Reader Posts

March 23, 2008 - March 29, 2008

Sheila Jackson Lee Booed By Her Obama Supporting Constituents At Democratic Convention

This can't be excellent news for Sheila Jackson Lee. At her district's convention today she was booed and interrupted continuously by the same people who have been re-electing her.  Why? Her support of Hillary Clinton in a district where he received 90% of the vote. This could be bad news for her when she comes up for re-election. This has to have shaken her. At one point she said

"What would I be
if I went back on my word to an individual that I've worked with for
more than a decade and sat down talked to me about her vision for
America,” said Jackson Lee.

What would she be if her constituents held her accountable for not acting in regard to their wishes? She might find out.

Video of the end of her being booed is here.


This is an HTML Test

Which might lead to a HTML guide.

Using the 'buttons':

bold
italic
underline

quote
Using HTML:

<b>bold</b>
<i>italic</i>
<u>underline</u>
<blockquote>quote</blockquote>
<font color=red>font color=red</font color>
<font size=4>font size=4</font size>
<font size=2>font size=2</font size>


Exit Strategy

Does Clinton think she could get us out of Iraq in less than a year? How about ending this race before August?

The Commander-in Chief Test and Hillary's Final Throes

As the center piece of the kitchen sink strategy, developed in what may be the last throes of her campaign, Senator Clinton has brought to us the Commander-In-Chief Test. Over the last several weeks I have wondered what exactly is this test (still waiting for an explanation from the Clinton operation) and has it been administered to the interested parties? I was bothered by this concept in principle because if such a thing existed surely it would be plain to see, easy to define and as such easily applicable to all candidates. Well, for lack of a better explanation I have decided to define the Commander-in-Chief Test as the essential quality in the President that is required beyond all other qualities perceived or otherwise for national success and progress.

What is this miracle leadership salve? Well I am glad you asked because I believe above any other quality that the ability to bring people together for a common purpose is the most fundamental and necessary aspect of any leader. Unity with directed purpose is the most powerful national force that can ever be put forth in any context or situation from national security to foreign policy. E pluribus unum “out of many one” is not just decorative latin fluff on the Seal of the United States of America.

So since she brought the point to the campaign forefront does she meet the  threshold of the Commander-in-Chief test? According to her campaign she does because of her 35 years of “vetted” experience.

The supposed argument put forth by senator Clinton for the nomination that she is “vetted” and able to stand up to the attack machine leaves much to be desired. I would grant the point that she is a tough opponent and could stand any attacks directed at her. But this is an empty argument that on further thought is exactly the reason not to vote for her nomination. I personally do not desire a President who’s main reason for assuming the executive office is because she can “take it and dish it back.” This is obviously not her only strength but it is her main point for deserving the nomination. Anyone who would make this claim as the central thesis of their nomination is by logical extension a divisive individual. This is a campaign for the Presidency of the United States of America not the Divided States of America or the Democratic Party-States of America.

The problems this country faces can no longer be measured by what happened in the 1990's. This is not an adequate yardstick. Everything has gone global... environment challenges, race/religious divisions, financial-economic disparities, natural resources depletion, genocide, civil rights abuses/inequality and on and on...  If we as a united country do not deal with these matters they will land at our doorstep sooner or later in some form be it terrorist attacks, the selling off of our financial institutions to other countries, export of jobs, diminishing value of the dollar, impotence in negotiation with other regimes etc... 

This has obviously been severely compounded by Bush/Cheney but they merely took advantage of the divisive precedent set it place during President Clinton’s term. The wasting of nearly sixty-five million tax dollars (cost to begin re-enforcing the levees in New Orleans) in investigating whether he perjured himself over oral sex and the meaning of the word "is" on the heels of White Water during the series of Starr investigations was the final "cherry on the dessert." The cracks in the political system began to show earlier after the transition of Congress to the republicans and Newt Gingrich. The two parties have been bickering ever since over banal partisan trivialities. The final result was a country divided and ripe for the abuses of Bush Jr and companies. This was the immediate legacy of the Clintons. They set the stage for the debacle of Bush and the neocons. 

The right wing conspiracy often quoted by Hillary is a self fulfilling prophecy. Opposites cannot exist apart, i.e. black and white, up and down (hence her appearance on radio with Mellon Scaife at her side in Pittsburgh recently). This nation will remain paralyzed as long as these people are not just at each others throats but also in the ultimate position of power and influence. Our children's future opportunities and prospects will be the ultimate price that is paid. 

Final comments, effective leadership comes from the center and unifies. The greatest social progress and advancements in the history of this country ... right to vote - women/blacks, civil rights movement, civil war/slavery, organized labor... were often violently fought for not to divide the country but to include everyone, even those you may not agree with. This is how you move the country forward.

The problems facing this country, internal and external, will not be seriously addressed until we are united and focused on them as a whole. In spite of her other abilities and well designed agenda this is the only ability she sorely lacks and will never have.

This is the true Commander-In-Chief test because in the end this is the most important quality in a leader. For nothing else, no matter how high minded and organized, can follow without it.


change is the only constant

avatar

could it be that we are at a point is time similar to that which created great and long-lived sparks of human consciousness that persist to this very moment? seems that this could be the opening pages of a new "axial age" that may allow human beings to realize their interconnectedness in a conscious way. let's explore this opportunity without trying to out-do one another.


The Hillary Deathwatch

There may not be a reason to post anything else about Hillary's death spiral since Slate has started a tick-tock counting down her fall.  I guess Hillary's campaign is doing a pretty good job of it themselves with James Carville becoming a parody of himself running around making playing the fool trying to discount the significance of Bill Richardson's endorsement by beating the Judas dead horse while superdelegates are following the New Mexico governor's lead;  Hillary still trying to revive the moot Michigan/Florida issue while Texas is falling Obama's way (although the Clintons are trying their hardest to dirty-trick their way into a victory there); and Bill still going around saying dopey things to worsen his legacy.  When Barack Obama has such a command on the race that he can give her permission to stay in the race, you know it's over.  Either way, I'll be keeping my eye on The Hillary Deathwatch

Why Edwards didn't endorse Obama

All Superdelegates are NOT created equal

avatar

RISE UP - THE NOMINATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS IN THE HANDS OF CRONIES !

There  are two separate and distinct groups (plus formerly elected officials and DNC chairs) of Super Delegates -- and who they are and how they vote could determine who the next Democratic candidate for President is IF the Clinton campaign has its way.

The media had not clarified this for the public even though the split is easy to explain

Elected Officials vs Cronies
(plus DLC: Demorcratic Party Leaders: former Pres, elected officials etc)

BOTTOM LINE:
Sen Obama is ahead in the super delegate ELECTED officials as of today -- but you would not know that from how the news is reported.

Sen Clinton is ahead in the super delegate DPL (Pres Clinton, Terry McAuliffe etc)
Sen Clinton is ahead in "cronies"

AND THAT'S THE RUB.

So unless we want to allow an "inside job" - spread the word and make the distinction --

BECAUSE  if you look below at the numbers: the LARGEST undecided block of super delegates - the people who Sen Clinton wants to decide this nomination are democratic party "cronies".

The vast majority of these people gained their "superdelegate" status when Pres Clinton was in office and Terry McAuliffe was the DNC Chair.

NO WONDER HAROLD ICKES WANTS THESE PEOPLE CALLED "AUTOMATIC" DELEGATES!

So here is a handy dandy guide to Super Delegate 101:
TELL YOUR FRIENDS!

WHO IS GOING TO DECIDE THE NEXT DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT?

----------------------------------------------------
1: There are 793 Democratic Super Delegates - not including Florida and Michigan

2: Breakdown below as of March 29, 2008:

Committed Super Delegates:
Clinton:
ELECTED:
Senators: 13 (plus 2 Fl/Mich)
Representatives: 73 (plus 7 Fl/Mich)
Governors: 10 ( plus 1 Michigan)
Subtotal: 96 (plus 10)

DPL: 10 (Dem Party Leaders: former pres etc)

CRONIES:

Subtotal: 140 (plus 6)

GRAND TOTAL: committed  CLINTON: 246 (plus 16)

Obama:
ELECTED:
Senators: 16
Representatives: 71 (plus 3 Fl/Mich)
Governors: 12
Subtotal: 99 (plus 3)

DPL: 3

CRONIES:
Subtotal: 110 (plus 2 Fl)

GRAND TOTAL: committed: OBAMA: 212 (plus 5)
----------------------------------------------------
Uncommitted Super Delegates:
ELECTED:
Senators: 19 (plus 1 Michigan)
Representatives: 77 (plus 5 Fl/Mich)
Governors: 9
subtotal: 105 (plus 6)

DPL: 6

CRONIES:
Add ons: 74
DNC: 150 (plus 24 Fl/Mich)
subtotal; 224 (plus 24)

GRAND TOTAL: UNDECIDED: 335 (plus 30)

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

Obama and Hillary Could Insure Dem Victory: Oppose Partial Birth Abortion and Propose Measures to De Facto End Abortion

You want to bring the country together? Then end abortion through other than legal means if you have such a moral belief in "choice" but not necessarily in abortion [It is clearly a second choice that undoes responsibility for a first choice in elective cases].

You say that you wouldn't choose an abortion yourself, but will fight for someone else's right to choose it? Leave that self-justifying cocoon and do something to end what the great majority agrees is an evil, whether they think it should be legal or not.

And at the same time, take the issue away from the Republicans and actually fix the problems leading to it as well as end the practice by taking the lead. Those who are fighting for partial birth abortion are not unlike those supporting the policies of the Third Reich. They think they're right but they're dead wrong and complicit in mass murder with too much pride to look at the reality of what is really happening. What their rationalization skills do to fog their consciences today will be seen by history as atrocity. The cover up, clinical sanitization and silence on partial birth abortion is itself a propaganda mindset that condones mass murder.

Partial birth abortion is clearly a murder. Baby is right there, alive, coming into the world and is murdered with a pair of scissors stuck into his/her head. The physician doesn't pull the head out because she/he would have to look at what they were doing to a live, innocent human being. They'd have to look at the baby's human face grimacing at being pithed by a savage, evil act. Calling the baby a fetus in this circumstance is like calling a slave a sub-human to justify the murder of a slave. Clinical language used to mask what is happening is merely a labeling game that has been used by criminals running from their consciences for a very long time.

You may oppose these truths by suggesting that the consequences of declaring these children what they are, living human beings, is to criminalize doctors. Well, not if the law isn't retroactive.

People are free to smoke, but government has done much to restrict, discourage and fight against it. It is a moral issue: thou shalt not kill (yourself) by smoking; thou shalt not steal from others' health care dollars by smoking; thou shalt not harm others' lungs with passive smoke; thou shalt not engage in the idolatry of worshipping nicotine. In the same way, we've had legal abortion, but restricting it is considered unacceptable legislation of morality when it is done with gusto regarding life destroying cigarettes.

Like a nicotine addict defending his or her right to smoke, so much worse are those who defend their right to order a doctor to stick a pair of scissors into the unborn head of a child and get away with it.

If the Dems won't do anything about it, then the US will become worse and worse as a human rights violator in every sphere of government and private conduct. The GOP wants abortion, that's why they haven't outlawed it for the past 24/28 years they've had the White House, a stint when they had the Congress and after they'd packed the Supreme Court.

When those with power over the helpless or the weak use their power to destroy children coming out of the womb, we are courting evil empire status. Once that happens, the end of that empire is near. It is moral dissolution that unravels the rotting fish.

We can still get out of it. The Dems must provide real change.

Politics of Hope - in Texas

This is so disgusting. I'm not voting for this crook, ever

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nROKBU_KlZw

McCain doesn't know if contraceptives stop spread HIV, can't remember his position on it

This might be the beginning of the unraveling for McCain.  It may sound like something out of the Onion, but it's for real.



http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/



Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”



    Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The
guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was
just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to
encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where
that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ
contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is
on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.



    (Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a
moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)



    Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let
me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it
before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”



    Q: “What about grants for sex education in the
United States? Should they include instructions about using
contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just
abstinence?”



    Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”



    Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on
contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop
the spread of HIV?”



    Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”



    Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”



    Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? 
I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out.You know, I’m sure I’ve
taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position
was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception
– I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”




There's no doubt that if Obama or Clinton stumbled so badly on a
question like this, they'd be toast.  I've never seen a candidate
actually say that they need to find out what their position was on the
issue before answering a question.  



While people will inevitably point to his age as the culprit, it's more
than that.  McCain has flip-flopped on these issues so much in an
effort to pander to the religious right that he no longer has any
personal opinions on these matters.  It's all just a bunch of
poll-tested positions designed to court the Republican base while
maintaining a moderate image in the minds of those not paying attention.



And when stumped, McCain simply says that he's sure he agrees with President Bush.  That says it all.



Let's hope the media holds McCain accountable on this for once.

Hillary Clinton Should Not Concede

avatar

Most notably (Senator) Christopher Dodd, but others as well, have come out with the line that Clinton should fold up her tent.  The game's over and it's time to take her ball and go home.  The jig is up.  The fat lady's sung.  
(In case you're wondering, I do, in fact, get paid by the cliche).
He's 100% wrong. 
There are a great many people who would like to see her concede this minute, but that's a categorically different statement then she should write up her concession speech ASAP. 
1. She hasn't lost, yet.  This is akin to saying we should call off a baseball game in the middle of the 14th inning because it's torching both bullpens and will hurt their chances of winning their next games.  If you think the game isn't worth winning, put your left fielder in there to pitch.  You may be in a bad spot, but you don't have any other choice other than to play for the win, regardless of what it does to you and your opponents teams.  For those of you who don't speak baseball (communists) Hillary has no obligation to put the party before herself, especially considering (cue Monty Python voice) she's not dead, yet. If a fight's worth having it's worth having to its conclusion.  Which leads me to number two...
2. The Democrats done [redacted] themselves.  Democrats have no one to blame but themselves on this one.  They set up the rules.  They set up the election so that superdelegates could play the deciding role.  Either they did it as a means of making close races look like a supermajority or to insure that the people didn't stupidly pick an unelectable candidate (there's some logical problem there, but that's another story).  Regardless of which reason it was, they set up a world in which superdelegates could be put into play.  And until they've voted, this contest isn't over.  Poor way of choosing a candidate? Maybe.  Something Hillary is responsible for?No. 
3. There is a massive contradiction built within Dodd et al's position.  "Quit now, Hillary, the people have spoken and you're not going to win".  If he convinces her, he--and everyone else in his camp--have just acted as the kingmakers they say they shouldn't be and by their own logic can't be.  Just so I've got this straight, from their perspective, the very worst thing is for the will of the people to be ignored--therefore, party elites should force out a candidate who is still viable and not even mathematically eliminated from the pledged delegate race?  
Chris Dodd's pleas are okay--poor strategy, but okay--if he's acting as just another superdelegate in favor of Obama trying to do the best for his candidate.  But it's like trying to convince the other team to stop playing in the 7th inning because they're losing "too badly".  
There's no mercy rule in Major League Baseball--neither should there be one in politics, regardless of what it does to the "party".
  

Witness to Murder - Martin Luther King -- Timing of Show Suspicious

avatar

I noted that CNN will be having a documentary on Dr Martin Luther King's assissination this Thursday.

I was wondering if anybody can tell me if they remember CNN or other stations doing this (a King's death story) every year, in the past few years?

Perhaps I've missed the actual assassination documentaries in the past?  I've seen stories of the King's life and his 'I have a Dream' speech but it's been a very long time since I've seen a story about the way that he was killed.

CNN's "Eyewitness To Murder" report this coming week, bothers me.

Are they trying to scare Barack Obama supporters into not voting for Barack because he 'might' get assissinated?

That, unfortunately was my first thought when I heard about this upcoming show. 

I know for a fact that many blacks were concerned about this happening in the beginning.  I don't know if they continue to worry about the possibility or not; but I'm here to tell them, if President George W. Bush survived the past 7 years, the most hated President we've had in years, Barack Obama will survive just fine too.

Don't get me wrong.  I think the story needs to be told about King's death; but I'm just concerned about the 'timing' of this one.  It's just a couple of weeks before the Pennsylvania and North Carolina primaries.

Why couldn't the cable networks just tell King's life story, as in the past?  Why dwell on the assissination itself?

Just makes you wonder is all.

CHENEY VISITS IRAQ; A WEEK LATER, ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE

avatar

The Iraq war was, has been, is, and will be fought for political purposes. 

The right wing can howl all they want to about "Islamofascism" or the so-called "Global War On Terror," or what a bloodthirsty tyrant Saddam Hussein was, or how al Qaeda used Iraq as a springboard for whatever; and those who have the balls, like Alan Greenspan of all people, can admit that it was really fought for oil...(the oil part is basically true)...but the REAL truth is that this war was fought so that George W. Bush could run for re-election as a war president.

The reason I know this is that, way way back in 2002, when Bush first started mouthing about Hussein and Iraq publicly, he did so during Republican fund-raisers.

Who starts talking about invading a whole other country at a FUND-RAISER?

About that time, Karl Rove was quoted as saying that a good war would be a great way to mobilize the base; that it would make a great campaign.  Why, they spent more time planning the "Mission Accomplished" campaign ad than they did the war itself.

Oh yeah, there were plenty of right-wingers (including John McCain) who'd been spoiling for war since Clinton was president, and we now know it's true that, as retired general Wesley Clark had been saying all along--the day after 9-11, the White House was trying to figure a way to blame Iraq so they could go to war there.  Rumsfeld was quoted as complaining that "there's nothing to bomb" in Afghanistan.

But the real idea was that we'd roll into Iraq as heroes, be greeted as liberators, be pretty much out within six months--which, conveniently, would be right before the '04 elections--and Bush could strut around in his flight suit on T.V. all that fall and the White House would be his in a landslide.

Then, whatever civil liberties they wanted to destroy, they could do so under "national security" restrictions; whatever constitutional powers they wanted to thieve for the president, they could do because he was a "war president," and so on.

And just THINK of all the money they could raise, using troops as photo-op backdrops!

Consequently--much to the abiding horror of most of the troops and officers who were actually having to FIGHT this war--every decision made up to the present day has been a POLITICAL decision.

As Dr. Phil would say:  "How's that workin' out for ya?"

Now, one thing the White House has been aces at controlling about this uncontrollable war, has been media coverage.

So imagine their chagrin when things actually did deteriorate so much "on the ground" that all their previously lap-dog media was covering was bloodshed and bombings day in and day out.  Bummer.

And it was looking bad, politically, because it cost the Republicans their comfortable majority in congress.

Damn the fickle liberal media!

Something had to be done, and quick, to get the media--and thus the ADD-afflicted public--back under control where the war was concerned, because there was, after all, a big election coming up in '08.

Hence the Petraeus Plan.

Just when the whole country and every wise man in Washington and every military figure who still had the guts to speak up was begging for a troop drawdown in Iraq, Bush decides to flood Baghdad with a troop escalation.

The excuse given was to give the Iraqi puppet-government time to make some political reconciliations that would look good enough on paper to convince the American public that "progress" was being made.

And lucky for Bush & Co., that was the same time that Muqtada al-Sadr called a cease-fire of his powerful militia and that was the same time that Sunni sheiks in the Anbar decided to quit shooting at Americans and instead, let the Americans pay and arm them not to.

Meanwhile, Muppet Maliki did his part by forbidding journalists to photograph any more bombings, while at the same time, the Pentagon began to forbid them to photograph wounded American troops.  Of course, they never have been permitted to photograph flag-draped coffins.  Too depressing.

Only GOOD NEWS must be shown!

And lo and behold!  IT WORKED!

Violence did indeed come down, and what there was usually did not make the evening news, on account of all the new restrictions.  Plus, American camera crews couldn't get around the country very well because it was too dangerous.

The White House and John McCain began to crow about how the surge not only WAS working, but HAD worked!

Those miserable Defeatocrats who wanted to surrender and cut and run and retreat and defeat--wouldn't they look like idiots come November, eh?

Oh, happy times are here again in the ole White House!

Because even though the so-called surge was supposed to come to an end right about now, well, Bush told Petraeus a couple of months ago to stop the drawdowns this summer and keep it stopped for the next several months, at least until the elections, so that it would look like we were "winning" in Iraq.

Petraeus, like the good general he is, agreed that he did want to "preserve the progress" that had been made, and scheduled his report to congress in a couple weeks.

So the White House spinmeisters came up with another inocuous term:  "pause."  The drawdowns would merely...pause...for a while.  An indefinite while.  But just a pause, that's all.

And everything was set up to look just like another great Mission Accomplished Moment. 

Last week, Bush started the pre-production work by giving three big speeches on the Iraq war, all about how "normalcy is returning" to Iraq and all this great progress was being made and victory was at hand and stuff, and McCain did his part, giving a big speech on the war and parrotting the talking-points.

But the Democrats stubbornly hold to a great advantage in the upcoming race, in spite of all the feel-good propoganda and mind-melding being done from the White House.  It was going to be really hard to get that fifty-plus-one majority Cheney cherishes.

And one of the things those damned pesky Democrats just would not stop harping on, was how it really did not matter if our brave and brilliant U.S. troops did indeed bring down the violence when asked to do so, if, at the same time, the Iraqi government was taking month-long vacations and squabbling amongst one another and accomplishing not one single braggable political point.

Bush and Cheney knew that, come Petraeus's big moment in the spotlight, he would be grilled heavily about how long our troops were supposed to continue dying to support a government that was doing absolutely NOTHING in return.

The Sunnis, for example, who had laid down their arms against the Americans and taken them up against al Qaeda, had been begging Maliki's Shi'ite government to provide help with restoring power, providing jobs, and taking Sunnis into the Iraqi army and police. 

While Maliki ignored them, they started demanding that the provincial elections promised two years ago would finally take place, so that they could vote in a larger bloc in the government.  (Sunnis largely boycotted the first elections, and have regretted it ever since.)

A bloc of Sunni, Kurd, and Shi'ites actually did pass such a law, but one of the vice-presidents vetoed it.

Meanwhile, down in Basra, where the Brits have pulled out, Maliki's bloc of Shi'ites had been struggling for control over al Sadr's militia ever since, and al Sadr was making all the right moves to set himself up as a major political figure.  Provincial elections might prove to give him a large majority in parliament.

Which of course, Maliki did not want.

And so things languished.

But dammit, Petraeus was about to go before congress and claim all this "progress"!  And the stupid Democrats were demanding to know what kind of progress had been made by the Iraqis that would somehow justify 4,004 dead Americans?

Think of the sound-bites!

Enter Cheney.

Bush's Rottweiler.  Let off his leash.

He heads straight to Iraq and growls and bares his teeth at Maliki.

MUST have political progress, he snarls.  PASS THE DAMN PROVINCIAL ELECTION LAW!

This way, Petraeus will have a REAL slam-dunk when he goes before congress, and it will be President McCain before you know it.

Maliki whines that he's losing control of Basra--which strikes fear in the heart of the old oilman--and so he says, FIX IT.

The U.S. will back you up, says Vice, if you will pass the damned election law.

Two days after Cheney leaves, suddenly, the provincial election law passes!

Yay!

Media's happy, Bush's happy, McCain's so damn happy he actually goes to Iraq his very own self to observe all the peace and prosperity.

Media glosses over the fact that he cannot, in fact, visit the market he visited last time, because of "security concerns."

No worries!  The surge has worked!  Vote for me!

A few days after that, Maliki launches a huge military offensive against Basra.

Bush and Cheney both howl at the moon about how this PROVES that the surge has worked because NOW the Iraqi government can fight their own battles, sort of, but not quite COMPLETELY, not yet, but still, it's all good.

Cheney returned to Washington convinced that Maliki would have this grand show of strength right before Petraeus's visit; provincial elections would be scheduled for...let's see...how about OCTOBER--right before the U.S. elections?

Think of THOSE sound-bites, suckers!

And the Republicans would triumph on the backs of the U.S. soldiers and Marines YET AGAIN.

But you see, the thing is, when you fight a war POLITICALLY rather than MILITARILY, and you expect the military to do EVERYTHING--we don't need no steenkin' diplomacy!--what happens is, disastrous political decisions get made that backfire so badly that a six month war drags on for six years.

EVERY decision in this war has been made from the White House for political reasons--even the first Iraqi elections were rushed under a flimsy deadline that did not allow for truth on the ground--every single decision--and every single decision has been horrible for the U.S. troops and the Iraqi people.

Because the sad truth is that, there was a time that John McCain was RIGHT about this war--before he flip-flopped. 

It was actually John McCain who first used the term "whack-a-mole" to describe the impossibility of fighting an unconventional guerilla war with conventional means.  Like Joe Biden described it, you take a balloon and squeeze one end, the air is just redistributed to the other end.

Every place that American soldiers and Marines are present in force, the insurgents flee, only to regroup elsewhere.  Like my son said, they fought a massive battle to get the bad guys out of Fallujah in '04, but when they returned in '05, many of them had just moved back in.  This has happened everywhere.  Though bad guys did flee Baghdad before the so-called "surge," they regrouped in Mosul, where U.S. troops are still waging daily bloody battles for control.

Cheney's pressure on Maliki to produce results Petraeus could brag about in front of the U.S. congress--and media, thus influencing our own elections--has instead incited a tinderbox of explosive blowback in that unstable country.

If Cheney had spent any time studying the REAL conditions "on the ground" in Iraq rather than those he WANTS to study, it would have told him that al Sadr has a pervasive and large, growing presence all over Shi'ite areas of Iraq, and that they are well-armed and experienced against U.S. troops.  That al Sadr pretty much controls the police in Iraq and that Basra police would shed their uniforms and join up with Sadr's militia against Maliki's forces.

He would have known that a situation Maliki assured him he could control in one little area of the country, the coastal tip, would instead spread like a grass fire all over Iraq--right into Baghdad.  American troops would come under increasing pressure to maintain what security they have, but because of the complicated releationship with al Sadr and the delicate balance of his "cease-fire,"--they would not be able to fight back as completely as the military might like.  (It's a miserable godforsaken way to ask trained troops to fight.)

He would have known that Maliki's forces aren't like U.S. troops; that they're as likely to turn and run as fight, depending upon their tribes and loyalties, and that in order for the U.S. to provide REAL back-up to Maliki, they would have to, indeed, play a game of whack-a-mole by pulling troops OUT of volitile Baghdad in order to send them on down to Basra.  With wearily predictable results.

And he would have known that, the more it appears that provincial elections WON'T be held, after all, well, then the less reason the Sunnis have to continue working with the Marines in the Anbar.  Which puts THEM in greater danger.

And if he'd been listening to the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff and most of the Pentagon and his secretary of defense--among others--he'd have known that the American military can't possibly sustain this level of commitment in Iraq much longer without damn near breaking it in half.  Especially with another war raging in Afghanistan.

But of course, he didn't listen, and even after five years of war and thousands of dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, he has not learned.

No one in the White House has.

Consequently, Cheney might just as well have traveled to Baghdad and declared a whole new war, because that is what we have now.

Good luck, General Petraeus.  You've just learned the most bitter lesson the U.S. military has had to learn in Iraq:  this is not your war. 

And no matter how hard you fight and how many of your boys and girls die, nothing you do will matter, because the White House will still manage to lose it for you.

Who Should Obama Pick for Vice President

avatar

If Clinton wins, she must pick Obama. He would probably accept. Eight years of seasoning and visibility will make him more acceptable to mainstream American and he'll end up being president in 2016.

But who should Obama pick? It would be foolish to pick someone from New York. He'll win there even if he gets crushed 57-43 popular and 40+ to less than 10 in the state count.

Hillary and Soccer -- Did This Story Happen or Do We have Another Lie?

avatar

It seems Hillary Clinton may have lied about her past experiences yet again.

First we hear her tell us about her Bosnia trip as First Lady.  She and Chelsea supposedly underwent sniper fire after landing.  We find out by actual video's it's not true.

Then we're told she helped the Ireland peace treaty, when she didn't according to many of those involved.

Then Dick Morris reminds us about the story she gave as to where Chelsea, her daughter, was during 9/11.  Chelsea's story was completely different.

Now, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann report another lie or 'mistake' of Hillary's.

At a 1997 race-relations forum for teenagers in Boston, Hillary recalled the “pain” of a “childhood encounter” that helped her to grasp the injury suffered by the victims of bigotry. Her comments came as her husband was launching his second term in office by calling for a national dialogue on race and reconciliation. In an effort to empathize with her audience and inject herself into the discussion, she made up yet another incident that never happened.

“During a junior high school soccer game” on a cold day, Hillary claimed, a goalie told her, “I wish people like you would freeze.” Stunned, the future first lady asked how the goalie could feel that way when she didn’t even know her. “I don’t have to know you,” the goalie shot back, “to know I hate you.”

Nice story, but it never happened.

While today’s generation of young girls routinely play on multiple soccer teams in their schools and towns, Hillary’s generation had no such opportunity. Hillary may have attended lots of Chelsea Clinton’s soccer games, but that seems to be the sum total of her soccer career. As a school sport, girls’ soccer teams didn’t exist when Hillary went to middle or high school. In 2004, the athletic director for South Main High School in Park Ridge — and a 34-year veteran of the school system — confirmed that there were no girls’ soccer teams of any kind in Hillary’s school district in the 1960s.

Hillary seems to have simply conjured up the tale...

Now I realize that Dick Morris has a huge grudge against the Clinton's for their firing of him when Bill was President, but this article includes another person's input.  Keep in mind how many years Dick knew and worked for the Clintons.  If anybody would know their secrets, he would.

I sure would be interested in hearing Hillary's explanation for this lie or 'mistake' wouldn't you?

Hillary seems to like to 'exaggerate' her life stories a lot.  I'm almost afraid to know what she would 'exaggerate' on if she were our President?

If your candidate isn't the nominee.....?

These questions were asked by Dan Savage on the streets of Los Angeles. This isn't a scientific study to say the least. It is however interesting to see what people think:

a) What is your party affiliation?
b) If you supported Sen. Clinton and she lost the nomination would you support Sen. Obama?
c) If you supported Sen. Obama and he lost the nomination would you support Sen. Clinton?
d) If you supported either candidate and they lost the nomination to their Democratic opponent would you support Sen. McCain?

Deep in the Weeds: AOL Straw Poll

avatar

Found this, for whatever it's worth. For my money, not much, but I know there are those out there who take this kind of thing seriously:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/straw-poll

I have to admit, I was very suprised at how it looks at this point. I really assumed that Obama supporters would be more likely to participate in these kinds of polls. Feel free to check for yourself, but here are the basics:  In the 10 remaining primary states, Clinton leads in every one, from 51% to 65%. She leads in Michigan at 51% and in Florida at 61%.

Again, I don't make too much of this, except to point-out that it IS possible to find information out there that is encouraging for Clinton supporters. On the off-chance there is any validity whatever to this, the road ahead for Sen. Obama may be more difficult than many of you think.

Clinton's Inadequate Attack On Pelosi

avatar

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been meddling in Presidential politics, and the Clinton-campaign pushed back. 
Senator Clinton didn't go far enough.

So does Obama accept money from oil companies or not?

avatar

He's running a commercial in PA. right now in which he states that he doesn't take any money from oil companies.  
The Clinton campaign has called him on it:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/834887.aspx

If he's parsing words here, I'm going to be really pissed off.  I'm a big Obama supporter, so if anyone can shed light on this, I'd appreciate it.

Hillary Clinton: entitled college freshman

avatar

When I was in college, there was a minority freshman orientation program that ended the morning that the entire campus arrived.  Because of the timing of the program, the minority kids who attended got to their dorm rooms first (by hours, at best) and would choose a side of the room, make the bed, put their stuff in drawers, etc.  As time went on, it became quite apparent that many White freshmen students had a HUGE problem with this.

Now think this through: there are two sides of a room.  It is damn near metaphisicaly impossible for both roommates to arrive in the room at the same time, so SOMEONE is going to make it there first.

Do we actually think that the White kids, had they arrived before their minority roommate, would NOT chose a side without waiting and without consulting their roommate?  Are we to think they would sit around waiting for their roommate to arrive, then draw straws?  Of course not.  They would have chosen the side they wanted, of course, then just said "Oh. well. It's really not a big deal" if the roommate complained.

But when the minority did the same thing, that is where the problems began.  It was the entitlement . . . the "understanding" that the minority was NOT supposed to "win" the side of the room they wanted . . . it was the "arrogance" of those minority kids chosing their side of the room without "clearing it" with their White roommate first.  That the minority student had an "advantage" because of their race -- even though half of the White students, by definition, arrived at their rooms second.  We even had a White student suggest that they flip a coin (after the minority kid was already unpacked and moved in) to see who got which side of the room.

Does this remind you of anything?  Whenever I hear Hillary backers talk about Obama's "arrogance", I think of the White kids to whom I had to explain the "someone would get there first" reality.  When I hear Hillary backers say "Hillary in '08, Obama in '16", I think of the White kids incensed that the minority kids had the timerity to do what they would have done . . . which is pick the side of the room they wanted, without consulation with the rommate. 

Think about this:  when has a White candidate ever been told "it's too early for you, you should wait eight years, then it wil be your turn"?  When has a White candidate leading a race been offered the No. 2 position to a candidate they are beating?  As Chris Rock once said about Colin Powell being floated as a vice president candidate, "You wouldn't expect Al Gore to be vice president for Al Sharpton, would you?  So why would you offer the vice president's position to someone he could beat?"

And when I hear the Hillary peope complaining about the "undemocratic" caucuses, I'm reminded that, among the complaining White kids in college, I know some of them didn't mind the side of the room they were "left with" -- they either would have chosen it anyway, or they did not really care.  But it was "the principle of it."  It was that the minorities . . . they just didn't know their place.  THEY were non supposed to be calling the shots. . . not at an Ivy League school!

Like Andrew Sullivan, when I hear some of the Hillary backers' complaints about Obama's "advantages" all I can think of is the one word that really explains what they are really trying to say: "uppity."  That, my friends has been the real eye opener for some Black liberals about White liberals -- that the Black vote is valued and important . . . unless they don't have it in their back pocket.  It brings to mind what journalist Chuck Stone once said about liberals: "A liberal is someone who doesn't want the slaves whipped."

The fights are so fierce because the stakes are so small.

Some weeks ago I was talking to a friend of mine and quoted this line, which is about academia.  It may be more often phrased as a riddle:

Q: Why are the battles in academia so fierce?
A: Because the stakes are so small.
Anyway, he pointed out that this same pseudo-law of humanity may apply to politics as well: if the differences between two particular candidates are small, anyone who favors one over the other has to somehow magnify them.

The Republican party used to (and maybe still does) label itself the "party of ideas", but after eight years of Bush and company, it seems more like the "party of intellectually-bankrupt ideas".  They used to label the Democratic party as "tax and spend", but that doesn't work any more since they are now the "don't tax, spend anyway: steal from our grandchildren" party.  They're stuck with nothing more than name-calling and personal destruction.

On the Democratic party side, there are plenty of policy differences from the Republicans; but between the two presidential candidates, the differences are relatively small.  So here again, Clinton and Obama are limited as to what they can say to distinguish themselves from each other.  This is true for their supporters as well, and hence we get a lot of name-calling and "supporter bashing".

Whoever comes out of the nomination process, I will be voting for the Democratic candidate in November, because the policy differences between either-one and McCain are what matter the most.  Sure, I'd like my guy (who happens to be Barack rather than Hillary) to win this nomination.  But even if he doesn't, I'll take HC over JM.  I'd rather have BO (who I admit has unfortunate initials :-) ) but I will take either one.

The National Debate on Race Will Not be Televised part 2

avatar

Presidential candidate Barack Obama suggested hat there be a national
discussion on race. I am pleased to see that TPM has a discussion next
week featuring a variety of African-American voices, from the
Progressive to the Conservative. I am saddened by the fact that such a
broad-based and hopefully insightful conversation will never take place
on any network or cable news show.

In a previous post on this
issue, I noted that all of the hosts of morning and night time news
shows are Caucasian. The hosts are the ones who direct the questioning
and can choose who will respond to a posed question. The host can also
cut off the response to a question, if the response is are not what the
particular host wants to hear.

The fact that the news show hosts
are Caucasian would not matter if they could reflect some understanding
of what the African-American community has to say to the United States.

Unfortunately,
none of the hosts appear to possess this ability. As an example of this
inability, I submit observations from two shows that aired on
03/28/2008:

The first show, Lou Dobbs , had Dobbs along with two
Caucasian males , one a Democratic Party actviist who s Hillary Clinton
supporter and the other a New York Post columnist, discussed Condolezza
Rice's statement regarding the national "birth defect" of slavery.
Roland Martin, an African-American analyst was off camera also offering
commentary. Dobbs appeared outraged at the audacity of Rice's
statement. The other two White males were not angered, but expressed
concern about Rice's choice of words

Roland Martin, on the other
hand, said flat out the Rice had hit the nail on the head. Rice's
viewpoint is shared by a significant number of African-Americans.
Racism was built into the Constitution. There was great symbolism in
Roland Martin being beamed in rather than being on stage. Dobbs and his
two White colleagues face Martin with a force of 3:1. Such an imbalance
is commonplace on cable news shows

The discomfort that Dobbs et
al have with Rice's "wording" suggests that his show will never be an
honest format for a discussion of race.

The second show was Real
Time with Bill Mahrer. The guest were comedian Robert Klein, WaPo
international affairs correspondent Robin Wright, and African-American
PBS talk show host Tavis Smiley. The conversation turned to Reverend
Wright. Both Klein and Wright expressed dismay at Wright's words.
Mahrer was able to understand why an African-American who grew up in
the US cold be a little PO'ed. Smiley reminded the panel that Dr King
had said that a judgment could come down on America from actions in
Vietnam. Klein and Wright were initially reluctant to believe that King
had disparaged the United States. King was not the cuddly Black leader
that many want him to be.

In actuality, Dr King was dis-invited
to the white House for his comments about Vietnam. I bring up the
Mahrer show to bring up two points. One, that there are few hosts on
network or cable news who would take Mahrer's position about Rev
Wright's speech. Second, Robin Wright's outrage at both Rev Wright's
speech and the possibility that Rev King had said something
"unpatriotic" represents the feelings of most of the Caucasians in the
news media.

Dobbs getting upset about Rice's comments to the
Washington Times and Wright rejection of Rev Wright's snippets and the
"UnAmerican" sermon on Vietnam provides clear evidence that the
National discussion on race will be limited until a more diverse base
is used to lead the discussion, rather than just be responders to
biased questioning.

Given the way MSM is constructed, the national discussion on race will not be televised.

Ignorance, Apathy, and Objectivity: Voting

avatar

As a recently joined member, I have come to champion this site as one of few seemingly neutral media sources available (I say seemingly because I know not what neutral truely entails).  The level of thought behind the articles and the adjoining comments by educated users continues to challenge my mind by introducing campaign issues that go far beyond the scope and depth of traditional news sources.

In fact, in addressing the candidates platforms the writers manage to dissect the true mechanics behind, for example, an economic policy using historical evidence and professional guidance (e.g. Paul Krugman).  This is fascinating to me because the majority of Americans care not for these important facets that distinguish candidates, instead taking their summed up versions at face value.  This method of adoption requires for the voter a certain amount of laziness or futile acceptance of something they cannot hope to understand.  Thus, is it untrue to say that most of America takes what the news and candidates say for granted?

That is, only if they get that far in the first place!  I applaud the individuals who, upon each and every election, make an openminded decision without claiming allegiance to party, religion, sex, or any other denominating factor.  In the hustle and bustle of American society this civic achievement is worthy of praise, even if their assessment is still plagued by ignorance and some level of apathy.

But as I have hinted, it is an extremely difficult task to reach this level of participation in the first place.  Votes are somewhat pyramidal structure, where most of the population is truely vegged out at the bottom rung in a quasi-Orwellian twilight world.  Evidence for this lay in the fact that Fox News is STILL the most popular news station on the air - and its not for celebrated journalism and objective reporting.  No, most of the nation relegates its ability to research and understand a candidate to CNN and Fox. 

Therein lay the problem, however.  Many people recognize the main stream medias monopolized influence over the everyday news watcher and are left with 3 choices:  to not vote because they recognize their ignorance, to attempt to find a neutral media, or to keep watching Fox News and try and sift out the bullshit for the real issues.

The first choice is the easiest, so I won't go over it.  The third choice is downright rotten because every bit and parcel of information is filtered through Rupert Murdochs GOP agenda.  Furthermore, the vast majority of the important issues are touched upon in a distant, inaffectionate manner when depth is a necessity. 

The second choice, however, is extremely difficult.  It is predetermined by ones highest education level, their ability to find and use resources such as the internet, and their social environment.  The innate quality of a neutral media source such as TPM is the above average intellects of its writers and viewers.  How is the layman supposed to understand a progressive platform on international trade without a solid understanding of macroeconomics and foreign relations?  They won't, but thats the kind of depth expected by members of the site.

Another barrier to finding objectivity is the persons social environment.  I would argue that its the most important one!  Trying to be objective minded in a strongly biased environment is a task that I could have failed at many, many times if certain circumstances had not arisen.  Any type of reference group that a person subscribes to socially has tremendous power in thwarting dissent.

I'm stopping myself now from diverging too far from the point, but it might make for some interesting conversation otherwise.  The point of all this was to show that objective intellectuals who seek the underlying truth are an enormous minority in the grand scheme.  Yet our votes count as 1 and their votes count as 1.  I'm not attempting to sound elitist because I feel as if this problem was propelled and exasberated by the elites.   I just wonder what the point of all this is sometimes.  I'm not trying to sound nihlistic, but I feel like something should be done to make the media sources comprehensive as opposed to profit seeking.

Gday!

Texas Convention Shenanigans?

avatar

Fort Bend Texas rumor:

A Clinton supporter and head of the Clinton campaign in Fort Bend
showed up to a convention that was not even her own to speak on behalf
of Clinton.  The chairperson called her behavior inappropriate and had
security escort her out.

My letter to Nancy Pelosi

Dear Madam Speaker,


Yesterday I stood next to my longtime neighbor, and eco-warrior, Rob, “Birdlegs” Caughlan, just a few feet away from you, as you so graciously supported the brilliant mathematician, and wind engineer, Jerry Mc Nearney (CA-11) at his fundraiser in San Jose. Rob was his spokesman in ’06 and encouraged my support of this fine person as well as the true American hero, Charlie Brown in CA-04.

My heart was bursting with pride as I stood near my congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, and was reminded by you that our California delegation has a majority women, and that the number of women in that delegation is larger than some states entire delegation. You all magnificently represent all the best in modern California as you lead our nation in these very difficult times.

Because you are such a hero to me, and were actually standing in the same room. I allowed myself the indulgence to imagine what I would have said had we had a moment to chat.

I also have a family that is very excited and energized at a chance for an Obama presidency.  I understand all the reasons why. However, I have been a longtime supporter of Hillary and feel that it is she who is better able to get the work done that has “ the fierce urgency of now”.

My son, came home from Boston at spring break, which led to many discussions a day with all our family and friends.  His new city and state went for Hillary as did our own. He said that he was struck at how shallow the Obama kids understanding of Hillary was. He’s studying communication for a career in public service. When he filled them in, they opened their hearts to her. He never had to say anything about Obama to get this shift in his friend’s perceptions, he just told them about her. My son did a report on Bill in fourth grade, during the impeachment. (I tried to steer him to a less contovertial choice but he loves Bill) He endured humiliation then from classmates whose parents spoke ill of the president at home, but he held firm to his support based on his own research. It was amazing to watch at the time, I'm sure it helped him in the college dorms successfully present a favorable view of Hillary.

It reminded me of a functional MRI study written about in the NY Times late last year. It showed a unique appeal that only Hillary had. In the study of independents and partisan voters who had strong views of the current candidates, when people who didn’t “like” her actually watch her make a presentation, their brains lit up only for her in an area that suggests empathetic analysis and processing of a disconnect between previous perceptions and what they are seeing right before their eyes. After actually seeing her for who she is, they open up to viewing her more favorably. 

If the eloquent and persuasive Obama were on her ticket as VP,  and helping America see the real Hillary, rather than joining that tired old chorus of Clinton attacks, they would be unstoppable.

Karl Rove knew this about Hillary instinctively. I believe that is why the Republican attack machine suddenly became faced with blonde women when they went after her. Smoke and mirrors to retard her progress towards universal health care, and so much else.
We can’t let that false view of Hillary take her down. 

My family and I agree  that a Clinton/Obama ticket would  also be the way to erase the doubts about his readiness to serve in such an important office at such an important time for our nation and our world. We think it is the traditional role of the VP to be the spokesman for the administration’s plan. Their plans are so similar. How could Democrats have a better spokesman than Obama? 

Al Gore and Obama’s cousin, Dick Cheney, have made the office of the VP much more important. I believe Hillary would give him many opportunities to shine on his own. We would all require that from her. My son agrees that he’s “man enough” to take the number two spot behind her - after all -  he’s married to Michelle, and she’s a powerful woman.  There will be no doubts about Obama when he runs as an incumbent on the top of the ticket in 2016 for another eight years of Democrats in the White House. I believe he has the potential, like Hillary, to be a truly great president.

I urge you to find a way, as I believe you can, to bring together both halves of our wonderful Party, after all the votes are cast, assuming they each have roughly half the party's support as they do now, and let this talented duo turn to the important work of switching more congressional districts red-to-blue like CA-11 and CA-04.
 


Yours Truly
Carol S.

Meanwhile, back on the Strait Talk Express...

From the New York Times' politics blog, <i><a href=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention>The Caucus</a></i>:


Reporter: "Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"

Mr. McCain: "Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it."


(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)


Mr. McCain: "I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it."


Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?"


Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy."


Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"


Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You’ve stumped me."


Q: "I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?"


Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it."


 Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?"


Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before."



Now, I can admire a man who admits he doesn't know something when asked a question about obscure policy or precedent, but about something like this -- wow.  The bolded section in particular is just crazy.  That's the language of a man too far gone into Washington doublespeak.  That's the dangerous McCain.

Rasmussen: Clinton 42 / Obama 48

After nine days of a statistical dead heat, Barack Obama is showing a six
point lead today in the eerily historically accurate Rasmussen Reports
daily tracking poll.  (Personally, I look at the other polls, but
Rasmussen's are the only ones I take seriously.)



At 48%, Barack Obama is registering his highest number since the infamous Rev. Write videos hit the media.



It'll interesting interesting to see if this is an aberration, or the beginning of a trend.

Combat Politics and Hillary Clinton: One Reason Why I'm Voting for Obama

I think one thing is becoming clear. The Clintons practice "combat politics". James Carville, in his WaPo article, hailed this kind of politics.

It prepares you to get hit, stand strong and, if necessary, hit back. I've worked on enough campaigns to know that the most aggrieved candidate rarely emerges victorious. And for all of the hypersensitivity we're seeing this cycle, this campaign has not been particularly negative or nasty compared with previous elections.


That thinking makes sense, given what they went through in the 90's, but you have to wonder if maybe that experience has left their judgment and vision of politics flawed. I mean, if James Carville doesn't think the "kitchen sink" strategy is nasty, I'm concerned over what he would consider nasty.

Obama wants to change the tone in Washington. Granted, every president says that going in, but I sincerely believe, based on the way he's carried himself and the campaign that he's run,  that Barack Obama has the best chance of anyone in the last 30 years to actually do it.  

The Clintons can't and won't change the tone in Washington because they dont see "combat politics" as a bad thing warranting change.

The reason why I couldn't support Hillary was that I didn't (and still don't) see her as a viable change agent.  Policies aside, she's a Washington insider who is so entreched in combat mentality that she can't see any other way than to scorch the earth and, maybe, achieve a small victory, but at the cost of ruining the fertile ground and destroying any chance for long term success.

My supporting evidence is her campaign.

We've been there and done that. Obama may not be able to change the tone or bring civility back to Washington. But at least I'm convinced that he's willing to give it a fair shot. He's at least willing.

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton, who was forged in the fires of "combat politics", knows any other way. Hillary is a fighter, yes, i will grant her that.

But some of us have had enough fighting over the last two presidencies. We've had fights and fighters before and where has it gotten us?  But the overlooked thing about fighting is that when you fight you make enemies and burn bridges.

People don't like to lose a "fight" so positions harden, nobody will give an inch on anything no matter how reasonable, and nothing will get done except through an ugly and bloody process that wouldn't have been ugly and bloody if you didn't go into it thinking "fight fight fight".

Combat politics is the problem not the solution.

Earth Hour...March 29...Tonight

For those who like to think about other matters in addition to presidential politics...

Earth Hour...tonight at 8 PM...whenever that happens in your time zone.  Turn your lights out for an hour.  Look at the stars, look within.  Have a conversation by candlelight.

It's not a problem-solver.  It's barely a band-aid.  But it's something.

This Just In: NCAA Declares Winners of First Round Games that Were Essentially Tied

After due consideration and deliberation, the referees for the following 2008 NCAA first round games have determined that the following games were "essentially tied." Because these games were tied, the officials have exercised their discretion and decided that the teams that nominally "lost" these games, which were actually tied, were, in fact the stronger team and should have advanced to the next round.

Duke 71, Belmont 70
The officials believe overturning this result is justified by the fact that the Duke players had higher GPA's than the Belmont players, due to elitist recruiting practices at Duke, and that the fans of Belmont are thus more in line with the demographic profile of the NCAA fan base as it existed as recently as 1992.
 
Drake 99, WKU 101 T
he officials determined that Drake deserved to advance over Western Kentucky because it is a private school and, thus, may have more affluent doners than Western Kentucky.

Conn 69, U San Diego 70
Connecticut has been chose to advance over San Diego because more people in Connecticut have heard of it.

BYU 62, Texas A&M 67
BYU has been chosen to advance from this essentially tied game because it was, in fact, tied at the half and TAM was unfairly advantaged by its stronger suppor