Penn Primaries, Obama's b.s.?

The talk surrounding the Obama campaign's recent switch to more aggressive tactics is confusing. How much is he actually ratcheting up the rhetoric? This Washington Post article (front page), for example, is all about his "offensive." But it doesn't quote anything specific he has said.

And it's especially confusing because when Hillary plays straight out of the Karl Rove handbook and releases a fear mongering ad featuring Osama Bin Laden, it makes you want to speak out against it--it is only natural to speak out against that kind of crap.

So Obama's in a bit of a quagmire because he's spoke out repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly about not being caught up in the attacking part of campaigning, that he's more focused on the future and change and blah blah blah, but he's in danger of appearing like a wispy hope mongerer if he gets all aggressive now.

On the other hand, if there ever will be a time to be inconsistent and attack, it's now.

The Pennsylvania primary will probably play a big role in the nomination and if Obama can come out within 10 points of Clinton, it should be enough to carry him through.

But what do you do as a politician who claims to be focused on changing the way politics is run when the way politics is run is chipping at your ankles? Do you stoop down and succumb, taking off the gloves and shooting back? Or do you try and transcend it all, hoping and praying that the voters appreciate it?

Truthfully, no matter what he does I think Obama's going to lose Pennsylvania by more than 10 points, and I think we're in for a brutal summer in which it will be difficult for Obama to keep up his pace with the hungry, fanged Clinton campaign chomping at him.

Haterzz and Shtuffs

See this Obama vid yet? There's like a thousand versions of it on YouTube. It's become enough of a phenomenon that the Washington Post put it on the front page of their Style section. Whatever, I just think it's funny:



It would be interesting to see how Obama's professed appreciation of hip-hop affects his votes. According to the WaPost article above, the Post's Richard Cohen said the shoulder shaking was "contemptuous and aloof" and "not smart." He obviously overlooked how freaking funny it was, though...

____________

We at JJ like to keep our readers up to date on various cool music that is less visible or so obviously good that people pass it up. Jhuff alerted me to Boys Noize and the album "Oi Oi Oi" last week.

It's good enough stuff that GW's hip-hop group Famous Corners hyped the crowd with & Down (below) at their show at GW's Battle of the Bands on Thursday.

Here's some good tracks:

& Down:



Oh!



Yeah it's pretty loud head banging type stuff, but it's good for you every once in a while. Kind of like those real spicy Asian soups that clear your sinuses, you dig?

_________

Arsenal finally won a game! 2-0 over hapless Reading earlier today. Good to see Walcott getting a start, and Adebayor actually scoring. Not to be overly harsh on Adebayor (who's had an amazing season just as good as Torres'), but can you say too little too late?

The Op-Ed From Hell

There's so much I could say about the Washington Post's decision to run this column by Hamas's Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar. But I find its grossness too obvious and, beyond this short overview, I think I'll just leave it to readers to think for themselves.

Under the pretext of praising Carter's willingness to meet with Hamas, al-Zahar took the opportunity to give us the regular Hamas line on Israel. Here's the most outrageous snippet: "Sixty-five years ago, the courageous Jews of the Warsaw ghetto rose in defense of their people. We Gazans, living in the world's largest open-air prison, can do no less."

Wow.

Because, you know, Israel deports thousands of Gazans off to extermination camps where they're systematically slaughtered.

To their credit, the WaPost's Editorial board ran this Editorial on the other side of the fold criticizing al-Zahar's piece and even Carter's meeting with Hamas.

Considering the WaPost's innumerable Editorial mess-ups--like the great Charlotte Allen bit a while ago--I was at first more angry at them then at al-Zahar's verbal diarrhea.

After a while to think it over, however, I've decided that it's a good thing that the world can see a concentrated and focused expression of the Hamas line. I have no doubt that those who see for themselves what Hamas stands for will side even more strongly with the view that the Palestinian's chance at getting their own state and finding peace with Israel is only dampened by the noxious influence of such despicable snakes.