So I am worn out from walking today, but it is a good sort of tired. BaristaBerry and your humble scribe wore out our shoe leather knocking on doors and registering new voters in beautiful Indianapolis yesterday and today. I cannot speak to the state of affairs in Indiana overall, but I feel confident in saying that Indianapolis will go for Obama in a big way. Big enthusiasm in this city, and lots of new voters. Lots of young voters were very enthused to register to vote so that they could cast their ballots for Obama. Then again, plenty of middle aged voters, and older voters were also enthused to cast their ballots for Obama.

In other words, for all of my Obama confreres in MO, IL, OH, etc looking for some way to help out the ongoing efforts, I encourage you to come to IN. We got a lot done this weekend, but there is still a lot to be done. We all need to roll up our sleeves and help deliver the Hoosier State for Obama.

(Meanwhile, we were really hoping that we could get Idiotic to write a response to this post to the effect of "out of state volunteers working Indiana for Obama is..." so if you are reading this, dear Idiotic, can you help us out here?)

I used to have tons of essays collected together in my old blog, before the format was  changed.   Some of the stuff was saved ONLY on TPM Cafe.

Frankly, I think that the original format, and saving the material posted on it, was the best.

This is very simple (though tragic)

I quote HRC:

"She got pregnant. She was having trouble. She went to the hospital. Hospital said well you don't have insurance? She said no I don't. Well, we can't see you until you have a $100. ...... She came back a week later. She was having trouble, same response we need a $100 dollars....etc"

This is not misspeak. This is an intentional embellishment of a tragic story for her own theatrical benefit. Why do I say this?

As the policy wonk we all respect she is, I am certain that she is familiar with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986. I will spare you the details but the gist is that no emergency room or hospital can deny you treatment based on insurance or ability to pay. They must provide at the very least a basic level of care to anyone who presents. The patient may be transferred to a public hospital after proper stabilization for further care due to continued costs or lack of advanced services.

As I am sure she understands, this is the reason the nation's emergency rooms are in severe overflow due to the numbers of uninsured patients.

In my humble opinion this story is worse than her escapades in Tuzla. I can appreciate the fact that she has no practical combat experience and would not know a corkscrew landing from a steep decline. I however refuse to believe that as the self proclaimed prophet of healthcare with 35 years of wonk she really believes this story. I also find it unconscionable that she would use this story to convey empathy in order to score political points. This gets us nowhere closer to solving the health/insurance problems in this country.

Hillary supporters will continue to rationalize these outright lies and half-truths. But, you have to ask yourselves if this is really who we want in the ultimate position of power. Bush has really demonstrated how much damage a President can do to us and the world.

She is right in saying that she is "vetted." The truth is patently clear that the Clintons are out for the Clintons, pure and simple. If you can accept this then by all means give them your vote. We'll talk again in eight years.

Memo to: Hillary Clinton

From:  Political Staff (aka F*k Balanced Coverage),

NY Times

1. Clinton, you are not allowed to point out Obama's flaws.  Even though he is tearing into you.  You just spread your legs, Clinton

and take it quietly.  Got it, Clinton?

2. And if you don't, we'll let you have it.  We'll stick a hot pokerup your ass.  Understood, Clinton?

3. And every time we hear anything stupid that Obama did to hurt his candidacy, we will bury it, and go after YOU, Clinton.

4. And we'll put Obama on the front page EVERY SINGLE DAY, Clinton.

Shove that up your craw, and smoke it.

5.  We don't want to hear Bill Clinton anymore.  We don't respect him.  Even though he is the only democrat to win 2 terms in 500 years.

You are not allowed to have a strong voice campaigning for you. 

If you do we will distort everything he says. 

So SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE, BILL.  Or we will shut it for you.

6.  Clinton, You are George Wallace.  You Are Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney.  you are Hitler.  

Obama will win this election.  Got it Bitch?

If you stand in his way, we will steam roller over you.  We will burn you in effigy.  We will vilify you.  

CLINTON, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CAMPAIGN AGAINST OBAMA!!!!

YOU, CLINTON, ARE CRAP, SHIT, BITCH DUNG, PISS!!!!!!

Sincerely,

Mike McIntire

Patrick Healy

Deborah Sontag

John M. Broder

Michael Powell

Maureen Dowd

Frank Rich

At a campaign rally in Eugene Oregon, Hillary Clinton was asked why she voted for the Iraq war.   Part of her response:

"I started criticizing the war in Iraq before (Obama) did. So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and I give him credit for making that speech. But that was not a decision.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry3996192.shtml

Can she bend the truth that much without the MSM calling her on it?

As if the Hillary Clinton sniper story has not been dicredited enough, her second story about a woman who was denied care by an Athens, Ohio hospital---having been debunked---places the American people on alert for further embellishments which border on delusion and outright lies. With one exaggeration after another, Mrs. Clinton is proving to be a serial exaggerator of the worst category. What is even more frightful is that she seems to internalize these lies with such ease that it puts into question her fitness to run the country as she is likely to be acutely delusional. This is a state of mind that does not comport with the intricacies of rational thinking as the foundation of policy-making. Thus, to assuage her self-inflicted wounds as well a multitude of her unwittingly self-imposed hurdles it is easy to predict what the next course of action she is likely to resort to :  taking it out on Barack Obama, once again the kitchen sink strategy that arguably has at various times worked for her in the recent past to undercut Obama's momentum. She may be hoping that once again its gonna work for her, come Pennsylvania et al primaries. She knows how malleable and gullible the the electorate happens to be. That's why she is taking them so much for granted.

Sen. Hillary Clinton made a blunt appeal to North Dakota delegates to switch their support to her, despite the fact that Sen. Barack Obama handily defeated her in the state's caucus in February.

In an indication of how tense the battle has become for each Democratic delegate, Obama abandoned the campaign trail in Pennsylvania and scooted to North Dakota for the state party's annual dinner last night, despite the fact that he's already won 14 of the state's 21 delegates as well as six of the state's seven superdelegates.

The two candidates also will battle for votes tonight in Butte, Mont., when Democrats there hold their annual dinner. The Montana primary, which offers only a handful of delegates, is scheduled for June.

Clinton made it clear to North Dakota Democrats last night that she believes there is no such thing as a pledged delegate and highlighted that stubborn streak in her appeal for delegates to switch from Obama to her when the Democratic national party holds its nominating convention this August.

"I am here tonight because I am seeking your support," Clinton said, adding that she never gives up.

"I know what it's like to stumble. I know what it means to get knocked down. But I've never stayed down. I never will and neither will America if we get ready to win this election in November," she said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4596305&page=1


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

I have had it with her. I was a quiet fan of her tenacity and will to win, but I think that she has now gone way over the line. She speaks about voter disenfranchisement but then tries to overturn complete state contests by begging?

Earlier today, I was rethinking my previous position about an Obama/Clinton ticket. I said to myself, it is possible that she could do good things for the people of America as Barack's number 2. I no longer believe this is true and regret the precious moments I wasted considering the idea.

The party needs to coalesce around Barack, in significant numbers, starting this Monday. End is time to put the wounded beast of a candidate out of her misery. I know that she will be in tons of trouble, as will Bill, with the people they made promises to, but oh well, you win some lose some.

From Rasmussen -

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama with his largest lead ever in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Obama now attracts 51% of the vote while Clinton earns 41%.

And -

... this is only the second time that Obama has ever reached the 50% level of support ...

The full article is here.

Some thoughts on Clinton's most recent tale (video here):

• Hillary Clinton did not vet her story: The details strain credulity -- a hospital denying emergency care to a pregnant woman who didn't have $100 to her name? If warning bells weren't going off in her mind, they should have been. We don't need another president who doesn't check the facts.
• Hillary Clinton presented the imaginary elements of this story in vivid detail:  Even though she had not checked to see if the story was true, Hillary Clinton told the story as if she had been there herself. Perhaps she had -- in her own imagination.
• Hillary Clinton is a fabulist:  Tuzla. NAFTA. Superdelegates. Now this. All politicians stretch the truth from time to time -- yes, that includes not just McCain but also Obama -- but Clinton does it with a comfort that is terrifying.

This campaign, Clinton has embarrassed herself repeatedly with exaggerations and falsehoods. Voters don't trust her -- and she keeps on giving them good reason not to. Clinton says that she, not Obama, is the candidate who can beat John McCain. Actually, the opposite is true.

Is John McCain a warmonger?

via dictionary.com

warmonger: a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war; one who advocates or attempts to stir up war.

Let's see, he advocated for the war in Iraq. He endorses George Bush's policies there, and he tried to stir up and "precipitate" war in Iran by famously suggesting in song that we "Bomb Iran".

So John McCain is, by definition, a warmonger. So his cries for "condemnation" are wrong, because to condemn the truth is to embrace a lie.

The following information can be cross-checked against the archives, chache, and data stored outside the US government.

0225.0145.01.040 -- Octal Representation for DOJ OLC.

149.101.1.32/olc -- DOJ OLC IP number

Op. O.L.C. at  -- Legal opinion format: An entire file for all OLC Legal opinions can be obtained. The court can order an index, with an explanation why each OLC opinion should remain classified.

Speaking truth to power

BIDEN: Based on what you’ve said, there’s really no hope, is there? We should really get the hell out of there right now, right? There’s nothing to do.

ROSEN: As a journalist, I’m uncomfortable advising an imperialist power about how to be a more efficient imperialist power. I don’t think we’re there for the interests of the Iraqi people. I don’t that’s ever been a motivation.

However, I have mixed emotions on that issue. Many of my Sunni friends, beginning about a year ago, many of them who are opposed to the Americans, who supported attacking American troops in Iraq, began to grow really nervous at the idea of the Americans leaving Iraq because they knew they would be massacred. It could be Rwanda the day the Americans leave. The creation of these Sunni militias, the Awakening groups, militates against that kind of a massacre of civilians occurring because now there are actually Sunni safe zones…But I do believe that if Americans were to withdraw you’d seen an increase in violence at least temporarily, until some sort of equilibrium is reached—

BIDEN: But the good news is we wouldn’t be imperialist anymore in Iraq, from your perspective.

ROSEN: (smiling widely) Only elsewhere in the region.

BIDEN: Only elsewhere in the region. I’m sure glad we invited you, I tell you. [Bloviates for ninety seconds, then turns to other witnesses.] Gentlemen, to the non-imperialist side of the witness stand…

asdasdasda

I hereby nominate idiotic for Hillary's VP spot.

Hillary/idiotic '08

This is excellent news!
Ready from day one!
They'll fight for you!
Shame on you Barack Obama, shame on you!

In order to make the experience of watching Hillary speak a more comprehensible experience for all Americans, I would like to propose that we develop the "Hillary-Land Insincerity Threat Level Chart."

Modelled after the Homeland Security Threat Level Chart, the Hillary version will help citizens understand just what level of sincerity is actually present in the information presented in her speeches. After a sufficient model is developed, the HITLC will be submitted to Congress and, pending approval, will be depicted in the upper-left corner of the TV screen during any Hillary public address.

You are invited now to help out by submitting entries for the following levels of misinformation, from misstated second-hand story retelling to the most blatant sniper-fire lies :

Severe (red)
High (orange)
Elevated (yellow)
Guarded (blue)
Low (green)

An alternate proposal has also been suggested that would require the candidate to have her speeches reviewed in advance, and that said candidate would simply be required to wear a pantsuit of the appropriate corresponding color to the level of misstatements she is about to make.

Your participation in this project is greatly appreciated!

I’m beyond weary of Hillary’s attempts at growing a personality. Since this campaign has begun, she has gone through so many changes in her basic personality that it is very difficult to keep up. Some of her choices have been disgraceful. Clearly, she can’t decide on whether or not she needs to project strength or compassion. The day before the New Hampshire Primary,  she “found her voice”  (as she would later put it) during her tearful moment at one of her political events.  But later she found her “screechy voice” in her famous undignified “Shame on you, Barack Obama” speech. Now she’s back to the utterly transparent technique of re-telling of emotional events in order to bring out her much practiced emotional, “crackly voice personality.”   Note that she finds it impossible to re-tell anything without sticking in the part about how it affected her.  I find these tactics so manipulative and false and obvious. The Bosnia lie was not  misspeaking, not an exaggerated fish story—there  was no fish! It was not a mistake. A traumatic event like the one she described over and over again is not one that a person can possibly mis-remember. Even if I were to believe that she did misremember it, what’s worse?  Having such a serious lapse in memory or willfully misleading us all?  I would suggest that this inability to settle on a personality, this pattern of dissemblance and duplicity is indicative of something very flawed in HRC’s personality. For me, it signifies a serious lack of integrity and self knowledge.  She is not ready at 3am, 5am or 9pm.  She’s just not ready!  

The Boston Globe

My fellow Clintonites, it's time for Obama

By Tripp Jones
April 5, 2008

http://tinyurl.com/4ns3rb

Excerpts:

"FOR SUPPORTERS of Senator Hillary Clinton, like me, it's time to get behind her rival, Senator Barack Obama."

"We have an opportunity to show that we have learned from our mistakes. The first step, which Obama took in his recent speech on race, was to condemn Wright's offensive rhetoric.

"The second step is in our hands: Strengthen Obama as the Democratic nominee by uniting behind him now."

"Those of us who have supported Clinton and continue to believe that she would be an excellent president can play an important part in moving our nation forward by supporting Obama. We can spread the word that he offers the right leadership for these challenging times."

For the most part, I enjoy reading the posts regarding the Obama/Clinton battle.  I find I learn through the comments and the various links.  I even find comfort in reading posts which match my own opinion. (I'm an Obama supporter.) There is real camaraderie sometimes!  However, lately,  I've felt that reading an entire thread of Clinton vs. Obama. really brings me down.  It's getting to be a negative experience rather than an exhilarating experience.  Is that  happening to anyone else? 

The posts are getting nasty on both sides.  I'm not just talking about the trolls (we should not feed them).  I've read plenty of rude comments and unfortunately, bad language (the "f" word is just plain coarse, in my opinion).  I wince when I read a post by a fellow Obama supporter that is rude. There's a lot of juvenile back and forth arguing. 

It must be because we are all going crazy until this settles.  Perhaps there's not that much new that we can actually post.  Yet people like to keep up the blogging relationships, the routine. So, keep on blogging, but can we improve the tone a little?  We don't want to destroy ourselves, do we?

I'm new to this blog. Reading the so-called "recommended blogs" and the "recent blogs" I'm curious what many good blogs don't appear as recommended while quite a few really silly ones do. Why?

Forgive me if this shows up twice and I'll spare everyone the usual bitching.  I'm sure they're doing everything they can to make it not do this thing where it suddenly decides you're not logged in the moment you hit "Submit." 

I just fininshed reviewing the comments over on the Clintons Taxes post from last night at TPMEC.  Not excluding my own contributions to the argument, I believe it may well be one of the stupidest, if not the stupidest, foodfights I've ever seen here. 

"Stupid" being defined as tossing all perspective and objectivity out the window in favor of scoring points, no matter how unfair or illogical.

To the Obama supporters:  yes, many of you figured that if she put these off so long, there must be something truly, career-endingly, nefarious there.  Frankly, I went on record days ago saying the only embarassing thing  in them would be how much money the Heroine of the Single Middle Aged Waitresses and Rust Belt Working Guys has made since 2000.  However, I fear that some few of you have let your disappointment at the lack of a knockout blow in the returns get the better of you and, frankly, you're now flirting with the kinds of stupid we usually associate with a Hillaroid with Rezko-Wright Tourette's syndrome. 

However, to the Hillarenes trying to distract attention away from the Clintons' vast fortune by arguing about charitable contributions, spare me your rightous indignation. Go live in downtown Chicago with two kids and four Ivy League size student loans to pay off and see how much you have left over for charity.  Surely some of you have such loans.  Surely some of you remember (or know now) how those loans will suck the financial life out of a young family anywhere, much less in hideously expensive Chicago. 

Seriously, how many people attacking the Obamas for their charitable giving before his books started selling have been in, the situation where they look at what they make every April and wonder how they can be so broke when they're making as much as they made last year?  That's what "middle class" is in America today and that's where they were.  As their income rose, their charitable giving rose. No surprise there. You can't donate what you don't got and you don't got what you've got to pay back to the banks and the government. 

So come on all you Hillarites digging at the the Obamas charitable donations, dig into your tax records, disclose your AGI and tell me what percent you donated to charity the last seven years?  No?  I didn't think so.  

And yet, you guys think you're scoring points by  comparing the percentage of their income the Obamas gave to charity when they were in the "struggling to stay in the middle class" salary range to what Bill and Hill were giving when they were hauling in seven and eight figures a year?  Are you kidding me?  It's easy to give away ten percent of your income when you're making five or ten million in a year. ( And as to what Bill and Hill gave back when they were scraping by on Bill's governor's salary and Hillary's partnership distributions, let me remind you that they had no student loans, free housing, free medical care, and a compelling political need to be seen to be generous.) 

So far, there is nothing shady about the Clintons returns as far as I can see.  (Caveat: it looks like there's still some digging to be done in some of these partnerships and the cross pollenization between Bill's foundation and his speaking fees.)  Bottom line is that Bill and Hill made a buttload of money, they overpaid their taxes by not take advantage of even rather straightforward means of reducing their tax burden, and once they had a boatload of money, they started giving it away, mostly to their charitable foundation which, in turn, actually does good stuff with it. 

Good for them.  They set a fine example of good citizenship for rich people everywhere and cast shame on every country club Republican factcat asshole who thinks he can take it with him, and employs platoons of accountants to keep his top marginal rate lower than his secretary's.  

But before we fall all over ourselves praising them, let's recall that it's also exactly what you would expect from politically savvy Democratic politicians who know they're making a lot of money and will have to release their tax records some day.  As with everything else in in their lives, their finances reflect exactly the kind of clever political calculation that is both their greatest strenght and their greatest weakness.  Calculation that leads to socially beneficial behavior is a net good for the world and I'm glad they did it with their finances, just as I've been glad when they've turned their calculation toward the achievement of other public goods. 

But let us not get carried away with our praise.  the fact is that once the dough started piling in (and their friends paid off all their legal bills), the Clintons had the luxary of being able to structure their finances specifically to keep from exposing themselves to reproach and criticism for using tax dodges or making immoral investments or not giving a respectable amount to charity and they did so.  Their proper reward for doing so is the one they sought: i.e., not being reproached or critisized for for using tax dodges or making immoral investments or not giving a respectable amount to charity.  I'm certainly not going to do that. 

But I'll be damned if I'll stretch "not reproach or criticise" over into fulsome praise. If they wanted my fulsome praise, they should have given 60% of their AGI away between 2001 -2007 and then found a way to struggle by on the measly 35 million that would have left them.  (Shucks, 80% would have left them with 17.5 million). 

I am not critisizing them for not doing so, because, hell, I have no idea if I would be able do do so if it were me.  I suspect not.  I can see how 87 million dollars could easily turn me into someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about the good opinion of my fellow man, gives nothing at all to charity and spends all his waking hours not devotred to hedonistic dbauchery thinking about ways to screw the IRS.   

No, I'm not critisizing them.  I'm just saying that that's the kind of giving that would have been truly praiseworthy.  And, I also note that that's the kind of giving that would have scored Hillary some big points with her base in Pennsylvania and Ohio and Texas, and with people in general, and that would have led her to release her tax returns back before Iowa.    Honestly, from both a political calculation and a genuine generosity standpoint, I don't think the Bill and Hillary of 1993 would have flinched at doing that.  For them, I think they would have said, "seventeen million, eighty million, what's the difference, really?  We'd have trouble spending either amount before we died."   The Bill and Hillary of 2006, however, are different people. 

But then, aren't we all? 

The Rockefeller drug laws are the term used to denote the statutes dealing with the
sale and possession of "narcotic" drugs in the New York State Penal Law. Under
the Rockefeller drug laws, the penalty for selling cannabis, including marijuana was
included in the statute even though they are not "narcotics" from a chemical
standpoint, or possessing four ounces (approximately 113 grams) or more of the
same substances, was made the same as that for second-degree murder: a
minimum of 15 years to life in prison, and a maximum of 25 years to life in prison.
On the books for nearly 35 years, the racist Rockefeller Drug Laws have failed to
curb drug use or abuse in New York, but have successfully destroyed thousands of
lives—all at taxpayer expense

Norm Kent’s open letter to Sen. Norm Coleman

“Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman isn't shy about telling people that he
was campus radical who opposed the Vietnam War in the late 1960s.
However, the freshman Republican Congressman would prefer people not
know that he smoked marijuana during that turbulent period. NORML board
member Norm Kent went to college with Coleman at Hofstra University in
New York and has written a strong letter below; part says “How about
admitting that if the Rockefeller drug laws were applied to you,
Norman Bruce Coleman on Long Island in 1968 you and others
we knew and loved might just be getting out of Jail now.”  Norm
Kent , also today is a practicing attorney now wrote this letter to his
former pot-smoking partner Norm Coleman accusing him of hypocrisy on
the drug issue!”

________________________________________________________________
Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman acknowledges on his website that he was a
"campus organizer in the '60s" when he attended Hofstra University in Hempstead,
NY. His Wikipedia entry states: "He ran for student senate and opined in the school
newspaper that his fellow students should vote for him because
he knew that 'these conservative kids don't fuck or get high like
we do... Everyone watch out, the 1950s' bobby-sox generation is
about to take over.'" Several photos (reproduced here) show the
then longhaired Coleman speaking through a bullhorn and
unfurling an anti-war banner with other students.

Since that time, the Brooklyn, NY-born politician graduated from
the University of Iowa Law School and stayed in the Midwest,
where he worked as a prosecutor in Minnesota for 17 years
before his two terms as mayor of St. Paul. In 1996, he switched
parties - from Democrat to Republican - and in 1998 he lost the Minnesota
governor's race to Jesse Ventura. In 2002, Coleman was elected senator by a 2%
margin. He benefited from the sudden death of the state's incumbent Paul
Wellstone, who died in a plane crash 11 days before the election.

___________________________________________________________________

NORML board member Norm Kent, who is a lawyer as well, went to Hofstra with
Coleman. Kent recently received a form letter from Coleman regarding his current
anti-marijuana position. It reads, in part: "I oppose the legalization of marijuana
because, as noted by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, marijuana can have
serious adverse health affects on individuals. The health problems that may occur
from this highly addictive drug include short-term memory loss, anxiety, respiratory
illness and a risk of lung cancer that far exceeds that of tobacco products. It would
also make our transportation, schools and workplaces, just as examples, more
dangerous."

Offended by Coleman's comments, Kent fired of a letter to his former smoking
buddy._



NORM KENT'S LETTER TO SEN. NORM
COLEMAN

Dear Mr. Coleman,  

My friend Norman.

Years ago, in a lifetime far away, you did not oppose the legalization of marijuana.
Years ago, in our dorm rooms at Hofstra University, you, me, Billy, your future
brother-in-law, Ivan, Jonathan, Peter, Janet, Nancy and a wealth of other students
smoked dope.

Sure, we had to tape the doors shut, burn incense and open the windows, but we
got high, and yet we grew up okay, without the help of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy's advice.

We grew up to become lawyers. Our other friends, as you go down the list, are
doctors, professors, parents, political consultants and professionals. No one ever
got cancer from smoking pot or diabetes from using a joint. And the days of our
youth we look back fondly upon as years where we stood up, were counted and
made a difference, from Earth Day in 1970 to helping bring down a president and end
a war in Southeast Asia a few years later.

We smoked pot when we took over Weller Hall to protest administrative abuses of
students' rights. You smoked pot as you stood on the roof of the
University Senate protesting faculty exclusivity.










As the President of the Student Senate in 1969, you condemned the raid by Nassau
County police on our dormitories, busting scores of students for pot possession.

You never said then that pot was dangerous. What was scary then, and is as
frightening now, is when national leaders become voices of hypocrisy, harbingers of
the status quo, and protect their own position instead of the public good. Welcome
to the crowd of those who have become a likeness of which they despised.
Welcome to the mindless myriad of legislators who gather in cocktail lounges to
manhandle their martinis while passing laws against drunk driving.

We have seen more people die last year from spinach then pot. We have endured
generations of drug addicts overdosing on a multitude of drugs, from heroin to
crystal methamphetamine. In your public life, as an attorney general, mayor and
United States senator, you have been in the forefront of speaking out against
abuses which are harmful. You have been a noble and honourable public servant.
How about not being such a dope on dope?  

How about admitting that if the Rockefeller drug laws were applied to Norman
Bruce Coleman on Long Island in 1968, or to me, or to our friends, and fellow
students, you, I and others we knew and loved might just be getting out of jail now?
How about recognizing that for too long too many have been wrongly arrested,
unjustly prosecuted and illegally incarcerated for unconscionable periods of time?  

How about recognizing that you have peers who have smoked pot for 25 years or
more and they are successful record producers, businessmen and parents?

How about standing up and saying you have heard and witnessed countless stories
of persons who have used pot medicinally, as I have, to endure the effects of
chemotherapy?

You who have travelled to Africa and seen the face of AIDS so up close and
personal would deny medicinal marijuana relief to those souls wasting away from
malnutrition, nausea and no access to fundamental medicines?

How about not adopting the sad and sorry archaic path of our office of drug control,
which this week suggested pot smokers are more likely to become gang members
than others?



How about standing up and saying: "I, Norm Coleman, smoked pot in 1969." That "I
am not a gang member, a drug addict or a criminal."



How about saying: "I was able to responsibly integrate my prior pot use into my
life, and still succeed on my own merits."  

How about standing up not only for who you are, but who you were?

How about it, Norm?

I will always love, admire and cherish what you have achieved and accomplished
and the goals you have met. I will always fondly look at the remarkable success of
your present.

How about you looking back at your past and saying: "What I did was not so wrong
and not so bad and not so hurtful that generations of Americans should still,
decades later, be going to jail for smoking pot - nearly one million arrests for
possession last year."

Can't Norm Coleman come out of the closet in 2007 and say "These arrests are
wrong - that there is a better way, and we need to find it."

You might find more integrity and honor in that then adopting the sad and sorry
policy of our Office of National Drug Control Policy.

You might find the person you were!

Norm Kent,  your his former smoking buddy._
The Rockefeller drug laws are the term used to denote the statutes dealing with the
sale and possession of "narcotic" drugs in the New York State Penal Law. Under
the Rockefeller drug laws, the penalty for selling cannabis, including marijuana was
included in the statute even though they are not "narcotics" from a chemical
standpoint, or possessing four ounces (approximately 113 grams) or more of the
same substances, was made the same as that for second-degree murder: a
minimum of 15 years to life in prison, and a maximum of 25 years to life in prison.
On the books for nearly 35 years, the racist Rockefeller Drug Laws have failed to
curb drug use or abuse in New York, but have successfully destroyed thousands of
lives—all at taxpayer expense

Norm Kent’s open letter to Sen. Norm Coleman

“Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman isn't shy about telling people that he
was campus radical who opposed the Vietnam War in the late 1960s.
However, the freshman Republican Congressman would prefer people not
know that he smoked marijuana during that turbulent period. NORML board
member Norm Kent went to college with Coleman at Hofstra University in
New York and has written a strong letter below; part says “How about
admitting that if the Rockefeller drug laws were applied to you,
Norman Bruce Coleman on Long Island in 1968 you and others
we knew and loved might just be getting out of Jail now.”  Norm
Kent , also today is a practicing attorney now wrote this letter to his
former pot-smoking partner Norm Coleman accusing him of hypocrisy on
the drug issue!”

________________________________________________________________
Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman acknowledges on his website that he was a
"campus organizer in the '60s" when he attended Hofstra University in Hempstead,
NY. His Wikipedia entry states: "He ran for student senate and opined in the school
newspaper that his fellow students should vote for him because
he knew that 'these conservative kids don't fuck or get high like
we do... Everyone watch out, the 1950s' bobby-sox generation is
about to take over.'" Several photos (reproduced here) show the
then longhaired Coleman speaking through a bullhorn and
unfurling an anti-war banner with other students.

Since that time, the Brooklyn, NY-born politician graduated from
the University of Iowa Law School and stayed in the Midwest,
where he worked as a prosecutor in Minnesota for 17 years
before his two terms as mayor of St. Paul. In 1996, he switched
parties - from Democrat to Republican - and in 1998 he lost the Minnesota
governor's race to Jesse Ventura. In 2002, Coleman was elected senator by a 2%
margin. He benefited from the sudden death of the state's incumbent Paul
Wellstone, who died in a plane crash 11 days before the election.

___________________________________________________________________

NORML board member Norm Kent, who is a lawyer as well, went to Hofstra with
Coleman. Kent recently received a form letter from Coleman regarding his current
anti-marijuana position. It reads, in part: "I oppose the legalization of marijuana
because, as noted by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, marijuana can have
serious adverse health affects on individuals. The health problems that may occur
from this highly addictive drug include short-term memory loss, anxiety, respiratory
illness and a risk of lung cancer that far exceeds that of tobacco products. It would
also make our transportation, schools and workplaces, just as examples, more
dangerous."

Offended by Coleman's comments, Kent fired of a letter to his former smoking
buddy._



NORM KENT'S LETTER TO SEN. NORM
COLEMAN

Dear Mr. Coleman,  

My friend Norman.

Years ago, in a lifetime far away, you did not oppose the legalization of marijuana.
Years ago, in our dorm rooms at Hofstra University, you, me, Billy, your future
brother-in-law, Ivan, Jonathan, Peter, Janet, Nancy and a wealth of other students
smoked dope.

Sure, we had to tape the doors shut, burn incense and open the windows, but we
got high, and yet we grew up okay, without the help of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy's advice.

We grew up to become lawyers. Our other friends, as you go down the list, are
doctors, professors, parents, political consultants and professionals. No one ever
got cancer from smoking pot or diabetes from using a joint. And the days of our
youth we look back fondly upon as years where we stood up, were counted and
made a difference, from Earth Day in 1970 to helping bring down a president and end
a war in Southeast Asia a few years later.

We smoked pot when we took over Weller Hall to protest administrative abuses of
students' rights. You smoked pot as you stood on the roof of the
University Senate protesting faculty exclusivity.










As the President of the Student Senate in 1969, you condemned the raid by Nassau
County police on our dormitories, busting scores of students for pot possession.

You never said then that pot was dangerous. What was scary then, and is as
frightening now, is when national leaders become voices of hypocrisy, harbingers of
the status quo, and protect their own position instead of the public good. Welcome
to the crowd of those who have become a likeness of which they despised.
Welcome to the mindless myriad of legislators who gather in cocktail lounges to
manhandle their martinis while passing laws against drunk driving.

We have seen more people die last year from spinach then pot. We have endured
generations of drug addicts overdosing on a multitude of drugs, from heroin to
crystal methamphetamine. In your public life, as an attorney general, mayor and
United States senator, you have been in the forefront of speaking out against
abuses which are harmful. You have been a noble and honourable public servant.
How about not being such a dope on dope?  

How about admitting that if the Rockefeller drug laws were applied to Norman
Bruce Coleman on Long Island in 1968, or to me, or to our friends, and fellow
students, you, I and others we knew and loved might just be getting out of jail now?
How about recognizing that for too long too many have been wrongly arrested,
unjustly prosecuted and illegally incarcerated for unconscionable periods of time?  

How about recognizing that you have peers who have smoked pot for 25 years or
more and they are successful record producers, businessmen and parents?

How about standing up and saying you have heard and witnessed countless stories
of persons who have used pot medicinally, as I have, to endure the effects of
chemotherapy?

You who have travelled to Africa and seen the face of AIDS so up close and
personal would deny medicinal marijuana relief to those souls wasting away from
malnutrition, nausea and no access to fundamental medicines?

How about not adopting the sad and sorry archaic path of our office of drug control,
which this week suggested pot smokers are more likely to become gang members
than others?



How about standing up and saying: "I, Norm Coleman, smoked pot in 1969." That "I
am not a gang member, a drug addict or a criminal."



How about saying: "I was able to responsibly integrate my prior pot use into my
life, and still succeed on my own merits."  

How about standing up not only for who you are, but who you were?

How about it, Norm?

I will always love, admire and cherish what you have achieved and accomplished
and the goals you have met. I will always fondly look at the remarkable success of
your present.

How about you looking back at your past and saying: "What I did was not so wrong
and not so bad and not so hurtful that generations of Americans should still,
decades later, be going to jail for smoking pot - nearly one million arrests for
possession last year."

Can't Norm Coleman come out of the closet in 2007 and say "These arrests are
wrong - that there is a better way, and we need to find it."

You might find more integrity and honor in that then adopting the sad and sorry
policy of our Office of National Drug Control Policy.

You might find the person you were!

Norm Kent,  your his former smoking buddy._
Norm Coleman in 1971- at Hofstra University NY;  a pot-smoking student hippie
activist seen protesting the war and lambasting U.S. policies.

It now seems almost certain that the Clinton/Obama battle will end in May or early June regardless of the Clintons' insistence to go to the convention.  And it seems very likely that Barack Obama will be the nominee. 

For those who are still not sure about Obama, I respectfully recommend the following thoughtful and informative magazine articles for your perusal; they are online and in libraries:

Newsweek, March 31st, cover story: The Obama Dividend and other articles.

Rolling Stone, March 20th, cover story: several articles.

New York Review of Books, current issue (April 17th) has an article on the two candidates entitled Molehill Politics, by Elizabeth Drew.

Atlantic Monthly, December issue, cover story, Goodbye To All That: Why Obama Matters, by Andrew Sullivan and other articles.

Vote for a Patriot Jack Shepard or vote for a Hypocrite Norm Coleman?
U.S. Senate (MN) GOP Primary Sept. 9, 2008
 visit www.jackshepardforsenate.com

A very healthy looking Norm Coleman with his new teeth, new hair color, and new nose;

but never a brave veteran. With graduation from Hofstra looming in 1971, Coleman faced the unhappy prospect of
being drafted. But the antiwar activist had better ideas he flunked his physical, after his crash diet. He was deemed too
skinny to fight by his local Draft Board.









Norm Coleman ran down the hall screaming
'First blood of the revolution!'“ To me and Tom Buggeln
Norm Coleman sounded completely crazy ” – Dr. Jack Shepard  

Tom Buggeln remembers one particularly heated confrontation with Coleman after some antiwar students roughed up
an ally who was distributing literature on campus. "I went to him and I bitched about it, and we got into it," recalls
Buggeln, now a
sheriff's deputy in Maricopa County, Arizona. The dustup culminated in Buggeln slapping Coleman across the face,
giving him a bloody lip


















                                                          Norm Coleman with his Freak Flag Long Hair


Everyone called him Norman. The Brooklyn-born kid.
With his freak flag fly.
With his the rail-thin physique and scraggly hair that extended halfway down his
back, he reminded everyone of the song “David Crosby refers to long hair as a freak flag in his song “Almost Cut My
Hair, and I feel like letting my freak flag fly”

Norm Coleman was a striking presence at Hofstra University in the late '60s and early '70s. Carting a bullhorn around
campus, he'd regularly lecture students about the immorality of the President Nixon’s administration policies and the
Vietnam War.
              Norm Coleman was the Abbie Hoffman of the sleepy Long Island commuter
college.

Tom Buggeln enrolled at Hofstra in 1968 after serving five years in the Navy, including a stint in Vietnam. He
resented what he viewed as the privileged college kids protesting the war and lambasting U.S. policies. Buggeln allied
himself with Young Americans for Freedom—a conservative campus group associated with William F.
Buckley—and frequently clashed with Coleman

Tom Buggeln remembers one particularly heated confrontation with Coleman after some antiwar students roughed up
an ally who was distributing literature on campus. "I went to him and I bitched about it, and we got into it," recalls
Buggeln, now a sheriff's deputy in Maricopa County, Arizona. The dustup culminated in Buggeln slapping Coleman
across the face, giving him a bloody lip. "He ran down the hall screaming,'First blood of the revolution! ' or some
shit like that."

Although Coleman styled himself as a hippie, he had no shortage of ambition he, “adeptly cultivated a network of
professors and administrators.” He had access to those people," says Carolyn Sofia, who was co-editor-in-chief of the
Hofstra Chronicle student newspaper during Coleman's senior year.

"From my point of view, Norman wanted to take over the Hofstra Chronicle," says Sofia, who now teaches writing at
Stony Brook University. "He wanted to be a politician and control the press at the same time."

The other hallmark event of Coleman's college political life occurred at the close of the 1969-70 school years. The
Nixon administration had recently invaded Cambodia, and campuses across the country erupted in civil disobedience.
On May 4, Ohio National Guards men killed four unarmed students at Kent State University. Nationwide,
violent clashes broke out between students and police on 26 campuses.

At Hofstra, students staged a campus-wide strike. Protesters took over the student center and the main
administration building lead by Norm Coleman. Classes were cancelled.

Everybody went nuts," recalls Buggeln. ".. the university was effectively shut down."
Norm Coleman was at the forefront was the leader of the unrest, but his triumph was in shutting down the school. At
Hofstra, Norm Coleman led the staged campus-wide strike.

Norm Coleman with his megaphone in hand lead and directed the taking over the Student Center and the Main
Administration Building not caring that then and today this was a federal crime!

With the present environment of the gun violence on many Universities today Norm you most likely not only
would have been arrested but even could have been shot by the campus police for taking over the Student
Center and the Main Administration Building. You were guilty but just never got arrested!


But the Hofstra students were beginning to see through what motivates Norm Coleman’s and his leadership role in the
unrest a Hofstra was short-lived; he was not content to be the school’s self styled radical hippie pot smoking anti-
establishment activist any more but literally "He wanted to be a politician and from Sofia and many of the students
point of view, Norman wanted to take over the Hofstra Chronicle the Hofstra press which would give him control of
many aspects of how Hofstra University was run.

So when students returned to campus in the fall, they voted to replace Coleman with Paul Hearne, a wheelchair-bound
student who went on to help draft the Americans with Disabilities Act before dying in 1998.

With graduation from Hofstra looming in 1971, Coleman faced the unhappy prospect of being drafted. But the antiwar
activist tricked his Draft Board by flunked his physical, due to a crash diet he lost enough weight to be deemed too
skinny to fight in Vietnam.

In 1971 Norm Coleman ran from the draft using every trick in the book to get out of serving his country during the
Vietnam War.

While by then Dr. Jack Shepard who had volunteered and enlisted to join the Untied States Air Force at the University
of Minnesota was promoted to the rank Captain Jack Shepard, as his commander often said Jack always had the right
stuff.
















Captain Jack E. Shepard would proudly wear his blue United States Air Force
Captain's Uniform when he had the chance to return to the University of Minnesota on leave; often getting some cat
calls from other long hair pot smoking anti-establishment radical activists like Norm Coleman who worked hard to
lose so much weight that he
would not get drafted but Captain Jack Shepard did his duty to proudly serve his country.

Looking at Senator Norm Coleman I see no sign lack of weight or strength of a person who could not serve his
country when the draft called.

NEVER CALL NORM COLEMAN A VETERAN IT WOULD BE AN INSULT TO THE 58,193 BRAVE
AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHO DIED IN VIETNAM FOLLOWING AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY !
RIGHT OR WRONG.

More than a decade after those tumultuous times, Herbert Rosenbaum was visiting family in the Twin Cities. Flipping
through channels one morning, he came upon a public affairs show featuring the familiar face of Norman Coleman.
The former student
was now a prosecutor with the Minnesota Attorney General's Office.


"I was surprised because he took a very hard, law-and-order line”, "Rosenbaum says.

He sure fooled everyone now and then especially the Draft Board. He is a professional flip-flopper said Warren
Spannaus , “"Norman's one of the classic flip-floppers.”

His performance certainly didn't lack for chutzpah, considering Coleman's own transformation from '60s-era radical
too weak and under weight  to be drafted to the strong well built conservative Republican he has literal surgically
made himself into. If you see Norm Coleman today; there is no way you would think he ever could have created the
illusion that he was to weak and skinny  to fight in Vietnam. If you ask me what he did in fooling the draft board
stinks.

"Norman's one of the classic flip-floppers," says Warren Spannaus, the former Democratic attorney general
who initially hired Coleman as a prosecutor. "I suppose by the time we get to the election he will have
switched over to being against this war, too."
For our next U.S. Senate from Minnesota we sure do not need another attorney. The Untied States Congress is
dominated by attorneys. Our American Congress when it was created was a fine mix of people from all walks of life
with all types of backgrounds.

Today we need people who have a wealth of experience both Nationally and Internationally to get elected to our next U.
S. Congress. If at any time in our history our next American Senate has an urgent need for some fresh new blood with
international experience and other talents beside being a past prosecuting attorneys.

It is urgent for the very future existence of America’s and her survival in these dangerous times that the next U.S.
Senate elect literal as many military officers who have recently serviced overseas or are presently serving abroad
especially with their massive experience and understanding of the very complete Middle East Region to educate their
new fellow Senators about the situation from years of personal contact and dealing with people from all over the world;
they know how America is presently perceived by other countries.

Just because a senator has briefly for a few days travelled to Iraq, Israel or Africa etc. they can not even begin to
understand the most complex situation that America has found itself it in our young history.
Ask Norm Coleman to show his true colors and why after his failed
attacks on Kofi Annan, George Galloway Part 1 and George Galloway Part 2  and Jaques Chirac  many others how are
you helping your fellow
Minnesotans by becoming the failed Prosecutor of the Untied States
Senate, the senate has attorney’s for that!
We in Minnesota wish a Senator who will fight for Minnesotans, even with international experience working to have
foreign governments adopts human rights and democratic norms like the rest of the world. Instead of a Senator who is
happy seeing his face on TV and in Newspapers even though he failed in his attempts to prosecuting world leaders; cost
us Millions of Dollars.


When will you after 40 years standing up and start telling us who the real Norm Coleman is by first coming
clean with your fellow Minnesotans by saying: "I, Norm Coleman, smoked pot in 1969."

Why Can't Norm Coleman come out of the closet in 2008 and say "These present arrests for small quantities of pot
are wrong; look at me Norm Coleman I did it daily for years and look where I have gotten! There has to be a better
way, and we need to find it. How about you Norm Coleman looking back at your past and saying: "What I did was not
so wrong and not so bad and not so hurtful that generations of Americans should still, decades later, be going to jail
for smoking pot - nearly one million arrests for possession last year."

If you were arrested you would have never been accepted to legal school or became a US Senator don’t you ever think
about what you are doing to the futures of 100,000’s of Minnesota  kids and teenagers by making them criminals for
the same pot you smoked but luckily did not get arrest for. The only difference you did not get arrested for your pot
smoking..  One arrest on their record their chances of finding a job, getting accepted to a major college, getting a
government loan like you did all made impossible. Do you no ever think how are they  going to raise a family, that
from that minute their life is almost 100% destroyed because their got arrested , remember you also broke the law
thousands of time but just got lucky in not getting arrested.
You forget if you were arrested what would you be doing now; who are you with your history of drugs, anti-
government behaviour and occupying University building to be the Senate’s Prosecutor; we wanted a Minnesota
Senator to fight for Minnesota!

I ask you Norm Coleman why does Minnesota or the nation for that matter still not really have a real re-entry
program to help ex-offenders when they are release from a hostile environment in prison to even a more hostile
environment in our communities.

These ex-offender as still literally abandoned; if elected my first concern would be to write legislation to give tax
breaks to individual, companies or corporation that hire ex- offenders. I would work with the US Department of
Justice though President Bush’s Task Force for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program that the president
created to help lower the crime rate and help ex-offenders by increasing it’s funding.

The facts are that presently 2 in 5 ex-offenders are returned to prison after only two years because of lack of any real
re-entry program in Minnesota. Presently we in Minnesota are not prepared to help the ex-offender to make a
difference to really give the ex-offenders a real second chance.

Jesus taught us we have to show them there is forgiveness, there is real redemption and they are welcome in our
communities if they start living by the Lords Commandments. .

We have to give them the chance to once again become productive members of our community by helping them get
temporary housing after their release, new job skills training and especially employed so for some of them it will be
the first time in their lives they can proudly say that they have a job and respect in the community.
Norm Coleman you could have very very easily been a FELON, an ex-offender just getting out of a New York
Prison.; How about admitting that if the Rockefeller drug laws, “The Rockefeller drug laws are the term used
to denote the statutes dealing with the sale and possession of drugs; possessing four ounces of marijuana was
a minimum of 15
years to life in prison and a maximum of 25 years to life in prison”
If the Rockefeller drug laws were applied to you, Norman Bruce Coleman on Long Island in 1968 you and
others we knew and loved might just be getting out of Jail now.” “You smoked pot as you stood on the roof of
the University Senate (  Norm Coleman you could be a DOUBLE felon) protesting faculty exclusivity.” As
Norm Kent said your pot smoking buddy.
How about standing up and saying:
"I, Norm Coleman, smoked pot in 1969 and I am lucky that I am not ( a felon) just
getting out of a New York Jail for being arrested for using drugs and criminal damage
to Campus property in the take over Hofstra
University I  lead.” Senator  Norm Coleman
Dr. Jack Shepard swears if elected will work with Congress and not  forget to fight to help the struggling Minnesota
Economy, not like one of Minnesota’s present Senators; Norm Coleman who is more  interested in becoming the
Prosecutor of the U.S. Senate seeing his face in the media. That is not why Minnesota after win by a margin of only
2% sent Norm Coleman to represent Minnesota in the U.S. Senate.

I swear if elected I; Jack Shepard will no forget my fellow Minnesotan’s like Senator Norm Coleman has!

I will author legislation for new job programs for America and especially for Minnesota.
I will create legislation for inner city development programs.

To save Minnesotans tens of millions of dollars of wasted incarceration costs if elected I would immediately begin
working with the U.S. Justice Department though President Bush’s Task Force for Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives program that the President Bush created to help lower the crime rate and help ex-offenders and finally
create a real re-entry program for Minnesota’s ex-offenders saving Minnesota Millions of dollars.

I, Jack Shepard if elected your next U.S. Senator would author legislation so people, companies or corporations would
get tax rebates or other credits for giving ex-offenders jobs. This would not only low the raising crime rate in
Minnesota but low the sky rocketing costs of incarceration in Minnesota; presently Minnesota spends over $50,000+
per year for each inmate.

This would enable our communities to hire more desperately needed law enforcement officers ( job creation) , which
would make my fellow Minnesotans even safer immediately which would begin to low our present raising crime rate.

Senator Norm Coleman has been so busy with his very unsuccessful investigations of Oil for Food Programs, and his
countless investigations and unsuccessful hearing and attacks on world leaders like Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac ,
George Galloway just to mention a few it is obvious Norm Coleman has forgotten Minnesota!

It embarrasses  me to say it but Senator Coleman forgets only because of a terrible accident did he get sent to the US
Senate in the first place.

Senator Coleman after 17 years as a prosecuting attorney has forgotten why he was sent to the U. S. Senate.
Minnesota sent Norm Coleman to the U.S. Senate to represent and help the people of Minnesota and especially help
improve Minnesota’s weakening economy.

Senator Coleman has spent more time investigating international issues then working to help Minnesota’s very weak
economy and has nothing to stop Minnesota’s raising unemployment especially among minorities.

No question about it. It is time for a new change to a new U.S. Senator who cares more about Minnesota’s economy
and Minnesota’s unemployment, then seeing his new face in the media.

Minnesotans are sick of  seeing Norm Coleman’s face in the media spending wasted months on international
investigations and cross examining people from all over the world with no results to show from it but a tremendous
waste of time and a tremendous cost to the American tax payers of tens of millions of dollars.

Minnesotan’s wish a new U.S. Senator that will care about and work to help Minnesota first. Norm Coleman was send
to the U.S. Senate to be a Senator and help Minnesota not to do his old job of being a Prosecuting Attorney on TV
again.

The choice is you’re my fellow Minnesotans but remember these things.

While Norm Coleman in 1971 was at Hofstra University NY; as a pot-smoking student hippie activist protesting the
war and lambasting U.S. policies which he still denies. As a pot smoking hippie activist anti-Vietnam War Protester he
tricked military draft board and went on a crash diet so the Military Draft Board classified him as to skinny to go to
serve his country in Vietnam.

NEVER CALL SEN. MORM COLEMAN A VETERAN!    HE KNOWS WHY!

CALL HIM A HYPOCRITE FOR AS A MINNESOTA PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR 17 YEARS HE HAS SENT
TENS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND STUDENTS TO PRISON FOR POT POSSESSION A CRIME THAT HE ALSO
WAS GUILTY OF FOR YEARS BUT ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS HE DID NOT GET ARRESTED FOR IT ! THAT IS
WHY HE IS A HYPOCRITE.


Vote for a Patriot Jack Shepard or vote for a Hypocrite Norm Coleman!

Time for a Change!                   Time for Change!



Dr. Jack Shepard

Dr. Jack Shepard, is a Contender for the Republican Nomination for the U.S. Senate in the Minnesota
Republican Primary on September 9, 2008
geovisit();

Why are Democrats considered elitists for their education and successes while Republicans are treated as the average Joe for theirs? 
That’s one of the questions about our media Glenn Greenwald addresses today in his article, The U.S. establishment media in a nutshell. 
In short, he sums up the differences best like this:

…Barack Obama is an exotic elitist freak because he went to Harvard Law School and made $1 million from his book. Hillary Clinton can't possibly have any connection to the Regular Folk because her husband, who grew up dirt poor, became quite wealthy after being President. John Kerry was completely removed from the concerns of the Regular People because his second wife was rich.

By contrast, George W. Bush was a down-home, salt-of-the-earth Man of the People despite being the grandson of a U.S. Senator, the son of a President (who greatly magnified his riches in his post-presidency), and the by-product of an extremely wealthy, coddled life. Ronald Reagan was pure Americana despite spending most of his adult life as a very wealthy Hollywood actor (and converting his post-presidency into far greater riches still). And John McCain is as Regular a Guy as it gets, even though he dumped his first wife (the mother of his three children) after she was disfigured and disabled by a near-fatal car accident so that he could marry his much younger, much prettier, and extremely wealthy heiress-mistress, whose family riches then launched his political career and sustained a life of luxury for almost three decades (that's how "McCain's Sedona ranch" -- i.e., his compound -- came to be).

It’s probably the same reason Glenn found these stunning discrepancies in the priorities of our national media:   Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:

"Yoo and torture" - 102
"Mukasey and 9/11" -- 73
"Yoo and Fourth Amendment" -- 16
"Obama and bowling" -- 1,043
"Obama and Wright" -- More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)
"Obama and patriotism" - 1,607
"Clinton and Lewinsky" -- 1,079

This, my friends, is what most our national media has been reduced to:  A glorified Star Magazine.   thejoshuablog

A POLITICAL GAME FOR ALL TO PLAY

 

After the HRC Campaign’s “misspeaking”, “misplacing”, and “mishearing”, and given HRC’s declared fight till the Convention, an expanded vocabulary will be needed to cover future mistruths.  Some useful words follow, with “misappropriate” “misreferences” :

 

Misadventure(s) – Bill’s diversion(s)

Misalignment – supporting Obama

Misapplication - using a false resume for senior appointment

Misapprehension – caught in the act

Misappropriate – not politically correct

Mischance – trying to get away with a “whopper”

Mischief – someone not ready for the 3am phone call

Misconstruction – bad building control in NY

Miscount – figures showing the winner is the loser

Misdeal – NAFTA

Misdemeanor – smiling when your opponent wins

Miserable – the real person behind the mis-demeanor

Misfire – imaginary sniper rounds

Misfit – Mark Penn

Misfortune – the amount Obama raises every month

Misgiving – not paying campaign bills

Misguided – missiles that missed me

Misjudgement – justification for a Presidential pardon

Mislay – adultery

Misplace – the place where I really DID dodge sniper fire etc.

Misprint – the Press who attack me

Misquote – anything said that the voters didn’t like

Misread – anything written that the voters didn’t like

Misrepresentation – superdelegate supporting Obama in a Clinton state

Misspell – magic that Obama uses at his rallies

Misspend – February campaign finances

Misstate – State that doesn’t count because it voted by caucus

Mistake – White House gifts that went with the Clintons

Mistime – 3am phone calls that keep waking me

Misunderstand – anything not covered by the above

 

Further suggestions to be sent to Howard Wolfson.

Now that the Ohio hospital that treated Trina Bechtel has issued a statement demanding that the Hillary campaign cease telling the fabricated story of the "uninsured mother who died":

“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?scp=1&sq=hillary+hospital+ohio&st=nyt

I'm just curious. Does anyone believe the story Hillary told at the MLK Jr. memorial yesterday? The one where she shifted into her faux-sincere voice and said that upon hearing of MLK Jrs.' assassination, she went back to her college dorm room and threw her bookbag against the wall?

What struck me as odd about the story, is that I don't recall people carrying bookbags back then. The whole backpack thing came into vogue in the 1980s, but it seems like before that, college students just carried their books in their arms.

Just curious. Considering that everything else that Hillary says turns out to be some kind of romanticized fiction, I don't believe much of anything that she says anymore, especially when she drops down into her voice of deep insincerity.

EUGENE Hillary Clinton comes to Eugene, Or. today to a high school gymnasium that holds 2,700 people. Two weeks ago Barack Obama spoke at McArthur Court, a college sports arena  that held 7,000 while more than 3,000 people were turned away. A Clinton spokesperson defended today's smaller venue as more desirable for the senator's purpose: 

Val Hoyle, a member of Clinton's Oregon steering committee, said she has no doubt that the New York senator could fill McArthur Court with more than 9,000 people as Obama did on his March 21st stop in Eugene.

 "Hillary speaks to regular people and coming to a regular high school means the people who are there actually get to be more of a participant than if they were at a larger venue."

The remarks were reported in the local paper, The Register Guard. Crowd size is rarely mentioned in the mainstream press these days, though on the local level, it seems to be noticed.

We’ve heard rants for months about the Clinton’s tax returns, even while Obama had not released his.  Okay, Obama finally released his, less his 2007 returns, to minimal fanfare March 25th and now Clinton has release hers, including 2007 estimates.  So, where are we at?

1. The Obamas needs to release his 2007 estimates or returns.
2. The Clintons have made a lot of money over the past several years.
3. The Obamas have cashed in upon arriving in the U.S. Senate.
4. The Clintons have a sustained record of high charitable giving.
5. The Obamas have a paltry record for charitable giving.

I’m sure folks will want to read every single line of each tax return for something controversial—maybe the Clinton’s foreign investments, maybe Obama’s not-so-blind trusts, maybe Michelle’s ties to Treehouse Foods, who’s primary customer is Wal-Mart, maybe her nearly 300% raise from her employer once Obama won his senate seat, maybe the money Obama’s give to Trinity or lack of on other years, maybe Clinton’s donations to his presidential library… 

For me, I figure that at least for the Clinton’s they have around 30 years of tax returns in the public domain and likely have some of the best accountants and attorneys preparing and scrutinizing them on their behalf.  I seriously doubt there is an error or controversy in them.  Obama’s history, by comparison, is very, very short.  I have no reason to suspect his returns and I am sure his latest ones are as equally well prepared as are the Clinton’s returns.  In the end, the returns of both candidates is a non-issue, just as with McCain’s.

The returns do allow some reflection.  First, both candidates make more money than me.  I need to work harder and smarter.  Importantly, I need to finish my books that I’ve been writing for several years.  Second, regarding charitable contributions, I can stand proud that we give more percentage wise that Obama and on a few years, even the Clintons.  In absolute dollars, I’m actually surprised that except for the last two years, even with lower income, we have given far more to charity in actual dollars than have the Obamas.  Yes, the only real walk away from reviewing the tax returns is that Obama apparently doesn’t walk the talk.  Until joining the senate, he’s never given back to the community.

So, where are Obama’s 2007 returns or data?

Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com

We’ve heard rants for months about the Clinton’s tax returns, even while Obama had not released his.  Okay, Obama finally released his, less his 2007 returns, to minimal fanfare March 25th and now Clinton has release hers, including 2007 estimates.  So, where are we at?

This thread is amazing. Giving a shoutout to TPM and Josh.

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.

Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.

A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said candidates would frequently retell stories relayed to them, vetting them when possible. “In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Mr. Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?ref=politics


My personal take is that Hillary didn't want to vet the story. It was too good a tale to pass up sharing on the campaign trail. They could have easily vetted the story if they so desired.


I do not think that Hillary is a liar in this case, but she showed really poor judgment in failing to vet the story fully. She has tole the tale numerous times all over the country.


This reminds me of the story Barack shared about people in the military using the ammunition left behind by their enemies, because the military wasn't properly tending to their needs. He was critized all over the country, investigations were launched, and his credibility was trampled upon.

The warring armies are essentially parked. Sporadic harassing artillery fire is now and then heard, occasional patrols go out for reconnaissance, but real events are pretty much at a standstill on this front.

Most of the prevailing discussion at the moment is either mundane, irrelevant, basic tom-tomming for morale, or a stale rehash of old charges and counter-charges.

Aside from the usual nicks and cuts, each candidate has sustained one truly serious wound which will follow them into the general election, and beyond. I won't be more specific about that at the moment, but anyone who has been paying attention knows what I'm talking about.

Nothing more of real importance will happen before April 22nd.  Simply put, on that day Sen. Clinton will carry Pennsylvania and a chance to continue forward, or she will not,  and this will be over.

IF she were to clear that vital hurdle, I think the race will move onto terrain that I regard as potentially advantageous for her, given the momentum of Pennsylvania. At that point,  we may indeed be faced with a very interesting sequence of independently decisive contests. IF the bulk of these go her way, we could end-up in a muddle that does not present itself with any obvious, clear-cut choice. And then, the issue of MI/FLA rears out of the grave,  and takes new life (and how might that be decided?).

I KNOW this is a whole lot of "if's", but they don't strike me as completely preposterous projections of what might  happen. I admit,  it has something of the feel of filling a whole sequence of inside straights - but I think I see a lot of the cards already on the table, and I think there is a reasonable chance it could go that way.

But again, first things first:  April 22nd in Pennsylvania.  If there is still anything to discuss after that, I'll be back.

<s>Are you out of your mind?</s>
<strike>Are you out of your mind?</strike>

That's how long it takes to post a comment (at 1100GMT on a Saturday morning).  For those new to the site, there were once conversations, here -- really!  How 'bout a poll?

Site management is
a) anti-user
b) lazy
c) incompetent
d) all of the above.

I'm still fairly new to this space. I did maintain a general interest blog which included quite a bit of politics for a couple of years, but then circumstances caused me to take a short break and when I was ready to return, I feared that it'd become too loaded with the primary election and I'd risk alienating some of my readers. Therefore after some heavy commenting, here and there, I decided to join this community as an outlet for some of my political thought.

In my few weeks here, I have to say that I have been somewhat surprised by the repetitious posts and comments revolving around ridiculous charges against the Democratic candidates; general meanspiritedness; misinterpretations of campaign statements and candidate histories; a disconnect between what originated in the media or with a campaign; and folks completely ignoring that their candidate is doing something similar to what they deem repugnant from the other side. Perhaps more of than not, whenever I'm here, I have engaged in some of these discussions through scattered comments, but more importantly as a political animal and a lifelong Democrat: I'm glad there seems to be so many people involved in the process and passionate about the upcoming election.

Unfortunately, some of us have really started falling into doomsday scenarios, with both sides talking about a perceived viciousness coming from the other campaign and how this could make one bloc or another sit home in November. People seem to completely ignore the fact that the Democratic candidates themselves are being very civil, they generally only (indirectly) refer to each other once in a rally and both of their sights appear to be set squarely on Sen. McCain or the Republican Party.

I'll admit that if you only read the political blogs, you'd think the Democrats are on the verge of a total collapse and whole segments of the population are soon going to be filled with hate. Thankfully, if you read the person-on-the-street interviews in mainstream media, look at the polls or have a casual conversation with someone not so heavily involved, you'll find that nothing could be further from the truth. Though, of course because talking heads are just a slightly higher-rated extension of the blogosphere, there may still be enough time for us to bully the party into a civil war, but we're not there yet and maybe it's time for a little perspective.

A recent poll from Harris Interactive offers the following statistics in its introduction;

...over half of Americans (56%) say they never read blogs that discuss politics. Just under one-quarter (23%) say that they read them several times a year and just 22 percent of Americans read blogs regularly (several times a month or more).

...Just nineteen percent of Echo Boomers (those aged 18-31) regularly read a political blog and only 17 percent of Gen Xers (those aged 32-43) say the same. Matures (those aged 63 and older) are actually the generation most likely to be political blog readers as just over one-quarter (26%) say they regularly do so followed by 23 percent of Baby Boomers (those aged 44-62).

Of course, I'm here, right along with everyone else and I'm sure our ranks are growing as the lines between mainstream media and the blogosphere are being blurred, but all this doom, gloom and obsessions with navel-gazing perceptions have to be taken with a grain of salt. Most of the world, or even most Democratic voters aren't filled with vitriol and outside of a fraction among the 6% (of Dems) who post comments in a given week or the ranks of our associated bodies (talking heads, op-ed columnists), I'm not really hearing anyone talk about stolen elections, underhanded tactics, untransversable chasms, irredeemable characters or threatening to sit this one out.

The primaries will soon be over and no matter which candidate wins, we'll be headed toward the fall. Perhaps we each have an opinion about what candidate should be victorious and maybe we don't all agree, much like the electorate, but it's really time for us to lay down arms, quit tearing each other or our histories apart and focus on the future.

In Politics 101, you learn about "Peer Group Leaders"; We are those people.

There is NO other country that America has diplomatic relations with, that is DOES NOT have the American Embassy in the caiptal ciyt of that country EXCEPT ISRAEL! To all the persidential candidates, prove your friendship with Israel by IMMEDIATELY moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL.  God made Jerusalem not only the Capital of Israel, but of the whole world when Mashiach Ben David comes to rule and reign from the hrone of David FOREVER! This is a spiritual war that cannot be solved with secular solutions.  To the nations:  Pray (and vote) for the Peace of Jerusalem, or, drink from the cup of THE FURY OF ZION! In Matthew 24:9 Yeshua says to His Disciples, 'You shall be hated by ALL nations'. This means America too unfortunately.  I saw a t-shirt in Tel Aviv that brought chills through me. It read: 'A message to America... Come visits Israel before Israel VISITS YOU!' VOTEFORTHEPEACEOFJERUSALEM@GMAIL.COM
Shalom,
The Gardener

Maybe this has already been examined, in which case, NEVERMIND.
Unless there are a lot of us with really weird names, I suspect that some of the glitches have to do with the account set-up.
I think  people expect that everything they post will publish under their "display name".  But it doesn't.   

It looks like when you blog, your "full name" is attached to the heading and the blog itself, UNLESS you've edited your "full name" out of your profile, in which case your byline is blank when your blog is opened.

When your "full name" and your "display name" are different, your "display name" is attached to your comments, but not to your blog.

I'm also wondering if the recommend link is missing if your "full name" is missing on your profile.  ??

Comments, please. 
 

I've seen lots of discussion about how best to deal with the Michigan situation, with a lot of focus on trying to be fair.
But what does fair mean? I think the fairness that matters most to getting Michiganders to vote Democratic in November is fair reflection of the will of the people. Without that, I think we could have serious problems. 
Of course, it's very hard to know the will of Michigan Democratic voters because the primary was so messed up. Some voters stayed home who would have voted under different circumstances. Some participated in the Republican contest. Some voted for Clinton because she was the only choice, while others did so because they really liked her candidacy. Some voted for Uncommitted because they wanted to vote for Obama, while others did so because they wanted to vote for Edwards. 
Given the current situation, I just don't see a way to fairly assess the true will of the people. Aside from public opinion polls with large margins of error, the closest data we have is from a seriously flawed primary. Obama's suggestion of a 50/50 split is fair in the sense of not playing favorites to one campaign or the other, but I'm not sure it represents the will of the people. I don't think a fair solution exists, so maybe this unfair one will have to do?

(is this standard practice or am i just special?)

this was a reply to the <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/04/the_santa_clausification_of_ma/">santaclausification</a> of king post and a comment which objected to my holding rev. wright and dr. king in the same breath.

Hi Don-
Unfortunately you have been misinformed by the media. Black liberation theology is not separatist at all-- <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/cotton-picking-dialogue.php">as I have written elsewhere</a>, pro-black is not the same as anti-white, and there is absolutely nothing separatist about Trinity United Church. I challenge you to find a single passage or link in which Rev. Wright or any other adherent to Black liberation theology advocates hatred of white people, violence against white people, separation as a nation from white people, or anything else other than self-love in the face of a system of white supremacy designed to teach Black people to view themselves as inferior.

And as for the so what question: isn't it sad that we would accept sanitized history? Isn't it unfortunate that we, the American people, are not deemed mature enough to handle the full truth? And, by the way, who gets to decide what gets expunged from the official record? Perhaps our acceptance of this "reality" is why the quality of our national discourse is so poor and it is rare to find critical thinking skills among our electorate. 

And MLK's dream; do you really believe that King's philosophy was static and ended with the "dream" in 1963? Do you think his philosophy was unrelated to the prophetic traditions of the black church that formed one of the two pillars of black liberation theology? As per <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hal_Cone">James Cone</a>, pillar one was King's prophetic call for radical love and justice, which were the teachings of Jesus; the second was the self-love and self-respect of Malcolm X, but without the call for self-defense. I highly recommend <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Martin-Malcolm-America-Dream-Nightmare/dp/0883448246">this book</a>, which shows the direct link between the teachings of King and the teaching of Wright.

I find nothing shameful in the truth. If that means our convenient concept of King is no longer functional, so be it. This is not about a political moment-- Obama, Wright or anybody else-- this is about the need to challenge ourselves on all fronts, including the dogmas we rely upon in our daily lives. Buying more stuff just ain't enough to call this good living.

Newsflash: <a href="http://www.highlandercenter.org/n-rosa-parks.asp">Rosa Parks was not simply "tired" either</a>. She was a trained civil rights organizer who knew exactly what she was doing. 

peace,
gkp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403927.html?hpid=topnews
Nicely sums up the facts.

John McCain lied about his record on support for the MLK Holiday. McCain never supported a Federal MLK holiday
Unless he changed his position today, he lied in his speech regarding the Federal holiday. He has always voted against funding the Federal holiday.

McCain did support an Arizona MLK holiday in 1987. He subsequently supported Arizona Gov. Evan Meacham rescinding an executive order creating the holiday (done by Democratic Gov Bruce Babbitt)

McCain subsequently supported a Proposition for a state holiday in 1992.

John McCain's record on MLK Day:

1983: McCain Voted Against Law Creating National Martin Luther King Holiday. In 1983, McCain voted against passing a bill to designate the third Monday of every January as a federal holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. That was the year the holiday was passed into law, supported by 338 members of the House and 78 members of the Senate. [1983 House Vote #289, 8/2/1983; 1983 Senate Vote #303]

1987: McCain Supports AZ Governor's Effort to Rescind Martin Luther King Day as State Holiday. In 1987, Arizona Governor Evan Mecham rescinded "what he termed an illegal executive order by his predecessor, Democrat Bruce Babbitt, to establish a state holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr." Speaking to the Arizona Teenage Republican Convention, when asked about Mecham's decision to rescind the holiday, "McCain said that he felt Mecham was correct in rescinding the holiday." [Washington Post, 1/14/1987; Phoenix Gazette, 4/13/1987]

1989: McCain Urged Lawmakers to Create State Holiday, But Expressed Opposition to Federal Holiday. In 1989, McCain expressed his support for a state law recognizing an Arizona Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. But, McCain said, "I'm still opposed to another federal holiday... but I support the (Arizona) Martin Luther King holiday because of the enormous proportions this issue has taken on as far as the image of our state and our treatment towards not only blacks but all minorities." [Phoenix Gazette, 5/2/1989]

1992: McCain Endorsed Proposition Creating State Holiday. "McCain endorsed Proposition 300, which would establish a paid state holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr." [Phoenix Gazette, 10/28/1992]

1994: McCain Voted To Strip Federal Funding From the MLK Federal Holiday Commission. In 1994, McCain voted to prohibit federal funds for the Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Holiday Commission. The Commission was established in 1984 "to encourage the observance of King's birthday." According to Al King, head of the California chapter of the commission, the organization "helped keep 'senators' and 'representatives' feet to the fire to recognize the holiday." [1994 Senate Vote #127, 5/24/1994; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/24/1995, 5/26/1995]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/dnc-john-mccains-real-record-mlk-holiday_549545_1.html

Yes, the article is from FoxBusiness, but it's a Democratic National Committee review.

Here is McCain's stance on the Confederate flag from the same group.

Late 1999: McCain Said He Wasn't Offended By the Flag. In 2000, McCain said of the flying of the Confederate Flag in South Carolina, "To me personally, I understand how it could be offensive to some people, but I had ancestors who fought in the Confederate army and I thought they fought honorably." [AP, 11/5/1999]

Early 2000: McCain Called The Confederate Flag "Offensive" And A Symbol Of Slavery. McCain appeared on "Face the Nation" and recognized the offensive symbolism of the Confederate flag. McCain said, "The Confederate flag is offensive in many, many ways, as we all know. It's a symbol of racism and slavery." [CBS News, Face The Nation, 1/9/00]

A Day Later, Aides Say He Misspoke. The next day, "McCain reversed himself and called the flag 'a symbol of heritage' ...Aides said he had misspoken in the television interview." [New York Times, 1/12/2000]

2006: McCain Conceded He Lied In 2000 to Win Political Points With the Confederate Flag, Called It "An Act of Cowardice." Following the 2000 South Carolina primary, McCain admitted that he had lied about his position on the confederate flag in order to win political points while battling George Bush in the South Carolina. McCain admitted, "I feared that if I answered honestly, I could not win the South Carolina primary, so I chose to compromise my principles. I broke my promise to always tell the truth." Speaking on the incident in 2006, McCain went further, saying, "The flag in South Carolina. I said that that was a state issue [in 2000]. It's not a state issue. It's a symbol that should not fly over the state capitol anywhere in America. ...I said that it really wasn't any of my business, was basically what I said. That was an act of cowardice." [New York Times, 4/20/2000; CNN, 5/24/2006]

McCain will get a pass on his misrepresentation of his feelings about the National MLK holiday, just as he gets on a whole host of other issues.

McCain will say whatever he needs to say to get elected

In a stunning move, the Clinton campaign, this afternoon, has put forth a new proposal that would have both candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination 'pool' their campaign contributions and then divide the total 50/50.......

Demonstrating just how weak and inane "movement conservatives" are, Paul Weyerich, who was a vocal Romney supporter while he was still actively engaged in seeking the Republican nomination, has now thrown his first choice under the bus and joined a group that is promoting Mike Huckabee for the Republican Vice-Presidential slot. Here's the full story from today's NYT Opinionator column by  Tobin Harshaw:    

Romney’s Ex-Friends

By Tobin Harshaw

So, is it possible that Mitt Romney was the best choice for the Republican presidential nomination, but is unacceptable at vice-presidential nominee? For conservative heavy-hitter Paul Weyrich, the answer seems to be “yes.” “A group of social conservatives has launched an effort to keep Mitt Romney off John McCain’s ticket,” explains Jonathan Martin of the Politico. “Under the rubric of an obscure PAC called Government Is Not God, a coalition of longtime Romney opponents and past supporters of Mike Huckabee have created a website and are buying print ads that resurrect the former Massachusetts governor’s past abortion and gay rights stances.”

So far so predictable, but here’s the twist: “The group does, though, include one high-profile Romney backer. Veteran movement conservative leader Paul Weyrich endorsed Romney in the heat of the primary before throwing his support to Huckabee after Mitt got out,” Martin writes.

While Steve M. at No More Mr. Nice Blog gets a little snarky — “I’m sure God personally told Weyrich to endorse Romney for president. And I’m sure God told Weyrich to un-endorse Romney as VP. I’m confused, but, hey, the Lord works in mysterious ways”

Josh Patashnik at the Plank makes a good observation: “I guess this is a testament to just how tepid movement conservative support for Romney was.”

Is it just me, or does it seem like the rules of the Democratic nominating process change and become more convolited every day? The AP published this article today whic seems to add a whole new dimension to the super-delegate concept. 
Art Torres, who is the chairman of the California Democratic Party remains uncommitted, yet, according to this report, he could be one of the most powerful superdelegates in Denver . Torres gets to name five additional superdelegates, giving him control over six votes at the national convention this summer. Mr Torres has already proclaimed:

"I am the super of supers!"

The rest of the AP article follows;
  Apr 4 09:19 PM US/Eastern
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Some of those presidential superdelegates Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are pursuing are more super than others. One delegate, one vote doesn't apply to them. These prominent Democrats can name additional superdelegates, giving them control over multiple convention votes, and that could be the difference in a race that may not be decided until the August convention.

The clout of the nearly 800 superdelegates is unprecedented in this year's race because neither Obama nor Clinton can clinch the nomination with only the delegates won in state primaries and caucuses. Largely overlooked in the arcane process, though, is the power of a select few to complete the superdelegate ranks by naming 76 newbies, and Clinton and Obama are fighting hard over every one of those from state conventions to back rooms.

Separated by fewer than 140 delegates, both candidates are lobbying the hundreds of known superdelegates, employing family, friends and influential surrogates to woo the governors, lawmakers and other party leaders. Some are more important than others.

Consider Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party. He remains uncommitted, yet he could be the most powerful superdelegate of all. Torres gets to name five additional superdelegates, giving him control over six votes at the national convention this summer.

"I am the super of supers!" Torres proclaims with a laugh.

He and other state party chairmen will appoint most of the additional 76, known in Democratic ranks as "unpledged add-ons."

"They basically are gifts to the state party chairs," Harold Ickes, a chief strategist for Clinton, said of the additional superdelegates.

The additional delegates represent a lot of votes in a race this tight, and neither Obama nor Clinton has really capitalized so far. Only 20 of the party's 56 state and territory chairmen have endorsed a candidate, according to surveys of superdelegates by The Associated Press. Obama has 12 endorsements, Clinton eight.

The candidates also have split endorsements from Democratic governors, who often control state party matters. Both have 10 gubernatorial endorsements.

Superdelegates can vote for whomever they choose at the party's convention this August in Denver, regardless of the results in primaries and caucuses. In all, there will be nearly 800 superdelegates, including the 76 extras.

Clinton has been leading in superdelegate endorsements since before the first primary, but Obama has gained ground in the past month and a half. The latest AP tally: Clinton, 251; Obama, 221. Obama has won more pledged delegates in primaries and caucuses, giving him the overall delegate lead, 1,635 to 1,501. Needed to win the nomination: 2,024.

The 76 "add-ons" are doled out to each state based on population and Democratic voting strength. Every state but Florida and Michigan, which were penalized for holding early primaries, gets at least one. California's five are the most.

The extra delegates will be selected at state party conventions and committee meetings throughout the spring. In about half the states, including California, Georgia and Ohio, they must be chosen from lists compiled by the state party chairmen. If the chairmen list only one person for each slot, they effectively name the extra delegates.

In other states the additional delegates can be nominated from the floor of the convention or by simply applying, turning mundane state party gatherings into spirited debates about the presidential candidates.

Alabama's extra delegate was decided by six votes on March 1, when Obama backer and labor leader Stewart Burkhalter was selected at a meeting of the state party's executive committee. Burkhalter said he worked with the Obama campaign to get the nod.

"If we'd already had a nominee I wouldn't have been an unpledged add- on, I guess," Burkhalter said.

In past years, states used their extra delegates to reward elected officials, donors or labor leaders, or to achieve racial balance in their delegations. This year, the battle for the extra delegates is one of many fronts in a historic fight for the Democratic nomination.

Aides to both campaigns say they are wading into local politics to try to make sure the new delegates are amenable to their candidate.

Some state party chairmen will consult governors or senators when making their choice; others will simply pick like-minded delegates.

That's what Wyoming Democratic Chairman John Millin plans to do when he selects the state's extra delegate in May. Millin, who has endorsed Obama, said he plans to choose another Obama supporter for the spot, though he hopes their votes are not decisive.

"The two votes that I get are frankly two more votes than I really want at the national convention," Millin said. "The party as a whole needs to wrap this up soon after the primaries. I would like to see the decision made long before we get to Denver."

In California, Torres has come up with a diplomatic way to select his five delegates. He said he plans to award them in proportion to the vote in California's Democratic primary. Clinton received about 52 percent of the vote, so she gets three; Obama got 43 percent of the vote, so he gets two.

Torres said he will also use the slots to help meet the state's affirmative action goals.

"I want to take a delegation to the convention that reflects the diversity of California," Torres said.

Both campaigns lobbied Oklahoma Democratic Chairman Ivan Holmes before he picked the state's extra delegate in February. It didn't work.

Holmes, who hasn't endorsed Clinton or Obama, said he selected another undecided superdelegate, the state party's chief fundraiser, Reggie Whitten.

"I had all kinds of people wanting to do this, and Reggie never asked me," Holmes said.

Holmes said he originally backed former Sen. John Edwards, believing he would do well in Oklahoma, perhaps providing coattails for local candidates. He said he has yet to see that trait in Obama or Clinton.

"Obama brings young people into the party that we haven't had before, and Hillary brings in a lot of independent women," Holmes said. "Unfortunately, the polls show that neither of them are going to win Oklahoma."

So I finally realized what it is about Senator Clinton's speaking style that I find so annoying. When she has her "compassionate" voice on, she tends to decrease in volume and increase in pitch towards the end of each sentance or phrase. I dont mean this as an insult to Mrs. Clinton, it is likely just her natrual speaking style and quite unconcious, but this produces (in my mind anyway) the effect that one is being talked down to rather than at...similar to the way an elementary school teacher talks to kids.

Just realized it any thought id share it, im glad to be able to put a finger on what it was that bugged me.

Robert Schlesinger has interesting projections of the impact of alienating African-Americans if SD's overturn an Obama delegate win.  It's worth taking seriously  because I'd venture there's a strong possibility that the depressive impact on the youth turnout would be greater, and could well sour them against the Democratic Party well past this election.  

Schlesinger:
`I started with the 20 states that John Kerry won in 2000;;(sic - presume he meant 2004) `then using CNN’s exit polls I estimated the number of black voters in each state and the number that voted Democratic. I found that black votes numbered more than Kerry’s margin for error in six states: Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes), Michigan (17), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Wisconsin (10), and Delaware (3).

Of course there’s no scenario under which black voters simply don’t show up. Instead, the danger is depressed turn-out. So, again using CNN’s exit poll numbers, I ran some estimates of what would happen if a smaller percentage of blacks turned out:

- At 90 percent black turn-out, Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes slide into the GOP column.

- At 75 percent black turn-out, Pennsylvania’s 21 electoral votes go Republican.

- At 70 percent Michigan’s 17 electoral votes turn from blue to red.

- At 50 percent the GOP collects Delaware’s three electoral votes.'

The link for the article:

http://remmet.com/2008/04/04/do-democrats-need-the-black-vote/

Par for the course, the media seems to have overlooked the latest claim by the <i>Sniper Fire Taker In Chief</i> that she sneaked in while on Leno last night.  Did anyone else notice that while she was insulting our intelligence again with her pathetic excuse for mis-speaking she inserted, 'lots of war zones.'?

Hmm, didn't her mom happen to fly into Korea while she was pregnant with Hillary? Thinking back - when I was eleven or so, I do think I maybe I did see her running behind some other infantry in a clip from 'Nam. I guess I forget how she hand delivered weapons to the so called, 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan during their fights with the Russians.

Yeah, maybe calling her 'Old Stolen Valor' is a bit harsh.

Where have all the hours gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the posters gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the comments gone?
POOF - turned to dust everyone one
When will we be returned?
When will we be returned?

Bill Clinton says he's fighting against political elites and only real democrats want the primary race to continue.

Last night on the Tonight Show, Hillary Clinton says, "I almost didn't make it. I was pinned down by sniper fire at the airport." A video surfaces today that refutes her claim. The video shows her on a podium at the LAX airport saying that Howard Dean said "There is no such thing as a pledge delegate."

Is it wrong to love this video as much as I do?

Sing it with me now, "Come together and lets all hold hands"

Via The Left Anchor

This is a remarkably bad video. Overwritten, poorly executed.  Bad, baffling choice of special effects. But mostly just very, very overwritten.  I don't see this doing anything to capture voters not already supporting him, but I guess that's probably not the point. It's far too long to air on television, but at the same time, it lacks the qualities necessary to send a video into viral distribution.

I'm not even sure what argument it's trying to make on McCain's behalf. Are we really to believe that he isn't pursuing his self interest by seeking the presidency? Other than George Washington, I don't think that's been true for any president in American history, and it isn't true for John McCain either.

It's completely acceptable -- nay, expected -- to hold up one's military service as a positive attribute. But the length of the video and the melodrama it entails, and the unbelievable argument it makes (that McCain is somehow above politics or ambition because he's been to war) makes me feel more like McCain is cynically prostituting his service. Did he really have to become a soldier before he understood that loving your fellow countrymen is part of patriotism? I've never even been in the Jr. ROTC, and I understand that. It's why I fight for social justice, universal healthcare, and increased opportunity for America's working class.

The video also extends McCain's insulting attitude to everyone who's served in the military. I understand that combat creates strong bonds between soldiers, but to suggest that those who serve our country would not have otherwise grasped that basic concept of interdependence seems condescending to the soldiers and condescending to those who haven't served. Moreover, the values that come from the realization of our interconnectedness and need for each other are far better expressed through the progressive tradition than the conservative orthodoxy McCain represents. If conservatives wish to make these types of arguments, they need to be willing to demonstrate their commitment to their fellow countrymen with actions that address the fact that we're all in this together. As Barack Obama said in his address to the 2004 Democratic convention:

If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

It is that fundamental belief -- It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.

I'd suggest the McCain campaign reign it in a notch before the general election.  They need to retool their message here... and hire better writers.

P.S. On second thought, overwritten doesn't even describe McCain's video.  It's like their talking about McCain as if he were some mythological or biblical figure.

Please click to the Politico article below, and take a good look at the photo that's tied to the article.

Anyone in accounting will see it right away.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html

Super Dels (I refuse to call them Automatic, TYVM), are supposed to independently weigh each candidate with apparently many different considerations, of which we are all familiar with and tired of arguing about.

One other factor that I don't see being talked about on the cable news networks is the "interest" scale.

"Interest" scale, you ask?

- Number of hits on You Tube
- Number of members at Official Campaign websites
- Number of donors
- $ Numbers
- Facebook
- MySpace

Amazing enough that Barack tops all of the above, but look at the sources of these website hits and "friend requests" and donations and excitement and interest that Obama creates as compared to either McCain or Hillary Clinton.

The youth vote alone is making SD's chatter excitedly. 

I think the historic implications in this year's election are sometimes being taken for granted and overlooked.

On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of MLK, my musings take me to draw comparisons between the Obama campaign and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MDFP).

To those who are unaware, the MDFP was formed by Blacks and Whites in Mississippi as a challenge to the All-White Mississippi national convention delegates. Black Mississippi Democrats were disenfranchised by the racists in leadership of the party. My comparison is not to accuse the Democratic Party of racism, but to compare the grass roots nature and enthusiasm of the MDFP and the Obama campaign with the old guard nature of the Clinton campaign.

Like the established Mississippi Democratic Party, Obama's main challenger, Hillary Clinton could tap into a built in support system. The Mississippi Democratic Party was the one officially recognized by the National Democratic Party. Senator Hillary Clinton began the Presidential campaign as the inevitable candidate. Her advantages included ready access to the support of Superdelegates and elected legislators. Clinton had the support of many of the old guard.
Govs Rendell, Spitzer, Corzine, O'Malley, multiple Senators, and Representatives like Barney Frank were all in the Clinton camp. A significant portion of the Congressional Black Caucus like Rangel, Jackson Lee, Tubbs-Jones, Lewis, and Meeks were all Clinton supporters.

Obama had to build a nationwide organization. Just as the MDFP had to rely on small donations, Obama developed an online donation system gaining support from individuals rather than relying on large donations. The national Democratic Party was surprised when the MDFP delegates showed up in buses after surviving on bologna, bread, and water damanding a place at the table. The current Democratic old guard has been surprised by the ability of Obama to raise tremendous amounts of money outside of normal sources.

The power of the grass roots nature of the Obama campaign has blunted efforts of big bucks donors who support Hillary Clinton from bullying Rep Nancy Pelosi on Superdelegate rules. Obama's grass roots supporters responded to the deep pocket donor threat of withholding cash by donating money to the DNCC. The actions of the MDFP led to a difference in tinking about the Democratic Party's Black voters. Hopefully Obama's approach will blunt the need for massive need for monetary infusions from large donors and a greater ability for the people to directly fund politicians.

The MDFP was offered two token positions in the national Democratic delegation as appeasement. Since the MDFP had 65 delegates to be seated, the offer was respectfully declined. Similarly, Sen Obama responded to a comment by Sen Clinton suggesting that he could be a VP choice on her ticket by reminding everyone that he was not running for Vice President.

My musings end returning to the memory of Dr King. I realize that MLK, who spoke out against the Vietnam war and suggested that American was often too arrogant in it's approach. In today's MSM, MLK would not be memorialized. His speeches would be trimmed to an anti-American snippet and played in a repetitive loop. MLK would be given the same treatment of as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

History repeats itself.

Mark Penn is a hired gun. He doesn't have to believe what Hillary Clinton believes, he just has to help her get elected. So his admission that his meeting was "an error in judgement" speaks to the timing and not the underlying purpose of the meeting, that is, to promote a job losing trade agreement that Hillary claims to be against.

Things in Washington have progress so far in favor of business that you have McCain's "senior advisor" Charlie Black, advising McCain on the straight talk express and working for Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn at the same time, carrying on his lobbying business on the McCain bus. It is beyond irony that McCain sent Charlie Black to rebut the NY Times lobbyist story.

Whatever happened to campaign advisors believing, at least a little, in what they are fighting for?

On September 11, 2004, my son deployed to the Anbar province of Iraq with his Marine Corps unit, the 3rd Battalion 5th Marine, and over the next month, the Marines and army soldiers amassed outside of the insurgent-infested city of Fallujah, where American citizens had been shot, dragged through the city, set on fire, dismembered, and hanged from a bridge the Marines had taken to calling, "Blackwater Bridge," after the private contracting firm that had employed the murdered men.

We did not know it then, but it was the job of the 3/5 to retake that bridge and move on deep into the city, cleaning out buildings of enemy fighters street by street, house by house, room by room.  We did not know that it would be the biggest battle the Marine Corps had seen since Khe Sanh, or the bloodiest, or that many would not be coming home.

However, most of us family members had a pretty good idea, based mostly on scuttlebutt, that there was to be a massive battle to retake the city, and that our loved ones would be in the thick of it.  And every last one of us left behind knew what that meant, because even if we hadn't wanted to think about it, the reality of war had forced us to.

Before my son deployed, he had sat down with me and discussed funeral arrangements should "anything happen to me," and had told me how he wanted his modest possessions parceled out to buddies and his sister and his dad and me. 

When we hugged him good-bye at the airport, I had tried my very best not to break down; I wanted to be at least as brave as he was, but the tears came anyway, even though I tried to hide them from him.

After embracing us both twice, he squared his shoulders, hoisted his sea-bag, and strode toward the escalator that would take him through security where we could no longer go post 9-11.  His dad and I stood, clutching one another, watching him walk away, and when he reached the top of the escalator, he turned, faced us, and gave a huge wave and a big smile.

It was the bravest thing I ever saw him do.

We forced smiles and waved back, turned and headed for the parking lot, and the minute we stepped outside the building, we both broke down sobbing--even his six-foot-four combat-vet dad.  I continued to cry for the entire two-hour drive home.

I have never in my life been more terrified. 

You just have no way of knowing if that is the last time you will look upon your child's smiling face or feel the fierceness of his hug.  There is no way to describe this to anyone who has not experienced it.  It is an unrelenting trauma that lasts throughout the deployment period.  Every phone call, every letter could be your last, and you never forget this, not ever, even as you watch news reports and hear the daily body count of dead Marines and soldiers, even as you grieve for those other parents you do not know, even as you get that midnight phone call and hear the utter exhaustion and sadness in his voice and hear him say, "I'm all right.  We lost three guys, but I'm okay."

My son came home in one piece from that deployment, only to go through it again the next year.  His cousin deployed three times to Iraq with the Marines--all combat assignments--and another of his active-duty military cousins is in Iraq now, as we speak, with the army, also in a combat detachment.

I love my country, and I love my military family.  I would not have married into this family of warriors if that were not so.  Almost every male member of my family, on both sides, has been to war many years ago or just recently or is there now.  Those who are still active duty are either fighting a war or training to fight one. 

War is the family business.

And this is exactly why I am suspicious of patriotism.

You have to understand what I mean when I say that, and the easiest way to understand it is to check out the Roget's Thesaurus listing under the word, patriot:

"arm-waver...flag-waver, good citizen...hundred-percenter, loyalist, nationalist, partisan...patrioteer...volunteer."

You can check out the entire list yourself, here: 

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/patriot

There is only one antonym listed, and it is clear and unequivocal:

"traitor"

There don't seem to be any antonyms for "patriotism," except, further down the page, one:

"treachery"

In the run-up to the Iraq War, with all the media-dazzle of muscular graphics and powerful rhetoric, complete with politicians throwing around terms like "mushroom cloud"  and "weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION" with ominous menace, it became fashionable to confuse the war itself with the warriors who would be fighting it.

If you did not support Bush's War "one-hundred percent," then, basically, you were a traitor.

You did not--horror of horrors!--"support the troops."

But when you are looking at it from the military point of view, you know that, constitutionally, the United States military cannot declare war on anyone.

George Washington himself, as well as a loud chorus of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, were very very wary of the unseemly love of kings to invade countries in order to expand their empires, and to conscript hapless citizens into their armies to do it for them.

Consequently, they put a civilian in charge of the United States military.  And they gave the power to declare war to the Congress of elected representatives.  They didn't trust that power to one ruler.  It was too dangerous, the consequences far too grave.

The U.S. military is the finest in the world--of that, there is no question or debate--and they stand ready to obey the orders of their commander-in-chief whenever and wherever he or she sends them.

Many, many men and women in uniform had grave doubts about this war they were being asked to fight--if not in May of 2003, when Bush declared "major combat operations" over and complete--then definitely by the time my son first deployed in 2004.

But the onslaught of pro-war propaganda had taken hold by then, and anyone who dared question what we were doing over there was attacked as being unpatriotic--even if he or she had served in a war themselves.

During that time, I received many, many well-intentioned e-mails from "patriots" who lacerated in the most rage-ful and hate-filled language imaginable those who publicly questioned the war or its civilian leadership.  There was a presidential campaign going on by then, and battle lines were drawn by those who supposedly "supported the troops"--those who didn't, were traitors, period.

They didn't realize, of course, that I was one of many who questioned just what the hell we were doing over there, and why.  They just assumed, based on my family's proud military history, that we all supported the war "one-hundred percent."

As a combat mom, when I did express my doubts to anyone, I was told repeatedly by well-meaning souls that if I said, did, or even THOUGHT anything that was opposed to the war effort, that I was, in effect, hurting not just "the troops," but MY OWN SON.

This was so agonizing to me that, desperate for some help, I looked up Colonel David Hackworth, who was, at the time, the most-decorated combat veteran in the entire United States.  His service in Vietnam was legendary.

I found him with a Google-search, and poured out my heart, begging the question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO LOVE THE WARRIOR AND HATE THE WAR?

He answered me almost immediately, sending me all sorts of online links to organizations of soldiers and Marines who were either currently deployed or had been, who questioned the war the loudest because they could see for themselves what was going on there.

"Honest to God we look at this situation in exactly the same way," he said.

To my great and abiding sadness, "Hack," as he preferred to be called, lost the only battle of his life, to cancer, a few short months later, but I cherished his support and his wisdom through my son's first deployment and will always be grateful to him for it.

The idea of romanticizing war and its warriors is as old as Homer, of course, but according to one of the finest books I've ever read, which I fully expect to see receive the Pulitzer Prize this year, THIS REPUBLIC OF SUFFERING, Death and the American Civil War, by Drew Gilpin Faust, president of Harvard, it was the American Civil War that first saw the country-wide development of something called the "Good Death," regarding those lost in war.

Until that war, no one had ever seen such carnage and such unimaginable loss.  Approximately 620,000 men lost their lives during those four years.  If you were to figure it proportionately according to population, that would be the equivalent of SIX MILLION American dead in four years of war.

Dr. Faust spent ten years researching the impact of this kind of horrendous cost to this country.  Using the most careful scholarship, she studied thousands of diaries and newspaper accounts and records that were kept, first haphazardly and then with great care.  When tens of thousands of men die in a single battle, the ability of those officers still alive to catalogue those deaths was simply too overwhelming for most of them to manage.  When possible, friendly soldiers were put in shallow graves, but that was not always possible.  Enemy soldiers were left to rot.

Back then there was no system put in effect, either, for notifying families.  Sometimes a buddy would write to notify loved ones, but sometimes, they just never heard from their son or husband again and were left to wonder.  Usually, they would have to travel to the battlefield and step over and around the bodies, searching for a familiar face.

Embalming was basically created in order to provide a means to get the body home on a train without the worst repercussions, but even then, only families with money could arrange such a thing.  Most just never saw their loved ones again.

The magnitude of suffering soon became more than even churches could possibly explain or even cope with--there was simply no way to reconcile religious belief in a benevolent and loving God with this kind of horror, especially when both sides of the conflict were Christian and were praying to the same God.

Various ministers began to preach sermons and print them up in pamphlet form that attempted to make sense of the insensible.  The Christian idea of redemption was translated into a transcendent death of patriotic sacrifice: 

"Soldiers suffered and died so that a nation--be it the Union or the Confederacy--might live...Death was not loss, but both the instrument and substance of victory."

Gilpin shrewdly points out that those who wrote so passionately about "patriotic sacrifice" (or, in the 21st century, "noble sacrifice")--had not, themselves, fought in the War or watched the horror and terror of death up-close.

She mentions a great Civil War warrior, Ambrose Bierce, who fought bravely for the Union army for four years before himself being seriously wounded.  After the war, Bierce wrote some of the most powerful fictional and nonfictional narratives ever written--certainly up to that time--that joined the war literature of such future writers as Stephen Crane and Ernest Hemingway.

His detail was gruesome and stark and absolutely unromanticized or glamorized or sanitized, as so much war literature is.  He described, for instance, a bullet-wound to the head of a soldier, "above the temple; from this the brain protruded in bosses, dropping off in flakes and strings"--even as the man yet lived.

Gilpin astutely points out:

"The yawning discrepancy between the hopes that inaugurated the war and the experience of its horrors deeply affected Bierce's subsequent view of the world.  Surviving the war left him tormented by "phantoms of that blood-stained period" and by a bitterness that derived not just from his own loss of innocence in war but from his sense that he was among the few truly to admit war's terror and its price.  He felt both isolated and angered by the denial and repression of loss that characterized the postwar world."

Yet another fine book draws a distinction between the macho and glamorized talk of war and patriotism, and the reality felt by those who actually must do the fighting:  SOLDIER'S HEART: Reading Literature Through Peace and War at West Point.

The author, Elizabeth D. Samet, has been teaching literature at West Point for the past ten years--before 9-11, and through six years of fighting in Afghanistan and five years in Iraq.  Many of her former students have gone on to fight in both wars, and they write to her and visit when they are home.  They tell her what they learned from her class on the literature of war, what books they took with them overseas, how they applied what they'd learned in their own combat situations, how it sustained them, and how the trappings of patriotism really affect them.

She quotes that great war writer, Ernest Hemingway, in his book, Farewell to Arms, when his Lieutenant Henry comments,

"Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the names of rivers, the numbers of regiments and the dates."

Like, say, Fallujah.  Or, Blackwater Bridge.

Samet points out that greatest of truths--that soldiers and Marines do not like to be called "heroes."

Just today, an Iraq vet named Sean Gilfillan blogged for HuffingtonPost.com:

"Unless you've been there, don't put out a song about war or the service members. It is much too complicated. You either miss the entire point or make it seem like a movie. We never want to go to war and we fight purely out of an instinct to protect the men and women we serve with. The overwhelming emotions are not what they are commonly portrayed as and NOT every service member that goes over to Iraq and Afghanistan is a hero! A hero is someone who jumps on a grenade or pulls his buddies from a sure death or jumps out and saves innocent civilians from being killed. That is a hero. I am not a hero. I went to Iraq with my unit, went out and interacted with Iraqis every single day and did what I thought was right. Period. "

You can read his entire post here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-gilfillan/attention-entertainment-i_b_94978.html

Samet makes the very shrewd and wise point that the public and media celebrations of soldiers and Marines who've been to war as heroes actually has a dehumanizing effect.

"Such sentimentality has a dehumanizing effect; it is not the same thing as true sympathetic accord.  Soldiers have become assuaging symbols of sacrifice; they allow us at once to feel and not to feel that we are at war; to go shopping, as we have been encouraged to do, in cars adorned with flags and bumper stickers and comparable emblems of sacrifice by proxy."

What this does, she says, is "it celebrates the abstraction of the military's sacrifice."

I remember my son telling me once that he found "all the gushing" to be embarrassing; it made him uncomfortable.  "I just did my job," he said, "what the taxpayers paid me to do."

I remember once, he called his Vietnam-vet dad from Camp Pendleton and said, "I wish the president or SOMEBODY would just step up, come out, and say, 'Look, we're really really sorry for the way we treated the Vietnam vets when they came home.'  Then maybe everybody would leave me alone."

He truly believed that a lot of the "gushing" he saw--much of it, again, from those who had not themselves served, or whose own children would not be fighting the war--was guilt for the past bloodstained legacy of the Vietnam war, and, as Samet pointed out, relief, in a way, that only less than one-half of one-percent of the nation's population would actually be called upon to make that sacrifice themselves.

Much easier, really, to rave about flag lapel pins, insisting that they represent true patriotism, when actually, they have nothing to do with it.

In my view, you have not earned the right to call yourself a true patriot until you, yourself have either stepped up to serve your country, or until you have hugged your child or loved one at an airport, sent them off to war, and wondered if you would ever see them again.

If this country truly believed all its patriotic mish-mash, it would not hide its face from the war-dead.

Ever since Dick Cheney put the policy into practice, way back when he was defense secretary for George H.W. Bush, the airplanes disgorging flag-draped caskets have been hidden from public view.  In the early years of the war, you could get fired just for photographing them.

In fact, when Ted Koppell held a Nightline vigil on the death of the first one-thousand men and women in Iraq, he did so by flashing a photograph of each and every face, coupled with their names, ranks, service affiliation, age, and hometowns.

And he was accused of being unpatriotic.

To honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country by identifying them by name and face WAS UNPATRIOTIC...and why?  Because of the idea that, unless you supported the war, then it followed that you hated the warriors.  To show their faces and names in death was supposed to be some sort of war protest.

This is a shameful twisting of just what it means to be a patriot.

Samet writes:

"The wonder of our own age is that we can preserve so many of the living, yet our national subordination of the wounded body to the sacrificial ideal of the corpse camouflaged by a flag in a funeral ceremony risks further dehumanizing the U.S. soldiers who continue to risk their lives.  To complicate matters even further, our national preoccupation with the dead coexists with an inability to look at them until they are ready to be buried."

Every day of my life, I weep for the war-dead, for their shattered families and abbreviated lives.  I pray for my nephew and for my son's old unit, which is deployed again to Iraq, and I weep with fear for them.

No one knows better than those who have either buried a loved one cut off by war, or who have written letters of condolence to those mothers of their son's and daughter's buddies, the true cost of war.  There is nothing sentimental about it.  Nothing romantic or glamorous.  It is real and it is gritty and it will tear your heart out.

You don't need a yellow ribbon to remember, for it is scarred across your soul.

And there is a danger in hero-worshipping those who must fight and those who must die, because at some point, it crosses the line from true sorrow and love of country to political expediency.  As Samet puts it:

"The idolatry of sacrifice animates the argument that the only way to honor the soldiers who have died in Iraq is to send more soldiers to do the same...The rhetoric of war sacrifice continues...to submerge any real moral and practical arguments that might be made for troop surge or phased redeployment in a morass of sentimentality..."

She goes on to say:

"We expect mothers of the war dead to grieve, but we also expect mothers of yet-living soldiers to sign on to the notion that only the possible deaths of their own children will somehow honor and validate the sacrifices that have already been made.  More must die to prove that the first to die have not done so 'in vain.'"

I am a Marine mom.  My son stepped up, he volunteered, he gave his all, and now he has re-entered the civilian world, as has one of my nephews.  I am deeply proud of them.  I love them with all my heart, and I love my country.

But I am suspicious of the kind of patriotism that shoves out all honest doubt, all serious questioning, all reasoned discussion in favor of the sentimental gesture and the hyperbolic rhetoric and soaring music of flag-waving political commercials and country-and-western songs sung by young, muscular entertainers who prefer to make money off the soldiers' sacrifices rather than serve themselves.

I resent that the true patriotism of my son and his buddies--the ones who really did make the "noble sacrifice"--has been hijacked and co-opted for political gain, and used as a bludgeon against anyone disagreeing with the war, no matter how much they supported the warriors sent away to fight it.

It has been said that you cannot protest a war without protesting its warriors, but that is wrong, and I have no less an authority on that then the late Colonel Hackworth, who fought valiantly until his dying day for warriors everywhere.

Like most every single combat veteran with whom I have ever spoken, Colonel Hackworth believed in the sacred trust that our warriors put in their civilian leadership; the trust that they will not be put in harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary.

To break that trust for political reasons is a sin that, I believe, is punishable by hell and hell alone.  And the politicians should not go there by themselves; they should take along fellow politicians who used war for political gain themselves; and journalists who refused to ask the hard questions of them before it was too late.

This is the day that the Reverend, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, was murdered, and his words on another war from forty years ago resonate today:

"If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in your struggle, unborn generations will be recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos."

Two months after starting a war, President Bush had the unmitigated gall to proclaim the war over and use the announcement to film his own campaign commercial.  Five years and four thousand American deaths later, he is still tossing around all those glory-words like "victory" and "sacrifice," still sending young men and women into the bloody maw, still using the conscientioius objections of American citizens as objects of scorn, still demanding more and more and more and more from those who have already given so much.

Most of the loudest champions of flag lapel-pins in Congress repeatedly vote AGAINST benefits for veterans for health care and education and psychological counseling--including Sen. John McCain, who should know better.

Wounded warriors were hidden away in nasty bug-bitten forgotten hospital rooms for FOUR YEARS before finally being exposed by the Washington Post, and those who waved the flag the most vigorously claimed to be surprised.

If a war-vet returns home with his body blown apart, he can expect a great deal of help if it only involves, say, replacing amputated or blown-away limbs.  But if he comes back with his brain so injured that he has trouble remembering the faces of his children, we turn away.

No glamour in that, no heroic mythology, no stirring, inspirational morning-show stories.

We make many promises to those young volunteers who sign away their lives on the dotted line.

But veterans are discovering that most of the recruiting promises made to them have turned to dust, and the simplest measures to make life better for active-duty troops and veterans--most of which have been put forth by Democrats--are voted down or vetoed by all those fine patriots on Capitol Hill.

Pay for their educations like the World War II and Vietnam vets?  Go visit the website of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, www.iava.org, and look up the list of congresspeople willing to sign on to that bill. 
The state of Texas has sent TEN PERCENT of the war-dead off to fight, and yet only two Texas congresspeople, both Democrats, have signed on.  Neither of our Republican senators seem to think it worth even a molecular fraction of what it costs to maintain a war costing billions each and every month.

Permit soldiers to deploy for only one year, and to get one whole year off before re-deploying to that same war?  Sounds simple.  But no, the Republicans refused to sign on.  Much better to force tour extensions in order to come up with the bodies needed for the so-called "surge," and redeploy troops who have already served multiple times in order to come up with enough cannon fodder to drag on.

So don't talk to me about patriotism.  Unless it is wearing--or has worn--a uniform, I am suspicious of it.

In THIS REPUBLIC OF SUFFERING, Dr. Faust quotes Herman Melville's poem, Battle-Pieces:

My Triumph lasted till the Drums
Had left the Dead alone
And then I dropped my Victory
And chastened stole along
To where the finished Faces
Conclusion turned on me
And then I hated Glory
And wished myself were They.

A blogger on the PPP site (the polling group that gave Obama the lead in Pa. yesterday) had something interesting to say about Obama's TV campaign, though he wishes TV wasn't so effective. For Obama supporters, the message is keep sending money.

I live in Pennsylvania and I support Obama. But, it just seems that as soon as the advertisements started running on TV, the polls reflected the shift. The power of TV is undeniable but I would wish that the electorate were more sophisticated or that TV were less persuasive. Alas, welcome to American politics.

AIDS, like many other diseases, tends to disproportionately affect marginalized populations. In the case of Africa, this has especially sensitive implications for women, who traditionally live in circumstances of sexual, societal, political and economic subordination. Because of these factors, the politics of blame becomes an especially subtle and delicate obstacle for HIV-prevention programs.

And yet, PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, bypasses any thought to the cultural or structural disparities between the United States and, say, the rest of the world (I know, shocking...). This plan uses the most epidemiologically vulnerable countries in the world as a playground  to spread the faith-based wet dreams of our conservative leaders. Oh, and <a href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/02/27/pepfar-wins-money-compromises-principle">the House just reauthorized it for five more years.</a>

There are so many dangerous aspects to PEPFAR, the consequences of which are only apparent after <a href="http://www.pepfar2.org/legislationsuggestions.html">parsing the entire policy</a>(in conjunction with other global AIDS relief policies that have been put into place by the administration):

*The ABC plan basically stipulates that the use of condoms can only be addressed to an audience of "high-risk" groups. This is dangerous because it identifies marital status, age, and occupation as factors that would place someone within or outside of this category, when often these factors hide risky behavior or environments. To assume that marriage makes someone safe from exposure to the virus is ignoring many structural limitations of target countries that put women in lesser, subordinate roles that often result in their safety being compromised even within supposed "safe" relationships (a study shows that the majority of HIV positive women in Uganda are contracting the virus within marriage) . The other reason ABC is dangerous is because limiting condom teaching to "risk groups" further stigmatizes the use of condoms in an environment that already has a long history of condemning this resource

*Two other policies that work in conjunction with PEPFAR are the "Global Gag Rule" and the "<a href="http://www.genderhealth.org/loyaltyoath.php">Prostitution Loyalty Oath.</a>" The latter is a policy that was passed in Congress in 2003 which denies federal funding HIV prevention groups who work with prostitutes in any capacity. Many of these groups are doing important work to not only make sure that sex workers (and the sex trade industry is a significant, significant factor in the widespread HIV transmission in Africa and Asia) stay uninfected, practice safe sex and avoid spreading the virus to clients if they are infected, but also to teach female empowerment not only in the women's capacity to negotiate the terms of sexual intercourse but providing resources to find alternative employment and career advancement in other fields. These groups are now denied federal funding.

*The "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-orrick/lifting-the-gag-rule-on-d_b_90860.html">Global Gag Rule</a>" denies federal funding to AIDS relief groups that combine HIV prevention programming with family planning. These groups have provided important programs because combining their prevention/treatment programming with family planning provides a more acceptable gateway into these programs in environments that highly stigmatize the disease.

This is an extremely flawed policy that aims to spread the faith-based policies of abstinence-only, risk elimination and the stigmatization of family planning, to the developing world while wrapped in the guise of well-meaning global aid. We cannot allow the complacency that comes from the warm and fuzzy feelings we get from the phrase "AIDS relief" to mask the inherent imperialistic guile policies like PEPFAR enforce.

Excerpt of an article I submitted to Real Clear Politics and other forums.

******
Dear Mr. Dean:

We’ve Been Hoodwinked!!

Early last fall, when the presidential campaign season started kicking into high gear, I would on occasion divert my attention from my number one pastime - NCAA College Football - to watch media coverage of the candidates and their respective campaigns. At that time, my media of choice was MSNBC.

Why MSNBC? Well, you had folks like Chris Matthews and his show “Hardball” - a show where Matthews had developed a reputation for pulling in politicos and getting in their face with tough questions. So, it was without much thought at the time when I watched Chris Matthews bash Hillary. After all, Hillary was the “front-runner” for the democratic nomination and front-runners always get the most attention. My occasional journeys to other media sources, e.g., CNN, failed to lend an impression of anything out of the ordinary.

But, as autumn gave way to early winter, it became starkly apparent that the Hillary-bashing had taken on a life of its own in the main stream media (MSM). This was no longer a status quo bashing of the front-runner, but a wide spread, and growing, effort of the MSN to deliver as much negative coverage of Hillary Clinton as could be found. The presidential debates were dissected, and the most marginal nuances cast in a light of being great gaffs by Hillary, or great points made by Obama. The other democratic candidates were being given fringe coverage, which is in large part why the other candidates got very little traction in the primaries and caucuses soon to come. The majority of the MSM’s coverage was being devoted to Hillary and Obama. In Hillary’s case, uniformly negative, and in Obama’s case, uniformly positive.

I am not sure exactly when it suddenly dawned on me that the MSM truly hate[d] Hillary Clinton. Perhaps a clue should have been when . . ..

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE ARTICLE  (<<< look for the title "Dear Mr. Dean: We’ve Been Hoodwinked!! by Xyndau")

Hillary's MLK performance today was profoundly nauseating.   Made me feel dirty watching it.

But what have we most learned about her through this campaign?   That she's qualified to answer the 3am phone call?
Well given her sleep deprivation problem the answer is surely a resounding no.     Not on any sane person's watch.   But my God she sure qualifies as 2008's answer to Sarah Bernhardt.

Was just watching MSNBC, David Gregory's show. Chrystia Freeland, from the Financial Times, made an interesting observation/prediction:

Is the cabinet post on poverty Hillary's job offer to John Edwards?

She had no inside word on it, she was just pointing out a possible connection.  

Maybe John Edwards endorses Hillary before PA.?

Also:  Hillary's Pennsylvania personality change:

-Quote from speech to blue collar workers:   From the coal mines to the lace mills, my family has worked our hearts out, and I will work my heart out for you.”
-says she's like Rocky Balboa
-tells Ellen she's used to boys piling on her
-challenges Obama to bowl-off

Conclusion:  she's a vulnerable blue collar wife and mother with boys picking on her just trying to survive.This week.

There has not been, so far as I have been able to determine, much discussion about civil liberties on the campaign trail this go around.

That, perhaps, mirrors the general lack of interest in them among voters.  We do discuss the FISA bills (here and at DailyKos) but usually don't tie them to the much broader assault on our core freedoms.

I spent the better part of 2002 and 2003 working to organize resistance to the Bush administration's stripping of freedoms.  I gave lectures to audiences that were interested enough to attend such an event on a work night, but even among that select audience, most people were not terribly exercised by the problem of the PATRIOT Act and the larger apparatus of laws and regulations that went with it.  

Back then, I used the possible suspension of habeas corpus as a way to emphasize the dangers we faced as the Bush Administration continued to strip the Fourth and First Amendments.  It didn't take too long for that nightmare to become a reality for every American.

 

We can now all be detained upon the decree of the Executive branch and held without trial and without access to counsel and without the right to confront the charges against us — citizen or non-citizen.

 

Still, no discussion of civil liberties from our Democratic Candidates, or almost none.  In the October 30, 2007 MSNBC debate, Sen. Obama decried the silence on this issue but was then ignored. It just went away.

 

Obama and Clinton both supported the revision of the PATRIOT Act that made very minor (but I'll take them) improvements to the original, abominable law.  Obama's floor speech included his concern that the revisions were too weak and that more civil liberties protections are needed.  But I see no discusison of this issue on Sen. Obama's campaign website.  Clinton has called for reforms as well, but I seen no mention of it among her issues on her campaign website either.  

 

In a rare appearance of this issue as a campaign topic, Jeffrey Rosen, in the New York Times, in an Op/Ed on March 1, 2008, argues that Sen. Obama looks to be a better proponent of civil liberties (and draws attention to what I think are some troubling failures by Sen. Clinton).   Even though my own experience working on this professionally and Mr. Rosen's depressing poll stats suggest there may not be much of an audience (Rosen cites 20% interest among the electorate), I will be investigating this (and Rosen's broader claims about the candidates) then posting a series of blogs here.  

 

The Washington Times has officially started the innocuous character attack strategy.

Call them out when you see it.

Selecting a minister

<I>Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed.- Mark Twain</I>

Theories on why the Clintons released these at 4pm on a Friday, suggesting they believe the release isn't a good thing and want it buried in weekend news? You'd think after all the caterwauling for them to release their returns, they'd be trumpeting this from the high heavens.

My theories:

1. PA voters will get a good look at how "blue collar" their candidate really is.

2. Hillary's donors will see that $110 million figure and say "WTF? She doesn't need my money." Donors dry up, particularly internet donations.

Hmm.. that's all I got. Anyone else?

As a previous discussion has revealed, in my "Blogs Are Common, Conversation Is Not", there is much dissatisfaction and no illumination concerning the problems that persist here. Several of our contributors, such as Tankard and Pseudocyants, have shot down the software bug excuse, I am personally astonished that TPM would let hard drives carrying their archives go somewhere else, and we have only received disclaimers and pleas for sypmpathy from Andrew and Josh.

At this point, another "we're working on it" is likely to generate ridicule. At first I was sympathetic, but I am growing suspicious that there has been a lawsuit-level screwup. It may be that  Josh can't say anything to avoid compromising a case. If so, let's hear it; surely there is no non-disclosure requirement like an FBI national security letter.

But if the vendors screwed up, let's embarrass them in public. And if TPM blew it, just 'fess up and apologize. We'll get over it.

There is a show-biz proverb: "Be careful who you step on while on the way up; you may need them on the way down."

<I>Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed.- Mark Twain</I>

She "feels your pain"......   Clintons report $109.2M for 7 years  By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer  

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Clinton reported $20.4 million in income for 2007 and more than $109 million since 2000 as they gave the public the most detailed look at their finances in eight years

...According to a summary of the seven years provided by the campaign, the former president's speech income since he left the White House totals $51.85 million and his income from his two books — "My Life " and "Giving" — totals $29.6 million.

Hillary Clinton had $10.5 million in book income over the period from her book "Living History." She donated earnings from her other book, "It Takes a Village," to charity.

Clinton's tax returns show that of the remaining presidential candidates, she is the one most able to access large amounts of personal money. She lent her campaign $5 million in late February and could contribute more if she finds herself falling far behind Obama's proficient fundraising.

...In 2006, Obama reported income of nearly $1 million, with nearly half of it coming from the publication of his second book, "The Audacity of Hope." Last week, the campaign disclosed that Obama and his wife, Michelle, gave $240,000 to charity last year.

more at the link

Maybe she can pay the Boys and Girls Club now???

Clinton owes a total of $19,627.20 to 14 school districts with an average debt of $1401.94. The largest amount, $4411.05, is owed to Winnacunnet Cooperative School District in Hampton, New Hampshire.

She owes 7 colleges and universities a total of $19,983.48 with an average debt of $2854.78. The largest amount is owed to the athletic department of Southern New Hampshire University. She owes them $9542.80.

She owes 11 cities and towns a total of $13,184.63 with an average debt of $1198.60. She owes the town of Hampton, New Hampshire the most with a debt of $4628.96. (Hampton, NH gets hit twice.)

Lastly she owes the Boys and Girls Clubs of Sioux City and Blackhawk County Iowa a total of $1,625.00 with $1000 of that owed to the Boys and Girls Club of Blackhawk County.

Forty years after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his life organizing sanitation workers in

Clintons Disclose Tax Information Showing $109 Million in Income Since 2000
In Memphis, Clinton Targets Poverty

The response from Obama supporters to the post about his advisor's views on Iraq was quite disappointing to me (although, of course, some people got it right.) "Oh, yeah, but.. oh, Penn! Colombia!" is NOT a rebuttal at all. "No president can guarantee to do it in a certain timeframe" or "but, but, realities on the ground!!" are NOT appropriate rebuttals here.

There are virtues to "staying on message" and I would like to see a consistent front, if you wish, following the two tenets of facts and forcefulness. This allows for moving away from arguments designed for distraction (which most are) and avoiding becoming a mere apologist or antagonist like a certain spiky-haired fellow here.

So, while imperfect (please offer more suggestions) here is the outline of the response I would have preferred to see coming from a fairly unified front:

1) Obama takes power in January, 2009. 16 months is one year plus four months. January 2009 plus one year is January 2010. January 2010 plus four months is April or May 2010 depending on how you count. So, first of all, even if we take the incorrect assumption that this is the secret policy Obama has been hiding, it would still be in line with his public statements. This, by itself, rebuts the entire implication in the article.

2) The paper itself is not presented for discussion, although there is little evidence that the article in the Sun is inaccurate. It is fairly consistent with Kahl's views. Here is a list of publications on Iraq by CNAS, the left-leaning "think tank": http://www.cnas.org/iraq/. It would be helpful to have to review the merits of Kahl's proposal. Importantly, the article does not state that this paper is related to the Obama campaign--which is because it is not. It relies on the implication only for plausible deniability. As an aside, one may mention that it is typically suspicious to not offer the paper itself; but this may be an unnecessary distraction that opens a protracted side-argument. For the purposes of this discussion, we may assume that the Sun is truthful.

3) We want the leader to consider varied advice. That is what advisors are for. This is done for three reasons: advisors have expertise in a narrower area; advisors can suggest courses of action that the President had not thought of (two heads and so on); and advisors  presenting a convincing case opposing that of the official policy can allow devising an effective rebuttal to it, seeing its strengths and weaknesses.

In other words, your opponent seems to argue that the President should only approve of advice consistent with his predetermined position and/or that an advisor doing his job (if we assume this was a campaign policy proposal which it is not) is somehow exposing a nefarious scheme to do something that is pretty much in line with what the campaign has been saying in public all along.

At this point, if you like, you can digress to explaining the "realities on the ground" angle.

If you want to add a bit of snark, the best place to go is the rather embar'rassing inability to count to 16 but I recommend against it for effect.

The campaign of Hillary Clinton finally released her tax returns for the last 7 years.

They reported $109.2 million dollars income.

It will be interesting to dive into the details, that's for sure.

On March 20, Barack Obama's senate office was notified of a major security breach on his passport file.  
Hours after it was reported by MSNBC, the State Department confirmed the story and added that it had been breached on three separate occasions - Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14.   

This rapidly became a major news story, and raised questions about whether there was political motivation--as was suspected in 1992, when a Republican political appointee broke into Bill Clinton's  passport records while he was running against President George H.W. Bush. 

So here we have Barack Obama, a democratic presidential candidate leading the race, generating sweeping support across the country, during an election year  in which a major transition of political power  is likely. 
Barack could be the first African American to become President.

There was no way, I thought,  that anyone could possibly believe this incident wasn't politically motivated. (pardon the double negative)

Well actually, there was one way.  My marketing and PR instincts  kicked in and shed light on the only way this fire could be put out:  announce that the same thing happened to the other candidates.  

I weighed the prospect of the State department looking incredibly incompetent and bureaucratic with the the prospect of the immense toxicity that would ensue if the breach on Obama's file was believed to be politically motivated.

I chose incompetence and bureaucratic.  

As I suspected, the next day the State Department announced that McCain's file and Clinton's file had been breached as well.  By low level contract employees, no less.
 "It was just a matter of "imprudent curiosity" said state department spokesman Sean McCormick.

"It may boil down to simple human folly and voyeurism in the wee hours of the morning,"  said David Laufman, a former CIA official who was investigating the matter at the time. 

The story pretty much died after that. 

A week or so ago, it was reported that Anna Nicole's passport file was also breached, though that turned out to be a perfectly legal request.

Today, the state department announced to virtually no fanfare that it intends to name a new acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services to replace Ann Barrett who will be stepping aside.

After 8 years of so many lies and coverups,  I can only imagine the size of the rug that this one was swept under.

On Saturday, February 9, I participated in the caucus in my home state of Washington.  We both supported Obama.  He won three of the four delegates in our precinct.  My wife was elected as a delegate to the District-Level caucus, and I was selected as an alternate. 

Well, tomorrow is the District caucus--the final step before the State Convention.  And today I got an e-mail reminding me to attend.  I thought, initially, that it might be from the Washington Democratic Party, or maybe from the Obama Campaign.

Nope.  It was from Hillary.  She wants my vote.

More specifically, it was from the Washington branch of the Clinton Campaign.  The only place they could have gotten my e-mail address was from the delegate form I filled out at the convention.  And that form specifically indicated that Obama was the candidate I pledged to support.

Granted, Clinton didn't try to make some argument to convince me to betray Obama, or argue for her own superiority.  Her e-mail simply asked me to support Clinton at the caucus tomorrow.  Here's the full text of her letter:

Dear Dan,
Thank you so much for everything you've done in Washington. Your energy and support have meant the world to Hillary. Now Hillary needs your help in Washington again at your local legislative caucus. Your legislative caucus is tomorrow, Saturday April 5, at 9:00 AM at XXXXXXXXX in Seattle.
The delegates you earned on February 9 will be selected at your local legislative caucus tomorrow, and we need you to be there. If you were selected as a delegate or alternate, it is critical that you attend to stand up for Hillary.
Click here to RSVP today!
If you were not selected as a delegate or alternate, you can still help by attending your caucus and showing your support for Hillary. We need to have a strong energetic showing tomorrow and we can't do it without you. Will you stand up for Hillary at your legislative caucus tomorrow?
Going to the caucus is easy and fun: Make signs, wear your Hillary gear and show up!
Click here to RSVP today!
Thank you so much. Hillary could not ask for a better team.
Sincerely,
Zach Stewart
Washington State Director

I wonder if she will end up losing more delegates here in Washington tomorrow.

Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

Got a response letter back from Lynn Woolsey today indicating that when push comes to shove, she as a super delegate will assuredly honor the popular vote..."while I remain a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, I will cast my vote at the convention for the candidate that is chosen not through back room deals, but by the votes of the American public"

MF

II wish I had, had my PVR running about ten minutes ago when Alex Witt(less, she always seems to be overtly anti-Obama) on MSNBC was interviewing John Conyers about MLK and the matter of McCain being there came up.

Witt asks Conyers about McCain and Conyers politely points out that McCain voted against the holiday in 83, and in 87 when Arizona's governor moved to rescind the holiday within that state - McCain supported the governor. (Of course you may recall, it was the threat from the NFL that made them think twice on that) Conyers then says, 'well it's quite nice of McCain to come here today after all that' (likely not verbatim - I was sleep deprived)

So Witt tries to pump McCain up and points out that McCain did in fact apologize and asks Conyers if he hadn't heard that yet. So Conyers then thanks her for pointing that out and then adds that it was kinda sad that he couldn't apologize in 82 or 87, but how nice of him 'Now that he's running for President', Conyers was really having a time of it trying to avoid laughing any harder as he said that.

The Surge, the temporary increase in our forces operating in Iraq that was supported by my chum John McCain is working!  How do you know?  Well, for one thing, we haven’t brought any of those troops back yet.  If The Surge wasn’t working we obviously would have tried the opposite of The Surge by now.  We’d have tried an Unsurge by sending all of our troops into Iran, taking the Iranians completely by surprise and leaving the Iraqis totally baffled.  The fact that we have troops in Iraq is proof that we want troops in Iraq, it’s as common sense as yellow ribbons and flag lapel pins.

Score One for The Surge!

Now my further evidence is what’s happening in Basra.  The local Iraqi military, led personally into battle by John’s good friend (and thus the vicarious vicar of my heart) Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki found it so easy to beat up on Moqtada al-Sadr’s militia that 1,000 of Maliki’s troops (including two top commanders) just walked off the battlefield.  You do not walk off the battlefield when you’re losing.  You get carried off.

Score Two for The Surge!

Finally, the collapse of Bear Stearns and the housing bubble is evidence that The Surge is working.  People don’t want to work at investment banks and buy homes any more.  They want to sign up for The Surge!  You keep hearing about people walking away from their homes.  But you never hear where they’re Surging too!

Score Three for The Surge!

That’s game, set and match for my best friend, John Surge-y McCain.

This is interesting news. 

HNN Poll: How Historians Rank the Presidency of George W. Bush (2008)

In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network,  98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.

Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush’s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success.

I quoted Meher Baba on his 40 year silence in a diary earlier today:
"Man’s inability to live God’s words makes the Avatar’s teaching a mockery. Instead of practicing the compassion he taught, man has waged wars in his name. Instead of living the humility, purity, and truth of his words, man has given way to hatred, greed, and violence. Because man has been deaf to the principles and precepts laid down by God in the past, in this present Avataric form, I observe silence."

40 years ago Martin Luther King tried teaching his people they had the power in their own hands - the 10th most economically powerful country if they worked together. He was silenced by a bullet, but his words and inspiration live on. 60 years ago Mahatma Gandhi taught his people they had the power in their own hands but that they could live together in peace. He was silenced by a bullet, but his words and inspiration live on. But in many ways we fall short of what they might have hoped. Despite all our wealth, all our change, all our technology, we're as weak and as divided and as scared as before, full of so many excuses and so little clarity and compassion in action, as a people and as a nation.

I proposed earlier, and propose again, that tomorrow we silence our keyboards and think how the world could be in 40 years - what we will have passed on, and what the Promised Land that King saw but couldn't enter will look like, what ideals we're share, how can live together, how we can work with our differences.

And then I propose that the day after we start on that 40 years of work, the 40 years across the desert, whether with words or in silence, but in a way that gets us closer, moves us further down the path, will make whoever's around in 2048 proud. And with that I start.

Please see this link:http://therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=1281&thisview=item

I could just see the spin if he made this speech today. You Tube loop starting at the 19:40 mark over and over again.

After yesterday's shocking announcement that Bill Richardson told the Clinton campaign that Obama couldn't win, intrepid reporters have unearthed several other very surprising statements he made in confidence to the Clintons. Unnamed campaign officials have confirmed every one.

 10) One thing I'm really struck by, Hillary, is how closely your agenda mirrors that of another great American, John Edwards.

 9) A real measure for success in Pennsylvania would be winning by one or two points.

 8) The thing I am most struck by is how little my endorsement really matters.

 7) Wouldn't it be great if we had an election between two people who really loved their country and we could really talk about the issues instead of all this other stuff that intrudes?

 6) You can always judge the health of a democracy by how much value it gives to the voice of the credentials committee.

 5) Really, I don't think Obama Girl is that pretty.

 4) I think you can tell a lot about a man by the way he bowls.

 3) Once I thought I had been under sniperfire, but later the videotape showed it was Pilates class.

 2) Thanks for letting me review your tax returns, Hillary. I see there's nothing there that could possibly be of interest to anyone.

 1) That skirt makes Nancy Pelosi's butt look big.

Please Note: Paste All Links Into Browser

Transparency in Politics Project Presents a Net-Roots Report and Analysis on this very special day April 4, 2008 at noon...We all commemorate the life and death of Martin Luther King, Jr...Who made the ultimate sacrifice so that his own people and all American's can live in freedom and contribute fully to the political process and without fear or worry. We honor the dead, and all that our ancestors have fought for and accomplished in the name of love and a never ending quest for American Freedom and Justice for all.   Kathy Callahan, Real Bergen Dem

Here is the Report Plus Links to this report that you  can use and forward...You can also write to Paul Milligan and Kathy Callahan directly. Paul specifically for technical user support and yeoman's guidance!
Paul J. Milligan  email = pjm@pobox.com
Kathy Callahan, LCSW  email + KathCalla@aol.com
 http://www.pmilligan.net/refun...

The back story
I read Kathy Callahan's  Hillary Rodham Clinton Finance Committee story on line and what happened to her donations..."Paul has done yeoman's work...He spent hours upon hours writing/designing this advanced donor searching for detailed information program and distilling the research. Then calling me and sharing his progress with me...The Clinton results are staggering... We ask you to provide us with constructive feedback and let us know if you write about your own experience with our findings and work...We are collecting Transparency in Politics Stories.
 My Links are at end of report.

The Report
Having seen some of the online resources regarding campaign contributions ( FEC.gov,
opensecrets.org, etc ) I thought it pointed to a subject area of interest ? making the FEC data more
widely available via database formatting, to those who might find it useful to have the raw data at
hand. I found that the various online resources, although of very high quality, just didn?t allow
quite the depth and variation of analysis I wanted to make, so I wrote a program to download the
FEC data, put it in a database, and do a wide variety of queries, summaries, etc. That program is
available now, for free, at

http://WWW.pmilligan.net/FECTO...

Below are some of the findings so far. They do in fact indicate ?something possibly amiss?, in the
variances between campaigns. Whether it is nefarious in nature, or merely mismanagement and sloppy
bookkeeping glitches, etc, will take journalistic inquiry by someone other than myself to determine.

This email IS a public press release.  Please feel free to publish, post,
forward, etc in any forums desired.  The PDF is attached, and is also on
the website via the link. )

     I have found some interesting patterns in current Clinton
Presidential campaign contributions, specifically refunds, that seem to
point to curious differences between the three major candidates, especially
in the area of 'refunds as percent of of all contributions'.  Why does the
Clinton campaign have to issue 200 % - 300 % as much in refunds as anyone
else ( after adjusting for  contribution levels and quantities ) ?

     Below is a top level summary, showing that by every metric, the
Clinton campaign is 'way out of line' ( sometimes by 300 % or more ) with
everyone else, including the other major candidates, and various
'comparison bases' such as the DNC, the RNC, etc.  I have found what appear
to be patterns in certain transactions, based on the FEC public data, that
seem 'curious' to me.

     More information and transactional details are available online
at   http://www.pmilligan.net/refun... .  The free program I wrote
to  download the data, database it, and create queries and reports
is  at  http://www.pmilligan.net/FECTO...

     As I state in the PDF, whether it is nefarious in nature, or merely
mismanagement and sloppy  bookkeeping glitches, etc, will take journalistic
inquiry by someone other than myself.

Summary : Major Presidential Candidates, refund activity anomalies

Total Type 15 & 15E contributions

               Clinton             Obama               McCain
Count          117,476             167,414                  52,957
Dollars        $ 119,846,419       $ 118,032,725       $ 46,050,415
Avg       $ 1,020             $ 705               $ 869

Total Type 22Y refunds

               Clinton             Obama               McCain
Count          1,778               1,213               666
Dollars        $ 2,759,635         $ 889,611           $ 553,184
Avg       $ 1,432             $ 791               $ 830

# of refunds as percent of #  all contributions

               Clinton             Obama               McCain
               % 1.51              % 0.72              % 1.26

$ of refunds as percent of $ of all contributions

               Clinton             Obama               McCain
               % 2.30              %  0.75             % 1.20

I have found some interesting patterns in current Clinton Presidential campaign contributions,
specifically refunds, that seem to point to curious differences between the three major candidates.
For those that like to skip the blah-blah and jump ahead to the conclusions, the page below
entitled ?Summary - Chart of Refund activity anomalies between major Presidential
candidates? is the place to look for the summary information on one page. It shows that the
Clinton campaign?s refund pattern is out of line with everyone else, by as much as 300 % or more,
after adjusting for dollar volume and transaction volume. It is followed by more details on the
ensuing pages.

Summary :
Major Presidential Candidates, refund activity anomalies
Clinton Obama McCain
Count 117,476 167,414 52,957
Total Type 15 & 15E contributions Dollars $ 119,846,419 $ 118,032,725 $ 46,050,415
Avg $ 1,020 $ 705 $ 869
Count 1,778 1,213 666
Total Type 22Y refunds Dollars $ 2,759,635 $ 889,611 $ 553,184
Avg $ 1,432 $ 791 $ 830
# of refunds as percent of
# all contributions % 1.51 % 0.72 % 1.26
$ of refunds as percent of
$ of all contributions % 2.30 % 0.75 % 1.20
For comparison : Type 15 / 15E

Contributions
Type 22Y
Refunds
%
Clinton 119,846,419 2,759,635 2.30
Obama 118,032,725 889,611 0.75
McCain 46,050,415 553,184 1.20
All committees with ?Democratic? in the name (393) 109,581,253 534,377 0.49
All committees with ?Republican? in the name (224) 96,644,506 575,669 0.60
DNC Services Corp DEMOCRATIC NAT?L COMM 22,322,951 139.036 0.62
Republican National Committee 38,007,870 167,627 0.44
Ratio of average contribution dollars to average refund do llars :
Clinton 1 to 1.4 Obama 1 to 1.12 McCain 1 to 0.95
Indication : Clinton has to pay a much higher ratio of contribution $, when she pays a refund, at a rate of
130 % more than Obama, and 150 % more than McCain.
Percent of contributions re funded ( by transaction counts )
Clinton 1.51 % Obama 0.72 % McCain % 1.26
Indication : Clinton has to pay a larger proportion of # of refunds vs # of contributions, at a rate of
210 % more than Obama, and 25 % more than McCain.
Percent of contributions refunded ( by Dollar amounts )
Clinton % 2.3 Obama % 0.75 McCain % 1.2
Indication : Clinton has to refund a larger percentage of all her contributions, in dollar terms, at a rate of
310 % more than Obama, and 195 % of McCain.
Exhibit ? Clinton monthly totals, Contributions vs refunds
TranType 15 / 15E - Contributions TranType 22Y = Refunds
Refunds as % of
contributions
Year Month Count Total
Avg
contrib Count Total
Avg
Refund Count Dollars
HILLARY CLINTON
2007 1 1,620 $2,248,316 $1,387 1 $10 $10 0.06 0.00
2007 2 2,948 $3,787,238 $1,284 3 $63 $21 0.10 0.00
2007 3 10,601 $17,566,862 $1,657 5 $13,120 $2,624 0.05 0.07
2007 4 1,684 $2,120,526 $1,259 99 $192,023 $1,939 5.88 9.06
2007 5 3,951 $5,199,348 $1,315 90 $225,895 $2,509 2.28 4.34
2007 6 12,236 $17,090,334 $1,396 49 $94,115 $1,920 0.40 0.55
2007 7 1,904 $1,824,780 $958 77 $119,314 $1,549 4.04 6.54
2007 8 4,812 $5,547,262 $1,152 119 $223,935 $1,881 2.47 4.04
2007 9 12,139 $14,993,407 $1,235 474 $887,519 $1,872 3.90 5.92
2007 10 5,105 $5,624,662 $1,101 108 $134,002 $1,240 2.12 2.38
2007 11 6,255 $6,410,883 $1,024 247 $368,778 $1,493 3.95 5.75
2007 12 9,143 $10,124,440 $1,107 148 $184,167 $1,244 1.62 1.82
2008 1 11,946 $9,439,323 $790 160 $125,218 $782 1.34 1.33
2008 2 33,132 $17,869,038 $539 198 $191,476 $967 0.60 1.07
117,476 $119,846,419 $1,020 1778 $2,759,635 1,432 1.51 2.30
Net + $117,086,784

FEC site says ?The query you have chosen matched 119254 individual contributions? ( they add 15, 15E, and
22Y together, which matches the above numbers perfectly )
The numbers on this page correlate well to OpenSecrets.org at
http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...
Exhibit ? Obama monthly totals, Contributions vs refunds
TranType 15 / 15E - Contributions TranType 22Y = Refunds
Refunds as % of
contributions
Year Month Count Total Avg
contrib
Count Total Avg
Refund
Count Dollars
OBAMA FOR AMERICA
2007 1 1,292 $1,215,597 $940 0 $0 $0
2007 2 3,291 $3,169,821 $963 1 500 $500 0.03 0.02
2007 3 13,259 $15,661,001 $1,181 42 41,165 $980 0.32 0.26
2007 4 6,164 $4,716,456 $765 64 37,234 $581 1.04 0.79
2007 5 7,382 $7,601,433 $1,029 4 10,200 $2,550 0.05 0.13
2007 6 13,658 $12,296,823 $900 62 56,982 $919 0.45 0.46
2007 7 2,773 $1,688,548 $608 58 52,513 $905 2.09 3.11
2007 8 4,263 $3,854,478 $904 67 38,177 $569 1.57 0.99
2007 9 9,612 $8,697,979 $904 202 180,851 $895 2.10 2.08
2007 10 3,680 $2,179,689 $592 103 44,419 $431 2.80 2.04
2007 11 6,809 $4,306,130 $632 76 39,636 $521 1.12 0.92
2007 12 10,622 $6,640,599 $625 190 144,970 $763 1.79 2.18
2008 1 34,773 $20,421,137 $587 149 133,885 $898 0.43 0.66
2008 2 49,836 $25,583,034 $513 195 109,079 $559 0.39 0.43
167,414 $118,032,725 $705 1,213 889,611 791 0.72 0.75
Net + $117,143,114
FEC site says ?The query you have chosen matched 119254 individual contributions? ( they add 15, 15E, and
22Y together, which matches the above numbers perfectly )
Exhibit ? McCain monthly totals, Contributions vs refunds
TranType 15 / 15E ? Contributions TranType 22Y = Refunds
Refunds as % of
contributions
Year Month Count Total
Avg
contrib. Count Total
Avg
Refund Count Dollars

John Mccain 2008 Inc
2007 1 1,237 $1,279,937 $1,034 1 25 $25 0.08 0.00
2007 2 1,776 $2,389,605 $1,345 10 11,640 $1,164 0.56 0.49
2007 3 5,273 $6,900,915 $1,308 8 8,895 $1,111 0.15 0.13
2007 4 1,902 $1,565,475 $823 10 10,525 $1,052 0.53 0.67
2007 5 2,435 $2,653,451 $1,089 22 18,585 $844 0.90 0.70
2007 6 5,109 $5,238,252 $1,025 40 41,340 $1,033 0.78 0.79
2007 7 2,008 $1,313,116 $653 92 145,055 $1,576 4.58 11.05
2007 8 1,521 $855,204 $562 52 37,572 $722 3.42 4.39
2007 9 2,756 $1,674,412 $607 45 35,534 $789 1.63 2.12
2007 10 1,995 $1,048,642 $525 49 38,821 $792 2.46 3.70
2007 11 2,390 $1,277,679 $534 58 17,656 $304 2.43 1.38
2007 12 4,201 $2,212,213 $526 97 44,830 $462 2.31 2.03
2008 1 11,231 $8,928,237 $794 88 65,899 $748 0.78 0.74
2008 2 9,123 $8,713,277 $955 94 76,807 $817 1.03 0.88
52,957 $46,050,415 $869 666 553,184 $830 1.26 1.20

HILLARY CLINTON

Some transactional examples, and the reasons they strike me as curious
2 contributions for $ 4,600 total, 14 refunds ??? Nets out to zero ! Plus's and minus as 22Y ???
A year apart ?? Very strange.
Confirmed numbers @ FEC website- net $$ Zero
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Bugajski David M HILLARY CLINTON 3/20/2007 G Contribution 2300
Bugajski David M HILLARY CLINTON 3/20/2007 P Contribution 2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 P Refund -2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 G Refund -2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 10/18/2007 P Refund -2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 10/18/2007 G Refund 2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 10/18/2007 P Refund 2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 10/18/2007 G Refund -2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 1/15/2008 G Refund -2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 1/15/2008 G Refund 2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 1/15/2008 P Refund 2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 1/15/2008 P Refund -2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 2/5/2008 P Refund 2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 2/5/2008 G Refund 2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 2/6/2008 P Refund -2300
Bugajski David HILLARY CLINTON 2/6/2008 G Refund -2300
Confirmed numbers @ FEC website- net $$ Zero
Large refund 6 months later, net zero ?
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Dhillon Randeep HILLARY CLINTON 20070614 G Contribution 2300
Dhillon Randeep HILLARY CLINTON 20070614 P Contribution 2300
Dhillon Randeep S HILLARY CLINTON 20071023 P Contribution 4600
Dhillon Randeep S HILLARY CLINTON 20071101 P Contribution 4600
Dhillon Randeep HILLARY CLINTON 20071203 P Refund -11500
Dhillon Randeep HILLARY CLINTON 20071203 G Refund -2300
Net contrib = 0 Arco station owner ? Never contributed before this year, or to anyone else.
Phone matches to (661) 398-0000, which maps to over 100 people
http://infospace.intelius.com/...
Net zero ??? Almost a year apart ?
Confirmed numbers @ FEC website- net $$ Zero
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Tahbazof Siavash HILLARY CLINTON 3/31/2007 G Contribution 2300
Tahbazof Siavash HILLARY CLINTON 3/31/2007 P Contribution 2300
Tahbazof Siavash HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 G Refund -2300
Tahbazof Siavash HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 P Refund -2300
Tahbazof Siavash HILLARY CLINTON 1/28/2008 G Refund 2300
Tahbazof Siavash HILLARY CLINTON 1/28/2008 P Refund -2300
Tahbazof Siavash HILLARY CLINTON 1/28/2008 P Refund 2300
Tahbazof Siavash HILLARY CLINTON 1/28/2008 G Refund -2300
Donations to Clinton, but then refunds from Emily's List ON SAME DAY ???
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Esformes Nathan ROBERT WEXLER FOR CONGRESS 6/27/2007 P Contribution 1000
Esformes Tomasina HILLARY CLINTON 6/28/2007 P 15E Credit 2300
Esformes Joseph HILLARY CLINTON 6/28/2007 P 15E Credit 2300
Esformes Joseph Mr. EMILY'S LIST 6/28/2007 P 24I Debit
INTERMEDIAR
Y OUT -4600
Esformes Joseph HILLARY CLINTON 6/28/2007 G 15E Credit 2300
Esformes Tomasina HILLARY CLINTON 6/28/2007 G 15E Credit 2300
Esformes Tomasina Ms. EMILY'S LIST 6/28/2007 P 24I Debit
INTERMEDIAR
Y OUT -4600
Esformes Nathan KLEIN FOR CONGRESS 6/30/2007 P Contribution 1000
Esformes Joseph E. TIM MAHONEY FOR FLORIDA 9/28/2007 P Contribution 575
Esformes Nathan J. TIM MAHONEY FOR FLORIDA 9/28/2007 P Contribution 575
Esformes Nathan J. TIM MAHONEY FOR FLORIDA 9/28/2007 G Contribution 575
Esformes Joseph E. TIM MAHONEY FOR FLORIDA 9/28/2007 G Contribution 575
Net refund profit of $ 4,100 ???
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Peters Elisabeth HILLARY CLINTON 3/31/2007 G Contribution 2300
Peters Elisabeth HILLARY CLINTON 3/31/2007 P Contribution 2300
Peters Elisabeth HILLARY CLINTON 6/15/2007 P Refund -4600
Peters Elisabeth HILLARY CLINTON 6/21/2007 P Refund -4600
PETERS ELISABETH JEANNE SHAHEEN FOR SENATE 12/18/2007 P Contribution 500
Net refund profit of $ 9,200 ???
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Lee Soe HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 G Refund -2300
Lee Soe HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 P Refund -2300
Lee Soe HILLARY CLINTON 4/30/2007 P Refund -4600
Net refund profit of $ 3,300 9 months apart ?? Why so many refunds ?
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 5/3/2007 P Contribution 2300
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 5/3/2007 G Contribution 1200
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 P Refund -2300
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 G Refund -1200
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 1/15/2008 P Refund 2300
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 1/15/2008 P Refund -2300
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 1/15/2008 G Refund 1200
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 1/15/2008 G Refund -1200
Lary Stephanie E HILLARY CLINTON 2/6/2008 P Contribution 2300
Lary Stephanie E HILLARY CLINTON 2/6/2008 G Contribution 1000
Confirmed numbers @ FEC website- net $$ Zero
Net $ 0 w Clinton , 5 months apart ??
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Hill Michael HILLARY CLINTON 6/9/2007 G Contribution 2300
Hill Michael HILLARY CLINTON 6/9/2007 P Contribution 2300
Hill Michael C. Mr. NATIONAL REPUB. CONG. COMM. 8/27/2007 P Contribution 500
Hill Michael HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 P Refund -2300
Hill Michael HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 G Refund -2300
Hill Michael HILLARY CLINTON 11/6/2007 G Refund 2300
Hill Michael HILLARY CLINTON 11/6/2007 P Refund -2300
Hill Michael HILLARY CLINTON 11/6/2007 P Refund 2300
Hill Michael HILLARY CLINTON 11/6/2007 G Refund -2300
Time spread pattern, many refunds,
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Sandy Solange COMM. FOR A DEM. MAJORITY 5/2/2007 P Contribution 500
Sandy Solange HILLARY CLINTON 5/31/2007 P Contribution 2300
Sandy Solange HILLARY CLINTON 5/31/2007 G Contribution 2300
Sandy Solange COMM. FOR A DEM. MAJORITY 9/12/2007 P Refund -500
Sandy Solange HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 G Refund -2300
Sandy Solange HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 P Refund -2300
SANDY SOLANGE FRIENDS OF HILLARY 10/31/2007 P Refund -2100
SANDY SOLANGE FRIENDS OF HILLARY 10/31/2007 G Refund -2100
Sandy Solange HILLARY CLINTON 11/6/2007 P Refund -2300
Sandy Solange HILLARY CLINTON 11/6/2007 G Refund 2300
Sandy Solange HILLARY CLINTON 11/6/2007 G Refund -2300
Sandy Solange HILLARY CLINTON 11/6/2007 P Refund 2300
Time spread pattern, net zero
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Singh Deol Shivinder HILLARY CLINTON 9/10/2007 P Contribution 2300
Singh Deol Shivinder HILLARY CLINTON 9/11/2007 G Contribution 2300
Singh Deol Shivinder HILLARY CLINTON 9/19/2007 P Contribution 2300
Singh Deol Shivinder HILLARY CLINTON 11/16/2007 P Refund -2300
Singh Deol Shivinder HILLARY CLINTON 1/23/2008 P Refund -2300
Singh Deol Shivinder HILLARY CLINTON 1/23/2008 G Refund -2300
Pattern, Timing
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
LAUGHTER SUSAN DEM. SEN. CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE 6/22/2007 P Contribution 250
Laughter Susan HILLARY CLINTON 6/30/2007 P Contribution 2300
Laughter Susan HILLARY CLINTON 7/19/2007 P Contribution 1000
Laughter Susan HILLARY CLINTON 9/7/2007 G Contribution 2300
Laughter Susan HILLARY CLINTON 10/27/2007 P Contribution 500
Laughter Susan HILLARY CLINTON 11/2/2007 P Refund -1000
Laughter Susan HILLARY CLINTON 11/29/2007 P Refund -500
Laughter Susan HILLARY CLINTON 12/6/2007 P Contribution 500
Laughter Susan HILLARY CLINTON 12/27/2007 P Contribution 350
Laughter Susan HILLARY CLINTON 2/4/2008 P Refund -850
Sudden numerous refunds in 2 days ?
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
LEE DANNY FRIENDS OF HILLARY 1/12/2007 P Contribution 2100
LEE DANNY FRIENDS OF HILLARY 1/12/2007 G Contribution 2100
Lee Danny HILL PAC 1/12/2007 P Contribution 5000
Lee Danny HILLARY CLINTON 1/26/2007 G Contribution 1900
Lee Danny HILLARY CLINTON 1/26/2007 P Contribution 2300
Lee Danny GILLIBRAND FOR CONGRESS 2/14/2007 P Contribution 2000
LEE DANNY FRIENDS OF JAY ROCKEFELLER 2/22/2007 P Contribution 2000
LEE DANNY FRIENDS OF MARY LANDRIEU INC 2/23/2007 P Contribution 2300
LEE DANNY FRIENDS OF MARY LANDRIEU INC 2/23/2007 G Contribution 2300
LEE DANNY CITIZENS FOR HARKIN 3/12/2007 P Contribution 2300
LEE DANNY CITIZENS FOR HARKIN 3/12/2007 G Contribution 2300
Lee Danny HILLARY CLINTON 3/14/2007 G Contribution 400
Lee Danny FRIENDS OF PATRICK J. KENNEDY. 3/27/2007 P Contribution 500
Lee Danny TOM ALLEN FOR SENATE 3/28/2007 P Contribution 500
Lee Danny DEM. CONG. CAMPAIGN COMM. 3/31/2007 P Contribution 5000
Lee Danny IA VETS FOR CONGRESS 4/27/2007 P Contribution 500
Lee Danny COMMITTEE FOR A DEMOCRATIC 5/2/2007 P Contribution 2500
LEE DANNY MARK PRYOR FOR US SENATE 5/4/2007 P Contribution 2300
LEE DANNY MARK PRYOR FOR US SENATE 5/4/2007 G Contribution 200
Lee Danny GILLIBRAND FOR CONGRESS 7/11/2007 P Contribution 300
Lee Danny NATIONAL LEADERSHIP PAC 8/17/2007 P Contribution 500
Lee Danny MATSUI FOR CONGRESS 9/4/2007 P Refund -2100
Lee Danny SESTAK FOR CONGRESS 9/10/2007 P Refund -250
LEE DANNY KENNEDY FOR SENATE 2012 9/12/2007 G Refund -2100
LEE DANNY KENNEDY FOR SENATE 2012 9/12/2007 P Refund -2100
LEE DANNY CITIZENS FOR HARKIN 9/12/2007 G Refund -2300
Lee Danny COMMITTEE FOR A DEMOCRATIC 9/12/2007 P Refund -2500
LEE DANNY C00166827 CITIZENS FOR HARKIN 9/12/2007 P Refund -2300
Lee Danny HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 G Refund -1900
Lee Danny HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 G Refund -400
Lee Danny HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 P Refund -2300
LEE DANNY MONTANANS FOR TESTER 9/27/2007 G Refund -250
LEE DANNY FRIENDS OF MARY LANDRIEU INC 10/5/2007 P Refund -2300
LEE DANNY FRIENDS OF MARY LANDRIEU INC 10/5/2007 G Refund -2300
Lee Danny DEM. CONG. CAMPAIGN COMM. 10/16/2007 P Refund -5000
LEE DANNY WEBB FOR SENATE 10/17/2007 G Refund -250
LEE DANNY DNC SERVICES 12/12/2007 P Refund -6000
Time pattern, net zero $$
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Harding Dwight HILLARY CLINTON 3/20/2007 G Contribution 2300
Harding Dwight HILLARY CLINTON 3/20/2007 P Contribution 2300
Harding Dwight HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 G Refund -2300
Harding Dwight HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 P Refund -2300
Harding Dwight HILLARY CLINTON 10/5/2007 P Refund 2300
Harding Dwight HILLARY CLINTON 10/5/2007 G Refund 2300
Harding Dwight HILLARY CLINTON 10/5/2007 G Refund -2300
Harding Dwight HILLARY CLINTON 10/5/2007 P Refund -2300
Time pattern, net zero $$
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 5/3/2007 P Contribution 2300
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 5/3/2007 G Contribution 1200
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 G Refund -1200
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 P Refund -2300
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 1/15/2008 G Refund -1200
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 1/15/2008 P Refund -2300
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 1/15/2008 P Refund 2300
Lary Stephanie HILLARY CLINTON 1/15/2008 G Refund 1200
Wasn't he supposed to get ALL his money back from Clinton ???? No refunds showing !
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Hsu Norman HILLARY CLINTON 1/26/2007 G Contribution 1900
Hsu Norman HILLARY CLINTON 2/2/2007 G Contribution 400
Hsu Norman HILLARY CLINTON 1/26/2007 P Contribution 2300
Refunds FROM Hillary, no donations TO her, $ 3,600 net gain ??
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
HINGORANI SEEMA CITIZENS FOR HARKIN 3/26/2007 P Contribution 500
Hingorani Seema TOM VILSACK 5/3/2007 P Contribution 2300
HINGORANI SEEMA CITIZENS FOR HARKIN 6/17/2007 P Contribution 1400
HINGORANI SEEMA CITIZENS FOR HARKIN 6/17/2007 G Contribution 2300
Hingorani Seema FRIENDS OF PATRICK J. KENNEDY. 6/28/2007 P Contribution 1000
HINGORANI SEEMA CITIZENS FOR HARKIN 9/12/2007 G Refund -2300
HINGORANI SEEMA CITIZENS FOR HARKIN 9/12/2007 P Refund -1900
Hingorani Seema HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 G Refund -2300
Hingorani Seema HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 P Refund -2300
Hingorani Seema TOM VILSACK 9/22/2007 P Refund -2300
Time pattern ? 6 months ( ignoring Gillibrand ), 3 refunds on one day, refunds exceed donations
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Miller Britt HILLARY CLINTON 3/14/2007 P Contribution 2100
Miller Britt HILLARY CLINTON 3/20/2007 P Contribution 200
Miller Britt HILLARY CLINTON 3/20/2007 G Contribution 2300
Miller Britt GILLIBRAND FOR CONGRESS 6/6/2007 P Contribution 1500
Miller Britt HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 G Refund -2300
Miller Britt HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 P Refund -200
Miller Britt HILLARY CLINTON 9/14/2007 P Refund -2100
MILLER BRITT FRIENDS OF HILLARY 12/5/2007 G Refund -2100
Time pattern, refunds exceed donations
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Callahan Kathy HILLARY CLINTON 3/31/2007 P Contribution 500
Callahan Kathy HILLARY CLINTON 3/31/2007 P Contribution 1300
Callahan Kathy A HILLARY CLINTON 8/15/2007 P Contribution 400
Callahan Kathy A HILLARY CLINTON 8/16/2007 G Contribution 500
Callahan Kathy A HILLARY CLINTON 9/30/2007 G Contribution 1000
Callahan Kathy A HILLARY CLINTON 9/30/2007 G Contribution 600
Callahan Kathy A HILLARY CLINTON 10/23/2007 P Contribution 200
Callahan Kathy A HILLARY CLINTON 10/23/2007 P Contribution 1000
Callahan Kathy HILLARY CLINTON 11/2/2007 P Refund -1200
Callahan Kathy HILLARY CLINTON 12/3/2007 G Refund -1800
Callahan Kathy HILLARY CLINTON 12/18/2007 P Refund -2300
Callahan Kathy HILLARY CLINTON 12/18/2007 G Refund -500
Callahan Kathy OBAMA FOR AMERICA 2/10/2008 P Contribution 500
Time pattern
NAME FilerID FullDate P / G TranType Amount
Maughan Lady V HILLARY CLINTON 2/6/2007 P Contribution 2300
Maughan Lady V HILLARY CLINTON 2/6/2007 G Contribution 2300
Maughan Lady V HILLARY CLINTON 3/31/2007 P Contribution 9200
Maughan Lady V HILLARY CLINTON 5/25/2007 P Refund -4600
Maughan Lady Va HILLARY CLINTON 8/7/2007 P Refund -4600
MAUGHAN LADY V LAROCCO FOR SENATE 9/28/2007 P 15E Credit 500
Maughan Lady Va ACTBLUE 10/1/2007 P 24T Debit
INTERMEDIAR
Y TREASURY
OUT -500
Maughan Lady Va HILLARY CLINTON 2/25/2008 P Refund -4600
Maughan Lady Va HILLARY CLINTON 2/25/2008 P Refund 4600

http://bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7104   http://bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7376

Why is the snipet of Rev. Wright still being shown, yet the Hillary plane lie snipet isn't?   It is played like a subliminal messge now. They complain that Rev. Wright is a hater and then they prove he was right when Gov. Rendell admits that his State is steeped in racism. That apparently is how racism works:  Pretend you don't have a clue.

 

Hillary Clinton's words about Martin Luther King today were delivered with such phoniness, one wonders if she needs acting lessons. She never comes off as real, does she? I have no doubt that she was upset about King's death then, but I have a real doubt if she feels anything genuine today about that terrible time. It's a political moment only.

It's solely anecdotal, but my brother-in-law in Austin personally knows Republicans that boasted of voting for Hillary just to hurt the Dems.  If TPM is going to dismiss the suggestions Operation Chaos is having an effect, more than a "gut feeling" that it's unlikely is required.  Skepticism is appropriate, to be sure, but that cuts both ways.

Hillary Clinton is not fit to be the Democratic nominee for two words and over 10 million reasons: Mark Penn.

Penn's political consulting firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, has been paid $10.8 million so far by Clinton's campaign.

Meanwhile, your campaign is getting a reputation as a bit of a deadbeat.

It says a lot about Clinton that she keeps paying this guy this kind of money as a top advisor month after month - even after he has demonstrated that he has led her down a losing path.

And now he goes and meets the Colombian government about a free trade plan that Hillary says she opposes. She's not paying him over $10 million to prioritize other clients' needs.

Hillary - do something good for yourself and for the Democratic Party. Do something that Obamabots and Hillbots can agree on: Fire Mark Penn. He's probably already talking with Dick Morris about writing the foreword to Penn's tell all book do out next year. Get out while you still can!

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

America’s Democratic Promise
The history of democracy in the United States is one marked by the steady, though intensely contested, expansion of the right to vote. Where once only male landowners were permitted the right to choose their representatives, the United States now proudly extends that right to all adult citizens. The most recent expansion of the franchise were the result of years of struggle through the Civil Rights Movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement. The seminal Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 26th Amendment ratified in 1971 created enforcement mechanisms to protect minority voting rights and extended the right to vote to 18 year olds.

But these struggles are not over. Despite these advances, enshrined in the Constitution itself not just in the 26th Amendment, but also the 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments, attempts by powerful forces to exclude historically disenfranchised populations from the electoral arena have not abated. Perhaps the most vivid and pervasive of these attempts in recent history is encapsulated in the exposure of the US Attorneys scandal that engulfed the Department of Justice starting the late winter and early spring of 2007.

America’s Unrepresentative Electorate
But first, let’s give some context to the stakes at risk in this fight for America’s democratic legacy. It is no secret that the electorate does not equally represent all Americans. In fact, if minorities voted at the same rate as whites, there would be an increase of 7.5 million voters on Election Day. One of the biggest reasons minority voting rates are so much lower than those of whites, the most enfranchised group in the electorate, rests with their lower rates of voter registration. Only 61% of African-Americans and 54% of Latinos are registered to vote compared with 71% of whites. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the American electorate reflects the make-up of America’s citizens, groups like Project Vote engage in large-scale voter registration efforts among historically underrepresented groups. (Indeed, over the last two election cycles Project Vote, working with local field partners such as unions and community organizations, has helped 1.6 million people register to vote and will assist another 1.2 million do the same in time for Election Day 2008.)

Creating an electorate that accurately reflects America has important implications for public policy choices as candidates are forced to compete for the votes of these new voters by addressing the issues that resonate most deeply with them. However, the intense focus that progressives put on Election Day dirty tricks and the problems of electronic voting machines is wasted if they do not also recognize that systemic attempts to lock entire groups out of the process months and years before Election Day pose just as much - if not order of magnitude more - risk to representative democracy in the United States.

The Conservative War on Voting Rights
Three recent articles made available online this week - including two by Art Levine and one by Steve Rosenfeld -  focus on the partisan subversion of the Department of Justice and show how partisan schemes to engage in widespread voter suppression targeted one of the most active defenders of the rights of poor people and people of color. These articles have exposed what amounts to an entire war waged by conservatives against the voting rights gains of the past generation. Taken in total, the picture that emerges shows nothing less than an attempt to take America back to days of segregation and Jim Crow except this time the marauders are wearing suits and ties and carry briefcases rather than wearing white hoods and sheets and burning crosses. Even more disturbing is their willingness to subvert the non-partisan nature of the nation’s top law enforcement institution, the Department of Justice and commit the resources of the Federal government to the systematic disenfranchisement of American citizens.

The Myth Of Voter Fraud and Attacks on ACORN
The threat of voter suppression "by propagating the myth of voter fraud" was thoroughly outlined by writer Art Levine at The American Prospect Tuesday: "Using various tactics -- including media smears, bogus lawsuits, restrictive new voting laws and policies, and flimsy prosecutions -- Republican operatives, election officials, and the GOP-controlled Justice Department have limited voting access and gone after voter-registration groups such as ACORN [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]."

"The organization has been a favorite target of Republicans promoting the myth of widespread voter fraud because of its success in registering Democratic-leaning minority voters since 2004, according to reports by McClatchy Newspapers, The American Prospect, and other outlets," Levine wrote in the Huffington Post on the community organization, which advocates for low-income families and partners with Project Vote in conducting voter registration drives.

Such efforts by ACORN and other organizations have suffered from voter registration drive restrictions enacted after partisans made bogus claims of voter fraud, including one in New Mexico where ACORN alone dropped their state registration rate from 35,000 new voters in 2004 to just 2,000 in 2006. That same year, former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, David Iglesias concluded there was not enough evidence of voter fraud in the state to proceed with indictments. As a result of his findings (or lack thereof), he was fired in a move that triggered exposure of the systematic politicization of the Justice Department.

The real reason for raising the specter of voter fraud was delineated in clear and comprehensive detail by Levine, from the Huffington Post article, in what amounts to a case study of voter suppression from a 2006 Congressional race in Dallas, Texas.

The Dallas incident, it turns out, perfectly symbolizes the no-holds-barred Republican politics of voter fraud. The intimidating flier was part of a brazen vote-suppression and smear campaign designed to undermine a Democratic candidate, Harriet Miller, in a tight local race in 2006 to challenge Texas House Rep. Tony Goolsby in a racially mixed North Dallas district.

The frightening and deceptive mailer, highlighted with ACORN's trademark red and black colors, was sent to thousands of black residents a few days before the election: "Beware: A national political group suspected of voter fraud [i.e., ACORN] is currently working in your neighborhood to bring people to the polls on election day...Don't be a victim of voter fraud -- it could result in jail time for you."

The flier appeared to have its intended effect of intimidating some black voters. Lawrence Jones, a 63-year-old retiree and an active ACORN member, vividly recalls how it affected registered voters and other ACORN members. "They were dumbfounded and shocked," he says. It caused some members to doubt the group's integrity, while other residents, he says, "just feared to vote." He adds, "A lot of people said they don't think ACORN is powerful enough to protect them -- I'm not going to fool with the federal government."

That anonymous mailer followed a spate of public attacks, ads, and mailers by the Goolsby campaign -- and even a letter to the local district attorney by the county Republican chairman -- all accusing Miller of engaging in voter fraud during her first campaign against Goolsby in 2004. The Republican smears, now the subject of a pending defamation lawsuit aimed at Goolsby and other local Republicans, also claimed she had illegally "retained the services of ACORN," while tarring the organization with flimsy claims that it deliberately engaged in voter fraud.
The district attorney never responded to the Dallas GOP's allegations, but the local CBS affiliate, CBS 11 News, jumped on the story to ballyhoo the bogus charges filed by Republican County Chairman Kenn George with the D.A.

The real fraud involved George's inflammatory letter to the prosecutor, which blatantly misrepresented election returns from 2004 in order to file the false voter fraud complaint against Miller. The letter claimed that as a Democrat running for a state House seat, she suspiciously won more votes than the Democratic candidate for Congress in black districts, when, in fact, there was no Democratic congressional candidate opposing the Republican, just an obscure independent.

Corruption and Politicization at the Department of Justice
In the wake of the scandal opened up with inquiries into the firing of David Iglesias, which eventually cost Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez his job, the full scale of the politicization and corruption at the Department of Justice came into view.

Congressional oversight hearings examined the Department's role in voter suppression activities, including allegations of voter fraud, voter caging, and voter intimidation. Representative John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has tackled the voter caging issue and has started hearings on this and related issues through his Committee and its various sub-committees.

Hearings held recently in front of one of those House Judiciary subcommittees revealed how the Department, through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, "failed to investigate illegal mailers sent to African-Americans in Dallas" that threatened criminal punishments if they registered to vote through ACORN in the run-up to a 2006 Congressional election, Levine wrote.

"The FBI's decision not to investigate, critics say, is the latest sign that politicization appears to have compromised the nominally non-partisan law enforcement agency," Levine wrote. "That intimidation is a violation of the Voting Rights Act," said "former 21-year veteran of the Civil Rights Division" and election law expert, Gerry Hebert. Levine further notes that "President Bush's Justice Department hasn't brought a single prosecution or lawsuit in more than seven years on behalf of any African-American voters who faced direct voter intimidation threats and challenges – despite receiving, by some estimates, roughly 12,000 criminal civil rights complaints of all kinds annually." But the VRA is not the only federal law the Department failed to enforce as partisan political operatives such as Hans von Spakovsky took over key parts of the Department’s voting rights enforcement apparatus.

"Meanwhile, the Justice Department’s Voting Section has not enforced other federal laws, such as the requirement that state welfare offices offer public aid recipients a chance to register to vote," wrote Steve Rosenfeld in the Fall 2007 issue of Social Policy, referring to Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act. Instead, the Department has had a heavy hand at pushing detrimental voter purges, a procedure loosely mandated by another NVRA section. At a House hearing on equal enforcement of NVRA Tuesday, Project Vote deputy director, Michael Slater testified that "All Americans deserve an equal opportunity to register to vote and participate in our democracy...Many states, however, are undermining that promise and furthering inequalities."

Levine recounted the number of voters disenfranchised as a result of these purges and voter caging policies:

"In Ohio in 2006, 303,000 voters were purged in three major urban counties, while the Brennan Center reported that Pennsylvania's rigid database rules, later loosened, had excluded up to 30 percent of eligible registrants. Karl Rove aide Tim Griffin played a major role in state GOP voter 'caging' operations (that is, challenging the eligibility of registered voters) in such states as Ohio and Florida. These schemes, Project Vote reports, challenged the right of 77,000 mostly minority voters to cast ballots between 2004 and 2006, under the pretext that non-forwardable letters sent by GOP activists to their addresses were returned as undelivered."

The Myth of Voter Fraud and Voter Disenfranchisement Through Voter ID Laws
The Department has been complicit in partisan accusations of widespread voter fraud used as a pretext to legalize voter suppression tactics, especially voter identification laws. "Yet voter fraud, in fact, is so rare that even an intensive, four-year anti-fraud initiative by the Justice Department couldn't even find one person in the country to charge with impersonating another voter – out of nearly 215 million votes cast in federal elections," Levine wrote in the Huffington Post.

Despite this lack of evidence, hysterical accusations of "voter fraud" inspired nearly 30 states to consider bills requiring photo identification or proof of citizenship requirements since 2004. The Department of Justice, again through the machinations of von Spakovsky, approved one of the worst instances of these laws in Georgia, which was subsequently overturned by the courts. A slightly less draconian version of the law is now in effect. However, the worst version of these laws went into effect in Indiana, where it was promptly challenged. Upheld by a Federal appeals court, the law is now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which seems to be considering dubious claims of voter fraud as reason enough to keep the law on the books.

"Alarmingly, the insubstantiality of the claims of pervasive voter fraud may not deter the U.S. Supreme Court from upholding Indiana's restrictive voter-ID law -- which, according to a new University of Washington study, could disenfranchise the more than 20 percent of the state's African American voters who lack the ID required by Indiana's law," Levine wrote.

The most alarming aspect of this possible decision is its ability to affect turnout in 2008. "Democrats seemingly haven't yet grasped the political importance of fighting these restrictive policies, though they could prove a major impediment to minority voting...," concludes Levine.

Action on Election Day Is Too Late
Both Levine and Rosenfeld expose these brazen, partisan attempts to shape the electorate and corrupt non-partisan governmental agencies by the targeting of civic participation programs, non-enforcement of voter protection laws, and steadfast determination to pursue voter fraud cases.  Yet, the American public and some lawmakers appear to be none the wiser. "Looking toward the 2008 election, it appears the purges- as well  as the new voter ID laws, restrictions on voter registration drives and stricter rules for counting provisional ballots – could be a new and legal way to accomplish a longstanding GOP electoral tactic Rosenfeld wrote, a tactic of shaping the electorate for partisan electoral advantage.

Project Vote tracks a range of legislation in 21 states related to voting rights and election administration. If you are concerned about what is happening in your state, you may go to ElectionLegislation.org to find out more information. Registration is required.

Quick Links:

Contact:
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)

Weblinks:

DOJ Watch. Project Vote.

Reports:

The Politics of Voter Fraud. Lorraine Minnite.

Caging Democracy: A 50 Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters. Teresa James.

Unequal Access: Neglecting the National Voter Registration Act, 1995-2007. Douglas R. Hess and Scott Novakowski.

Congressional Hearings:

House Members Grill Justice Dept. Official Over NVRA Enforcement. Voting Matters Blog.

Whitehouse Tackles 'Nefarious' Voter Caging. No, not that White House. Voting Matters Blog.

Senators Spar over the Myth of Voter Fraud. Voting Matters Blog.

In Other News:

Voter Registration

Missouri registers fewer poor to vote – Kansas City Star

Felon Voting Rights

Political confusion: Removal letter confuses law-abiding voters – Columbus Ledger-Enquirer [Georgia]

House Approves Restoring Voting Rights For Some Felons– Associated Press

Voter ID

Strictness a sticking point in voter ID bill: Democrats urge a softer stance to avoid veto from gov.- The Hutchinson News [Kansas]

State legislators discuss voter id – WDAM-TV [Miss.]

I'm re-posting something written by "livelongdem" yesterday as a response.

The white working class is shrinking, especially the body of traditional union blue-collar workers.

In the primaries, Hillary is getting blue-collar whites through longtime political relationships with unions, transparently false denial of support for NAFTA in the 1990s, and exploiting racial divisions based on pre-existing prejudice and simmering resentment over things like affirmative action and busing (noted in Obama's speech on race).

So far you'd have to say Clinton has played this issue like a virtuoso. It's like she's convinced mainstream media to talk primarily about Pennsylvania, and when talking about Pennsylvania, to talk only about white blue collar guys and what a problem they are for Obama. Haven't heard a peep about how the surges in voter registration are historic, favor Obama, and favor the trend you are talking about.

Today her propaganda basically says the big news isn't that Richardson prefers Obama to her, whom he has known for years and clearly has big reservations about. No, the real news is that a shrewd politician like Richardson is so insane he staked his political future on a guy he thinks is going to lose. It paints Obama as a loser and Richardson as a madman all in one sentence. Nice. Wouldn't matter if MSM didn't eat this stuff up.

What happened to news reports about the size of crowds at rallies? Obama appeared in Eugene, Or., in an arena that held 14,000 with 3,000 (or more) turned away. The event happened while many college students were away on break. Hillary Clinton comes this week to a hall that holds 2,700. Will such a difference make national news? No. The media has stopped pointing out crowd size. They've been pressured by the Clintons I believe. This should be news. Shouldn't the super delegates see what's going on? Doesn't crowd size count for something? Turn the camera on the crowd. Let's see who's there and how many. Not just the on stage group chosen by the campaigns. 

    I'm going to be re-posting this regularly.  If anyone wants to help out volunteering in North Philly please contact Max Stahl at either mstahl@barackobama.com or (781) 540-9648.  We will find you volunteer housing if you are from out of state.  Right now I am staying with some really nice folks.
    Our area is one of the most important parts of PA.  Due to the large support for Barack in North Philly we need to get as much voter turn out as possible.  If voter turn out is high enough in Philadelphia it may swing the state for Barack.  Of course PA is still a rather steep uphill climb, but that is my area's strategy.
If you are a supporter and you read this post, please recommend it so it stays alive in the thread.  We need as many people to see this request as possible.

Also, on a completely separate note to anyone who is not a supporter:  I completely respect your decision for which ever candidate, so please don't leave disrespectful comments on my blog.  It's not very nice and detracts from the purpose of this Election.

Oh boy.

<a href="Air'>http://www.airamerica.com/">Air America</a> host <a href="Randi'>http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/">Randi Rhodes</a> has been suspended because, while delivering a "standup routine" off the air at an Air America event for an affiliate, <a href="she'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/air-america-host-randi-rh_n_94863.html">she called Hillary Clinton a "dirty f*king whore". </a>

Over the line a tad? Yeah.

Look, it's one thing to slam a candidate for something they've said or done, but this is pure ad hominem name-calling of the most offensive kind. Even that could be defensible if it were funny, but it's not.

I understand what she was trying to do -be shocking and over the top, but in and of itself that isn't funny -particularly not in this context. Rhodes is noted for her pitt-bull style of political commentary and so a certain amount of aggression is expected, and because it's expected, it's not funny when she goes over the top. If it were unexpected -it would be funny. For example if Mother Theresa called Hillary a "dirty f*cking whore."

This is the same thing Michael Richards was trying to do, and just as when he did it, it wasn't funny. In his case it wasn't funny because he already has a "crazy" type of persona. Crazy and racist isn't a funny juxtoposition because it's not a far enough jump, i.e. you might expect a crazy person to utter racist statements.

The unexpected <strong>is</strong> funny -as an analogy consider the difference between people ignoring a dead body lying on the table at a <em>morgue</em>, and people ignoring a dead body lying on the table at a <em>fancy dress dinner party</em>.

In the latter case -the more outrageously disgusting the dead body is the funnier it is, whereas adding disgusting features to the body in the former scenario doesn't make it any more funny.

Additionally, Air America was completely justified in suspending her. True, this was not on the air, but it was at an Air America sponsored event, and the network can't be seen as sanctioning that kind of behavior -it'd kill them.

Moreover this is not a case of "censorship. The 1st Amendment only protects people from having their speech restricted <em>by the government </em>or by those acting under government authority. Having an FCC license doesn't make them a government entity any more than having a liquor license makes a liquor store into one. Air America is a private entity and is perfectly within its rights to have a policy restricting the behavior of its employees at one of its events. I would think they were incredibly stupid if they <em>didn't </em>suspend her.

So now Rhodes has been suspended and her career is in jeopardy, which is a shame because she has proven herself to be one of the more capable talk-radio voices because of her skill in distilling the issues and presenting them in an "average Joe" format.

Finally, it was horribly myopic of her not to realize that in the YouTube age -anything you say or do in public can be videoed and used to nail you.

Ironically, the person she was slamming (the <a href="Tigress'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4">Tigress of Tuzla</a>) found that out before she did.

crossposted at Diary of an Obssessive Progressive

Preface:  A few weeks ago in the comments to another thread, Andrew Golis asked me to suggest topics for discussion here at TPM Cafe. I cannot think of a better book than this one.  With the release of the 2003 Yoo memo and Michael Mukasey's continued hedging, the use of torture remains a crucial and timely issue in our political discourse.  I hope in this post to give a sense of the book and why it is important.  I am certain that if it were more widely read, we could change the narrative on torture.  The Cafe management would do well to invite Dr. Rejali to blog here for a week (or longer).

Earlier this week, I wrote a post detailing the techniques that John Yoo's recently declassified memorandum would allow military interrogators to use against detainees.  Some of the more despicable methods included gouging out eyes, cutting off limbs, and pouring acid on the detainee.  These methods are obvious, and that is perhaps why they are so despicable.  The victims of these techniques would be permanently and horribly disfigured.  If they survived the torture, they would be able to point to their bodies to explain what happened to them.  That is why, even if an interrogator believed such things were legal, it is unlikely these techniques would be used.

Waterboarding and stress positions, however, are not likely to leave any lasting marks on detainees.  "Waterboarding" is a form of choking with water in which a towel is forced into a detainee's mouth and water poured over the towel and into his or her throat.  "Stress positions" can mean many different things including forced standing, lifting a person off the ground by handcuffs, or the use of restraints to keep a person in a specific position for a long period of time.  These tortures are extremely painful and potentially life threatening, but unlike eye-gouging and acid, they leave no marks.

As Darius Rejali argues in his masterful book, Torture and Democracy, it is this fact that explains why modern democracies choose these specific tortures and why they are spreading around the world.  The argument is simple:  Democracies avoid scarring tortures because they are subject to public oversight.  Furthermore, since the 1960s and 1970s, many authoritarian states have began adopting clean torture techniques because international organizations began documenting and exposing the use of scarring tortures.

It is not, however, a simple book.  Rejali, an Iranian-American professor of political science at Reed College, is treading on dangerous ground.  A work like this, if it is not handled well, is easily open to charges of bias from the right wing.  One can easily imagine Bill O'Reilly accusing the author of 'blaming America first' and excusing the behavior of authoritarian regimes.  Rejali ultimately succeeds because his book is even-handed, encyclopedic, thoroughly documented, and carefully reasoned.

Torture and Democracy can be split into two equally significant parts.  In the first part, Rejali recounts the history of modern torture, and in the second, he discusses the continued use of torture and contemporary debates.  Accurate histories allow us the opportunity to think clearly.  Without knowing where specific tortures come from, how the tortures have been used, and how the techniques have spread, it is impossible to escape the dangerously mistaken folk histories that often dominate our public discourse on torture. 

It is not the case, for example, that modern torture techniques originated with the Nazis.  As Rejali documents, the Nazi regime had little use for clean techniques as its torturers were not likely to face prosecution.  As a result, Nazi torturers often whipped, beat, and choked their victims.  Similarly, the Soviets had no special techniques.  Despite popular beliefs, Pavlov played no role in securing confessions for Stalin's show trials.  Instead, the Soviets relied on methods that were well known to and used by police in the United States until the 1940s.

Specifically, Stalin's torturers relied on continuous questioning, sleep deprivation, bright lights, forced standing and forced sitting, clean beatings, and hot and cold rooms.  The use of these clean techniques by the Soviet Union is consistent with Rejali's hypothesis about the public oversight of torture in democracies.  The show trials were designed for international consumption, and to be effective propaganda, it was necessary that the defendants appeared to be confessing voluntarily.  Evidence of torture would have harmed the credibility of the trials.

Furthermore, these and many other clean tortures did not originate with the Soviets or with the Nazis.  Rather, many contemporary clean tortures are traceable to British military punishments and the practices of American slave traders.  Slave traders had strong incentive to avoid scarring slaves in that scars might indicate to a potential buy that the slave was a disciplinary problem.

Despite documenting that many clean tortures originated with democracies, Rejali is very careful to limit the scope of this history.  He strongly rejects the hypothesis advanced by Noam Chomsky and others which maintains that the United States acted as a universal distributor of torture techniques during the 20th century.  Chomsky believes that the United States trained authoritarian regimes to torture, especially in Latin America, and consequently if it were not for the United States, there would be significantly less torture in world.  Rejali examines and rejects this hypothesis because it is not supported by the evidence.  There is no uniformity in the techniques used by the countries that the United States is supposed to have trained, and in many cases the techniques used by those countries have histories that predate U.S. training. 

As he proceeds, Rejali continually clears away myths, folk histories, and baseless hypotheses.  Electroconvulsive therapy is not related to electrotorture.  No one was thrown from a helicopter in Vietnam.  Torture cannot be conducted scientifically.  It will always remain low tech.  There are no "truth serums."  This is the value of an accurate history.  Torture is widely and rightly believed to be entirely unacceptable.  It has thus become a taboo shrouded in myth and popular misconceptions.  Those misconceptions grow as they are retold in movies and television which relish in violating taboos, and as they are passed down by interrogators and torturers.  We must always be careful about the stories we tell ourselves.

Of course much of this does not touch on the most important issue:  Does torture work?  Rejali addresses this in the second part of his book and again approaches it with particular insight.  This question--"Does it work?"--is behind the continued misunderstanding of torture in the public mind and the use of euphemistic language by the press.  It is this question that turns torture into "enhanced" or "aggressive" interrogation.  If torture works, then its use cannot be condemned entirely--if it works, it belongs on the continuum of acceptable methods of interrogation.

Rejali finds that torture does not work, but again, he avoids simple answers.  Part of the problem with our public discourse on torture is an inability to get beyond theoretical moral arguments.  One side argues that torture is never right.  The other side argues that it might be necessary to save lives. One side adopts a deontological view, the other reasons by utility, and there is no way to bridge their theories.  This is about as much as can be contained in a typical cable news segment.  Rejali cuts through this morass by relying instead on social science and concrete evidence.

As Rejali argues, it is not a simple matter of whether torture produces intelligence or not. The issue is whether it is more effective than other means.  The list of possible intelligence gathering techniques is not simply torture or no torture.  Rather, it includes public cooperation, informants, and traditional investigative work such as examining documents, forensic evidence and the use of surveillance.  Importantly, Rejali finds that torture is remarkably worse than these methods and because of its propensity for producing false information, torture is very likely to be worse than doing nothing at all.

The problem with the information produced by torture is that there is no way to know if it is reliable.  A knowledgeable detainee will provide false information in order to deceive the authorities while innocent detainees will provide any information whatsoever in order to escape the torture.  Interrogators have no effective means of distinguishing deceitful or false information from true information.  Ultimately, any intelligence gained by torture must be independently verified in order to be of any use.  In that case, it would be much more efficient to get the information from the independent sources in the first place.  In this way, torture is an extraordinarily bad way of gaining information.

Perhaps as important as explaining why torture does not work, Rejali details how torture leads to the degradation of intelligence agencies' ability to gather information through traditional means.  When information gather by torture is presumed to be accurate--when it is thought that "torture works"--agencies rely less on investigation and public cooperation and these skills atrophy.  It seems then that torture is both a symptom and a cause of intelligence failure.  It is often used when agencies are unwilling to use other techniques and it ultimately makes them incapable of using those techniques. 

Furthermore, to oversimplify, Rejali concludes that any acceptance of torture leads to a slippery slope where the use of torture naturally expands and overwhelms intelligence gathering.  Crucially, he explains why the slope is slippery--he explains why torturers cannot distinguish between different degrees of torture.  I could not do justice to this argument and his evidence in this post.  You will have to read the book.

Rejali, however, does not dodge moral arguments.  Instead he subjects them to cool empirical tests.  For example, he details the origins of the "ticking time bomb" argument in France's Algerian War.  He shows how it's extensive rhetorical use by Israeli politicians lead to the torture of an Israeli fighter pilot captured by Lebanon in the 1990s.  According to the Lebanese authorities, the pilot was a ticking time bomb.  Finally, he shows the argument to be bankrupt:  Following the attacks on the London Underground in 2005, the final unexploded bomb--an actual ticking bomb--was found through public cooperation and detective work, not torture. 

Again, this is the ultimate value of this work.  It moves us beyond simplistic platitudes, unproven assumptions, false beliefs, and theoretical arguments.  If we are to overcome the Bush Era, we must clear our heads; we must rely on facts, science, and reason.  We must banish not just our fears but the rhetoric of fear.  Darius Rejali's work is an excellent step in that direction.  It is required reading for conscientious citizens.

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

Post Script:  In his otherwise excellent article, Phillipe Sands describes waterboarding as the "the application of a wet towel and water to induce the perception of drowning."  This is exactly the sort of language I wanted to address in my earlier post this week.  Fundamentally, the description is accurate, but its construction hides what we are really talking about.  "Application of a wet towel" does not denote the force used to stuff the towel in a person's mouth.  Saying that the use of water "induces the perception of drowning" is to refuse to face the facts.  People who are choked with water in this manner have the perception of drowning because they are in fact drowning. 

This phrasing suggest that somehow their perception is false, and that because it is false the technique is mental.  This is an important lesson:  Drowning is painful, and pain is a mental phenomenon.  By the logic of this phrasing, any torture, clean or scarring, should not concern us because all it does is produce pain.  But it is that pain that is essential to torture; the pain is the reason we call it torture--it is the central feature of torture.  We cannot afford to deceive ourselves in this way.

"The President of the United States has the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt."

- George Mason, from his "Objections to This Constitution of Government"

http://gunstonhall.org/documents/objections.html

Mr. Mason certainly hit the nail on the head with this one, eh?

We've all heard the stories about Hillary Clinton's debt.  The small businesses left to pick up the tab after Clinton came, saw and left an unpaid invoice.

Let's talk about the other folks she's stiffed.

The school districts, universities, cities, towns and non-profits.

From Hillary Clinton's February FEC filing these are the numbers:

Clinton owes a total of $19,627.20 to 14 school districts with an average debt of $1401.94.  The largest amount, $4411.05, is owed to Winnacunnet Cooperative School District in Hampton, New Hampshire.

She owes 7 colleges and universities a total of $19,983.48 with an average debt of $2854.78. The largest amount is owed to the athletic department of Southern New Hampshire University.  She owes them $9542.80.

She owes 11 cities and towns a total of $13,184.63 with an average debt of $1198.60.  She owes the town of Hampton, New Hampshire the most with a debt of $4628.96. (Hampton, NH gets hit twice.)

Lastly she owes the Boys and Girls Clubs of Sioux City and Blackhawk County Iowa a total of $1,625.00 with $1000 of that owed to the Boys and Girls Club of Blackhawk County.

It's bad enough that she owes these folks at all but also notice who she owes the most to.

Institutions in freaking Iowa and New Hampshire.

Hillary's new campaign ad in North Carolina says to ask her questions.  Okay I'll bite.

You raised $35 million dollars in February.  You couldn't take time out of celebrating that to have someone write a check for a couple of hundred bucks to pay off an existing debt to a school district or town for a service provided a month before?

How can you expect to be entrusted to run any level of government when you show such disrespect towards the funds it needs to function?

Hillary Clinton spent yesterday in Beverly Hills at a fundraiser.  Look for Mark Penn and the other snake oil salesmen running her campaign to be paid before these people will.

Barack Obama, is speaking in Fort Wayne, Indiana today, where Bobby Kennedy broke the news of Martin Luther King's assassination in April 1968 and arguably saved many lives by quelling the riots that were sure to begin that night --

Instead of going to Memphis like Hillary Clinton and John McCain to pander and make good on poor past choices -- Barack Obama was in Indiana.

Some of what he said:
"We have a poltics that is too small for the challenges we face"
"We have to stop feeding the forces of division and distraction and stop us from solving our problems"
"While we each have a different past - we all hope we have the same future.
We have common hopes:
modest dreams: and
a search for human diginty"

As MLK Jr said:
"The arc of the moral univesre is long but it bends toward justice"

Obama took that mantle today and continued:
"But it cannot bend on its own - we need to bend it:
to organize:
to mobilize:
to march:
to vote:
to be active
and
to care:
to do our part to bend that arc
toward justice,
toward opportunity,
toward prosperity

and do it together"

To keep faith with Dr King but make real the word of Amos - "let justice roll down like water,
and righteousnes as a mightly stream"
---
and so we come to today.
And Rev Wright and what is attempted to be a "lynching" by association of Sen Barack Obama.

As I have sadly watched Juan Williams, who has an article in the WSJ today, and many like him, go from someone who understood and appreciated Sen Obama's candidacy to an Obama basher - it begs the question why?

And that is not answered in the false conclusions drawn in that article, which Wiliiams asked "what would Jesus do?"
and Williams concludes, "Jesus would have walked out of the church".

As a student of history surely Juan Williams knows that MLK Jr made some very incendiary speeches in his day - even calling the United States the worst war profiteer in the world - and much more Had YouTube existed in 1968 and MLK Jr's worst words been played on an "endless loop" on a then non-exitent internet, we, as a nation, may not have been celebrating the pride and dignity of this great man.
 
People are flawed - no one agrees -out of context - to the inflammatory remarks we keep seeing from Rev Wright

Personally, as a white, jewish, over 50 woman voter who likes to get educated about who I am voting for; I have learned that Rev Wright gave up his student deferment and enlisted in the army during Viet Nam and was a Marine. If that type of personal sacrifice doesn't make a man a patriot - what does?

Did Mr Juan Williams serve in the military?

For the Juan Williams' of the world, who arguably owe at least some of their success to the legacy of Dr. King - to draw the argument "what would Jesus do" and come to the conclusion as stated here is laughable

Let me suggest: Mr Williams and others; stop watching Fox News, and look at other sermons Rev Wright gave in their entireity which are readily available on the web and then go back and reread Dr King's words especially in his early, brave opposition to the Viet Nam way -- Rev Wright - who I am not defending - clearly through non violence, in his own way, tried and by all accounts, Rev. Wright right succeeded, in getting young black men to strive for a better life, for black families to stay together and generally was devoted to improving the quality of like for his parishioners.
 
Maybe Juan Williams can use his connections at FOX and through the various newspapers to study and learn more about Rev Wright - get over his false "horror" at five or six stupid sentences - and do what Jesus would likely do

That would be to look at the total of the man and see clearly the good of the sum total of the life of the man far outweighing the bad -- and look beyond a few offensive sentences to the sum total of a life dedicated to helping others.

You can disagree with the method - but you cannot disagree with the results. And on the 40th anniversary of MLK Jr's death - a dark day for this nation -we should all be grateful that in the 1960's when the civil rights movement did and said what they had to to make progress , against much hatred and opposition in the country - that there was no Fox News, no You Tube and no Internet

Arguably - we may not be where we are today and celebrating the life of this great man - if there had been

Let's not lose our chance to move forward and develop a new and living history; which I strongly believe Sen Barack Obama will inspire and lead.

For the second time in a week, Clinton polls 9% better than Obama
check it out
http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Tax day!

Josh just noted that Mark Penn is lobbying for the Columbian trade deal, which Clinton and Obama both oppose.

Regardless of which candidate you support, I think that we can all agree that Mark Penn is a complete pratt.  (Here is where I pat myself on the back, because I've been hating on him since June 2007).

My question is who hates Penn more, Obama or Hillary supporters?

I think that Hillary supporters have more cause, as he's been wrong on everything while sucking up millions of dollars in fees, but Obama supporters have got to hate him too, because he is the most aggressively scorched earth guy out there.

So, what do you think?

For reasons that are probably sub-rational, Americans appear to trust Republicans more on Iraq, even though they overwhelmingly oppose the Republican war strategy. The ultimate wedge issue for dems is the economy.

Oliver Willis poses this question which is fleshed out by Barron's.  The facts are not flattering to our former Fed Chief, whose policies we increasingly regret.  This story about the dissertation that is not there is well worth the read.

 

Bill Clinton says REAL DEMOCRATS want everyone to have a chance to vote.

How come on December 30th, Hillary Clinton said "It'll be over by February 5th."  Was she hoping to deny all this fine states their rights?

The United Church of Christ and NCC leadership called for a Sacred Conversation of Race, and a national "Preach-In" on May 18th.

Why are they waiting almost 2 months away to have this Preach-In?

Why in May of all months, soon after the primaries of Indiana, N. Carolina, Newbraska and W. Virginia and just before the primaries in Kentucky, Oregon and Idaho?

I sure would like to know whose really behind this idea. 

Seems like it's been timed to have the Rev. Wright story PICKED UP AGAIN just in time for Supers to have to decide who they'll vote for.

Who will benefit by having the Wright story and those videos of the Reverand preaching repeated over the internet and our televisions the most?  Take one guess.

PA Governor Ed Rendell's latest comments (see http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/gov-rendell-the.html) illustrate the Clinton campaign's obvious strategy of arguing against Obama's ability to win the general election versus arguing for hers.   Jake Tapper, who spoke with Rendell, countered the comments noting that some yet unopened Clinton Presidential library records and such could harm her in any GE campaign. 

No matter.  I have only one question for the good Governor:   Who would've thunk Hillary was attacked by sniper fire in Bosnia?   Her thorough "documentation" may be public, but - given her veracity - all this vetting would ironically do her in.   Just imagine the GOP's fun with THAT.

I heard somewhere that Hillary Clinton was the first woman to climb Mt. Everest. Is this true? Can anybody confirm this source?