I realize this isn't exactly political news but it's related since the candidates are all talking about NAFTA.

I just watched the movie called Bordertown starring Jennifer Lopez, Martin Sheen and Antonio Banderas.

The film tells the true story of the numerous women murdered in Ciudad Juarez and the inquisitive American reporter sent in by her American newspaper.

The opening titles explain that American corporations are using the North American Free Trade Agreement by opening large maquiladoras right across the United States border. The maquiladora's hire mostly Mexican women to work long hours for little money in order to produce mass quantity products.

Lauren Adrian (Jennifer Lopez), an impassioned American news reporter for the "Chicago Sentinel" wants to be assigned to the Iraq front-lines to cover the war. Instead, her editor George Morgan (Martin Sheen) assigns her to investigate a series of slayings involving young maquiladora factory women in a Mexican bordertown.

Adrian runs into a young 16 year girl that had been raped and buried left for dead.  To try and find the guilty, Adrian volunteers to be a ginny pig at the factory to get her story.  She ends up getting partially attacked herself and almost killed.

She sends her story to her boss.  He refuses to print it because she accuses not only the Mexican government of covering it up, she accuses the American government of doing so too.  A new NAFTA agreement was also being put through and the 'bigwigs' didn't want any bad publicity.

Adrian ends up taking over the newspaper there in Juarez because the original, her friend, was murdered for his involvement of trying to get the story out there.

It was a violent, sad, and shocking story.  All true.

I recommend this movie to all.  NAFTA may be good for companies and governments, but it's creating slave labor and death down south.

Arizona Superdelegate Charlene Fernandez Endorses Barack Obama for President

PHOENIX, AZ — Today newly elected Arizona Democratic Party First Vice Chairwoman and Superdelegate Charlene Fernandez endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president.

“Senator Barack Obama is strengthening the Democratic Party by bringing in new voters, young and old, into the process. I believe Senator Obama has the best ability to win the White House in November and lead this country forward.”

Fernandez, who was elected as first vice chairwoman of the Arizona Democratic Party today,  is Senator Obama’s 241st  Superdelegate endorsement. Senator Obama is now 290 delegates away from winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-arizona-superdelegate-endorsement/

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


Hopefully he can pick up a few more over the next few days and go into the NC & Indiana primaries with some "super" momentum.

These last few weeks, he seems to be missing.  Not literally, but his presence in the national dialogue has receded.
Now I'm not a Clinton troll.  In fact, I've been an avid Obama supporter since the beginning.  And I will continue to be.  
But all I see and here out there is an angry Hillary.A mad narcissistic Bill.  Both acting like they're  bigger and more important than their own party.   
I expected a defiant Barack Obama to challenge that notion.  I expect him to stand up for our party at a time when no one else will, or can.  
But all I hear is the rallying cry of Hillary and Bill, both of whom are a little astonished that the democratic party isn't rallying around them.
Both of whom are thinking "What in the heck is wrong with all you people?" as "all us people" are  thinking the same about them.  
So where is Barack Obama?  

I know he's busy in NC and IN working every day for every vote.   
I turn on the tv and listen to the pundits reciting Clinton talking points and questioning his electability, using old electoral models and Clintonian logic.  I don't know why they're so confident about their speculation.  They have yet to be right about anything this election.  
But where is Barack Obama right now as the corporate media walks all over him?
He's busy winning.  I got that.  
But he seems distant. 
He talks about a broken system in Washington philosophically, but it doesn't feel like his feet are on the ground, in the present, demanding that the Attorney General either take the lead in all these investigations,  or get out of the way.  Asking how in the world a bill that would ensure voters had a paper trail was stopped in its tracks.  Demanding that the EPA allow each state to set their own cafe standards.  

I'd like to see him step up a little right now and show a lot more fortitude.    
You can only rope-a-dope so long.  At some point, you have to throw an uppercut.

The Center for American Progress has done some number crunching on what John McCain's economic policies really mean

From The Field:

The news is exactly what you’d expect - tax cuts for corporations and wealthy Americans that leave struggling families behind.

More than half of Senator McCain’s tax cuts — $175 billion a year – go to corporations. Another $60 billion spent on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax goes to very high income taxpayers. And his gas tax holiday lasts only three months and expires before he takes office.

Senator McCain does propose one tax break that will benefit many middle-class families: doubling the personal exemption for dependents from $3,500 to $7,000. The proposal ill let parents earn $3,500 tax-free for each child they have. Its value is higher to
higher-income families:

• Families in poverty – who pay sales and payroll taxes, but usually not income taxes– will not get any tax relief at all. In the families shown in the table, the adults are working full time earning the minimum wage and yet they live in poverty. These families would not receive a tax cut from the McCain plan.
• Typical middle-class families – defined as those in the 15 percent tax bracket –would receive $525 per dependent.
• High-income families in the top tax bracket – who pay a 35 percent tax rate – would receive $1,225 per dependent.  
  

• No wonder John McCain didn’t want to get into specific proposals. It’s because his multi-day photo-op extravaganza is a complete sham. The Center for American Progress put together estimates of the effect McCain’s massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy would have on the poor, revealing the sort of grim reality a McCain presidency would offer to families who need the most help.

  Not only would the McCain proposed economic plan not provide any relief for the families who need it most, but that same economic plan could potentially strip programs that low income American’s depend on of 40% of their budget. Programs like Head Start, Title I and Pell grants would suffer. Head Start alone could see a 3.2 billion cut from its budget, meaning 340,000 children would be left with out access to early education.      http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/ 
  I'd add - check out McCain's education policy on his website.   Mumbo jumbo that prescribes - absolutely nothing.
  

I began my blog about four months ago, because I love politics and I think it's a great way to keep one's ideas focused.  Today, I am proud to say I completed my 300th post and reached more than 5,000 hits in the last four months.  So, for those few of you who have stopped by The Left Anchor to see what Big Blue has to say, I sincerely thank you.  I know it's not much, but it's nice to know that each of us -- through this wonderful medium of the interent, the most democratic form of communication in history -- can reach out to one another from great distances and bridge the divides of race, age, or class.  Many thanks to those of you who have been generous enough to follow along with me on this experiment.

But I'm not going to devote an entire blog post to something that likely matters only to me, so here's the real thrust of my argument today:

A couple of posts up yesterday over at Tapped (here and here) ponder over the writing portion of the SAT and why our students largely can't seem to put together strong, insightful, well-sourced essays.  (Admission: my girlfriend was a grad student who taught freshman English and I can testify to the unbelievably poor writing skills of America's youth).  So I thought I'd add my two cents on the failure of our education system to enhance our students' writing skills. 

Students don't write well because at both the high-school and college levels, the teachers are too willing to overlook poor writing. If you don't demand greatness, you don't get it. If a student can't put together a good argument in a reasonably structured way, then that essay deserves no better than a D. The fact is, though, that those essays consistently earn B's or at worst C's. That's just not enough of a punishment to encourage the students to perform any better.

Now, if you happen to be a good writer already, this dynamic puts you at a significant advantage, but at the same time, there's nothing worse than a professor giving you an "A" on a paper that you would personally rate a "C." But in my experience, that is what college is: a never ending process to encourage students to under-perform because professors are too lazy to challenge them. Whether this is from pressure to keep the GPA's artificially high in order to improve a college's ranking, I don't know.

What I do know is that every student would benefit far more by reading than writing. Ultimately, reading is the best way to learn how to write. You can be reasonably sure that if a text is important enough for you to read, then the writer is excellent at structuring an essay. The more you read, the better you become at writing.

If colleges pointed their students in directions that encouraged them to read books that were interesting to them (but within the bounds of course objectives) rather than texts assigned with no consideration to the fact that students don't read books that bore them, then we'd probably see a lot more students actually reading the texts instead of glossing them.  I'm not saying students should be able to design their own course, but a little added freedom in choosing at least some of the texts to be read during a semester would likely ensure greater investment on the student's part.

I might even argue that "glossing" over texts is the single biggest factor in contributing to poor writing among students. They don't write well, because they don't read well. They scan books, picking up the major points, but not the actual structure of the argument, then when they write their own essays, they aren't aware of how to adequately structure an argument. They work in broad strokes with little narrative flow and a near complete lack of nuance or genuine evidence.

One final point: topic sentences are for losers. They are a lazy writer's way of winning points. If a reader can't understand the point of a paragraph after reading it, then the author is a terrible writer and so-called "topic sentences" would merely serve to obscure that fact.  Not to mention those sorts of essays tend to be the driest, most boring essays imaginable.

The problem isn't with topic sentences or five paragraph format, it's with papers lacking a thesis to begin with and then lacking the ability to structure whatever argument they're making and failing to back up those arguments with sufficient or relevant evidence.

This inability to write lies in one place: the instructors at both the high-school and college levels who are too willing to look past poor writing.  It's a detriment to both the professors (who will continue to have to read such awful essays) and the students (who deserve better for the money their paying in college).

I'd be greatly interested in the opinions (especially of current students or long time teachers) on just what it is that serves as the greatest impediment to our childrens' writing skills.

Cross posted from The Left Anchor.

I have just watched the Movie  So Goes the Nation! About the 2004 election. I don't think that us dem's have learned anything,we are never on message. The Democrats donot repeat the same message over and over like the Right- Wing does. This Obama and the Terrorists thing, is the same message they conveyed about Sen. Kerry soft on terror. So Sen Obama must watch this movie, and learn that whatever McCain says about him or his so-called ties, Obama hits back.  The attack ad's are going to be relentless, they have Fox News on there side, Fair&Balanced  You got to be kidding!  The Democratic Party must not let the Republican Party  frame our  message  ,we dem's must  get out loud and clear,over&over. Not this time!

There's been much chatter over the course of this campaign about the Mark Penn theory of microtrends. It is widely assumed that with the growth of the Obama phenomenon, and the death of the Penn Strategy for Clinton, Penn was wrong: Macrotrends aren't over - they're just getting going again.  Penn argued that, "there is no One America any more... we are flying apart at record pace." Obama's campaign seems to have turned that idea on its head.

However, given the recent "deadlock" in the primary process (perceived or otherwise), there's been an increased opportunity to analyze the breakdowns and internals of polling and primary results. 

So my question is this: has Mark Penn been in any way proven right? I'm not talking about his attack strategy, but more specifically his data-driven, research-based targeting of subgroups. 

My take on it is this: Microtrends are "real". They're here, and they're growing and diversifying and subdividing with each passing minute. But Penn simply underestimated the extent to which these small trends would be able to fit into a larger macro-pattern, and the extent to which all of these microtrends could be linked by a couple of common factors: newness and change - whether you're left-handed and need a customized device, a health-freak and want to cut your hydrogenated oils, a blogger looking for somewhere different to read and share news, or a Starbucks customer who likes their latte with every conceivable add-on - there is one linking factor: they all want something NEW, and something DIFFERENT. 

This, in my opinion, has been the single major oversight of Penn's theory.

Remember the GOP's flag pin issue against Barack Obama and his not putting his hand over his heart?  Well, perhaps some of you noticed that just now during the National Anthem at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner, neither President Bush, Vice President Cheney or Mrs. Bush sang along with the song.  Reporters did, but they did not.

I think this video would be a perfect comeback whenever somebody pushes the flag pin issue.  Why didn't they sing America's song?

 - McAuliffe Praises Fox News for being fair and balanced.
 - Scarborough openly rooting for Clinton
 - Limbaugh Operation chaos aggressively trying to elect HRC and/ or weaked the Dem party (whereas many in the Dem party think its the best thing for us.. hmm..  Woops, I digress)
 - Kristol admiring the Machiavellian approach
 - Rovian tactics a frequent description of her campaign
 - Endorsement by the vast right wing conspirator Mr. R. Scaife

Agree with the above fairness or not, relevance or not, they are factual outcomes of the Dem campaign.

We all know politics gets ugly.  We can argue where the line of decency is.  But I must assume even the most ardent HRC supporter cringes when the likes of Fox News is the new BFF.

Most often these ugly facts are reconciled by the logic that she should fight hard for the nomination if she feels she is truly the best choice in an important nomination decision.

But the uglier outcome of that logic is this:  Now you understand, and legitimize, what the right wing has done in every election and on every day on Fox News and Limbaugh's program that I can remember.  The ends justify the repulsive means. 

HRC defenders lose the right to complain about a media bias in a Machaivellian justifiable world, they want ratings and you should understand the end justifies the means. 

Republicans may fear monger to get what they believe is a safer world, one controlled by them.  Again, since they truly believe in the ends, whether you agree or not, you must concede its only "right" to fight, smart to give it their all, without shame or excuse, with any weapons available, to achieve the more important outcome, whether there is agreement on the outcome- or means- or not.

Another argument is that HRC has shown restraint and done nothing repugnant.  Facts aside that her right wing fans have only become fans since she "threw the kitchen sink," I suggest that she has not.  The only restraint is defined by her nomination chances, IMO.  She could press harder perhaps, but risk alienating too many more potential voters.

Yes, she isnt the only one going negative.  But you must concede the Ayers and Wright and Bitter fiascoes bear much more resemblance to swiftboating than, say Ferraro's race comments.  And lets note that Ferraro's scandal was self inflicted, unapologetic, repeated several times by her in many media outlets and not just at a paid speech.  Bosnia, similar, self inflicted over many speeches, not digged up video out of nowhere.  They had a microphone in front of them!

Contrast to Obama's restraint.   I dont recall Obama in the debate saying Ferraro should be investigated
further, or bring up Bill's WU pardons without provocation.  Obama has shown clear restraint (note:  restraint does not mean here all positive, it means holding back full assault).  Restraint to the point that Kristol and Carville agree he may be to weak, hiding behind skirts, as it were.

Finally, consider that she is vetted.  Perhaps more than Obama, but not yet swiftboated.  Anyone familiar with HRC and the Clintons knows there are MANY potential Ayers scandals in her closet, which run 24x7, which would hamstring her campaign.  The media and the ReThugs have backed off Bosnia not because it wont be an issue if HRC won the nomination, but because HRC is not the front runner anymore.

And thats why I am so appalled, and incredulous at the logic.  Her justification to do this is a red herring.  Beat him up and see if he can take another 15 rounder with those heavyweights, she says.  Why?  The heavyweights are going to throw their punches, and land them whether you are black and imperfect or a woman and imperfect.

Showing someone can be damaged by attacks, while you have yet to be assualted, is at the start a hypocritical, nonsensical justification.  No matter how much you hit Obama, and make gains on his hide, it says nothing about your ability to do any better.  Whether its patriotism or pathological lying, the swiftboats will come, and they will land punches, and we dont know where it will end up.

HRC has brought the swiftboats now, made Obama fight a two front war.  And the bonus?  Its free, a gift for the 527s.  This is HRC's bed, and her supporters defend it.  Sleep in it.  And enjoy your new right wing friends next to you.

A growing number of TPM posters have avatars - it's a trend I support whole-heartedly. It contributes to the sense of community here and creates continuity across threads.  Names alone are harder to process and remember.
If posters who consistently have productive, interesting things to say have an avatar, we're able to pick their comments out of the crowd more easily as we scan threads; if unproductive posters have an avatar, we can skip over their comments unread more easily (comments that are intended to disrupt will be less disruptive). 
Avatars are as varied as TPM posters themselves - face shots, baby pictures, animals, historical figures, cartoon characters, - I love them all.   
My heartfelt thanks to TPM posters who have avatars. To name just a few that come to mind, thank you to DF, Ben Hocking, articleman, rabbitsmorgasbord, bluebell, HusseinTenaX, astral66, littleblackpropaganda, Tom Wright, Genghis, clearthinker, Subliminability, jdw, Cville Dem, LizB, DancingBear, PaDem, lifelongdem, ondioline, Larry Geater, urbinato, Maria Gomez, Allsburg, Iowa Mike, Lookingin, FreeBubba, chautauquan,  hrebndorf, Morghan, Moose49, Billy Glad, donnerpass, whoffman, Wade Hussein Blazingame34, fabooj, roo_P, Slouch, demosaur, WorkinJoe, ergoquid, billysunday, Yvaughn, The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve, JohnDoe, AdAbsurdum, anna am, scofflaw, laurajordan, BionicSoy, clevomon, Liberal_Elite, mageduley, memoryaid, Phoebe Fay, Qwerty,  (just added) TM, Madden (?), the Smurf character, the fellow with the rocket, and all the others.
So, John McFadden, AmericanDreamer, liam, womanand57, tpmgary, kavitz, cscs, jweb271, Hilarym99, observer2, Connie Manes, LaBobsterofAnaheim, James Watt, JedReport, houlios1, idiotic - this means you - I look forward to the day when you all have avatars!
I hope TPM management focuses on adding and polishing other features that enhance the community-building potential here; we're going to need it in the days to come. Suggestions?

One struggle in Iraq is the struggle against imperial domination. The American system of governance is flawed. Other people have different solutions.

The American model is not well grounded in any religious structure. Rather than address the flaws of the American government, military, or belief system, the American military would like to export these flawed beliefs and impose them on others. Some reasoned military personnel oppose this domination and brutal imposition of raw military power on others under protection of the Church. Some have gone so far as to refuse to hold beliefs that support a religion or system impose that abuse of power.

The right to our freedoms does not end when we enter military service.  The current crew in the United States military appear to have missed the lesson on what freedom means: The right to be left alone, the right to be free from a belief, and the right to believe what one chooses.

Fundamental to our rights it the right to our religious beliefs. Beliefs are not provable. They are merely assertions of faith about our creator, our spiritual nature, and our relationship with our God or Gods.

The military is populated by people who do not like opposing religious views. This runs counter to the notion of American history. Contrary to assertions, the Founders did not advocate a religious nation, but wanted to ensure religion was free from government intrusion. No one can be required to hold a religious view. The Constitution expressly removes a religious test.

Our believes are not protected on condition that those beliefs narrowly meet an approved set of beliefs. Rather, it is illegal for anyone to require anyone to hold or not hold a belief. However, these are the types of retarded people Americans have defending them:

Another sergeant allegedly told Specialist Hall that as an atheist, he was not entitled to religious freedom because he had no religion.

It would be preferable if the American military showed as much respect for differences within its ranks as it says it hopes to permit others in occupied lands to enjoy. When the military commanders respect diversity within the ranks, the American public might believe the Joint Chiefs and Commander in Chief are serious about respecting foreigners.

Until the President and Combatant Commanders visibly show they are willing to support free choice of religious beliefs at home and abroad both within and outside the miltary chaings of command, no one around the globe should believe US occupation in Iraq is anything but a Christian-led effort to destroy Muslims.

The President must demonstrate he supports a diversity of religious views, otherwise the terrorists will exploit this abuse directed at American military personnel, and show they are willing to do things the President refuses: Stand up for those this President has openly attacked for their beliefs. This President's attack on religious beliefs at home and abroad must end. Otherwise, this President is helping the terrorist cause.

Alice Palmer is campaigning for Hillary Clinton inIndiana.Palmer is the former state senator.  In the '90's,  she selected Obama to be her successor.  But when she tried to reclaim her spot, B.O. got her kicked off the ballot.
The Chicago Tribune has the dirt on how Mr. Niceguy became state senator.
It isn't pretty.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story

Here I posted results of a Monte Carlo simulation I had done of the election, using polling data from Votemaster Andrew Tanenbaum's electoral-vote.com. My analysis then showed Barack Obama would win more frequently in a head-to-head matchup with John McCain than Hillary Clinton would, even though if you simply totalled electoral votes by who was leading the state, Clinton had a larger margin over McCain than Obama did.

The votemaster has updated with some newer polls, and so I've rerun my analysis. Again I've done 10,000 trials for each of a Hillary-McCain and Obama McCain matchup. Now Hillary wins against McCain little more often than Obama does:
Obama wins 45.25%, averages 269.8 EV
McCain wins 49.04%, averages 268.2 EV
Electoral tie  5.71%

Clinton wins 50.35%, averages 269.1 EV
McCain wins 46.19%, averages 268.9 EV
Electoral tie 3.46%

The headline summary of these results has changed from before: where earlier Obama won more often, now Clinton does. But the big picture really isn't that different. McCain is now one point ahead of Obama in Pennsylvania, whereas before it was in Obama's column. Hillary had previously led McCain by just 1 in Minnesota, but now she has a 5 point lead.

Interestingly, even though McCain wins more often than Obama, Obama has a higher average electoral vote total. This is largely because of Texas - in the modeling, Obama wins Texas about a third of the time, and swinging its 34 electoral votes to Obama pulls his average above McCain's. In fact, in my simulation Obama's average electoral votes are slightly higher than Clinton's, but for all practical purposes they're tied, both with McCain and each other.

My model is a simple Monte Carlo simulation: For each trial I add a random variable with a to the spread between the candidates in each state, assuming each state is an independent trial. Then I assign the state's electoral votes to the winner, and compute the overall winner of that trial.

This model is quite sensitive to the actual numbers reported by the poll: if you have a 1 point lead in the state, in the model you'll win that state about 2/3 of the time, with a 2 point lead, it you win about 85% of the time, and with a lead of 5% or more you win well over 90% of the time. Hence when Obama went from an 8 point lead over McCain (in the April 09 poll) to a 1 point deficit, the state swung from definitely Obama to probable McCain. My gut says Obama would still be a strong favorite to win Pennsylvania in November. But also, I'd say McCain is still far more likely to win Texas than the 2/3 the model projects from the current one point spread.

The big picture remains essentially the same: based on the latest per-state polling, either candidate would be in a tough fight with McCain. At present, Clinton is closer to her ceiling than Obama is, but as of today's data, she's a little more likely to win.

Americans Not Obliged To Support Reckless Government

Are you tired of this reckless President, the lazy Congress, and a court-judicial system that refuses to investigate war crimes? The public is not required to remain complicit with this reckless abuse of power. We can write a new Constitution.

The current system of oversight of the US government is insufficient. It fails to inspire the Members of Congress, President, or Courts to fully do their job. They are not enforcing the law, but making excuses to turn a blind eye toward illegal activity and war crimes.

The longer the public believes this false notion that the choice is between the GOP or DNC, the longer we'll accept the unchallenged premise: Whether the US Constitution needs to be modernized to ensure this abuse of power does not happen again.

Bypassing the Amendment Process

The requirement to Amend the Constitution applies only to the government.
Those legal requirements do not apply to the public. We can only
discuss a new constitution, bypass the Amendment process, and lawfully
impose a new Constitution on the United States government.

Facts Required To Support Candidates Plans As President

The three leading candidates are from the Senate. Neither of them has signed a plan as a Senator that they will support as President. These candidates must show they are leading efforts in the Senate to gather facts that will highlight the problems and solutions. Otherwise, they're promising as Senators to do something as President; and as President will keep the option open to point to the Senate for failing to provide an answer. These candidates needs to be challenged now: What is their plan as President and Senator to ensure this abuse does not happen again.

Until they answer, the public must openly discuss a new system of oversight for the US government. This new legal framework must discuss what will outside the US government ensure this abuse does not happen again.

Punishg DoJ OLC-connected legal counsel

There must be timely sanctions on legal counsel for their drafting illegal memoranda; and timely consequences on Members of Congress when they refuse to fully support investigations. This government would ask that it be re-supported despite its recklessness since 2001 in not fully enforcing the laws of war and US Constitution. The same system and people who escaped scrutiny in re Iraq WMD and Katrina demand we vote them into office. We need to redefine the framework that oversees them.

Constitutional Restructuring Required

This President and Congress have jointly shown they do not respect the written law, statutes, treaties or Supreme Law. Writing new laws isn't the answer.

They have jointly refused to enforce the existing laws. It is a waste to debate attempting to enforce the laws will not recognize.

Promulgating State Level Authority

The State AG's need to be challenged to enforce the existing Constitution against Members of Congress and the President; and the States need delegated power to timely act when Congress and the President jointly refuse to act to defend the Constitution from domestic enemies.

New Standards for Legal Counsel, Or Denied Access

We cannot be prevented from discussing a new system of oversight; nor in lawful methods to regulate factions in the federal government.  The American lawyers have shown themselves to be threats to the US Constitution: Lazy in their oversight, complicit with the illegal activity.

New oversight must ensure legal counsel are required to meet high standards, otherwise they are not entitled to command high fees. The public can require all firms doing business with any Americna lawyers certify that they meet higher standards, and are willing to be publicly audited. Without this agreement, American corporations should find other legal counsel willing to meet these high standards.

What do you think will be the official reason he'll decline?







- scheduling conflicts
- busy talking to voters
- (voters) tired of debates
- ?


Can't think of anything else reasonable he could say, unless of course he comes up with something funny like "preventing further divisions in the party" or would rather play hoops or practice bowling.

I’d like to get some opinions on whether ex-Senator Bill Bradley would be a good choice for Barack Obama to pick for his Vice President.  As you may or may not know, he currently supports Barack Obama for President and has gone on the political talk shows in support of Obama.  He continues to be a very good debater.

I went back and checked some of the Senator’s past.  I think from what I’ve read and if memory serves me right, he could bring a great deal to Obama’s campaign, but I want your opinion.

He’s an ex-senator from New Jersey but he was born and raised in Missouri.  He went to college at Princeton University, NJ.  He’s Rhodes Scholar, a member of the American Hall of Fame in Basket Ball.  He was the captain of the 1964 Olympics basketball team.  He played professionally in Italy and eventually with the New York Knicks. 

Bradley's basketball ability was enhanced by his unusually wide peripheral vision. While most people's horizontal field covers 180 degrees, his covered 192 degrees. Vertically most people can see 47 degrees upward; Bradley could see 72 degrees.  I mention his basketball career because that’s what made him famous early in his life and because basketball is Barack Obama’s first love.  Bradley is also left-handed, like Obama.

Bradley ran for President against Al Gore in 2000.  He was considered more liberal then Gore.  He got the blue color votes mostly.  As Senator he mainly worked hard for children’s health issues and relieving poverty.  He sometimes voted for with Reagan and the GOP.  He was best known for overhauling the tax code, campaign finance reform and reducing the deficit.  Bradley finished his presidential run coming in a distant second place during Super Tuesday.  A small tidbit for you, John McCain was running that year too.

Since that time he has worked as a corporate consultant and investment banker.  Oxford University awarded Bradley an honorary Doctor of Civil Law (DCL) in 2003, with the comment that he was "An outstandingly distinguished athlete, a weighty pillar of the Senate, and still a powerful advocate of the weak." Currently, Bradley serves on the Board of Directors of Superprotonic, a solid acid-based fuel cell technology development company. 

I read up on this company, here’s what they claim:  Superprotonic is dedicated to bringing this new technology to market and in so doing, benefiting our society by 1) decreasing overall fuel consumption, 2) decreasing overall pollution emissions, and 3) increasing the use of renewable fuels.

This claim alone should bring in voters that support the environment.

I know that New Jersey normally votes Democrat; but I believe its location is a good one.  His being from that area could reinforce Obama’s ability to win some red states like, Virginia, New Hampshire, West Virginia, North Carolina and even Ohio voters.  Hopefully with Obama being from Illinois, Indiana will go Democratic this year.  Obama might be able to sweep the whole mid-west and east coast with Bradley on his ticket.

Bradley being known for working for the ‘working’ men/women and his previous sports background  – might also reinforces Obama’s votes elsewhere.

What’s YOUR opinion?  You have any other good or bad Points?

 

What do you think will be the official reason he'll decline?

- scheduling conflicts
- busy talking to voters
- (voters) tired of debates

Can't think of anything else reasonable he could say.

They needed a second chance to finish first.

That's the tagline from the 1986 movie "Hoosiers"-
The story of the improbable 1954 Indiana High School basketball team than went all the way to the State Championship

And this is where we are today -- in the democratic primary race (okay the third chance - but you get the metaphor)

As in Pennsylvania when the democratic establishment ran the table for Hillary Clinton - Obama supporters need to help overcome this in Indiana-

Yes Sen Clinton has Evan Bayh - with deep family roots and as a former Gov as well as serving Senator but this is what Obama has going for him in Indiana

1: Proximity to Illinois
2: Open Primary
3: Under 10% African American population (read David Sirota theory - Obama won all states with African American population under 9% and over 20% - it;s that middle ground where he has issues)
4: BIG College population
and don't laugh
5: He got game

Obama needs to win both the NC and Indiana primaries on May 6th to give cover to the undecided (aka chickensh%#T) super delegates to give cover to the Reid/Pelosi/Dean group to push the supers and shut this thing down.

We need to help - this has to stop- the MSM has turned on Obama and have fallen for the fighter/populist Clinton new baloney -- Hillary as the new champion of the people

Listed below are the sites for the Indiana newspapers and blogs:

YOU WILL BE SHOCKED HOW SEN CLINTON HAS SO MUCH LOCAL PRESS AND SEN OBAMA SO LITTLE - we need to even that out

Let our voices be heard - write letters to the editors - write opinions - get the TRUTH out there

They were slow to start but the Clinton machine is in full alert

LET'S NOT FORGET WHO REALLY IS THE UNDERDOG IN THIS FIGHT

Obama will not get into the mud - it just is not who he is or who he wants to be-- BUT WE CAN

Obama -08 (otherwise we are looking at McCain 08 - we all know how badly the RNC wants Hillary)

PLEASE HELP!
-------------------------
NEWSPAPERS

Indianapolis Star

South Bend Tribune

Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

Gary Post Tribune


Blogs

• Advance Indiana
• Allen County Democratic Party
• Bilerico
• Blue Indiana
• Clark County Indiana Democrats
• Eye on Indianapolis
• Fort Wayne Observed
• Indiana Equality Blog
• INdiana Systemic Thinking
• Indy's Painfully Objective Political Analysis
   Kevin Rader's Statehouse Blog

• Left In Aboite
• Masson's Blog
• NewsTalk
• Pin the Tail
• Ruth Holladay
• Seasidetea
• Shakesville
• stAllio!'s way 
  Trifles from Anderson, Indiana

 

Cutting off your nose to spite your face is generally thought of as "an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive overreaction to a problem."

With Sen. McCain's recent--and borderline loony, comments that he will be "Hamas' worst nightmare;" it's becoming increasingly clear that John McCain will cut off America's nose to spite its face.

Sen. McCain made the comment while dishing out a little red meat on a conference call with conservative bloggers. The comment, made in the context of criticizing Barack Obama, is as follows:

All I can tell you is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States ... I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas' worst nightmare ... If Sen. Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

This statement is not just wrong-headed and foolish, but rather, incredibly dangerous and destructive. It's exactly the kind of foreign policy perspective that spends far too much time seeking to punish others for perceived slights and too little promoting our own bests interests.

Matthew Yglesias had an interesting, and what I believe should be the predominant, reaction to Sen. McCain's comments in his blog at the Atlantic yesterday:

As well as being kind of scumbaggy, this way of looking at the world reveals a seriously flawed foreign policy outlook. Consider Saddam Hussein. He's a bad dude. And which American president is his worst nightmare? Well, it's George W. Bush. Thanks to Bush, Saddam got booted from power and killed. Compared to George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Dubya was a disaster for Saddam. But of course Dubya's Iraq policy has also been a disaster for the United States of America, whereas Clinton and Papa Bush ran policies that made us better off. International politics shouldn't be conceived of as some nutty zero-sum race to the bottom where our goal is to make Hamas cry -- the question is who are we trying to help and do we have ways to do it. Probably the worst thing that could happen to Hamas would be for it to be supplanted by some more radical group like al-Qaeda. But that wouldn't help Israel or the United States, any more than getting into a self-destructive conflict with Iran is a good idea just because it might make some bad Iranians suffer.

Unfortunately, Sen. McCain's loony comments seem to form the prevailing view over the past eight years. Everything is about retribution. It's about punishment. It's about taking an eye for an eye. What it's not about is taking actions that promote the long-term interests of the United States and its allies.

It's time for a little nuance. It's time for a little "turn the other cheek". What it most definitely is not time for, is John McCain's retributive views on dealing with the people that he doesn't like.

John. C. Reilly's police officer in movie "Magnolia" debates these issues aloud in a voice-over narrative near the end of the movie. John McCain could learn a thing or two from this statement:

And what most people don't see is just how hard it is to do the right thing. I have to take everything and play it as it lays.

Sometimes people need a little help.

Sometimes people need to be forgiven.

And sometimes they need to go to jail.

And that is a very tricky thing on my part . . . making that call.

Very tricky indeed.

Isn't it about time to turn the page on the needlessly self-destructive "lock 'em up and throw away the key" crowd? Aren't we long past realizing that this sort of hyper-macho, bring-'em-on posturing has been a disaster to the long-term prosperity of America? Do we really want another hot-tempered practitioner of sandbox diplomacy in the White House?

John McCain's foreign policy world-view, and domestic policy view for that matter, is a retribution-based folly that would only ensure this country's continued moral erosion around the world and make us all decidedly less safe.

John McCain is our worst enemy.

This is a repost from Democraticunderground.com . There hasn't been much discussion on it.
Remember how Edwards said he would call out Congress to give up their healthcare if they couldn't provide universal healthcare for Americans? Well, now that Edwards is no longer in the picture, look what Congress is concocting behind our backs. They take us for fools. Where is Edwards when we need him. Alternatively, I want to hear Obama and Hillary explain how they will handle Congress on this issue. Universal healthcare now. We cannot wait. This is the real crisis. Terrorism is also a crisis, but it people are not suffering from terrorism every day. Many Americans suffer from lack of access to affordable healthcare EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES. This is unacceptable. Who does Schumer think he is? Where is Edwards?

Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult.

. . . 
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is “not sure we have the big plan on healthcare.”

“Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we’re ready for a major national healthcare plan,” Schumer said.

Schumer said he would focus “on prevention above all and cost cutting until we can get a national healthcare plan.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-hedge-on-healt... 

I'm puzzled by what seems to me a perfectly obvious flaw in Hillary's argument about her 'electability'.  It's not unlike the one in her 'experience' argument, and that makes it even stranger that no one has mentioned it.
It goes like this: "How electable ARE you when you start your race with terrific name recognition, all kinds of support from the party, plenty of favors owed you --and you can't beat a junior senator known only to the few who noticed his speech at a party convention some years back, a junior senator whose name is vaguely Islamic sounding?
What I mean, of course, is that Hillary's entire strategy, from day one (sorry couldn't resist the temptation), has been to accuse her opponent of her own weaknesses and to claim his virtues for herself.  
Although I am a Democrat and can only barely remember the last time a candidate for President I voted for actually took office, I am pretty sure this November the Democrats will win.  And, of course, if Hillary is the candidate I will vote for her.  
But why does this scenario remind me of the greatest mistake I ever made in my Presidential voting history: the time I voted for Lyndon Johnson because I was afraid Barry Goldwater (who seemed a decent enough fellow) was wrong for the country and Johnson, though obviously not a person you would want to play cards with (or just about anything else), was right for it?
Why, in a word, do I keep hearing Lyndon Johnson's drawl in my ears, saying "Ah won't evah send Amuricun Boys to daa in Veetnam!" even while he was meeting with the Joint Chiefs to plan precisely that?? 

Very interesting.  I wonder how Obama will dance out of this one.  Like usual he has nothing to gain from the debate, however if he declines, he'll be painted as a coward.  However he'd be going in with a disadvantage in that Clinton is looking to cut him down, whereas he has to play nice. 

I think he'll have to do it though, and I'll definitely tune in. 

AP has the story here.

For once, I'm not going to provide a summary. Once you read the story, you'll understand why…

The President has been implicated in supporting legal memoranda and decisions blocking the FBI and US Attorneys from independently reviewing US government war crimes.

Despite the fact that I think it highly unlikely that Clinton can actually pull off her magic numbers-based comeback and secure the nomination, the reality is that a continued battle between her and Obama is beyond the point of arguing good vs. bad for the party.  It's bad.  Very bad.  So how can Obama 'close the deal' as Clinton put it, and at the same time go on to win the Presidency in November?  
First, the major stumbling block for Obama at the moment seems to be the Clinton camp's assertion that he can't win over blue-collar workers.  Further, a major obstacle to overcome in the general election is the Clinton hardliner holdouts who will continue to harbor their ill will towards Obama and either not turn out in the fall or (moronically) vote for McCain.
The best way for Obama to overcome both of these hurdles at the same time is to give John Edwards the VP slot.  Obviously it's presumptive to declare a VP before a candidate wins the nomination, so that's out of the question.  However, a backroom deal with Edwards guaranteeing him the VP spot in return for an immediate endorsement and active support of the Obama campaign is perfectly reasonable, and should be highly attractive to Edwards.  
The Edwards endorsement and joint ticket would accomplish two things: 1) in the primary it would immediately give Obama more support amongst both blue-collar workers and the Edwards supporters who were very disappointed their candidate lost, and 2) be a strong ticket in the General that will help make up for the Clinton hardliner losses.  
In the primary, Obama has indeed had trouble winning over blue-collar folks in those large, election-deciding states.  Edwards was the most populist candidate and with his endless repetitions of the mill-working father would immediately help give Obama some amount of cred with those voters.  Granted, it won't be enough to win that bloc over completely, but all Obama needs is enough to keep those races close enough to keep his lead in delegates and in the popular vote, and the Edwards bump would be more than enough for that.  
In the General Election, it would have even greater effect.  For one, it would help balance the ticket by improving support in the Southern states.  Second, it would give the Obama/Edwards ticket the ability to be substantially more populist in message on the economy, a subject that will almost certainly play the single largest role in determining the next President (which is also a good side-effect for those liberals who wanted a more populist candidate like Edwards, but were left with Obama and Clinton).  Third, Edwards is an experienced and tested VP candidate who performed well in the last election where he held that role (although obviously against a very detested opponent).  Last and not least, it would at least somewhat help to  win over some of those hardliner Clintonites who otherwise would abandon Obama (remember, a substantial portion of the people supporting Clinton were originally Edwards supporters, and it stands logically that at least some non-zero percentage of the hardliners were amongst that group).  
Clearly in my opinion, Obama could make no smarter move right now than to sit Edwards down and make him an offer he can't refuse.  

I can't say I care much for the idea, but I'm beginning the think that Obama is going to have to offer Hillary the vice presidential slot, whether he wants to or not.

He has a real, unsurmountable lead in pledged delegates. It seems improbably that the superdelegates will overturn that. But he has not racked up the kind of victories that would make everyone acknowledge the he is the clear winner.

Whether you buy them or not, Hillary's arguments about the popular vote and victories in the big states have gained some traction. More importantly, her supporters believe them. A discouraging high percentage of them claim that they will not vote Democratic is Hillary is not the nominee. At this point, can we take the risk that they will not follow through on this threat?

I think Obama may have to publicly offer the slot to make peace in the party. Then it will be up to her whether or  to accept it.

I think she would accept it, because she really wants to be president, and history tells us that a lot of vice presidents have become President due to death. Furthermore, if a President Obama serves two full terms, his vice president would have front-runner status in 2016, and that would be hard for a 68 year old Hillary to compete with if the vice president is not her.

Making her the vice presidential nominee would cut the potential rebellion of her supporters off at the knees. Few of them would be willing to vote against electing the first woman vice president.

Her campaign has made me really dislike Hillary. But if it's a question of winning with her on the ticket and losing without her, I'd take her.

1) Say "I'm tough". Say it a lot. Also, use the word "fight" in every other sentence.

2) Promise not to quit. Ever. Consequences be damned.

3) Compare yourself to tough historical figures. Like Rocky.



4) Do not apologize. Tough people don't apologize. Rocky doesn't apologize.

5) Tell anecdotes of about yourself in tough situations. E.g. "We landed under sniper fire and had to run to our vehicles."

6) Play tough music. Examples:
 - Eye Of the Tiger (Survivor)
 - I Won't Back Down (Tom Petty)
 - Never Surrender (Corey Hart)
 - We're Not Gonna Take It (Twisted Sister)

7) Say tough-sounding things about what you'll do to the bad guys. Examples:
 - "We would be able to totally obliterate them."
 - "We're going to get him. Dead or alive, it doesn't matter to me."
 - "We will bury you!" [bang shoe on table]

8) Do not allow anyone to question your toughness or the value of toughness or even the meaning of toughness. Tough people don't take questions on toughness.

9) Win some primaries. This is the most important step. If you win, the media will conclude that you have successfully persuaded voters that you are tough and that your opponent has a toughness problem. They will talk about your toughness and your opponent's untoughness endlessly until the voters start to believe that you are truly tough.

Cross-posted from The Jed Report

::

There is no longer any question about whether or if Barack Obama will be the Democratic candidate for president. The question now is when and how he will be recognized as the party's presumptive nominee.

It will happen sometime before the Democratic National Convention, just as soon as he secures the 2,024 delegates it will take to win the nomination on the convention floor. When that moment is upon us, everything else that has happened in the campaign will be overshadowed, rendered moot in an instant.

Think of that moment like the final touchdown that puts away a football game for good. And in this football game, superdelegates control when and where that touchdown will occur. They have two options. They can try to score themselves, or they can hand the ball off to voters, and let the voters finish the game off.

Their decision won't change the outcome of the game. It will,
however, change voter's perceptions about the winner of the game -- in
this case, Barack Obama.

When Barack Obama is declared the presumptive nominee, it will be tremendously important that he be seen as having won on the strength of his electoral victories. To allow the formation of the unfair and absurd perception that an elite group of insiders handed him the nomination would be incredibly damaging to Democratic prospects in the fall.

::

Unfortunately, we now find ourselves in a situation where superdelegates run the very real risk of letting that happen. If they don't act soon -- before May 20, as I will show -- they will give Obama's political opponents all the ammunition they need to develop such a crippling narrative.

Fortunately, there is simple way for superdelegates to avoid this outcome. How? Before May 20, 99 of the undeclared or Clinton supporting superdelegates must either endorse Barack Obama, or commit to supporting the winner of the pledged delegate battle (becoming members of the so-called "Pelosi Club").

Let me explain why May 20, the date of the Kentucky and Oregon primaries, is so crucial.

(By the way, everything in this post is moot if Barack Obama wins both North Carolina and Indiana on May 6 and Hillary Clinton withdraws from the race. But the superdelegates can’t control that, so from their perspective, they should still focus on May 20.)

May 20 is important because on that day Barack Obama will have finally surpassed the magic number of 1,627 pledged delegates, securing himself a majority of the 3,253 democratically selected delegates headed to Denver. At that point, he will become the nominee unless there is a coup by superdelegates against the voters. It would be the perfect day for Obama to become the presumptive nominee.

Let’s take a closer look at the math of May 20:

• Conservatively, Obama will have 1,650 pledged delegates (likely more)
• Add in his 234 superdelegates (as of April 25) and he’ll have 1,884 total delegates
• Factor in the minimum 33 add-on delegates he is certain to get and he’ll have 1,917 total delegates

Now, remember it will take 2,024 delegates to win the nomination. Based on current superdelegate totals he will have at least 1,917 total delegates on May 20, a difference of 107 delegates.

That means that between now and May 20, if Barack Obama can secure support from 107 superdelegates, on May 20 he will have won the 2,024 delegates he needs to be officially declared the presumptive nominee, ending the nomination battle.

(Remember that after May 20, just over 100 pledged delegates will remain to be selected, meaning Obama would ultimately need just 40-45 more delegates to hit 2,024. Again, the question isn't whether or if Obama will win. The question is when and how he'll hit 2,024.)

The interesting twist is that to hit the 2,024 number is that on May 20, Barack Obama doesn’t actually need all those 107 superdelegates to endorse him. They can also declare their support for the “Pelosi standard,” meaning they will support the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates. Moreover, it doesn’t matter whether those superdelegates have endorsed Clinton or not – a vote is a vote.

In fact, at this point there are already 8 members of the “Pelosi club” – so Barack Obama actually only needs 99 more superdelegates to either endorse his campaign, or announce their support for the “Pelosi standard.” This should be doable -- we are talking about just over two-fifths of undeclared superdelegates.

(Remember these projections are conservative. In all likelihood, he won’t even need 99 superdelegates – given Obama’s likely performance in primaries between now and May 20, that number is more likely to be 89 or 90. 99, however, would be a guarantee.)

::

Why should these superdelegates either endorse Obama now or agree to the Pelosi standard?

The reason is simple and it is profoundly important: by making their decision before May 20, superdelegates will allow Barack Obama to clinch the nomination on the same day he secures a majority of pledged delegates.

In other words, it will be the voters of Oregon who actually push Barack Obama across the finish line. If the superdelegates wait until after May 20, insiders will be the ones who push Barack Obama across the line.

From the standpoint of who wins the nomination, it makes no difference. Obama has it wrapped up. But if superdelegates “score the final touchdown,” Barack Obama's political opponents will try to develop a narrative about Barack Obama's inability to win the nomination by himself, making it seem like the party leaders helped him achieve what he could do accomplish on his own. (That would be an asburd storyline to make about the guy who won a majority of pledged delegates, but since when has that been an obstacle?)

It should be obvious how destructive such a storyline would be for Barack Obama, and how Republicans would seek to take advantage of that perception. Just ask the North Carolina Republican Party.

If superdelegates really want to help Barack Obama, the best thing they can do is endorse him or the Pelosi standard now, or at least by May 20.

If 99 of them do it, the voters of Oregon will make Barack Obama the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party on May 20.

Allowing the voters to end this thing would be the best possible outcome, given the current state of the race.

Just about everybody wants this battle to come to an end, and there's no longer any uncertainty or doubt about its eventual outcome. One option is for superdelegates to pick the winner in June. The other option is to let voters end it on May 20. Either way, we’re going to have the same nominee.

For the sake of the party, let’s let the people of Oregon end this thing. Let's let there be a celebration at the conclusion of this campaign. Let’s put the voters first, and let's let the healing of the primary bruises begin.

::

Also at The Jed Report

McCain's "Hamas" attack has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it.  It's classic Republican divide-and-conquer/guilt-by-association politics.  It's worked well for them in the past, but it won't work this time.  The Republicans have created a monster, and that monster is going to eat them alive in November.  They have cultivated a base that consists of a bunch of ignorant, racist misanthropes, who the Republicans can easily drag to the polls every four years using fear and suspicion to cow them.  These are precisely the voters Barack Obama was talking about when he said that bitter Americans cling to guns and religion.  The Republicans have intentionally MADE these people bitter for precisely that reason.  They've being played like a bunch of goddamn hillbilly banjos.

One problem, though: their numbers are severely depleted this year, and McCain goes into this race vastly unpopular among these folks.  And in trying to appeal to them and win them back, McCain risks alienating the rest of America.  When he embraces Haggee--which he must do if he hopes to win the hillbilly demographic--he alienates Catholic voters.  And if he tries to distance himself in order to woo Catholics, he loses the base.

Crop rotation.  That's what the Republicans forgot.  You can't keep planting the same seeds in the same dirt all the time, because eventually the weevils take over.  And the weevils now RUN the Republican Party.

Go answer Greta's poll -- it's currently saying NO.  I happen to disagree, hope you do too.

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/04/25/on-the-record-vote-vote-now-3/#comments

Sad that there were select quotes heavily publicized in advance of the airing of the Bill Moyers interview with Jeremiah Wright, but no real coverage or discussion afterwards.

It was an a sterling interview by Moyers, and by Wright.  Moyers drew out of Wright an excellent explanation of Black Liberation Theology, and of TUCC's motto "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian."  And giving much more context to the "God damn America" sermon.

I was going to say "sterling performance," but that might be taken to imply something less than honest, while it was actually a frank, candid and intellectual discussion.  And Moyers wasn't in a rush to talk about Obama.

Similarly, the "he spoke as a politician" quote has been taken by some as Wright implying that Obama's speech in Philly was just political talk.  As with the other notorious sound bites of Wright, however, it sounds a lot different in fuller context.
________________

BILL MOYERS: So what blues are you singing right now?

REVEREND WRIGHT: Don't know why they treat me so bad....That, what man meant for evil, God meant for good....That's a quote from Joseph, in the bible, the Book of Genesis.

BILL MOYERS: And what do you take that to mean?

REVEREND WRIGHT: That Human beings, many times, do things for nefarious purposes. And God can take that and turn something- make something good out of it.... That those sound bytes, those snippets were taken for nefarious purposes. That God can take that and do something very positive for it- with it. That, in Philadelphia, in response to the sound bytes, in response to the snippets, in Philadelphia Senator Obama made a very powerful speech in terms of our need as a nation to address the whole issue of race. That's something good that's already starting. That because of you guys playing these sound bytes now what's getting ready to happen as something very positive, and something very powerful that God can take what you meant to try to hurt somebody to help the nation come to grips with truth. To help a nation come to grips with miseducation. To help a nation come to grips with things we don't like to talk about. To help a nation--

BILL MOYERS: You know, you mentioned Senator Obama. In the 20 years that you've been your pastor, have you ever heard him repeat any of your controversial statements as his opinion?

REVEREND WRIGHT: No. No. No. Absolutely not. I don't talk to him about politics. And so here at a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of god about the things of God.

BILL MOYERS: Here is a man who came to see you 20 years ago wanting to know about the neighborhood. Barack Obama was a skeptic when it came to religion. He sought you out because he knew you knew about the community. You led him to the faith. You performed his wedding ceremony. You baptized his two children. You were, for 20 years, his spiritual counselor. He has said that. And, yet, he, in that speech at Philadelphia, had to say some hard things about you. How, how did it go down with you when you heard Barack Obama say those things?

REVEREND WRIGHT: It went down very simply. He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician. But he did not disown me because I'm a pastor.
_______________

It's sad that the sound bite of this discussion of the issue of the deceptiveness of sound bites is itself an illustration of the same point.

But at least you can easily watch the interview in its entirety on the web and make up your own mind:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch2.html