"Dead Wrong"

Those are the words that Vice President Biden used when he commented on  Darth Vader's Dick Cheney's comments that Americans are less safe today because we aren't hanging terrorists up by their toenails.

As you may have gathered from yesterday's post (Spies Like Us), I am not even remotely in favor of the tacts the Bush Administration took to "secure" our safety. And I am deeply disturbed that Obama's people are not only keeping these tactics available, but are expanding on them. Wiretapping without a warrant and sending people to undisclosed locations does not keep us safer in the end. Not only does it turn people around the world against us and create even more future terrorists, it takes away many of the basic tenants of civil liberty that our country was founded on.

But what is most intriguing about the hubbub around Cheney's and Biden's remarks is the media's response to what Biden said. 

First of all let me set some things straight—Cheney is no longer in office; he doesn't have access to the information to determine what the United States security position is.

Secondly, it is poor cricket indeed for the former administration to be so bold in their criticism this early on in the new administration's time in office. Dubya ain't doing it; his daddy didn't do it, and Clinton didn't do it. There is a time for former leaders to criticize, but it surely isn't during the first 100 days when so much is at stake. While it would appear that Cheney has indeed "gone rogue," it would be nice if someone could reign him in. (Where is a man-eating shark when you need one?)

Finally, even if it were ok for Cheney to be critical at this point, or even later when it would be in better form, there is no need to sound so gleeful about the idea of another terrorist attack on Americans. This man is practically begging someone to do something just so he can be pronounced right. That is disturbing and he just might be even more deranged than I previously imagined.

But back to Biden. Joe's response to Cheney struck me as measured and almost subdued, which is saying a lot for Biden. I mean dude hasn't always been one to watch what he says . . . . This time around, however, I feel like he struck the right tone, respectful disagreement. CNN has more here.

The Right is being critical of Biden's response (of course), as Salon's Joan Walsh details in her blog post and as seen in this MSNBC clip where she debates David Rivkin, who not only thinks that Cheney isn't insane, but also managed to get Joan's name wrong too. Classy. Biden is not the one out of line here. Not even close.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sound Bytes

A selection of my favorite comments, quotes, meanderings from yesterday's festivities:

"The challenges we face are real," he said. "They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America—they will be met. On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord."

President Obama

"A farmer considers the changing sky/ A teacher says, 'Take out your pencils, begin.'"

Elizabeth Alexander, Inaugural Poet

"Later I asked Hughley why we're all so invested in the Obamas' relationship, our focus on their "first dance" like that at a wedding. "I know why I am – because I've seen that in my own life, and on the Cosby Show, but I've never seen it represented that way in public life." Confession: I am paraphrasing that, because he was actually interviewing me, and I didn't have a notebook. But that was his point, and I know he's right."

Joan Walsh, Salon Editor in Chief

"People watched the big screen and when Mrs. Obama appeared, there was a roar, and when the Current Occupant and Mr. Cheney came out of the Capitol, a low and heartfelt rumble of booing. Dignified booing. Old black ladies around me tried to shush them -- "Don't do that!" they hissed -- but it's a democracy, and how will those men know how we feel if we don't tell them?"

Garrison Keillor, writer

"Obama arrived in the Oval Office at 8:35 a.m., according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. The president spent 10 minutes alone, reading a note left for him in the desk by outgoing President George W. Bush. The note had been placed in an envelope with a note saying: 'To: # 44, From: # 43.'"

CNN

So it begins.

Righteous Anger

I have been trolling through some of the pre-Inauguration coverage and I have two vastly different points of view that I want to highlight for the moment.

First, over the weekend I happened to catch a snippet of FoxNews talking about the upcoming event and the anticipated crowd, and with that the possible security problems. I can't remember which Fox talking head said this, but this white male commented that during the Million Man March there was a large crowd and there were security issues. OHMYGOD—really? This jack-off had to go back 13 years to find a large event that had security problems in DC and it just happened to be an event with a majority of black people?

(An aside, CSPAN this morning was asking callers if MLK's dream/legacy had been fulfilled. Obviously for those at FoxNews the answer is a resounding no.)

The second thing that sparked my interest was something I read on Joan Walsh's blog at Salon: "When the openly gay [Eugene] Robinson called on God to "bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people," I knew we're not in Dick Cheney's America any more." Amen to that sister.

I agree that we should be angry that there is discrimination in our own country and around the world. All HUMANS are equal and my hope is that tomorrow takes us on the first step of a long overdue journey to realize that fact. For everyone.

Thoughts on Infidelity

Salon has a new reader forum called Open Salon. I haven't poked around much, but apparently readers can post things, etc. sort of like an open blog. Salon editor Joan Walsh was digesting the John Edwards news and referenced something from Open Salon that was posted by a woman whose husband was a cancer survivor. This lady's comments, as someone who has dealt with that kind of emotional upheaval and trauma, made me re-evaluate my thoughts on Edwards. I am still pissed as hell, but perhaps my expectations are too high. [After all my horoscope yesterday told me to "Let go of idealistic notions about how people should behave."]

An excerpt:

"Both partners may be just sick to death of sickness. And that's the first thing my husband said when I mentioned John Edwards' confession. He said, maybe Edwards had an affair because he just wanted things to be normal again. Maybe he was tired of cancer and treatment.

"My first thought was that maybe one or both of them just couldn't see a way to reconnect erotically after breast cancer. Speaking only for myself again, when I had a scare with an unclear mammogram -- one that took months to clear up -- I felt profoundly alienated from my body as a source of pleasure. And I didn't even have cancer, just a bad case of paranoia!

"Maybe having an affair when your spouse has just faced down mortality is a way of affirming your own survival. Maybe it's a form of denial about your partner's mortality, and your own. This might be just an extension of the stereotypical mid-life crisis -- but cranked up to eleven.

"And maybe, with the pressures of raising two young kids and running for president the Edwards[es] just hadn't yet figured out how to be a couple together again. My husband and I struggled enough, and we only had two little kids and a couple of university jobs.

"In the end, why John Edwards strayed will remain a mystery to everyone outside his family, and that's only right. They deserve their privacy. Elizabeth has asked for privacy as they work through this. A marriage should remain a mystery to everyone outside it."

New York State of Mind

Ah, a little reference to Billy Joel. Not a bad way to start off the morning if I do say so. I've been thinking about this whole wooha over the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker, where Obama is depicted as a muslim and his wife as some sort of Black Panther militant.

Everyone is all in a tizzy over it. Part of me gets why—the "smart" media is concerned that the average American won't get the point The New Yorker is making. Well some won't, that I don't doubt, but then again something tells me those people don't regularly come in contact with The New Yorker anyway. Hell! I don't read The New Yorker—not enough pictures;)—but don't use me as a litmus.

I kind of thought it was all a bit much, but then this morning I read something on Salon that made me really think that. Gary Kamiya wrote about the kerfuffle (!) and referenced Rush Limbaugh's old comment about liberal's losing their sense of humor. Sadly I am starting to think that may be the truth. There have been other things on Salon lately that illustrate that point as well. 

On the site's War Room, Alex Koppelman sites a quote from a writer for The Atlantic about our level of outrage over everything (God knows I am guilty of losing my mind over the littlest thing) being off the charts. But then several writers on the site, including editor Joan Walsh, took Obama and Bernie Mac to task. Obama for having Mac speak at an event and Mac for doing some sexist jokes.

A comedian is going to tell jokes. And today, most of what people find humor in is putting others down. Maybe that isn't right. But for now it is what amuses us. Perhaps one day mother-in-law jokes will come back in. Who knows. But I do wonder if our nation, liberals and conservatives, are having a hard time finding the punchline these days.