J. Peter Scoblic, Editor of the New Republic, says Bush, McCain and other conservatives are on the wrong side of history when they dismiss Obama's foreign policy.
"Alas, John McCain accused President Clinton of "appeasement" for engaging North Korea, instead calling for "rogue state rollback," and now he dismisses the idea of negotiations with Iran. Given conservatism's historical record, Obama's inclination to negotiate seems only sensible. When will conservatives learn that it is 2008, not 1938?"
For the full article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scoblic17-2008may17,0,647492.story

Where O'Bama picked up another delegate


14.5
PLEDGED DELEGATES
needed for a majority
(of pledged delegates)

115
TOTAL DELEGATES
needed for the nomination

Sparks Tribune

Faced with a vocal crowd of Obama backers, Clinton all but abandoned typical campaign rhetoric. He mentioned his wife's candidacy only briefly, and instead focused his comments on a call for party unity against the Republicans in November.

"Don't you forget why you came here. You did not go to all this trouble to have an argument with each other," Clinton said. "The argument is necessary so we can pick the best president and the most electable one. Those are the only two things that matter. ... After that, we have to get the show on the road, folks. We have a country to change and a future to secure."

That's more like it!

Hello
This is the latest on the SDs
DNC Greg Pecoraro - MDMark Parkinson - Kansas
Nevada: +1 pledged delegate for Senator Obama - 1 senator Clinton 
DC: Jack Evans switched from Senator Clinton to senator Obama
Colorado Add-on: Federico Pena
So today +3 for Senator Obama and - 2 for Senator Clinton

From the Reno Gazette-Journal, as reported by The Field:

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama succeeded in driving more supporters to the Nevada state convention than his opponent U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, who had won the state in the Jan. 19 caucuses. Obama essentially reversed Clinton’s lead from the caucuses, capturing 55 percent of the state delegates to Clinton’s 45 percent.

The heavy turnout earned Obama one more delegate to the national convention, than previously expected based on the caucus results.

The final tally: Obama won 14 national delegates and Clinton won 11 national delegates. Under the caucus results, Obama was expected to win 13 national delegates to Clinton’s 12. Although Clinton won the caucuses, Obama out-performed her in rural Nevada and Washoe County.

Counsel,

This message is not intended as legal advice. It points you to specific emails showing DoD password coding issues. This information would help pinpoint whether there are or are not reasonable procedures in place to adequately access or not access the DoD email systems. By analogy, these password issues should have been resolved with the White House and DoD. Whether the White House and DoD, as part of their information warfare planning do or do not still retain the information on the Wecht Jury contents is subject to discovery.

The links show there is a back-up email system which DoD IT personnel were using. Here is a sample private email attached to the OVP legal counsel, which may be of interest on the rendition and FBI contacts with the Wecht Jury.

The Italian war crimes prosecutor has had some difficulty in getting US government cooperation on various email requests. There is also speculation that the White House email retention problems may have some relevance to the Wecht Counsel discovery and Congress.

This note is intended to guide you to specific evidence which may have bearing to the ongoing war crimes investigation and FBI contacts with Wecht Counsel

There is information showing private contractors with official US government addresses. The information below points you to specific evidence of the DoD password account software discussions. This would set a time-certain when specific, known IT personnel were or were not involved with specific problems. As with the DoD public affairs namies, the names of IT personnel in DoD should be known to the White House, DoJ, and civilian IT contractors.

The email shows us that there were specific people openly talking about password coding issues on a specific date. This means that those software personnel would have a specific contact within DoD, the IT industry, and other agency/community contacts within DoJ, DoD, and the White House.

If it is your intention to seek these back-up emails to the White House, and possible emails retained by private counsel on White House It issues, the discovery may wish to focuse on the key names, their trouble reports, and whether the now-reported email problems are or are not consitent with the supposed failure modes they originally handled during software development.

The information below may include specific points of contact of IT personnel who have direct knowledge of how the password software within DoD was or was not resolved; and how these lessons did or did not get applied to the DOJ JCON, White House, and other rendition-related software email system.

Here is some backup email information related to the data mining. You'll find a sample message showing the OSD password coding. Note the email includes a civilian contractor, but that contractor has an official OSD email address. That may shed some light on why some of the DOD emails were or were not deleted.

Here is the archive of that non-US government controlled email, which may or may not shed light on other OSD communications with the White House or DOJ on similar password, coding, or other issues involving access, trouble logs, and software stability. This information would shed light on whether the current White House/DoJ email retention issues are or are not consistent with the original coding issues and how they were resolved.

This disclosed password coding message shows us that civilians were using official US government email accounts, but assigned to contractors. This would be relevant when asking for specific DoD or DOJ emails related to contacts with the White House on the FBI's contact with the Wecht Jury members.

Also, when reviewing the White House software development, the issue should be broadly couched in terms of which emails did private contractors use sending non-White House accounts, but may have been assigned to DoD, DoD contractors, or other contractors linked with DoJ or the DOJ JCON database management.

Note the disclosed code includes DoD password coding information. This password information would be relevant when establishing the date-certain for specific White House, DOJ JCON, and FBI-US Attorney password access as connected with the planning for the Wecht Jury contacts. Key programmers would have discussed similar coding issues with the DoD, White House, and DOJ JCON databases.

This information would be useful in understanding what types of security protocols were in place; but whether someone unusual changed related to the dates key information related to Wecht went missing. Password access lists should have been formalized, tested, and well documented. However, if, despite this planning, there are no emails specifically raising the supposed failure modes the White House, DoD, or DOJ would have us believe exist, then we know there is a problem.

The IT account/trouble logs and software coding issues should track to the disclosed problems related to the email retention and access. However, if there was no issue during development, and this software problem (later disclosed) was never an earlier problem, then we need to understand why the software programmers' emails, related to that development effort, are not available. This comparison would show us whether the original troubles identified and resolved during coding do or do not square with the asserted failure modes linked with problems with the White House, DoD, or DOJ JCON database access.

Below that sample message, you'll find corrected links to the software development messages. These may be of interest when looking for the software coding messages send to/from OSD-connected software developers; and getting backup information from the IT-community of who was doing what on the White House emails.

Here is a sample argument, and outline for your discovery plan of the White House and DOJ JCON emails.

Here is a sample line of questions when reviewing the White House involvement with the contact of Jury members.

Here is the basis to question a presumption of good faith.

Here is a discussion of why knowing how the FBI obtained the names of the sealed jurors may not necessarily be relevant.

Here is a sample discovery plan of the DOJ JCON database, using an exception to the Attorney-client privilege as it would relate to Wecht-related emails.

"History is not a procession of illustrious people. It's about what happens to a people, millions of anonymous people is what history is about"  James Baldwin

When I read this quote I immediately recall the Civil Rights movement. There are a multitude of unsung heroes and heroines of the 1960s, when the United States, after a one hundred year delay, had to come to terms with segregation and racism that had vicious grip and negative on the nation and country's claim to freedom for all. Though it still lingers today, I find stories like William L. Moore's story in Mississippi keeps me from the nadir of my despair.  Rarely do these small but important stories get the attention they so rightly deserve. They are pushed to the smallest nooks and crannies of American history. 

William L. Moore is a "what happens to a people"story which deserves greater attention than it ever received. It is stories like these which give me a cautious hope that this, my nation and country will live up to it's creed.

Hillary Clinton held a conference call with bloggers today to tout her case for the nomination. She says she leads by 50,000 votes in the popular count, of course including MI and FL.  She also says that she is beating Obama in the electoral math 311-217.  Looks like the goal posts have been uprooted to Moscow.

Here the link to the call with audio. 

For the past three weeks I've used data from Votemaster Andrew Tanenbaum's www.electoral-vote.com as input to simulations of the general election matchups. As Tanenbaum does, I use the most recent poll in each state, averaged with any other polls taken within 7 days of the most recent poll. I'm using a 4% margin of error for the polls, and then I run a Monte Carlo simulation of many trials for each matchup, counting which candidate wins overall, and also their average electoral vote totals. This week I ran 100,000 trials for both Obama/McCain and Clinton/McCain matchups. The results:
Obama wins 37.1%, averages 264.7 EV
McCain wins 61.3%, averages 273.3 EV
Electoral tie 1.6%

Clinton wins 99.0%, averages 290.7 EV
McCain wins 0.8%, averages 247.3 EV
Electoral tie 0.2%

This week is both the strongest Clinton has been, and the weakest Obama has been, since I've started running this simulation. When I first ran the numbers, Obama beat McCain a little more than half the time, and McCain beat Clinton a little more than half the time.

Since last week, Michigan shifted from a 2 point Obama lead to a 1 point McCain lead, and Obama's lead over McCain in Iowa dropped from 8 points to just 2, and a new Texas poll showed McCain's lead widen from 5 points to 13. Obama gained in Virginia and North Carolina, where leads of 8 and 9 points shrank to 3 in each state, but the big key was shifting Michigan from very likely in Obama's column to more likely in McCain's.

Michigan was also a key state for Clinton this week, but where Obama lost his lead over McCain, Clinton improved from a 9 point deficit to a tie. She also saw her leadin Oregon widen from 1 point to 6, and like Obama she also improved in North Carolina and Virginia, where double-digit deficits dropped to 3 and 6 points, respectively.

These simulations are not a prediction of the general election, but they are a good summary of what the current state-by-state polling shows. Both Democrats run stronger than the nominal totals might suggest, but as of now Clinton does do better in state-by-state polling, because she has big leads in both Ohio (10 points) and Florida (8).

Obama trails by just one point right now in several key swing states (Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and New Mexico), and he's just 3 behind in a number of traditionally Republican states (Virginia, Nebraksa, and both Carolinas), so it's quite possible that the map can improve significantly for him as this becomes a direct 2 person race.

While I personally favor Obama, the current polling data do suggest that Clinton is running stronger versus McCain. I believe once the primary fight ends, Obama will pull solidly in front as the party unites behind him. One indication of that is that on www.intrade.com, Obama is trading at a 57% chance to win the general election, while McCain is trading at 37%, almost the opposite of my simulation results today.

What this does show is that it is important for Democrats to unite for the fall, as it's quite possible that Obama could lose without the full support of the party.

Within the next few weeks, the Democratic party will (thank God!) resolve the dispute on the unsanctioned Michigan and Florida primaries.  At that time, the two state parties will probably spin that this vindicates their judgment in holding early primaries.  Don't believe it!  Their judgment has made a "dog's breakfast" out of the primary process.

The 2008 primaries and caucuses have been remarkable in that each state (district and territory) has had significant influence.  This is true whether the state voted in January, will vote in June, or voted anywhere in between;  and whether they voted for Obama or Clinton.  Every state EXCEPT Michida!  Florigan has selected no delegates, and any objective observer treats their results with a large degree of skepticism.

Consider what would have happened if they had waited their turn.  Had they voted on or after Super Tuesday, their results would have been highly significant.  Indeed, had they voted in Late March or early April, they may well have been crucial in determining the nominee.

The turnout in these states was pitifully small.  In only 5 states  -- Michigan, Florida plus the GOP strongholds of Utah, Arizona and Alabama (I'm not sure about Alaska), did more voters participate in the Republican primary or caucus than in the Democratic.  Had Florigan held sanctioned Democratic primaries, many more voters would have participated.

How many?  Well, consider that in the Great Lakes states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin, 18.1% of the total population voted in the Demo. primary.  Had this percentage turned out in Michigan, then 1.2 million ADDITIONAL voters would have appeared.  In the Outer South states of North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, 13.6% voted Dem.  Had 13.6% done so in Florida, then 0.8 million ADDITIONAL voters would have participated.  While nobody can say how many voters would have participated in sanctioned primaries, 2 million additional votes is not an unreasonable estimate.

The politicians in Lansahassee held early primaries in order to increase their influence.  But, instead, they have had zero influence, have depressed turnout, and have given their party a royal headache.  Should any state parties in the future be tempted to follow their example, I hope they will consider the 2008 outcome carefully, draw back, and adhere to an orderly established process.

Caught stealing an antidepressant slogan (Effexor: the change you deserve), the Republicans need to steal a new one. A quick check in my medicine cabinet yielded these possibilities (if they want to stick with pharm slogans):

Theraflu: Good to be back.
Midol: Because your period's more than a pain
Alli (weight loss): Are you losing it?
Suboxone (heroin dependence): Embrace treatment; regain control.
Rogaine: Use it or lose it.
Chantix (smoking cessation): On the quitting road, it's all about getting there.
Cialis: If a relaxing moment turns into the right moment, you can be ready.
Anadin: When only fast will do. Nothing acts faster.
Aleve: All day strong. All day long.
Fougera (pharm company): Make no compromises.
Celebrex: Understand the risks, see the benefits.

I open the floor to stolen slogan suggestions, not limited to medicines.

This information does not relate to any person posting at TPM. For discussion related to Italian War Crimes prosecution in re rendition.
1. Released DoD emails show the President and others have been caught misleading the public and being unresponsive about information warfare and other programs he directed through the Attorney General and FBI against Wecht Jury Members and other court officials.

2. It is of interest to  war crimes prosecutors the President of the United States has been caught conducting illegal information warfare against the Wecht Jury Members. These issues have war crimes implications, and may be subject to review by the Italian War Crimes prosecutors.

3. The Italian war crimes prosecutor continues their work, and the war crimes trial continues against American personnel. War crimes prosecutors in Italy are encouraged to work with allied counsel to secure the documents confirming these planning activities from within the Department of Justice's JCON database.

EVIDENCE

4. The DoD doctrine fully shows how FBI and law enforcement would be used to conduct information gathering iii

5. The President's link with the CIFA information warfare was established in the DoD memoranda at 82

6. American citizens with access to this information are believed to be at risk of continued intimidation, with threats of prosecution for discussing this illegal activity. The President working through outside counsel identified specific persons who accessed databases containing this information. The outside counsel alleged the information on this illegal activity was illegal obtained. This was a ruse to obtain access to electronic records.

7. Allegedly involved with this illegal efforts are the data mining and translation contractors connected with the Department of Justice. It remains to be understood when the Attorney General will testify about this DoJ-connected information warfare against the Wecht Jury members.

8. The DOD documents show at 119 the White House was involved with information warfare against civilians. The President and others disagreed how that information warfare would be couched.

9. At least one attorney from the State of Texas is allegedly involved. Their name is linked with what appears to be a front organization whose members on the surface appear DNC Lawyers. However, the organization appears to be connected with the Republican Party.

10. The President's legal advisors are in a panic. They did not anticipate this effort would be linked with the DOD information warfare program, one of many expanded after the Sept 11 attacks.

11. Chart 1

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

President

FBI

USA

DoD

Information warfare

Wecht Jury

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

12. Originally, the President denied any link between the White House and the FBI interviews.

13. Chart 2

This shows the original ruses to break the link between the FBI and improper conduct.

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

White House  - -  Deny

FBI Interview

 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14. What the President did not anticipate was the FBI would be linked to him through the DoD information warfare documents. 

15. Chart 3

This shows the White House is connected with information warfare.

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

White House  -- DoD Documents

Information Warfare

- - - -- - -

16. The President was forced to admit the DOD email substantially confirmed not just the DoD-White House connection, but the White House-FBI connection on information warfare.

17. Chart 4

This shows the implications of the DoD-released Email: FBI is part of information warfare, and connected with the White House.

- -- - - - - - -

White House            - admitted, failed to deny

FBI Information Warfare

-  - - - - - - - - - - -

19. To recover, the President made an inconsistent denial. By failing to deny the White House connection with the FBI information warfare, the President was unable to reconcile his previous statements.

20. Chart 5

- - - - - - - - - -

This shows two groups:

A. White House and FBI

B. FBI and Wecht

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

White House           - Did not deny

...............................................--------------

FBI Information Warfare

----------------------------------........................

Wecht Jurors           - Accepted Qualification

 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

21. Note Charts 2 and 5 do not reconcile. There is no way to deny a link between the FBI and President (Chart 2); but then substantially confirm a connection (Chart 4), but not explain the basis for the original opposition at (Chart 2)

22. His original responses in Chart 2 were made without considering Chart 3.

23. The President and the United States government has been discredited.

24. Outside counsel affiliated with the White House suspect their in-house legal communications have been monitored. They fear these transcripts are available to war crimes prosecutors. In response, counsel have transitioned some electronic efforts to computer platforms not obviously linked with the law firm. This change in work location is not to protect bonafide, lawful communications, but to thwart legal oversight of the war crimes related message traffic.

25. It is unknown whether these lawyers are directly working for the White House and have provided misleading information about their partisan status to create this front organization, or what information warfare training they received in Virginia. One of the contracts appears to be linked with information warfare activity out of Quantico, and other domestic intelligence activities arranged in New Mexico.

26. Information warfare does not narrowly include only media messages, but also unreliable legal information given to other branches of government. The President viewed as lawful information warfare against the Judicial Branch when FBI agents misled the FISA court, and the President provided Congress with legal argument to ignore the Judicial Branch of government. The aim is to provide legal arguments, information, and other data to Congress, deny the Congress a fair chance to independently review that data, but accelerate timelines to force Congress to comply with illegal activity.

27. One of many fatal errors was agreeing with the original assertion of the White House connection, without substantially expanding their opposition to that reporting, nor demanding the original information be redacted. Their demands were misdirection. Their original opposition evaporated for an illusory reason, showing the entire argument was a House of Cards, waiting to fall over.

28. Counsel associated with the White House participating in this effort are also allegedly linked with the ongoing investigation in Italy, subject to subpoena or arrest for alleged rendition-related war crimes. It is unclear what plans combat forces have to enforce these arrest warrants against named US legal counsel.

29. Legal counsel have materially changed their position, originally asserting the alleged war crimes were issues which could not be discussed. However, they then went on the record to discuss in detail the information gleaned through these programs.  Outside counsel has been linked with alleged financial fraud on major stock exchanges, providing financial services to the commercial entities involved with supporting POW movements.

30. Part of the information warfare against American civilians has been managed within the Department of Defense, NSA, and Department of Justice. What is not well understood is how non-US government entities do wage this illegal warfare against their fellow citizens. Their public loyalty is to one set of laws. Their real loyalty is to hide evidence of war crimes, create the illusion of investigations, and delay public awareness of government inaction.

31. The contractors allegedly complicit with this illegal information warfare are not just located in the United States, nor narrowly related to the telecoms. Overseas entities, which appear to be in opposition to the United States, work hand in glove with domestic, non-government contractors to support this information warfare against American citizens. These entities operate independently, and do not appear connected with the United States government. These entities are known to Members of Congress to have been created, but are not adequately overseen.

32. The evidence behind the President's illegal plan to affect a jury outcome hinged on many fatal errors, spanning the country and circling the globe. The evidence linking the President, DoD, and outside counsel to these efforts did not just surface. These connections have been developed over the years through various DoD installations, conferences, and telecom relationships between private industry and the telecommunications industry.

33. There was some discussion about the White House involvement with war crimes planning. There were concerns the White House was involved with the FBI Wecht Interviews.

34. Legal counsel and close advisors to the President are worried about war crimes implications. The jury members of the Wecht Trial were contacted at home. These home contacts raise substantial questions about the Untied States' ability or interest to conduct independent judicial review on issues of Geneva.

35. Key players failed to adequately explain their connection with outside counsel, or their involvement with contractors not directly or obviously tied to the Republican Party or President.

Contradictions

36. Originally, the dispute was over whether the FBI interviews were or were not proper. They were not. (Chart 2)

The Inconsistency

37. The White House changed the basis for their opposition from (a) whether the White House was or wasn't involved; to (b) whether they did or didn't agree the FBI interviews were or were not information warfare.  That misdirection failed. (Chart 5)

38. The President, not just the White House got caught on this narrow point.

Attached To Evidence, Original Denials

39. When the White House connection was established through the DOD emails, the White House could not change its position. It attempted to plant the seed that the opposition continued.

Media Relations

40. There was no dispute the FBI had been involved with the interviews, improper contacts, or the post-trial home visits.

Inconsistency

41. There are several different lines of evidence, from different conversations showing the White House approved an apparent change of position, while they privately worked to strengthen their position.

42. The evidence of the White House involvement relates to the subsequent communication with legal counsel.

43. The original concern was the White House was portrayed as being involved with this indisputable, improper conduct. (chart 2)

44. Yet, based on no new information, the White House reversed its position, belying their assertions and original concerns. (Chart 5)

Other Communications

45. Subsequent communications confirm those original disagreements (chart 2) were illusory and unrelated to the real concerns.

Inadequate Denial

46. The White House and legal advisors connected with outside counsel did not adequately include a full denial. (Chart 5)

47. The White House, by refusing to adequately deny, substantially agrees it was involved with the FBI interviews. (Chart 5)

48. In error, they failed to continue their original opposition to the points they supposedly had a concern. (Chart 2)

Failure To Deny

49. The ruse surfaced when the White House and outside counsel agreed with the change in reporting (Chart 5), but failed to continue their denial of the original White House connection to the FBI interviews (Chart 2)

50. Once the White House and outside counsel voiced their approval to what appeared to be an illusory change in reporting (Chart 5), they did not adequately explain the basis for their original opposition (Chart 2).

51. If their concerns were true, the White House should have consistently pressed with original concerns (Chart 2), but it did not.

Media Ruse

52. As long as there was no direct mention of the President's link with the information warfare against the Wecht Jurors, the challenge evaporated (Chart 5).

53. However, they reworded their opposition making it appear as though they've agreed to the change in the reporting. There was no change, only the illusion of a change (Chart 5).

54. The change has nothing to do with whether the reporting was or wasn't accurate, but how the reporting framed the White House connection.

Expectations

55. Looking back, the White House opposition to the connection should have continued, not yielded, and demanded answers.

Inadequate Explanations

56. Despite winning a an apparent qualification in the characterization (Chart 5), the White House was unable to explain why it was no longer concerned with the original information it requested or points of disagreement (Chart 2).

57. The President cannot explain why he and others originally opposed any suggestion the White House was involved with the FBI interviews (Chart 1, 2), but then reversed the basis of their opposition to the reporting of that White House connection (Chart 3,5).

58. The White House was unable to explain why there were concerned with reporting which casually mentioned the White House DoD effort (Chart 3).

59. The President's Press advisors have not adequately explained their original denials of their connection with this illegal information warfare effort against American civilians (Chart 2), not just jury members.

Failure To Deny

60. The White House and outside counsel failure to adequately continue with the original demands shows those demands were illusory (chart 2), but an excuse to intimidate and dissuade reporting of the White House connection to the illegal White House effort.

61. Personnel involved with the information warfare did not adequately deny their connection with non-US government entities or work centers not directly connected with the Department of Justice.

White House Information Warfare

62. The White House persisted with opposition to public reporting. As with excuses to retroactively explain the FISA violations, the White House sought new reasons to explain away the White House connection with that illegal information warfare against the Jury Members.

63. The original opposition was not over the suggestion the White House was connected, but whether jury contact was or wasn’t permissible. (Chart 1) Yet, unable to convince the public the FBI interviews were valid (Chart 2), the focus shifted to whether the White House was or was not directly linked to that illegal activity.

64. The error was when the White House shifted its opposition, but received no new information (Chart 5). The White House originally opposed to any suggestion the White House was involved (Chart 2). Once the DoD data mining was disclosed (Chart 3), and the White House connection proven, the White House appeared to score points, despite failing to understand its defeat (Chart 5).

65. The White House failed (Chart 5) to adequately continue the original opposition (Chart 2).

66. With the changes (Chart 5), he White House failed to satisfactorily explain why it originally objected to reporting about the White House connection to the FBI interviews. (Chart 2)

67. Subsequent reporting shows the opposition continued, despite an apparent change in position. The change was not real (Chart 5), as were the original points of disagreement (Chart 2). The goal was not to gather information, or clarify any issue, but to dissuade examination of war crimes evidence, and the role of the President and outside counsel in information warfare against American civilians and jury members.

DoD Email Problem

68. The White House was connected to DoD information warfare (Chart 3) immediately before they failed to adequately deny (Chart 5). Once the DoD emails were released, nobody could credibly argue the President was not involved with information warfare (Chart 3, 4).

69. The President was stuck with a problem. He and others had originally argued there was no connection between the President, White House, and FBI agents conducting interviews (Chart 2).

70. The DoD email reversed the problem. Suddenly the President was stuck with a problem. He had disputed the wrong assertion (Chart 2). He should have disputed, originally, that there was no FBI role in information warfare, But he couldn’t do that because he knew the public documents showed the FBI had a role in domestic information warfare (Chart 3).

71. The President had originally argued that there was no connection between him and the FBI (Chart 2). The DoD planning guidance shows this to be false (Chart 3). Information warfare guidance expressly includes the FBI under the umbrella of the President.

72. The President was stuck with several problems:

 

A.  He had agreed to a disinformation effort that sought to explain away the concerns about the FBI contacts.

 

73. Subsequent reporting shows the FBI contact was illegal, not permitted by the court, and known to the US Attorney to be outside what the US Attorney Ethics standards permitted.

 

B.   He agreed to disinformation that sought to break the link between him and the FBI (Chart 2)

 

74. Subsequent reporting shows the DoD information warfare guidance destroys this argument (Chart 3). The guidance expressly includes the FBI, establishing the link the White House wanted to sever.

 

C.  He failed to explain why he and others did not adequately oppose any suggestion that the White House had been implicated with this information warfare (Chart 5)

 

75. They thought they won a victory by qualifying the reporting, but this qualification only changed how the FBI interviews were or were not characterized as information warfare (Chart 5).

76. The President and others thought they scored a victory, but failed to realize they failed to deny something, nor continue with opposition on their original, illusory concerns.

77. The White House is stuck with a pile of inconsistent arguments, denials, and agreements. These statements fall apart because the White House did not anticipate the timing of the DoD disclosures relative to the information warfare discussion, FBI interviews, and collapsing Wecht Trial.

Fatal Problems

78. There were several fatal problems in the White House plan. The US Attorney assigned to the case first asserted she was directing the FBI, yet did not adequately explain where she received that authority to direct non-US Attorney Office personnel. The authority for the FBI to interact with judicial branch sealed information did not come from the Attorney General, but the President.

Confirmations

79. Non-US government connected personnel, linked with this information warfare effort also substantially confirmed electronic connections, discussions, and coordination. The public disclosures in the DoD FOIA substantially undermine the Presidents original assertions he knew nothing about the military analyst planning.

Information Warfare

80. Information warfare uses many people to attempt to discredit those with information about the President's connection with this illegal activity.

81. Multiple people were involved. This information warfare was highly organized. The DoD doctrine well explains how the Attorney General, President, and DoD warfighters planned information warfare.

Illusory Fact Finding

82. One ruse was to create the impression that there were active investigations. These have not started and were unrelated to any bonafide oversight. The Attorney General has not responded to these information requests.

Ruses In Official US Government Explanations

83. Another ruse was to pretend that court documents disclosed the ingoing investigations against the US Attorney. These court documents did not adequately demonstrate the Pennsylvania Bar with any investigation.

Inconsistent Opposition

84. They changed their opposition to whether or not they would agree the FBI interviews were or were not part of a later information warfare effort.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard Terry McAuliffe say Barack Obama made a "political decision" not to campaign in the Florida and Michigan primaries in order to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, but if Obama made such a decision, so did McAuliffe's candidate, Hillary Clinton. This, from the September 2, 2007 NY Times:

“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.

The pledge sought to preserve the status of traditional early-voting states and bring order to an unwieldy series of primaries that threatened to accelerate the selection process. It was devised to keep candidates from campaigning in Florida, where the primary is set for Jan. 29, and Michigan, which is trying to move its contest to Jan. 15.

Today Hillary is sending out an email urging her supporters to tell the DNC to "count every vote." The real political decision is Clinton's appeal for a do-over, something she would never do if the candidates' delegate counts were reversed. 

By the way, the next time McAuliffe makes his "political decision" statement, it would be nice if somebody—anybody—in the media challenged him on it. It took me all of 30 seconds to find the quote above. 

Recent cases of violent veterans like the one who killed the coed in Alabama a few months ago and the one in this story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080517/ap_on_re_us/canyon_carjacking

are the "tip of the PTSD iceberg" that our country has in its future.

Diagnosis and treatment has come a long way since the Vietnam war but it still has far to go before it is adequate. 

Of course, ideally, the errors of our current leadership would have been prevented by less arrogance and incompetence and there wouldn't be veterans who have served FOUR tours in Iraq!  But since we can't turn back the clock and give the Bush administration competence, we're going to have to deal with the consequences for decades...  or generations.

The VA and the American people must find the compassion to expand diagnosis and treatment of this horrible affliction.   If adjustments aren't made, this is just the beginning...  the tip of the PTSD iceberg.

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/
Oh Hell No.

We've discussed the impending sense of anxiety those sympathetic to white supremacy, white hegemony, white superiority--whatever you want to call it, feel when they look at a brilliant and successful black person who succeeds despite the odds and puts the lie to their very faith (and white supremacy is more a matter of "faith" than anything else) but you have to be stunned by the unbelievable ignorance of Kathleen Parker's latest column for the Chicago Tribune, even if you read that gay-baiting mess in the Post today.


The fact that Parkers is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group shows how utterly mainstream nativist white thought is--you would never see Louis Farrakhan with a nationally syndicated column, the backlash would be enormous. Yet here is Parker, lauding the virtues of "full-blooded" Americans.

Full-bloodedness is an old coin that's gaining currency in the new American realm. Meaning: Politics may no longer be so much about race and gender as about heritage, core values, and made-in-America. Just as we once and still have a cultural divide in this country, we now have a patriot divide.

The answer has nothing to do with a flag lapel pin, which Obama donned for a campaign swing through West Virginia, or even military service, though that helps. It's also not about flagpoles in front yards or magnetic ribbons stuck on tailgates.

It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.

Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Fry's political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically—and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century—there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.

We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants. But there's a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.

[...]

Yet, white Americans primarily—and Southerners, rural and small-town folks especially—have been put on the defensive for their concerns with "guns, God and gays," as Howard Dean put it in 2003. And more recently, for clinging to "guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," as Obama described white, working-class Pennsylvanians who preferred his opponent.

Steve Benen has already discussed this and pointed out that Obama's grandfather served in World War II but I want to further challenge the very premise that there is such a thing as a "full blooded American". What she means by this of course, is "white Americans". She makes this plain in that last paragraph.


What Parker needs is a history lesson. (PAUSE Let's not forget about Native-Americans. PLAY) There are white men on our dollar bills, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that black men bled on battlefields in the pursuit of American independence. Before our ancestors were more than three-fifths of a person they fought to share a dream that would be denied them for hundreds of years later, that promissory note MLK talked about. They fought to preserve the Union even before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Our ancestors fought in World War I only to come home and be lynched in uniform. We fought in World War II, despite the fact that units were still segregated, and we were still treated as second class citizens under the law.


Full blooded? This nation's history is full of the blood of our ancestors and their sacrifices, and the only reason I can't "trace my bloodline" back to prove it is back then we were listed next to pitchforks and lanterns as farm equipment. Full blooded? How could we be full blooded anything? That choice was taken from us--we wear that reality in our skin tones and hair textures. You may have forgotten but we haven't.


Make no mistake, racists at every level tried to prevent our ancestors from fighting, because the very act of sacrificing for this country made it as much ours as it did theirs, despite the centuries they would spend trying to deny it. Those denials continue.


So Parker wants to play Patriot Games? Let's go. No one loves this country more than we love this country, because we loved this country even when it didn't love us. Nobody can say that like we can say it. This isn't about Obama's father being from Kenya--Parker's racialized understanding of what is "American" is as exclusive as possible. No one was talking about "full-blooded Americans" when Joe Lieberman was running for Vice President; she is talking about any American who does not share the color of her skin.


I said more than a year ago that this election would be an argument over what we define as American. Parker and her "conservative" friends want American to mean "white". What I forgot, and what they don't realize, is that history has already settled everything.

Welp, Hillary's at it again. A new round of email pleas came out today, urging her supporters to contact the DNC to make the "right" decision about MI and FL. I am sure she'll get plenty of sympathetic folks who care about Clintonocracy to respond, so I think it's important for the rest of us to weigh in ASAP. I did not follow the link in Hillary's email, for fear it would somehow be counted as a vote of support (one can't be too careful these days), but the DNC contact link is http://www.democrats.org/contact.html

Thanks for being the voice of reason.

    Edwards and Obama certainly looked very good together out there on that South Dakota stage, didn't they. Two young, vigorous, attractive, enthusiastic politicians, capable of a long hard campaign.  Illinois/North Carolina. However, Edwards says he doesn't want to run for VP again (yes, I know he also said he wouldn't endorse anyone) and it wouldn't exactly send a fresh, new message to voters, would it?. Plus, he would pull Obama in the wrong direction on trade policy, immigration, medical malpractice reform and probably a few other issues.

But I think it would be a serious mistake to ask Hillary.  Not because she isn't qualified or because of her views, which on all important matters are very close to Obama;s. And she would be a big asset in the campaign, unifying the party. Problem is not the campaign, it's the governing. Yes, I know politics makes strange bedfellows, witness JFK and LBJ.  But to have a VP who is constantly thinking "I should be in your chair" AND WHOSE HUSBAND IS AT HER SIDE THINKING THE SAME THING? It would be a huge problem for Obama, and I think he's smart enough to see it.

Richardson is certainly a possibility.  All kinds of international and Washington experience, well-regarded Governor, came out for Obama early, could be counted on to obey orders loyally.  Terrible campaigner at the beginning, but he got better as he went along.  Certainly would help with the Hispanic vote.  Not to be written off.

But it seems to me he almost has to choose a  woman.  Any male, even Edwards, would antagonize further millions of women voters who supported Hillary as a matter of justice and fairness. But who?  There are five female Democratic governors; one (Gregoire) is running for re-election this year.  Of the remaining four, Sebelius is the most mentioned and from a variety of perspectives most logical.  However, she did a terrible job responding to the State of the Union speech, and did not strike me as someone who could do a great job on the stump.  That was Gore's mistake: picking someone who seemed logical but could not in fact add to the campaign.  Plus, no Governor (except Richardson) could compensate for Obama's relative lack of Washington or foreign policy experience.

There are of course plenty of female Senators and Representatives to choose from.  But wouldn't it be great if he picked somebody who isn't a politician, but is a great speaker with proven leadership skills and international experience?  I have no names on the top of my head, but I'm sure some could be found.  You'd have to go back to Eisenhower and Wendell Willkie to find a precedent, and they were not only male but in the Other Party.

In any event, a few early thoughts.

A year ago, illegal immigration stood out as the issue many of us feared would dominate the presidential campaign of 2008.  First, there was Congress, where fiery speeches and anti-immigrant rhetoric soared in a fierce debate on whether illegal immigrants should be allowed access to public housing.  Democrats pulled out all the stops to kill this Republican motion.  While the GOP plan was defeated, the back-and-forth voting was so controversial that the chamber had the atmosphere of a near riot.   [Congressional Record]

We had presidential candidates, early on, who blasted illegals  [YouTube] and, as a result, the climate for immigrants, legal or not, became a fearsome one. 

Our federal government was well on the way to building a non-stop wall between the United States, a land of freedom, and the United Mexican States, our poorer neighbor to the south.  And self-styled ‘Minutemen’ patrolled the border "doing the job the federal government will not do".   [BBC News]

Unfortunately, the trend in Europe continues in that direction with the recent election of Italy’s fiercely anti-immigrant Silvio Berlesconi.   [Reuters]

And there's the continued influence in Russia of Vladimir Putin, who was quoted last year as saying his decision to ban immigrants from food market stalls will “ease tension on the labor market and make it more civilized.”   [New York Times].

Mercifully -- thanks to the immigration reform policies of John McCain and Barack Obama -- immigrants, particularly Latinos, won’t be bashed at the national level.

While the GOP presidential field did have an aggressive anti-immigrant player, U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., his defeat in the primaries, and the failure of anti-immigration rhetoric at the polls, demonstrated that “candidates with a hard line – ‘close the border and kick them all out’ -- fared worse than those in favor of more nuanced reforms.”   [Reuters]

State action is another matter.

And Virginia stands out as among the worst.

The Washington Post reported May 11 that Loudon County, Va., public schools have experienced a markedly slower enrollment growth in English as Second Language (ESL) courses, those provided for children who know little or no English.  The Loudon Board of Supervisors last July passed a resolution to limit illegal immigrants’ access to county services.  [Washington Post] 

While decrease in construction activity in Northern Virginia was noted as a possible cause of the slump, Alessio A. Evangelista, supervisor of Loudoun's ESL program, said, “"I suspect the decrease in [ESL] growth also has to do with the general appearances’ that Loudoun has become less friendly to immigrants.”  [Washington Post]

On May 7, the voters in the town of Herdon, Va., re-elected their mayor and town council, all of whom backed a policy that removed the city’s job center for day laborers.   [Washington Post]

The most anti-immigrant jurisdiction in Northern Virginia, Prince William County, April 30 revised its October “check immigration status of all ‘suspects’” policy  [Washington Post] and put in place one that allows county police to question the citizenship of arrested persons only.  The motive for the change was described as giving the county “better protection from potential racial-profiling lawsuits” at the suggestion of its County attorney. 

But, when asked if this move was a change in Prince William’s vicious anti-immigrant stance, County Board Chair Corey A. Stewart responded, "We have not rolled back or repealed any portion of it."  [Washington Post]

Other examples of anti-immigrant policies include:

North Carolina, where the state’s Attorney General, Roy Cooper, “advised the [state’s] 58 community colleges to return to a 2001 policy that prohibited illegal immigrants from degree classes.” [Raleigh News & Observer]; and 

Postville, Iowa, where, on May 13, according to the Des Moines Register, “federal agents conducted what they're now calling the largest raid of its kind in the nation's history” and arrested and detained 390 workers alleged to be illegal immigrants.  [Des Moines Register]  

The local school superintendent spent the day trying to help more than 200 immigrant children find out what happened to their parents. [Education Week]

Aren’t those of us who are ‘white’ lucky?  We don’t have to go through the day wondering if the authorities will suddenly burst in and deprive us of our freedom.

While the presence of illegal immigrants from Latin America may be the most openly-expressed reason for these anti-immigrant policies, the unspoken reason could be a nationalist fear of the growing numbers of persons in the U.S. of Latin American descent.  According to the U.S. Census, Hispanics are the nation’s fastest-growing minority, whose children are now one in four of all children under the age of five.  [Washington Post]

Of course illegal immigration is a problem.  But the way to handle it is to develop a “path to citizenship,” as Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have proposed.  [US News].

Looking at the origins of our nation, you have to agree that among our founding ‘fathers’ were persons who came here with no legal right to displace native peoples.  They sailed into Massachusetts on the Mayflower and occupied what they chose to call “New England,” where native peoples already lived.  They invaded Virginia and set up their own ‘illegal’ settlement at Jamestown.  They conquered the West and Southwest with their invasion from Spain, illegally taking land from the Incas and Aztecs and well-established native nations of the area.  And they illegally claimed all of the middle of North America in the name of the King of France, naming ‘their’ misbegotten land Louisiana.

So, who are the illegal immigrants among us?  Ellis Island was established in 1892, long after these earlier invasions and occupations.  [Bowling Green State University].

You see, we are not as ‘legal’ and ‘pure’ Americans as we would like to think.  And those who also come here ‘illegally’ yearn for no more and no less than those who landed on this multi-nation continent prior to 1892.  Imagine what emotions must tear at Native Americans when they hear us sing, “This land is your land; this land is my land.”  It is?  Really?

I was really lit up inside when I saw video of Obama's speech in that quaint farm setting in South Dakota. He fired up the crowd of 2,000 supporters, and looked very much like a Nominee.

He was wearing his American flag lapel pin for what must be a record fourth straight appearance, and looked sharp in a dark blue suit and striped blue tie. His remarks, condemning the attacks from George Bush and John McCain, were spoken with what sounded like sincere conviction, rather than "partisan" ranting as the Republicans later claimed.

By media acccounts of the speech, Obama comes out looking like a tough fighter of a campaigner, a proud Democrat and American, and someone who could stand on a global stage and denounce terrorism with authority.

I was personally invigorated by his robust posture in speaking. His authoritative voice and empassioned words speak to many people.

We all hope that Ted Kennedy has a quick recovery. It is sickening to watch CNN exploit his illness to pimp 
for Obama. Obama is in almost every video of Kennedy. 
All of the videos shown are Kennedy stumping for
Obama.  Bill Schneider just stated that Kennedy's endorsement
of Obama was a milestone in American history. Earlier in the primary, CNN must have celebratedDr. King's birthday 15 times.  The latest media ploy is to give Clinton no coveragewhatsoever, despite that she has the majority of votes. Without a doubt, if Obama is the candidate, CNN willdrop the tears of beatitude and busy themselves with finishing him off.,

OK,  so you've figured out I'm a huge boxing fan. So this is about a brilliant boxing analogy that can be drawn to the upcoming general election?

Obama represents former world heavyweight boxing champion, "Real Deal" Evander Holyfield. Holyfield had just gone through three grueling, drag-out fights with former champ, Riddick "Big Daddy" Bowe, as represented by Hillary Clinton. All the while "Iron" Mike Tyson, as represented by John McCain, has been sitting in jail stemming from a rape conviction. Well Mike Tyson (McCain) eventually gets out of jail. And he immediately  starts fighting bums. He gets quick first-round knockouts. And the press quickly touts that  "Iron" Mike Tyson/McCain "is back!"

Yet, what folks don't realize is,  while "Iron" Mike Tyson/McCain was sitting in jail ostensibly getting "soft" -- Evander Holyfield and Riddick Bowe (Obama and Clinton) have been engaged in an all-out war.

So when Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield eventually do meet in the ring, one is battle scarred and bruised, but he's in tip top fighting condition. The other is heralded by the media as a formidable beast,  but in reality he is a mere shell of his former athletic self.

So what happens in the actual fight? Evander Holyfield wins the fight by a vicious TKO in the 11 round over Mike Tyson-- and goes on to become the most heralded heavyweight boxing champion of the last two decades.

And if the  analogy holds true, Barack Obama will win in a methodical,  late-round stoppage over John McCain.

One thing though .. if there's a rematch, Obama has to make sure to protect those big ears.

Remember 2004? When the incumbent Senate Democratic Leader was beaten when he was running for reelection in South Dakota? The first time the Republican  Senate Leader Bill Frist broke one of those so called DC "gentlemen's agreeements" of not actively campaigning against the leader of the other party?

You want that to happen again in 2010?

No? Then follow me below the fold to see what you can do NOW to stop the Republicans from beating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2010!

<strong>Why help Harry Reid now:</strong>

The Republican party in Nevada is as much in dire straits as the national party. However, that doesn't mean they won't put up a fight to defeat Harry Reid in 2010. Harry Reid once survived a very close race after against now Sen. John Ensign only after a recount (1998). In 2004 he won by a more than comfortable margin. However, that was <em>before</em> he was elected the leader of Senate Democrats. Because of his new leadership role his approval ratings in Nevada have suffered and Nevada Republicans have no greater goal but to topple Harry Reid in 2010.

Now, this is not about whether you like Harry Reid and his actions as the Senate Majority Leader. I've personally been very critical of him on several occasions. No, this is about whether you want the Republicans to once again take out the Democratic Leader in the Senate. And Republicans, in Nevada and nationally, will be itching for a fight in 2010 if they lose the White House and more seats in the Senate and the House. And who will be the most prominent target in 2010? Harry Reid.

<strong>Potential opponents:</strong>

Republicans already suffered pretty badly in 2006 when they lost four out of the six statewide constitutional offices. The only statewide incumbents right now are Gov. Jim Gibbons who is scandal plagued and currently divorcing his wife who has barrickaded herself in the Governor's mansion. He's lucky if he won't either have to resign before 2010 or be primaried.

The other is Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki who seems to be more likely to succeed Gibbons than Reid.

The other top Republicans in the state are Sen. John Ensign who obviously can't run against Reid and Congressmen Dean Heller (CD2) and Jon Porter (CD3). In 2006 Dean Heller barely managed to get above 50% in this open seat against Democrat Jill Derby. Porter barely won his reelection campaign in 2006 against Democrat Tessa Hafen. Hafen was a Reid staffer who received major financial backing from Reid. A sign that Reid thought Porter to be his strongest and most likely opponent in a future Senate race.

Once you're done with the most obvious opponents, you have to search in the State Legislature or the local level to find a possible opponent for Reid. You might find one, whether it would be a strong and credible one is highly questionable as the Democrats are only one seat away from a 2/3 majority in the Assembly and just one seat away from getting the majority in the State Senate.

So, the two most likely opponents for Harry Reid are Congressmen Jon Porter and Dean Heller (in that order).

<strong>What you can do now:</strong>

In one sentence: help defeat Porter and Heller this fall.

Both are vulnerable. Currently, <a href="http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002878000">CQ</a> rates CD 2 as Republican Favored and CD 3 as Leans Republican. However, that's mostly on the basis of the Republicans current financial advantage. After serving as Nevada Democratic State Party Chair for the past year and preparing the state for the caucus in January, <a href="http://mysilverstate.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=577">Jill Derby announced another run</a> against Heller in late February. By the end of the first quarter filing deadline she had raised $144,000.

In CD 3 a lot of Democrats were mentioned as possible challengers last year. In the end Clark County prosecutor Robert Daskas was the candidate backed by most in the Democratic Party. He was added to the DCCC'd red to blue list in March. However, everyone was shocked when Daskas dropped out this month just two weeks before the filing deadline. Local Democrats, the DCCC and Daskas' primary opponent Andrew Martin soon rallied around Senate Minority Leader and 2006 gubernatorial nominee <a href="http://mysilverstate.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=636">Dina Titus</a>. However, six months before the election Titus is at a serious fundraising disatvantage.
<strong>
Why Jill Derby and Dina Titus can win:</strong>

So, both of our candidates are way behind in fundraising. Why, then, can they still win?

Jill Derby ran a hotly contested race in 2006 for a seat that Democrats have not seriously contested since Gov. Jim Gibbons first ran in 1996. While everyone pronounced this seat unwinable for any Democrat, Jill Derby ran a strong campaign and won 45% of the vote and kept Heller at 50%. One reason, Gibbons was even a serious contender for Governor and eventually won in 2006 is that Democrats never seriously contested his seat after his first election in 1996.

Two years later, the situation for Jill Derby is much better. She has new DC and national connections due to her time as State party chair during the caucus (which will help with fundraising), the caucus led to an increase in registered Democratic voters and Heller now has to run on his two year Bush rubber stamp record. The race has gained attention from national Democrats as Derby was endorsed by the Blue Dogs in Congress. Yes, I know, none of us are two fond of the Blue Dogs. That said, I'm happy about any help Jill Derby will get and this is after all still a pretty conservative district. When Derby talks about joining the Blue Dogs in Congress, she's mostly talking about fiscal conservatism. Yet, she's progressive on other issues, announcing her campaign at a green architecture form, has made health care and supporting SCHIP one of her main campaign themes (Heller voted against SCHIP). Also, her campaign will be managed by the former head of Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq in Nevada. Subsequently, she also endorsed the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.

As for Dina Titus, she has actually already won in CD 3. In 2006 she won here by two points against Jim Gibbons in her run for Governor. Additionally, the district is trending Democratic as the registration advantage now is at 43% Dem, 37% Rep. Plus, Porter only won by 4,000 votes in 2006.

<strong>All Jill Derby and Dina Titus need now is the money to be competitive.</strong>

You can do three good deeds today:

You can help two great Democratic women get elected to Congress.

And you can help beat two possible opponents of Harry Reid.

All you need to do is give as much or little as you can and <a href="http://www.actblue.com/page/mysilverstate?refcode=TPM">contribute through the My Silver State ActBlue page</a>.

<strong>Links:</strong>

<a href="http://jillderby.com">Jill Derby for Congress</a>

<a href="http://dinatitus.com">Dina Titus for Congress</a>

<a href="http://helluvaheller.blogspot.com">Helluva Heller</a> - local blog with more information.

<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/10/16338/800">Mcjoan</a> on Jill Derby in 2006.

<em>Cross posted from <a href="http://mysilverstate.com">My Silver State</a>.</em>

OK,  so you've figured out I'm a huge boxing fan. So this is about a brilliant boxing analogy that can be drawn to the upcoming general election?

Obama represents former world heavyweight boxing champion, "Real Deal" Evander Holyfield. Holyfield had just gone through three grueling, drag-out fights with former champ, Riddick "Big Daddy" Bowe, as represented by Hillary Clinton. All the while "Iron" Mike Tyson, as represented by John McCain, has been sitting in jail stemming from a rape conviction. Well Mike Tyson (McCain) eventually gets out of jail. And he immediately  starts fighting bums. He gets quick first-round knockouts. And the press quickly touts that  "Iron" Mike Tyson/McCain "is back!"

Yet, what folks don't realize is,  while "Iron" Mike Tyson/McCain was sitting in jail ostensibly getting "soft" -- Evander Holyfield and Riddick Bowe (Obama and Clinton) have been engaged in an all-out war.

So when Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield eventually do meet, one (namely Holyfield/Obama) is battle scarred and bruised, but he's in tip top fighting condition. The other (Tyson/McCain) is heralded by the media as this formidable beast,  but in reality he is a mere shell of his former athletic self.

So what happens in the actual fight? Evander Holyfield wins by a vicious TKO in the 11 round over Mike Tyson-- and goes on to become the most heralded boxing champion of the last two decades.

And if the  analogy holds true. Obama will win in a methodical,  late-round stoppage over McCain.

One thing though .. if there's a rematch, Obama has to make sure to protect those ears.





 

From Politico.com:

Mike Allen reports:

The schedule still says 'TBA.' But barring a last-minute change, Sen. Obama plans to be in IOWA on Tuesday night when he clinches a majority of available pledged delegates. This is a red state he's hoping to turn blue, so the intended message is that he's getting to work on the general – NOT taking a victory lap. Political Geographer Jonathan Martin says the Hawkeye State appears to be Obama's BEST chance to flip a state that went for President Bush last time. In 2004, Iowa went Bush 50, Kerry 49. In 2000, it went Gore 49, Bush 48, Nader 2.

Iowa does feel like a long time ago.

Guys, this is a post of mine just up yesterday over at the HuffingtonPost.com's Off the Bus politics page, where I analyze what I see is the deciding factor in this political race, within both parties, and overall in our society:  that it's not a matter of racism or sexism--although there has been plenty of that for sure--but that what we are undergoing right now is a transition, a titanic changing-of-the-guard between baby boomers gripping tightly to power, and the "Millennial" generation--those who came of age in the 90's and the turn of the century--coming into their own.

One commenter pointed out something that I'd tried somewhat clumsily to mention in the post, that it's not just a matter of young people as it is a matter of WIRED people--those who are hip to the Internet, to online news sources and opinions, and to the vast organizational and fund-raising capabilities available there that only Barack Obama seems to have caught and fully implemented the earliest.

But I also see this generational changeover occurring in the military, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, and other spectrums of our society.

It's a long piece for a blogpost, but worth it, I think, and the comments have been great.

Come join us over at HuffingtonPost, and be sure and leave comments.  I'd love to hear whatcha think:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deanie-mills/not-my-g-g-generation_b_102069.html

Look forward to seeing you there!

Deanie

As I'm watching the breaking news on Sen. Kennedy with concern,  I can't help thinking about his important contribution to Obama's campaign for president.

Clinton may have been the "first black" Pres., but Obama will be the first black Kennedy.

We wish you well, Ted Kennedy. "The dream never dies."

Breaking news on MSNBC:

Sen. Ted Kennedy was just airlifted to Massachusetts General Hospital with an emergency "undisclosed illness."  His press office is not returning calls at the moment.

Can someone at TPM please get on this story?

EW

Denver Mayor Federico Pena should be elected today in Colorado.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/colorado-add-on-likely-for-obama.html
Most of you know this already, but the Pelosi Club, but I put it there a reminder. I am just wondering if they will confirm their endorsement after Tuesday or if they will endorse once all the primaries will be completed
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/superdelegates-pledging-to-back.html

There's a note in Ben Smith's blog that
"The schedule still says 'TBA.' But barring a last-minute change, Senator Obama plans to be in IOWA on Tuesday night when he clinches a majority of available pledged delegates. This is a red state he's hoping to turn blue, so the intended message is that he's getting to work on the general - NOT taking a victory lap. Political Geographer Jonathan Martin says the Hawkeye State appears to be Obama's BEST chance to flip a state that went for President Bush last time. In 2004, Iowa went Bush 50, Kerry 49. In 2000, it went Gore 49, Bush 48, Nader 2."
I vividly remember Obama admitting that they'd made a big mistake in New Hampshire taking things for granted and not campaigning hard enough in the last days.
What the hell is he doing going to Iowa when there are still primaries to be fought ?
He's in grave danger of being thought arrogant and in need of being cutting down to size.  What's he doing having a `victory lap` (see below) before everyone's voted and before all the superdelegates have said whom they're for?
Hillary's got ads going in Oregon and will have in the future primaries that have real punch.   She's accusing the media and the pundits of writing her off before everyone's voted.
She's banking on the voters coming to her rescue again as they did in NH.
see "Hillary turns fire on media" on Politico.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10420.html

President Bush and John McCain do have a relationship with Osama Bin Laden.  They are each others' "Secretary of Fear"

I do not think that we captured or killed Bin Laden years ago and the administration releases tapes when it is politically useful.  This is silly, and I think most people know it.  When we Democrats suggest it, we sound like idiots. 

Bin Laden is still on the loose and acting of his own free will.  The reason that nearly every one of his released messages reinforces McBush talking points is very simple:  THEY HAVE IDENTICAL POLITICAL INTERESTS. 

Mr. Bush is nothing without the threat of Bin Laden, there is no way he could have gotten away with ignoring the constitution, let alone win re-election, without him as a bogeyman.  Similarly, Bin Laden is nothing without the threat of Mr. Bush as a recruiting tool and rallying cry. This is a classic symbiotic relationship.  Bin Laden's greatest fear is that our next president will dramatically change foreign policy, engage our enemies, and show the world that Americans are not all trigger-happy bullies.  This is the simple reason why he always says "Boo" at a politically convenient time for the Bush. 


Lets get past the conspiracy theories, and address the real issue, so that when the Bin Laden video comes this October, people might see it in the right context.

I'm not saying this in defense of Huckabee, he screwed up - big time. 
I don't doubt Mike Huckabee meant to be humorous with this off-the-cuff and very public remark.  Who knows, he could have been trying for a quick and clever way to refer to Obama as someone who fears the constitutional issue of guns. Which I don't doubt Obama would welcome a proper invitation to discuss, but not in this manner. 
Lets all agree that "guns are dangerous." You don't play with them or aim them at anyone - not even as a joke. This applies to everyone. I think its important for everyone to have a balanced mind about this episode. This is not gotcha politics. No one wins playing with guns. 

'Cause my momma taught me not to pile on when someone is down, defenseless, and disoriented -- even if he is a Republican.  Since Obama has been cleaning the floor with this guy, I'm inclined to be charitable and give him a little advice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
But the substance of my advice for John McCain will follow in the first comment, since I can't get paragraphing to work properly in the blogs themselves.

If you want to know a man's future,
look at his past. 

Obama's marketing team brands Obama as the fresh
new change from "Old School" Clinton politics. 

This link will give you a clue to what Obama means.
It isn't new, it isn't fresh and it sure isn't clean. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4 861699&page=1

Like the his campaign told Canada:
"Don't listen to what Obama tells voters. It's just rhetoric."

And here is the link to Obama's Ohio Adventure. http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/3/2835/02915

I have been thinking about this debacle, and it occurs to me: the SUPERdelegates are the party leaders for the state. It is THEIR fault for not coming up with a better solution for the people of their states before the primaries were moved.

I have no clue whether they favor Obama or Clinton, but I think that THEY are the ones who should be punished with no vote.

As for the pledged delegates—the people voted, and their opinions stand as being on record. I think both states should be certified 100%, with all of Michigans "Uncommitted" votes going to Obama, since Edwards (the other guy not on the ballot) has now endorsed Obama.

Being a superdelegate means being a leader. These people failed as leaders, and should not be awarded votes. However, the will of the people should be represented in full.

Someone I know (very well), wrote this poem, and wants to ensure that Roe v.Wade will still exist eight years from now:

This Thing

I'm alone, at first, in what they want to call a waiting room.
Well, at least I have a TV.
But it's so loud, and there's no remote and I can't turn it down.
All I really want is to think.

I want to think about this for the last time.
I want to be sure that it’s something I lack.
I want to want this thing that’s inside me.
I want to get up and leave and never come back.

Oh dear God, I want to get this over with.
Oh dear God, I want someone to talk with.

Another woman walks in, and sits beside me in this makeshift room.
Like me she is wearing nothing but sneakers and socks and a gown.
We don't speak at first.
We're too busy looking each other up and down.

And then she does this thing that makes me want to cry.
She says, "This your first time, honey? You don't look like you belong".
And of course she's so right.
But I wish somehow that I could tell her she's wrong.
This thing that has happened, it's so wrong.
To think it just happened one night.
So I tell her, and she's nodding her head.
She looks at me with sympathy.
She says, "41 and it's your first time.....my oh my, you poor thing."
Then she turns to the TV and says, "I can't hear it, is there a remote?"
She finds it and turns The Judge up louder, while my words get stuck in my throat.

I don't say anything.
I just think about this whole thing.
Then the nurse calls my name, and I'm gone.
Just like that, this thing is gone.

And here I am a year later, still trying to think that this thing was all wrong.
A year later, and I still hope that getting rid of this thing wasn't wrong.
A year later, and I know that I'll forever be singing this song.
Was I wrong? Was I wrong?

Was I wrong?

This is not important at all—the race was a tie, for all intents and purposes—but I was curious what the outcome of the recount was.

It turns out that Joe Cameron, who called for the recount, withdrew his request at the last minute. The results were certified as is.

http://www.kuam.com/news/27785.aspx

Duke Cunningham briber Tommy Kontogiannis sentenced to 8 years and one month.

What do you do when you file a complaint with the internal affairs division of a major federal law enforcement agency. Then receive a response from the section Chief of internal affairs which states that my information was substantive enough to initiate an investigation:

“Our office has received all of the necessary information from you to proceed with this matter. Due to privacy issues you are not entitled to know the outcome of the investigation.”

Then you contact a U.S. Senator & Congressman requesting their assistance & they both receive a contradictory response which constitutes obstruction of justice by denying the very existence of the secret investigation from the federal agencies Chief of Congressional Affairs which states the exact opposite:

"The USMS has requested evidence to substantiate his allegations, but Mr. Reynolds has not provided any. Because he has not submitted any plausible information, the USMS is not investigating his allegations."

Feel free to review my documents from the USDOJ:

http://daprocess.com

http://daprocess.com/verified.html

I didn’t know he existed until 2006, when I met him at his graduation from Fort Benning.  His “Turning Blue” ceremony.

My nephew Johnny.

His mother is my sister, but I didn’t know her between the time that I was 5 years old, and the time that I was 41.

Funny, how families are, when the divorces are as numerous as the kids.

His mother is my sister from my dad’s second marriage.  We were separated when I was five, and she and her twin sister were three.  Their mother took them to Arizona, and I and my two older sisters were taken to Connecticut by our mother shortly thereafter.  Meantime, our dad married a third time and had another daughter, who lived in New York.

Fast forward to the next century, when out of the blue, our father dies, back in 2003.  No one gets in touch with my dad’s second wife, to let her know her ex-husband is gone.  So the twins have no clue that their dad is dead.

Three years later, their mom goes online to the Social Security website to update her own information, and lo and behold, she discovers her ex-husband passed….and no one told her.

Made the rest of us, in my family, look like shit, no?

Yes.

But this woman, who only remembers three little girls from her husband’s first marriage, has the guts to call the oldest daughter out of the blue, after getting that eldest daughter’s information from the online obituary, and the rest is history.

She tells us that not only did she bring our two little sisters up on her own out west all these years, but that she and our dad conceived a 7th daughter a few years after their divorce.

No one in my family is able to handle this news, but me.  I have no problem believing that my dad could cover this up, and so I embrace my newly found sister, and am invited to my 19-year-old nephew’s graduation from Fort Benning at the same time.

I meet my nephew, I meet my sisters, and discover that the one who was conceived after my dad had already divorced her mother and married another woman and had another daughter (my little sister in New York, who I thought for years had been my dad’s last) is indeed my sister, and I love all of them and they all seem to love me and everything is hunky dory.

Until I get home and have to fight the vitriol of the youngest daughter from my dad’s third marriage, who refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the youngest daughter from his second (not to be confused with me, who is the youngest daughter from his first).  And what’s really weird is the youngest daughter from the second marriage looks like my twin, only a few years younger.  She looks more like me than the youngest daughter from my dad’s third marriage does.  (And BevD has the nerve to wonder why I drink and write lousy poetry late at night….Ha!).

So I have these battles in my life.  Over my father and whether this youngest daughter is really his (as if she weren’t for Christ’s sake, when she looks just like me).  Meantime, Johnny graduates from Fort Benning, moves on to another training camp for special training, and now he’s in Iraq. 

I met him for one weekend, but he’s the reason I’m fighting our occupation of Iraq.  He’s the reason I turned Dem.  He’s the reason I hate Republicans, when I grew up a Republican through and through. 

Families get torn apart sometimes.  Countries do, too. 

But the people in those families, and the people in those countries, they have lives too.

Don’t discount them.  Don’t think “that’s someone else’s son/nephew/grandson/husband”.

They are our kids.  They are our family.

Don’t think “that’s someone else’s country.  They are some other person’s problem”.

We haven’t met them yet, but they are our own.

 

It has been one week since my wife of nearly six years — my best friend and partner of nearly 14 years — left me for another man. She phoned and informed me she would not be returning from work because she had fallen for a guy on the bus over the past few months. Meeting with her in a restaurant a few days later, I persuaded her to reverse her decision. Alas, she went back to the scoundrel again yesterday, saying I had done everything I could, she just doesn't love me anymore. I am handling her surprise with as much graceful acceptance of her decision as possible and trying to craft an emergency plan for my very changed life.

Apologies for this off-topic post. I will return to good form soon; count on it. Until then, any kind thoughts dropped through the slot below will be enormously appreciated.

The NYO has a debatable article discussing `Hillary’s lessons for McCain` which I found interesting because it crystallised something I’ve been thinking about for a while:  McCain does not like Obama one bit.   In fact I’d go so far as to say he’s contemptuous of him.   Whereas he does like and respect Clinton.  What’s been interesting me is does that work for McCain or against him in this election if Obama’s the nominee?  (Also, would it work for or against him if he were up against Clinton?)

What was most vivid for me in all this was a later Republican debate where McCain’s dislike of Romney was so vivid.   It actually trapped him – his irascibility came to the fore and he was provoked into a gratuitous and spurious attack on Romney that didn’t work well for him, was demonstrated to be a lie.  So much for the Straight Talk Express…. McCain lost some support in that debate – Romney’s polling went up significantly after it.

Among other things, The NYO article says:
“Clinton also showed the weakness in Obama’s conflict-adverse personal style. Debates are not his forte. When she, with some help from debate moderators, pressed him both on values issues (she wouldn’t have stayed in that church) and substance (doesn’t raising the cap on payroll taxes hurt people who aren’t rich?), she made headway, cementing her image as the tougher and more aggressive of the two. (It wasn’t coincidental that he gave up debating after Pennsylvania.)
McCain, too, will need to walk a tightrope (one he didn’t always traverse successfully in his own primary’s debates). In the debates against Obama, McCain will need to appear assertive but not nasty in order to convince voters that he really is the “take charge” candidate, the most credible leader. And Clinton showed that Obama can be made to seem defensive, even irritable, when pressed.”

With regard to the debates, I think Obama’s main weakness -v- Clinton was that he was forever handicapped with his own sense of constraint that he, a black man, couldn’t get away with beating up on a white woman and, of course, the famous New York Senate debate debacle.  Probably both of these were coupled with his own sense that you couldn’t use arguments against a fellow Democrat that could be used against her in the General.   None of these will be operative when he’s up against McCain.

With regard to the second NYO argument,  I think this one applies far more to McCain.   He’s going to get nasty when he’s up against Obama.   I see a real tension here:  is his contempt for Obama going to be an asset because it sharpens his intellectual weapons and liberates him to mount compelling, rational attacks (whereas with Clinton he’d not have as much disagreement)  or is it going to cause him to lose it?  I have the feeling that Clinton would bring out the best in him  - but Obama the worst.

I‘d be interested in other people’s thoughts on this.

 

I've been struck by how surreal the presidential campaign has seemed this past year. The second most popular Democratic candidate has praised the presumptive Republican nominee while denigrating the presumptive Democratic nominee. The presumptive Republican nominee has done almost nothing to distance himself from the least popular president since such polls began. And so on.

But what causes me to write is the recent brouhaha about McCain and Bush and their charges of “appeasement”. As Obama and others have pointed out, it is a ridiculous distraction from the real issues that the campaigns should be about. But perhaps it is more than that. Perhaps it actually a window into the thinking of the Republicans.

Recall that we're engaged in a “Long War”, nee “GWoT”. A “war” that may last for “generations”. If one accepts this, then it's not a great leap to view all international relations through that window.

“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

Since George W. Bush represents "us", it obviously follows that if you disagree with Bush you're wrong and dangerous...

Clausewitz's famous quote is often given as, “War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means.” I think that is commonly understood to mean that war is, at its most basic level, a way for countries to influence the policies of other states. It also means that wars start and end via a political process. Wars only end when enemies come together and talk and reach an agreement. Peace is the result of a political process – it is not the result of the last battle. And political processes require discussions. The days of Unconditional Surrender are long past.  Anyone who is involved with deciding questions of war and peace, or hopes to be so involved, should understand these simple ideas.

But these days, in this political season, Clausewitz's axiom seems to have been turned on its head. War isn't a part of a Political Framework, but rather Politics has become part of a War Framework. See if you recognize these tactics:

• “Us” versus “Them” dominates political battles. Delegates who change their minds or advocates who don't give expected endorsements are engaged in treachery. Personal loyalty counts for more than coalitions built on common ideals.

• Withdrawal is not an option. Any tactic is acceptable to win the immediate battle. It doesn't matter if it is a Pyrrhic victory.

• Defeat doesn't come from an understandable choice of the majority of the voters, but is rather a result of an unfair system that cheats the more qualified, more experienced, and more entitled candidate. If the system were fair, the result would have been different. Those who disagree with the ruler's policies are supporters of surrender.

• Immutable personal characteristics and the views of associates or acquaintances are more important than a politician's policy positions, general thought processes, choice of policy advisers, and ability to communicate views to others.

• “Elites” of various sorts distort politicians' messages by not accepting their campaign's spin on the plainly observable facts. Comments on blogs and discussion forums are illegitimate because they haven't been “vetted” by the TV talking heads or the campaigns. But if something appears on video tape – Whoa Nellie! All bets are off! No matter the issue, if there isn't video tape – the press doesn't care. If there is, we don't hear the end of it, at least until the next salacious tape appears.

I don't accept this New Clausewitzian thinking in politics or international relations.

I think it is clear that discussions with Iran, Syria, and other countries that we have policy disagreements with makes sense. In fact, it's required if we ever want to resolve long-standing issues. It's not appeasement and it's stupid to say that it is. And intraparty disagreements should not be viewed as acts of war, either.

While passions are high in the Democratic party process right now, I don't think that most who claim that they are strong Hillary supporters yet won't vote for Barack will actually carry through with their threats. Many voters still don't know much about Obama, and many don't know as much as they should about McCain. It's a long way until the conventions, and a longer way still until the election. There's plenty of time to educate the vast majority of voters who didn't participate in the caucuses and primaries. I suspect that as time goes on, Barack will get stronger and McCain will get weaker. The vast majority of Democrats will support the nominee because he's much closer to their views on a host of issues than is McCain.

Perhaps by noon January 20, 2009 this time of inverted Clausewitzian logic will be looked back upon as an aberration. At least, that's my hope.

Thanks for reading my essay. I welcome your comments.

 Just as its Killed Thousands of Americans and Iraqis, the War Will Kill McCain's Candidacy

If McCain's speech had been advertised as some sort of sardonic parody of the alleged vacuousness of Barack Obama's "Change-Without-Specifics" campaign, it would have been spot-on, as a parody at least.

But this was, apparently, intended as a serious proclamation about, uhmm, ahhh,...the State of the Union, circa 2013, I guess.

It was sort of a Quantum Leap speech: we are here; in 2013 we will be there. The intervening time period gets conveniently ignored. Absolutely not a single word about we get from here to there---literally not a word!

I think Conason is correct when he suspects this speech was an attempt at inoculating McCain from the "vision-thing" issue that plagued Bush 1 during his re-election campaign. But the attempt was so clumsy, so cornball, so lacking in content, as to be nothing but ridiculous, or, better yet, pathetic.

The most telling line in the speech was, "The United States maintains a military presence there,..." It emphasizes how McCain is still stuck on some sort of WWII mentality regarding the Iraq Intervention. We stayed in Germany and Japan for decades after the war ended; therefore, we do the same in Iraq.

Except Iraq didn't attack Pearl Harbor or invade Poland and France and bomb London. Iraq's government certainly wasn't a pretty picture, but, essentially, all Iraq did was BE THERE.

Until McCain understands and articulates the grievous error that the Iraq Intervention was and is, he is hopelessly trapped in the tiger cage of being nothing more than Bush 3---something neither Republicans nor Democrats are going to inflict upon themselves again.

MyBlog:  ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Where are all the so-called liberals and progressives hiding when Mr. Integrity, Barack Obama, plays the God-Card in Kentucky with the campaign flyer with the Candidate posed in FRONT OF A CROSS!!! is being distributed officially by his campaign.

Now that he's decided to join the Reagan-Bush-Falwell-Hagee-Robertson clique by injecting religion into the campaign--and a specific religion at that (christianity)--Obama becomes just another pol.

And he's also opened the door for the Media to trot out good ole Rev. Wright to do a jig whenever they, the Media, think it may pop their ratings a bit---not to mention the opening this gives the Republicans.

Barack's chosen to live by the cross, and now his candidacy is threatened to be crucified thereon.

MyBlog:  ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

There's a new poster in the Hillary store, linked from the front page of hillaryclinton.com:
http://www.hillarystore.com/store/HC0925.html
Larger, if you can handle it:http://store.hillarystore.com/i/li/HRC-2.jpg

Don't stare at it too long, I think there's a hypnotoad effect.  
More seriously, have they never seen posters of Chairman Mao before?  A common motif had rays of sun behind him:
http://www.chinabooks.com/cart/files/t_19424.jpg
http://www.iisg.nl/~landsberger/images/mzd04.jpg

It's common enough to show up in things like this:http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101050627,00.html
or this:http://www.livingstonbuzz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/screen-bill.mao-newsweek.jpg

WTF?   

If we are going to talk about appeasement then surely we should consider the words of the principal opponent of the appeasement policy within Chamberlin's own party - Winston Churchill.

It was not who Chamberlin spoke to that bothered Churchill but what he said. Specifically Churchill objected to giving Hitler half of Czechoslovakia in return for a promise of 'peace'.


Obama has justifiably called out McCain for breaking his pledge on civility 'so much for civility'. He should also call out the Administration for having its spokespeople deny that Obama was the target in public, while saying the opposite in private, off the record briefings. So much for straight talk.

According to Bush (and therefore, McCain), we are fighting the good fight in the Middle East in order to protect "our freedom".

Didn't we already have a fight for our freedom back in the 1700's?  And didn't we win it?

How is "our freedom" a factor in Iraq?  Are the people in Iraq trying to overtake us? 

Seems to me that the only ones attacking "our freedom" are the Republicans currently in office.

Another one bites the dust according to the Baltimore Sun:

Alan B. Fabian, a Maryland entrepreneur, philanthropist and former Republican fundraiser, pleaded guilty Friday in Baltimore federal court to a multiyear scheme that the government says defrauded banks and businesses of at least $32 million.

"This is a massive fraud," U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett said several times during the two-hour arraignment.

Something interesting or odd is happening, the Clinton campaign has been extremely quite lately...
I don't know if anyone has noticed but the media have entirely ignored Clinton...
What do you think?

Xenophobia and false patriotism.  They're lining up for it again.  They're goose-stepping right up to that line.

The first shots have been fired and there will be many, many more to come.  It is going to get disgusting.  It is going to get very, very ugly.

Fortunately, it appears that we have enough momentum to overcome it this time.  And I have some hope that finally enough people will open their eyes to this nonsense that we can really make a difference.  My infallible cynicism is at risk here :)

But wait... maybe it isn't.  As sure as the sun will set tomorrow, when the Dems get the Presidency & a vast majority in Congress the temptation to go right back to '92 will be immense.  It will take one hell of a strong Prez to make sure that doesn't happen.  At this point I think Obama is strong enough.  He may disappoint, though.

And to think I used to have a decent opinion of Mr. McCain.

When President Bush attacked presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama before the Israeli Knesset for his determination to engage America’s enemies, he triggered a fierce response from Democrats. The responses ranged from outrage at the President’s willingness to use foreign policy as a political cudgel beyond the waters edge to substantive disagreement based on the President’s foreign policy failures in the Middle East and beyond. What was missing from the early rounds of this political battle was a recognition that the President was attacking both Obama’s foreign policy and, to a large degree, his own.

 

Despite the President’s rhetoric and an understandable tendency to view his approach to diplomacy through the prism of Iraq, a more considered analysis of his record illustrates a significant contradiction between the President’s own language, including the recent speech in Israel, and his administration’s record.

 

Consider that at the very time Mr. Bush was speaking to the Knesset, his Special Advisor to Sudan, Richard Williamson, was preparing to travel to Geneva for normalization discussions with the Sudanese government, a regime that has been accused of genocide in Darfur and of acting as a state sponsor of terrorism.

 

The President did not seem to grasp the inconsistency of criticizing diplomacy while sending his envoy to meet with the Sudanese with the intent to end the Darfur genocide through diplomacy.

 

Mr. Williamson’s efforts, which have raised the hopes among many of the U.S. groups seeking to end the killing in Darfur is only the latest in a long line of situations where a President desirous of self-caricature as a cowboy, has shown a willingness to engage rogue regimes.

 

The Bush administration successfully practiced quiet diplomacy with the Libyan government of Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi over a four-year period, leading to the normalization of relations with a country that had spent a number of years on the state sponsors of terrorism list. Issues ranging from terrorism to weapons of mass destruction were negotiated by the U.S. State Department.

 

The State Department has also taken the lead in negotiations with the human rights abusing regime of Kim Jong-il, and has held out the carrot of normal relations if critical issues in the nuclear weapons and terror arena are resolved.

 

Furthermore, even as the President was wading into the election debate, his own Defense Secretary was engaged in discussions with Iran. Mr. Gates was appointed to replace the flawed Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, in part, because of his role in the Iraq Study Group. At his confirmation hearing Mr. Gates’ noted that:

 

“[Regarding] any problems that we have with Iran, our first option should be diplomacy and working with our allies to try and deal with the problems that Iran is posing to us. Military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic. And therefore, I would counsel against military action, except as a last resort and if we felt that our vital interests were threatened….”

 

The significant gap between the rhetoric used by President Bush and the reality of his administration’s actions should not be a surprise. The administration is staffed with professionals such as Gates who are committed to securing the U.S. national interest. These individuals are able to carry out important work in the shadows well away from the political glare. Unfortunately they have to do so without the benefit of the President’s bully pulpit; the President seems comfortable with his officials using diplomacy but, for political reasons, he does not want to support such efforts publicly.

 

The problem with such a divide is that it forces America’s best diplomats, individuals such as chief North Korea advisor Christopher Hill, to work with one hand tied behind their back.

 

And that seems to be the core of the argument between the President and Senator Obama. The President seems willing to limit White House support for American diplomatic efforts in order to ensure that he is perceived domestically, for political purposes, to be a unilateralist.

 

In complete contrast, Senator Obama seems to believe that the U.S. President must use the White House to drive diplomatic initiatives because it is good policy. The presumptive Democratic nominee is of course betting that the American public rewards him for his smart policy in the political arena; ironically the man he is looking to replace seems intent on highlighting his mistakes and hiding his successes. 

Yesterday, Ben Smith’s blog at Politico described a group of Hillary Clinton supporters who say they’ll work actively against Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee.  They argue that Clinton has been the subject of “intense sexism” by party leaders and the media, and they say that the growing calls for Clinton to leave the race make women feel like “we’re being told to sit down, shut up, and get with the program.”

Of course, they don’t accuse Obama of sexism but apparently that is beside the point.  I guess someone has to pay for their anger.  The unfortunate reality is that both Clinton and Obama have had to deal with hateful bigotry during the campaign, and there are people who will not vote for each of them because of their gender or color. 

However, I reject the premise that the calls for Hillary to leave the race are based on her gender.  She is losing the race based on delegate count, and her only chance is coup by superdelegate.  I especially reject the presumption of this group of Clinton supporters to speak on behalf of women about how we feel about the race.  I am a woman who has been a feminist my entire adult life, and my decision to not support Clinton is based on her actions, especially her Iraq War vote and her aggressive stance toward Iran.  Even so, if Clinton had shown herself to be a reflective person capable of reassessing her positions, I might have thought differently of her.  

Instead, the longer the Democratic primary goes on, the more concerned I become about Hillary Clinton’s intransigence with regards to the Democratic nomination.  I understand that many of her supporters admire her for her fighting spirit and her willingness to play hardball, and she certainly must be admired for her fortitude and conviction.  But at some point, this “never say never” mentality is something to be questioned rather than applauded.

Haven’t we learned from our experience with George W. Bush that an absolute unwavering resolve in the face of all facts and reason may not be a good thing?  Frankly, I see an alarming similarity between Hillary Clinton’s determination to “win” the Democratic nomination and George W. Bush’s determination to “win” the war in Iraq:

1.  Both Clinton and Bush do not seem to be able to accept defeat because they are both convinced of their moral superiority. They even acknowledge that they are driven by a higher cause.  In Clinton’s case, she KNOWS that she is the better candidate and the only one who can defeat the Republicans in the fall.  As such, she must do whatever it takes to save the party from the hypnotic fog that has blinded the Democratic voters to the inexperience and emptiness of the Obama candidacy.  In the case of Bush, we all know about his absolute belief in the righteousness of the Iraq War.  He is the messenger of God who must continue the fight against the evil doers who hate us for our freedom.  It doesn’t matter how the war is going or how many Americans or Iraqis have died, the war is necessary to save us from some vaguely-defined but ever-present danger.

2.  Both Clinton and Bush have continued to change the metrics that define success as their crusades have faltered.  In Clinton’s case, her campaign has presented ever changing and creative methods for determining how victory should be measured.  First, it was the big states that mattered, then the blue states, then the working-class states, then the popular vote, then it was really a Republican-style winner-take-all model, then it was up to the super-delegates, and finally is appears to be an electability issue based on polls and selective demographics.  In Bush’s case, the reasons to go to war were first WMDs, then Saddam Hussein and his al-Qaeda connections, then freedom for the Iraqis, then to destroy terrorism, then to make sure that American servicemen and women had not died in vain, then…well, it doesn’t matter.  It will be the next president’s problem.  

3.  Both Clinton and Bush approach their ongoing battles with an “us vs them” mentality.  Clinton defectors are portrayed by her surrogates as traitors or guilty of betrayal (i.e. Bill Richardson, NARAL).  And when Clinton was pushing her proposal for a gas tax holiday, she told her fellow members of Congress that you are either “with us or against us”.  Aren’t we all tired of such rhetoric after years of hearing it come from Bush and his strongmen?  In order to silence dissent in the lead up to war, the American people and the rest of the world were given the ultimatum that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”.  Such talk has continued ever since as a way to discredit critics and to promote nationalistic “unity”.

At a time when George Bush is widely disliked and distrusted, why has Hillary Clinton been emulating his political style and demonstrating a rules-don’t-apply-to-me attitude that is suggestive of Bush’s assertion of expanded executive power?  I find such similarities to be troubling and, in fact, Clinton’s behavior during the past several months has been a strong factor in my increasing support for Barack Obama.  Obama was not my first or even second choice at the beginning of the primary, but his respectful, inclusive, and inspiring message in the face of Clinton’s increasingly un-democratic and hostile campaign tactics has made me feel that Obama is the right choice for the country.  This is not to say that I will support Obama blindly since I don’t believe that any candidate should be trusted completely.  There are too many pressures from the ever-present lobbyists and the big-money special interests.  With Obama, however, there is at least the chance that he will listen to the will of the people and represent our interests.  With Clinton, this doesn’t appear likely.

You know, it just hit me earlier today in the car, something I had written and said several times up to the point we are today in the presidential primary.
And it strikes me funny that more people didn't think this way.
I'm not particularly keen on Clinton, like many people here, but in the end, like a smart democrat, I would vote for her and campaign against McCain. To elaborate, I am not sure how much I could campaign for Hillary, but all my energy would be spent making sure she got elected. There's the other side of the fence: anti-McCain.

Why didn't more people think of that rather than all this self-defeating "If O/C doesn't get the nomination instead of C/O, I'm going to vote for McCain" nonsense?

John Paul Stevens
Born April 20, 1920 (age 87)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Born March 15, 1933 (age 75)

Antonin Scalia
Born March 11, 1936 (age 72)

Anthony Kennedy
Born July 23, 1936 (age 71)

Stephen Breyer
Born August 15, 1938 (age 69)

David Souter
Born September 17, 1939 (age 68)

Clarence Thomas
Born June 23, 1948 (age 59)

Samuel Alito
Born April 1, 1950 (age 57)

John Roberts
Born January 27, 1955 (age 53)

Earlier today, I received from the Clinton Campaign about MI and FL. Yes, I am an Obama supporter and delegate from Alabama, but I do receive messages from the other side to see what they have to say. Anyway when I received the email, I was shocked when I read it. Here's the text of the email:



Dear LaKeisha,

Millions of voters in Florida and Michigan are depending on you to help make sure they have a voice in this race. Will you stand up for them today?

Thanks to your efforts, thanks to the hundreds of thousands of people who have already spoken out, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting May 31 to make a decision about whether or not the votes in Michigan and Florida will count.

Now I need you to urge the DNC to make the right decision on May 31. I need you to remind them that in the Democratic Party, we count every vote.

Tell the Democratic National Committee to count the votes of Florida and Michigan.

On May 31, the DNC has a chance to make it clear that the people of Florida and Michigan have a voice in our party. The decision is especially critical given the important role these states will play in November.

And your voice could make the difference for the millions of people who went to the polls in those two states to make their choice for president.

Stand with me today and tell the DNC to count the votes in Florida and Michigan.

I have consistently said that every vote must count. It is such an important principle in our party. I really appreciate you standing up for the values we share.

Thank you,


Hillary Rodham Clinton

This email prompted me to send a note to the DNC myself separate from what Hillary Clinton wanted to say.  This is what I said:

As a Young Democrat who is also a delegate, I want to express my opinion about the Florida and Michigan delegation. As a former resident of Florida, I understand the importance of carrying Florida as well as Michigan in the GE, but I do understand rules and regulations. I think that a deal that would be sufficient for everyone. To seat the entire delegation would basically say to the other states that it's ok to defy the rules of the DNC, and not be punished. I think it's wrong for one candidate who vowed to stick with decision and suddenly when it suits them, to change the rules. This is unfair to the other states that abide by the rules. On May 31st, a decision must be made. One that is fair to MI and FL, but upholds the rules that were agreed to. I never understood the rules of the DNC or how primaries and caucuses were scheduled or how even how delegates were chosen, but I know now. I think this should be fair and unbiased. Not favoring one candidate over the other. Thanks for hearing me out.

No, really. Keep it up.

Has anyone else noticed this emerging pattern?

1. Bush attacks Obama.
2. Obama retorts, and makes Bush look stupid.
3. McCain is forced to defend Bush.

The key to defeating McCain in the general election is going to be to maintain the perception that McCain represents a third Bush term. This pattern only reinforces that perception.

Despite President Bush's abysmal approval rating, McCain enjoys a relatively good perception right now. If Obama can keep baiting Bush into getting involved in the campaign, not only can he keep linking the two Republicans together, but he can also direct the dialogue of the campaign.

The only way this would be easier is if McCain were Bush's veep.

By Nathan Henderson-James

Partisan efforts to keep up to 300,000 eligible Missouri citizens, mostly progressive-leaning voters from elderly and low-income demographics but also including such large blocks as married women, permanently off the voting rolls are coming to a head in the Missouri Senate today as the Legislature prepares to adjourn. Measures not passed by that time will die, pending the Governor calling a special session.

Voting rights and progressive activists, led by Missourians for Fair Elections are fighting back and report an extremely tough but increasingly winnable fight against what the Kansas City Star is calling a "real deception...being perpetrated by legislators, whose claims of fraud are driving what appears to be a political agenda".

Robin Carnahan, Missouri's Secretary of State, and an opponent of the measure, HJR 48 - which would amend Missouri's constitution to require proof of citizenship to register and vote, will be holding a press conference today in Kansas City to point out the partisan agenda behind this measure.

As previously reported in these diaries from last Friday, Monday,  and yesterday, Missouri politicians are pushing a measure to change the state constitution to allow strict voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements. This was prompted by a 2006 Missouri Supreme Court ruling that struck down a strict voter ID bill as unconstitutional.

Local Missouri activists expect that Secretary of State Carnahan will emphasize the following points in her press conference today:

*Missourians have already been through this in 2006 and our identification requirements in Missouri are fine, and they work – we have
fair elections without fraud and people are allowed to vote.  There’s no need to take the drastic step of altering our constitution just so that restrictive measures that suppress votes can be imposed on voters.

*In 2006, a more restrictive photo ID law was passed that was ruled unconstitutional because it was a burden and poll tax on voters, so now the Republicans just want to change the constitution to strip away voting rights protections.

Reports from officials with Missourians for Fair Elections suggest that the field work and wave of publicity and editorials from across the state are having the effect of exposing the partisan nature of this campaign while putting pressure on Senate leadership to refuse to consider the measure before the Senate adjourns.

Using flyers and door-to-door canvasses to generate on-the-spot calls to specific legislators, MFE has been able to to generate an unprecedented number of calls on this issue, which seem to be limiting the number of Senators willing to stop a potential filibuster of this measure and facilitating the disenfranchisement of poor, elderly, and low-income citizens.

For more information on this urgent work and how you can get invovled, contact Missourians for Fair Elections at mofairelections@gmail.com or 314-363-5571.

UPDATE: Members of the Missouri Catholic community have expressed grave concerns that citizens in the state, including religious sisters, will be unjustly denied their right to vote if this misguided bill passes. The Sisters of Mercy released a public statement today:

   

"We are deeply concerned that legislation of this kind has severe unintended consequences that present substantial barriers for all citizens to exercise their political and moral responsibilities. We strongly urge all citizens in Missouri to contact their representatives and ask them to vote against this measure," said Sr. Jane Hotstream, RSM, president of the St. Louis Regional Community of the Sisters of Mercy.

UPDATE II - VICTORY!

Below is the press release from Missourians for Fair Elections celebrating the failure of HJR 48 and its photo ID and proof of citizenship requirements.

MFE has been tireless in their opposition to this voter disenfranchisement effort. Their work featured an innovative phone and field program that generated literally thousands of calls from voter who identified as both Democrats and Republicans to important legislators in opposition to this measure.

They were also able to generate blanket media coverage in the state and important progressive media on the national stage. All the major and many of the minor newspapers in the state editorialized against the proposed amendment.

The combined that work with inside work in Jefferson City contacting elected officials directly about the measure and pressing their opposition to it.

And it all paid off as HJR 48 failed to be called for a vote before the session ended at 6PM CDT today.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – May 16, 2008
Contact: Laura Egerdal, Missourians for Fair Elections, 314-363-5571
Julie Terbrock, Missourians for Fair Elections, 314-660-3843

Proposed Photo ID Legislation Failed
Constitutional Change to Restrict Voting Rights Faced Groundswell of Opposition from Across the State

JEFFERSON CITY, MO – In a victory for all voters, Missouri lawmakers ended this year’s legislative session without a final vote on legislation that could have prevented up to 240,000 Missourians from voting. The proposed change would have altered Missouri’s constitution, allowing for strict citizenship and government-issued photo ID requirements that would make Missouri one of the toughest states in the country for eligible, law-abiding citizens to register to vote or cast a ballot.

"I am relieved that I will be able to vote this fall," said Lillie Lewis, a St. Louis city resident, "I’ve been voting in every election since I can remember, but if I needed my birth certificate, that would be the end
of that. I hope this is the last we hear of this nonsense." Lillie Lewis was born in Mississippi, but the state sent her a letter stating they have no record of her birth.

Birdell Owen, a Missouri resident who was displaced by hurricane Katrina, also voiced her relief. "I should be able to participate in my democracy," she said, "even if Louisiana can’t get me a copy of my birth certificate. I’m glad Missouri politicians had the sense to protect my right to vote."

As the bill began to move, a broad coalition of groups and voters across the state worked to educate citizens and legislators about the negative impact of such policy changes on real voters. Missourians for Fair Elections reports over 4,200 calls were made to lawmakers in the past two weeks urging them to not consider this legislation. Catholic organizations, such as the Franciscan Sisters of Saint Mary, and the
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas issued statements voicing deep concerns with the legislation. The AARP, League of Women Voters, labor organizations, disability advocates, community organizations and progressive leaders worked around the clock for the past two weeks to make sure the concerns of Missouri voters were heard.

In 2006, despite serious opposition from voting rights experts, election officials and voters, the Missouri legislature passed an overly-restrictive photo ID measure that was later found unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court because it amounted to a poll tax and Missouri’s current identification requirements are sufficient. This year’s proposed legislation would have altered the constitution in an attempt to allow restrictive voting laws to pass constitutional muster. Such restrictive laws include government-issued photo ID and proof of citizenship requirements to register to vote and to vote.

Kathleen Weinschenk, of Columbia, Missouri, has been fighting to protect her right to vote, and that of others, since 2006. She has cerebral palsy, and doesn’t drive because of her disability. Without a birth certificate from Arkansas, she cannot get a Missouri photo ID. Kathleen is elated that the constitution will not be changed to prohibit her from voting. "Today, freedom rings," she said.

Outside counsel are worried. They believe someone has evidence of war crimes. Unfortuantely, they are not able to explain how that evidence was obtained, gleaned or developed.
This makes no comment if there is or is not admissible evidence the White House and FBI coordinated on the contacts with the Wecht Jury members; nor whether that evidence has or has not been lawfully suppressed. Speculation Cannot Compel Evidence Nor do we respond to any demand that any evidence that may exist is or is not something that must be provided. The government must prove that the evidence, which it does not know about, was or was not lawfully or unlawfully obtained. Defense counsel and the government cannot, on assertion alone, make the claim that it knows the evidence linking the White House to the Wecht Jury members was or was not illegally obtained, nor which war crimes prosecutor has that information under seal. The American civilian population is not obliged to continue supporting this government. Our legal obligation is only to the US Constitution, not this reckless abuse of power. No American is required to meet an irrelevant burden to present evidence when the Attorney General has a stated policy not to provide evidence to Congress, much less enforce the law. If the Attorney General provides evidence to Congress, perhaps the American public might considering that information before deciding to change their mind over whether the United States government is or isn't implicated with illegal jury contacts. FOIA reporting requirements mandate a response within days. The House Judiciary Committee has asked for, but not received a response from the Attorney General related to White House involvement with the Wecht Trial. The Attorney General has not provided an explanation why he has not complied with his statutory requirement. If the Attorney General had nothing to provide, he could say, as required by statute within 30 days, "I have nothing." He has a legal requirement. He has not met his burden. Adverse Inferences Where there is missing information, as is the case in re Wecht Jury-FBI contacts and the White House involvement, it is permissible to make adverse inferences: That there is an open question as to the White House involvement with those FBI agent contacts with Wecht Jury Members. Appearance of Criminal Nexus The Department of Defense information warfare documents clearly show at 119 White House and law enforcement on the same page when conducting information warfare. If this nexus of crime-fraud is proven to the court, that could deny the President and legal counsel of an attorney-client privilege. We leave for another day whether DoJ OLC or White House counsel are or are not the President's counsel or protected by any privilege. Government Facilities Have No Standing To Claim Damages The White House is a building, it is not a person. As a physical object, it has no legal standing to claim damages. Anyone may say, "The White House has committed war crimes." It is understood the White House, as a building, cannot wage war. The United States may not prosecute anyone for expressing their opinion, view, conclusion, or determination that the White House is involved with illegal domestic information warfare. Plain Meaning Implicate and incriminate are not conditioned upon evidence. They are associations.
implicate: to bring into intimate or incriminating connection; to involve in the nature or operation of something Consider "incriminate," where the key word is "appear": incriminate: "To cause to appear guilty of a crime or fault"

No standard of evidence applies to an appearance. There is no requirement that anyone have any tangible evidence for there to appear to be a connection, or for there to appear to be a connection between the White House, the FBI, and improper Jury contacts. Admissible Evidence Only Required In Court Evidence is only required at trial to prove the connection was real. However, anyone can, if close enough, be implicated. The question is whether there is a basis to charge that person with a crime. That is a separate issue, as are the claims of damages for a false accusation of a crime. This government has not met its burden showing it can be trusted. The White House, as a building or structure, is not the same as the United States, and has no legal standing. Appearances Satisfy the Elements, Out of Court, to Implicate White House in Alleged Illegal FBI Wecht Jury Contacts There is a difference between a legal standard linking someone with a crime; and a general appearance of a crime. The latter, by definition, is is opinion; the former, the is a burden of proof on the government. The latter is subjective and subject to opinion or public debate; the former is specific, concrete, provable or not provable in court. Anyone near an alleged criminal enterprise can be implicated. The question turns on whether they are being formally charged with a crime with evidence; or whether they are believed to have the appearance of being involved. That latter would prompt an investigation; the former is the result of an investigation. Before we can evaluate the degree to which there is admissible evidence linking by-name White House counsel with the Wecht Jury members and FBI agents, we must consider whther there is an open mind to answer that question: Is there evidence of what appears to be true. We're not there yet. Closed Minded To Starting investigation of Alleged White House Counsel Connection To FBI Contacts With Wecht Juror Interviews The government has the appearance of not acting in good faith. That is not a legal standard, but an appearance-standard linked with a fair comment about the White House being implicated with improper jury contacts. Some would ask that we have a burden of evidence to justify considering the possibilty that the White House was involved. That defies reason. One must consider the appearance of something, then be open minded to evidence that may or may not support or refute that appearance. It is curious, without evidence, some would argue that there is no reason to consider the possibility that the White House counsel was fully coordinating with the Department of Justice on these FBI contacts with homre jurors. Despite 119, some refuse to believe the White House staff names are on emails linking the White House with the Presidents information warfare against civilians through domestic propaganda. It makes little sense they'll have an open mind to the appearance of illegalities. Why do some spend energy insulating the President from "undue" oversight, but they might subject those who observe the appearance of impropriety as something that warrants explanation. Arguably, those who make excuses to do nothing despite the appearances of impropriety have the problem. Our job as oversight is not to explain our interest in gathering additional evidence; but to compel others to justify their lack of interest in the appearance. The excuses defy reason. 
Perhaps they have something more interesting to do other than defending the Constitution against reckless DOJ Staff counsel who are allegedly attached with war crimes. Perhaps the excuse of the day is that outside civilian counsel, not connected with the government, have a concern that information publicly available, but not understood, allegedly attaches those civilian counsel to those war crimes. We have before us several lines of evidence substantially supporting the appearance of White House involvement. There are many lines of evidence supporting adverse inferences related to this nexus: 1. The information warfare guidance at III-4 showing the DOD, DoJ, local law enforcement, and White House highly coordinating the actions. 2. The DOJ OLC legal memoranda giving a green light to illegal activity 3. The DOJ's stated policy not to enforce the laws of war, US Constitution, or other legal requirements when DOJ OLC memoranda "permit" that activity. 4. The disclosed DOJ OLC memoranda used to justify war crimes, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, and other war crimes. 5. The US Attorney Ethics Issues showing evidence of White House involvement with DoJ personnel who did not support the President's non-prosecutorial agenda 6. The Stated DoD policy to ensure there were convictions from Guantanamo, and no acquittals; substantially matching the appearance of a similar policy in re Wecht: Ensure no acquittal, through the FBI home interviews; 7. Inexplicable reasons for how the US Attorney obtained the juror names; creating the appearance of illegal activity, and White House awareness of an effort to transfer information from the Judicial Branch to the FBI and US Attorney; 8. DoD emails showing White House involvement with domestic information warfare at 119 creating the appearance the President views civilians as cattle to be milked of information;
9. FBI abuse of NSLS to contact people, collect information, and engage in fishing trips; creating the appearance they might do the same with Jurors, but fabricate a story should they get caught. 
The US Attorney's statements appear non-sensical, and appears as though the FBI did not anticipate the jurors might discuss these contacts the court did not intend. 10. DoD Emails showing at 82 a White House-connected contractor linked with DoD public affairs re CIFA, but this name was redacted; this creates the appearance the White House would like to hide its connection with domestic use of government resources to conduct intelligence gathering against American civilians; 11. The release of statements from the US Attorney saying she "authorized," the FBI to do something, yet the US Attorney has no legal authority over the FBI. She only has power to prosecute. 
The FBI falls under the direction of the FBI director, not the Office of US Attorneys; this creates the impression that she is taking responsibility for a decision made above her. 
Yet, once we include the court and the required access to court information, it appears the US Attorney alone would not have final authority to approve this data transfer from the Judicial Branch to the Executive Department. It appears, as with the US Attorney firings, the White House would have to be involved, aware, and coordinated as has been disclosed in the DOD emails in re military analysts. 12. The US Attorney Firing Emails showing white House and DOJ Staff involvement, communication, and discussion with the office of public affairs; creating the impression that anytime there is a significant legal issue, the DOJ OLC well coordinates this with the White House public affairs, legal, and political office. It appears the DOJ Staff decision to say "no comment" <i>after</i> the US Attorney made fatal assertions is related to a discussion DoJ OLC and white House counsel had about the problem with inconsistent statement attached to public issues. 13. The DOJ Staff counsel policy of "no comment" on the Wecht case, despite the US Attorney allegedly making reckless statements through others about the Jury deliberations. It appears they're not on the same sheet of music because the White House and FBI did not anticipate a public discussion or questions about the jury contacts. 14. DoJ-issued non-sense that post-trial contact with jurors is normal, while they knew or should have known that the juror names were sealed; and that post-trial contacts, after the jurors are released, is not permitted. It appears this is a hastily developed plan to explain away a legl issue because the US Attorney cannot adequately explain how it had the names of any juror members; and it appears the US Attorney has lied when they said, "We derived that name from the potential juorr." That defies reason and appears to be materially misleading, with the White House consent and coordination. It appears the US Attorney, FBI, and White House are lying. The FBI claims they only contacted one juror. It defies reason that DOJ, in contacting only one juror would get the wrong acquittal-conviction result. 
Contrary to the real hung jury result, where the majority were learning to acquit, the US Attorney would have us believe they contacted only one juror from this potential juror list, picked the wrong name, and got the wrong information, but never spoke to anyone else to corroborate any information. It appears that defies reason and normal FBI approaches to evaluate the credibility and reliability of a witness, before passing that information to others. It appears the White House decided the (wrong) jury conclusion, and approved the misstatement to the media. If the White House would like to remove any speculation about this cloud hanging over it and the Office of Vice President, it may provide the information showing it is not involved. However, the US Attorney General has not responded. That failure to respond, when there is a legal requirement to respond, may be entered into evidence in the forum of public opinion as an appearance of corruption. Appearances It appears the same crew which coordinated the US Attorney firings, thought it could get away with getting access to a sealed juror list. How they obtained that list is less important than confronting the core problem: They knew or should have known that once that list was sealed, any effort to attempt to contact those jurors at home would require actions, complex coordination, and other things which the court did not intend. It appears they contacted jurors, got caught, then used non-sensical reasons to explain their actions, how they obtained the names. It appears this confusion could not be something the White House was unaware, especially on a high profile case. It also appears the US Attorney has issued statements recklessly to the public with the knowlege that that information about jury polls was not accurate, and it appears the intent of the US Attorneys communication about the jury votes was not designed to serve a lawful purpose. Prosecutor may only issue statements along very narrow criteria. It appears the US Attorney knew it was impermissible to issue through others these statements because the statements were qualified. However, those exceptions permitting post-trial contact do not apply in this case, as the Attorney Standards of Conduct show. It's not the job of the civilian population to justify to anyone why the United States has an appearance of incompetence: That incompetence is oozing from every pore of the Oval Office and DOJ OLC legal counsel staff. We have alleged war crimes, and the DOJ OLC staff acts as if nothing is going to happen. That has the appearance of incompetence, not to mention the failure to timely respond to the FOIAs on that alleged incompetence. We need not speculate why there has been no lawful confrontation: There is the appearance the Department of Justice employees have thrown their hat into the ring of tyranny, and it appears they have put their loyalty to illegal war crimes before their legal obligation to the Constitution, Geneva, and Nuremberg precedents. They appear to be alleged war criminals, and appear to have no credible defense as was the case at Nuremberg. Even if civilians did have evidence of any illegal activity, what good would it do to share that evidence of war crimes, or evidence of outside counsel complicity with illegal abuse of power in violation of Geneva? The American government is not inclined to listen, but retaliate. This is the burden of the defense to present in court; but their action, inaction, or evidentiary challenge cannot wipe clean the slate depicting the appearance the White House counsel well knows it has a problem: It no longer has credibility, nor is it immune to reasonable doubts. It also appears the FBI agents were not taking direction from the US Attorney, as stated, but they were acting under authority of the FBI director. It remains to be understood who worked with the Attorney General and Office of US Attorneys office to coordinate the transfer of information from the FBI interviews to the US Attorney; and facilitated discussions between DOJ OLC and the US Attorney to ensure the FBI interviews were probing for the desired information. As the US Attorney firing emails show, it appears the White House staff was fully involved with this planning, transfer, and guidance within the Department of Justice. Yet, despite the FBI interviews, the US Attorney got the vote backwards, incorrectly communicating a majority voted to support conviction. Putting aside this is in error, misleading, and irrelevant point, this defies reason. It appears the purpose of the FBI interview had nothing to do with providing anyone outside the Department of Justice reliable information, but to understand how they might affect juries. There is no evidence required to form an adverse inference about whether the White House has or has not been implicated. The definition of an adverse inference is an unfavorable deduction, where there is no evidence. By definition, there is no evidence. To absurdly argue there "must" be evidence warranting an appearance of criminal activity defies reason. It cannot be argued the White House is not implicated in the alleged illegal jury tampering.
The narrow question is why the burden of proof has shifted from the Attorney General in re his lack of FOIA response to other parties. It is the lack of evidence, which the government will not provide, as they are legally required, that forms the basis for a reasonable conclusion that there is the appearance of a criminal enterprise. 
How this is or is not invoked by counsel to pierce the attorney-client privilege is one for defense counsel and Congress to wrestle. They have the power to start an investigation, but want overwhelming evidence before they might consider the possibility that an appearance of an impeachment might be warranted. That approach to starting an investigation defies reason. Fortunately for us, they cannot hide from public discourse. There is no legal requirement for anyone to provide any evidence to assert that there is a nexus when the nexus is self-evident, nor prove that the White House appears to be connected to that Nexus. That is subjective. That evidence is not related to whether or not there is or is not an appearance. However, the White House is beyond merely "appearing" to be connected to this nexus. It is the nexus. The DoD documents show, as depicted at 119 the White House and law enforcement are engaged in domestic information warfare. The White House spokesman, State Department, NSC, and other senior Administration officials are known to have been highly involved with this planning. There is no disputing there is a White House email showing the White House involvement with the US Attorney firings or the DoD information warfare against American civilians. See 119 The Department of Justice has not responded to simple requests for information. They have a legal requirement to respond, but refuse. They have not met their burden. An adverse inference is warranted about the White House and DOJ involvement with the Wecht Jury: There is the appearance of improper White House and DOJ involvement with the Wecht Jury members. That appearance satisifies the definition to implicate the White House, and argue there is the appearance the White House actively orchestrated the interviews, managed the media messages, and was involved with information warfare against the Wecht Jurors. Whether the White House can be proven to be conneced with that activity is unrelated to the issue of an appearance of a connection.
We have well met the burden showing there is a reasonable basis to assert there is more than an appearance of criminal activity, and have gone well beyond what would be expected to show there is the appearance the White House and DOJ have allegedly illegally tampered with this jury. We have met the plain meaning rule showing it is reasonable to forcefully argue the White House has been implicated in the alleged illegal Wecht Jury tampering. It is irrelevant whether there is or is not admissible evidence supporting or refuting that appearance.
Adverse Inferences For Failure To Understand Jury Tampering Juries and fact finders reviewing war crimes issues must be free from threat. The US must show its judicial system is independent. Without that showing, other nations may prosecute these alleged war crimes. The White House must be investigated to examine the appearance of its involvement in information warfare against the Wecht Jury members.
There is an ongoing war crimes investigation through the Italian war crimes prosecutor. These prosecutors have issued arrest warrants for senior US government officials in the Department of Defense and CIA. The President has abused NSLs, FISA, and the US Constitution. He has a known interest in meddling with DoJ-connected affairs using NLS, blocking DOJ OPR. That appears to satisfy the connection between the FBI, White House, and contacts with civilians. The personnel on these DoD emails link to the intelligence community, CIFA, and White House email contractors. That appears to satisfy the connection between information warfare, the FBI, and the White House. The President sent the signal to FBI agents that they can lie to the FISA court. There is an adversarial relationship between the courts and the President. That would tend to satisfy the appearance of a connection between the White House and efforts to do things the court has not permitted, or expressly denied. The issue isn't that there's "no evidence," but the opposite: It appears to be an easier job to list those who might not be connected with this expansive nexus of information warfare directed at American civilians, jury members, and passive observers of these alleged war crimes. The burden is on the Attorney General to provide the response to Congress. He is not responsive. The House Judiciary has issued contempt citations against Miers. Also, Barlet's name at 119 was on the list of people who received information warfare emails. The public has no requirement to outline a discovery plan of the DOJ JCON database. Nor does the public have to gather any information, evidence, nor provide information how they are able to track information between two different computers. If the Attorney General would like to respond and provide confidence that there is no problem, that is his choice. In the meantime, we've well met the burden required to form the conclusion that there is an appearance (implication) that the White House was involved with the FBI contacts with Wecht Jurors at their home. The government has provided no reasonable assurances that the contact was proper; or that the President was out of the loop on information transfers, nor unaware of how the FBI was or was not being used for information warfare involving citizens working with the Judicial branch. The President has openly admitted that he ignored the FISA court, established new legal procedures, relied on defective DOJ OLC memoranda, blocked the DOJ OPR from reviewing the NSA violations. This President does not have a stellar record. His Attorney General resigned in disgrace, partly over allegations he lied to the Senate. This President's legal counsel are alleged to have issued unlawful memoranda, more than simply implicating them in war crimes, but potentially exposing them to war crimes adjudication. That is not an appearance, that is an alleged war crimes problem staring this Attorney General and DOJ OLC in the face for eternity. This President celebrates data mining, prisoner abuse, aggressive interrogations. It means nothing for him to gag someone, pour water on their head, and make them believe they are drowning. The AG refuses to investigate. This President enjoys the idea that he can invade a country, not adequately plan for the reconstruction, and then pretend it is the local government's problem for not timely recovering from the disaster this President created. The Congress will not challenge this President. 
This President believes tampering with civilians is permissible to achieve his information warfare objectives. It means nothing for this President to direct an attorney to lie, support war crimes, or draft memoranda that would "legalize" war crimes. It is absurd to believe that he would restrain himself on other issues involving civilians. There is a nexus of abuse, illegal activity, and war crimes swirling around this President. That cloud is something Scooter Libby helped perpetuate, and was prosecuted for. Lying to a grand jury means nothing to these people. Refusing to comply with lawful requests for data means nothing. Threats of arrest for war crimes mean nothing. There is no requirement for a civilian population to remain loyal nor assent to further abuses by this President. However, when the Congress refuses to challenge that abuse of power, it is reasonable for the public to discuss whether that government is supportable. This government has failed. We must discuss how the US government should be denied power, stripped of authority, and have specific powers delegated to other entities. On the table is the required debate to ensure this abuse of power does not happen again. The burden is on the government to justify a reason why the public should continue supporting it. This government has not met that burden. Therefore, the public cannot be compelled to help this government perpetuate war crimes, or additional illegal assaults on civilians. The burden is on the government. They have not met their burden. The Constitution does not delegate any power to the President to compel anyone to provide evidence of war crimes before making the adverse inference that this is an illegal, illegitimate government founded on tyranny. The government's burden has not been met. The people are not obliged to support this government, only the US Constitution. There is the appearance of tyranny disguised as freedom. We do not need to see any more of the appearances of tyranny. We have only the requirement to rid this land of this tyranny. Those who demand overwhelming evidence of tyranny before acting shall be better led by those marginally competent to open their eyes to the appearance of tyranny. This President has abused power. It appears he has abused civilian jurors who refused to be swayed by reckless legal counsel. This is not surprising given the White House connection at 119 with information warfare against American civilians. This President doesn't like the result. His answer is to abuse people until they agree with their abuse. Wrong answer, wrong decision, wrong civilians. Either the civilian population will wake up, or they won't. The goal of this President has been to shift the attention from his abuse, to force others to prove something which this President will not admit: That his staff has orchestrated domestic information warfare campaigns against American civilians through jury tampering, NSL abuse, gag orders, home invasions, wiretapping, and direct efforts to intimidate people engaging in constitutionally protected speech. If you want the appearance of anything, go to the DOJ JCON database, and make the DOJ AG explain why the US is not fully cooperating with the Italian war crimes prosecutor. Make them provide you the answer. When they refuse (again), don't come back here wondering why people aren't cooperating. These people appear intent on killing others who dare to oppose their view. They've allegedly already done it. They've allegedly invaded illegally a sovereign country that posed no imminent threat to the United States; they have allegedly destroyed war crimes evidence; they have allegedly used the wires to violate our rights; they have allegedly used illegally captured information to justify war crimes. Time for the American public to decide whether they want to continue down this road with this reckless, failed government; or discuss a new system of oversight that will protect rights, and will prevent the abuse of power. Here is a sample of what that government structure might look like. The issue isn't whether there is an appearance of a narrow problem of jury tampering, but the larger appearance of unchallenged tyranny. What level of abuse would you like to ensure before you accept there is an appearance of anything. The public is not obliged to cooperate with the government's illegal activity, nor provide any evidence. The evidence of impropriety overshadows any demonstrated plan to confront these issues. There is the appearance the government has a problem with war crimes and jury tampering, but is attempting to shift the burden to others. Wrong answer. The right answer is to discuss the lawful, non-violent solutions to this problem. It appears many would like to pretend there is no problem, or that we must have a foregone conclusion before we consider there might be an appearance of a problem. It appears you are defective in your ability to reason. We need not consider seriously your request for overwhelming evidence. We have no legal obligation to justify our view why there appears to be a group of incompetent people, afraid of accountability, and expanding their information warfare against civilians. That is the wrong answer. The right answer is to turn your inquiry to the Attorney General, and compel him to cooperate. The Congress is not inclined. We are not obliged to pretend the Attorney General is something other than what he appears: Allegedly complicit with efforts to intimidate civilians through information warfare, improper home jury contacts, and other alleged excuses not enforce the laws of war. It appears you are looking in the wrong direction for evidence. We have no legal obligation, nor is there any requirement, to justify our view why there is the appearance (implied connection) between the White House counsel, FBI agents, and their alleged illegal post-trial visit to jurors whose names were sealed, and not available outside the Judicial Branch. The White House appears to know how the names were really obtained. Until they disclose that knowledge, it appears the Congress has no plan to challenge the White House. That is backwards. The plan must start first, regardless whether the White House agrees to disclose the evidence supporting or refuting the appearance of impropriety.
First we investigate. We will learn whether the White House implicit involvement with the FBI jury tampering is supported by admissible evidence. The White House, because it is the nexus of this abuse, has well established itself as more than the appearance of involvement. It appears there is no reasonable excuse to delay proceeding on that assumption. Our job is to show the White House that decision is no longer relevant.

Full disclosure: 
I'm an Obama supporter.  I'm also strongly opposed to the Clintons, especially Bill, and have been since long before I knew who Obama was.  So you can take what I have to say with whatever grain of salt you wish. 

This campaign has been painful for many, on both sides, largely because sexism and racism have both reared their heads.  I think if we want to have any chance of healing the party, we need to deal with this.  I keep reading posts from Clinton supporters who are furious, some talking about staying home or voting McBush.  And I'm sure they have a right to be angry.  There is absolutely no question that sexism has played a part in dragging down Hillary's public image since Bill first ran in 92, and many of those same sexist characterizations have re-surfaced in this campaign season. 

Race, too, and racial charicatures have also played a role, starting in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  This (rightly) upset many on my side.  But we need to acknowledge that the Clinton people were called on this, and sexism was rarely acknowledged when it was found in the media and came from some online Obama supporters.  This, I assume, plays into the anger some Clinton supporters feel. 

My question is . . . what do we do now?  We need to come together.  Not only because we have had 8 years of insanity from the White House, and we have to do everything  we can to prevent another 4 or 8.  (McCain over the past two days has made it clear he intends to continue Bush's failed foreign policy paradigm) - but also because all of us, as Democrats, should recognize that sexism and racism are anathema to what we stand for.  These are the tools of the right, and for them to have erupted within our party is hurtful to everyone.   This isn't even just about this election - we have to heal these wounds or the Democratic coallition will not hold, long term. 

How do we come to terms with the fact that some but not most Obama supporters have been sexist, and some, but not most, Clinton supporters have been racist? 

I think a big part of it is for all of us to begin to try and be honest about the shortcomings of our own side - to confess them and try to move forwards.  As an Obama supporter, I recognize that in our anger at the Clintons comming out of South Carolina, we have often failed to censor our most extremist cohorts and failed to defend Hillary from unfair attacks.  But we must also try and keep our eyes on the big picture.  We have seen that sexism and racism are both alive in our own party.  This is deeply dissapointing, but it shouldn't be a surprise.  Parties are coalitions - they aim at bringing together at least 50% of the US population, and that population still struggles with sexism and racism.  Somewhere in every coalition there are going to be people who don't live up to the ideal.  But we must remember that this is the party which holds these ideals - this is the party of equality.  We have stumbled, we have tripped ourselves up.  But our noblest ambitions are still worth cherishing even if we ourselves have proven imperfect vessels for those ideals.  All of us, on both sides, I think, should try to rededicate ourselves, vocaly, to that goal. 

That's my best guess at what is needed - what do others think?  Specifically, Hillary supporters - do the above suggestions fall short for you, and if so, how?    

 

   

The most interesting read of the day, for me anyway, was Michelle Cottle's collection of comments from inside the Hillary camp, citing the reasons why Clinton failed to secure the nomination.
The list is revealing on many levels – it should and will be a lesson to political science majors for years to come.
A few things about the article I find interesting...
...less realistic reasons given, which point to some staffers not even getting in hindsight why they failed:

I just think they should have really gone after [Obama] back in the summer and in the fall. (i.e. earlier and harder than they did)

...some comments that show a similarity to Neo-Con and Machiavellian thinking :

...it spoke to the character issue: The sense that she will say anything and do anything to get elected.

There was financial mismanagement bordering on fraud.

...polling memos that cherry-picked only positive polls when we were up and ignored polling when we were down.

Notoriously bad managers, they filled key posts with newcomers loyal to them but unknown to and unfamiliar with the candidate...

...they didn't know what they didn't know and were too arrogant to ask...

...and fundamental flaws:

There were so many consultants, instead of full-time staff.... too many people that had too much else going on on the side.

Running as an incumbent, as the inevitable candidate... in a time when the country is really hungry for change.

Making our chief strategist our one and only pollster. 

Her people spent all of 2008 making lists blaming each other (but never themselves) rather than lists of solutions.

So just about every problem you could conjure occurred. But I would say there were significant problems that possibly only an outsider can see.  Here's my list:
1. Obama should never have been attacked.  Thinking that going on every offensive, and calling Obama her "opponent" for months and months is a good idea is just flawed thinking for a primary.  I'm no formal student of the craft, but even I know that attacks in campaigns do two things: A. they bring attention to your opponent, and B. they make you both look bad.  Negative campaigning from the front lines is a desperate battle – a scorched earth tactic that claws for a marginal victory, not the right choice of the "inevitable" candidate.I really think she could have copied Barack's hopeful message, agreed with him on everything, and beat him.  She did for a while, but in the end, fear took over, and, intimidated by his poise and position, the camp fell back on an attack mode. 
2. Her public image was atrociously false.  That she thought she had to be anything but her authentic self to win over Democrats was, in my opinion, her most visible blunder. So many of us wanted to like her, but as she continued to shapeshift, laugh inappropriately, and pander shamelessly, she lost those of us who just wanted Hillary. This is not just her failure, but I believe it's the failure of her generation, and the biggest difference between the old and the upcoming new wave of politics.  We'll see more politicians rise to the top through integrity and authenticity, as the unyielding, ever-national media coverage, hungry for gaffes and misstatements, continues to leave no room for liars, bigots, and hypocrites. National is the new Local.  Ask Macaca.
3. Mark Penn.  Now, I know this is a reason insiders agree on, but here's what I saw: a sweaty, ungroomed, fat pig of a man, with a whiny voice and combover, as The frontman spokesperson in those post-debate interviews.  Anyone who would give (well, promise, anyway) $5 million to such an obvious mess of a human being (just on appearances alone!) lacks considerable judgment.  The rest is said by her staffers.
4. Hillary never learned to speak to a crowd.  With a challenger like Obama, you gotta learn how to command a crowd.  She thought that monotone yelling into a microphone was the way to rouse the masses.  No – it's off-putting, unprofessional, and yes, SHRILL.  She should have been in training for crowds, and had people around her tell her she needed training.  
5. She thought that being a woman was enough...  and many of her strongest supporters still do.  But there are a great number of men and women, who pine for more women in power positions, and support all kinds of equal rights, who feel she is not the right person to be president.  She could have won them over.  Instead, she alienated these would-be supporters with cheap cries of victimhood, and uninspired rhetoric that simply drew attention to her gender.  Her words had little to get behind, because ultimately she is not a very likeable person, and she never saw that or endeavored to correct it. 
6. she doesn't know when she's beaten.  This is evident in her continuation in the race beyond all logic, but this flaw runs deeper and more fundamental.  Like a deer in the headlights, she pounds forward with inappropriate message. Her style is that of a steamroller – forge ahead at all costs.  It works when people are behind you, but when you're wrong it betrays a big character flaw: unconsciousness, or the inability to improvise, or to see a problem and right the ship.I had a sense that in all debates and interviews, her message was well-memorized.  Her answers were similar to a "choose your own adventure" book, where if question 5f is asked, respond with answer 2c.  She lacks Obama's (very rare, for a politician) ability to have a loose agenda in mind, backed by a strong self-confidence, to see him through an interview or debate.  We could all see him get better in the debates, too. That reveals a conscious effort to see one's self and to then improve that Hillary still does not possess.
In summary, it was just a disaster.  How fascinating. Obama's success and Hillary's failure are indicative of the same principle:  The New replacing the The Old ways in U.S. politics.  These are exciting times, to see such a sea change nationally, and to be there at the beginning of something that will shape the future quite positively.  
Well, thanks for reading.  I had fun writing this up.

Here's what Jim Webb's Born Fighting PAC just sent out...  He'll probably endorse (hopefully...).  From there, let the VP speculation soar!  Either way, I'm sure he'll have some choice words for Bush/McCain and their ill-considered (borderline criminal) foreign policy diminishing U.S. security.

Proud to be a Democrat right now!  Democrats Unite!

Over the next several days, Senator Jim Webb will appear on a number of TV and radio programs discussing the critical issues facing our nation.

Sun, May 18:                 Meet the Press (NBC) Mon, May 19: CBS Early Morning Mon, May 19: Fresh Air (NPR) Mon, May 19: Late Show with David Letterman (CBS) Tues, May 20: Countdown with Keith Olbermann (MSNBC) Tues, May 20:         Lou Dobbs (CNN)

Check your local listings for the airtime and station broadcasting each show. We hope you can tune in.

Thank you for your continued support of Born Fighting PAC.

Sincerely,

Ashley Flanagan
Born Fighting PAC

All this nagging, harping and blame laying does no good for our republic.  We all know (or should) that grampa Kennedy was into rum running. We all know (or should) that grampa Bush helped finance the Nazi party during WWII.  We all know that John McCain was subjected to much harsher treatment in the Hanoi Hilton than any of the prisoners of Guantanamo (at least we should hope that to be the case). The simple fact is that we citizens of the good ol' U.S.of A. have had the blinders slapped on our heads by both partys for  a couple of generations now.  Yeah, I remember the bad Ol' Nixon days, and now the major felon in that Watergate trial is a ballyhoo'ed conservative talk show host. Sure I remember those great Clinton years when our economy was in an upswing.  I remember at that time  getting out of the low paying service industry jobs and into a higher paying manufacturing job where I actually had health benefits.  But then came NAFTA and the majority of the machines that I used in my position were sent to Mexico and the company told me that my high pay training and supervisory position was being sent along with them. So much for the 'Golden Clinton era'. I remember going back to College after nearly thirty years to get a degree in Human Resources hoping that I could help other similarly displaced workers only to find that human resources was simply a fancy way to explain treating the worker the same as the broom purchased to sweep floors, usable and expendable.
So now here I sit, self employed, in the service industry not being able to pay myself let alone anyone else because of cost of the fuel it takes to drive,(mass transit is not an option as the local bus system only serves a small percentage of the territory that I work).
We need a change ladies and gentlemen and I don't mean a simple change of parties we need a major change in those at the top!  RNC or DNC it matters little, those who hold power in both are beholding to others than the electorate. It's time to re-instate the draft!
I would postulate that the only way we the citizens will be able to completely wrest the power away from corporate interests (who was it that sits or sat on the board of WalMart?) is to state in no uncertain terms that We The People are the are the ONLY base of power that matters.  The only way I see that as happening is if all the delegates to the Democrat Party Convention were to stand up and say NO MORE! to the politics of the past and demand that those who ran for president be willing to assume the positions that We The People want them to assume.
1) President: Barak Obama (keep in mind that I am very tempted to vote for Ron Paul as a write in and will if Hillary manages to steal the nomination, I am not what you would call a 'Liberal' even though I consider myself a progressive, a Liberaltarian if you will and I am not a lone voice in the wilderness). President Obama would present an entirely new face of the USA to the world, something we desperately need.
2) Hillary Clinton for VP.  Although I have a deep mistrust I also have a deep admiration for her abilities and can think of no one better suited to bring the 'Dark Force' of the current VP office into the light for the good of the people.
3) John Edwards as AG. In spite of his $400.00 (spread the wealth) haircuts here is a man who is not afraid to stand up to the corporate powers that be.
4) Chris Dodd as Sec. of State
5) Joe Biden as Sec. of Defense
6) Dennis Kucinich, Homeland Security(which includes FEMA and HUD)
7) Mike Gravel, Interior
8) Ron Paul,  DEA
9) John Mc Cain, UN Ambassador
10) Robert Reich Sec. of Treasury
The list could go on: It's not as if our country were devoid of the talent necessary to get the job(s) done it's just that those making the power choices are not acting in the best interest of the nation as a whole and are assuming that the only thing the citizens care about are our own little special interests.
I can tell you as a Liberaltarian e.g. independent & critical thinking citizen who talks to the 'common citizen' on a daily basis that the only thing we currently perceive as having in common with each other is the confusion over what is going on with our currently terminal system of politics.
LET'S DRAFT THE RASCALS!!!
It's time to rein in those who would turn our military into mercenaries and draft Eric Prince and his cohorts into the military and pay them the same that we would pay our honorably serving Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen.
Once that is done we then can set up the necessary legal actions to indict and convict the current administrations operative for their treasonable behavior while in office. Sorry for my longwindedness but I'm mad as hell and tired of taking it with a smile and whisper.

Extremist Islamic Group Thinks Singer is "Dreamy"
Effect On Idol Voting Unclear
(this is reposted from my fake news blog, www.richieville.com)
Richieville News Service –GAZA 
Pundits of the right and left, along with music industry executives and several million teenage girls, clashed today over what appeared to be an endorsement of American Idol contestant David Archuleta by the radical Islamic organization Hamas. The disputed remarks came at the end of a press conference given by Hamas spokesman Ahmed Yousef, when he digressed from his comments about the latest round of violence between Israel and Palestinians to say, "I really like David Archuleta. I hope he wins." 
Later, in response to an unrelated question, Mr. Yousef returned to the subject, exclaiming, "Yo! Yo! Check it out! Randy's right - that boy can sing the phone book, dawg!" He was referring to one of the three judges on the televised singing contest, record producer Randy Jackson. 
Mr. Archuleta, when told of the comments by the Hamas spokesman, giggled uncontrollably for several minutes and then said earnestly. "I am just so happy to be here. This is like a dream come true."
Meanwhile, fans of the other finalist, David Cook, suggested that a vote for Archuleta would be a vote for terror. Tiffany Shuler, age 13, of White Plains, New York, issued a statement on behalf of herself, and her best friends forever, Amber Waletsky and Shawnia James. "David Archuleta is an appeaser and as we learned from the example of Neville Chamberlain surrendering the Sudetenland to Hitler in 1938, appeasement does not work.  Plus, David Cook is like, so totally hot! He rocks!" 
Producers of the talent show went out of their way to stress that Mr. Archuleta had not sought out the endorsement of the extremist group, saying that, "David Archuleta has absolutely no connection with any form of state-sponsored terrorism and in fact does not even know where Israel and Palestine are on the map." 
 The controversy over Mr. Yousef's remarks threatened to overshadow the war of words set off by his previous statements expressing a preference for Senator Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential elections. There was some speculation that the Islamic fundamentalist group was, in fact, trying to frighten voters away from Mr. Archuleta by tying him closely to a group that the U.S. has declared a terrorist organization. This line of reasoning is based on rumors that the Hamas leadership, like Ms. Shuler, has come to the conclusion that  Mr. Cook does indeed, "rock."
Mr. Yousef concluded the press conference by also indicating Hamas' preferences for Dancing With The Stars and the Tony Awards. "If Kristi doesn't win, we're going to be very upset," he said. "I mean, did you see her tango last week?" In the Tonys, he said Hamas favors Xanadu, adding, "We just like kitsch, what can I say?" He also expressed the group's pleasure at Whitney's being named America's Next Top Model. 
Whatever his motivation, the Hamas spokesman seemed genuine in his admiration for the American Idol show. "One reason we might consider peace talks is so we can all go to Hollywood for a taping. It would be great to meet Ryan and Paula and Randy. We dig them all so much. Except for Simon. He's mean."

(This started as a comment on another post.  I decided to make it a blog entry and see if anyone takes an interest.)

Obama's proposed tech policy excites me more than anything else in his policy proposals. What I see in both his policy ideas and in his campaign are indications of a genuine desire and talent for bringing politics and governing back to the grassroots level.

He has used the internet with great success to finance and organize volunteers for his campaign. They have brilliantly made use of the internet's campaign-building benefits--social networking, viral marketing through You Tube, etc.--which are free venues for promotion of Obama's so-called movement.

I've had to be careful to avoid dismissing the "movement" as strictly marketing strategy. What Obama has envisioned, and what the campaign is portraying, is a new model for campaigning that, to a great degree, removes the need to involve the traditional rich and powerful sources of campaign funds. Removing the necessity to rely on rich and powerful contributors also removes the resulting need to "serve" those contributors whose interests may be incredibly narrow and often not beneficial to the general citizenry.

The fact that Obama has been so wildly successful in fundraising from the "little folks" leaves me very hopeful that this alone, whether Obama wins the general election or not, will inexorably change the nature of all future campaigns. In order to simply remain competitive, candidates will have to follow this fund-raising model. And that will mean candidates will have to solicit the financial support of the "little folks"--and both the candidate and the policy proposals will have to be appealing and convincing enough to persuade folks to donate.

Now, that's an application of the Republican Party's much-beloved free market concept I can get excited about!

It remains to be seen how successful Obama is with his plan for using the internet to make the government more transparent and "user-friendly" for the citizenry. Optimally, an internet-based venue for opening lines of communication between the citizenry and those who govern will encourage much greater citizen participation than we have seen in the past. Hopefully, the result will make us less vulnerable to the complex machinations of lobbyists and government "insiders" who rely on processes that are complex enough or murky enough to discourage us from even trying to stay informed and involved. 

To me, such a plan sounds like it will be incredibly difficult to design, implement, and manage.  But, man! What a priceless innovation that would be!

The combined changes in both campaigning and governing could actually change the distribution of political power in this country! I don't know about y'all, but I'm ready to work for it!

No matter what your opinion of Barack Obama or his policies may be, I hope that you will see how big just these changes would be. If we're careful, work hard, and have luck on our side, these things could change our country's politics and government--in the best way--forever.

Christopher Dodd, the senior Senator from Connecticut and former presidential candidate, would make a great, safe, reassuring choice for Obama's running mate. Nobody would get all that excited about an older white guy who's been in Washington a long time, it's true. But boring could be just what Obama needs to reassure voters uneasy with Obama's experience credentials.

Dodd doesn't help to win a swing state or make history in any way, but here are some of his assets:

1) Experience. Experience. Experience. He's in his 60s with white hair and he speaks with gravitas. He is a credible president and would be warmly received by the party.
2) As a Catholic, he can help with the crucial Catholic vote (many Catholics have been spooked by the Wright controversy). He's also fluent in Spanish, a bonus in courting Hispanics.
3) His his policy positions complement Obama's nicely and he's already endorsed Obama. His solid liberal credentials will help shore up the base of the party.
4) As Chair of the Banking committee, Dodd knows his economics and can easily help make the case for Democratic solutions to the #1 issue: the economy.
5) He has served in the US Army Reserve. Nobody questions his patriotism.

Dodd says he doesn't want the job of vice president. But then most presidential candidates say that. Obama would have to talk him into it, but I suspect he couldn't refuse the offer.

Fellow reader-blogger clearthinker has observed before that the oil market is now in the hands of speculators.  Indeed, it seems to be the case that Saudi Arabia can no longer lend a helping hand at the President's behest.  It should come as no surprise then that Goldman-Sachs is predicting a "super-spike" up to $200/barrel in the coming months.

Let's try and consider this in the context of the recent talk of "relief at the pump".  Politicians and auto-makers alike are pandering to people who don't yet understand the scope of the problem that we are all facing.  All of the evidence indicates that we have passed the peak of global oil production.  It will only get more difficult to retrieve, and thereby more expensive, as we move forward.

When will we hear an honest treatment of these problems from our governmental leadership?  We will become serious, as a whole society, about re-organizing our infrastructure in order to meet the challenge of diminishing petrochemical resources while there is still some opportunity to mitigate the coming crisis?

Most of you are aware that I support Barack Obama for President, but I do not exclude him from these criticisms.  While I do think that he seems to exhibit a slightly better understanding of energy issues than either Clinton or McCain, this is not good enough.  I can hope that he's merely playing it close to the chest because of how politically volatile it could be to embrace the reality of peak oil, but I won't excuse him or anyone else in an influential position of leadership from stepping up on this issue.

Even though I would quibble with some of his details, Al Gore has been incredibly successful in bringing the scientific evidence to bear on the issue of climate change.  Perhaps what we need is an Al Gore for peak oil.  I'd like it very much if this could be Obama since he appears to be in position to assume the Presidency, but it doesn't necessarily have to be him.  However, whether or not Obama becomes the next President the issue will still stand.  Whoever assumes the office will, at the very least, need to be someone who is willing to listen and take the evidence into consideration.

Much like with the issue of climate change, there are a mountain of reasons for us to change the way that we live.  In fact, there's really only one reason not to change: We simply don't want to.  Even if carbon dioxide is not driving the current trend in global average temperature change it is still worthwhile to reduce (and hopefully eliminate) carbon emissions.  Likewise, even if oil does not run out as fast as Hubbert's curve would predict there are still many good reasons to conserve petrochemical resources.  Think of our industrial farming practices, heavily dependent on petrochemical pesticides, fertilizers, machinery, transportation and refrigeration.  Think of the necessity of plastics when it comes to sanitation, food storage and medical needs.

Burning oil in our inefficient automobiles is probably the single stupidest thing that we could do with such a valuable and versatile resource.  I don't like paying increasing prices for gasoline any more than anyone else, but perhaps this is what will be needed for the necessary sea change to take place.

"I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5-pound largemouth bass in my lake"

-Interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, May 7, 2006

It sounds to me like the members of the Knesset just witnessed the ramblings of a largemouth (b)ass.

Yesterday, the Justice Department announced an agreement (PDF) to bring Arizona's Department of Economic Security, which administers Food Stamps and TANF, into compliance with the public agency registration provisions of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).  The agreement comes three months after Project Vote and Demos sent  Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer a notice letter (PDF) advising her that the state was not in compliance with the law and asking her to take steps to improve compliance to avoid litigation.

The agreement is the first time in six years that the Justice Department has enforced the NVRA's public agency registration provision. Previously, the Department's NVRA priority had been to press states to purge their voters rolls, taking advantage of th law's narrow language requiring states to make a general effort to keep their voter rolls current and accurate. The Department's enforcement priority of purges over enfranchisement drew considerable media attention and became tied to the U.S. Attorney scandal as more evidence of the politicization of DOJ during the Bush administration.

In recent months, Congress has focused its attention on states' noncompliance with the NVRA's public agency registration provisions and DOJ's sparse enforcement history. Recent letters by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and five colleagues (PDF) from the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and from Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, (PDF) who chairs the Subcommittee on Elections, were preceded by a hearing on states' compliance with the NVRA and a hearing on voter suppression" by House Committee on the Judiciary, which featured a heated exchange between Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz and the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

In February, Project Vote and Demos released a detailed report, Unequal Access, (PDF) that documented the steep decline in registrations from public assistance agencies over the past 12 years.

A couple of posts in another thread got me thinking again about what happens after this year's elections.  Right now it appears the Democrats could be poised for a coast-to-coast landslide of epic proportions.  A lot can happen between now and November, but assuming this landslide materializes and the Republicans are routed across the country, how will they respond?

As presently constituted, the Republican party is essentially a coalition of the following groups:

1. Wall Street Republicans
2. Neocons
3. Religious Right and social conservatives
4. Assorted racists and other neanderthals

Will they regroup and try to go on as before or will a stunning defeat catalyze internecine warfare in the GOP?  Will the coalition fracture?

Here's a place to let Paul know how much we've appreciated his reporting at TPMMuckraker.

I'm starting to think Bill Richardson is the best choice for Barack Obama to pick as VP.  I really like John Edwards, Claire McCaskill, Jim Webb, and other folks who have been mentioned recently, but there are just so many positives to picking Bill Richardson. 

Here are 10 reasons off the top of my head favoring Richardson:

1. Serious foreign policy credentials and credibility.

2. He can say that he's negotiated with dictators and the Earth didn't melt.

2. Governor not a Congressman (although a former Congressman).

3. From a swing state.

4. From the important Mountain West region.

5. Helps with Hispanic voters.

6. Optimistic and upbeat campaigner.

7. Hopefully well vetted from his presidential campaign.

8. New face (for the public), so helps reinforce Obama's message of CHANGE.

9. First Hispanic VP, so reinforces how HISTORIC the Dem ticket is.

10. Stood up to Clintons and endorsed Obama!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee_obama_1

If Obama had made a comment like Huckabee did, there would be hell to pay.
Huckabee calls himself a Christian? Geesh, Jesus must be proud of him  !

Some Democrats think Hillary could withdraw her campaign any day now. Others think she will wait until June 4 -- the day after the last primary. Still others think she will wait until after enough superdelegates have announced their support for Obama so that he is put over the top (2025 or 2026). Others think Hillary will wait until the decision regarding the seating of Florida and Michigan delegations is final. And there are those who think she will hold out until the Democratic convention itself (August 25 to August 28).

So let's all record our best guess as to when she will withdraw here on this thread. Recommend the post, and we can see who the winners are after the contest is over. The only prize: your fellow TPM netizens will bow in worshipful praise of your genius.

OK. Here's my guess: June 9, 9 a.m. EST

 "The Change You Deserve"

CLINICAL TRIALS HAVE SHOWN:

The new and improved Republican Platform Prescription XR for America produces side effects including but not limited to generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, nervousness, yawning, and/or sweating.

Studies have shown a propensity for abnormal vision, impotence, nausea (31%) and constipation (10%).

Also revealed were increased instances of depression, decreased libido, agitation, nightmares, delirium, blurred vision and difficulty focusing.

Known to cause loss of appetite, cold feet, postural hypotension and hemorrhoids (see Bend Over For Bush Syndrome).

Most common side effect is flatulence and political irritability.

Less common side effects include acne and/or pustular rash.

Not a controlled substance and has not been studied in clinical trials regarding potential for abuse.

For further information see Effexor XR for additional warnings.

Consult your family doctor if symptoms persist for more than four years.

In an attempt to set the record straight as we tip-toe into the general election and the primary season winds to a close, I want to begin a series of blog posts related to the general election match-up between Barack Obama and John McCain. I hope to bust myths about each candidate's record and positions as well as discuss the presidency as an institution.

This first post is compilation of the most outrageous Obama myths at the various blogging sites I frequent. Most are laughable. Some are sincere. All are easily rebutted with a couple links and an application of common sense.

I also hope to open up a running dialogue with Hillary supporters and undecided voters who are taking another look at Barack and have legitimate questions or concerns. I had many myself, but through exhaustive research, those questions have been answered, my enthusiasm turned into dedication.

The former gets my vote, the latter my money and time.

Barack Obama is BY FAR the best choice to be our president at this particular moment in history based on our enormous challenges and societal trends. We have one shot at turning this ship of state around, one chance to avoid the sholas of empire. The situation is indeed that desperate. Barack Obama would be our first necessary step, as a nation, to walking the Red Road. Even then, it will be a toss-up as to whether or not he can get enough of us involved to create a Tipping Point for change and pull ourselves out of this tailspin.

Anyway, on to the Obama MythBusting, in no certain order. (Thanks MythBusters!)

Barack hates Gays!

How does Donnie McClurkin have anything to do with Barack? Guilt by association is a stupid way to pick a president, but perhaps we can start by trying to understand the man behind the offensive comments. Perhaps McClurkin feels being gay for him was a "curse" and a choice that God helped him work through. Maybe he is full of shit, still sleeps with men and is a huge fraud. Who cares? It has nothing to do with Barack, who clearly doesn't agree with any of McClurkin's more outrageous comments and has a strong record of speaking up for and protecting gay rights. This guilt by association shit isn't working this year. The Obama faith event had all kinds of people, including a gay reverend who opened the it.

Barack called Hillary a racist for what she said about MLK!

Barack never asserted that Hillary was a racist for her MLK comments. In fact, he went out of his way to say she wasn't a racist. He said her comments showed a difference in leadership styles. He places greater value on the bottom-up revolution led my MLK that forced LBJ to champion civil rights. Hillary believes that the most transformational aspect of the civil rights fight was LBJ getting behind the effort and championing the legislation. She says words don't get things done. She is entitled to that opinion, though it is hubris of the highest order and clearly dismissive of the historical realities of how change happens in this country - without the civil right movement, LBJ never passes civil rights legislation and this country remains divided along racial lines.

Barack is in thrall to Reverend Wright - an evil, America-hating black separatist!

More guilt by association that is free from context or common sense. Anyone with half a brain should be able to take a man's entire 30-year career and dismiss any crazy shit they may say during that time. If the bulk of a man's life is dedicated to good works, can't we dismiss with throwing stones. I bet none of us is completely without sin. Personally, I think a lot of crazy stuff about the American government and the largely immoral men and women we have allowed to run it at all levels. That's not to say we haven't done good as well, but much of the history of our nation is a tale of blood and domination by small groups of men in power. It's only been recently that the ladies have gotten in on it.

Barack isn't experienced enough to be Commander in Chief!

The whole Commander in Chief meme is a load of crap. There is not a single person in the history of the presidency who was less prepared for the position (based on his resume) than Abraham Lincoln. He did OK. None of Barack's many supporters think for a second that he isn't more than qualified based on temperament, experience, intelligence and educational background. There is a reason why the qualifications for president are: Natural-Born Citizen and 35-years-old. That's it. Period. There are no other qualifications because the Founders never anticipated career politicians at the federal level. They assumed that legislators would come to Congress and then return to other jobs once the session was over. They also anticipated that, like themselves, the background of future presidents may include a lawyer or a teacher, a doctor or a businessman. They didn't assume that every president would be a lawyer or a former politician of some stripe. A great number of Americans think Barack's combination of on-the-ground community organizing combined with a career in civil rights law matched with deep intellect and experience crafting bi-partisan legislation makes for a great presidential resume. We just suffered through the most "experienced" presidency in a generation and look where it got us. I'll take local experience, judgement, intelligence and candor over Washington-insider experience any day of the week.

Barack is really a Muslim!

Really? I am going out on a limb and guess that no thinking American actually believes this. I also stipulate that someone who does believe it is beyond reach. Moving on.

Barack was in bed with a Chicago mobster!

Again, guilt by association, but a story that has been more than debunked. First, Rezko is, as worst, a shady businessman. I will stipulate that there appears to be evidence that he was less than honest in his business dealings. First, this has nothing to do with Barack. He knows the man as a political acquaintance who supported his candidacy and once worked as a junior associate on a an account that involved a church's non-profit association that the man had invested in. The courts and the press have both investigated any connection to Barack or hints of favoritism based on that passing relationship, both as a young attorney and later as a candidate. Here is a great interview with the Chicago Tribune that should clear up any lingering doubts for any but the most cynical and partisan. (PS: Anyone who still believes he got some sweet deal on his house should read this, from the more conservative Chicago paper.)

I am sure there are a million more, but you get the idea. If anyone has any specific questions, please feel free to ask. Any that seem sincere and open-minded will get an honest and respectful response.
---
Cross-posted at My Red Road.

If you want to read "vote up if" stories go to dig or reddit.

If you want to read stories or titles comprised mostly of capitals go to dig.

If you want to post non factual stories from highly questionable sources please go to dig or reddit.

If you want to post insight and commentary in an intelligent manner please stay on TPM.

If you want to educate and enlighten please stay at TPM.

Thank you,

BTW,
That said I would like to see some features like down modding and editing, a mailbox would also be sweet.

Of all the neocons, MC Rove is far and away the most nervous right now.  Because his brainchild, the Republican majority, is wilting.   Rapidly.  And he's burdened with the difficult task of getting John McCain elected to the highest office in the land.  
The strategy?  
Get Americans to forget the last eight years so there can be another eight years just like it. 
He'll play the patriotism card, the race card, the experience card, the fear card, and the absolute fabrication card, you know, the usual suspects. 
The Republican specialty is mischaracterization.  They can't beat Barack Obama but they can beat Barack Obama out of context.  
They're already taking Michelle Obama out of context with the "only now am I proud of my country" snippet.
The Republicans are stronger communicators than the Democrats and the reason they do so well is because they campaign the loudest.  You hear them yelling on every cable news network, 24 hours a day.  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill "Orally", the whole lot of them.  They debate with the subtlety of AK-47.
They must have a Republican boot camp for surrogates. 
Rove hasn't won a fair or swift-boat free election in his life.   2000? He diebolded that one.   2004?  Swift boat parade.   2006?  Swiftboat parade but lost anyway.  
He has a lot riding on the 2008 election.  Expect his worst.  


 
 

Obama clearly did the right thing in denouncing Bush's false and outrageous charges.  That McCain immediately chimed in and repeated the false statements shows just how desperate McCain has become.  McCain's intellectually bankrupt position on the quagmire in Iraq and blind, unwavering support of Bush won't carry the day in a straight forward debate.  McCain's only hope is to repeat false statements about Obama that, of course, go unchallenged in the media. 

Kerry was Swift Boated because he failed to respond quickly and forcefully. 

Bravo, Obama.

   
Somebody who knows how to do cartoons.  This is an idea just crying to become a reality:

I envision McShame all tangled in a "bush."  I picture McShame as a tiny cartoon character tangled in this bush.  And tall lanky Obama looking on.  Maybe blinking his eyes as he realizes that his so-called opponent has gotten himself so tangled up in the "bush" that he can't maneuver at all.

Perhaps you are good with photoshop.  Or drawing.

Or maybe you have a different cartoon idea that you'd like to describe.  To inspire the cartoonists among us.

I can't believe this cartoon of McShame in the "bush" is not yet in circulation.  Or maybe it is.  If so, perhaps you can find me a link.  I tried Google to no avail.

Thanks for your help!

When Tim Kaine, Bill Richardson, Bob Casey and now John Edwards all endorsed Barack Obama for president, and stood together shoulder to shoulder with Barack smiling and waving to the crowds, each pairing looked good!  And they all gave enthusiastic endorsement speeches.  If Richardson had been as energetic during his own campaign as he was for Barack, his candidacy may have lasted longer. Now the spotlight turns to Hillary Clinton.

As a former Hillary Clinton supporter. I moved away from her when she began to accentuate her negative qualifies instead of her positive attributes. As someone who tries to look for the positive traits that people possess regardless of race, color, creed, religion, gender, I was deeply defended.  In a nutshell, I felt like a jilted voter.  Some of you know the feeling.  When someone you love does you wrong, in spite of your hurt feelings, you still try to hold on to the relationship. But as much as you try, the person you once loved, slowly but surely becomes an object of contempt.  That's especially true when that person continues to engage in the conduct that created the disappointment. If you still don't understand what I'm trying to say, listen to one of my favorite songs, "By the Time I Get to Phoenix." Both  and Glen Campbell and Isaac Hayes sing excellent versions.

To continue the saga, usually after getting out of a bad relationship, you often fall in love again.  That's what happened when I listened to Barack Obama with an opened mind clear of thoughts of Hillary.  It was an amazing moment.  When I listened to Obama after one of his primary victories, I really bought into his vision for America. Who wouldn't fall in love with the idea of no more Washington gridlock, no more red state/blue state nonsense, no more antagonistic divisiveness, but a United States of America. That was the relationship that Obama offered. Some people called them just words, but say what you want, great leaders inspire with their words. I am inspired with hope by the words of Obama and there is no turning back.

Now that brings us back to Hillary.  Would Hillary be good on the ticket with Barack Obama?  Well some of her supporters and her surrogates sure seem to think so.  As a matter of fact, I think she realized quite some time ago that she can't win the nomination and really started with much vigor, jocking for the VP slot. Well, in a way Hillary is the Obama opposite.  Like it or not, Hillary represents  much of what we despise about the politics of old that we need to move away from in order to collectively elevate this country. Obama represents the future.

Before Obama puts Clinton on the ticket he would certainly argue with the notion of whether he could trust her. Alex Castellanos, a GOP pundit on CNN, joked that ["Obama would have to have a food taster"] if he did put Hillary on the ticket. I would like to think that he is wrong.  So I will withhold my final judgment until the eventful moment comes when Hillary endorses Obama for the presidency and they stand together on the podium together, embraced and waving to the crowd with the promise of wholeheartedly working together to restore America to its greatness.

Obama said it wouldn't be easy to bring about real change.  No kidding.  But there would be this caveat to picking Hillary for Veep.  Without compromise, I would insist that there be no reference to "this is the way we used to do things" and Hillary must come without her chief political strategists and talking heads, specifically Howard Wolfson and Lanny Davis. The jury is still out on Terry McAuliffe and Paul Begala and of course on the biggest wild card of all, former President Bill Clinton.  

Some folks, most notably George bush and John McCain, seem to have lost sight of the fact that Obama and Clinton disagree on practically nothing whereas the American people and Obama agree that Bush is toxic

Now that O'Bama has pivoted, that will become all too clear

This race could be effectively over by the end of Obama's Acceptance Speech in Denver.

Exhibit A - The Obama Press Conference - McBush Evisceration Continues

I noticed in another string some criticism of a post I made sometime back. I ask the critic to consider other possibilities. Would a group of women who support Hillary with all their hearts grow tired of the mob mentality at TPM? Would they want to accomplish two things by throwing one stone?
They could cause some discussion of the differences between the health care plans of Hillary and Obama, while showing how utterly shameful and gullible the Obamanauts are at TPM. If memory serves, it was Billy Glad who said "what's the difference what it is, it's an important discussion." Think more than one and you're closer. Think about a bunch of Hillary girls fed up and laughing at a bunch of dummies who think a picture has a personality. 
You people are worried about trolls? Get a life. If you didn't love them you wouldn't be here and you wouldn't have any bags to kick around at home. Now, I leave all you magnificent pundits to talk quietly among your selves. 

Somewhere, someplace I read an article with this title recently. It was a true inspiration; combining the ludicrousness of Motley Crue's attempt to write a ballad with the feelings many of us have about Hillary. We don't hate you Hill, it's just that the race is over. 

Well I decided to mash the song up with a few clips of Hillary. Why? Because it's Friday and, well, I think this election is causing me to lose my fool mind.

Hillary, Don't Go Away Mad...Hillary, Just Go Away.

I noticed in another string some criticism of a post I made sometime back. I ask the critic to consider other possibilities. Would a group of women who support Hillary with all their hearts grow tired of the mob mentality at TPM? Would they want to accomplish two things by throwing one stone?
They could cause some discussion of the differences between the health care plans of Hillary and Obama, while showing how utterly shameful and gullible the Obamanauts are at TPM. If memory serves, it was Billy Glad who said "what's the difference what it is, it's an important discussion." Think more than one and you're closer. Think about a bunch of Hillary girls fed up and laughing at a bunch of dummies who think a picture has a personality. 
You people are worried about trolls? Get a life. If you didn't love them you be here and wouldn't have any bags to kick around at home. Now, I leave all you magnificent pundits to talk quietly among your selves. Jerks.

It was remarkable to see John McCain's appalling defense of a speech in which the president of the united states attacked a fellow American politician from the safety of foreign soil, by envoking the image of Hitler while in Israel. These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from George Bush and John McCain in which all our enemies are equivalent to Hitler, and in which any one who disagrees with their disastrous approach to foreign policy is Chamberlain.

Senator McCain has pledged to run a civil campaign based on issues, while at the same time smearing Senator Obama through guilt-by-association tactics that the American people are tired of, and quite frankly they deserve and expect better from their elected officials and those seeking office. 

Why are John McCain and George Bush are afraid to talk to our enemies? Why is military force the only tool that Bush and McCain are willing to use in the vast arsenal of international diplomacy?

John McCain, like George Bush, thinks the only solution to the world's problems is military force, to shoot first and ask questions later. This was the same reckless approach that got us into the disasterous Iraq war which has ravaged our economy, cost the lives of over 4000 American sons and daughters, and countless millions of Iraqis, strengthened Iran's standing in the region, and yes-has aided and strengthened Al Qaeda by serving as a distraction from the war on terror.

One must ask the relevant question: what would have happened if we had chosen diplomacy over war? Would we have found that Iraq's WMDs were non-existent without costing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives? But in their rush to war, George Bush and John McCain dismissed diplomacy and choose military action based on nefarious intelligence. One can't help but see similar parallels in how Bush and McCain are now treating Iran.

It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator McCain understands that America's power comes not only from military force, but also through the force of our ideals and our values, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe."

I'm unable to remove or update the picture I have here. When I go into profile edit, its blank. When I try to change it to the picture I have resized to fit...I get this error message. There is know other place to get help other than start a blog about it. Any help would be appreciated?

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat) Server at tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com Port 80

Once again....the US is posied at a historical pivotal moment...FDR took radio and created a new relationship with the American people and their government during  dysfunctional economic and political period of the 30's.

JFK grabbed TV during a time of 50's drift if not dysfunction and LBJ carried out JFK's program.

Now in the 00's Obama has the internet to buzz and build a new relationship with the American public and the rest of the world.

The US is in a dysfunctional period once again after the Bush/Gingrich/Clinton chaos....

That's almost 25 years....

Can Obama use the internet to govern with and make participatory democracy a real phenomena?

Will the traditional media distort the coming November presidential race in its nefarious usual way?

Of course...

But the grass roots will not be fooled.

The blogosphere is in noone's control.

Wow, I just youtubed the South Dakota statements by Obama today responding to the Repubs.  And it reminded me of Obama's painful spring.

As many pundits had mentioned, he was on the defensive for much of the period (esp. between Penn and NC/Indiana).  And I also sensed a lower energy malaise also and now I realize why.  While some people complain Obama's camp and Obamabot bloggers may have (fairly or unfairly) been pointing out Clinton's weaknesses, I think that most reasonable folks admit that Obama himself avoided the heavy hitting.

Unlike Clinton, Obama realized (of course he had a nice comfy lead) that what comes out of the candidate's mouth does carry much more weight than the words of his/her minions.  As such he refused to hammer a fellow Democrat on her personal issues even as he was being buffeted by his own.  That meant he couldn't pivot away from his own problems which made his defensiveness seem listless and weak.

Like he said in some town hall, he wouldn't be so nice with the Republicans (if/when he became the nominee).

And now that he has something to pivot into, its nice to see him slamming and punching hard again!

Despite the relentless braying of right-wing radio, despite the mind-boggling fact-cooking of Fox News and anything else owned by Rupert Murdoch, we may be at the point where all Obama need do is whisper "golf" - and the yammering falls quiet, the counterintuitive spinning stops, the swift boats sink away.

Politics is filled with metaphoric banana peels and open manholes, 1,000-lb. safes hurtling down from above, and supernaturally efficient saws cutting holes in the floor beneath the unsuspecting. The hot-headed or tactless remark, or documentation of long-forgotten whorehouse visits, are as common misfortunes as they are obviously catastrophic. Denials are useless, since there is little breach between accusation and verdict. Once gob-smacked, if a candidate looks, walks and quacks like a duck – he’s a dead duck.

In his unfortunate interview with Yahoo/Politico earlier this week, and his plain-dumb airing of American political laundry in the Knesset yesterday, President Bush has balled himself up on the end of the chain dragging the GOP to entropy.

Americans just don't like to see their countrymen's lives held so cheaply by an absentee jackass like Bush. He bagged 'em for the boys - whew! That's a page from the Marie Antoinette Guide to Verbal Acumen. And if we're going to insult and degrade the guy on the other side of the aisle, we don't do it with foreign eyes watching, even if those eyes belong to our brave little allies in the Levant.

Overnight, he’s this year's Bernie Kerik: His acute political radioactivity doesn’t become apparent until a host body is so poisoned digits and limbs start falling off, and stink clears the room. What's odd is that apparently no one in the GOP saw this coming, after more than seven years of one disastrous pratfall after another; it's difficult to think of anything the Bush Administration has done right.

The President's ankles have snapped and he’s stumbled, but they can’t just shoot him on the track and drag him away. He is, after all - yes, unfortunately - the Commander in Chief.

A few weeks ago, a GOP stalwart noted that when Bush gets near a microphone, he swallows it. Amazing there's room left after he gobbles his foot.

The only question is: Will Democrats be Republican-enough to use this sort of trivial stuff, these devisive non-issues?

After all, on the basis of very little, Obama has been accused of everything short of drowning kittens and scarfing up fully barbecued toddlers

Maybe it's time for Democrats to conjure their Inner Rove.

 

 

In his comments before the Knesset, President Bush compared "those who believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals" to the "false hope" of "appeasers" before the Nazi advance in Europe.  Bush's remarks were seconded by John McCain  who compared would-be negotiatiors to Neville Chamberlain. 

McCain's example of someone who stood fast in his refusal to negotiate is a curious one.  McCain cited Ronald Reagan, who refused to negotiate to end the Iranian Hostage Crisis, instead insisting to bring the hostages home.  Has McCain forgotten the Iran Contra affair?  True, Reagan didn't sit down to negotatiate with the Iranians to bring the hostages home.  He tried to sell them weapons instead.  Is McCain suggesting that instead of diplomacy we should send over a few missiles? 

The absurdity doesn't end there.  As has been pointed out, McCain's comments were hypocritical given his assertion about Hamas that "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another ... but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Moreove, according to Bush and McCain, several of the appeasers are in fact Republican foreign policy experts, including Bush's own Secretary of Defense.  Just the other day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke out in favor of engaging Iran:  "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too."

But it's not just Gates.  James Baker (to whom Bush might be said to owe his Presidency), head of the Iraq Study Group, favors direct talks with Iran and Syria:

“I believe in talking to your enemies,” he said in an interview on the ABC News program “This Week,” noting that he made 15 trips to Damascus, the Syrian capital, while serving Mr. Bush’s father as secretary of state.

“It’s got to be hard-nosed, it’s got to be determined,” Mr. Baker said. “You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”

So too have Brent Scowcroft and Richard Armitage. 
 
Feel free to add names to this list.  

It seems the Republicans have a number of appeasers in their midst. 

    

          

A spokesman for the McCain campaign said that Obama doesn't have the "strength, judgment and determination to keep America safe."  
Without judgment, strength and determination can lead a country in the wrong direction.  
The Bush administration is a case in point.  
McCain does have experience.  But it's the wrong kind of experience.  

No. Seriously.

"We know what he's going to say-- it's divisive, distractive, keeps us from coming together. After all, he says, we are the change we have been waiting for. what the heck does that mean?"

"Does it mean we've been keeping ourselves waiting? Why was change late anyway? I don't get it. let me tell you what's divisive. It is divisive to undermine the Second Amendment, to undermine to constitution of the United States."

I posted this a few days ago.

Now it is a beautiful Friday.  Bush and MCCain are making this too easy. Yesterday I saw HRC defend Obama with my own eyes.  She has made the first step towards unity.  I will take a step and maybe, we will meet each other half way and gleefully empty the white house and congress of

Guess these guys - CNAS - are appeasers too...  I don't think so.  these are some very fine minds working very hard to develop strategic concepts for us in a non-partisan way for the most part.  Take a look at who is involved with this group and then try to make the case they are "appeasers".

Looks like only 248 more days of insanity like this!!!

Obama's speech was anything but hysterical - where do these bozos come up with this kaka?

If you need a laugh today, here it is. I am so jealous of the Youtube talent that is out there. Check out the "Bill O'Reilly's Producer" video:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/16/135957/656/640/517007

and make sure you scroll down to the Comments for the "Dance Remix" (warning, it's Bill-O explicit!), or just click here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE

By Nathan Henderson-James

Partisan efforts to keep up to 300,000 eligible Missouri citizens, mostly progressive-leaning voters from elderly and low-income demographics but also including such large blocks as married women, permanently off the voting rolls are coming to a head in the Missouri Senate today as the Legislature prepares to adjourn. Measures not passed by that time will die, pending the Governor calling a special session.

Voting rights and progressive activists, led by Missourians for Fair Elections are fighting back and report an extremely tough but increasingly winnable fight against what the Kansas City Star is calling a "real deception...being perpetrated by legislators, whose claims of fraud are driving what appears to be a political agenda".

Robin Carnahan, Missouri's Secretary of State, and an opponent of the measure, HJR 48 - which would amend Missouri's constitution to require proof of citizenship to register and vote, will be holding a press conference today in Kansas City to point out the partisan agenda behind this measure.

As previously reported in these diaries from last Friday, Monday,  and yesterday, Missouri politicians are pushing a measure to change the state constitution to allow strict voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements. This was prompted by a 2006 Missouri Supreme Court ruling that struck down a strict voter ID bill as unconstitutional.

Local Missouri activists expect that Secretary of State Carnahan will emphasize the following points in her press conference today:

*Missourians have already been through this in 2006 and our identification requirements in Missouri are fine, and they work – we have fair elections without fraud and people are allowed to vote.  There’s no need to take the drastic step of altering our constitution just so that restrictive measures that suppress votes can be imposed on voters.

*In 2006, a more restrictive photo ID law was passed that was ruled unconstitutional because it was a burden and poll tax on voters, so now the Republicans just want to change the constitution to strip away voting rights protections.

Reports from officials with Missourians for Fair Elections suggest that the field work and wave of publicity and editorials from across the state are having the effect of exposing the partisan nature of this campaign while putting pressure on Senate leadership to refuse to consider the measure before the Senate adjourns.

Using flyers and door-to-door canvasses to generate on-the-spot calls to specific legislators, MFE has been able to to generate an unprecedented number of calls on this issue, which seem to be limiting the number of Senators willing to stop a potential filibuster of this measure and facilitating the disenfranchisement of poor, elderly, and low-income citizens.

For more information on this urgent work and how you can get invovled, contact Missourians for Fair Elections at mofairelections@gmail.com or 314-363-5571.

This Michelle Cottle piece that the ever sassy latina for obama over at the unbelievably excellent The Field points to is kind of interesting. Here's what it is missing amid all the finger pointing: an emphasis on organization. The Clinton campaign got out organized and out hustled every step of the way. Yes, they pulled out all the stops and bussed in thousands of college students and union members from AFSCME for New Hampshire and beat us there. And they managed to hold the line in Nevada. But there after, their only victories came in places that they had overwhelming demographic advantages. Yet where is the discussion of grassroots organizing in the obits that Cottle collected?

Barack Obama represents the new Democratic party. A party that not only has better ideas and better candidates than the Republicans, but is lean and mean and ruthlessly well organized enough to beat them, as Michael Dukasis said, in every precinct in the country. Clinton's campaign was the death throes of the old media driven, top down campaign of the past. So don't mourn Clinton, organize!

Joe Trippi is right. Obama's campaign is the future, the Dean approach on steroids. And its another example of how things keep getting faster. It took 20 years for the Republicans to go from Goldwater to Reagan and for movement conservatives to reshape the GOP. But it only took us four
 to get from Dean to Obama and take control of our party.

YEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWWWW!

Lumped together with Bush on an irresponsible foreign policy. Subjected to a withering speech by Obama. Embarrassed by his own statements that he'd deal with Hamas.  How could this news cycle get any worse for McCain?

Well,
How about getting booed at an NRA meeting?  McCain will be speaking at the National Rifle Association of America annual meeting in Louisville, KY, today at 4:30.  I'm hoping the microphones will pick up the sound of P.O.'d gun nuts.  Even if he does get a polite reception, prepare for him to say something foolish about gun rights that will directly contradict statements he made in the past. 

The McCain candidacy is a gift from heaven.  The man's path to the White House essentially is one long minefield--he has to navigate between an skeptical & unenthusiastic base and an appalled anti-Bush public.  And every time he has to pander to the base, they guy gets tinier and tinier...

Call it... McPocrisy?

With "Bitter" and "Sweet(ie)" under our onion belts, it's inevitable that the next video clip of an Obama gaffe will delight us with another of what scientists describe as the five basic tastes: bitter, salty, sour, sweet, and umami (described as savoury, meaty, or brothy).

Until then, here's your Daily Delegate Update:

Superdelegates:
Rep. Pete Stark of California

Pledged Delegates:
NBC NEWS has adjusted the pledged delegate split out of North Carolina, resulting in two more for Obama and two less for Clinton. Obama gets a net of 19 delegates, a 67-48 split, out of the Tar Heel State

A delegate for John Edwards says she’ll switch her support to Barack Obama when she gets to the national convention in August. Arlene Prather-O’Kane, who is from Cedar Falls, told me yesterday she’s sticking with Edwards for the moment, but plans to switch at the DNC in in Denver.

When not prattling about "appeasement", neo-cons and their enablers relish comparing Iran in its current form to ancient Persia, drawing dire comparisons between the near-certain extinction faced by ancient Greecian city-states and our Republic.

In a review in the April 28th New Yorker of a new edition of Herodotus, David Mendelsohn, too, sees a lesson in the hubris of Darius and Xerxes.  Not for the current Iranian government, however, but for our own.  His comparison is hauntingly apt and chillingly detailed, and deserves quoting in full:

"Then, there is the story itself. A great power sets its sights on a smaller, strange, and faraway land—an easy target, or so it would seem. Led first by a father and then, a decade later, by his son, this great power invades the lesser country twice. The father, so people say, is a bland and bureaucratic man, far more temperate than the son; and, indeed, it is the second invasion that will seize the imagination of history for many years to come. For although it is far larger and more aggressive than the first, it leads to unexpected disaster. Many commentators ascribe this disaster to the flawed decisions of the son: a man whose bluster competes with, or perhaps covers for, a certain hollowness at the center; a leader who is at once hobbled by personal demons (among which, it seems, is an Oedipal conflict) and given to grandiose gestures, who at best seems incapable of comprehending, and at worst is simply incurious about, how different or foreign his enemy really is. Although he himself is unscathed by the disaster he has wreaked, the fortunes and the reputation of the country he rules are seriously damaged. A great power has stumbled badly, against all expectations."

Neo-cons are right in one respect.  There are lessons in history, and we ignore them at our peril.

This entire week, I've been blogging my interview with Rachel, a formerly deployed soldier in Iraq, who has been brave enough to share her experiences with contractor abuse and the harm it is causing our troops. Her testimony has placed a spotlight on the need for policies that truly support the troops in practice, not just in rhetoric. For as much as the current administration uses empty talking points such as “protect of our national security” and “support the troops” to justify its policies, when it comes down to it, our leaders clearly view the well-being of the soldiers on the front lines as an afterthought to the profits they and their cronies have reaped from the war. In this final entry, Rachel weighs in on the need for accountability:

What is your reaction to the news that the administration left a loophole in contractor accountability legislation that gave immunity to overseas contractors like KBR for any misdoing?
Honestly, it makes no sense. To give immunity to these contractors clearly gives no motivation for them to live up to their contracts. In this case, KBR was supposed to be testing for chlorine three times a day, however after looking at the reports and oversight hearings, it seems that the water had been contaminated for as long as KBR had been present on Camp Ramadi. Many studies and common sense observations make it clear that contractor accountability should not be minimized. For example, a study released by Blackwell Synergy’s Journal of Travel Medicine discussed the self-reported description of diarrhea among military populations in Operations Iraqi/Enduring Freedom. The background of the study reports that infectious diarrhea is among the most common medical problems associated with military deployments and has been reported as a frequent problem for troops. Overall diarrhea was reported from 2003 to 2004 by 76.8% of military personnel in Iraq. It was “frequently severe” for 20.8% or associated with fever (25.8%), vomiting (18%), persistent symptoms (9.8%) or chronic symptoms (3.3%). Over 80% reported seeking care, usually at the lowest echelon of care (field medic). The study concluded that the issues are more common than in past conflicts in the region. Common sense tells me it’s probable that the increased amount have been due to contaminated water and that less accountability for contractors giving troops basic necessities could prove detrimental to force protection.

I knew that I would face risks while I was in Iraq. It’s a part of the job description. But that risk should never have involved behavior by contractors cutting corners with such carelessness. In most wars, dysentery kills more soldiers than combat. This in itself seems like a pretty good reason to hold the contractors accountable. The contract and regulations to provide clean water and to test it regularly to avoid contamination were clearly stated. This wasn’t just one time on one camp, it was widespread and exposed thousands of troops and civilians to a potentially deadly threat.

After hearing Rachel's testimony, I can't help but wonder why the administration doesn't see the correlation between the lack of accountability in Iraq, and the lack of progress in Iraq. Rachel says herself that the neglect practiced by the contractors in providing basic necessities undermines the efforts to secure progress.

It's clear that the need for change is imminent. Policies such as these do not reflect the true American values of fairness, community and security. It's time we started truly supporting our troops by calling for measures of accountability for the contractors who are supposed to be taking care of them.

I'm sure you are as grateful as I am to Rachel for being the voice that has been silenced by the Pentagon and by the media. Rachel's story stands as an unequivocal call for consequences for those who have taken advantage of the soldiers on the front lines of the war. Please join Progressive Future's campaign to hold private contractors accountable by signing our Call for Consequences petition, and stay tuned for further ways to stay informed and active on this serious issue.

Ah, the intellectual epicenter of the vast right-wing stupidity - I refer of course to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, whose lead editorial today (careful, it burns) castigates congressional Democrats for playing "games" with supplemental funding for the troops. At issue - the failure of the Democratically-led House to approve supplemental funding last night by a vote of 149-141. But wait, you say, there are 435 reps, how can this be? The answer: at the last minute, 131 conservative Republicans simply voted "present," ensuring that anti-war Democrats would garner enough votes to defeat the funding provision.

This is how the WSJ viewed it: "They [meaning Democrats] pulled the stunt of approving the domestic spending but voting down the war money." Of course, back here on the big blue marble, anyone with half a brain knows the only ones pulling a "stunt" on the supplemental were the Republicans. Heck, even those with less than half a brain know it - I give you Republican Minority Leader John Boehner speaking about the maneuver: "It was a political scheme."

Obviously, what the WSJ said today was an enormous, mendacious, deceitful, dishonest, untruthful, big, fat, LIE. But once you've all picked yourselves up off the floor at the very idea that the editorialists at the WSJ would ever be less than forthcoming, let's take a minute to examine this a bit more closely. Seems to me that these guys are depserately trying to send a signal here to their most conservative (and therefore otherwise uninformed) readers - don't blame the Republicans, please. Given all the great news the Republican Party has had this week, it makes sense. The last thing they need right now is to further alienate their base.

And yet, that's exactly what they did. This little stunt was cooked up by the same leaders who are telling House Republicans that they are losing because they aren't conservative enough--and I expect this "scheme" will work about as well as that advice has. But only if everyone knows about, and not just the inside-the-beltway types. So cue up those commercials and press releases, please - let's see all 131 Republicans listed with a tagline: "Refused to support funding for our troops." 

That's a millstone around the neck congressional Democrats recognize only too well, and it's high time it was returned to its rightful owner.  

An honorably discharged army soldier is refusing to deploy to Iraq partly on the grounds that these orders are illegal.  His position directly contradicts the United States government's contention that these combat activities are lawful under the Geneva Conventions. Indeed, the President's public affairs office has been implicated at 119 in disinformation efforts, suspected to supporting alleged unlawful warfare and war crimes.

Sgt Matthis Chrioux reports he fears retaliation. This is a well founded and reasoned concern, supported, in part by the well crafted preliminary memorandum, related to a decision to refuse to deploy to a combat zone. The laws of war require service members, when they learn of war crimes, to report that evidence to their commanders.

Chiroux reports he was  not able to fully comply with his Geneva obligations because he feared retaliation for reporting war crimes. Chiroux fears retaliation if he complies with the Geneva conventions. His fear, in part, stems from public support for illegal warfare, as supported by the President's information warfare against American civilians.

Civilian oversight has been turned on its head. It is Chiroux's contention that this public support for the alleged illegal occupation is fueling retaliation against military personnel who attempt to take comply with the laws of war. The military is rightfully, albeit slowly objecting to following illegal civilian orders.

This is a serious situation warranting public comment and review.  The President is not applying the lessons of Vietnam to prevail in combat, but is allegedly suppressing public discussion of his failure to fully comply with Geneva. The President is applying the wrong lessons from the war he refused to deploy.

Information Warfare: Maintain Support For War Crimes

The President's information warfare through the military analysts appears related to his larger objective of suppressing domestic opposition and oversight of this alleged illegal, reckless, and unlawful activity. The President may be losing on the battlefield, but he faces no consequences if he can maintain public support for his recklessness. This is the lesson of Vietnam.

Congressional inaction on impeachment dissuades some a from challenging the failed Iraq policy. A decision to not impeach would bolster the President's standing, and dissuade military personnel from refusing to obey deployments.

Impeachment Inaction Fuels Alleged War Crimes Machine

This is a cycle feeding on itself. The President's disinformation continues, there is no information to prompt an investigation, and without a prosecution the public has no infromation to challenge the illegal warfare. Then the cycle continues with more disinformation and intimidation.

Congress is not helping by refusing to oppose the President, nor leading efforts to undermine support for illegal warfare.

One attorney contrasted the public opposition against Vietnam with still-popular Bush Administration's war in Iraq:

". . .Bush Administration still actively defends it and might well find it useful to political purposes to go after veterans who talk publicly about war crimes they witnessed. . ."

War crimes defendants have the obligation to show they did not have a reasonable basis to conclude the orders were illegal. Sgt. Chiroux declares:

"This occupation is unconstitutional and illegal and I hereby lawfully refuse to participate as I will surely be a party to war crimes."

The soldier reported his fear of retaliation on Iraq Veterans Against the War:

"As an Army journalist whose job it was to collect and filter servicemember's stories, I heard many stomach-churning testimonies of the horrors and crimes taking place in Iraq. For fear of retaliation from the military, I failed to report these crimes, but never again will I allow fear to silence me."

These have serious Geneva implications. Congress must examine why reports of alleged war crimes are not being adequately processed.

The public and international community must know why service members serving in active duty combat zones are reluctant to report alleged violations of the laws of war. The next step is to remove these obstacles, and ensure the laws of war are fully enforced, not explained away with the President's disinformation and Congressional inaction.

US Government Contractors, Civilians

The problem is not isolated to the Department of Defense. DoJ OLC staff counsel, contractors, and outside legal counsel are also allegedly complicit with these war crimes It remains to be understood which JCON data DoJ OLC staff counsel accessed to support other war crimes. The Attorney General and DoJ OLC have self-certified circular memoranda saying American war crimes are lawful. That declaration is allegedly not enforceable and could be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war. No attorney, legal counsel, or staff adviser can lawfully declare they will not fully enforce the Conventions.

DOJ JCON Database and War Crimes Investigations Against Staff Counsel

There is some confusion about whether anything is getting done. Some point to a promise of concern, asking us to believe that help is on the way. That is an illusory promise in the wake of certain war crimes, and not a recipe for change.

A decision to investigate is different than raising a legal concern in a court motion. It is arguably reckless for anyone to argue that because an attorney or court may have mentioned legal counsel misconduct that there is, necessarily an investigation. The court records are not the same as the disbarment investigations. The issue is not what is or isn't in the court database, but whether there is or is not a reasonable basis to conclude from court records that there is an investigation outside court. That does not follow.

Legal Counsel Oversight Through Prosecutions, Not Promises of Investigations

There is some confusion about whether there are or are not ongoing investigations or plans to prosecute DOJ OLC staff counsel. Some might suggest that there is a promise from DOJ OPR to conduct an investigation. Others may claim that they have seen concerns in court filings. The misdirection is interesting.

Rather than point to court results, we're asked to believe the vague assurance that someone is "concerned" about something. That is meaningless. Whether the court officers are or are not concerned about misconduct is a separate issue than whether they have reported that information outside court to the attorney disciplinary board.

Court data bases are not the same as disciplinary board investigation documents.  It is a separate issue whether that complaint does or does not translate into an investigation.  It is misdirection to point to a court data base when making assessments about whether there are or are not active war crimes investigations against United States Attorneys, DoJ OLC Staff counsel, or others allegedly complicit with illegal information warfare.

Where there is supposed evidence that someone is possibly concerned with a court officer's conduct, that concern is meaningless until that information is transmitted to the attorney disciplinary board, and the disciplinary board completes their investigation, then forwards that information to the court for trial.  

If any court has a genuine concern with any attorney -- supposedly under investigation or engaged in alleged illegal conduct -- the court could work with others to expedite that legal review and prevent that legal counsel from appearing before the court. This does not appear to be happening, as evidenced by the lack of war crimes prosecutions against the DOJ OLC staff counsel. Indeed, the Attorney General has expressly stated he has no plans to enforce the laws of war, nor fully comply with Geneva because the DOJ OLC memoranda said it was OK. That excuse is not acceptable, and could be adjudicated as a subsequent war crime.

The public must review to what extent court officers and legal counsel have publicly claimed they have "concerns" with war crimes, but show no evidence they have filed, started, or reported this information to the attorney disciplinary boards.

Reckless Assurances of Concern Without A Showing of Progress

A motion containing a concern about a court officer or staff counsel means nothing until the state disciplinary board completes its investigation, and the results are provided to the court for a disbarment proceeding. We're far from that, thanks to the inaction of Congress, lack of reliable information, the disinformation from the President, and lack of state-level public action directed at DOJ OLC staff counsel for their alleged complicity with war crimes. We have an apparent national war crimes policy of "inaction in action."

The public has no assurances that any investigation has started, until the alleged war crimes investigation of an attorney is complete and the state disciplinary board presents their information to the court for purposes of disbarment. But a concern in a court document does not mean there were previous investigation nor subsequent actions.

An outside, non-court investigation has no relationship to whether or not there is or is not a court motion filed in any database.  An investigation, by definition is pending, and is not in court. The investigation must occur first. A court filing mentioning a possible investigation means nothing.

No one can credibly argue they "know" an investigation has started; or that the review will or will not result in formal charges unless they are speculating, have inside information, or they hope to provide assurances of things which may or may not happen. Under this US government, the promises have been fruitless.

However, there is another way to know whether an investigation is or isn't happening. It's possible to compare the publicly available evidence of investigators, review what is publicly known about what they are doing, and compare their actions, questions, and likely evidence to various policies, guides, and legal standards. With enough anecdotal information, it is possible to make some informed judgments of what is most likely happening. The results from this US government are clear: We have no war crimes prosecutions, only the promise.

The States should move to enforce the laws of war against the President, Attorney General, DOJ Staff, and Civilian policy makers.  Until the public sees visible evidence that there are investigations against legal counsel in the form of prosecutions, the public should reasonably conclude that "concern" about war crimes is not triggering the mandatory actions: War crimes reports and investigations against staff counsel. This inaction was the subject of war crimes prosecution at the Justice Trial.

Not Obliged To Follow Illegal Orders

More people like Sgt Matthis Chrioux should question the legality of this occupation. The President may or may not have made a legal error. However, there is no reason anyone should support that error by covering up war crimes, or not enforcing the laws of war.

The White House Press office is allegedly lying when it says the White House is not involved with the alleged disinformation campaign directed at US civilians in violation of the Smith Act. The White House emails firmly establish at 119 the White House involvement with the planning. However, Perino would ask that we not believe our lying eyes.  This climate of disinformation is fueling the intimidation, and dissuading military personnel to comply with their Geneva obligations. This disinformation could be a subsequent offenses under the laws of war.

Alleged DOJ OLC Role In Drafting Illegal Memoranda To Support Disinformation, and Bolster Public Support for War Crimes and Illegal Activity

Until the war ends, the public should reasonably conclude that the DOJ OLC staff counsel believe they are  immune from prosecution. They are in error. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes.

People like Sgt Chiroux are speaking out. DoJ OLC legal memoranda are allegedly behind the President's alleged illegal orders. It is only a matter of time before the spotlight brightens on the DOJ JCON database seeking that alleged war crimes evidence which may implicate DOJ OLC staff counsel. It remains to be understood how military personnel like Sgt Chiroux might be able to assist in prosecuting Department of Justice staff counsel as was done at Nuremberg.

Needed War Crimes Investigations of DOJ OLC Staff Counsel 

The problem is not with those who disobey illegal orders. The problem is the reckless DOJ OLC staff counsel which refuses to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions. The lawyers have allegedly betrayed their oath, written memoranda that would demand military personnel be silent about war crimes, and largely supported illegal efforts to intimidate people not to fully comply with their legal obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

We need to see investigation results, not the promise of investigations. The open question remains to what extent non-DoJ personnel, contractors, and personnel not directly connected with the Department of Justice are involved. These efforts appear to include plans and ongoing activities to dissuade discussion of these war crimes, and the proven White House connection  at 119  with the disinformation and information warfare. How this is affecting non-DOJ personnel remains to be understood.

America's citizens must accept the domestic enemy is in the Oval Office and the Department of Justice legal counsel's office. Until they are confronted at a war crimes tribunal or through impeachment, America is recklessly leaving the enforcement of the laws of war against the President and Staff counsel in the hands of those who have been deployed, and are not able to directly confront the alleged war criminals in the Department of Justice.

If you would like to oppose this President's allegedly reckless, illegal warfare, visit this link, to meet with others who hope to enforce the laws of war against US government officials and this reckless President.

Disclaimer: We are not affiliated with the that organization, nor has this information been provided to you on their behalf. This is for information only and not legal advise. The link is provided for your convenience, and is not an encouragement to violate the law or neglect legal requirements under the laws of war.

Here's the part of what Bush said in Israel that I think needs more precise and developed comment now and as the general race unfolds.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all long." [Emphasis added.]

I notice that many of the pro-Hillary commentators and Hillary herself have the above narrow view of diplomatic relations, reminiscent of an authoritarian style they are steeped in. Hillary's father, she has said to the media, was the ultimate threatening, condemning parent, as was Bush's and Bush's grandfather. Their view is moralistic, or judgmental and profoundly cynical about humanity. Their method is to lecture and threaten enough that our opponents change their tune.

This view and method is at the root of what's known as the Realist School of International Relations. They think they're realistic, because, unlike wimpy, soft-hearted guys like Obama, they know with certainty that foreign radical opponents are like sociopaths--they are not amenable to reason and empathy. Their realism, it has to be said, is only a theory, but to them, it feels like the ultimate truth because it's so thoroughly imbedded in prevailing morality.

The realist perspective truly is the archaic view represented in prevailing morality, in which even most lefties are still locked. On the cutting edge is the now highly developed view in the social sciences that our old view of even sociopaths is, well, just mistaken. When you stand outside of moralists' dire warnings against considering "relativist" views, it becomes obvious that the old view has to be mistaken, because it's based on the patently tautological, primitive view that people do bad things because they're bad. And, giving the Devil his due, if they're bad through and through, of course, opposition is our only course. If that cornerstone of morality--that estimation of what's going on in peoples' minds--is valid, then the Realists should be in control. Their entire position is based on a psychology, albeit a pop one that's so widespread that it's difficult to imagine an alternative But it's obviously way off the beam.

Missing form morality's reductive equation is humanity's vulnerability to maltreatment and the distortions it generates in its victims. Based on the evidence-based view, proof now has been gathered that even career criminals diagnosed Anti-Social Personality Disorder, or sociopaths, are suffering from mind-numbing levels of humiliation and the torment it generates, not bad. That's what motivates their criminality, not an evil nature. Conceived of as horrifically suffering people whose suffering is repressed and disguised in an uncaring persona, they are amenable to profound expressions of respect and caring.  

In Wilson's Ghost, the leading exponent of the alternative school of international relations, which I provisionally prefer to call the School of Realistic Empathy, James Blight of the Watson School at Brown U., provides the international relations analog to the above empathic view that is emerging in the psychotherapy especially. He explains that you've got to take a lot of time and care getting to know your opponent. Instead of lecturing, you ask questions and listen. And you try to hold their feet to the fire not by making threats but by bringing to meetings all the witnesses and documents and summaries of them you can to make certain that you and your opponents agree on the facts. The point is not at all to condone or appease or anything of the sort. Thinking mechanistically for a moment, the point is to learn enough about the inner workings of the machine to be able to fix it or operate it or dismantle it. This is what Obama did with conflicted groups in Chicago, and this is what he will attempt in the Middle East.

Study realistic empathy, I say. It's our frontier.

My only quibble with the School of Realistic Empathy is that its proponents eschew sympathy. The supposed maladaptiveness of sympathy in social science work has become a shibboleth. But unless you've evoked sympathy for your opponents in you and in them, you've not empathized thoroughly enough to solve the most intractable problems. You may solve some problems without getting to that point, but the sine qua non of empathy is the feeling of profound caring it evokes.

We know this in ordinary life situations. For instance, when I learn that my middle-aged wife screamed at my son partly because she had to stop taking estrogen, has no serotonin in her brain, and so on, I feel for her. I don't just understand mechanistically as a basis for correcting the problem.

That feeling deepens the resolution of our family problem by making my and my son's concern and good will more believable and genuine. The more profound the problem, the more profound the empathy, the more profound the caring. Ultimately, love, as the Song of Solomon says, is more powerful than death. Empathy is what evokes it. Or, it cooks. Love is the food that sustains and heals us.

Imagine Obama teaching us this stuff and then going to the Middle East and expressing profound, extensive feeling for the victims of the Iraq war. Imagine him describing empathically Bush's motives, the forces driving him and the neocons. It would take a lot of explaining for this measure to be convincing. But that's just what he is capable of doing, along with the help of people like Blight and other social scientists bursting at the seams to have a leader who draws the best and the brightest conflict resolution folks to him for the sake of the world.

See why my friends call me "Preach'"

If there were ever two families that should be outlawed from drawing any kind of historical parallels between Nazis and Islamic terrorists it would be the Bushes and Walkers. If the name Chamberlain has become synonymous with the word appeasement, the Walker-Bush name should be synonymous with financial treason.

These two American families not only teamed up to reap immense profits managing (even after the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1942) the wealth of Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist and proud Nazi who was perhaps the single largest contributor to Hitler's war machine.  

"The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus. "At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus. "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. "My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."

The two families also hooked up to unleash the simple minded titans of oil profiteering and Wahhabi-appeasing the Walker-Bushes: George Herbert Walker and George Walker.  Unfortunately, the Walker Bushes weren't simply war profiteering blueblood industrialists they were also goddamned presidents of the United States.

If there is any meager silver lining to the disastrous legacy of George Walker Bush perhaps it will be that someday we'll reach a point where his family name will be at least as historically vilified as Neville Chamberlain's.