the exchange of prestige in exchange for money. Peretz has friends who have money that they are willing to exchange for some prestige, and Harvard intends to take the money. It is what it is.

Good post from Matt. He's been out in front on calling Peretz out for a lot of years now.

Speaking for me only

TGIF. Two working days until Monday.

Open Thread.

One of the more amusing spectacles I have been following is how American Prospect writers continue to argue against Markos' book "American Taliban" without ever acknowledging that The American Prospect co-editor Robert Kuttner penned an article in the American Prospect titled, yep, "American Taliban."

"Intellectually honest", aren't they?

Open Thread.

The list of usual suspects supporting tax cuts for the rich among House Dems is not remarkable. This a group that has been with the Republicans on any number of issues. Having said that, they are preferable to their Republican opponents and I hope they win in November. But they won't fight for my issues so I certainly won't be fighting for their reelection.

But I want to remark on one Democratic Senate candidate who is being fought for by the Netroots. That candidate is Jack Conway, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Kentucky. Conway favors tax cuts for the wealthy. Is Conway better than Rand Paul? No doubt. I hope he wins. But the question is should progressives be fighting for him. When Barbara Boxer (half the amount raised for Boxer as compared to Conway on ActBlue) and Russ Feingold (less than 1/3 the amount raised for Feingold as compared to Conway on ActBlue), two progressive champions, are fighting for their political lives? The answer to me is obvious. No. Progressives should fight for progressives like Boxer and Feingold. They fight for us. Not for Blue Dogs who fight for Republican tax policies.

Speaking for me only

Republicans “want to hold these middle-class tax cuts hostage until they get an additional tax cut for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.” - President Obama

President Obama has it exactly right on the tax cut debate. The question is who are you for?

“We simply can’t afford [the GOP tax cuts for the rich],” [President] Obama said. “It would mean borrowing $700 billion in order to fund these tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans — $700 billion to give a tax cut worth an average of $100,000 to millionaires and billionaires. And it’s a tax cut economists say would do little to add momentum to our economy.”

He added: “Middle-class families need this relief. These are the Americans who saw their wages and incomes flat-line over the last decade, who’ve seen the costs of everything from health care to college tuition skyrocket and who have been hardest hit by this recession.”

(Emphasis supplied.) The question is, as the President states, who are you for?

Speaking for me only