ballot initiative legend Bill Sizemore jailed

(h/t l'oregonian and politicker-OR:)

Sizemore was arrested for contempt of court and ordered jailed by Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Janice R. Wilson until he filled out state and federal reporting forms for charitable organizations. Sizemore’s lawyer said the forms would be filled out as early as this afternoon, which would hasten Sizemore's release.

Sizemore, who generally puts several measures on each ballot, was the author of Ballot Measures 58,59,60,63 and 64 in the 2008 general election. None of the initiatives passed.

i'll tell you, it's tough

i'll tell you who's having a rough week:

1) the PSUV, led by Hugo Chavez. Venezuela had their equivalent of what we call "off-year" elections this Sunday, and while it's true that Chavistas retained a 60%/40% majority in government, they lost regional elections in the two most affluent regions and also lost the mayoral race in Caracas.

2) Republicans: tough rocks, ladies and guys! Ben Smith quotes this hilarious missive from Mike Murphy, the 2000-era McCain loyalist (and Cassandra-like purveyor of a certain well-documented msnbc blooper):

I'm sailing by container ship to Shanghai. The Hanjin Miami, see below. Good way to get away from politics under the new overlords and finish a script I owe. And I've always wanted to cross the Pacific ocean by ship.

With luck... maybe a pirate attack. I'm doing a TIME piece on the trip, so please, tell any pirates you might know to attack. I need something to happen.

In case of emergency, or a winning lottery ticket you may want to share, my trusty assistant ... will be holding down the fort. .... Capt. Chang says I can radio in to check with [her] once in a while if I give him half my daily rice allotment.

And then there's Conservative crisis desperation, Krugman's ur-ethnographic glimpse into the absolute alchemy coming out conservative econo-wonks' pieholes these days.

All in all, what can you say? Not everybody gets to be Barack Obama. Or Robert Rubin. Or Citigroup.

(almost) Shattering Silence

Ezra Klein gives voice to one of the many renters in my panic-ridden chest:

You have to imagine that organized labor, which spent $100 million to elect Obama, is getting worried. Secretary of Labor, which is where their ally traditionally sits, is not going to be a top economic job. The folks who have been selected for top economic jobs are associated with Robert Rubin, who unions generally considered an impediment to their priorities during the Clinton administration. And when Rahm Emanuel went before business leaders, he pointedly refused to make a case for the Employee Free Choice Act.

There's Good Taste, Then There's NJ

Jeepers, nobody's closed any polls anywhere, but already the NJ pols are yelling out random names for US attorney. What is this, a cartoon?

just thinking aloud

shouldn't we all be a little dismayed by the preponderance of logistical mishaps with the early voting (i.e., people having to wait in long and time-consuming lines?) why don't we have the infrastructure in place to handle 100% voter turnout? i mean, couldn't we put a bunch of people to work constructing electoral infrastructure? it'd like, encourage participatory democracy and crap.

evil r + b guy could hang weird "murals," and in return be paid $47,500.

And you didn't mention this why?

Smaller media markets, like, say, Eugene, OR, tend to have... let's call it quirkier on-air personalities for their local shows. Like the newscasts. Eugene has some memorable weathermen; John Fischer, Tim Chuey, and the bald guy on the NBC affiliate - you tend to remember the face of the guy telling you the forecast for the next 200 days is some variation of "rain." I still encounter Joe Giansante if I happen to catch a Ducks game on some bar's satellite feed. And who can forget the woman who looked like Ally McBeal when the FOX station tried to put together a local newscast (didn't she end up reporting at some other local channel?)(is it wrong to admit that I had a crush on her?)?

The anchors, on the other hand, are a little less memorable for me. I can see faces, but couldn't give you names. Except for one, who was exceptional in that he offensively and unapologetically embraced his role as "the anchor," whose faux gravitas dripped with cheese, whose bright human interest stories were gaggingly cloying... for some completely irrational reason, I could not stand the sight nor sound of this person. It was the one network whose local newscast I would actively avoid.

And now Rick Dancer is running for statewide office? As a Republican? And no one bothered to mention this? Had I known this I would've been donating to Kate Brown a long time ago, just to spite him.

this is a MUST-effing-read

"Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."

h/t: Ezra "The Republican failure is so complete that it has warped the very fabric of political time-space" Klein

Prisonship Politico GameDay

The importance of race and gender in the current US presidential campaign has, of course, been a function of the salience of racism and sexism—which is to say, discrimination—in American society; a fact that was emphasized by post-primary stories like the New York Times’s ‘Age Becomes the New Race and Gender’.1 It is no doubt difficult to see ageism as a precise equivalent—after all, part of what is wrong with racism and sexism is that they supposedly perpetuate false stereotypes whereas, as someone who has just turned 60, I can attest that a certain number of the stereotypes that constitute ageism are true. But the very implausibility of the idea that the main problem with being old is the prejudice against your infirmities, rather than the infirmities themselves, suggests just how powerful discrimination has become as the model of injustice in America; and so how central overcoming it is to our model of justice.From this standpoint, the contest between Obama and Clinton was a triumph, displaying, as it did, both the great strides made toward the goal of overcoming racism and sexism, and the great distance still to go towards that goal. It made it possible, in other words, to conceive of America as a society headed in the right direction but with a long road to travel. The attraction of this vision—not only to Americans but around the world—is obvious. The problem is that it is false.
-Walter Benn Micheals, Against Diversity

• Dean Baker on how we musn't be confusing the credit crunch with the recession. We have so many problems on so many fronts that even the Washington Post is wondering if "capitalism" is "dead."

• DLC Chair (la-di-da!) Harold Ford on McCain's full descent into Lee Atwater mode, and Ben Smith on the right-wing base's unwillingness to come back from the "mysterious" frame Palin et. al. have sought to set around BHO.

• Ezra Klein explaining why, despite all, I will miss being part of the vertically-integrated Kaiser Permanente "system."

• Good to see some actual sane people speaking up for ACORN, btw. If you're wondering what the Right's problem is, let me explain: ACORN have registered 1.3million poor people to vote. That's just not what the GOP is in to.

Night Shift Fodder

1) "The last few years have been marked by an inverted millenarianism in which the premonitions of the future, catastrophic or redemptive, have been replaced by senses of the end of this or that." -F. Jameson

2) Doug Henwood's latest radio broadcast features two political economists from York University - Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin discussing the possibility that this last financial crisis may, in fact, be, the "one" that precipitates a new style of capitalism: a restructuring in the relations of production, you know? So what comes after neoliberalism? There is no reason to be dumbly optimistic about it, whatever it is, as Henwood concludes in a powerful editorial in the new Nation:

Although we're hearing a lot now about how the Reagan era is over and the era of big government is back, an expanded government isn't likely to do much more than rescue a failing financial system (in addition to the more familiar pursuits of waging war and jailing people). Nothing more humane will be pursued without a far more energized populace than we have.

Henwood's is the most timely commentary on the bailout and its long/short-term stakes that I have heard/read. Apparently this is one area where I fall out with Pete De Fazio and Dean Baker, and fall in with Paul Krugman and Barney Frank. Weird. 'Makes me uncomfortable, but so does the ongoing financial collapse, and so do the prospects of the restructuring of the US fiscal/labor/monetary policies that are about to go down under either BHO or the Maverick. I think the consequences of moves made around this bailout and the subsequent restructuring of global finance will be decisive for the long-term prospects of the "working class" at home and "globalization's discontents" abroad, moreso even than election outcomes this year. But obviously the two variables are fatefuly related to one another.

3) Libertarian stalwart and initiative also-ran Howard "Howie" Rich returns to the scene in South Carolina?!?!?

Welcome to Ohio, John McCain!

not crap. i hope this airs at least as steadily as the Sleuth Channel provides me with Simon and Simon re-runs.

Bailout/Election/Labor Redux

Krugman:

There seem to be two prevailing narratives about the bailout plan(s). Both have elements of truth, but are fundamentally wrong.
One narrative is that of the Wise Men and the Destructive Yahoos. According to this narrative, men who Understand What Needs to be Done put together a plan to save the world, but they did a bad job of communicating, and a mob of ignorant people stands in their way.
The other narrative is that of the Evil Plotters and the Righteous Uprising. According to this narrative, the same people who sold us the Iraq war have tried to bully Congress into adopting a plan that is, in essence, a cynical ripoff - a scheme to transfer vast wealth to the rich and cripple the next administration.

What we have here seems like a crisis of legitimacy. In terms of the bailout, one's perception seems to be largely based on whether or not one believes that there is an impending financial collapse awaiting us if we do not act now. I think we have heard compelling arguments from every side of the debate. Certainly I'm not usually one to question Peter DeFazio and Donna Edwards when they get together, let alone Dean Baker, but neither am I likely to expand beyond reason the idea that this is really a timely moment to tip our hand and start spreading the "new New Deal" rhetoric around before we have the 2009 majorities (please! - ed. ) Not only am I unsure about the immediacy of the crisis, anyway - I'm also unsure as to the extent to which Dems would do well to try and pass an expansive, leftward-leaning bill.

At the moment, whole swaths of this country aren't sure if they trust the pragmatism of party leadership in every branch of government. Neither do they implictly trust the principles of Right- and Left-leaning stalwarts who objected to the bill. Meanwhile, the mainstream media and Wall Street speak with one voice (shucks, I'm shocked- ed.), telling us, oh shite, the End is Near. 'Seems like people are either a) having a hard time trusting any of these groups, or b) feeling there's no way any "special interest" would possibly succumb to elevating "the public good" over its own agenda.

So we turn our attention to November - wondering, how will the bailout play out for Senator, President, County Commissioner, and the whole merry band? I am unsure whether my attention to the election stems from the fact that I think I understand that context better than that of finance capital, or whether I think that the election outcome is one that us "people" (union people, for example) have a better chance of influencing.

The fun thing about ballot initiatives is that they allow for the public to enter into dimly ideological debates about public/private, market/state-type questions under the pretense that the partisan interests of Dem and GOP "politicians" are not central to the framing of this issues. Oregon's public employee unions come to the fore of per-bi-ennial (not a word?) "Vote No" campaigns. But they do so not as self-identifying unions, but as members of the public: citizens, servants, Oregonians. Labor is usually "victorious" in striking down what are increasingly called "Conservative Populist" initiatives. One could even contend that they have inured their unions, and by extension, the image of the public sector, to Oregon voters.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten:

We have often been called a "special interest." I will never apologize for that because our special interests' are the students we teach, the patients we care for and all the people we serve.

But one could contend other sorts of things, too. My point is merely to say, even if we grant labor a certain legitimacy within Democratic politics, and even if it attains a quasi-autonomous political identity in initiative states, it can't be a good thing to say that labor's primary interface with the broader public is through electoral politics via television ads, primary season news coverage or the occasional newspaper editorial. If I include get out the vote operations and person-to-person, more "organizing"-ish encounters... then are we pleased with labor's popularity or legitimacy within the society?

God knows nobody seemed to be asking our opinion of the bailout. God Bless the four serious magazines and 2.5 think-tanks that help keep some of our ideas alive in DC, but jeez louise. Is it enough to be seen as a relatively enlightened special interest among special interests? Is there a way around it?

The movement for the Employee Free Choice Act reflects a conversation about democracy within the labor movement that dares to question the NLRB - "Labor's Magna Carta," - and, at its better moments, relegates collective bargaining to a lesser status as just one among many forms in labor's repertory of political acts. The movement to pass the Employee Free Choice Act - over the ideological hysterics of the national Chamber of Commerce, and past the menacing and righteously-outraged Republicans with their "small business" and "secret ballot" fetishes - will necessitate the reassertion of workplace democracy as a popular (hegemonic?) idea. Since its heyday in the middle of the last century, workplace democracy has been steadily, deliberately eroded in form and content. During that same time, electoral politics has suffered low turnout, voter fraud, impeachment and "stolen elections," but it remains the most trusted, most exploited venue in which Americans do democracy.

The Employee Free Choice Act will have to (at least implicitly) critique the sanctity of the secret ballot as a venue for democratic decision-making. Ironically the road to this act of iconoclasm (not a word?) goes straight through Washington, D.C., and by extension, straight through electoral politics. Is that paradox "the point"? I hope not. I'd like to know what you all think of this weird conjuncture in political economy/elections/labor politics, and whether you, like me, dare to think that a small piece of labor legislation, EFCA, might contain within it the seeds for labor's first big, 21st Century "moment"?

Bailout and Election Roundtable, Open Thread

Okay, it's the largest single-day points drop EVUH. Who are you reading for the lowdown? You know my oracles at this point, but here's three of their most recent entries below. The conjuncture of the financial crisis; the flaccid popular approval for any branch of government; the presidential race in its home stretch, and the cultural politics of the form and content of debating "the economic" in 2008 all combine to make this moment in politics seem the most historic in recent history.

1. Ezra says it's possible that the next bailout could be a 'Left' bailout, if the Dems're prepared to shitcan "bipartisanship" and go it alone.
2. Krugman congratulates himself (fair enough), reminds us how our govt is "bananas."
3. The American Scene, much to its credit, shows itself and by extension its "Grand, New" vision for conservatism, to be analogous neither with the "Wall Street" nor "populist" branches of the Grand Old Party.
   

I have heard strong arguments - mostly from Left and Center-Left - on both sides of the failed bill. I am not sure just how possible Ezra Klein's proposed all-Dem bill will turn out to be, but, with Krugman, I think the need to do something - something soon - helps put in context the toothlessness of the Frank-Dodd plan. Democrats need a new frame for the bill just as much as they need new language. Obama's unwillingness to address the issue in a full-frontal fashion on Friday night is plenty understandable, but it resulted in a "missed opportunity" for a "teachable moment" with the country on this issue. That may or may not be justified, and I'd love to know what you readers think on that issue. The argument exists that we should save Stimulus Package 2 and tougher re-regulation of the markets for January, when we'll have stronger majorities in both houses, and, one would assume, President Obama.

More immediately, Obama's inability to steer the domestic policy conversation resulted in forty minutes of conversation about earmarks Friday night. Let's be honest, Hillary or Edwards would've sliced McCain's face off (figuratively) if they had a half-hour to debate the economy with the Maverick. For whatever reason, BHO has proven weirdly incapable on this score. It doesn't make me doubt his progressive bona fides, his sympathy with (the absurdly over-evoked) "Main Street," and it doesn't keep me from supporting his candidacy enthusiastically - but it exasperates me to no bleeping end.

State of the Race; or, Why I Wanna Blog About Moosic!

1. Increasingly, the only meaningful "analysis" out there is right here. I'm not sure which OG constituents (besides Ash!) are even living in contested states at this point. In light of that fact, lemme say this: I cannot stop watching the punditry, and I won't stop laughing at and reviling in the obscene television advertisements, but it's clear that what's going to win this race has less to do with the airwaves and more to do with stumping, GOTV, and other "retail" tactics within selected precincts in selected places (OH, CO, FL, NV, MI).
   
2. That's exactly why Joe Biden remains a shrewd (I'm stopping short of saying "brilliant") pick for veep: all gaffes aside, he can stump avec gravitas and "like-ability" in some of the places mentioned above, and that's really all that matters barring major "events." HRC and WJC can and should join in - I'd love to see Bill in NC and VA, en particulier - and I suspect they will. As concerns our current poll, I think the worst thing for HRC's 2012 prospects would be to put a half-assed effort behind Barry. Chalk it up to "enlightened self-interest," but I think we're past the point where she can be blamed for whatever insane supporters of hers are running around making noise. Worse, I think we're adding to a GOP trope by harping on the issue. Not that any undecided voters are reading this, natch..
   
3. Somebody should hi-five Barry Obama for not following McCain into delaying the debates and further "politicizing" the Bail-Out (whatever the eff that's supposed to mean.) It seems like the obvious move in hindsight, but I for one was terrified as of yesterday that he'd cave. I think his calm/cool/collected persona and his willingness to let the Dem congressional leadership lead are as presidential (i.e., 'leaderly') as all get-out - as much as the "race speech," albeit in a different way.
4. McCain is more than on the ropes at this point. There was a really cool conversation with (my guilty pleasure) Chris Matthews on Rachel Maddow last nite that I'd gladly present in lieu of my point, but I cannot locate a youtube. In short, Matthews pointed out that McCain is reaching a point of diminishing returns when it comes to his "maverick" decisions. At a certain point, even the best-intentioned of these left-field, game-changing gestures (supporting the surge, nominating Palin, suspending his campaign) will start to seem less like "leadership" and more like the reckless last gasps of an unstable individual who will do anything to win. Obama need only provide a calm contrast and continue running his race against Reagan/Bush/"the Ownership Society:" if we continue to talk about the economy (and do the "retail" thing mentioned above), we will win. Step one, BHO, is getting the bail-out passed with a bunch of Keynesian strings (accountability, govt. equity, no CEO comp, a new stimulus bill). Let me repeat, as I know this sounds counter-intuitive coming from a left-leaner: the Dems should define the bill, pass it, and own it. This is the time to see if a Keynesian neoliberalism is a possibility, and to tie financial markets' sufficiency to public investment, job creation, etc...This way the Dems could claim the mantle of "fiscal responsibilty" without ceding their (alleged) identification with working America. (note - This should happen at a pace set by Chris "lexdexter's Dad" Dodd, not Hank Paulson et. al. ...why it needs to go down by this weekend is a question you'd have to ask those pigs.)
   
5. Obviously Sarah Palin is sinking fast. All that's left is for Joe Biden to do the yeomen's work of beating her in the debate without seeming like a condescending chauvinist pig. Can he do it? I dunno.
6. Kinda hoping for a macro-level discussion of the race at this point....anybody?
   

Prisonship Internal Memo to Congressional Dems

Memo to Dems: This is Leverage.

Dear Dems,

So, like many of you, I had a hard time turning away from beautiful geniuses like Jim Cramer (swoon) and (my life-pundit) Erin Burnett* as this last week came in with a "laissez-faire" Lehman collapse and went out with an AIG bailout, only to culminate in what Krugman et. al. are rightly (and ironically) referring to as "socialism" in our financial sector.

(Parenthetically, if you're wondering "what the eff does all of this mean, and who the hell can explain it to me?" you'd do well to check out: Jorge on the nuts and bolts of the housing market bubbles, CDOs and how we got here; Krugman on the meat of the Paulson proposal and how it "works" to solve even just the market-related problems at hand; Dean Baker, as usual, with a blueprint for a bailout that might improve things for actual fucking people; and, as pertains to the thrust of this memo, Bob Kuttner on what the Dems could do if they "strapped some balls on their dick," to use the colorful and masculinist phrase once overheard passing from the lips of my 9th grade history teacher.)

Anyway, Dear Dems,

I learned a lot about leverage in my former work as a union researcher. (It's an even-numbered year, so I will assume you remember what unions are.) In my old line, leverage was everything - you never knew where you'd find it, but you knew you'd know it if you saw it. Sometimes it's a matter of public record. Sometimes it's a matter of dumpster-diving. Sometimes it's a matter of building power and rope-a-doping your opponent into revealing her own weaknesses, then building more power in the light of that self-diagnosis, then winning.

This time's one of those times. I've studied and studied and crapped myself thinkin' on the meaning of leverage, its rhythms and habitats and metamorphoses....but I've rarely seen it show itself so plainly. Democrats, you hold a lot of power in your hands this week. And knowing you as I do, I expect nothing less than a warm-hearted, polite and ineffectual surrender.

Does "taking one for the team" always have to be synonymous with losing? Before your very eyes, not just the sitting GOP but the very legacy of Reaganism has shown its "less government in business, more business in government" ass to be a social disease, in need of an unprecedented dose of welfare. While it's understandable (to me, anyway) that our Democratic nominee for president affects something like moderation- and makes all the bullshit bipartisan calls for pragmatism of which it will be the job of people like me and the OGs to disabuse him in January - your job is to make sure that socialism does not come to Wall Street without strings.

There should be more government in business. Now is the time to trim away any compensation for the shareholders and executives we're bailing out, and to erect a wall between houses of finance and government agencies where now there's a revolving-door. For god's sake"White-collar" crimes can be as violent as any other...violent-er, even, when one in seven of our damn bridges are unsound and all our dimes are spread across Iraq and the inter-ether of Over the Counter markets. (fwiw - I will regret not living to see an Attorney General Edwards "assume the position" and enact the purge that gets us to pre-post-neoliberalism.)

There should be less business in government. The idea that, having purchased these "toxic" assets for a sum of $700 billion, we will parcel them out in $50 billion slabs and have currently functioning private financial houses resell them is obscene, insane, incestuous, and it repeats the lie of Reaganism. BHO spoke eloquently of a need to "make government cool again," a neat phrase that in many ways evokes the political and cultural stakes involved in the massive, necessary political project of undoing a 30-year ass-kicking of the many by the few. Our purpose is not served by outdoing the GOP at treating citizens like shareholders. Our purpose is served only by showing that government can and should function within a democratic polity as an agent of (downward) redistribution, and that Democratic government's version of redistribution is a lot more inclusive and a lot less violent than the alternative.

Anywho, summing up:

1. Good News! This week you have the chance to undo all of your past sins. You can work off the debt accrued by your failure to stop an evil, imperialist war by declaring the end of finance capitalism as we know it.
   
2. Bad News! We both know you'll be doing no such thing.
   
3. Don't worry, I'll probably end up voting for all y'all anyway. See you on the teevee!
   

(footnote: * Yeah, it'd seem that my MSNBC addiction is giving way to a CNBC fetish - can you blame me, with a duo like this as the Kiki Dee and Elton John/Gram and Emmylou/Thalia Zedek and Chris Brokaw for my shut-in vie de brain-diharrea?)

When ratfucks go bad

At this early stage in the game, it appears that the Maverick's gambit to select Sarah Palin as his running mate in order to woo disaffected Hillary voters isn't working out as planned. It's partially due to her Boss Hogg-esque levels of incompetence, but I think when it's all said and done, historians will point to the GOP being bitten in the ass by their own Rovian ratfucking operation.

It was clear way back in June that it would've been politically impossible for Obama to select Hillary as his running mate, mainly because it would have been construed as political weakness on his part. As the summer wore on, the media latched on to those who demanded that if Obama picked a female veep, anyone but Hillary would've been an insult to her supporters and a cravenly political move (which, in retrospect, I think the latter is true). I don't discount a fair number of Clinton supporters feeling this way in reaction to the perceived and actual sexism of the primary season, but I think it was Republican operatives who were most responsible in keeping that narrative alive in the hopes of sowing Democratic disunity.

However, in choosing Palin, the McCain campaign is running into the very buzzsaw that Obama would have run into had he selected Governor Sebelius of Kansas (or any other woman): they created an environment where any woman selected (especially one who hadn't earned her stripes like Hillary had) would be seen as a cynical ploy to attract Hillary's female supporters. Had the Republicans not spent all summer pushing the "no woman but Hillary" narrative, the Palin gamble might have had an outside chance of working. In this environment, however, I think a lot of people are seeing it for the blatantly political charade that it is.

Reap what you sow, motherfuckers.

Noted without comment

This One's Got Legs [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

An e-mail:

"Of course, you are correct that women will not reflexively vote for Governor Palin because of her gender. This pick helps more with *men*. Think we'd much rather watch Governor Palin than Sen. Biden for the next four years?"

Prime time speech in the matinee slot

Kucinich rocked the house today:



Awake yet?

[h/t]

Obama/Biden

Hopefully my friends at AFT are pissing their pants with joy.

I did some surfing in the comments of the netroots. The funniest comment I saw was largely incoherent, but the gist was that the selection of Biden is a tired selection and indicates that Obama is starting to realize that he just doesn't have what it takes to be president. This is, of course, good news, because it a further proof that he is close to dropping out of the race and givng the nod to Hillary, the only person on the planet who can defeat McCain.

I got my text at 1:03 am, or actually 7:18 am when I got out of bed. After seeing the headline of the paper. The texting was an interesting idea, but was never going to work. I give the campaign credit for trying something new and to give a little something to the supporters. (Looking at that last comment, I realize that unless you were reading comments where people were bitching about getting at text at 4 am when they were "promised" it wouldn't come before 6 am, or that it came after CNN was reporting the selction, my defense of the campaign might seem weird. As if you didn't know, the netroots expect the world.)

Let's see what Biden's got going. I predict that the media wil be so eagar to catch him in a gaffe that they will jump the gun and maybe we'll have a positive bounce from that...I'm thinking the Obama overplaying the "race card" brewhaha.

What do you got? Pumped up? Gonna watch at nooner? All in, we're gonna win!

Summer of the MILF

Is this the rollout of the 2008 "key electoral constituency"? Because I've gotta tell ya, if Chris Matthews starts analyzing how the critical cougar vote is going to break, I'm. Done.

What frightens them most

Their Zombie Jeezus is no match...

I have to admit, I'm getting an education in the veritable rainbow of American racism this election season. Here's three of those wonderful colors that I've identified:

• Your old school "they're less than human" crowd
• The "it's actually a privilege to be black in the USA!" gang
• And the "Amerikkka: The Blackening" bedwetters

What colors of the racist rainbow have you grasped?