The Last Bush Poodle

by Richard Sharp | March 15, 2008 - 11:45am

reddit_title=The Last Bush Poodle

digg_skin='compact';

article tools: email | print | read more Richard Sharp

The Conservatives have vilified Stephane Dion’s leadership for over a year now, everything from repeated and vile attack ads to ongoing, talking point slurs from the chosen few who are allowed to speak to the media. Most pundits in the mainstream media have succumbed to this smear job, even many of Canada’s most seasoned political commentators.

"Not so.", I’m certain their response. "Mr. Dion earned our displeasure." But let’s look at the facts.

Sure, the Liberals lost Outremont and may lose another seat on March 17, but by-elections are politically meaningless when the balance of power is not at stake.

In fact, despite negative press and the huge disadvantage of being both in opposition and competition for centre-left votes from the NDP, the Green party and the Bloc, Mr. Dion’s Liberals have hung tough with the Conservatives in the polls to this day. Nanos Research, consistently the most accurate political pollster in Canada, has the Liberals in a slight lead!

Yes, Mr. Dion’s English is imperfect and there are about 20 words his speech writers should never use. But otherwise his English is quite decent.

The media also criticizes Mr. Dion for not bringing down the Harper government. Come on. Four of five Canadians don’t want another election. If the Liberals had caused one last fall based on an innocuous throne speech of all things, or relatively minor bills, the electorate would not have been kind.

Many pundits predicted an election over Afghanistan and/or the recent federal budget. Instead, Mr. Dion has been widely praised for brokering a deal with the Tories concerning the (doomed) war mission that nudges us towards more peacekeeping and reconstruction. The Liberals also quite wisely refused to force an election over Mr. Harper’s do-nothing budget.

So, the same pundits with egg all over their face now accuse Mr. Dion of “flip-flopping” and of being a “wimp.” Mr. Dion is not getting the “Joe Clark” treatment quite yet, but it’s surely got out of hand. The “wolf pack mentality” has set in.

Here is why the mainstream media have it wrong:

1. Restoration of Trust and Unity within the Liberal Party:

Mr. Dion won the Liberal leadership race fair and square, marked by civility and open debate with many excellent candidates. He has since overcome the fractious Martin-Chretien years, drawing all of his former opponents to his team. Notwithstanding a little grumbling from his Quebec wing, he has restored trust and unity within his party, which is surely a remarkable feat and leadership goal number one.

2. The Liberals have Better Policies

Leaders are also only as good as the direction they’re heading. Mr. Dion has it all over Mr. Harper on this count, too. Mr. Harper’s singular purpose is to emasculate the federal government except for defence and security, while most Canadians favour the Liberal vision of Canada – an activist government on a whole slew of policy issues, including Afghanistan, the environment, Aboriginal and women’s rights, childcare, fighting poverty, progressive taxation and fair trade.

Mr. Harper’s enthusiastic support for all things American is another clear distinction in Mr. Dion’s favour. No reasonable person still supports the Bush administration’s disastrous wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and on terror generally, further “deep integration” with a sinking ship and so on. With the political demise of Mssrs. Blair and Howard, Mr. Harper is arguably the last Bush poodle.

3. The Liberals Have a Better Team

Good leaders surround themselves with competent people and empower and support their team. Most Canadians surely prefer Michael Ignatief, Bob Rae, Ralph Goodale and the other Liberals over Mr. Harper’s pit bulls and poodles. The Liberals are free to speak while the Tories, even Ministers, have been muzzled, so much so it seems his PR people are running the country!

4. Mr. Dion’s Leadership Style is in Fact Superior

Leaders vary from autocratic to democratic and it is clear in which camp Mr. Harper belongs. He’s an arrogant, dismissive and secretive control freak who doesn’t trust his own team. He has centralized power in his office to ridiculous degrees and, when criticized, he resorts to smear tactics and name-calling.

Mr. Harper’s astounding censorship of the federal bureaucracy is so unbelievable that one wonders what all those communications people are doing these days. I suspect mostly preparing talking points for Ministers in advance of forced disclosures of the embarrassing kind under the Access to Information Act.

Mr. Harper is wrong on critical policy issues and unwilling to admit mistakes. Obsessed with control and secrecy. Disrespectful of political opponents and even his own team. Is that leadership or is it dictatorship?

In contrast, Mr. Dion is a proven healer with an empowered team and has a vision most Canadians prefer. When it comes to the human side of leadership, building consensus based on right vs. wrong and making choices to help the disadvantaged the most, Mr. Dion is the clear winner.

5. Women and Ontario Will Vote Liberal, No Matter the Media

Finally, when push comes to shove, it is a given that the 52% of the electorate who happen to be women prefer Mr. Dion over Mr. Harper by a wide margin. The Liberals’ superior position on issues of war and peace, human rights and child care will keep that margin wide into the foreseeable future. Women don’t vote for bullies.

For someone who is widely reported as a cunning tactician, Mr. Harper has been unbelievably stupid in his treatment of Ontario (the Maritimes, etc.). Coming up with legislation that shortchanges Ontario by fully ten federal ridings is a gift to the Liberals whenever the next election. And allowing the Finance minister, Jim Flaherty, to run off at the mouth trashing Ontario’s business environment is the height of political folly.

So, Mr. Dion and the Liberals bide their time. The Conservatives are embroiled in an increasing number of scandals that are showing their true colours. The economy is heading south but, because Mr Harper has squandered the budget surplus on useless measures such as GST cuts and war, the room to take action is limited. "Forget tax-free registered education funds. We're $1 billion over budget on our little war."

The time for an election is growing on the simple grounds that the Harper government keeps shooting itself in the foot. They’ve not many toes left.

Richard Sharp is long-time advocate for peace and privacy, and a life-long “Dipper.” He likes Jack Layton but, right now, the only real choice is between the Liberals and Conservatives. And he obviously believes the mainstream media are not doing their job.

 

...you need to weigh in now on the latest torpedo to hit the good ship Obama, namely, his "reverend problem."

It's been known for some time that Obama is connected (to the hip) with this reverend, and that this reverend has beliefs that a majority of admittedly ignorant and under educated Americans can't fathom (for example that the terrorism of 9/11/2002 against us was nothing new to much of the rest of the world).

I'm suprised that Barack hasn't dealt with his relationship with the reverend in some emphatic way until now. Couldn't he see this coming? Are you kidding me? I feel like Obama's campaign has now been "Spitzered." Another example of the Democrats making damn sure to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Josh, please, what do YOU think?

Most importantly, what should Barack supporters do to fend off this latest torpedo?

It was understandable but  sad that Obama failed to be loyal to the man who taught him to believe in Christ.

Obama , like the rest of us, is responsible for his own actions, not for those of his friends. I have friends who are anti-Semitic, or anti-Catholic ,or  racists or in other ways are imperfect. But I continue to consider them friends. Not true of you? Really ?

Assuming you disregard my rule on responsibility , exactly what are arguments against Reverend Wright. Mainly two:
that he admires some things about   Farrakhan , and that he is critical of this "great country".

In the aftermath of the Holocaust  I understand the position of those Jews who believe that Obama is anti-Semitic, not because of what he says, not because of what a friend of his says, but because of what a friend of a friend of his says. I understand it, I don't share it.

But the same logic that forces me to understand thate positiion causes me to understand the position of Reverend Wright that the country that enslaved Blacks for three centuries and then lynched them for another rather than being the "city on the hill" or the greatest
land on earth is just another countries with many virtues and many flaws. Some of  which are indeed hateful.

What did it indicate when Obama got only 18% of Mississippi's white democrats'  vote ? I think that if I were black I'd consider that that indicated that in  at least some parts of this country people like me are scorned, And I'd hate that. Reverend Wright was calling a spade a spade.
Can't we take that? 

OK,but who cares what's right? What makes political sense ? Consider that not only did Bush stand by Scooter. He made a little song out of it last week at the Gridiron "..Scooter won't have to worry about the Prosecutor". Didn't seem to bother the commentators on NPR. And no surprise. Because to a greater or lesser extent most of us share Graham Greene's position that if he had to chose whether to be loyal to a friend or to his
country he hoped he'd have the fortitude to choose his friend.
 
Obama failed that test.

   

I don't like to post more than once in a day, but, hell, I've got a cold and too sick to go out and too wired on Sudafed to go to bed.    So, that's how I came across this. 

Politico, which like the rest of the MSM, is totally in the bag for Obama (NOT!), is running a story about the story. 

Here are some fascinating excerpts:

The fracas started Thursday morning, when ABC’s “Good Morning America” ran a Brian Ross expose on Wright that included old video of him saying: “

Blah de blah de blah, we know what he said. Let's move on to the good part, wherein, shockingly, we discover this is not the first time this story has come up. 

The minister’s controversial history has been written about countless times throughout the campaign. Wright has ties to the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, the black supremacist leader of the Nation of Islam — a fact that has been noted in more than 100 news stories just in the past few months, according to the Nexis database of news coverage.

Got that?  Countless.  More than a hundred.  (Which, actually, most people would classify as "countable," but who am I to quibble with the Fourth Estate?) So why start again?  A tantalizing clue emerges. 

Opponents of Obama have constantly pushed reporters to write about the minister, which these critics considered a ticking time bomb for his campaign.

Hmmm. “Opponents of Obama" who consider this story a "ticking timebomb" have been pushing it.  Who could that be referring to? What “opponents of Obama” would be contacting the press urging them to write more about Wright? Are there any clues that could help us puzzle out this mystery?

On Feb. 20, after a fiery guest sermon by Wright in Little Rock, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ran an article that said: “On Tuesday, Wright criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq and likened the insurgents to the Israelites under Babylonian rule.”

At 9:20 that morning, Obama opponents were already trying to get Politico to link to the story.

Okay, that narrows the list of suspects. We're looking for “opponents of Obama” who are known for “routinely reach[ing] out to reporters to provide information they might use to attack her Democratic opponents,” perhaps someone known for sending such information via “behind-the-scenes e-mails to newspaper reporters and bloggers.” Nope, nothing's coming to mind. Oh well, let's return to the fascinating behind the scenes account of how this important story has hit at this time.

That’s why many news outlets — including Politico — did not initially pile on with rehashes after Ross’s story on “Good Morning America.”

Great. We've been over this ground before so they saw no reason keep running over and over again it until it finally caught on and stirred the wingnuts into an hysterical fever pitch.  What changed?

But that was a reminder that it’s possible for regulars on the trail to be too familiar with the material. With the video widely available in the heat of the race, readers and viewers were thirsty for coverage.

Glad we could clear that up.  It wasn't the doing of mysterious “opponents of Obama” after all. It's us, we ourselves. We are to blame, we foolish news consumers. We were simply dying for more news about this important issue. “Thirsty,” even. Silly me, thinking it was a rival campaign.   

The Oregon chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has endorsed Barack Obama.

This is big news, since the national AFSCME endorsed Clinton and only the Illinois AFSCME had broken ranks and endorsed Obama.

Oregon AFSCME has endorsed Barack Obama for President of the
United States. The union’s executive board made the endorsement today (March
15) in Portland. 

 

“The union took action prior to the upcoming Oregon primary because Obama has a history of standing up and fighting for working people,” said Oregon AFSCME Executive Director Ken Allen. “In Illinois, Sen. Obama fought alongside AFSCME to keep vital public services open, including mental hospitals and prisons. He also worked to help organize thousands of workers at Resurrection Hospital, and supported card check recognition for other workers seeking to unionize in their workplace.

 

“He is a candidate organized labor can proudly stand behind and support.”

 

Several members of the Oregon AFSCME Executive Board explained their support for Obama.

 

“I think he’s a uniter, not a divider,” said Becky Steward, President of AFSCME Local 88, which represents Multnomah County employees. “I believe his record better reflects how my members feel in Multnomah County.”

 

“I believe Obama has a proven track record of fighting for our members,” said Jack Tucker, President of AFSCME Local 2067, which represents City of Salem workers. “I also believe Obama has a much better chance of winning in November against John McCain.”

 

Dal Ollek, President of AFSCME Local 1724 that represents City of Eugene employees, said Obama brings a message of change.

 

“We need more collaboration at the national level,” said Ollek. “I believe this vote in support of Obama represents the best choice for the American people.”

 

Tina Turner-Morfitt of Salem is a Corrections Counselor and president of a statewide local that represents Corrections employees in the state prison system. Obama’s ability to unite people is what led her to support the endorsement.

 

“I believe Obama can unite Democrats, Republicans and independents alike, which is what our membership within Corrections looks like,” she said. “This endorsement best reflects the thinking of our members and leaders.”

 

Matt Hilton is 27 years old and works at OHSU, where is he active in AFSCME Local 328. Hilton also participates in Oregon AFSCME’s “Next Wave” program, which is geared toward bringing up new union activists from those 35 and under.

 

“I’m proud that AFSCME Council 75 has an independent voice and leaders that are willing to listen to our Oregon members’ opinions,” said Hilton.

 

“I’m proud of our progressive Council,” added Jaimie Sorenson, 30, another Local 328 member and another Next Waver. “Our union stands for what we believe in, and our candidate is Barack Obama.”

 

With the Obama endorsement, Oregon AFSCME joins the other biggest unions in Oregon supporting Obama in the Oregon primary, including the Oregon Education Association, the Teamsters, Service Employees International Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers and others. Allen said AFSCME plans to mail to its members and participate in other get-out-the-vote activities both for Obama and for Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate.

Ben Smith, reporting at Politico, regarding Hillary's attempt to delay releasing the official results of the Texas caucus:

In a letter sent to the state Democratic Party late Friday, the Clinton
campaign requests the March 29 count and state Senate district
conventions be postponed until the eligibility of an estimated 1
million caucus-goers are double checked.

Anyone want to venture a guess as to why she'd want to delay these results? I suspect it has to do with the revelation that Obama picked up 7 additional delegates in the Iowa county conventions.  Clinton does not need additional good news getting in the news about Obama's campaign.

Side note, I wish I could find another source for this but at the moment only Ben seems to have it.

Okay, so for all you bewildered neocons and Hillary supporters who portentously harp on the implications of Obama's association with Reverend Wright, I have to ask: what exactly are you so afraid of? I want specifics here, guys. I know, some of you are just using Wright's outbursts as a new and convenient justification for why Hillary should get the nomination. It's kind of flimsy, but whatever, nothing new in the perennial wishful thinking of ye olde Clintonistas. I suppose this comment is directed more at those people who keep forecasting that Wright's speeches are some ominous indication of how Obama will run the country as president. I'm just wondering if you'd care to elaborate on these fears? Because asking "Just WHO is Barack Obama???" is getting awfully inane,  despite all the new anti-Obama scuzz Sean Hannity manages to dredge up. Personally, I think you have a better chance in whining about Rezko and Obama's ability to bring about change than your new approach of suggesting that he is somehow deceiving the American public, eagerly waiting to plunge the country someplace very big, very bad, and very black. I mean, I don't really know what you're getting at when you talk about how you can't support him because he's known this pastor for twenty years...is it that you think this association has poisoned Obama's character?  That he's just talking a nice game of post-partisan unity and change, but the moment he's sworn into office he's going to put white America in one giant labor camp, appoint Louis Farrakhan as his veep, declare himself ruler for life and beyond, bomb Israel, and sell our children to Iran to build nuclear weapons? That he's really a glib hatemonger? It sounds like you're edging towards that wonderful new e-mail smear that Obama is the antichrist. It's sad, because I'd like to think you'd be able to keep your rancor on the level, instead of following Hillary off the edge of sanity like a herd of buffalo off a cliff.

Look, I love my father. He's a kind, insightful, and generous man. But he grew up in a blue-collar area of Long Island, his father was a railroad worker, and sometimes his opinions on groups like homosexuals and hispanics are pretty offensive (he is, by the way, an Obama supporter). Sometimes the things he says really makes my skin crawl, but nevertheless, I understand that he grew up in a different time, with different social and cultural norms and influences.  In the end he's my father, and I've always been smart enough to discern the wisdom from the sixty-year old prejudices. It's just an inevitability (or perhaps tendency) of the older generation, I'd say.  My father remains my mentor and continues to offered me priceless advice, but that hardly means I've ever agreed with him on any of his close-minded opinions. Ever. We've gotten into plenty heated arguments about it, but in the end what's meaningful about our relationship isn't based on an ignorant, bygone cultural understanding from the 1950s. So Lord knows, I am not going to hold Obama accountable for the sins of the father--especially seeing as how Jeremiah Wright, being a crusader in the Civil Rights campaign, must have infinitely more reasons to be angry than my old man.

The HuffPo article titled 'Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?' got it right (no link, because I'm lazy). You twits need to stop jerking off your visceral fears and examine what it is you're actually so afraid of. One user wrote something on Huffington along the lines of, "Try to understand where this racist is coming from? I don't want to understand!" Well, I suppose some people have already learned all they'll ever need to know about black people from rap music and basketball, so there's no need to look any further into the history an feelings of some of those 1960s Civil Rights fighters who had hot coffee poured on their heads or dogs set on them.  Let's disregard the fact that racism doesn't end just when you get rid of colored water fountains, and systematic oppression and discrimination is still alive and well in this country today, and might cause a bubbling reserve of slightly irrational but righteous indignation among oppressed minorities.  Let's not even give them the benefit of the doubt.  No, let's just take this outburst as a militant threat against white security and cry foul because Geraldine Ferraro didn't get so much understanding.  Rev. Wright doesn't speak for Obama, and I don't see how on earth Obama could ever be a hatemonger...unless I'm to believe these oh-so-rich allegations that he's a *secret* hatemonger with a *secret* agenda for America that he'll *secretly* pass despite our time-honored (well, maybe less recently) of checks and balances. 
In sum, Hillary people, please stick to dismissing his change. Then you can be snide and all knowing and we can start touting the math and call you delusional and we can all go back to agreeing to disagree. But I'm begging you: do not go down this looney road. I mean, what's next? He's going to paint the White House black? Please.

As for all of those trolls who have started to jabber about how this outburst has sounded the death knell for Obama, I would like to remind you PA is six weeks away.  Media coverage is a capricious mistress...or maybe an a child with ADHD...anyway.  NAFTAgate was what? Two weeks ago?  And who even considers that relevant at this point? If this Wright codswallop is as intense and unrelenting in six weeks as it is now, then maybe you little wonky Nostradamuses can start with the predictions. But 48 hours is a little too soon to start consulting your crystal ball.
So uh, suck it.
Peas

OBAMA DAILY NEWS Saturday March-15-2008 (posted to DU message board)
WillYourVoteBCounted
 Mar-15-08 12:09 AM 
 #0 

   Barack Obama: On My Faith and My Church
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:12 AM 
 #1 

   delete
 grantcart 
 Mar-15-08 03:01 AM 
 #15 

   Richard Miniter: In Defense of Obama's Pastor
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:13 AM 
 #2 

   Sorry, Hillary: You've Crossed the Line
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:14 AM 
 #3 

   Hillary's New Conservative Friends
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:15 AM 
 #4 

   Clinton Take on Pennsylvania Is Increasingly Detached From Reality
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:15 AM 
 #5 

   Hillary-Backer Bill Nelson Floats Compromise To Florida Voting Crisis
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:16 AM 
 #6 

   The reason for the change is in my link below - they are giving up on delegate count
 grantcart 
 Mar-15-08 02:53 AM 
 #14 

   Obama's Michigan Co-Chair Suggests Agreement On Redo Of Primary Is Likely
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:17 AM 
 #7 

   Bob Graham: Iraq War Vote Was Commander In Chief Test
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:23 AM 
 #8 

   Obama Pushes Back on Youtube Against Rev. Wright
 slinkerwink 
 Mar-15-08 01:24 AM 
 #9 

   Bob Graham on Solution for Florida Primary
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:27 AM 
 #10 

   Hsu's Legal Process Continues As Rezko's Heats Up
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:29 AM 
 #11 

   Dem Race May Come Down To North Carolina
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:36 AM 
 #12 

   Its moving time again - get those goal posts over there - tell the delegates to go home
 grantcart 
 Mar-15-08 02:50 AM 
 #13 

   1,117 Reasons Florida Can't Be Trusted With a Mail In Primary
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 03:19 AM 
 #16 

   That Scary 3 AM Call
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 03:47 AM 
 #17 

   ROTF!!!
 Fighting Irish 
 Mar-15-08 01:53 PM 
 #32 

   Monstrous behavior
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 03:48 AM 
 #18 

   FL:Those complaining got us in this mess by wanting an early primary
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 04:03 AM 
 #19 

   Obama Challenges Clinton on Earmarks
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 04:16 AM 
 #20 

   Obama works to convert in Pennsylvania
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 04:21 AM 
 #21 

   Breaking News32 minutes ago: Obama says Rezko played a bigger fundraising role..
 rodeodance 
 Mar-15-08 04:25 AM 
 #22 

   Obama discloses info he discovers to the news
 catgirl 
 Mar-15-08 10:52 AM 
 #25 

   Burned All Your Bridges Yet, Hillary?
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 04:28 AM 
 #23 

   The Real Dream Team!
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 04:34 AM 
 #24 

   I have yet to see "Obama news" that actually talks about Obamas positions on issues...
 niceypoo 
 Mar-15-08 10:57 AM 
 #26 

   WELL THE KLINTON KLAN NEEDS TO START THEIR OWN "NEWS"
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:30 PM 
 #28 

   Iowa county convention updates
 grantcart 
 Mar-15-08 12:58 PM 
 #27 

   Should Dems Pick a Nominee Dems Consider Nasty and Dishonest?
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:30 PM 
 #29 

   Barack, Hillary 'Agree' To Be Nicer
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:41 PM 
 #30 

   Plouffe Says If Obama the Nominee, Dems Will Be Competitive in General Election
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 01:51 PM 
 #31 

   Clinton won't show earmarks, tax returns or records of her time in WH
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 02:19 PM 
 #33 

   Clinton's "scortched earth" strategy
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 02:29 PM 
 #34 

   "Hillary's Mission Unaccomplished" compared to Rove Playbook, Iraq War
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 02:46 PM 
 #35 

   Mississippi: 'Limbaugh Effect' Softens Blow For Hillary Clinton
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 05:11 PM 
 #36 

   Chicago Tribune indicates that it's satisfied with Obama's account of Rezko
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 05:11 PM 
 #37 

   Bribing the Referee
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 05:12 PM 
 #38 

   Boston Globe: Kennedy and Waxman say Clinton exaggerating role in SCHIP
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 05:12 PM 
 #39 

   Article: PLEASE read this article to understand why some of feel so strongly about Hillary
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 05:12 PM 
 #40 

   In every FL, MI scenario, Obama maintains pledge delegate lead
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 05:13 PM 
 #41 

   David Gergen on Obama's pastor story....A voice of reason...
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 05:13 PM 
 #42 

   Obama camp adds 65,000 registered Dems to Pennsylvania
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 05:14 PM 
 #43 

   ABRAMOFF FIRM INDICTED OVER MARIANAS, CLINTON CAMPAIGN REFUSES TO RETURN TAINTED WILLIE TAN $$ !
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 05:14 PM 
 #44 

   Clinton Nostalgia, the 1993 DNC Annual Report & How Things Have (Sorta) Changed...
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 05:26 PM 
 #45 

   No longer for sale - Clinton supporting fatcat DNC donors can take a walk
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 06:07 PM 
 #46 

   Obama forces have made major gains in Iowa - gains 7 more delegates
 grantcart 
 Mar-15-08 08:06 PM 
 #47 

   OBAMA MAKES MAJOR DELEGATE GAINS IN IOWA
 grantcart 
 Mar-15-08 10:10 PM 
 #48 

   It is good the race has gone on so long. We are seeing true colors.
 WillYourVoteBCounted 
 Mar-15-08 10:11 PM 
 #49 

   Obama 90 minute interview with Chicago Tribune, video and transcripts
Linked here  Each day's news archived here (book mark it)

Talking Points indeed.   Many of the Clinton supporters here and other places simply assert that think HIllary will win and then blather on about experience, ready on day one boloney.  The simple fact is that Obama has an insurmountable lead in delegates.

 

One thing that the media has done a good job on is quickly and repeatedly exposing the Clinton spin on words superdelegates (in Clinton/Mark Penn speak:  "automatic delegates") and even trying to make a distinction between caucus and primary delegates.  I'm waiting for her to spin on the supers again when Obama takes the lead on them too which he has been on the way to doing at a rapid  pace.

 

Every time I hear a member of the Hillary camp make this argument, it reminds me about how woefully unprepared she was for this election and it highlights how she has mismanaged the biggest thing she's ever taken on.  For someone of her fame as one of the most prominant names in the world,  status, and incredible financial advantage at the beginning of this race to let it slip away demonstrates more than any single factor in her impending loss that she will not be able to beat John McCain.  She is not ready and more than anything she is not the right candidate for the Democratic Party.

 

She is single-handedly responsible for dividing the Democrats by stirring up hate with the race injection (Bill, Rendell, Ferraro, etc.), moving the goal posts and trying to steal (see Michigan & Florida), and now flat out extortion (see Clinton backers threaten DNC) among other things.  She's not what the country needs and definitely not what the Democratic Party needs. 

 

She is a divider, not a uniter.  One very definite and undeniable flaw that the Clintons have is their demonstrated ability to divide the country and unite Republicans.  They are now doing that to our very own Democratic Party.

 

It's refreshing to see that cooler heads are starting to come forward.  Nancy Pelosi has said in an interview to be broadcast tomorrow on ABC's This Week that if superdelegates overturn the will of voters, that it will harm the Democratic Party.  It will and she's right. 

 

Donna Brazille in her appearances on CNN, MSNBC and other places reminds me that the grown-ups in the party are watching and listening the same way we are to Hillary and can see much better than many of us just how she's spinning.  To them the "automatic delegate" word play rings hollow as do much of the moving of the goal posts tactics, the race game and most of all the simple numbers. 

 

Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Al Gore and others sitting on the fence like Pelosi and Brazille have a bullsh#t radar that is much better refined than the average voter.  They also have the Democratic Party's best interest in mind and can see that Obama has attracted and brought out new young voters and African-Americans that they have been trying to actually get out into the voting both for decades; will draw voters in Red states )that HIllary has insulted and written off for the general eletion after losing them) which will boost congressional candidates; that Obama is bringing in money in a new way taking what Howard Dean started and substantially increasing it;

 

They don't want to alienate a new generation of Democrats and the important and loyal African American constituency by letting Hillary spin, bully and cheat her way into the nomination to likely lose the election to John McCain.  Polls have consistently shown Barack Obama doing much better than Hillary against McCain.  Plus, the Republican from the get go have been prepared to take on the Clintons and are crossing their fingers and drooling at the chance, but know that Obama for all of the above reasons and more is a much tougher candidate.

 

As I've said before by directing attention to Frank Rich's early column called "Who's Afraid of Barack Obama," it is Obama, not Clinton who is the candidate who will beat John McCain.  As Bill Mahr said 'the sight of Barack Obama on stage with "Grampa Munster" would be enough to sway voters.  You can't say that will Hillary who unfortunately like Joe Leiberman favors McCain to Senator Obama.  That unprecedented gaffe of publicly siding with the Republican nominee above her Democratic opponent is something that superdelegates will take into mind as Hillary's choosing self-interest over greater party good to set Obama over the top.

 

Superdelegates know that despite what Mark Penn and other Clinton surrogates say about Obama not beating her in big states other than Illinois, Democrats will carry New York, New Jersey and California.  But more importantly, they have to potential to take back North Carolina, Texas and a few other Red States. 

 

I'm sure some of you can remind me of more reasons why Hillary is not the candidate of change like Keith Olbermann did and the one who can win the White House, but I direct you to write superdelegates and put your own arguments in a letter to them.

 

I'm sure that Hillary's people are going filtering letters but why not give them a little more work or possibly convince them to flip for Obama like superdelegates are.  Thanks again Mr. Cohen for your important post which has influenced me to write this (and hopefully is a call to arms to other Obama supporters) to write to the superdelegates myself.

Obviously, lots of them have publicly indicated that they intend to support a certain candidate.  And lots more surely will.

But when it comes time for them to actually place their vote, is it necessarily public?

America has a long history of it's ministers speaking out from the pulpit on political and social issues.   Sometimes for the good & sometimes for the worse.  You may get the inspirational speech of a Dr. King or the hatred of a Fred Phelps whose screams of hate are heard over the grieving of our military families.    Religions (as most things in life) are two sided coins.   You get the good with the bad.

The important thing to always remember is that we must never become confused that the voice from the pulpit is from anything other than a  mere mortal.  It is not a direct line to God.   The comments made by these ministers can sometimes hurt and must often be questioned.

On September 13, 2007 in discussing the attack on the World Trade Center, the Reverend Jerry Falwell made the following comment on the 700 Club,

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the fingerin their face and say,"you helped this [9/11] happen"

He was immediately supported in this hateful and untrue statement by the host of the 700 Club, Pat Robertson who replied to him, "Well I totally concur...Amen"

One week later, the following was screamed from a pulpit in Chicago,

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York, and we never batted an eye...We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is brought right back in our own front yards."

The comments of the Rev. Wright are wrong.   But in fairness, when you look at the days immediately following 9/11 there were a lot of mistakes made and a lot of wrong things said.   The comments of one more preacher (even one who knows a candidate for President) fade into the horror of the moment.

In 1971, the Rev. Billy Graham was taped in the Oval Office making racial slurs against Jews with President Nixon.    Years later when the tapes were made public, he made the quick, obligatory apology and did not speak of the issue for many years.    Then he said this,
"

I am now an old man of 83 suffering from several ailments.  As I reflect back, I realize that much of my life has been a pilgrimage--constantly learning, changing, growing and maturing.   I have come to see in deeper ways some of the implications of my faith and message, not the least of which is in the area of human rights, and racial and ethnic understanding.

Racial prejudice, anti-Semitism, or hatred of anyone with different beliefs has no place in the human mind or heart.   I urge everyone to examine themselves and renew their own hearts before God."

We can hope that our leaders (both spirtitual and political) take the words of Billy Graham to heart.   They too must be willing to journey on this pilgrimage called life--ready to learn, change, grow & mature.

So, now that we've gone back and forth from camp Hill's emails to Powers to Ferraro to Wright and saw an expectation from the MSM, the blogs and the general public for candidates to stand up to surrogates who say mean things, I think we need to take a good, hard look at John McCain.

First, he stood back and laughed when a woman on the campaign trail called Hillary a "bitch," and now he's shrugging his shoulders helplessly as his colleague says that an Obama presidency would please the "radical Islamists."

Don't get me wrong, I am completely sick of the "who's racist now" back and forth, but why is it that the GOP just gets a pass on junk like this?  Is racism only bad if it's expressed by a Democrat?  Is the GOP just the whole nation's "uncle you don't always agree with" and we are too helpless and too polite to expect more?  What does it say about a presidential candidate that he's not even willing to acknowledge that statements like these about his senate colleagues are hitting below the belt and condemn the comments? 

For a candidate who claims he's a maverick and is willing to stand up to the establishment, it seems like McCain's been spending a lot of time on his ass when it matters.  Maybe the moderate Repubs and Independents (or any "values voters" for that matter) who see him as a viable option should give his character another look.

"Obama in Plainfield IN:  We Have To Come Together."
Check It Out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsqDTVmlKk

Dear Campaign for Hillary,

As it seems the campaign is changing its narrative on a weekly basis, I would like to suggest something for the next version. Try giving reality a chance.

1) You agreed before any votes were cast that FL and MI would not have any delegates seated. Those two states never had the opportunity to meet Barack Obama, and MI didn't even have his name on the ballot. Those two pseudo-primaries were nothing more than a name-recognition test. Yet, now that you are losing, you are arguing that the voters of FL and MI are disenfranchised and that the pseudo-primaries were fair. Fair? How can I cast a vote for someone who shows such a lack of intellectual honesty?

2) Arguing that Hillary is better than Obama because she won NY and CA is ridiculous. You really think that historically blue states will vote for McCain over Obama? All the available evidence suggests that Obama will win NY and CA in a general election vs. McCain. Arguing otherwise makes you look irrational and divorce from reality--in other words, it makes Hillary look like W. Bush.

3) Pushing the media-bias story has made your most rabid fans foam at the mouth, but does nothing to persuade people who don't already support Hillary to do so more. The race- and sex-baiting that the Hillary campaign has engaged in, while simultaneously accusing the Obama campaign of doing so, makes you look delusional. Especially when, in the days leading up to March 4th, the media covered the Hillary campaign almost exclusively--no doubt having some influence on the March 4th results. The media has been rough on Hillary, but the media has also allowed her to float her "experience" argument without question. We all know that there isn't much in that balloon, and that it could pop with a single pointed question.

4) Including the votes from MI and FL in your count of "popular vote" is dishonest and divorced from reality. It is yet another example of behavior that makes you look delusional.

5) Stop assuming that Obama's supporters will vote for Hillary if she manages to finagle the Democratic nomination. Putting your fund-raisers to work as bribery agents of the DNC is offensive and highly unethical. I suppose I should thank you for doing so, as it shows Hillary's true colors (win at all costs). It will make it easier for me to decide to vote for McCain if Hillary does, by some back-handed way, steal the nomination.

If you wish to earn hearts and minds, you need to start speaking truth. Your illogicaly, delusional, and ridiculous claims only serve to persuade me and voters like me that Hillary simply cannot be entrusted with the highest office this country offers.

Cordially,

stYMied

An interesting phenomenon occurred today at the Cerro Gordo County
Democratic Convention.  From the beginning of the day to the point
where delegates to the state convention were determined, Clinton lost and Edwards gained. 
Also interesting, was the fact that on caucus night, Clinton was the
winner in this county.  As of today, the delegate count for the state
convention from this county is as follows:  Obama - 19, Clinton - 15,
Edwards - 12.  Had the delegates been determined on the original
registration this morning, Clinton would have had 16 and Edwards 11.



The number of county delegates after the official registration
(delegates and alternates officially seated) today was Obama - 75,
Clinton - 61, Edwards - 44, Biden - 1.  After the realignment, Edwards
had 48 - picking up the one Biden delegate and presumably others from
Clinton, although I only know the specific Edwards count because I was
a delegate in that camp today and am one of the twelve to go to the
District and State Conventions as an Edwards delegate.  Our county may
be an anomaly, but the Edwards delegates here all remained committed to
hang on all the way to the national convention in hopes of having some
clout.



It's hard to know exactly happened because I do not know the total
number of delegates named at the caucuses in the county and thus do not
know if the 181 total today was lower.  If that is the case, it might
explain some of the Clinton erosion.  Just in terms of energy today,
the Obama and Edwards people were much more fired up.  The Clinton
folks appeared somewhat subdued, maybe because they recognized the
numbers had flipped from January.



Don't know if you are collecting many anecdotal reports like this, but
I thought you might find this little tidbit interesting.  One of the
reasons caucus states are so fascinating. :-)



intp

7 more to Obama in second round of iowa caucus
+1 bonus likely now that he has the majority.


I wonder if it isn't going to be clearly over before PA?

Dean is showing leadership on the MI/FL delegate issue:  he isn't seating them.

The GOP missed a tremendous opportunity this year by not having Hillary Clinton as their nominee.

Is there more than a 4 minute clip of evil statements by J. Wright?

Didn't Hillary give us the impression that her tax forms would be out by now?

It's a sad comment on the US Electorate that we force our candidates to pretend to be religious when most are not.

There was nothing racist about the 3 am ad... it was sexist:  where was the father in the home?

Hillary Clinton is a great meta-campaigner:  she campaigns about the campaign.

It's hard to discuss politics with people who have no historical context for things.

Dear Reverend Wright,

I write to you today to offer a small bit of support at what might be a difficult time for your family and yourself.

There are a series of comments of which you are certainly aware that are causing considerable outrage in some quarters this week…but if I may be so bold, I do not understand exactly why the sermons that are today being proffered as unacceptable speech deserve to generate the degree of shock and anger being expressed in the larger political and media communities.

It is clear that you express your positions with great fire—and we presume an appropriate level of brimstone as well—but when you suggest that our imperious foreign policy has come home to roost, I think you speak truth in a way that makes many uncomfortable, yet seems to be borne out by a dispassionate examination of facts.

To be completely honest, I have forever wondered why we have never had a national conversation that centers around the question of whether we might be, through our own behavior, causing others to contemplate attacks of a similar nature to the events of 9/11; and rather than offering condemnation, I write today to thank you for having the courage to raise a most difficult issue.

Another quick note—again, with your kind indulgence.

I have never been a nigger.

But I have seen, with my own two eyes, the look of dismissive contempt on the face of someone close to me talking about “lazy niggers” who would just as soon kill you as rob you…and it hurts me, deep in my soul, to imagine the torment that statement causes in the hearts of those to whom the remarks are directed.

I will never feel that torment personally…and the fact is neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain have either. It is also a fact that there is a candidate running who has had that experience—and in a time when reconsidering how we relate to each other and the world is more critical than ever, that experience may in fact matter.

Which brings me to my final topic:

As a child I can recall watching the images of the “Long Hot Summers” and then being told that I had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance when school resumed.

I could never resolve the conflict between those images and “One Nation Under God”, even at that young age.

From the age of 10 I refused--never out loud, but silently—to participate in the morning ritual; and for the rest of my school career I stood silently with my arms at my sides.

With that in mind, I want you to know that I do well understand what you meant when you said “God Damn America”; and while it was said in a manner that was clearly designed to cause discomfort to the listener, it does not change the fact that behind the words is again an overarching truth many wish would remain unspoken.

And I would go a step further.

I would suggest that the exercise of speaking truth to power is in fact the very essence of a Reverend’s chosen vocation…and that choosing to remain silent is choosing to assent to injustice.

The most important power possessed by the United States is not military, or economic, or superficially cultural. Instead, our greatest strength lies in the fact that we are not a “love it or leave it” nation—that we are indeed capable of great and painful introspection, and from time to time, great and painful change.

But that change, as you so well know, is not achieved by the meek.

And I write today to tell you that I think a Nation that began a process of great and painful change with a Civil War in the 19th Century and consecrated even more hallowed ground at a bridge in Selma in the 20th Century can stand a bit of strident truth telling in this 21st Century …and that, despite today’s hue and cry, if we really think about the meaning of your words we will find within them dark and unsettling truths.

But if we are willing to face those truths…to look within ourselves and give that “last great measure of devotion”…we may finally find the power to set ourselves truly free.

Should that day come, Reverend Wright, a God who has blessed us so richly in the past will have bestowed upon America the greatest blessing of all.

She won't release her tax returns so voters don't know where she got the five million dollars she loaned to her campaign. It could have come from al qaeda? How are we to know?
 
She won't release her White House papers even though most of her claims to "experience" come from her days as First Lady. How are voters supposed to make an infromed decision if they don't have all the information from what she did or didn't do in the White House?

And now, she won't release her earmark requests.

We spent today back-and-forthing a few more times by e-mail with her press office, and the exchanges made it pretty clear that the oversight was intentional. The plan seems to be that since the NY press has never obsessed over Hillary's earmark requests, she can safely not release them as long as she doesn't say she won't and doesn't say why she won't.

Without torturing the details, the one thing we learned is that she plans to be absolutely transparent about stuff she hasn't done yet. Per spokesman Phillippe Reines: "We are now going above and beyond...the common practice on Capitol Hill and releasing all of our requests going forward."

This controversy is the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign because of what it will have Americans come to perceive about the Obamas' politics:  in Western Europe & countries such as Canada and Australia they could be accommodated within the centre's mainstream.  But in America?   They will be seen as so very left of centre.  
I suspected it when I read of Michelle saying this was the first time she'd ever been proud of her country and even more so when I read that Obama had stopped wearing his pin in reaction to all the flag-waving after 9/11.   I was sure of it when I heard Hannity's demented raving about Obama's friendship with the Weatherman bomber, Ayers, and then learned that it wasn't just a case of occasionally bumping into each other in altruistic circles and  their kids being at the same school, but that Obama had actually asked Ayers to be on the board of a charity that Obama sponsors.  Why in the world would he, with presidential ambitions, do that?  What does that tell us of his judgment?
Why would Obama not leave Wright's church?   Because even if he does genuinely part company with the utter extremism of Wright's views and the vile spectre of the way in which he expresses them, no doubt Obama - as do most of us somewhere on the left spectrum  - understands and sympathises with where he comes from and  shares his opposition to the disastrous results of decades of  hawkish and oil dominated US foreign policy,  and  the status quo on so many  economic and social policies.
Obama has asked the American people to believe that his judgment is superior to Clinton's.   I now see that it is not - it is only very different to Clinton's.    Hers I have long believed is the pits - ie always and everywhere a function of expediency and ruthless personal ambition.  Hell, she wouldn't even support anti-cluster bomb legislation! 
But his, I now believe, is the ultimate in foolish for someone who has clearly long harboured the ambition to rise to the pinnacles of the American political system.   
He's history now.   It's sad - but I'm resigned because I've come to see it as having always been inevitable.  He is on the left of the Democratic party and will suffer the same fate as all previous left candidates. 
Watching the smugness of  Hillary's impending rise - seeing the sleaze surrounding her,  people like Penn vindicated - will be repulsive;  the only other option, McCain, the world and low income Americans can't afford.  
My only comfort is that I think the policy climate for the Democratic nominee and then maybe President is going to be a nightmare.  When even Angelina Jolie comes back from Iraq saying how hopeful things are and America can't possibly abandon it now, while you yourself are advocating immediate withdrawal...  how to deal with a recession with an intolerable inherited deficit already in place as you're promising broad-based tax cuts and massive social expenditures;   I comfort myself  and actually really enjoy contemplating Hillary's future nightmare just desserts...

Hillary has her supporters writing to"automatic delegates" and super delegates to lobby their votes.
In one of the "facts" listed along the side of the page:
"The race is currently a virtual tie."
Is that true?

http://www.delegatehub.com/contact/

As promised. Isn't it wonderful!?

I just saw a special report on CNN.  The reporter was asking Iraqi soldiers  who they would like to see win our presidential election.   Some said Hillary, others said Obama, others just said "Democrat, whoever, Democrat".  When asked why, they said they're fighting "a Republican war, we've seen Republican war....let's see what Democrats can bring here".  Some said it's really a war between U.S. and Iran, just taking place in their country.   
Even with CNN bias, or Clinton bias, I think it was very telling.  I'd actually like to see a lot more candid interviews with Iraqi citizens--ones not  produced by the Pentagon.  
Interestingly, last year, one of the congressional oversight committees invited ten Iraqi legislators to come to a hearing and talk about their points of view.  
The committee kept pressing the State Department to arrange this, but they wouldn't respond.   As Patrick Leahy recently discovered,  the reason the Iraqi legislators won't come is because our State Department won't issue them temporary visas.


 

I understood what Rev. Wright was saying in his all-be-it overwrought way about America. But who was the Barack Obama he was talking about? Didn't recognize him.

Then it hit me: The media is focused on how Obama views Wright. The answer may be in how Wright views Obama. The answer is he makes him up. He makes him up to fit his cosmology of bitterness, well-earned as it may be.

The starting point, I'll confess, is that I believed what I read in "Dreams From My Father," one of the most subtle, textured explorations of class, race and culture ever written. The story's arc is basically how the child-Barack takes in a world of influences that includes an extraordinary white mother, an absent African father, an Indonesian step father and life abroad, custodial white grandparents. He lived in struggling middle-class circumstances, attended an exclusive prep school.

Slowly, he begins to feel the pull of race in the U.S. Since he doesn't quite belong anywhere, he can choose. He chooses to integrate himself into African-American life.  He articulates it; it's a choice. As much a true citizen of the world as anyone ever was, he comes to know he needs a place, a community, an identity.

The book ends at his wedding with a tableau of his African half-brother -- a Muslim convert whose strident attitudes Barack finds objectionable -- hugging his white mother and grandmother, saying his has two more mothers now. Obama calls it the happiest moment of his life. He has solved his issues with community and grafted the solution on to his broader, even more important vision of humanity.

So who is this cartoon character, this ghetto archtype, Wright thinks is running for president? He's the child of a single mother who grew up in poverty surviving and triumphing over the sting of racism, a man with every right and reason to be as angry as the pastor himself.

I can only imagine that the Harvard law and Colombia U. grad, the Sidley & Austin summer associate, U. Chicago law professor, the prep school kid, the child of an adored white mother must have found all this pretty amusing. Like alot of Wright's other rants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQNpEET9WqQ&feature=related

 

http://www.myspace.com/lis64

Peace,
Lis

"It's clear this election they're having is not going to count for anything."

Maybe in the next debate, someone will ask her about that statement and why she changed positions.

Hillary Clinton will say anything and change nothing.

Reverend Wrights comments have and should be denounced by Obama and Obama has said so.  He has also said he cannot denounce the man and I agree.   Obama is who he is in part to Reverend Wright's guidance for almost 20 years.   Obama has said he will not denounce the man because his ministry has a span of 35 years.  So those who can not understand the difference between one or the other, can not and will not understand what Obama and his candidacy represent.   Obama is who he is because out of all that anger, he has found community and a purpose for uniting us and transcending all those divisions that for so long have dimished our own progress. 
We can not and should not allow that kind of speech in our politics, by the same token, can we, as a Nation, heal our wounds and see this as another reason to elect Obama as our next President.  

You warn people that you may censor their comments and possibly not
even post them before they waste their time responding to your remarks.



It is not unlike agreeing to go do something with someone and then
blowing off your commitment, the other party set aside time and you
wasted it.



If you know you may not agree with the comments you receive back and
then reserve the right to exclude some - don't you think you have a
responsibility to warn people first?



Am I missing something because I posted two remarks at two different
posts and got back a 'comment is being held' message, which has never
happened to me before.



I was a bit perturbed because I had spent a fair amount of time looking
up documents and creating links so that I wasn't perceived as a
baseless troll - doing the hit and run thing.



And all but one of the links went back to the DNC and related Democrat
sites. The other one refernced an AP News site in Florida.



We're not talking rabble rousing here.



The one individual appears to only have been posting here since the 13th - how do you set your blog to force reviews?



Like I asked before - am I missing something here?



By the way - the comment policy link fails.

Quick thought I wanted to jot down--the "fighter" approach Clinton embraces so fiercely is wrong because it so fundamentally also embraces everything that is wrong about government and politics.

While Clinton fights the same old fights against the same old vicious snake oil peddlers in the Capitol and causing each side to retreat further into their bunker to plot a final solution with intermittent small victories and small losses, Obama is out there talking and making sense to people, not Republicans, and building a m