One of the odd truisms of Presidential campaigns is that you can win if the press is neutral, but if the press are for or against you, your fate becomes a lot more certain.

By that, Hillary Clinton may have things rougher than her supporters think: CNN's currently running a rather negative video on here, titled "Clinton's 'planned, impromptu' war vote answer." They spend a lot of time attacking her for not being willing to say that voting to approve the Iraq war was a "mistake."

The question is, whether this is just a temporary thing, or whether it's going to be a theme throughout the campaign from now on.

There's been a lot of controversy - covered by both blogs and the mainstream media - regarding one Amanda Marcotte, comments she's made in the past, the Edwards campaign hiring her, and resulting media furor (additional link here).

Her site currently has a vitriolic suspended page notice up, as well.

Now, those who know me know that while Catholic, I'm about as lapsed as one can possibly be. I can't imagine myself going to a number of other faiths, due to problems with their central tenets or behavior, and my schism with the Catholic Church has a lot to do with some boneheaded stances they have on breaking "certain" laws, harboring "certain" lawbreakers, and general idiocy in a couple policies that directly contradict the Bible (example, celibate priesthood).

However, Marcotte's comments after being hired, probably-fired, "not fired", and then "resigning" from the Edwards campaign show a lot of what I find wrong with a general attitude I see often - mostly from the Left, but not always. The attitude is as follows: that their "right" to free speech means that no consequences should ever follow, no matter what they say, no matter how vitriolic or abusive the wording they choose.

Now, the "right to free speech" only protects you from government intervention. Yet time and again, the Left insists that not only does the "right to free speech" mean (but only for them, not those "evil right-wing haters" that they rail against) that they have the right to stand in the street and say something, but that they somehow - by virtue of "right to free speech" - deserve public airtime. So instead of a business decision by (example) radio stations to stop playing the Dixie Chicks following blatant anti-American ranting, it was "oh you're attacking the Dixie Chicks' right of free speech if you don't play their music on the radio." And the likewise with Marcotte, who's said some incredibly vile and nasty things, but thinks that it's a problem with her "right of free speech" if the Edwards campaign, notified of this and seeing a lot of people rightfully outraged by her hiring, fires her.

On the suspended page she put up, Marcotte says the following:

Because I had the nerve to be critical of the Catholic church's stance on birth control and abortion---nevermind their political opposition to distributing condoms to fight HIV, a stance that has helped usher thousands and possibly millions to their untimely deaths---I've gotten a number of letters from people who call themselves "Christians", as Bill Donohue also calls himself. Chrisitians are people who are supposed to follow the behavior and teachings of Jesus Christ. I mention this, because it seems to me that therefore, when Christians are contemplating an action that is morally questionable, it appears they should consult the Bible before acting.

Luckily, I happen to have a Bible laying around this house, because even though I'm not a Christian, I was an English major, and it is important to Know Your Ancient Mythologies if you are reading poetry. And I flipped to this passage that seems to have solid advice on what to do if you've got some asshole dragging a woman in front of an angry crowd and yelling, "SINNER!":

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Granted, I don't think criticizing the church for policies that hurt families and even get people killed is a "sin", but my letter writers do.

Just for Marcotte's help - since she's so nicely hidden all the posts of her site, and is more than likely spending this time going through her archives and wiping out the "harmful" comments, much the same way she "moderates" her commentary section so that it resembles the left-wing echo chamber - I'll paste a few of the things she's said in the past here. Google Cache is wonderful for stuff like this:

link 1:
Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?
A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

link 2:link 3:At least 114 times referencing "Jeebus." While this is an ages-old Simpsons joke, her uses were far less humorous, instead meant to be deliberately derogatory towards Catholics/Christians.

Marcotte also goes out of her way to try to paint it as if it were the "right wing shills" alone who were offended by stuff like this: it turns out that liberal Christians were just as offended (second link).

Also interesting - and falling into my main problem with the Left and their idea of what "free speech" constitutes is that Marcotte vowed revenge even while some of the left tried to defend her, leading to the most insightful post I've seen yet on it:

But what I find most disturbing is the absolute unwillingness of people like Mr. Stoller to admit that people on the left can engage in hate speech and can needlessly offend both allies and potential ones just as easily as extremists on the right.

This is what I find amazing about comments from those I know who are farthest to the Left, as well as hardcore left-wing groups in general: while they get "offended" all the time, there is a blind spot that says that their comments can somehow never be "offensive", no matter what they say.

And these are the same people who will say the most godawful things, and insist that they have the "free speech" right to say them, and insist that their political allies have the right to shout "down with America", or parrot slogans for the destruction for Israel or the West, or any number of nasty things, while at the same time shouting that the voices that oppose them are "hate speech" that should not be "allowed."

Updated: Marcotte has a piece in the left-wing Salon.com today in which she repeats her talking points: innocent victim, attacked for being woman/feminist, Catholics are misogynists, right-wing noise machine, supposed right to free speech without anyone on the other side having the right to respond.

May I just say: I'm Catholic. I don't hate women, far from it. I don't think women are worth any less than men, though there have been a few times I've been concerned for lowering of physical standards in certain jobs where public safety (police, firefighting) is concerned, and I say this having had a friend back in College who was a volunteer firefighter and who probably could have hoisted me over her head one-handed.

Marcotte? She's a bigot. She's not a "feminist", she's a sexist who's no better than she claims those who were offended by her words are.

Over on CNN, Anderson Cooper's blog asks the question on whether people can change from gay to straight.

Prompted of course by the news on a former Evangelical Minister who had some problems in this regard, but says he is now straight and that his homosexual trysts were a form of "acting out" due to other problems in his life.

This reminded me of a sports star a couple years back who came out; at the time, I figured the media would give the comment a pass, even though it didn't match the usual gay-rights group insistence that your sexual preference is something you're born with. See, when Sheryl Swoops came out, she said point-blank that she was not born gay.

It's an interesting question. I don't have an answer. Some might say that those who claim to have "changed" were merely bisexual all along; others insist that everyone is inherently bisexual to some degree; some say that sexual preference is something caused by DNA, some by developmental issues of the brain (though some of those are dictated by DNA), some insist it's a choice people just make at some point in their lives and that it can be changed.

Thoughts?

One has to love the marketing department of Merck; somehow, they're managing to get a newly-FDA-approved vaccine marketed as a "cancer vaccine."

It's this one.

Merck, in case anyone didn't know , was a major, major funding source for Rick Perry (aka Governor Zoolander, Governor Goodhair, and Traitor Extraordinaire depending on which radio shows you listen to) during his last reelection campaign.

Rick Perry just sidestepped the Texas State Legislature and required that all schoolgirls - because one oddity about this "vaccine" is that it doesn't work for boys - receive this vaccine. By "executive order", which is the equivalent of an Imperial Decree from the Texas Governor.

There are multiple problems with this, of course. First, problems with the vaccine itself:

#1 - despite the Merck false-advertising campaign, it is not a "cancer vaccine." It is a preventative measure that protects partially against a very few HPV strains which have been linked by certain studies to later onset of cervical cancer.

#2 - Unlike the current vaccinations for children that are required by law, HPV and Cervical Cancer have two very important distinctions: First of all that they are not transmitted by air, and secondly that they are not transmitted by casual touch. The fact that it is transmitted to young children at all is brought on by the fact that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

#3 - the drug is still under patent, and no investigations as to the long-term possibilities for problems of the vaccine have been investigated yet.

Now, to problems with the way this is being done:

#1 - Merck is bankrolling campaigns to do this all across the nation. At a price of $360 per vaccination (it requires 3 shots, each spaced 2 months apart), they will make major bank already, but even MORE if they can make it mandatory.

#2 - Merck's contributions to Rick Perry, and to other people closely connected to Rick Perry.

#3 - Many parents may have moral or indeed medical reasons to NOT want their children to be given this vaccine (a child with a history of reactions to other vaccines, for example). Most parents will probably buy this voluntarily for their kids. Making it mandatory, however, completely takes away their right of choice.

Is the vaccine probably a good idea? For most teenage girls, likely so. However, there are plenty of people who will probably have serious moral, religious, or other objections to it. And while cancer is a dangerous thing and so are STD's, the fact is that the initials STD stand for something that does NOT pose a general threat to kids who are just going to school and back in the same way that Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Polio, or other things that we require vaccination for do.

I sort-of watched the Super Bowl this year... which is to say, I sort of flipped to check the score every so often while playing Oblivion.

The reasoning was simple: I didn't expect much of a game, expected even less of the commercials (which is bad considering that the commercials were why a lot of people watched a few years back). I was pointedly avoiding all the newscasters who would be doing nothing but wondering which of the two coaches they got to ask "How's it feel to be the first black coach to (win / lose) the Super Bowl?"

I left it on long enough to see Chicago completely fall apart by getting intercepted on and seeing the ball run back for a touchdown. At which point I realized that even if they asked that question, it didn't matter, because the coaching wasn't what won this game for the Colts or lost it for the Bears; the fact that the Bears were playing like the Keystone Kops is what lost it for them and won it for the Colts.

However, what really got me about it is that the NFL were apparently going around trying to destroy anyone holding a public party.

See, as it turns out, part of our asinine copyright laws gives the NFL the right to set "rules" on public display of the game. Municipalities and Sports Bars are free to play it on whatever size screen they want, charge admission or a cover charge, sell drinks/food/booze, etc.

Churches, for whatever reason, the NFL doesn't want showing the game. Apparently football, even for kids as young as 6, must be watched either at home or in an establishment full of cigarette smoke, drunken people, and general bad manners.

Either that, or the NFL really needs to get a clue.

Below, RAW takes Mary Landrieu (D-Governor of Lousyanna, the most corrupt state in the union) for some ill-conceived remarks.

However, I don't think that they qualify as "Dumbest remark of the year"; I think that category belongs to Joe Biden (D - currently running ineptly for President).

Biden's let out three gems recently:

"You don't know my state," he said. "My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth-largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a Northeast liberal state." - in describing Delaware,

Putting aside the fact that (A) Delaware has one of the highest tax rates next to Taxachussets and (B) the fact that Delaware's only "border" is with a big puddle of water, one gets the feeling reminding people of Delaware's slave history wasn't so bright.

Second up:

"You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking," - Joe Biden describing his "great" relationship with Indian immigrants to Delaware.

And the final gem:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." - in describing political competitor (they're running for the same office) Barack Hussein Obama.

Whether accurate or not, people are taking offense to this all over. This probably qualifies Biden as one of the dumbest politicians - or at least most inept in keeping his big mouth shut - in a long time.

However, let's look at a second issue: when similar things are said from across the aisle, the result is crucifixion. Senators Lott and Allen were beat to a political pulp over much less problematic comments.

My prediction is that the double standard the newsmedia plays for Democrats will be in force; already, the first two have "dropped out" of the news cycle, and the last will probably vanish by tomorrow, and Biden won't pay a political price, or face censure on the floor of the Congress, at all. Were Biden to have an R next to his name instead of a D, these wouldn't stop being "news" until he was drummed out of office.