In my previous post, I enumerated the various reasons why I feel that Hillary is not the ogre that most people feel that she is, and why she's presidential timber. The trouble is, can honestly say the same for Obama? I don't know. The trouble with that is, now is not the time for an Obama learning curve. How much do we really know about him?

For the past 7 years this country has been brutalized by an idiot who has brought us war, threatened our civil liberties, abused our economy, and destroyed our reputation around the world. His reign was the culmination of a way of thinking that has been entrenched among Conservatives for the past 30 years. It is a way of thinking that threatens our future socially, economically. And ecologically, the survival of the human race.

We need someone at the helm that we can rely on to fight that entrenchment. Someone who is vastly experienced in fighting Right Wing onslaughts. I don't think the politics of "coming together" is going to work on the likes of John O'Neill's Swift Boaters, Karl Rove, or Fox News. Already Obama has to contend with false rumors concerning his religion, and his upbringing. Now, this Rezko business will come up. And in an Obama candidacy, it WILL come up in the general election, regardless of who Rezko had his picture taken with.

But what is at the core of my objections to an Obama candidacy? Not only do I find myself questioning the feasibility of his "new style" of politics, but also I question whether he can possibly pursue it given today's circumstances.

• His positions are really not that different from Hillary's.

• He strives to set himself apart from most politicians yet his very history suggests otherwise.

• In particular, his relationship with Antoin Rezko calls into to question his judgment of character. Not only that, but his very criteria on what constitutes a friend can be questioned. Is a friend someone you like and trust, or is a friend merely someone who is "useful" to you?

I shall deal with the other two points in my next post, Part 3 of this series.

On the issues, Clinton and Obama differ only on the details. According to Wikipedia:

In a 2004 fundraising speech in San Francisco, she was highly critical of George W. Bush's tax cuts, saying that 'Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.'[2] Clinton has sponsored legislation designed to reduce the deficit by reinstating some taxes that had been cut. She has co-sponsored legislation related to debt and deficit reduction. On the other hand, she has advocated for federal spending that advocates of less government spending deem nonessential, such as funding a museum commemorating the Woodstock Music Festival.[3]

Obama's stand two years later wasn't that much different:

Obama spoke out in June 2006 against making recent, temporary estate tax cuts permanent, calling the cuts a 'Paris Hilton' tax break for 'billionaire heirs and heiresses.'[18] Speaking in November 2006 to members of Wake Up Wal-Mart, a union-backed campaign group, Obama said: 'You gotta pay your workers enough that they can actually not only shop at Wal-Mart, but ultimately send their kids to college and save for retirement.'[19] Obama has also proposed his own tax plan, including $80 billion in tax cuts for the poor and middle class.[20]

On health care, the only difference between the two front-runners is how they define "universal.":

In September 2007, as part of her presidential campaign, Clinton revealed her new American Health Choices Plan, an "individual mandate" universal health care plan that would require health care coverage for all individuals. Clinton explained individuals can keep their current employer-based coverage, or choose an expanded version of Medicare or federal employee health plans.[18][19] The projected cost of the plan is $110 billion annually and will require all employers to cover their employees' health insurance or contribute to the costs of their employees' health insurance coverage; tax credits will be provided to companies with fewer than 25 employees to help cover costs.[18][20]

And Obama said:

On January 24, 2007 Obama spoke about his position on health care at Families USA, a health care advocacy group. Obama said, 'The time has come for universal health care in America [...] I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country.' Obama went on to say that he believed that it was wrong that forty-seven million Americans are uninsured, noting that taxpayers already pay over $15 billion annually to care for the uninsured.[15] Obama cites cost as the reason so many Americans are without health insurance, and claims his health care plan would cut the cost of insurance more than any of his Democratic rivals' plans in the 2008 Presidential race. [16]

The list goes on and on. In foreign policy, both Hillary and Obama favor a tough approach to terrorism with Obama assuring people he will escalate the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. He would even go into Pakistan despite warnings that such a move could further destabilize the situation.

On the Arab-Israeli situation, both candidates meet at the center from different viewpoints agreeing that the Palestinian leadership must be more responsible. Obama wants more dialogue with the Arabs while Hillary is still in favor of the wall, and concentrates more on Israel's security.

According to Associated Press:

When asked who the United States' top allies are, Senator Barack Obama said the European Union and Japan, but failed to mention Israel.

The debate moderator NBC News anchor Brian Williams interrupted Obama, drawing his attention to the omission and quoting Obama as having once said, 'No one suffers more than the Palestinians.'

Obama, unperplexed, explained that the Palestinians suffer because of their leadership. 'I said that no one suffers more than the Palestinian people because of their leadership's failure to recognize Israel, denounce violence and be serious about peace negotiations and regional security,' he said.

'Israel is one of our most important allies in the world. It is the only democracy in the Middle East,' Obama added. He even noted that if he was elected, he intended to increase American involvement in the region.

But Obama comes to this point of view from the standpoint that we must have a dialogue with the Palestinians. According to AP at the National Jewish Democratic Council this was his (highly commendable) position:

Obama said while he was committed to protecting Israel’s security, he would also reach out to Arab leaders who were committed to recognizing Israel and renouncing violence.

And according to Wikipedia Obama is no friend of terrorism:

Referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in January 2006, Obama denounced Hamas while praising former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. At a meeting with then Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on the eve of Hamas' sweeping election victory,[33] Obama stated that Sharon's role in the conflict had always been "absolutely important and constructive."[34] At a meeting with Palestinian students two days later, Obama stated opposition to Hamas in favor of rival party Fatah, noting his desire to 'consolidate behind a single government with a single authority that can then negotiate as a reliable partner with Israel.' In a comment aimed at Hamas, he said that 'the US will always side with Israel if Israel is threatened with destruction.'[35]

On Iran, there is considerably less daylight between Clinton and Obama. While Hillary accuses Iran of having a nuclear weapons program, and supports UN sanctions against Iran, she believes that diplomacy is necessary, and has criticized Dubya for refusing to talk to the mullahs.

And while Obama is all for talking to Iran, and has criticized Hillary for voting to declare the Quds Force a terrorist organization, he wants all military options on the table.

On the issue of Iraq, again there are only a few variations on the same stance. Let us dispense with the fact that Hillary voted to give authorization for the war. I had already touched on her reasons for that vote in Part 1 of this series. However, she did charge Dubya with rushing to war, and pulling the rug out from under the UN inspectors, and came out for an international solution to the problem. However, to quote from Wikipedia:

On June 15, 2006, Clinton charged that President Bush “rushed to war” and “refused to let the UN inspectors conduct and complete their mission ... We need to be building alliances instead of isolation around the world ... There must be a plan that will begin to bring our troops home.” But she also said, “I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment which I think does not put enough pressure on the Iraqi government, nor do I think it is a smart policy to set a date certain.”[63][64]

Hillary voted for the USA PATRIOT ACT in 2001, but helped to filibuster the bill for its renewal when enough money wasn't apportioned to New York for anti-terrorism efforts. She also stood up for some of the civil liberties concerns with it. She voted in favor of the compromise bill.

FISA and warrantless wiretapping were a different matter though:

Regarding the December 2005 NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Clinton stated that she was 'troubled' by President Bush's 2002 actions. In a statement, she said: 'The balance between the urgent goal of combating terrorism and the safeguarding of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms is not always an easy one to draw. However, they are not incompatible, and unbridled and unchecked executive power is not the answer.'[83]

Clinton didn't take the American Freedom to stop the military commissions, end torture, or restore habeas corpus, but then as President, she can end the former and sign into law the other.

Obama wants to restore American prestige all over the world:

Obama is also right that resetting the world's view of the U.S. begins with making our government more transparent. As a senator, he's worked to visibly link members of Congress to their roads to nowhere and to their Iowan rain forests. As president, he will hold large-scale, open discussions on the issues facing Americans in the 21st century: health care, climate change, comprehensive immigration reform, border security, tax policy, education and economic development.

Both Hillary and Obama take a rather tortured path concerning same sex couples. Obama...

• Voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment

• And yet, he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

• Supports civil union that carries legal standing equal to marriage, but believes that the appellation of marriage should be left up to the states.

• Feels that homosexuality is not immoral.

To confuse things all the more, for the all-important South Carolina primary, Obama invited anti-gay people like Reverend Donnie McClurkin, Mary Mary and Hezekiah Walker to his 3 day "Embrace the Courage" campaign tour. After a whole lot criticism, he added openly gay pastor Andy Sidden.

Hillary has an equal amount of 'splaining to do Lucy:

Senator Clinton expressed her opposition to same-sex marriage while affirming her support for some form of civil unions for homosexual couples: 'I think that the vast majority of Americans find [same-sex marriage] to be something they can't agree with. But I think most Americans are fair. And if they believe that people in committed relationships want to share their lives and, not only that, have the same rights that I do in my marriage, to decide who I want to inherit my property or visit me in a hospital, I think that most Americans would think that that's fair and that should be done."'[115]

And yet:

• She opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment like Obama.

• She admitted the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" was a failure and that gays should be allowed to serve openly.

Lastly the environment. Hillary wants:

• energy conservation

• to release oil reserves

• no drilling in ANWR

• to ratify the Kyoto Protocol

• a Strategic Energy Fund to put $ 50 billion into R&D and deployment of renewable energy, clean coal, ethanol, and homegrown biofuels.

I think Wikipedia says everything I'd say for Obama's views on environment:

Obama has taken the stance that global warming is human-caused, and that it must be addressed. He has a record of supporting environmentally friendly bills.

The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe.[64]

He has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 by creating a market-based cap-and-trade system.[65] Obama also has plans for improving air and water quality through reduced pollution levels.[citation needed]

And so, there doesn't seem to be much daylight between Hillary and Obama's positions.

And yet, Obama says he won't "play the Washington game." We'll see.

In Part 3 of this series, I shall examine the feasibility of the "politics of hope," and whether Obama is sincere or a fool.

The oracle, the font of wisdom and virtue, The Onion, published this story at the time of Bush's inauguration: "Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over." They must have been eating Frank Herbert's "Dune" spice to see the future, because they wrote:

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

OK, maybe that was easy to predict. They also wrote:

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

According to the Onion, Rush Limbaugh said:

"Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up."

Let us remember when we had the chance to avoid all that, and not feel fear about our less-favorite Democratic candidate. I call everyone that refuses to vote for Hillary, or Barack, fatuous idiots for placing some dreamer's version of principle over good sense.

Oregon voters take to the mailboxes on May 20th for its presidential primary election. Although Oregonians tend to be very politically active, more can be done to extend Oregon's influence on national politics.

I've discussed - complained, if you will - my frustrations with the idea that Oregon seems to be irrelevant to national elections. We are not part of Super Tuesday, we are not first primaries, we don't even have a lot of delegates. Add in the fact that MSM tends to call elections before our results are even counted (due to the time difference), and our elections are pretty moot.

To the dismay of many Oregon voters, however, this politically active swing state has been relegated to the sidelines during the national Super Tuesday events.

“It’s just nuts, the way the whole primary system is front-loaded,” [Bradbury] said, using the election term that refers to the biggest states holding their caucuses first.

By the time Oregon’s primary rolls around, “it’s not likely that our votes are going to really matter,” he said. “It’s not likely we’re going to get much attention from anybody.”

That's why I like Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury's idea of a rotating primary season.

The new system would group primaries or caucuses by region on a rotating basis beginning in 2012.

A lottery would be held to determine which region would go first in March, and that region would move to the end of the primary calendar for the following presidential election cycle. Subsequent regions would hold their primaries in April, May and June.

The only exceptions to the system would be Iowa and New Hampshire, which would retain their early time slots based on their traditions as small, easy stomping grounds for underfunded, lesser-known candidates.

Bradbury mentions the typical political benefits of a rotating primary season.

Bradbury said Oregon voters would benefit because candidates would be forced to bone up on issues of local importance and campaign in each region; in the Pacific Northwest, they would be vetting issues like forestry, salmon and renewable energy in the Pacific Northwest.

There's also the economic benefit. Early states get millions of dollars in campaign revenue. Local news organizations and print media can take in additional ad revenue due to increased viewership and circulation. Candidates spend days, with their coterie, spending money in the local economy.

Let's also not forget the current legal battles with Michigan and Florida, with regards to their Democratic Party delegates. Due to the state parties' feelings of disenfranchisement, both states moved their primaries up to be more influential and ended up getting their delegates stripped from the Democratic National Convention. A rotating regional primary schedule would provide these states with the ability to move ahead in the primary season without incurring penalties.

Overall, I view this as a win-win for candidates, states, and the citizenry.

[Cross-posted at PROJECT: Lucidity]

Listen to your granny!

Granny has been thinking about bubbles, and wondering when we’re going to stop getting ourselves into them.

Granny Bee

1/29/08 – Bubbleheads (1:16) .mp3

Carolyn Kay

MakeThemAccountable.com

Geo-engineering. Possibly taking Scorched Earth to the extreme?

The offensive use of geoengineering could take a variety of forms. Overproductive algae blooms can actually sterilize large stretches of ocean over time, effectively destroying fisheries and local ecosystems. Sulfur dioxide carries health risks when it cycles out of the stratosphere. One proposal would pull cooler water from the deep oceans to the surface in an explicit attempt to shift the trajectories of hurricanes. Some actors might even deploy counter-geoengineering projects to slow or alter the effects of other efforts.

Humans have used the terrain and environment as part of warfare since Ancient Greece. But, those were localized efforts. This would be on a global scale, outside the zone of conflict; and shows the potential for much longer-term impact.

Either that, or a really good plot for an Austin Powers movie.

This may be the election when kids convince their parents. Or when the kid in us feels young and inspired again. I am hopeful. I am waiting for change. And I heartily sign on to the "movement" that promises to unify and heal our nation. I am glad to pass the torch. To see young people excited. To know that many are taking time out from graduate school or high school to become active in working for a better tomorrow in a land that is hurting in so many ways.

At 62 I remain naive and idealistic in spite of so many setbacks, where my hopes and dreams seemed quenched or marginalized, where selfishness ruled and people told me to "just suck it up" you bleeding heart liberal. At nearly 63 I have tears in my eyes when I think of people really coming together, giving of themselves, reaching out to help our poor, our mentally ill, our homeless, our jobless, our cowering illegal immigrants also yearning to be free, our rich heritage of freedom of religion or no religion, our citizens of beautiful color or different sexual persuasion. I can taste a yearning to come together and stop condemning those who are different. I savor a return to the Rule of Law, a newfound commitment to the Constitution as all we need to protect. I envision people learning to live with the fact that life is full of uncertainties, but that protecting our civil liberties is more important than spying on ourselves, suspending Habeas Corpus, or psychologically breaking and torturing anyone for any reason.

When I was young I thrilled to the words of JFK, calling me to give to my country, to offer my strengths and my skills to help those less fortunate than I. I thrilled to MLK's "dream" because I too wanted to sit down with people of any color or creed and honor the sacredness of each human person, the wealth of our differences. I marched and worked and reached across the racial barriers in college, becoming a pacifist.

Was it the murder of JFK that most marked my Freshman year of college? I cannot say. I watched the sun set from the back of the Capital that day, looking out across the Mall to the Washington Monument. I stood in line that cold Sunday for hours to have a chance to walk before a coffin in the Rotunda. And I watched in person the procession of that coffin as it wound its way through the streets.

Thus it was I learned to cope early on: While lucky enough to be thrilled by inspiring leaders, I had to accept the senseless murders of three of them, one black, two from the same family. But my idealism did not die with these men. Indeed, I have continued to believe that life's good fortune to me was no more than a responsibility conferred, a duty to give - to those less fortunate - regardless of the dangers or the cynicism or the greed that abounded in our society and the world.

Now, as I watch Senator Obama, I find myself connecting with this idealism of youth. But at the same time I find myself watching him, fearing that at any moment he too could be struck down as were those three men in the '60's. I wish it weren't so. For me 9/11 was not the defining moment. It was that noontime when the rumor ran around our college that JFK had been struck down. It was the moment when someone notified our philosophy class that he had died, that classes were canceled. It was the bus ride through DC - in total silence. And the days that followed. It was a world turned upside down in an instant at 18.

But what followed was not like what followed 9/11. Instead I continued to receive messages from adults to educate myself and give of my talents. I saw non-violence adopted. And I felt at home with it. And I didn't give it up after two more murders. I didn't give it up during the First Gulf War. I didn't give it up when two more wars have come to pass that are still going on.

I am in the business of hope. Therapy is a change business, but it works on hope. And I have signed on to the hope-express with Barak Obama.

Barak means blessing. And more than anything I want this man to live. To live to old age. Like Nelson Mandela. But let him not die like Gandhi. Not like MLK. Not like JFK. Or RFK. I want Barak to live and give us the best he has, call forth the best in us. And may his hopes prosper. May we all continue to work for what is best in us and not stoop to what is worst.

Oh, that silly 'President' of ours. I couldn't bring myself to watch it. Did you? I'm sure you heard about all these points:

Some of you who don't have more won't get this one, but look how good it looks when you treat the financial services industry to over a decade of unrestrained Republican libido!

North Korea, Russia, Poland, all off the reservation.

In Iraq, we failed to bring the Iranians into the fight despite years of zero barriers or borders.

Also in Iraq, the ethnic cleansing burned itself out long enough to let the surge surge through, but look- violence is picking up just in time for a new election season! Sure, it might demonstrate our lack of control, but maybe it shows how badly we're needed there...

We're trying to turn our attention to Middle East Peace (pause for laughter).

The dollar simply can't buy gold, oil or love.

The financial services industry is thriving- so here's some more Chinese cash to pump through it.

Quiet- don't look: Arch-liberal Teddy Kennedy just endorsed the black guy! Holy crap, they're practically begging for a few more years of irrelevance!

All the money is lent. All the growth has happened. The rich still get their income, but those damn salesmen get paid on new business. Can we renegotiate every mortgage of the past ten years to include residuals?

At least Vice President Cheney's retirement is secure.

And we fought back those damned kids and their precious vaccinations and flu shots. Friggin' parents shouldn't have kids if they can't afford 'em. So yes, syllogistic with my abortion and birth control stances, they should be prohibited from sexual intercourse AND homosexual whatever-you-call-that. Oh crap I said 'syllogistic'- did that go out? Now they'll think I went to Yale and Harvard... that I did all this on purpose. According to some evil, secret plan to bankrupt the public.

The nation's largest and most prominent mainline Protestant denomination, the 11 million-member United Methodist Church — whose members include both President Bush and Senator Clinton — is set to take up the issue of whether to divest from companies that do business with Israel.

The meeting, which is to be held on Friday in Fort Worth, Texas, will mark the highest level of consideration that the subject of economic divestment from the Jewish state has received within the Methodist denomination.

Key questions hanging over the event will be whether the church will decide to use its $16 billion pension fund as an economic tool against Israel, and whether divestment would shatter the church's traditional relationship with American Jews.

If the church moves ahead with a divestment resolution on the national level, the denomination would become the largest Protestant group to embrace such a measure. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which has 2.4 million members, voted in favor of such a measure in 2004. Another important liberal denomination, the United Church of Christ, went in the other direction last summer when it opted to engage in a "balanced study" of the Middle East conflict.

Source: NY Sun

How long before the tired and worn-out canard of being "Anti-Semitic" starts flying the Methodists way?

Israel deserves to be treated like another pariah, apartheid state was, South Africa.

Hit 'em where it hurts: In their pocketbooks.

Al Qaeda blows up the World Trade Center and kills thousands of Americans. Al Qaeda was led by Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the operation, and he was supported by the Taliban.

George W. Bush acted rationally in ordering the invasion of Afghanistan and the routing of the Taliban. Bin Laden escapes.

George W. Bush then acts irrationally against the weight of seasoned military advice, and orders the invasion of Iraq.

The US eventually turns the job of Afghanistan's secure development to NATO. That effort suffers. Some gains in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda are lost over time, with US forces divided between two tough tasks: finishing off Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, versus finishing something in Iraq.

Whatever good has been achieved in Iraq by the end of Bush's term, the US Military has achieved on the fly, with errors committed in earlier innings, mostly by the Secretary of Defense and Pentagon civilian advisors. The counterinsurgency methods used now, if used after the invasion in 2003, might have shortened the occupation.

In tonight's State of the Union address, Mr. Bush stated that the job of pushing Al Qaeda out of Iraq is getting done, but isn't finished. That is because Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan was not finished first.

If the US hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, there would have been no reason or opportunity for Al Qaeda to recruit Iraqis and draw in fighters from surrounding nations, or for Iran to finance and support insurrection. US forces would have been able to focus on finishing off the Al Qaeda that blew up the World Trade Center. Justice remains undone for those murdered on 9-11.

If the US had not invaded Iraq, Al Qaeda in Iraq would not have been in Iraq. So it is clear that AQ in Iraq came to the US presence, or else the Bush Administration could not call the problem "foreign."

What portion of those who became the foreign fighters in AQ in Iraq would have committed terrorist acts elsewhere, other than in the US-invaded Iraq?

We appear to have a dual purpose policy (the real deal) of using Iraq as a resource security platform and a convenient offer of satisfaction for Americans to believe it was always planned that it become a kill-zone for "Al Qaeda."

However, had the job of routing the Al Qaeda responsible for 9-11 been finished first, would Iraq have been easier to secure if a real reason for military action materialized?

American forces used for an unnecessary tasks divert those forces from necessary tasks. The good feelings shown at the State of the Union address don't change that fact. That is the truth and we should not bury it for political expediency. This sort of thing should not be done again with the troops or the American peoples' trust.

In this post, I won't focus too much on the President's domestic agenda, rather I just want to highlight a few items he mentioned in his State of the Union address with regard to foreign affairs, which I consider important.

One of the most important policy initiatives the President mentioned was Reform Trade Adjustment Assistance, which he mentioned right after asking Congress to pass the Free Trade Agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. The FTA's are important, particularly as the US tries to stem the tide against Hugo Chavez' Bolivarian Revolution, which has spread from Venezuela to Bolivia, Ecuador and to a lesser extent Nicaragua. To be fair, there are many issues within these countries that have aided Chavismo in its pursuit, but Colombia, and Mexico have served to a large extent as bulwarks against Chavez' influence. Passing the FTA with Colombia rewards a strong ally, and one who has also taken on extremely difficult issues within his own country; issues that have cost him politically, both in stature, but also in political allies who have been forced to resign from his government for their ties to right-wing military groups accused of egregious human rights violations. These issues, however, would be better explored in a post solely dedicated to Colombia.

With regard to South Korea, the FTA is much warranted, as that country has seen much of its investment flowing to China to take advantage of the opportunities that the Chinese juggernaut presents. Opening markets, preferentially to South Korea would aid them in attracting more FDI as China, among others try to take advantage of the opportunities the FTA provides for South Korean exporters. It would also likely make South Korea a bit more cooperative on the issue of North Korea's nuclear disarmament, which is likely to be a very important issue as a new president takes office come next January.

To continue reading this post, please click here.

6pm PST: As I wait for the Worst President Ever to speak -- got the live video of the Congress running in one window -- I'm listening to "Dick Is a Killer" in iTunes instead of the backslapping nothingness...

Dick Is a Killer MP3 (3.7mb)

"submitting to the whim of one brutal man"

If you get bored during his fearmongering, cut taxes mantra, feel free to check out of the prevaricating SOTU address for a few minutes and listen to this funny ditty yourself.

6:10pm PST: Dubya still not speaking. Still not lieing. Do you know how to tell when he's lieing?

In a couple of hours the worst president in American history will, once again, stand in front of Congress and the American people to attempt to read the State Of The Union address. Those who have written the words he will massacre will cringe in the wings and clinch their fists at every mispronounced word. His puppet masters will feverishly manipulate their remote controls in attempts to make that idiotic grin, those bouncing shoulders and that my-vice-president-can-whip-your-dad stare coincide somewhat with the words spewing from that pathetic mouth. The world will laugh at our Alfred E. Neuman "leader." The world will cry because of all who are dead and maimed because of his and Cheney's reign of terror. And the beat goes on....

"Georgie" will again lie to himself and us about Iraq, Iran, war, recession, depression and the situation in the world. He will again invoke the false "positive" optimism he has managed to sell to the lingering 30% for all these years.

Once again I will recall the words of that great philosopher, Gilligan, who, just before the minnow hit the big rock said: "It looks like smooth sailing from here on out, Skipper!"

Here are a few predictions from the viewpoint of one who has seen through these monsters from day one:

1. Al Sadr will NOT renew his "cease fire" next month and Iraq will explode again invalidating all the "The-Surge-Is-Working" rhetoric.

2. The Taliban will continue its violence in Afghanistan requiring more troops there.

3. Osama Bin Laden will continue to use the arrogance, incompetence and violence of the Bush administration to recruit and continue Al Queda's existence and insure its growth as an enemy of our country.

4. Our economy will continue its decline into recession even though we'll all be able to afford to go to work during the month of June because of our $600 welfare check.

Enough for now. More after our illustrious "Idiot In Chief" speaks.

I hope this IS the last State Of The Union "Georgie" delivers. I hope there is an election in November. For the first time in 7 years I have hope again that our country can begin the long journey out of the darkness of the reign of these monsters.

I hope "We The People" can begin to regain the trust and respect of the world.

Hope.... Ain't it a GRAND thing?

As of this writing, four states have made their Democratic Presidential candidate preferences known; and for most voters the choices seem to be coming down to Obama or Clinton.

Which has not been so good for the John Edwards campaign.

While it is theoretically possible that he might yet surprise us all and garner the nomination, for the purposes of today’s discussion I’m going to assume that he won’t.

If that’s true, and the nomination is out, what might Edwards have in mind going forward?

I can’t say for certain…but that won’t keep me from guessing…which is what this discussion is all about.

As I say, I can’t offer an opinion as to the probability of this set of explanations, but the potential for such actions is there.

--Might Edwards decide at this point to run for another office? Dennis Kucinich has left the race for the Presidency to concentrate on gaining re-election to Congress, and it is possible that Edwards might choose such a path for himself as well.

His very own North Carolina would be the perfect place for such a move—Senator Elizabeth Dole is a weak re-election candidate in this cycle with no “star” Democrat having yet emerged in opposition. If Edwards were to withdraw and place the bulk of his current resources into a Senatorial race he would be far better financed than Dole, with equal or better name recognition and a better record for this cycle…not to mention that Dole has no real weapon to use against Elizabeth Edwards, should the two of them choose to run against Dole.

--Does Edwards find his future as a transelectional figure? There is evidence to support the proposition that he could. Here’s what we know: First, there is today an organization called One Corps that is operated in parallel with the Edwards campaign; and it is dedicated to providing a place for volunteer activists to gather in an effort to alleviate some of the disparities addressed by the “Two Americas” discussion.

It is not difficult to imagine Edwards travelling around the nation addressing One Corps events and giving a “Two Americas” presentation that over time has an effect similar to Al Gore’s not-so-quixotic journey giving the “Inconvenient Truth” lectures…and it’s not so tough to picture Edwards linking up with Bill Gates, Jimmy Carter, Bono, and others, to take the whole thing international—essentially creating an worldwide “People’s PAC” that could influence policy here and abroad around the growing “Two Worlds” question.

--Might Edwards simply leave the race as other Democrats have done? As of today the Edwards camp seems determined to continue the journey, presumably seeking a role to play either in this phase of the campaign, in the runup to the convention, or at the convention itself.

If this continues to be true, it suggests that Edwards is more likely to remain than to withdraw, as long as he has access to resources…and as long as neither Clinton nor Obama do something so odious as to make Edwards feel he can no longer deny the other his support.

And with all that said, it’s probably time to sum it up:

--It is entirely possible that either Edwards or one of the other candidates might be seeking a deal.

--It is also possible that Edwards will not be making any deals, but is remaining in the contest to deny another the nomination.

--Edwards might seek another elective office, and opportunity exists today in North Carolina.

--He might choose to advance causes he finds important beyond this electoral cycle by enlarging the One Corps structure or something similar.

--He might simply withdraw into retirement or private sector employment. My own “guesstimation” is that he will be unlikely to do so when the option of One Corps already exists--and offers an excellent “fallback” position for a potential ’10 or ‘12 campaign cycle candidate with no particular contest yet identified.

All of this is contingent on Elizabeth Edwards’ health status, I suspect; and an unfortunate change in her current relatively good health could alter all of these calculations dramatically.

And I think, for the moment, that’s where we stand: at a currently unknown point in the Edwards endgame that may become far more clear after the February 5th delegates are counted…or it may become far more muddied, to the delight of every political pundit in the country.

In about eight days, we’ll find out.

Ohio’s electorate is not reflective of the state’s voting eligible population, according to a new report by Project Vote. “Ohio Votes: Civic Engagement in the Buckeye State,” written by Benjamin Spears, examines disparities in registration and voting rates by race/ethnicity, income and age.

Key findings from "Ohio Votes" include:

+Ohio's population became more diverse from 2002 to 2006; in part because of a net decline in the White population and in part because the Latino and Asian populations grew by of 14 and 17 percent, respectively.

+A greater percentage of eligible White and Black Ohioans were registered in 2006 than in 2002.

Ohio's registration rate disparity between White and Black eligible voters was more pronounced in non-presidential elections, including 2002 and 2006.

+Ohioans were more likely to have voted in the 2006 election than were Americans as a whole.

=Older voters make up a larger share of the electorate than their share of the voting-eligible population merits: 4 of 5 Ohioans over age 30 were registered to vote; less than 3 of 5 Ohioans under 30 were registered.

+The disparity in voting rates between racial and ethnic groups in Ohio widened between 2002 and 2006.

"Ohio Votes” was cited in a news conference by Ohio ACORN, which is launching a voter registration drive. According to Ohio public radio:

ACORN Columbus Chair Donald Coulter says young adults, lower income citizens and people of color are underrepresented in Ohio's electorate.

"Only 66 percent of Ohioans earning less than $25,000 per year are registered to vote," Coulter says. "That is compared to 88 percent of Ohioans earning over $100,000 per year."

Coulter says that while 72 percent of white Ohioans are registered, only 65 percent of blacks are. He called the numbers "troubling disparities."

Ohio Votes's author, Benjamin Spears, said of the campaign, “ACORN is making an important contribution towards closing the registration gaps identified in Ohio Votes,” said Spears. "Ohio Votes" continues Project Vote’s work documenting disparities in the electorate. Earlier reports include “Who Votes in the Bluegrass State,” also by Benjamin Spears, and “Representational Bias in the U.S. Electorate," by Doug R Hess.

An open thread to which I invite you to share what you are reading, thinking, viewing but don't feel like writing a dissertation about.

Have you noticed that every state this election cycle is a "bellwether" of some type of group?

• Iowa - Bellwether for evangelicals voters (GOP), bellwether for the young voters (Democratic).
• New Hampshire - Bellwether for the Independent voters.
• Nevada - Bellwether for the union workers (Democratic), bellwether for the Mormons (GOP).
• Michigan - Bellwether for economics policy.
• South Carolina - Bellwether for African-American voters.

Now, it appears that Florida will be the bellwether for Latino voters.

Considering Oregon is historically ignored in national elections, it'll be interesting to see what kind of bellwether our votes will portend.

I was just using my browser's bookmark to The Times, and the first thing that popped out at me was a link to where the candidates stand on Iraq. And right below it were links to where they stood on three other critical issues. Clearly The Times thinks those things matter to readers.

I had to agree: surely all of us care deeply, surely readers want to think about where the candidates stand, surely controversy alone stimulates discussion, and surely that kind of discussion is exactly what TPM Cafe should be doing. Isn't it why we're all here?

And then I came to TPM Cafe, and it seems to me that Josh feels the answer is no. Am I wrong? I have to say that I've been very disappointed in the number of posts simply shilling for candidates, and I suspect that at least some others are, too.

We have plenty of posts on candidates, by MJR, Reed, Larry, and recently an invited guest from the Obama campaign. And every one of them is either at the level of, gee, this person is so cool or this person is such a slime. Are others put off by that as much as I? Both posts seem to me to misrepresent the candidates and to distort the political process. They also echo the kind of campaigning that is going to get us in trouble by feeding GOP attacks, even if some of the posts complaining about opposing candidates seem to be denouncing them for doing just that.

I realize that our regular posters are entitled to strong opinions about the candidates. We all have them, and anyone we respect enough to read regularly is worth our patience when they go a little overboard. But again, one poster was an invited guest, and this is all we are seeing. I realize, too, that politics gets TPM Cafe more comments and more hits, and this is a business, too.

Still, I think it's the wrong way to go. I can see evidence that others do, too. I've seen comments talking about "shilling." I've seen the most fervent comments and blogs sticking to anger at Clinton's hawkishness and at one stance or another on health-insurance mandates. Maybe those comments are mistaken about where the candidates stand, but they're there. there are too many die-hard partisan commenters that I simply scroll right by. And Josh over at TPM felt he had to defend himself against mere horse-race coverage. Conversely,

Where is this site going? And is it too late to turn it around?

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

FISA today -- The United States Senate will take up the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act again in a few minutes. A cloture vote on further debate and action is scheduled for 4:30 PM, ET. I posted about the first FISA showdown last week and often about civil liberties and intelligence in the past. And there is some very good news:

BREAKING: Hillary Clinton To Vote “No” On Cloture Tomorrow UPDATE: Barack Obama Will Be There Too, this from Firedoglake (1/27). From the same source you can see a "Thank You Senator Dodd video," a NY Roots project effort here.

This entire controversy is extremely complicated. Today's post is my attempt to consolidate some of the best references on line. Excellent reads helped fill in the latest for me on the news and issues. Glenn Greenwald's well-written column, Saturday 1/26 is called "More disruptions to the Cheney/Rockefeller plan." EmptyWheel at Firedoglake's column on "Bush's Secret Cyber Initiative" came out on 1/26. And from 1/25 you should also read: "How to Lead: Chris Dodd Edition" and "Reid on FISA, It's up to the President."

Friday I took some action via Jane Hamshire's "Take Action Today" post, below. Using the 800-numbers provided, I talked to the offices of Senators Milulski, Johnson, Landrieu, Nelson (Neb.), Salazar, McCaskill, Specter, and my own senators, Hutchison and Cornyn. I asked each staff member to urge their senator to vote against the cloture motion this afternoon. There is still time for you to make some calls, too.

Update 2:46 PM ET --Senator Arlen Specter is going to vote against cloture and urging others to do so. Good News!

Action Central Resources:

• Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake -- "Take Action Today." This includes a wonderful list of Capitol "1-800" phone numbers where you can reach your senator with a free phone call.
• Stop the Spying! -- Speak out against telecom immunity with your photos, videos and phone calls!
• Electronic Frontier Foundation -- NSA Spying Overview, excellent! This organization has gone to court on our behalf.
• American Civil Liberties Union "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" Safe and Free, restore our constitutional rights.
• Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com -- Just the best; check him our regularly if you can only read one!
• empty wheel at Firedoglake -- Among the most knowledgeable on the subject!
• 
  
• Know Your Enemy: Senator Christopher Bond's arguments against civil liberties -- "The Facts Strike Back on FISA" (13 p. pdf)

It's amazing to watch Foxman pontificate, ad nauseam and infinitum, about his beloved Israel, without using words, like: “occupation,” “bulldozer,” “Rachel Corrie,” “Rafah,“ “torture,” “Sabra & Shatila,“ Apartheid Wall,” “refugee camps,” “displaced persons,” “demolition orders,” “UN Security Council Resolution 242,” “Jenin,” “collective punishment,” “illegal settlements,” “detention without trial” and “Geneva Convention.” How does Foxman get away with ignoring the truth about the tragic fate of the Palestinians under Israeli rule? How?

by William Hughes

Americans almost made it through the year without being subjected to yet another boring spiel from the Anti-Defamation League’s chief honcho and know-it-all, Abe Foxman. Unfortunately, on Dec. 27, 2003, the “Washington Post,” opened its Op Ed Page to the old windbag. If there was any justice left in the world, it should have made Foxman take out a paid advertisement in order to do his egregious pimping for Zionist Israel.

Foxman’s latest rant is entitled, “Open to Debate in Israel.” I wondered after reading it: Shouldn’t he be required to register with the U.S. Justice Department as an agent for a foreign-based principal? Huh? Keep in mind, that he makes $450,000 a year for being a one-man, hot-air propaganda machine. At a minimum, Foxman, a card carrying Zionist, should have been required by the editors of the “Washington Post,” to come clean, on the record, about all of his Israeli connections, so that an unsuspecting reading public would have been put on notice about his biases.

In any event, Foxman was all in a tizzy. No, this time, it wasn’t Mel Gibson’s soon-to-be-released movie, “The Passion of Christ,” that was arousing his ire. Foxman was upset because his favorite country, Israel, was recently criticized at Geneva, by Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli minister of justice, and Yasser Abed Rabbo, an ex-Palestinian information minister. They were advocating a peace plan for the Middle East. Foxman claims their action threatens, “to delegitimize and isolate the Israeli government.” He also whined that they were attacking “Israel’s fundamental legitimacy as a sovereign state.” Poor Israel! Poor Americans, too, who read Foxman’s contrived drivel!

The pompous ADL boss thinks this so-called, “Geneva Accord,” (an unofficial framework for Middle East peace), is all part of a sinister plot to “disrespect Israel’s democratic institutions.” Oh, come off it, Foxman! That sounds like classic conspiracy mongering to me.

Some critics, like Amnesty International, however, have dared to directly challenge Israel’s claim to be a democracy, particularly for its use of fascist-like death squads. I’m sure even Foxman would agree there isn’t anything “democratic” about Israeli thugs killing unarmed Palestinians, without a trial or even any semblance of due process of law. (And, by the way, when, if ever, is Elie Wiesel, who once wrote, “To remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all...” going to address the Israeli death squads’ issue?)

In the last three years alone, over 152 Palestinians have been targeted for extra judicial assassination by the Tel Aviv-based operatives (phrmg.org). It would be interesting to know: How exactly do Sharon’s death squads function? Does the Israeli Cabinet have to officially approve of each designated murder? Is there a written record of the death squad meetings? Or, is it done, with nods and winks, by a death squad committee? Who decides in Israel, what Palestinian will be executed and which Palestinian will live? If an official in the Sharon regime insists that a certain Palestinian is a “militant,” does that unchallenged comment become a death sentence for the particular Palestinian? And, do Sharon’s death squads plan any targeted hits outside Israel: like say, in Iraq, Europe, or even in the U.S.? (If it’s the latter, I would like to know because my “Hate Mail” file is growing at an alarming rate since my latest book, accusing the Israel First Brigade of helping to bring on the Iraq War, was published.)

It is simply amazing to watch Foxman pontificate, in the media, ad nauseam, ad infinitum, about his beloved Israel, without once using words, like: “occupation,” “bulldozer,” “Rachel Corrie,” “Rafah,“ “torture,” “Sabra & Shatila,“ Apartheid Wall,” “refugee camps,” “displaced persons,” “demolition orders,” “UN Security Council Resolution 242,” “Jenin,” “collective punishment,” “human shields,” “illegal settlements,” “detention without trial” and “Geneva Convention.” How does Foxman get away with ignoring the truth about the tragic fate of the Palestinians under Israeli rule? How?

Foxman swears Israel has a “healthy democracy” because oppositional figures are heard all of the time. Sure, they are! Unless, of course, they are protesting its notorious Apartheid Wall, than they can be shot by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) with live ammunition, like Israeli activist Gil Naamati was last Friday (“Baltimore Sun,” 12/29/03).

Source: Media Monitors

This article might seem outdated, but all one has to do is substitute the name Olmert for Sharon to bring this into the present.

How do the Israel Hit Squads function? They probably use the Gestapo and SS manuals from WW II.

Hello, Democrat Party. I hear CNN reporters using the construction, even people on Air America, referring to a "Democrat candidate" or similar. Ted Danson, supporting Clinton, used the term on Stephanie Miller's show.

I used to be a Democratic voter.

I'm annoyed that the Democratic Party has not fought to stay that. Did they agree? Or did they hope it would go away like Kerry hoped about the Swift-Boaters?

Since I am becoming a Democrat voter I am going to start always referring to Republic candidates and voters. If I'm going to sound like a bureaucrat they're going to remind people of the limits on democracy inherent in their policies.

Last year I posted a piece on how our government had essentially shortchanged whistle blowers, who had gone against their own best interests, to report corruption by contractors hired to aid us in the reconstruction of Iraq. In that post, I noted how our government seemed to be engaged in a "shoot the messenger" mentality, where they saw the whistle blowers as trouble makers, or bad apples, instead of the companies whom evidence indicated where in fact culpable of far more egregious crimes.

In this post, I will focus on the case of a former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds who has made a series of serious allegations which if true, could be one of the biggest espionage scandals in our nation's history. Before proceeding, please note that the question mark in the title of this post reflects the fact that this is the first time I've ever come across this case, and apart from the articles cited, there seems to be very little evidence that corroborates her allegations. As you will see, however, this may be partly due to a state-secrets gag order issued by then Attorney General John Ashcroft, following a lawsuit filed by Edmonds seeking documents related to her firing by the FBI. Since then, she has been subjected to another Federal order which, as Philip Giraldi notes, "is so sweeping that it precludes even a closed hearing attended only by officials with top-secret security clearances," effectively silencing her, and retroactively classifying statements she made before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the 9/11 Commission.

This is not the first time Ms. Edmonds has been in the spotlight. In August of 2004, CBS among others wrote an article describing mismanagement and corruption at the FBI's language division. In that article, Ms. Edmonds described how, in the aftermath of 9/11, her supervisors in the division told her and others to go slow in translating documents in Turkish and Farsi, the end goal of this was to support requests for increased funding. Ms. Edmonds claims that the managers went so far as to delete her completed translations from her hard drive, as punishment for her efficiency in translating these documents. Ms. Edmonds told CBS that she submitted a complaint with management in the agency, but received no response. Next, she turned to the Justice Department and to Sen. Grassley who at the time chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee and had direct oversight over the FBI. Sen. Grassley found her to be very credible (Sen. Leahy has also vouched for her credibility).

At the time, Ms. Edmonds claims she also alerted the FBI to the fact that another translator, Jan Dickerson, belonged to a Turkish organization being investigated by the FBI's counter-intelligence unit, and that she not only had tried to recruit Ms. Edmonds, but also provided the FBI with incomplete translations of documents that left out vital information to the FBI's investigation. Information that would have revealed that Turkish operatives were working as moles within the State Department and the Pentagon. When she alerted her superiors and the special agent in charge of the investigation about what she found, no one wanted to hear about it. Shortly thereafter, not only was she fired, "her home computer was seized; her family in Turkey was visited by police and threatened with arrest if they did not submit to questioning about an unspecified 'intelligence matter.'"

To continue reading, please click here.

A friend of mine, active in Democratic politics in the Tampa area, is royally PO'd about Florida not having a say in who the Democratic nominee is.

A Hillary supporter, he is blaming Howard Dean for what is another file item in his "Democratic Party self-destructiveness" folder. He sees this as de-energizing Florida Dems, whose best efforts obviously will be helpful and quite possibly pivotal if Democrats are to win in November.

Hillary is making a good political move making an issue of this. Especially if we head into the convention with the delegate count difference between the frontrunners within the margin of delegates Florida and Michigan have between them, to not count those delegates is going to be tough for the DNC to stick to, regardless of whether it would be the right thing to do or not. (And, on the merits, I'm inclined to agree that the rules should not be changed in midstream.)

It flies entirely in the face of the Democratic party's occasional/sometimes theme or mantra of "counting every vote", itself tarnished in Nevada. The candidate who says Florida's delegates should count builds good will among all Floridians who agree.

So let's hope this looming trainwreck can be avoided and the nomination doesn't get decided with this issue in the mix. We're making it difficult enough for ourselves as it is.

As someone who spent a lot of time and energy sticking up for Bill Clinton throughout the 90s', including in his many dark hours, I am among the many who are turned off by some of the things he's been saying of late.

I know the Clinton campaign wants to marginalize Obama as another Jesse Jackson--in fact I'd written an earlier blog post about a concern I have that Obama might be so at pains to distinguish himself as the "non-Jesse Jackson candidate" that he might shy away from advocating ideas which some identify as "left" even where those are excellent ideas.

But Obama is not Jesse Jackson and we are seeing some of the blowback that comes from making that association among many savvy and committed Dem activists whose support, or at least lack of total hostility, the Clinton campaign will desperately need.

I am also put off by the robo-calling the Clinton campaign engaged in at the last minute to try to take Edwards out in South Carolina. What they said re his employment with the Wall Street firm making foreclosure money off the misery of others was out of line, I felt. This has been a rare exception of late to the two frontrunners laying off Edwards, at least unless and until they know they can win the nomination without support from him and his supporters.

So the Clinton campaign at the moment is working hard to court this Dem's ill will, at any rate.

While in Tennessee, on Friday, Hillary Clinton announced that she would be asking her delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention to support seating the Michigan and Florida delegations at the convention. Her campaign also posted a statement by its candidate at its Hillary for President site:

I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

The statement was duly reported in the mainstream press and various representatives of the Democratic National Committee made brief comments to the effect either that the delegations would not be seated or that the matter would be decided by the Credentials Committee in due course.

Clinton’s campaign later announced that she would be attending three fund raising events in Florida, on January 27th, the Sunday before voters there go to the polls. Attending such events is permissible under the agreement the candidates signed not to campaign in the state.

John Edwards, it seems, has already attended similar events held in the state in behalf of own his candidacy. But, while he snuck in and snuck out, Clinton’s visits have been fully covered by the press. Florida voters have seen the candidate and can only be aware of her appeal for them to be represented at the party’s convention.

On Sunday, Clinton upped the ante yet again. She announced on CBS's Face the Nation that she would be back in Florida on the eve of the Democratic Un-Primary, on January 29th. Her visit will be timed to avoid any appearance of last-minute campaigning in the state. The agreement with the DNC, however, does not forbid the winner of the un-primary from making a highly televised victory speech, after the polls close, and it may be expected that she will do just that.

Barack Obama’s recent landslide victory in the South Carolina Primary is far more important than mere vote-tally or delegate allocation can represent. South Carolina is the last official Democratic contest before 22 states hold primaries on Super Tuesday (February 5th), the last major news story that the many millions of voters who will go to the polls that day will have on their minds. Their impression, as they pull the lever, touch the touch-screen, etc., will be of Barack Obama as a popular landslide winner, the exciting up-and-coming candidate.

Or will it? Not if the Clinton campaign can help it. They are, quite understandably, intent upon leaving voters with a major Clinton win in Florida as their most recent impression. Hillary will then be every bit as much an up-and-comer as Barack with a suddenly meaningful (perhaps even a “landslide”) victory of her own in Florida.

For this reason, the inevitable battle over seating the Michigan and Florida delegations, at the 2008 Democratic Convention, has gotten an early start. Hillary Clinton needs the result of the Florida Un-Primary, in particular, to be meaningful in voters minds in order to head off a major swing in momentum toward Barack Obama at this crucial juncture in the primary campaign.

By Candace Talmadge/North Star Writers Group

Tonight George W. Bush gives his final State of the Union address. According to a very recent Harris Interactive online poll, most of us (81 percent) think the state of this nation is only fair to poor.

The Harris online survey of 2,302 U.S. adults, conducted between Jan. 15 and 22, also found that 61 percent of Republicans think the country’s state is fair to poor. Even more ominous for GOP chances in November, 87 percent of those independent swing voters think the state of the nation is fair to poor.

Read more here: http://www.northstarwriters.com/ct076.htm

I blogged a while back about a WWII LST which I toured here in Alton, IL. At that time, some of the comments asked which LST my Dad served on and I've finally received his records. My Dad's ship was the LST 898, the USS Lincoln County. He boarded her in Pittsburgh as soon as she was launched and took her down the Mississippi River passing within 15 miles of his hometown of Sledge, Mississippi.

He told me he was tempted to jump ship as they passed Helena, Arkansas because he knew he could walk home from there. He was 20 years old.

I was 20 when I went to Vietnam. We never talked much about either of our "adventures" and I regret that so much.

In my interviews working on this PTSD book, I've talked to so many veterans who have similar regrets. There are too many fathers who never tell their stories to sons and daughters.

Locking those "memories" in that dark place where we keep them is such a devastating and destructive behavior and so many stories are lost forever because of that trend.

I interviewed another PTSD counselor here in Illinois last week. We discussed how so many never talk about those "things" because it is too painful. I told him what a shame it was for those stories to be lost. He asked me a profound question: "Have you told your son EVERYTHING?"

Wow! That really hit home. He smiled, looked at me inquisitively and nodded.

I've told my kids several times over the years that I would leave a written record of my life for them. In some ways, maybe these blogs are the beginning of that but I still have yet to put one word on paper to keep that promise. I'm going to do that before this year is over if I live that long.

Another discussion I had with Lewis, the counselor, was how many self-destructive tendencies PTSD causes. I told him what I've told other veterans when this subject comes up: "I'm not nearly as stupid as some of the things I've done in my life." That's my joking way to avoid following through on a conversation I don't really want to have.

I'll get into some of the suicidal/self-destructive things veterans have told me about during this research later but according to Lewis the latest fad for returning vets is to get one of those "rocket" motorcycles and see how fast it will go. Subconsciously hoping for a blowout or a deer to do what they can't contemplate consciously.

I've never had a car or motorcycle I haven't had to its top speed. I know what he's talking about.

More later. I just wanted to put the link to my Dad's ship up. In the past couple of days since I found out which one it was, I've looked at the picture many times and thought about that 20 year old looking over the rails wondering if a Japanese submarine or Kamikazi pilot might find them in that vast Pacific Ocean.

He made it back so I was born. I made it back so my kids were born. So many weren't born because their fathers didn't make it back. That is a tragedy beyond description.

Research for this article was supported by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute.

Although nukes and Iraq have been the main focus of the Bush Administration's pressure campaign against Iran, US officials also seek to tar Iran as the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. And Team Bush's latest tactic is to play up a thirteen-year-old accusation that Iran was responsible for the notorious Buenos Aires bombing that destroyed the city's Jewish Community Center, known as AMIA, killing eighty-six and injuring 300, in 1994. Unnamed senior Administration officials told the Wall Street Journal January 15 that the bombing in Argentina "serves as a model for how Tehran has used its overseas embassies and relationship with foreign militant groups, in particular Hezbollah, to strike at its enemies."

This propaganda campaign depends heavily on a decision last November by the General Assembly of Interpol, which voted to put five former Iranian officials and a Hezbollah leader on the international police organization's "red list" for allegedly having planned the July 1994 bombing. But the Wall Street Journal reports that it was pressure from the Bush Administration, along with Israeli and Argentine diplomats, that secured the Interpol vote. In fact, the Bush Administration's manipulation of the Argentine bombing case is perfectly in line with its long practice of using distorting and manufactured evidence to build a case against its geopolitical enemies.

After spending several months interviewing officials at the US Embassy in Buenos Aires familiar with the Argentine investigation, the head of the FBI team that assisted it and the most knowledgeable independent Argentine investigator of the case, I found that no real evidence has ever been found to implicate Iran in the bombing. Based on these interviews and the documentary record of the investigation, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the case against Iran over the AMIA bombing has been driven from the beginning by US enmity toward Iran, not by a desire to find the real perpetrators.

A 'Wall of Assumptions'

US policy toward the bombing was skewed from the beginning by a Clinton Administration strategy of isolating Iran, adopted in 1993 as part of an understanding with Israel on peace negotiations with the Palestinians. On the very day of the crime, before anything could have been known about who was responsible, Secretary of State Warren Christopher blamed "those who want to stop the peace process in the Middle East"--an obvious reference to Iran.

William Brencick, then chief of the political section at the US Embassy in Buenos Aires and the primary Embassy contact for the investigation, recalled in an interview with me last June that a "wall of assumptions" guided the US approach to the case. The primary assumptions, Brencick said, were that the explosion was a suicide bombing and that use of a suicide bomb was prima facie evidence of involvement by Hezbollah--and therefore Iran.

But the suicide-bomber thesis quickly encountered serious problems. In the wake of the explosion, the Menem government asked the United States to send a team to assist in the investigation, and two days after the bombing, experts from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms arrived in Buenos Aires along with three FBI agents. According to an interview the head of the team, ATF explosives expert Charles Hunter, gave to a team of independent investigators headed by US journalist Joe Goldman and Argentine investigative journalist Jorge Lanata, as soon as the team arrived the federal police put forward a thesis that a white Renault Trafic van had carried the bomb that destroyed the AMIA.

Hunter quickly identified major discrepancies between the car-bomb thesis and the blast pattern recorded in photos. He wrote a report two weeks later noting that in the wake of the bombing, merchandise in a store immediately to the right of the AMIA was tightly packed against its front windows and merchandise in another shop had been blown out onto the street--suggesting that the blast came from inside rather than outside. Hunter also said he did not understand how the building across the street could still be standing if the bomb had exploded in front of the AMIA, as suggested by the car-bomb thesis.

The lack of eyewitness evidence supporting the thesis was just as striking. Of some 200 witnesses on the scene, only one claimed to have seen a white Renault Trafic. Several testified they were looking at the spot where the Trafic should have been when the explosion occurred and saw nothing. Nicolasa Romero, the wife of a Buenos Aires policeman, was that lone witness. She said she saw a white Renault Trafic approach the corner where she was standing with her sister and her 4-year-old son. But Romero's sister testified that the vehicle that passed them was not a white Trafic but rather a black-and-yellow taxi. Other witnesses reported seeing a black-and-yellow taxi seconds before the explosion.

Argentine prosecutors argued that pieces of a white Trafic embedded in the flesh of many of the victims of the explosion proved their case for a suicide bomb. But that evidence was discredited by Gabriel Levinas, a researcher for AMIA's own legal team. Levinas is a member of a leading Jewish family in Buenos Aires who had published a human rights magazine during the dictatorship (his uncle's car was used to kidnap war criminal Adolf Eichmann and spirit him off to Israel for trial in 1982.)

See more stories tagged with: iran, hawks, bush, lies

http://www.alternet.org/story/74331/

http://911review.org
http://911review.stumbleupon.com/
http://godandall.blogspot.com/
http://batcave911.blogspot.com/
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/911review

That question was posed by John Aravosis, a polling analyst writing for Americablog.com, as the final question in the final paragraph:

Look at the distance the polls moved from the end of November to today. Hillary went from 40% to 27% today. But far more important, Obama went from maybe 28% to 55% today. That's an insane rise. Hell, look at the polls from the past few days - Obama never got above the mid 40s. Yet today he got 55%. Something happened. But what?

This question has been bandied about on all the Sunday talk shows, on op-ed pages, and on blogs to explain Obama's blow-out victory in South Carolina after a punishing week of Clinton double-teaming and poll-tested pundits writing his obituary--or, at the very least, conceding him a pyhhric victory as the "black candidate," unable to hold the white vote. 

(Which is funny, considering that six months ago those same pontificators were questioning whether he was "black enough" to win black votes, and hailing Bill Clinton's huge pull with black voters.  By last week, they were standing aside while Clinton disparagingly compared Obama to Jesse Jackson--code words to the bigots of the world who lump Jackson together with Al Sharpton as the worst spokesmen African Americans could ever have, with virtually no crossover appeal to whites.)

Something happened, all right.  But what?

Yeah, I'm going with the title of Time magazine's cover story a couple weeks ago, after New Hampshire:  It's the Voters, Stupid. 

The voters keep upending polls and slinging aside conventional wisdom--in large part because of a massive revolt against The Mainstream Media.

Hillary took New Hampshire for one reason I see very few of these mostly-male jackasses getting:  the Sistuh-Vote.

Women who had no intention of voting for Hillary watched the mostly-male jackasses like Chris Matthews and Bill Krystol howling and yowling about everything from the way she sits (Rush Limbaugh nastily pointed out that, at the debate, she was "the only one on stage who couldn't cross her legs"--which meant, I suppose, that either her dick was too big or maybe she couldn't relax like the cool boys.  But as any woman over 40 knows who spent any time in either an all-girls school or the South, a lady is taught to sit WITH HER ANKLES CROSSED, for obvious reasons.  Check out any on-stage photo of Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush and you'll see them sitting with their ankles crossed.)--to her "witch cackle" laugh, to her supposedly phony tears, to her nagging voice--("Every time she talks, I hear TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE," said one.)--to the state of her marriage to the calculation of her positions and on and on and on.

So loud and hateful did the chorus get, that even women who didn't much care for Hillary were moved to remember incidents in their own lives where they had to put up with that kind of crap, either at work or at home, and they pretty much collectively thought, You know what?  Screw you, boys.

They still haven't quite figured it out, even though Media Matters and thousands of viewers forced an insincere apology from Matthews. 

So then along came South Carolina, and Yoda the Top Dawg Democrat was let off his leash big-time, attacking Obama on things he didn't say as well as things he did.  At the debate, when Obama tried to defend himself, Hillary was landing punches both above and below the belt, then accusing him of "going negative and abandoning the politics of hope" when he spoke out in self-defense. 

The combined effect was like if, say, Mohammed Ali had faced off with both George Foreman AND Sonny Liston in one boxing ring, with no rules, and no referee.  His rope-a-dope might not have lasted as long if he'd had to fight off two opponents in the same round with no bell to give him a rest.

The voters went to the polls with that in their heads, and they were thinking, Fight fair or get out of the ring.

And they were also thinking, Just because you've got a bully pulpit on TV or the radio, it doesn't mean that you know everything.

For Barack Obama to get as many white male votes as both Clinton and Edwards, in a state that still flies the Confederate flag, should put the lie to the idea that he is merely a black candidate with a black base--which he had already proved in Iowa, a state that is 97% white.

It's more than that, though, and we all know it is.

If the Clintons wanted to remind voters of the 90's this past week, then they certainly did, only not in the way they might have intended.  As I have stated before, I've supported them both in the past, and I do think he was an outstanding president. 

But to bring the Clintons back to the White House will also bring back everything they brought with them before:  discord, division, distractions--molten, irrational hatred from so many people, but also, one big fight after another when accusations are made and they go into bunker-mode to refute and defend against them. 

From the "bimbo eruptions" of the '92 campaign all the way to Travelgate and Whitewater and Paula Jones--every time the right wing threw a new accusation at them, it was HILLARY who hunkered down to fight.  It was Hillary who withheld documents that had been requested an unneccessarily long time, for instance.  And it was Hillary who insisted that Bill not settle with Paula Jones, but instead, to fight.

We all know how that turned out. 

That's just a quick mention of one or two scandals and arguments, and yes, it was ridiculously unfair and yes, it was motivated by some kind of insane desire to get them out of the White House, but the point is that it existed, and will again. 

Do we really want to go through all that again?

All it takes is one broad selling her "story" to a tabloid about how she and Bill got it on at the Clinton library to start the whole damn thing over again.  It does not have to be true.  It just has to exist.  And it will.

There are more complicated things going on here, too.  As a feminist, I resent that the first truly viable female candidate for president has to hide behind her big strong husband to do her dirty work for her.  The fact that she rose to power on his coat-tails doesn't bother me quite as much, because most women of our generation either had to do something along those lines or had to be mentored by a strong male to rise to the highest levels of power.  It's just the way things were in the 70's and 80's for those of us trying to move up in male-dominated fields. 

But now that she has the power and position, then every time he dominates press coverage, it diminishes her.

And he WILL dominate press coverage, because that is his disease.  He can't help it.  He's an addict.  He ruined "their" first presidency--as George Stephanopoulous put it in his autobiography, and believe me, he will ruin this one as well.

Another complicated factor is the slim margin Democrats have in Congress, the margin that is too slim to end a war, for instance.  Many of that narrow majority came from red states.  They know that if they have to be "married" to Hillary on the ballot in November, it could cost them their seats.  Which would mean another Republican majority fighting a Clinton presidency.  Believe me, by the end of the first four years, voters would be so sick of the Clintons they'd put ANY Republican in the White House.

IF she could win it at all.  And that brings me to the scariest proposition:  John McCain.  He is the most electible Republican.  Yes, conservatives hate him, but that only endears him to moderates and Independents.  If Hillary smacks down Obama because of all her "experience," then when she goes up against McCain, that will be a laughable argument.  He has waaaay more experience than she does, and it was not done vicariously, through his spouse.

A dispirited, discouraged Republican party would be ELECTRIFIED to slap down Hillary, even if they had to vote for someone they didn't really like.  Add to that the man-crush the media has on him: Big strong war hero!  Straight-talker!  Maverick!--then any dirty tricks they'd pull on him would likely backfire.

And John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for one hundred years.  Just today, in fact, he was talking about "other wars" we'll have to be embroiled in, as if Iraq and Afghanistan aren't enough. 

This is scary, folks.

Conservative columnist George Will said something surprising today on Stephanopoulos.  He said that for real change to truly take place in Washington, there has to be a MANDATE, a landslide victory.  He pointed out the civil rights change of 1964, following Johnson's landslide victory, and mentioned several others.  He said that even if Hillary should squeak out a victory, it will be, at best, yet another fifty-plus-one majority--hardly a mandate.  Which means she would have that much more of a struggle trying to effect any kind of change. 

He hinted, as have at least a dozen other conservative commentators I have read, that Obama has the potential to pull out a true landslide victory.  Republicans and conservatives I have spoken to in this red state have all told me that they would not mind an Obama presidency.  And with that kind of good will, he really could transform not just Washington, but this country.

Worldwide, he's getting a similar reaction on op-ed pages from London to Germany.

Here in this country, primary voters have a lot of thinking to do, and they are taking it seriously.  Voter turn-outs for Democrats have broken all the records, as well as all the expectations.

In his victory speech, Obama said something that resonated with me.  I'm paraphrasing from memory, but it was something to the effect that "this election isn't about black or white, or red state or blue state, or young or old, or Democrat or Republican; this election is about the past or the future."

There's a lot that's comforting about going back to the 90's with the Clintons.  But I think that by the end of this campaign, voters are going to be reminded of just what that truly means--not just the warm-fuzzy soft-focus memory-lane version--but the hard-core reality-check version, when we're all reminded about just how exhausting it was.

As one blogpost I read on Huffingtonpost.com said--and I can't find it now, so apologies to the author for no link--America, we still have time.

There is time to keep sending messages, through the primary ballot box, to the Clintons and the Democratic party machine that backs them, that we don't want to go back to the 90's.  As Barack Obama says, That was  16 years ago.  It's 2008, now.

We want to go forward. 

It’s amazing how a presidential candidate coming from 20-30 points behind in all the polls, being up against two of the most popular figures in our nation’s history, can end up getting within the margin of error or even beat those two historical figures, in a primary or caucus; but he’s done it. Barack Obama not only won in South Carolina, he won by a wide margin, something like 27 points. He won in large part because of getting 81% of the black votes (male and female), but he also got a health three way share of the white men/women, all age voters. In other words, he slaughtered Bill and Hillary Clinton in their (own) territory.

Barack won the caucus in Iowa. In the New Hampshire and Nevada primary/caucus, Barack ended up with more delegates then Hillary, even though she won in those states. Obama now has 63 delegates to Hillary’s 48 and John Edwards’s 26.

Obama also won a larger portion of the Independent and republican voters in those States which shows he has crossover ability.

He’s experienced months of ‘Republican’ like attacks from two highly regarded members of his own Party (The Clinton’s). He’s also gone up against the Democratic Party establishment, who’s supporting Hillary. He’s heard flat out lies about his religion, his belief that the war in Iraq was wrong and his campaign being somewhat like a fairy tale. Because he pointed out Reagan’s ability to get a broad range of voters to his side, Democrats, Independents and Republicans, he was accused of somehow praising Reagan’s Republican policies.

In other words, Barack Obama’s faced the beginnings of a General Election and is still winning.

All during this unprecedented experience, Obama continues to believe we are not a blue State or a red State, a white or black nation or a Republican/Democrat/Independent nation – we are One Nation. We need to work together to solve the health, immigration, energy and environment issues. He also strongly believes that we need to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home, as safely and quickly as possible.

In my opinion, the war is a success. We’ve removed Saddam’s regime and rebuilt Iraq’s security and governmental forces. It’s time Iraqi’s stood up and we stood down.

I wrote a year ago that I thought Barack Obama would be the best choice to heal America. I continue to believe this.

Coonsey's View

www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

...is what Ezra Klein said times ten.

Nothing would promote bipartisanship more than five fewer Republican Senators. Who's more likely to bring this about?

The continued success of the Party depends on giving Democrats a reason to believe and a reason to participate. A reason to wear the T shirts, walk the streets and bank the phones. A reason to become precinct captains and district chairs. A reason to run for school board and county commissioner and state legislator.

Success also depends on giving Republicans a reason to yawn and say yeah, I guess I'll vote. But I'm not real thrilled with any of these people and I'm not going to write any checks or bank any phones this time around.

The Clintons haven't done this for Democrats. If anything, they do it unintentionally for the Republicans. The Clintons didn't forge a lasting Democratic coalition or build the Democratic Party. They lost all of Congress to the Republicans while trying to save Democrats from themselves.

Barack Obama is a community organizer who turned out enough South Carolina voters to not just win, but to shock and awe. He showed his potential to do what the Clintons, owing mostly to their own failures, have openly dismissed as a "fairy tale."

I've favored Edwards in the past, mostly because once I believed the Clinton "fairy tale" too. I don't think the next Democratic President's aura is going to last a hundred days, without at least five fewer Republican Senators. Edwards, for whatever reason, just isn't attracting that kind of support.

So I'm supporting Obama instead.

My question is broader than it might seem, so I believe that asking the question may both get specific information, as well as opening some interesting discussion on improving US global competitiveness and multilateral relations.

A young friend, now a high school senior, wants to be an Arabic linguist, although she isn't all that interested in working outside the US. She's running a 3.5 GPA, straight A's in French and Spanish, and, while not doing some of the classic extracurriculars, is doing a tremendous amount of work earning money for college -- she has a superb work ethic not really challenged by her high school.

My impression is that the US has assorted programs to encourage high school and college students in becoming proficient in the languages we need. I'm having trouble finding information on relevant scholarships, and indeed finding mentors while someone is still in high school.

The best writeup I've found is NSA's, which really wants people that both are proficient in languages but have additional engineering or science skills. She has taken a forensic course (CSI strikes the educational system), doesn't like the bloody part, but did like the computer forensic parts. She is also decent in math, although at the high school level without outside work.

I can mentor her in computer forensics and security. As far as Arabic, I could guide her more about the culture than the language, but she doesn't yet see the linkage between understanding the culture in which a language is spoken. My Arabic is limited to a few polite and useful phrases, although I understand there is a magnificent curse I would like to learn, which translates to something like "may the fleas of ten thousand camels infest your armpits."

Any suggestions? Are there really programs, reaching down to high school level, encouraging language study in general as a critical national need, but especially the "hard" languages such as Arabic, Farsi, various Chinese dialects, Hindi, Urdu, etc.? Given that she is fluent in French, I might advise Swahili as well as Arabic.

Thoughts? We did get her an Arabic CD course for Christmas, which I'd enjoy studying with her. So far, she hasn't opened it.

Here are the total votes received in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina:

Obama 486,289

Clinton 319,399

McCain 251,173

Edwards 210,555

Huckabee 200,019

Romney 172,229

Thompson 88,255

Paul 46,111

Guiliani 33,952

The two top Republicans combined received fewer votes than Obama alone. Is it any wonder all those GOP Congressman are retiring? It is pretty obvious which party is going to have the better turnout on election day.

The American electorate is desperate for new leadership.* Nine hundred and thirty-five lies of the current administration are but frosting slathered on the towering wedding cake of reasons why:

1. Right Wing -- The bottom white cake layer is the right wing theocratic base of the Republican party. People of color have reason to feel left off the current administration's priority list.
2. Neocon -- The second layer is the marble cake neocon influence on foreign policy. Neocon dogma is a strange marbled combination of hardline Democrat beginnings swirled with current imperialistic ambitions that include military intervention.
3. Incompetence -- The third layer is the one that fell in the oven -- the cake of competence. The current half-baked leadership is remarkable inept in far too many of the key dimensions of leadership.
4. Feeding Fears -- The next layer is yellow cake which is related to fear mongering. This layer is very fluffy, having a mushroom-cloud-like flavor.
5. Aggression -- The layer near the top is the spice-flavored aggression and unilateralism of the U.S. in the Middle East. This cake is characterized by its lumpy unmixed style of go-it-alone diplomacy.
6. Fiscal & Legal Irresponsibility -- The top cake layer is chocolate mocha flavored. The current administration is addicted to the chocolate of runaway spending and the caffeine of law-breaking.

Leadership qualities are what voters are wondering about. What should we look for as we watch political ads or listen to candidates debating, whom to trust to tell the truth? The study of 935 lies is an indicator that the country is ready to face the facts about the dishonest run-up to the war in Iraq. But it will take years to recover. Shameless fear-mongering has debilitated our confidence as a people and called into question OCP's (our current president's) leadership in a very flat world. What can leaders do about our current president (OCP)?

Will Democratic and Republican leaders not running for the presidency be able to assist the electorate in deciding who will be the best for the job? Does the endorsement of a Senator or a Governor indicate that person understands leadership's state of the art? Not necessarily, but some voters may decide that "it takes one to know one." Though endorsements by the leaders we know and trust can help, it is more useful if we make up our own minds based on knowledge.

The tapestry of leadership theory is not that hard to digest. For example, behavior is an indicator of leadership capacity. Good leaders have a vision beyond what is right in front of them or what someone is telling them. A good leader instills confidence in those who are looking to him or her for direction and guidance in difficult matters. Good leaders are trustworthy. They lead by example. Their thoughts words and actions are consistent with those of good leaders from the past, the present and, we hope, in the future. These qualities matter in leaders in all walks of life, whether it be politician, a corporate executive, or a platoon sergeant.

And it is becoming more clear over the years that women can lead and that African Americans can lead. All people who are not white males, thank goodness, can now can be seen as potential leaders. Step back and think what good news that is for non white male members of the electorate who have not had such viable choices in the past.

A crowded roster of candidates -- We could have a worse problem. I sense a renewed hopefulness in the country, an excitement about the possibility that things could change. Else, why would the word "change" get so deeply into the lexicon of most of our candidates. We may be on to something here!

**********

*Reference on wanting to learn about leadership: Recent examples -- Readers often come to this blog as a result of a Google search on leadership and related ideas, terms such as "good qualities of Democratic leaders," "google quotes freedom of fear" (Australia). One visitor did a Yahoo! search on "good leadership qualities."

My links: (Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

Would you sooner trust Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton with effectively leading the United States of America as a unifying servant leader? The answer has got to be Barack Obama. He is not the divisive figure.

Obama can energize majorities and minorities just being who he is, however, his talents of listening, communicating and statesmanlike coalition building also set him apart from others. He's charismatic, yes, however, not frantically so. He's got emotional ballast in his ship, not OPB (Other Peoples' Baggage) or the brittleness of leadership wrapped around ugly, raw ambition.

His speech at Ebenezer Baptist highlighted his focus on moral renewal in areas of morality shamefully neglected by the party in power, especially the sin of neglecting to uplift the poor and their children.

One need only read the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in the Christian gospel to see that many of the GOP'ers have not shown that they value the priority of Christ and the Old Testament prophets so prominently preached in the Good Book.

Let him join the line-up and swing the bat. It is well past time and America needs the power of moral renewal resident in the strongest truth: Those who have been humbled shall be exalted.

Beyond worthy are our African American fellow countrymen. They are one with our confidence, our treasure, our wise, and our strong. How long shall we go without their special wisdom and experience serving the United States of America and lifting her up.

Draw away from this family of Americans all roots of bitterness about the obvious glass cieling, and let them show us an example of leadership that unites Americans as a greater family of all races, creeds, colors, religions and ethnicities.

When we put all of our diverse gifts together, we make America worth emulating abroad. When that is done, no one needs a gun to their head to imitate the freedom and responsibility that can be found in this great country.