As a trial-court judge, Florentino V. Floro Jr. acknowledged that he regularly sought the counsel of three elves only he could see. The Supreme Court deemed him unfit to serve and fired him last year.

Case closed? Not in the Philippines, where vampires are said to prey on unwary travelers and wealthy politicians consult fortune tellers and card readers. Mr. Floro, 54 years old, has become a media celebrity. He is now wielding his new clout to campaign for the return of his job -- and exact vengeance on the Supreme Court.

Helping him, he says, are his three invisible companions. "Angel" is the neutral force, he says. "Armand" is a benign influence. "Luis," whom Mr. Floro describes as the "king of kings," is an avenger.

Mr. Floro has become a regular on Philippine television. Often he is asked to make predictions with the help of his invisible friends. "They say your show will be taken off the air if you don't feature me more often," was Mr. Floro's reply to one interviewer.

 The day after Mr. Floro's first appearance on television last year, hundreds of people turned up at his house in a dusty Manila suburb hoping he could use his supernatural powers to heal their illnesses. Now Mr. Floro, who travels by bus, is regularly recognized on the street.

 The Supreme Court says its medical clinic determined that Mr. Floro was suffering from psychosis. Even so, a series of disturbing incidents appear to have the nation's top jurists rattled. According to local newspaper reports, a mysterious fire in January destroyed the Supreme Court's crest in its session hall, and a number of members of the court and their close family members have developed serious illnesses or have fallen victim to car accidents.

 
Enough bizarre things have happened that in July, the Supreme Court issued an en banc resolution asking Mr. Floro to desist in his threats of "ungodly reprisal." The Supreme Court's spokesman declined to elaborate.

 Mr. Floro says he is not suffering from psychosis, and that he's not to blame for the incidents. He points the finger squarely at "king of kings" elf Luis, who Mr. Floro says is bent on cleaning up what he says is the Philippines' corrupt legal system.

 
Mr. Floro says he never consulted the invisible elves over judicial decisions and the fact that he puts faith in them should make no difference to his career. "It shouldn't matter what I believe in, whether it's Jesus, Muhammad, or Luis, Armand and Angel," he says in an interview.

 The Philippines has a long history of mixing organized religion with a deep belief in the supernatural. During the 1950s and 1960s, when the Southeast Asian nation was already an independent republic, the Central Intelligence Agency stoked fears of vampires and ghouls to help its preferred candidates win elections.

 The elf, or "duwende," is one of a rich pantheon of supernatural beings that predate the Philippines' colonization by Spanish conquistadors in the 16th century. Many Filipinos make pilgrimages to Mount Banahaw, just south of Manila, which is reputedly the country's capital for elves and other beings.

 

READ THE CASE

 

• Read the Philippines Supreme Court decision dismissing Mr. Floro from the service. Url:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/elf-floro-09172007.pdf

 

Jaime Licauco, who teaches parapsychology at San Beda College in Manila, testified on behalf of Mr. Floro in a 2001 hearing. He argued Mr. Floro is mentally fit and argues the former judge's beliefs aren't so unusual in the Philippine context.

Like many others in the Philippines, Mr. Floro says he himself is a Roman Catholic, and once studied to be a priest. He recalls that he wasn't convinced that serving the church was necessarily the best way to serve other Filipinos. He says he thought he could improve more people's lives if he became a lawyer, and he handily passed the bar exams.

 

Mr. Floro says he first realized he had the power to perceive Armand, Angel and Luis in 1986. In 1998, he applied to switch from being a lawyer to becoming a judge. He passed a mandatory psychiatric evaluation applied to all prospective judges and was sworn in as a regional trial-court judge in November of that year, handling both civil and criminal cases in Malabon, a district in greater Manila.

 

In 1999, Mr. Floro invited officials from the Supreme Court's administration unit to inspect his small courtroom. What they found unnerved them, and the Supreme Court convened a hearing to determine whether Mr. Floro should be removed from the bench.

 

According to Supreme Court papers, the court investigators presenting evidence at the hearing said they found Mr. Floro wearing blue robes instead of the normal black. Mr. Floro's own witnesses testified that he wore black on Fridays to "recharge his psychic powers."

 

The court investigators also reported that Mr. Floro began court proceedings with readings from the Book of Revelation and conducted hands-on psychic healing sessions for members of the public in his chambers during recesses. The investigators said Mr. Floro would sometimes enter a trance to write his rulings.

 

During the hearing, Mr. Floro revealed his contact with his elves. He also shared with the judges that Luis predicted that then-Philippine President Joseph Estrada would be ousted from office; Mr. Estrada was forced from power by a popular revolt two years later in 2001 and was sentenced last week to life in prison for corruption.

 

 

In March 2006, after lengthy delays, the Supreme Court finally dismissed Mr. Floro from the court service, largely because of his belief in the supernatural. Even though Mr. Floro says the elves played no part in his judicial decisions, the Supreme Court justices said his broad faith in mysticism and supernatural phenomena had affected his work. "Lest we be misconstrued, we do not denigrate such a belief system," Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario wrote in the Supreme Court's verdict. "However, such beliefs, especially since Judge Floro acted on them, are at odds with the critical and impartial thinking required of a judge under our judicial system."

 

Mr. Floro dissents. He has filed three appeals of the Supreme Court's decision since then and is continuing his campaign on local television and on the Internet. The Supreme Court hasn't reversed any of his decisions after suspending and later removing him from the bench.

 

JAMES HOOKWAY, james.hookway@awsj.com

"In the Philippines, Ex-Judge Consults Three Wee Friends Mr. Floro Loses His Job But Becomes a Celebrity; Using a Little Elfin Magic", September 17, 2007, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, EDITORIAL AND CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, 200 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10281, (212) 416-2000   Urls:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118999288641229392.html?mod=psp_free_today

 

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/elf-floro-09172007.pdf

The Huckabee story is certainly a big one.  But equally big is Obama's wins tonight.  I know he was expected to win in the three Democratic contests tonight, but he was he expected to win by the overwhelming numbers he got?  I was in Washington and went to my caucus.  The enthusiasm for Obama was palpable.

By now, everyone's seen the results. As expected, Obama swept today's Democratic contests, winning in Washington, Nebraska, and Louisana. Less anticipated was his margin of victory. In the caucus states, he won better than 2/3 of the votes; in Louisiana, by double-digits.

So how do we make sense of those margins, and attempt to figure out their significance? Three ways spring to mind.

1) Polling:

Washington State: Only one polling firm released results from Washington in February: SurveyUSA. It found Obama ahead among likely caucus-goers, 63-33. So score one for the much-battered reputation of the robo-polling firm, and mark these results 'as expected.'
Nebraska and Louisiana: I'm not aware of recent polling in either of these states.

2) Internal expectations:

Obama Campaign: An internal campaign spreadsheet that was leaked to Bloomberg News gives us a rare view of what the campaign itself expected. The first of the projected scenarios had Obama winning 60-40 in WA and NE, and 54-46 in Louisiana. At this hour, Obama's actual margins in all three states exceed those counts (although in Louisiana, due to Hillary falling short). That scenario had Obama winning the pledged delegate count 95-63 tonight, and 1,647 to 1,580 overall. We'll see how that works out - one projection has him winning Nebraska delegates 14-10, while CNN puts him at 15-9, just like the spreadsheet. In WA and LA, the situation is still too confused to hazard a guess. But with the margins bigger than he expected, you've gotta believe that David Plouffe is going to be a happy man tonight.

Clinton Campaign: The first rule of expectations management is that it's better to be pleasantly surprised than suddenly dissappointed. If that applies to the Obama camp's internal projections (a good reason to take them with a grain of salt) it applies as well to the Clinton camp's memorandum to reporters as well. To quote:

The Obama campaign has dramatically outspent our campaign in these three states, saturating the airwaves...we will continue to compete in [February states] and hope to secure as many delegates as we can...

That about sums it up. The name of the game for the Clinton camp was to keep these races close enough to amass some delegates. We'll have to wait till morning (at the earliest) before we get reliable delegate counts. But when expectations start that low, it's tough to be dissappointed.

Edwards campaign: Yes, you read that correctly. In the big surprise of the evening, the moribund campaign of John Edwards roared back to life. Well, not really. But confounding expectations, it seems that thousands of (white?) Louisiana voters who were left to choose between a black man and a woman chose...neither. He didn't break the 15% threshold, so he won't walk away with any delegates, but I think we can faily say that he exceeded expectations. For Edwards, it must be a tantalizing reminder of what might have been. And for the remaining two contenders, it's a troubling indicator for November.

3) Exit Polls: Alas, caucus states don't get much love from the consortium, so we're stuck with the exits from Louisiana. Here, there's plenty for both camps to enjoy:

Obama campaign: There have to be some smiles in Illinois tonight. Obama won among both men and women, among voters in every age cohort up to 65, among religious voters (and ran almost even among the more religious Catholics), with those earning less and more than $50k, and among both Democrats and Independents. But there was plenty to frown about, to, including this statistic that's likely to get some play: 35% of primary voters said they would not be satisfied if Obama wins the nomination. (But then again, 12% of them voted for Obama - so much for polling.)

Clinton campaign: If the tally from Louisiana was discouraging, the exit poll bodes well for Clinton's chances, particularly in the crucial states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. White voters supported Clinton (70-26) by margins almost as large as blacks went for Obama (82-18). She won Catholics, including 73% of white Catholics. Voters thought she "cares about people," has "experience" and "electability" - she lost out only on "can bring change." The poorer the voter, the gloomier about their personal economic future and the nation's, the better Hillary did. And she brought home her bedrock supporters - 63% of voters over the age of 65 cast their ballots for Clinton. If she can replicate those margins in states with different demographic compositions, she can win in a landslide.

So there you have it. On the whole, the evening went about as expected. Three dramatic wins for Obama, whose lead among pledged delegates continues to mount. Clinton can take solace in the thought that the national media expected these wins, and so is unlikely to play them to her disadvantage, and that the biggest prizes left on the calendar are rust-belt states full of aging, white-ethnic voters.

If you find this worthwhile, please click the 'recommend this' link, so that other readers can share it. More election and polling analysis is available on my blog (click my name). And, as always, I welcome your comments and corrections.

What is with CNN's graphics/statistics in the Republican Primary?  They are reporting that a close race of 26% McCain, 25% Huckabee and 21% for Paul.  That is only 72%!  CNN's pie chart has four segments to illustrate.

It has reached a point where I can no longer be a part of the Democratic Party. Elements of my party, have become as sick, sad, vicious, and dangerous to this democracy as the intolerant, thoughtless, robotic zealots of the far right. Fundamentalists who have disgraced and left my country in shambles. Zealots who controlled the air waves and fed the mainstream media a steady, relentless stream of slander, lies, vicious innuendo fueled by an envy and outright incomprehensible hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton for over ten years. It helped create for the MSM a grotesque standard applied and executed against only the Clintons that continues today. And worse, it has infected my party. The liberal wing of the Democratic party, unfortunately the ones who will nominate the next Democratic Presidential candidate, has become as irresponsible and vicious toward the Clintons as conservative fundamentalist and the MSM.
Reading the responses on TPM, not so subtly fueled by TPM, to Hillary Clintons defense of her daughter, HER CHILD, HER CHILD regarding the obscene, mean-spirited comment by David Schuster made me sick. Made me ashamed.
And it made me realize the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has drunk the kool aid of this unfair standard provided by the right wing and the MSM. The same kool aid we screamed against for the last eight catastrophic years.
Arianna Huffington has described this Presidential race thanks to Barack Obama as a search for our better selves: " the importance of having someone in the Oval Office who can inspire us to tap into the better angels of our nature -- who can stir people to expect more of themselves than they otherwise would." That's funny coming from her. I don't mean that in a mean way. It's just funny coming from her. The self that is emerging from my party is not very pretty, not very pretty at all. Hillary Clinton has the audacity to run for President, Hillary Clinton stands up for her daughter and it brings out the butchers with their cleavers.
When it happens, and it will, when the talking head easily blurts out a vicious,ugly racial slur, and not the kind served up by sad, pathetic Rush Limbaugh, about Senator Obama believe me there will be no weird oh it's only the Clinton's standard applied to that moment. And there should not be.
The Left Wing of the Democratic Party will demand more than someone being fired. You will want that someone skinned alive.

Every time I think I would be okay with a Hillary presidency she manages to disgust me in a way usually reserved for Georgie.

Do we really want another president who bullies the media?  Who thinks that a cable tv station should fire its employees on the demand of a politician?

The tactic is really carry-over from the Bush Administration.  A reporter asks uncomfortable questions, ban him from press conference ... put him in the back of the room.  It's simple: access to the politician is contingent on following the politician's rules.

I have no doubt this Shuster incident is just a prelude to what we could expect from a Clinton presidency.  She's learned all of the wrong lessons from the past 8 years.

Yes, Shuster made a stupid off-the-cuff comment.  It's not the same as an uncomfortable question.  She can criticize it all she wants, and she probably should criticize it.

But, what business does a candidate have making demands on what type of commentary will be on a station covering her?

Not to mention, demanding that a man lose his job for this type of mistake shows so little humanity it's shocking.

Loyal readers are already familiar with my effort to count the forgotten supderdelegates - the 76 Unpledged Add-On Delegates (UADs) to the Democratic Nationa Convention. To recap: 720 superdelegates get to go to Denver by virtue of the party or governmental offices they hold. The forgotten 76 are handed out to the states in proportion to the number of DNC members in each state, and (s)elected by state committees, conventions, or delegations. In this incredibly tight contest, it's naive to believe that any candidate whose supporters comprise a majority of the body that selects the UADs will select anyone not (unofficially, but no less firmly) pledged to support them.

Counting UADs is hard, because like delegates from caucus states, we don't know who they'll be, only how they're likely to vote in Denver. Further complicating the picture is the diverse array of selection processes. So in this count, I'm only including delegates who we know, pretty much for sure, are going to back a given candidate. Though February 5, the count stood at:
Obama: 11
Clinton: 7

Tonight's results bring a further advantage for Obama, whose lead is based upon his dominance of caucus states, on show again this evening.
 
             Clinton      Obama      Undetermined
WA:           0               2                   0
NE:            0               1                   0
LA:            0               0                   0

Your new totals:
Obama: 14
Clinton: 7

We'll keep a running tally here every election night, until one of the more reputable bodies tracking delegates notices that they're excluding more than twenty delegates who, by any right, ought to be counted.

If you find this worthwhile, please click the 'recommend this' link, so that other readers can share it. More election and polling analysis is available on my blog (click my name). And, as always, I welcome your comments and corrections.

DC Obama +58
Louisiana Obama +21
Hawaii Obama +24
Maryland Obama +18
Maine Clinton +14
Nebraska Obama +15
Virginia Obama +19
Wisconsin Clinton +4
Washington Obama +9

This is very good. I want to respond to some of your responses. And I
appreciate the willingness to engage the issues. First, someone
indicated that Bill Clinton did good things in the White House, like
balancing the budget and attempting to bring about peace in the Middle
East. I agree, he did do good things. However I tend to like to view
the entire picture. We can all agree that W. Bush is a walking
disaster. However Hillary is running a campaign that continually
hearkens back to the "Clinton Legacy". Well, the Clinton legacy
includes high points AND low points. Hillary wants to take credit for
the high points, and ignore (or spin) the low points. In my estimation,
NAFTA and Rwanda (as I stated earlier) were severe low points. The
Middle East effort was a high point. Balancing the budget however, I
take issue with. The primary way that Bill Clinton was able to balance
the budget, was by raiding Social Security Funds. And now is it a
surprise to find that Social Security will run out within our
lifetimes? What about our concern for future generations? To me, this
is something that needs to be fully discussed before we accredit the
Clinton Administration with a balanced budget.

Another
responder suggested that Obama, although well meaning, would be "eaten
alive" by the Republican machine in the general election. I cannot
endorse that view. Although Obama was indeed shaky in those initial
debates. However, in my estimation he has improved and he actually won
the very last debate (though admittedly both performed well). Add to
this the very recent (as in today) Time magazine poll, which indicated
"Obama the Stronger Democrat Against McCain". Now this is a Time
Magazine's poll suggesting this, not me. Obama wasn't even supposed to
be a serious contender! But now he has serious momentum. The
Republicans in my estimation, would really prefer to run against
Hillary because she has so much baggage. Obama has some, though nearly
not as much. Plus he was absolutely right on the war question. And he
is attracting a boatload of new young voters. Hillary simply is not.

Another
responder suggested that it was wrong of me to raise the question of
Vietnam. And that it would be more accurate to compare Obama to JFK who
made numerous mistakes, in his lofty estimation. Well, again, I am not
here to defend Obama. Certain things about him I like, others I
question. However to address his point, it is true JFK was considered
inexperienced, and perhaps he made mistakes. The Cuban Missile Crises,
choosing war in Vietnam. I agree, he was far from perfect. But if you
asked most Americans who our most beloved president has been, to date,
the vast majority of them would cite JFK. Of that I have absolutely no
doubt. Why? JFK had an expansive vision. In the end he is remembered
more for his advocation of Space Exploration and Civil Rights than
anything else. JFK could inspire a nation to move beyond their
preconceived notions of themselves. That's why he was loved. Obama
SEEMS to share some of these same unique attributes. Hillary
unfortunately does not.

Barack Obama has already improved

2parse put this up on his blog and I love the idea of a large group of people doing a little bit.

On February 12th, the birthday of a prominent Illinois lawyer/politician, blueinks over at Daily Kos suggests a Barack Obama “Money Bomb”. Previously, Congressman Ron Paul has benefited from two “money bombs” - or independently organized online fund raising days.

I propose that on February 12th (Lincoln’s Birthday) we have a money bomb extravaganza of small donations of $5.01 for Senator Obama. The reasons for this amount are easy to see:

1. Small donations are powering Obama’s campaign
2. Lincoln is on the $5 bill and the penny
3. .01 is also for us online progressives making a statement to the
   campaign that we are here and we’ve got money. That we aren’t the huge
   bundlers for campaigns. We sacrifice parts of paychecks that mean more
   proportionally to those of us with smaller incomes. We buy into Barack
   Obama because we do dream of a more hopeful future instead of cynicsm.
   I would much rather be called a Hopemonger than a Warmonger. So if you
   believe in the hope that small donors are powering the Obama campaign,
   please join me in showing that when Americans united with Hope can
   wield large influence with small donations!

A long-standing principle of online debate holds that the first person to invoke Hitler or the Nazis loses by default. 
The reasoning here is pretty obvious: such comparisons are almost always ludicrously overblown. The fact that a person is wrong, or mean-spirited, or even sociopathic, does not mean he or she is on a par with the historic figure now widely regarded as the living embodiment of pure evil. Such constructions as "feminazi" and "Hitlary" are not merely foolish; they grossly trivialize the actual horrors of the Third Reich.
I propose, by analogy, that we adopt a clear and straightforward standard by which to reject, out of hand, a certain type of comment that's becoming more and more frequent on political blogs. Specifically, I suggest we automatically dismiss any statement that takes the general form:
"If Candidate X is nominated, I'm going to vote for [McCain, Nader, Putin, Pedro, etc.]."
Such comments should be ignored -- and the person who posts them should be considered to have lost several points of credibility -- because:
1. If the commenter is serious -- if he or she truly would cast an anti-Democratic vote, knowing what's at stake in this election -- then the poster has no credibility to start with. Whether it's a case of trolling, or irrational thinking, or political immaturity, or sheer vindictiveness doesn't really matter.
2. If the commenter is not serious -- if this is just an emotional outburst, or melodramatic posturing, or overstatement for effect, or an outright lie -- then why bother to argue? The poster will either act responsibly in November, or not. 
3. The argument itself doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response. We saw clearly in 2000 what happened when people decided Al Gore wasn't ideologically pure enough, or too tainted by association with Bill Clinton, or otherwise unworthy of their support. With our nation and our children now doomed to suffer the consequences, that attitude should be regarded as permanently discredited.
I propose, also, that this principle be extended to similar comments in either of these forms:
-- "There's no real difference between Candidate X and [George Bush, John McCain, Britney Spears, etc.]."
-- "I'd rather see [McCain, Satan, Barney, etc.] elected than Candidate X. Maybe then things will get so bad, America will come to its senses." 
Such comments echo exactly the kind of rubbish people were saying in 2000 about Al Gore vis-a-vis George Bush. Look how smart and perceptive they turned out to be! So when we hear this kind of thing in 2008, let's treat it with the icy contempt it deserves.
The second comment, moreover, echoes a favorite slogan of the German Community Party in the last months of 1932: "Nach Hitler, kommen wir." (Roughly: After Hitler, our time will come.) This was the justification for not standing arm-in-arm with the SDP, the bumbling but decent mainstream liberal party of its day. This strategy never works.
So then: How to respond to comments of this kind?
The simplest approach, as always, is to ignore them. But sometimes a more pointed response seems in order -- especially when the poster is being notably idiotic. 
It would be good if we had a name for the kind of wrong-headed argument I'm describing. Then we could dismiss it conveniently by saying, for instance, "Oh yeah, XXXX again, I've never heard that before."
So ... how about ITMT -- as in, I'm Taking My Toys (and going home)?
That's just an idea. I've come to think of it as the Nach Hitler Defense, but I guess that's a bit too recondite. 
Any suggestions are welcome.

When Karl Rove made that comment, he was referring to John McCain's full-throated support of Bush's Hundred Year War.  I'd like to point out to Mr. Rove--as well as all the administration warmongers who never actually fought in a war themselves--that soldiers and Marines no longer use foxholes.  They haven't, in fact, used foxholes since World War II or possibly Korea.  We haven't fought a conventional war in 60 years, not that many Republicans would actually know that.

I would also like to be the first to point out that John McCain, for all his couragous heroism in enduring horrific torture as  a P.O. W. at the hands of the North Vietnamese enemy--still never actually FOUGHT in a war.  Fighter and bomber pilots do not fight in wars; they fly above them. 

Remember that old episode of M*A*S*H, when a disgusted and infuriated Hawkeye Pierce, who'd been listening to a bomber pilot brag about hitting all his "targets," dragged the stunned man through the hospital ward, forcing him to gaze at the maimed children his bombs had hurt?

Donald Rumsfeld was a pilot, too.

Karl Rove may have only been using a figure of speech in his analogy of McCain's war support--the full quote reads:  "McCain made clear, 'I'm with you and we'll die in the last foxhole together if need be.'  Rather than draw away from the unpopular strategy, McCain hugged it even tighter."

Hmmm.  I would also like to explain to our chickenhawk spokesman that there is a difference--militarily speaking--between STRATEGY and TACTIC.  The so-called "surge," or temporary troop escalation, is a battle TACTIC.  Not to be confused with strategy, though again, I would not expect most Republicans who glorify war while, at the same time, cutting the benefits allotted to those maimed and injured and tormented by those said wars, as well as hiding away from the public the flag-draped caskets of those returning from their war in a cargo plane, to understand the difference.

Sen. McCain likes to say that either of the Democratic candidates "want to wave the white flag of surrender."  He drives around a bus he likes to call the "No Surrender" bus.

We already know what kind of attacks his campaign will make on our nominee, because we've been putting up with it since 2003.  It's the same old tired rhetoric.  You either "support the troops"--meaning, US and OUR WAR--or, you are a coward, a cut-and-runner, a surrenderer.

These troops though--the ones used as stage props for just about every speech Bush gives--they seem to be giving their campaign contribution support to...the Democrats.

In fact, Sen. Barack Obama--who everybody knows is my candidate of choice--has received individual campaign contributions from NINETY-FOUR THOUSAND ACTIVE-DUTY TROOPS--more than ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN EITHER PARTY PUT TOGETHER. 

Over on another thread--long since lost in the recent TPM server-shuffle--this issue was discussed.  I think it was Greg Sergent who had mentioned the statistic, and mused that perhaps they were supporting Obama because they thought he secretly supported the war effort, since he'd voted to fund the war several times.  The first person to post agreed vehemently, claiming that these nameless faceless "troops" would support any war-mongerer over peace activists.

I posted immediately and explained that they'd BOTH missed the point.  The truth, I said, is that these "troops" everybody likes to brag about...are utterly EXHAUSTED by Bush's Wars.  Repeated combat re-deployments, stop-loss, lowered recruitment standards, less time home between deployments (spent training for more war), the psychological and physical costs of these deployments, and the unimaginable strain on families...had worn out our armed forces.

They know that Sen. Obama spoke out against the war in the first place, naming many of these same reasons, at a time when it was not politically expedient to do so.  They know he has said that the first thing he'd do after Inauguration, is meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and start drawing up plans to end this war.

I emphasized that NONE OF THESE TROOPS WANT TO RETURN TO IRAQ ONCE THEY'VE BEEN.  The only ones still gung-ho, I said, either have never deployed, had an office job and never went "outside the wire" during a deployment, or had only just deployed the first time.

"Soldiers and Marines like my son and nephews," I said, "who have been and been and BEEN, who've survived getting 'blown up' and seen buddies buried, have had enough of war and enough of the military."

To my deep gratification, active-duty soldier after active-duty soldier--some naming their units and ranks--supported every word I'd said.  They said it was an accurate assessment, and that they wanted this war to end.

My son, after two combat deployments to the Anbar with the Marines, now supports Barack Obama.  My nephew, who did three combat deployments and is extremely conservative in his political outlook, has said he, too, will vote for Obama. 

Whether we support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I think we as Democrats need to recognize that the Republicans are going to run a man considered to be a war-hero, and who, according to Karl Rove, hugged George W. Bush tight on Iraq.

Bush wants to preserve his legacy, and more than anything else in the world, he wants to keep his war going.  He and his formidable forces will gather like tornado clouds on the horizon to put their warmongering candidate in the White House to continue Bush's War into the next millenium.

They will use "the troops" as propoganda, ignoring the fact that those same troops are sick of war and want to come home.

The only true way we can "support the troops" is to work our hearts out--take nothing for granted; give no quarter--to put a Democrat in the White House and give him or her a large enough majority in Congress to end this bloody stinking war once and for all.

I do not disagree with Hillary when she says that we must be far more careful getting out than we did getting in, nor do I think we should leave the Iraqis high and dry after destroying their country's infrastructure and government.

But they will never step up and start defending their country until they no longer have their big burly American bodyguards to do it for them.  We must send them a clear signal that their time is limited; we're pulling the majority of our combat troops out; they'd better start functioning as a government and as an army.

And none of this will happen if we don't turn outselves inside-out to prevent the Republicans from using war to paint us with the brush of cowardice.

If they think wars are still fought in foxholes, let THEM go to Iraq, dig one in the Diyala province, and see how well they are protected.

The surge has "worked" only because we are still there in full force.  It has not worked as far as STRATEGY is concerned, and that is, a governing body in Iraq.  It won't work as long as we're doing their work for them.

We must send an overwhelming mandate of a message to the White House and to Congress in this election:  Hug tight to George W. Bush's Hundred Year War...and die by it.

If you think that creditcards are a good tool for protecting you from identity theft, think again.  From the guy who pulled the Credit Card Prank, see what he did by reading his articles on The Credit Card Criminal. Part2, Part3, Part4

I can't say that I am satisfied with TPM's new version. Is anybody? (show of hands). I found the old system very flexible and intelligent. The new system reminds me somehow of Window's Vista, f'yaknowhaddamean.

I am very unhappy that there is not a "review" capability in this new system.

Like many people do, I make loads of typos when I'm writing and I like to see the final result a couple of times before everybody else does. Then sometimes I find new material later and would like to add it to the original  I  liked that it was possible to go back and re-edit things once they were up.

If you're looking for my column of faith and the bible, please "tune" into this same digital "network" next Monday or Tuesday. I had to rush out this edition of Inspection because I feel the topic is important.

   Why I'm typing this I'm not sure. My guess? No one will pay attention. No one will read: grab and run with my advice I give at the end of this edition of Inspection. The cannibalization of the Democratic Party from within will probably continue by both sides feasting on each other, while McCain... and a somewhat reunited Republican Party, will sharpen their teeth. It's almost as if all the followers of Hillary and Barack have invaded the body politic: as represented by their chosen candidates, and are ready, willing and quite able to burst forth like the creature in Alien. The only thing that saves my sanity is I'm sure that folks like Jon Stewart will do their best to dress up these vicious creatures in a top hat and cane and help them dance off stage singing...
 

"Hello, my baby
Hello, my honey
Hello, my ragtime gal..."

   In 2004 Jon said, "Please don't make my job easy." We sure seem determined to do that again in 08. Sad to say this Democratic Party faction need to devour itself is a hell of a lot older than that Mel Brooks movie, or even all the Sci Fi it spoofed.

    During my last Inspection I mentioned that I would vote for whoever gets the nomination. But if the party continues down its present path it will be a wasted vote.

   You may ask...

"Why 'wasted?'

 

    First, I'm going to set a few ground rules here. This is not going to be some sandbox like, "He did it first/She did it first..." or "worse," or "more," type of column. At this point I really don't care and pursuing that will absolutely animate that little, hungry creature even more than it already is. Frankly, I'm beinging to wonder if he's wearing The Mask. I also don't perceive this, despite my own obvious, personal, political skew as only a Democratic Party issue. I would no more wish this kind of racial, sexual, bashing on Republicans than Democrats. If we were arguing about who was more "Roosevelt-ish," or "more Liberal," or more anything that's more political philosophy or policy oriented... no problem. That's what we should be doing.

    But who is a racist, or uses code words, or who doesn't shake somebody's hand, or who is a sexist...

    Well, if I actually cared at this point I would buy some rats, remove their posteriors... and give them to you. But, personally, I don't give a rat's... about that. In fact I didn't think it was a discussion we needed to get in to begin with and even less now.

   Why? Because we're into political end game now. The Republican machine is quickly rolling unto a conclusion: and I'll bet you know who the main target will be once that's fini'. Anyone who has ever watched any war movie, or battle in space, knows what happens if different factions don't stop fighting each other while their being attacked by the enemy too.

   Let's use a better, less partisan, analogy. I loath boxing. But, politically I enjoy a clean, and an honest, fight. No below the belt. Politically, these days, that's impossible. But when two people won't stop assailing each other, and below the belt is part of the fray (No matter who is, or isn't doing it.) are then also joined by a third party determined to take them both out... that's a definite end game. I wouldn't wish it on either party.

    Some might claim that there are elements within the Republican party who hate McCain so much, if he will be the nominee, that this will counter any angst between Clinton and O'Bama supporters. Need I remind you that, no matter how divided they may seem sometimes, the lockstep effect is incredible on that side of the fence? My prediction: they will swallow whatever disgusting medicine they have to when it comes to keeping the White House. Plus, politically, it's just a bad bet to make. It's like betting there will be no resistance when we land in Normandy because Hitler's not sure where we are landing: or sending too few troops into Iraq because we think it's going to be a "cakewalk."

    My solution?

    You're not going to like it.

    You're going to hate it.

    For me it's worse than a meal of pig's liver and Brussels sprout; and those are my least favorite inedibles. (I refuse to type, "Edibles.")

    Both candidates agree, publicly, to this...

    Whomever wins the nomination, the other becomes the VP.  Hard to choke down, isn't it? But here is what that deal would do...

1. It would immediately stop whatever under-handed tactics and race-baiting, or sexist, comments that come out of either camp. I would never claim "all," but it would certainly dry up this vast sea of poisonous, polluted, swill we are choking down and drowning in.

2. It would turn the candidate's, and most supporter's, attention back to who is most likely to be the best head of the ticket, issues and how each will change the path the Republicans have taken us down.

   Now after swallowing that icky medicine, we will get better and healthy again. Otherwise? Expect the majority of either rather large, and important, coalition to either stomp away in disgust or support the "winner" tepidly.

    That's the best way to turn any winner into a loser I can imagine.

 

 

                       -30-

Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over thirty years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

I am fascinated by Robin Morgan's new essay. You know, the one Chelsea forwarded on to her friends.

Well, I can't respond better than this.

I am all for Hillary going to war with MSNBC and Shuster,
It is her choice to use whatever power she has, as she likes.  The comment was crude, sexist, and junk commentary. If she can put a squeeze on the big media, she might as well.

On the other hand, Chelsea is a grown woman who has chosen to put herself in the public eye by campaigning for her parent.  As such, I believe she is fair game, as are Hillary and Bill.

I've just finished The Conscience of a Liberal.  Thank you--it was fantastic.  I recommend it, along with Jacob Hacker's The Great Risk Shift, tpmcafe's Jared Bernstein's All Together Now, and tpmcafe's Elizabeth Warren The Two Income Trap, as the best books I've seen on what is happening to our country's middle class and poor and where we need to go first on social and economic policy in the progressive movement and the Democratic party.

Here's the thing--I vote Tuesday in Virginia's primary.  As of now I am voting Obama.  I think he gives us the best chance of beating McCain and helping us get a favorable Congressional balance for the looming UHC battle.

You are supporting Hillary.  I want to know why, really.  What is it that you know or perceive that leads you to think Hillary is the better bet, to win and help get us a better Congress?  A major argument you make in your book is that race is the single issue that has hurt the progressive cause the most in our country.  Do you believe that, polls notwithstanding, when push comes to shove, enough Americans are not ready to vote for a person of color for President yet?   Is that the fear and concern?  If that is not it, what is it?  What polling and survey and impressions are you focusing on that leads you to the other conclusion?  I want to know because you're a super smart person and the agenda you lay out in your book is one I support wholeheartedly for our movement, our party, and our country.

I get that you think her health care proposal is better as policy and is a better way to get more quickly to a single payer system.  If it stands as good or a better chance of passing as any other proposal out there that moves the ball forward, that sounds right to me.  The Obama supporters, and Obama himself, do not impress me when they bash the purchasing mandate because without it how do they suggest we get everyone covered and eventually in the same risk pool?  If Obama can't move off his present position I'm not sure we're going to get the forward motion we need on this issue.  People like me have to hope that he'd be open to revising his current proposal, or that if Dem leaders in Congress can come up with a better bill he'll support it.  The purchasing mandate has a major problem of its own, in that lots of our fellow citizens of modest means cannot afford to make the up-front purchase of insurance even though they'd get a tax credit later on.

You realize full well that elections aren't about who is the best policy wonk, I know, or who has the best proposals on paper right now--that we have to win and get a Congress that can help instead of impede in getting a progressive agenda enacted.

 A penny for your thoughts, which I really want to hear before I vote on Tuesday.  As of now, it's Obama for me.

In case you missed it, after Super Tuesday, Whoopi Goldberg switched her endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Her rationale: the first among them to have promised a policy proposal to punish companies that outsource American jobs! You must be wondering if you are hearing me right and I guarantee you are. Whoopi’s gigantic election issue and primary concern is the time at which either of the candidates made this declaration.

Watch Video

It is disgusting and quite honestly disingenuous for celebrities of Whoopi’s ilk to imagine we are as simple minded and as blatantly idiotic when they come out, attempting to base their flawed judgment on reason and principle when the supposed judgment and principle is so fatally flawed. Supporting a candidate based on the date they said something convenient to your ears rather than what their actual policy inclinations have been over the years is just simply stupid. Hold on, don’t get all worked up on me on the timing of Sen. Obama's anti-war speech because this is different.

I stumbled upon this Asia Times article highlighting Sen. Clinton’s stance on the very subject, during her India visit back in 2005.

Hillary clears outsourcing air
Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade.
-- Asia Times, May 1, 2005

For the record, I am not at all against all outsourcing; I am just disgusted by celebrities babbling about without knowing what they are talking about, especially in the presence of people who somehow depend on their perspectives to make political decisions. As for the endorsement, I'm sure Sen. Obama's campaign is having cool sweet laughs at her.

All the bugs aside, I think that the new site is a huge improvement. I particularly appreciate the reader blogs and “recommended reader posts” section. It’s definitely caused me to spend more time contributing, to the detriment of my productivity at work. The quality of user posts seems to have improved as well, perhaps because of the required registration.

I do, however, see some flaws in the reader recommendation system. Initially, it worked very well, but the recommended reader posts section is starting to go stale. For instance, flyonthewall's super tuesday analysis is stellar, but super tuesday is over, and the post is still 4th on the recommended list. I'm sure that he/she has new posts that should replace it.

The staleness seems to have happened for two reasons:

1) The recommended reader posts get a lot more visits than the recent reader posts, so they get still more recommendations, which pushes them even higher in the ranking.

2) The number of reader posts has increased so that new posts now move quickly through the recent posts lists before anyone has a chance to read and recommend them. I've commented on posts, and then a few hours later, I can't find the post anymore.

I'd like to start a list of ideas for improving the functionality. If anyone has suggestions, please add them to the comments (and recommend this post, so we can keep the thread live for a little while).

Suggestions:

1) Time out user recommendations. Recommendations more than a few days old should be discounted. That way, recommended posts will fall off the list when they go stale, but posts that continue to receive recommendations will stay up.

2) Increase the length of the recommended list. That will make the threshold for stickiness lower. Recommendations by a few users will get the post into the list where more users can see it and recommend it.

3) Increase the length of the recent posts list. That will give recent posts a little more time to be read before they fall off.

4) The "all reader posts" section should have a headline index. Currently, you can only seem them in long view, which makes it hard to find a thread that you were following but has fallen of the lists.

Hi... and, hi. Hello. It's nice to meet you, all of you. 
You've all been using this cafe, well not THIS cafe, but you know what I mean, you've been here for awhile. Thank you for building such an interesting, useful, calm, thoughtful and engaging community. I've been using TPM for a number of months now, god, has it been over a year? And, I'll be the first to admit, the Cafe was the last area I found, but once introduced it became my favorite. I don't need to enlighten you all to the best parts of the old cafe, you helped create them. I have heard, since the change over, some confusion at the proliferation of new bloggers, of which I am one. Who are we? Where did we come from? Why did we come here? What do we have to offer?
So, allow me to tell you a little about myself. My name is Steven, I live in Madison, WI, the Berkely of the Midwest. The land of 5,000 lakes, cows, cheese, Favre, Neenah steel, Milwaukee, Door County and Washington Island wheat. I've lived here my whole life and so have come to, I think, internalize a lot of what my city and state strive to represent: progressivism, community, inquiry, compassion, patience and family. 
I'm married to a young, beautiful woman, who makes me look like Jerry Falwell on some days, and is far too busy running our lives to participate on this blog. She is a student and works in textile and apparel. 
I favor sociology, and I've had a particular focus on wealth inequity, segregation, civil religion, the arts, and people with disabilities. The first half of that list composes my academic passion, and there has been some spill over from there into my activist habits, but the latter half of the list are my private passions. I have worked in our cities community theater for 10 years, started a few small companies therein, written, produced, directed and (mostly) acted in hundreds of performances. I have a sympathetic streak for what's going on in the art world, in general, I try to keep abreast. 
Two of my bothers are severely, physically disabled, and I am sensitive to their plight, what will make their lives easier, and all the issues, from care to solutions to policy, that come with that experience. Most of my extended family lives here, in Madison.
I'm passionate about issues of sustainability, I have worked for the greenest restaurants in my state, and am friends with the farmers whose food I sell. I have the fortune of living a block from my food co-op, they sell the same farmers' wares. That being said, I love my car, and I drive too much. 
I liked the original cafe because of the quality of thought and writing that was taking place, the format was nice too. I know a lot of you miss it, I do too, and I used it for a much shorter time than any of you. I hope this format tightens up. 
As an adult undergraduate student, I don't have as much opportunity for thoughtful conversation as you might think. That's why appreciate the cafe. Please keep writing, and say hi to the new guys, as they keep letting themselves in. 
Have a great weekend, I'll see you in the book club.

Was anyone else a little freaked-out by "VH"'s  feedback on the "pimping" comment? Shuster's remarks were idiotic, and MSNBC was correct to suspend the guy.  But do we really want to borrow a page from the Bush/Cheney handbook and freeze out the media when they get too aggressive? 

I understand that some people are still smarting from the MSM's relentless attacks on the Clinton administration back in the day.  But, as I hope we've learned during the last 7 years, the media is much more dangerous when it is passive than when it is overly aggressive.  Of course, I am not arguing that Shuster's mindless spouting in counts as diligence or inquisitiveness.  However, the Clinton campaign's response (using the comments as an opportunity to torpedo MSNBC, control the news cycle, and drum up support among its base) strikes me as cynical, part of a well-established pattern of dodging accountability.  The media was not Bush's lap dog just 'cause-- rather, the Bush/Cheney Administration dangled access in front of the most docile and complimentary reporters, and left dissenters out in the cold.  Do we really want another administration that would do the same thing?

I have had the great fortune of living abroad for the entire Bush adminstration.  While it has spared me much of the day to day heartbreak that my fellow American's have undeniably endured during this tragic period on our nation's history, I too have suffered in foreign lands by seeing the perception of my country degrade and diminish in the eyes of so many around the world, and am saddened when I return annually to an America with an irrational fortress mentality.
 
During these past 7 years I've lived in 4 different countries.  The first was France, where my family arrived in the summer  before 9/11.  I had already lived in France and heard many "thanks" from French people (over the years prior to this return) for America's role in WWII.  I had also heard many remarks of admiration for all of the good things that America represented; openness, ingenuity, etc.  French people that I met, young and old, loved America. 

My kids began a local French school on September 4.  The kids didn't speak any French and we were an oddity; the one foreign "American" family in the entire school.  I'll never forget how the entire school reacted to 9/11.  How they reacted to us.   I had just seen the plane hit the second tower on CNN at home, and had to leave before watching the entire thing unfold because I had to collect the kids from school.  Afterall, 9/11 happened in the afternoon in France. 

When I arrived at school I saw the long line of cars that stretched around 2 blocks with parents waiting for children, all of the doors open, people listening silently to radio news broadcasts about the attack.  As I walked past them, people who only knew that I was the one "American" mother were quick to address me and say how sorry they were, how tragic for my country.  Many asked whether I had family who might have been hurt, where I was from, etc.  They were genuinely shocked and hurt.  They were all listening, and waiting along with every other American to see what might happen next.  They were with us. 

Over the next two years, all of the misguided talk of war against Iraq replaced the genuine feeling of solidarity that anyone in France had after 9/11. And why not?  The French became the enemy solely because they didn't agree with the Iraq war.  The entire nation became the object of ridicule and America embraced silly, jingoistic Republican battle cries declaring that French Fries would henceforth be Freedom Fries as though such proclaimations would ring the Liberty Bell loud enough to be heard across the Atlantic!

Take that France!  Nevermind that the French themselves call French Fries, "fried potatoes" and the concept itself originate in Belgium, (supposedly).

By the time I left, I was having rather heated discussions about the invasions of Iraq.  I opposed the war from the first hints that it was coming.  Not because I'm anti-war, but because a cursory read of Middle Eastern history since WWI would make it clear to anyone why military invasion in that region just doesn't make sense....almost NO upside to that misadventure.  It wasn't a secret, then or now.  Yet I was left defending my country, which I did, against calls to have the UN oversee any post-war operations.  No one cared about Saddam, but they did care about the US playing occupying force.  I countered these argument saying that while the invasion was a mistake, I believed that no other country would be better to "reconstruct" and "bring democracy" to Iraq than the US.  We had a history of doing such remarkable things...remember post-war Germany?  Remember post-war Japan? We knew how...

To a person, every Frenchman or woman said, "yes, of course, but this is not a world war...this is an American war with American goals.  The goals are not limited to ousting a dictator.  It is different."

For those bloggers who will jump on the argument about French interest, please realize that I am not so naive as to suggest that France (and Total) didn't have economic/oil designs, and that there were certainly more than a few political and economic imperatives that the French had in mind...but remember, I was talking to average French people...not government officials.  They knew the Iraq war was stupid.  The American public didn't.  We were duped...they weren't.

Fast forward to the next year and the Australians, even though they were part of the coalition of the willing they were anything but willing "IN" Australia.  Aussie's were scratching their heads as to why any one of their troops was going to war...but PM Howard would eventually pay the political price for that decision.  More than a few Aussie's expressed their view of Bush.  "He's a wanker!..."  I would only add to their comment "a bloody wanker!" which would always get a big round of laughs. Yet my anti-war/Bush comment didn't stop more than a few from speaking their minds and saying things like, "you Yanks think you can bloody invade anywhere you want!" 

Aren't we the peace-loving, democracy building country?

Then came Japan.  Boy.  By this time it was already difficult to meet people and tell them I was American.  It became apparent that many would try to work out what "kind" of American I was; the Gore/Kerry supporting kind or the Bush/Cheney kind.  I got to the point where it was easier to clearly identify myself as the kind of American that wasn't a Bush supporter; one that was anti-war.  This was almost always met with a sigh of relief.  Even Japanese taxi drivers would ask me whether I liked Bush, often giving me that famous Japanese "backward hiss" while saying, "Yeah...Bush...I don't know...America...really great country....but Bush.......yeah....I don't know....a little......dangerous."  [I think you have to know how Japanese speak to really appreciate the hesitation to say anything bad, and the fact that they said anything at all was indication enough that it was bad.  I guess you have to be there!]

Now Singapore. It is interesting because I was pleased to discover other Americans here who think like me, who have had more than a few uncomfortable moments with their Nationality while being abroad.  Not all, mind you.  There are a fair number of "enfranchised" corporate-folk who believe that Hillary is the anti-christ and Obama must be her illegitimate offspring somehow.  To these folks McCain is a clear thinker, and nevermind that he wears those kaleidascopic goggles that somehow show that the war in Iraq makes sense, and that the surge makes progress even though young soldiers are killed everyday. 

I struggle with American citizens who can NOW view the war as a good thing, even though I, to a certain degree, can understand that twisted world view from McCain.  Over Christmas this year I visited the famous "Hanoi Hilton" where he was held for those many years, right in downtown Hanoi, and it was truely a gruesome place.  And boy, did American's look like saints compared to the colonial brutality of the French!...But on the same trip I visited the Bomber airplane wreckage in the middle of the city and reflected on the absolute horror those people must have experienced night and day knowing that awesome, superior airplanes would fly over their homes and bomb them at random.  I realize that the US didn't bomb indiscriminantly over Hanoi, but we did bomb.  And people died.  That said, the Vietnamese, much like the Iraqi's (hopefully) someday, seem to be getting about building their economy and finding ways to make money and look back at the senseless American aggression against their country as a tragic chapter in their nation's history that is worth forgetting while worth profiting from as a tourist attraction.

They got my 5 bucks.

And won't it be a thrill to visit the "green zone" and "Sadar City" someday knowing that our nation was responsible for untold Iraqi deaths?  Forget the "Saddam killed his own people" BS...they didn't do a thing to us, nor did they threaten our power...and there are a tub-load of Iraqi's that are dead because of our actions.  And we wonder why people don't like us?  Don't trust us?

I digress.

So, I'm going to look at the close of the Bush Administration as the hopeful ending to a tragic chapter in America's hisory.  I choose to believe that my country will turn the page on the past, and choose a new direction for the future. We have a lot of damage to repair, both at home and abroad.  Looking to past leaders will not take us forward.  They've had their chance.  It's time to give change a chance and invite a new vision with new leadership into our government.

We have to do it.  Yes.  We can.  Yes.  We will.

Choose to leave partisan rancor in the past and embrace a new tone for our politics in the future.  The world is waiting for us to redefine America.  I am too.   

What's happened here at the Cafe is like what's happened during 7 years of bush.  It's:

"a twist on a market research technique called "deprivation
research," in which marketers measure how loyal consumers are to a
brand or product by taking it away from them."  WSJ

It's amazing the pent up interest and demand for the Constitution after
7 years of near-dictatorship.  There's tremendous longing for it, ever
since we've experienced absence of the Rule of Law, absence of the
Balance of Powers, and a judicial system perverted.  Yes, I'd like my
Constitution back!  But at this point that is still in doubt.  Serious
doubt.  Deprivation research is occurring in the nation.  An
overwhelming majority of people now say the nation is seriously on the
wrong track.  There may be disagreement about the "right" track, but no
doubt the results are in.  Will things change?  We can only hope.



Take away our Constitution.  And suddenly there's a groundswell of
loyalty and appreciation.  A desperate desire to get back to the Rule
of Law.



Here at the Cafe there is also evidence of pent up interest and
demand.  Yes, we'd like our Cafe back!  It's not the substitution of a 
dictatorship of course. And we do believe Josh and his terrific crew
are doing all they can to restore order.  But it seems we must endure
more weeks (months?) without the "home" so many of us have come to
depend on and make use of.  Will things ever be like the old Cafe?  We
can only hope!



Take away the Cafe as we've known it.  And suddenly there's a
groundswell of longing and frustration.  That cannot easily be
assuaged.  TPM and the Cafe are the means for many of us to discuss the
need for national change and renewal.  That's why the "deprivation" at
the Cafe has left us so sorely in need these past 10 days.



 Used effectively "deprivation research" only goes on for a short while.
And mostly it happens with consumer consent.  Here's a description of
it
from a Wall Street Journal article describing a hoax where customers at
two Las Vegas Burger King's were greeted with no Whoppers on the menu. 
They were filmed and these vignettes were used in Burger King
advertising.



In the case of the Constitution and the Cafe we've got a serious case
of deprivation going.  And there may be no going back.  That's what's
worrying so many of us.  Not just the Cafe.  But the Constitution.  The
nation as we've known it.

When Shuster made the pimping comment, laughter erupted in the studio.  Case closed.

Now that we know McCain's their candidate it's clear what our ticket must be.

Versus HRC , McCain's strong suit is his appeal to independents. She must offer the VP to Obama and he
must accept.

Versus Obama, McCain's strong suit is security. Which of these two do you want in the WH the day of a surprise attack ? So Wesley Clark for VP.

Obama has a black father and a white mother.

So he is ½ black.

And ½ white.

Yet he is constantly referred to at the “black” candidate.

Why not the “white” candidate?

I think we all know why.  Let us keep this simple truth in our minds before we pat ourselves on our collective backs for this historic race.

When race is truly not part of the race, it will be a good thing for the human race.  Let’s race to get there.

Of course you didn't.  They weren't covered by any mainstream corporate media, nationally or even locally here in the San Francisco Bay Area. But a neat little open-publishing site called <a href="http://www.indybay.org/antiwar/">Indybay</a> has the scoop...

Direct Action to Stop the War (DASW), the same folks who <a href="http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/03/21/12002.php">shut down downtown San Francisco</a> the day after the war started, were back in action by organizing protests at the Bay Area headquarters of <a href="http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/05/18477244.php">Clinton in SF</a> and <a href="http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/05/18477231.php">Obama in Oakland</a>.

----------------------------------

As a historical note, the emergency demos that were called for the day after the Iraq War started -- which turned out to be March 20th, 2003 -- involved 50,000 people in the streets, young and old, hippy and punk, business people and blue collar workers.  There were marching bands and puppets.  There were Black Bloc marchers.  Over 2000 arrests made as police swept up hundreds at a time.  The demos went on for days in San Francisco.

A great documentary was made from activists' video of the downtown shut down called <a href="http://www.videoactivism.org/empire.html">We Interrupt This Empire</a>.  You can check the exciting <a href="http://stream.paranode.com/imc/portland/media/2003/07/269038.mov">trailer here</a>.

McCain was the architect of laws that violated the human and civil rights of the Dineh-Navajo in Arizona.  The activities were condemned by the UN Human Rights Commission.  This is a skeleton in his closet which, if it ever sees the light of day, could result in jeopardizing his run for the White House.

Click Here and read this article about McCain.
Read the Press Release attached to the article.

Then read the website that containes hundreds of pieces of evidence and supporting stories (