John McCain’s Obsession with Paris Hilton

Is John McCain obsessed with Paris Hilton? McCain has once again dragged Paris into politics. First Read reports, “In its latest TV ad hitting Obama, the McCain campaign calls Obama the “biggest celebrity in the world” — and in the process shows clips of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.” Josh Marshall comments on McCain’s strategy:

I note with interest today, John McCain’s new tactic of associating Barack Obama with oversexed and/or promiscuous young white women. (See today’s new ad and this from yesterday.) Presumably, a la Harold Ford 2006, this will be one of those strategies that will be a matter of deep dispute during the campaign and later treated as transparent and obvious once the campaign is concluded…

As I alluded to at the top of this post, it is the norm that obvious campaign tactics that are treated as obvious after a campaign is over are nonetheless treated by most reporters as ambiguous or unclear during a campaign. But in this case it would be nice if that were not the case. Because here we have a candidate, John McCain, who is running on a record of straight talk and honorable campaigning running a campaign made up mainly of charges reporters are now more or less acknowledging are lies. But there’s precious little drawing together of the contradiction. What’s more, as everyone will acknowledge after the campaign, the McCain campaign is now pushing the caricature of Obama as a uppity young black man whose presumptuousness is displayed not only in taking on airs above his station but also in a taste for young white women.

So please keep an eye out for references to Obama’s presumptuousness, arrogance, etc., from John King and other reporters. Let us know when you see them and send us in examples — in text or video. McCain gets to run the campaign he wants. Remember, he hired the operative who put together the Ford/Bimbo ad. But I want to keep tabs on which reporters are helping him retail the message.

Alex Koppelman comments further on the ad, which also includes some factual errors in other attacks on Obama–such factually incorrect attack ads being part of yet another trend from the McCain campaign.

McCain’s obsession with Paris Hilton began well before this latest campaign tactic. Back in 2007, when visiting Iraq while wearing a bullet proof vest and surrounded by troops, McCain claimed that conditions were so safe that “even Paris Hilton could ride a bicycle in a bikini through Anbar province.” If it was safe enough for Paris to be dressed as above, how come McCain dressed like this:

While McCain keeps bringing up Paris Hilton, Obama has actually avoided connection to celebrities. Back in December, 2006 Lindsay Lohan appealed to Obama, along with Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, for help in cleaning up her image.

All three declined to help Lohan, leading TMZ to accuse Obama of wimping out for taking a pass on that one.

Obama was also uncomfortable with the attention from Amber Lee Ettinger, who made the Obama Girl videos.

Obama expressed discomfort with the videos in an interview with AP:

Obama says his 6-year-old daughter Sasha has noticed news coverage of the video.

“Sasha asked Mommy about it,” Obama said Monday. “She said, ‘Daddy already has a wife’ or something like that.”

Sen. Obama, D-Ill., said he knows the video was meant to be lighthearted, but he wasn’t smiling when asked about it in an interview with The Associated Press.

“I guess it’s too much to ask, but you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families,” Obama said.

“This is part of the process of politics that can be difficult, (that) is making sure that your kids and your wife and your family are insulated from both things like this and what I suspect will be at some point some negative campaigning,” Obama said.

Despite McCain’s claims, it appears that he, and not Obama, is the one who likes to bring up celebrities. (Personally I don’t mind an occasional reference to celebrities in politics, as a post such as this should be good for several hundred extra hits.)

McCain Goes Negative, and Dirty

The New York Times reports that some are concerned that as John McCain goes negative he might lose the support of some potential supporters:

The old happy warrior side of Mr. McCain has been eclipsed a bit lately by a much more aggressive, and more negative, Mr. McCain who hammers Mr. Obama repeatedly on policy differences, experience and trustworthiness.

By doing so, Mr. McCain is clearly trying to sow doubts about his younger opponent, and bring him down a peg or two. But some Republicans worry that by going negative so early, and initiating so many of the attacks himself rather than leaving them to others, Mr. McCain risks coming across as angry or partisan in a way that could turn off some independents who have been attracted by his calls for respectful campaigning.

The drumbeat of attacks could also undermine his argument that he will champion a new brand of politics

McCain’s new campaign strategy also risks undermining McCain’s reputation as a straight talker as the negative attacks have become increasingly dishonest. This was seen in his recent ad following Obama’s Iraq visit. McCain commonly suggests that a major difference between himself and Obama is that he would lower taxes while Obama would raise them. As an independent study has demonstrated, the only taxpayers facing significantly higher taxes under Ohama are the top one tenth of one-percent as the Bush tax breaks to these people are ended. Factcheck.org and others have noted multiple untrue statements in McCain’s attacks on taxes.

Another difference McCain has been distorting recently is over health care policy. McCain distorts Obama’s position when he erroneously describes it as government taking over health care. He fails to note that Obama’s plan would continue the current system of private insurance. McCain also fails to mention how his plan would reduce coverage from private insurance and leave individuals responsible for a greater proportion of their health care expenses. While Republicans regularly use scare tactics on Democratic health care proposals, those who are currently insured and desire to keep this coverage should vote Democratic and help stop McCain’s plan. Of course those without health insurance are far better off backing Obama’s plan.

I was happy to see The New York Times make an issue out of McCain going negative. Unfortunately the article does not go far enough in reporting how McCain’s campaign has not only become negative but has become outright dishonest. They also draw the wrong conclusion from observing Hillary Clinton’s campaign if they believe such tactics will work. Clinton used similar dishonest tactics ever since she found that Obama was challenging her for the nomination. Her use of such tactics repeatedly backfired, providing voters with more reason to support Obama in response. Those who campaign as dishonestly as Clinton, and now McCain, are bound to govern n such a manner. Just as Democratic primary voters realized this and supported Obama, many independent and swing voters will do the same in response to McCain joining Clinton on the low road.

Libertarian Vote Shifts West To Democrats

Chuck Todd recently discussed how many western states have moved from the Republicans to the Democrats on Meet the Press. He attributed this shift to more libertarian-minded and secular Republicans who have voted Democratic in response to the domination of the Republican Party by the religious right.

DNC Members Respond To PUMA Emails

The internet has proven to be a valuable tool for political fund raising and spreading of ideas, but it also has its negative side. Nut groups create echo chambers which allow them to hear others repeating their irrational ideas, reinforcing these beliefs in their minds. The internet also gives them the ability to spread their ideas. The kooks backing Ron Paul provided the rest of the world with seemingly endless laughs as they flamed boards all over the internet with their irrational (and unfortunately, frequently racist and anti-Semitic) rants. Just when we thought that the Paul supporters might maintain the record for being the nuttiest group on the internet, their position is now being challenged by the PUMA groups, who sometimes even share racist attitudes with the Paul supporters.

As I noted previously, PUMA is an acronym for Party Unity My Ass. This is the slogan of the most extreme Clinton supporters who believe every lie about Obama spread by the Clinton campaign during the race, failing to recognize that these were lies told for political gain which were supposed to be forgotten the minute Clinton conceded. These people actually believe that Clinton received more votes than Obama, that the party machinery supported Obama over Clinton, that Clinton is more experienced and competent than Obama, that Clinton is more liberal than Obama, and that Obama, as opposed to Clinton, was the one who violated the basic principles of democracy in their use of Michigan and Florida. These are people who, despite claims of being pro-women, are willing to see the return of shirt hanger abortions as they support McCain over Obama.

As their delusions include the belief that Obama stole the nomination from Clinton they are emailing members of the Democratic National Committee demanding that there be a roll call at the convention, believing that Clinton would win. They are maintaining copies of their replies in order to encourage further outrage against the Democratic establishment backing Obama, but most people would find them rather amusing. Ben Smith has gathered some of them for our entertainment:

Donna Brazile: “Stop the hate. Not sure if you know, but we are keeping copies of all these emails in the archives. Yes, you are not going to get away with pretending to be for Hillary. She is a leader of the Dem party.”

Former DNC chair Don Fowler: “I must confess a bit of fatigue and irritation with people who continue to carp, complain, and criticize the results of the primary and lay down conditions for their support. The Los Angeles Lakers didn’t establish conditions to recognize the Boston Celtics as NBA Champions; Roger Federer did not demand concessions before recognizing that Rafael Nadal defeated him at Wimbledon.

California DNCer Garry Shay: “The racist bullsh**I have gotten from my fellow Clinton supporters has been enough to make me puke. You have a choice. No one would be forcing you. It is a choice. A choice you will have to live with. 100 years in Iraq if McCain gets elected. Thousands more dead American Soldiers.”

WA Democratic Chairman Dwight Pelz: “Man, you have to chill. Try tennis.”

CA superdelegate Steven Ybarra: “Good for you, when the fascists come in the middle of the night to take you to a concentration camp, remember how you voted. Take me off your whiner list . . .then tell them to stop calling me telling me that they are going to vote for mccain. i am would rather vote for a rabid dog than any Fascist republican like mccain. read the declaration of independence.”

DNCer Ben Johnson: “When God was giving out brains…you thought he said trains…and you missed yours. Who gives a croc what you do, its your business fool.”

AZ superdelegate Carolyn Warner: “GOD WILL GUIDE THE HAND OF JUDGMENT THAT WILL STRIKE YOU DOWN! Do not email us again. Thank you.”

RAND Corporation Confirm that Kerry and Obama Are Right While Bush and McCain Are Wrong on Terrorism

As I’ve noted in the past (here and here), George Bush attacked John Kerry for arguing that, while military force might also be needed, the war on terror was primarily a matter of law enforcement and intelligence gathering. The previous posts note that successes in fighting terrorism have also primarily been cases of law enforcement. The McCain campaign has launched similar attacks against Obama.

It looks like it is time for McCain to flip-flop once again and adopt another one of Obama’s positions. The Rand Corporation issued a report  which found that law enforcement and intelligence have been more effective than use of the military in fighting terrorism:

In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase “war on terrorism,” researchers concluded.

“The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end,” said Seth Jones, the study’s lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “In most cases, military force isn’t the best instrument.”

The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The most common way that terrorist groups end — 43 percent — was via a transition to the political process. However, the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow goals, rather than a broad, sweeping agenda like al Qaida possesses.

The second most common way that terrorist groups end — 40 percent — was through police and intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups. Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information, Jones said.

Military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases examined; in most instances, military force is too blunt an instrument to be successful against terrorist groups, although it can be useful for quelling insurgencies in which the terrorist groups are large, well-armed and well-organized, according to researchers. In a number of cases, the groups end because they become splintered, with members joining other groups or forming new factions. Terrorist groups achieved victory in only 10 percent of the cases studied.

Jones says the study has crucial implications for U.S. strategy in dealing with al Qaida and other terrorist groups. Since al Qaida’s goal is the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate, a political solution or negotiated settlement with governments in the Middle East is highly unlikely. The terrorist organization also has made numerous enemies and does not enjoy the kind of mass support received by other organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, largely because al Qaida has not engaged in sponsoring any welfare services, medical clinics, or hospitals.

The study recommends the United States should adopt a two-front strategy: rely on policing and intelligence work to root out the terrorist leaders in Europe, North America, Asia and the Middle East, and involve military force — though not necessarily the U.S. military — when insurgencies are involved.

The United States also should avoid the use of the term, “war on terror,” and replace it with the term “counterterrorism.” Nearly every U.S. ally, including the United Kingdom and Australia, has stopped using “war on terror,” and Jones said it’s more than a mere matter of semantics.

LA Times Blog Editor Explains Position on Edwards Scandal

I recently quoted from from an email from Tony Pierce to the bloggers at The Los Angeles Times regarding not posting further on the John Edwards scandal. Bloggasm has interviewed Tony Pierce who explained his reasons for sending this email and discussed coverage of the story.

Stevens Indicted

Today’s news is a lot like yesterday’s news: a Republican broke the law:

Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in the U.S. Senate and one of the chamber’s most powerful members, was indicted Tuesday in Washington for failing to disclose more than $250,000 worth of gifts that he received from businessmen who were seeking his help on federal issues and projects…

The seven-count indictment charges Stevens with making false statements by failing to disclose things of value he received from the VECO Corp., an Alaska-based oil services compmany, and from its CEO, Bill Allen, over an eight-year period.

The indictment charges that among the undeclared items were substantial improvements to Stevens’ home in Girdwood, Alaska; automobile exchanges in which he received new vehicles that were worth far more than the old ones he exchanged; and household goods, including a Viking gas grill.

At the time, the indictment charges, Allen and other VECO employees solicited Stevens for “multiple official actions . . . knowing that Stevens could and did use his official position and his office on behalf of VECO during that same time period.”

According to the indictment, VECO sought funding and other aid for projects in Pakistan and Russia, federal grants and help building a natural-gas pipeline in Alaska’s North Slope

At this point it is hard for there to be any political news which does not raise the question as to whether it will impact the presidential election. Jonathan Martin thinks this will have more impact on whether the Democrats can obtain sixty seats in the Senate as opposed to the presidential race as McCain and Stevens “battled frequently.”

Justice Officials Repeatedly Broke Law on Hiring

One of the many problems during the Bush years has been the extreme concern for politics, even at the cost of competency.  This included the politicization of the Justice Department. An inspector general’s report has verified that “Former Justice Department counselor Monica M. Goodling and former chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson routinely broke the law by conducting political litmus tests on candidates for jobs as immigration judges and line prosecutors.” The Washington Post reports:

Goodling passed over hundreds of qualified applicants and squashed the promotions of others after deeming candidates insufficiently loyal to the Republican party, said investigators, who interviewed 85 people and received information from 300 other job seekers at Justice. Sampson developed a system to screen immigration judge candidates based on improper political considerations and routinely took recommendations from the White House Office of Political Affairs and Presidential Personnel, the report said.

Goodling regularly asked candidates for career jobs: “What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?” the report said. One former Justice Department official told investigators she had complained that Goodling was asking interviewees for their views on abortion, according to the report.

In one case, Goodling refused to extend the temporary assignment of a prosecutor because of her “perception of the [lawyer’s] sexual orientation,” according to the report.

Taking political or personal factors into account in employment decisions for career positions violates civil service laws and can run afoul of ethics rules. Investigators said today that both Goodling and Sampson had engaged in “misconduct.”

The improper personnel moves deprived worthy candidates of promotions and damaged the credibility of the Justice Department, investigators wrote. An experienced counterterrorism prosecutor, for example, was kept from advancing in favor of a more junior lawyer who lacked a background in terrorism.

The Plank gives a good example of the absurd levels to which political concerns were taken:

When one applicant responded that he admired Condoleezza Rice, Goodling “frowned” and remarked, “But she’s pro-choice.” It’s frankly hard to know where to begin here. Worrying that a career employee at the Department of Justice might not immediately condemn the abortion-rights views of the secretary of state of one particular administration? The breezy conflation of partisanship, ideology, and personal loyalty to the president? The fact that Goodling has acknowledged she knew she was breaking the law but says she “didn’t mean to”?

Posted in George Bush, Scandals. Tags: . 5 Comments »

Edwards Scandal Makes Huffington Post

So far there has been very little in either the mainstream media or liberal blogosphere on the Edwards/Rielle Hunter scandal, but we can now add Huffington Post to the liberal blogs who are covering it. Lee Stranahan writes:

The truth is that I believe anyone who looks into the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter affair story will see that Edwards has, at best, acted in a very suspicious manner for over a year now. When the Larry Craig story was breaking, I didn’t buy his particular line of bullshit and I don’t buy Edwards’s either after I’ve spent the last couple of days Googling with my wife. (That’s not as dirty as it sounds.) At first, I was skeptical of the National Enquirer story catching Edwards leaving the Beverly Hills Hilton Hotel at 2:45am because there were no pictures and the tabloids aren’t reliable. Now it turns out that Edwards was at the hotel, so was Ms. Hunter, and that he when he saw reporters he hid in the bathroom until security guards came and got him.

I got more suspicious after reading a story on The Huffington Post from last September by Sam Stein detailing the weird story of some short webisodes about John Edwards that mysteriously were pulled off the internet. Read it yourself here and fold it into the mix of the current allegations.

Let’s go with the assumption that Edwards is innocent for a moment; he didn’t have the affair so the baby isn’t his. If he didn’t do anything wrong then it seems like he’d have good reasons to stop the rumors. A DNA test months ago would have ended all speculation about the paternity of the baby. Isn’t that a better, less suspicious move than pulling down all the videos that Rielle Hunter helped produce about him for his campaign? And if there are rumors and you’re innocent, WHY go visit the subject of those rumors at a hotel and leave at 2:45 in the morning? Why hide in the bathroom when reporters catch you leaving? These actions don’t make any more sense to me than Craig’s ‘wide stance/dropped my toilet paper’ defense did.

If he is innocent I could see where Edwards might not feel obligated to respond to The National Enquirer by providing a DNA test. (Actually if he is innocent I’d expect him to sue for a fortune given his history). While not having such a DNA test does not prove his guilt, I agree that otherwise his behavior looks very suspicious.

Stranahan believes this will become “a tsunami-sized scandal for the Democratic Party.” He notes that the progressive blogosphere is ignoring the story:

The progressive blogosphere is ignoring this story at its own peril because it’s going to be big. At this moment, there’s a weird state of denial about the entire thing. As of 4pm Saturday, nothing at all on TalkingPointMemo.com. DailyKos did a dismissive post making fun of the Enquirer. FireDogLake? Nothing. Americablog? Nada. These are some of my favorite blogs, by the way.

Maybe his favorite blogs have been in denial, but Liberal Values has previously noted this story here and here.

SciFi Friday Comics Edition: Batman, A Gay Captain America, and Supergirl Gives Up Being a Slut

With The Dark Night breaking former box office records, and with Comic Con going on this week, I will devote this week’s installment of SciFi Friday (delay until Sunday) to comics related stories.

Batman has no superpowers and therefore of all the major comic superheroes it might be most plausible for Batman toe exist. Scientific American has an an interview what it would take for someone to train to become Batman.

What’s most plausible about portrayals of Batman’s skills?
You could train somebody to be a tremendous athlete  and to have a significant martial arts background, and also to use some of the gear that he has, which requires a lot of physical prowess. Most of what you see there is feasible to the extent that somebody could be trained to that extreme. We’re seeing that kind of thing in less than a month in the Olympics.

What’s less realistic?
A great example is in the movies where Batman is fighting multiple opponents and all of a sudden he’s taking on 10 people. If you just estimate how fast somebody could punch and kick, and how many times you could hit one person in a second, you wind up with numbers like five or six. This doesn’t mean you could fight four or five people. But it’s also hard for four or five people to simultaneously attack somebody, because they get in each other’s way. More realistic is a couple of attackers.

How long would Bruce Wayne have to train to become Batman?
In some of the timelines you see in the comics, the backstory is he goes away for five years—some it’s three to five years, or eight years, or 12 years. In terms of the physical changes (strength and conditioning), that’s happening fairly quickly. We’re talking three to five years. In terms of the physical skills to be able to defend himself against all these opponents all the time, I would benchmark that at 10 to 12 years. Probably the most reality-based representation of Batman and his training was in Batman Begins.

Why such a long training time?
Batman can’t really afford to lose. Losing means death—or at least not being able to be Batman anymore. But another benchmark is having enough skill and experience to defend himself without killing anyone. Because that’s part of his credo. It would be much easier to fight somebody if you could incapacitate them with extreme force. Punching somebody in the throat could be a lethal blow. That’s pretty easy to do.

But if you’re thinking about something that doesn’t result in lethal force, that’s more tricky. It’s really hard for people to get their heads around, I think. To be that good, to not actually lethally injure anyone, requires an extremely high level of skill that would take maybe 15 to 18 years to accumulate.

There have been a number of political articles on Batman recently. The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed on What Bush and Batman Have in Common.

Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society — in which people sometimes make the wrong choices — and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

“The Dark Knight,” then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year’s “300,” “The Dark Knight” is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

Spencer Ackerman sees the movie as reflecting Dick Cheney’s policies:

Insofar as it’s possible to view an action movie that had the biggest three-day-opening in cinematic history as a comment on the current national-security debate, “The Dark Knight” weighs in strongly on the side of the Bush administration. Confronting the Joker, a nihilistic enemy whose motives are both unexplained and beside the point, the Batman faces his biggest dilemma yet: whether to abuse his power in order to save Gotham City. Again and again in the movie, the Batman’s moral hand-wringing results in the deaths of innocents. Only by becoming like the monster he must vanquish can Batman secure a victory that even he understands is Pyrrhic.

Batman, the film’s hero, played by Christian Bale, sees this as a morally devastating paradox. Dick Cheney and his ideological allies in the Bush administration, however, clearly view this as a righteous challenge. Cheney, Addington, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and others can go to to this sixth Batman movie to see, in the Joker, as played by Heath Ledger, a perfect reflection of their view of Al Qaeda. He presents an enemy unbounded by any scruple; striking out for no rational reason; hell-bent on causing civilization-threatening destruction, and emboldened by any adversaries’ restraint.

Such views show the problem with conservative thinking. George Bush is not Batman and al Qaeda is not The Joker. Comic book superheroes can break the law and ignore principles such as due process. Political leaders cannot.

Cogitamus takes a different viewpoint from the idea of Batman representing conservative views:

Cheney and his supporters are wrong because if you watch the film, it becomes clear that even if we were faced with a Joker-style supervillain, he’s fundamentally not the problem — Dent correctly diagnoses him as a wild dog set loose by others. The Gotham system is the problem, where mobsters and police pick sides based on the day of the week and their mutual enemies, when a psychopathic avenger like Two-Face finds himself executing police or mobsters based on the flip of a coin, and when the nominal forces of order are fundamentally impotent because that’s how everyone wants it, all we can say is that Gotham feels awfully Westphalian.  The solution is not more disorder (more extreme vigilanteism) but better law and order…

If you really wanted to read these films as a reflection of international politics (Is America Batman?) I think you have a dismal road ahead of you. Batman begins to realize that what Gotham needs is not a caped crusader, but a functioning law enforcement system. He begins seriously considering retiring the rubber PJs as Gotham’s police and prosecutors become more effective. The lesson here is not exactly kind to the idea that breaking the laws of war and ignoring the expressed opinion of the UN Security Council is going to lead to greater peace and stability.

Moreover, if you read Gordon’s “escalation” dialogue from the first film in the context of international politics, I think it’s clear you have to say that 9/11 was only possible because of preceding American actions across the globe. That is, if you actually think America is Batman, than you have to concede that Bin Laden/Joker is at least partially the creation of the US government.

I wonder how conservatives who oppose gays in the military will take this story. Slice of SciFi reports that a gay actor might get the role of Captain America:

At the San Diego Comic Con actor John Barrowman, the man behind that famous WWI army coat in BBC’s hit show “Torchwood,” was asked if he has been approached for the role of that other famous Captain. Sitting in on a Torchwood panel Barrowman, after much persuasion, finally admitted that he has been in substantive talks to portray the famous Captain for the May 2011film “The First Avenger: Captain America.”

Star Trek fans are anxious to see how J.J. Abrams reboots Star Trek. The first glimpse of the reimagined Star Trek universe will be seen in the comics. Newsarama.com reports that IDW publishing will “present an epic tale that leads into the J.J. Abrams-directed Star Trek movie due next summer. Abrams and screenwriter Roberto Orci will contribute to the comic book story, too.”

At Comic Con the creators of Action Comics, Superman, and Supergirl pledged to return these stories to their former glory. I09 reports:

Superman writer James Robinson admitted that part of that effort will include making sure that characters like Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen will return to the versions everyone knows, instead of superpowered giant turtles fighting evil gods: “The [supporting] characters have lost their way a bit,” he said, before saying that Jimmy Olsen should be the third most important character in a Superman comic, after Superman and Lois. Johns agreed, and added that there are also plans afoot to use Lois more often: “If Superman married her, she’s gotta be the coolest woman in the world.”

The most important revelation from the panel may have come from new Supergirl writer Sterling Gates. When asked whether he will bring a more consistent characterisation to the Maid of Steel after an erratic few years where she’s been portrayed as confused, evil, stupid, slutty and almost continually unheroic, he said that he saw her as one of the strongest characters DC Comics has, and feels that she’s been mishandled recently. “Can we officially say that she’s not a slut?” Johns asked, to the applause of the audience. So, now you know: Supergirl isn’t a slut.

Supergirl apparently changed a lot since I last saw her in a comic decades ago. So she became a super-slut. Maybe I’ll have to check and see what I missed