What was delivered was a brutal shock to an oligarchy gone mad with its own arrogance. The Irish people from the lower 80 percent of income brackets came out to make known their utter rejection of the plan for a European-wide dictatorship.

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/06/14/shock-heard-round-world.html

Apparently John McCain has some empathy with Michelle Obama.  Either that or he just inexplicably decided to give the Obama campaign a lifeline on the one line of attack that they've been able to get traction with on Michelle, and thru her, her husband re: 'patriotism'.

And, it happened all because some a**hole was trying to take a shot at Mrs. Obama at a McCain townhall and 'grampa' didn't get it.  Serve's 'em both right.

I wonder if this will make all the network evening newscasts and be on an all day loop on the cable channels?  Yea...I won't hold my breath either.

.........................................................

From Huffington Post and Politco.com:

So a man finally got a question into McCain and he had a very different sort of question. The questioner noted that he had been educated at Princeton and Harvard and made more than $300,000 a year. "How can I be proud of my country?" he asked....

"I'll admit to you that it's tough, it's tough in some respects," McCain said, seeming to lend credence to Michelle Obama's observation. McCain said America needed to be "more humble, more inclusive."

 

See links below:

I received my $600 Chinese loan today and I immediately stimulated British Petroleum with $52 "hardly earned" dollars.  As I have no offspring myself, I'd like to personally thank the kind reader's present and future grandchildren for repaying this unsolicited payment to me as its seems unlikely that any serious effort to pay off our crippling national debts will occur in my lifetime.

While I also plan to stimulate the local tire dealer before winter, I can't help but feel I'm part of a larger shell game.  I get a few hundred bucks, the dear reader gets a few hundred bucks, the top 1 percent get billions in tax cuts.  Thousands of homes are in foreclosure; the corporations that created the mess received billions in payouts and the CEOs maintained their million dollar salaries.

Mr. Obama needs to be quite vocal in pointing out that McCain's beloved tax "cuts" without spending cuts are simply tax deferments payable by the middle and lower classes.  Reagan's voodoo economics state that massive tax cuts benefiting primarily the wealthy will increase government revenues so much that what logically would result in a deficit will magically produce a surplus.  Mr. Obama, I beseech you, have your fine, efficient staff produce a simple graph that shows how voodoo economics has produced $200 billion (or more) annual deficits every year under Reagan, Bush, and Bush, and that these three presidents are responsible for $7 TRILLION of our $9.5 trillion national debt.  Am I alone in believing that the Piper must be paid?

Normally, I wouldn't accept a check from an institution with such checkered finances, but I figure as long as the Chinese are backing it, I'll accept the check.  Keep your little ones away from soft drinks and fatty foods and provide them with plenty of exercise.  In two or three decades, they'll thank you daily for the added endurance as they work that second or third job.   

Forgive me for this post but I have to say it. I mean no disrespect. That said…

While I am saddened by the passing of anyone, especially an icon of our times, I am struggling with the emotions which are within me right now.

Am I the only one who feels resentment for what I see as Mr. Russert’s selling himself, and us, out over the last several years? His taking what the administration said to him as “off the record” unless otherwise stated is the antithesis of journalism.  His involvement with the Plame affair, his softballing interviews, the “debates.”  We, as a nation, are reaping the rewards of this type of journalism.

As an icon, I believe that he had more of a responsibility than others. I don’t expect much from the Bill O’Hannity-Coulter’s of the world. But I did and do hold those who are highly respected to act responsibly. And I don’t feel that has taken place in the last eight plus years.

My heart goes out to his friends and family. I am sorry for their loss and their pain.

I am also sorry for the loss of the integrity and very meaning of my country. Mr. Russert was a part of the Fourth Estate of our country. And I am very angry about and deeply saddened by their failures.

Please tell me if I am off the mark or if you disagree. But these emotions within me are not going away - rather the opposite. Every time I see him canonized, it angers me that much more. For this isn’t about him or me, it is about US.

RIP Mr. Russert.

Live Frankly

Thats it, just that this guy is amazing.  I know there are things happening in this country that "matter more", but you can't watch this guy without being awed by his talent, dedication, toughness and sportsmanship.  Wow.

There's a certain Mythos that has attached to John McCain regarding his expertise in National Security-Military-Foreign Policy matters.

Its foundation rests on two blocks of concrete, in the public's mind:

    1. His father retired from the US Navy as a four star Admiral who served as CINCPAC during the VietWar; his grandfather also retired from the US Navy with the ranks of four star Admiral. Those are facts, and make for a fine family history.
      John McCain himself did not achieve the rank of four star Admiral in the US Navy, however. And, second;
     2. John McCain was held by the Viets as a POW for something like 5 years and certainly underwent serious physical and mental abuse by his captors. He suffered those abuses in the service of his country.
        That is a fact, and it cannot be taken away from him.

He has stressed his military service during his political career, and does so now. His bravery and general toughness is beyond question...the guy's no wimp.

But now he is being called upon to transcend physical bravery and demonstrate to the voting public that he has the intellectual skills required on a president, a Commander in Chief, a rank even his distinguished father and grandfather did not achieve.

Candidate McCain is not doing a very persuasive job of demonstrating the deep thinking required of a president, nor of a four star Admiral, for that matter. The campaign is exposing his confusion and superficial understanding of the politico-military issues facing the United States in Iraq and elsewhere. Only the most partisan of Republicans could argue that McCain has thus-far displayed the intellect, the nuanced thought, required of a president.

His Democrat opponent merely has to stand aside and let McCain speak. As the words flow from his mouth, his status as a national security diminish, word-by-simplistic-inaccurate-word.

I'd still like to see Obama pick Biden or Ret. four star Admiral Falon as his running mate, more for Barack's own good than anything else.

But McCain is killing himself softly, with his own words.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Here's a modest proposal to fund a universal health care plan through the military budget, while maintaining oversight by a civilian panel.  
The proposal would create a military grade of highly trained medical responders whose purpose would be:1-Provide emergency response and maintenance care to U.S. military veterans.  Physical exams, prescriptions, physical therapy, etc.  In home care and in facility.2-Provide the same service to the general civilian public, at no charge, as available.  Stand-by Katrina type disaster response.  This would gradually become the main focus of the service.3-Veterans of this service, when retired, would receive full health care through the VA, which would have to be greatly expanded in size and responsibility. 4-The service would be limited to domestic duty only.
Funding would be through the armed services and/or Homeland Security.
That's phase one.  Phase two would create a second grade of service, one which would be open to all citizens regardless of age or physical ability.  This group would be required to develop some level of competence in dealing with medical emergencies, to the level they are capable.  They would be unpaid, but would receive full health care benefits for a small annual fee.  No-one could be denied entry into the service, or removed involuntarily.
A civilian panel would provide the real oversight, the military would basically be there just to provide the budget.
This could be a way for the democrats to get cover on the health care issue by proposing to raise the military budget, and campaigning on better health care for vets.  Eventually most citizens would volunteer as grade two members and provide valuable services to the community.

McCain loves to boast that the surge is working - violence is down.
In fact, "in March and April alone, more than 2,000 people, mostly civilians, died during clashes between US and Iraqi government forces and the Shia militia Mehdi Army.

The Iraqi diaspora is now one of the largest in modern times, with more than two million people fleeing abroad. But the ferocious strife and the breakdown in law and order have led to another wave of about 2.7 million fleeing their homes but unable to escape the country. Many of these have moved to Baghdad, putting further strain on a shattered infrastructure and adding to the city's sectarian tensions. The situation in terms of numbers and conditions for the displaced people has deteriorated dramatically in the past two years, Amnesty claims.

"The crisis for Iraq's refugees and internally displaced is one of tragic proportions," said the report. "Despite this, the world's governments have done little or nothing to help, failing in both their moral duty and legal obligation to share responsibility for displaced people wherever they are. Apathy towards the crisis has been the overwhelming response."

Nobody cares.   Hell, most people probably don't even know.   Neither McCain nor Obama ever talk about it.

Basra is so *safe* that British forces don't even venture out of their airport base!

When do you ever here that being mentioned by the talking heads?

The information black hole is frightful.

I can't watch and listen to McCain any more I'm so sickened by his ra ra never surrender junk.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraqi-refugee-crisis-grows-as-west-turns-its-back-847473.html

I have never understood why more progressives don't favor some form of partial privatization of social security, as long as it is designed correctly.  The most common plans I have seen have been something along the lines of the following: individuals would have a small portion of their regular SS contributions placed in an individual investment account in the person's name, analogous to a 401k.  It wouldn't be an ordinary investment account; only certain categories of investments would be eligible (i.e., no junk bonds or cattle futures).  The money would actually belong to the individual but he/she wouldn't be able to withdraw the money until retirement age.  However, the money would be inheritable as it would be a part of his/her estate.  I would also add that upon retirement, the government would guarantee a certain level of income, but only to supplement the amount that's in the individual retirement account.  E.g., if the guaranteed minimum was $30,000 per year, and your retirement account only had enough in it to support $25,000 per year, then the government would kick in only $5,000 per year.

I think there are plenty of good progressive reasons to support this:
1.  It is a source of inheritable wealth for everyone.  One of the cruel ironies of the current social security system is that it disproportionately disadvantages minorities because they tend to die younger than white folks.  Hence white folks tend to get more SS money out of it than minorities do, and the system ends up being a transfer of wealth from minorities to whites.  That would change with a partially privatized system: the money in the account would belong to the person's estate regardless, and it would be an active step in fighting white privilege.
2. It relieves the government of a significant financial burden.  Instead of having to provide for a barely minimal retirement fund for everyone, the government would only have to provide a supplemental retirement fund for some, and then only if necessary.  Whatever money is left over could be devoted to other purposes.
3.  It is more consistent with the original intent of SS, which was to be a supplemental retirement fund.  Right now it isn't that; more and more people actually depend on it for their retirement nest egg and that trend is bound to continue as more baby boomers retire, not all of whom have healthy 401k's.
4.  This is one issue in which progressives can realistically expect to find common cause with conservatives and actually get something done in a deadlocked Congress.
5.  And - let's face it - one reason why, IMO, progressive ideas fail at the ballot box is because they tend to stress communitarian goals over individualist goals.  This is a way to have it both ways - to preserve the essential communitarian nature of social security while still acknowledging that individualism remains an important factor in people's voting decisions.

The arguments that I tend to hear against partial privatization are that (1) it would cost too much, (2) it would "destroy" SS, (3) the money would be lost in the stock market anyway so it would be just throwing good money after bad, and (4) it would only put money into the hands of greedy bankers.

For the first argument: SS is going to have to change, one way or another.  The status quo is untenable.  So the question is do we have to bear huge costs, because the answer is yes.  The real question is: how much is it going to be, and when will the bill come due?  The current unfuded liability for Social Security is approximately $11 trillion.  This figure is NOT included in the national debt figures, so it is in addition to what the government already owes its creditors.  We can either pay this figure later - and then keep paying it, and keep paying it, as more and more people retire and the wage-earner-to-retiree ratio goes further out of whack - or we can spread out the pain a little bit so we aren't forced with huge debts later.  Think of it as prepayment on a balloon mortgage payment.  It's easier to make smaller, regular payments in advance than to try to save up the money yourself, resisting the temptation to spend the money on something else (and we all know that Congresscritters always resist temptation!), then when the balloon payment comes due, you have to scramble to find the cash.  And the beauty of this plan is that prepayment now will actually lead to lesser obligations by the government in the future, as the retirement account grows on its own.

For the second argument: SS as a form of social insurance wouldn't be destroyed as long as the guaranteed minimum benefit was retained.  Yes the system would change but the concept would not.  It would simply be a different means to reach the same goal.

For the third argument: The data are in, and investing in the stock market for the purpose of retirement actually works.  Since 1926, the average annual return for the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 11%.  This time period includes the Great Depression, wars, unrest, recessions, two precipitous stock market crashes (1929 and 1987), 9/11, and all sorts of other bad stuff.  Yet over the long haul, people make money.  Of course if you speculate in the market you are likely to lose your shirt.  But that is not the same as long-term investing, which works. 

And for the fourth argument: Well, this borders on paranoia and I can't help you there.  If you are stuck on this argument then you must tremble in fear that every time you go to the supermarket some big corporation somewhere is exploiting you.  Greedy bankers or no, ordinary people still manage to make money in the stock market.

As a matter of full disclosure: If you read my profile you will learn that I am a conservative Republican, not a progressive.  Yup it's true.  If it were up to me I would completely privatize social security.  But I know it's not up to me and, fortunately, never will be.  But I hang around a lot of progressive folks, and these are the things that they tell me; what's more, I've learned a lot about progressivism from my conversations with them.  So I really don't think these are inauthentic arguments.  My progressive friends are all keenly interested in issues of social justice, for instance, and I don't doubt their sincerity.  So this is a proposal in which progressive ideals can be applied in a way that benefits conservative values as well.

I await your constructive criticism.

An attorney has called on State AGs and local district attorneys to prosecute the President for murder.  The pattern of illegal activity and deception largely mirrors those in the Nuremberg indictments.

One of the issues raised in McClellan's book was the scope of illegal activity Rove might be involved. Various FOIAs have disclosed extensive illegal activity under this "unitary" executive. We saw the President was linked with an FBI raid on Congress involved with key decisions, involved with discussions, and taking an active role.

The President shows he's a hands on person, likes to know what is going on in detail, and ensures all his actions advance the GOP agenda. Rove is never far from the President's mind. McClellan praised Rove for his great political savvy. But there was a darker side to Karl Rove and the President.

The FBI is involved with and linked to DoD planning documents called information warfare. The DoD emails show legal counsel are on the distribution lists; and the DoD information warfare cells show an offensive and defensive component. Legal counsel are closely linked with the information warfare.

The DoD emails largely establish a link between the President, NSA contractors, and digital data forensics. The redacted emails can be derived using non-classified methods, and linked with IP numbers substantially related to the NSA, telecoms, and telecommunications industry.

The DoD and Abramoff emails show there was an extensive network of people and corporations to gather information, intimidate people, and advance the GOP agenda.  The President was closely involved with the FBI raid on Congress.

Notice the two inconsistent positions: One that shows lack of concern; the other a total denial. This contradiction defies reason:

An FBI raid on another branch of government, "Yawn, who cares if the President was involved or knew about it."

An FBI home interview, "The President isn't connected and doesn't know anything."

We have to ask:

Why is it beyond imagination to consider the President is linked with the FBI Wecht Jury interviews?

McClellan shows us Rove and the President were inclined to engage in illegal activity. "Illegal" is McClellan's word.

Former White House Staff Use Word "Illegal" and Rove in Same Sentence

The DoD, US Attorney Abramoff emails show there is a link between the President, information warfare, and combat forces to obtain information in CIFA; and that the White House staff, counsel, political offices, and public affairs were fully involved.

FBI Included Within President's Information Warfare Doctrine

The DoD emails and information warfare guidance substantially link the White House, President, White House legal counsel with FBI activity, intelligence operations, and warrantless interrogations.

The President's Agenda Has Been Consistently To Violate the Law and Not Be Accountable

The Feith comments on the DoD emails show us Feith, through the WHIG did monitor information the military analysts disclosed. This pattern of avoidance of accountability is linked with the President's DUI.

The denial was also evident when the Card informed the President a second plane hit the White House. We were under attack, but the President took no action to find details, nor understand what was going on. He just sat there, but later would ask that he wanted the country to believe he wanted to appear strong?

Strong about what? The President took no interest in 9-11; and he wants us to believe he took no interest in efforts to tamper with a jury or violate POW rights. The Supreme Court said his decisions and actions were not within the Congressional view of "appropriate" use  of power or force.

This President has violated international law, waged illegal warfare, breached Geneva, abused POWs, not taken any responsibility for 9-11. It means nothing to this man to intimidate DOJ staff, prosecutors with firings, or tamper with juries.

McClellan well shows us Rove and the President worked hand in glove through signing statements to wage political warfare through all options, lawful or unlawful. The FBI home visit was about tipping the balance in favor of the GOP in Pennsylvania, and minimize GOP election losses.

Incompetent Leader Put GOP Before America

This President, Rove, and others -- as McClellan documents -- are not about defending America, they are about asserting power. Yet, 9-11 happened on this President's watch. This President failed to defend America. The President has not taken responsibility for his failure to protect America. He's blamed others, just like he's blamed the US Attorneys; and he's asked others to take the fall for him, like he's asking the US Attorney to claim they ordered the FBI to do something. Look at the damning revelations:

A. McClellan in his book shows us the White House office of public liaison is linked with efforts to neutralize opposing views.

It means nothing to neutralize the judicial branch. The President ignored the judicial branch on the FISA issues.

B. Bugliosi in The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder shows us the President did link 9-11 with Iraq when he said "mission accomplished" on the USS Lincoln.

It means nothing for this President to lie about war crimes or evidence. His agenda is the GOP agenda, not the Constitution.

C. The DoD emails show us the President had an agenda to secure POW prosecutions using illegal, inappropriate methods.

The President's signing statements largely mirror the memoranda disclosed in the Nuremberg indictments.

The President's political allies have turned on him, disclosed key conversations showing Rove and the President were willing to do illegal things. (McCellan used the word, "illegal".)

Facts Threaten GOP Political Agenda

An investigation into facts isn't a risk to the country or the DNC. The President knows an investigation is a threat to the still-crumbling GOP base. The Wecht Jury tampering shows this President and GOP -- because they have not been confronted or held accountable -- plan to continue with abuses, even as a minority party. That's not oversight by the US government, but capitulation to tyranny.

It doesn't take much to consider the President:

A. Wanted a conviction of Wecht for political objectives, consistent with the lessons of Maine and the DUI;

B. The President wanted to use anything he could to avoid the problems of Maine, where a small piece of information about his DUI lost the state to the DNC;

C. Wanted to use the FBI to conduct home visits on jury members to secure a marginal victory for the GOP, and avoid the risk of another Maine defeat;

D. Wanted the US Attorney to claim that she "ordered" the FBI to do something, despite the US Attorney having no legal authority to direct FBI agents. The US Attorney and FBI are in different sections of the Department of Justice;

E. Obtained a list of seated jurors (which the court sealed, and the President knew or should have known the FBI home visits were illegal), but pretended that the list of seated jurors was derived by another method; and

F. Pretended that a jury poll during deliberations and a post-trial jury interview were the same (when they were not) to make the public believe there was no problem, when there was.

McClellan's book outlines well Buglosi's claims that there was propaganda, and illegal activity. The President was well aware of what the FBI was doing during the Congressional raid, and took steps to seal the evidence the FBI obtained.  Yet, with the Wecht situation, we're asked to believe the President wasn't aware, had no connection, and wasn't involved in any way. That defies reason. Someone ensured the White House knew not to publicly comment, especially after the US Attorney's explanations about the Wecht Jury tampering defied reason.

There's too much information in Bugliosi's and McClellan's books to dismiss the the mounting evidence the President used information warfare doctrine to use the FBI gathered intelligence -- via Jury home interviews in re Wecht -- for the GOP's political interests.

Of interest is the OSC public blogging using deception. The US Attorney firing emails, DoD emails, and the Abramoff emails largely support the other conclusion:

There were people -- well positioned to involve the FBI, GOP political offices, the office of public communications, and other Presidentially-connected contractors -- who attempted to neutralize any discussion, concern, or commentary about the President's connection through the FBI with the Wecht Jury tampering.

One lawyer's publicly called for the President to be prosecuted for murder. It hardly seems relevant the the President might have been provided with talking points and notes from the FBI agents conducting the home visits with the Wecht Jury members.

The Abramoff emails show us substantial Presidential endorsement of GOP-coordinated plans. We need to know:

A. When the President reviewed the FBI interview notes of the Wecht Jury members;

B. What political assessments the GOP conducted after the FBI finished their interviews of the Wecht Jury Members; and

C. The key meetings White House staff were involved to implement this GOP plan to manipulate prosecutors for political advantage.

Quote from a fundraiser, yesterday I believe, in Philly:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl."

Any comments from you guys?

I think it's fab...and the beginning of "Barry" poking his head through the shroud of "Barack."

This is the kind of Trumanesque rhetoric that's going to bring more and more "average folks" onto his bandwagon.

My(non-partisan)Blog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

This question has been bugging me for a long while. It had pretty much dropped off my mind until today, when I read on the TPM front page about Debra Bartoshevich now supporting John McCain.

But were those that once supported Clinton and now support McCain truly Hillary Supporters to begin with? Or were they just supporting her because, well... She's Hillary Clinton, and a woman? Let me lay out my case.

Hillary Clinton said a lot of negative things about Barack Obama on the campaign trail in making her case that she was the better candidate. But the entire time, she made calls for party unity, no matter what happens.

After Obama clinched the nomination, Hillary conceded and endorsed him. But not only did she endorse him, she endorsed him as strongly as a person could, leaving absolutely no doubt that she supported Obama 100% and wanted to see him win in November.

Hillary later went on to ask her pledged delegates to vote for Obama at the convention, only bolstering her argument that she wants Obama elected in November.

Hillary Clinton's fundraisers are now ready to back Obama and the Democratic party.

All of this brings me to an inherent issue: if you truly supported Hillary Clinton, why wouldn't you continue to support her by supporting Obama? Isn't it inherent that supporting McCain goes against everything Hillary Clinton stood for, especially to those Clinton Supporters? Would these people have voted for McCain if, hypothetically, Hillary had never been a candidate?

I can't get these questions out of my head. I continue to think about what I would have done had Hillary won and Obama endorsed her. I would have thrown my support behind her (I know, easy for me to say, my candidate won, but it was a question I struggled with for months before concluding on, long before the primary was over).

I understand that maybe it truly is just out of spite that they support McCain over Obama, and it has nothing to do with sexism or racism, or whatever other reasons one might (even logically) make. But is that what Hillary would want?

After all, did she come out and give a spiteful speech about losing? Did she attack Obama for having won? Or did she, despite how truly hard it must have been, and how hurt she must have felt knowing she lost, throw her full, her absolute full support behind Obama? We know the answer is number three.

So why, of those out there who say they're going to vote McCain over Obama because she lost, can't they follow the example of the person they claimed to support above all, to the very end, and help Obama win the White House?

It just seems like such a lousy gift to give the person one pledged their full support to, to do the one thing that person would not want one to do. Honestly, it feels no different to me than if a child were to go against the wish of his or her dying parent. The sentiment feels the same, anyway.

I was disenfranchised when we voted this month.  Let me tell you what happened:

According to all of the materials I got in the mail, voting happens on Tuesday.  The rules, as written, say that I was supposed to show up at my polling place on Tuesday.  I read these rules beforehand, and I understood them.

However, I decided that despite what the rules said, I wanted to vote on Sunday.  I wanted to get an early jump on voting, since I didn't like the schedule that had been established.  I showed up to my polling place on Sunday at about 1:30, and it was closed.  They wouldn't let me vote!  I wanted to vote on Sunday, but they said that I was too early, that I was trying to vote before I was supposed to!  I was disenfranchised!

In fact, there were a whole bunch of people hanging around the polling place, and they all wanted to vote on Sunday too!  We are being discriminated against - we are disenfranchised!  We wrote down all of our preferences on pieces of paper, and we were earnest and passionate about our preferences, but no one counted our votes!  I'm incredibly angry about this.

I have to admit, I knew what the rules were.  I was informed of the rules beforehand.  I was told specifically that if I showed up on Sunday, my vote wouldn't count. 

I want them to now retroactively change the voting rules so that my voice can be heard.


PS.  I hope that this allegory doesn't need to be decoded.

   Michelle Obama is being serially swift-boated with both sexist and racist slurs. Yet Hillary Clinton -- who so recently suffered similar attacks of sexism, though not racism -- is unaccountably silent.

We understand that Hillary is tired – God knows, there are not many women within a ten year window of her age who could have matched the hours she kept on the campaign trail.

We understand that Hillary may be emotionally spent. Losing the chance to become the first woman president --at least in this election cycle --  must be genuinely demoralizing, as it must be disheartening to face a 30 million dollar debt.

And, if she were still in the running, we might also understand (if revile) the fact that it would make old-politics-strategic-sense to sit back and watch the sexist and racist damage being inflicted on Michelle Obama.  After all, Hillary is, by nature, a pragmatist, and she warned us: “You know, anything can happen…” (between now and the convention).  We can easily see, from that perspective, that character assassination is nothing  compared to, “you know,” whatever.

So all these considerations support Hillary’s posture of silence. Except – wait a minute….

Hillary is not still in the running, is she?

No, of course not. She has proven her acceptance of defeat by gamely endorsing Obama.

But, but… surely, in this new circumstance, she would want to lend credence to the feminist leader role she recently  assumed by rejecting and renouncing the slurs against Michelle Obama; and, surely, she would urge her supporters to do the same. Because, if nothing else, surely it would serve her own future interests to do so, as it would serve  those that are germane, now, for Michelle Obama?

So we are left, baffled. Because there is a disconnect here --unless Hillary has a wish for revenge that is stronger than her political savvy. And we know she is too smart for that.

So the alternative is that she is secretly posting here, telling us her innermost, if politically incorrect feelings, under the TPM pseudonym, Dijamo.

Congressman Waxman wrote a letter to an Executive Branch employee:

"Congress has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the executive branch."

Doing one's duty means keeping all options on the table to defend the Constitution. Waxman's letter requests Information to conduct an investigation and oversight. 
However, Waxman's position is not consistent with the Speaker's position on an impeachment investigation. The Speaker contradicts Waxman, and says that no investigation is possible; and that regardless the results of that investigation, no impeachment is allowed. 
By implication, Pelosi's decision -- without an investigation, to remove impeachment as an option -- falls short of her legal duty.
When we have facts after that impeachment investigation, we will know whether the right decision is to do nothing, file charges, or discuss another option.

The Constitution only delegates to the House, not the Speaker, the power to impeach; or not impeach. The House must explain why "oversight" excludes conducting an impeachment investigation.

The House Ethics Committee must understand:

A. Why is the Speaker removing legal options without conducting an investigation;

The Speaker is not doing her duty, as required by oath.

B. What evidence -- without an investigation -- does the Speaker have behind her "decision" to remove impeachment as an option;

The Speaker has no evidence.

C. What evidence does the Speaker have behind her contention that an investigation will be a threat to the Constitution;

The Speaker has no evidence.

D. How does Speaker Pelosi reconcile her position -- that an investigation is not possible or permitted for partisan agendas -- with Waxman's assertion -- that an investigation is required to conduct oversight;

The Speaker cannot reconcile her position on impeachment with Waxman's letter.

E. What evidence does Speaker Pelosi have proving that an investigation into the President will be a threat to the Constitution;

The Speaker has no evidence.

F. What evidence does Speaker Pelosi have proving that blocking an investigation is permitting under her duties as Speaker; or brings credit upon the House;

The Speaker has no evidence.

G. Who was the source of the information, argument, or data which the Speaker used to assert that an impeachment investigation or an impeachment would be a threat to the Constitution, a threat to the DNC agenda, or a threat to the Nation's security.

The Speaker has not disclosed who provided her with what data to justify her assertion. This smacks of the same baseless assertion the President made about Iraq WMD and an imminent threat: Illusory.

John McCain is running for President on his one great asset, his experience and strength in military and foreign affairs.  My question is, what experience, what strength?  This is a man who graduated third from the bottom of his class of almost 900 students, crashed 5 planes, flew only 21 hours before he was captured and that is it.  He has no military command experience, never lead any troops, and cannot even get the factions in Iraq straight when he has been corrected over and over.  The only experience this man has is D.C., and that is exactly what we do not want.  I want intelligence, fresh ideas, and promises kept.  Senator McCain cannot even operate a computer by his own admission, but we are to trust him running our country in a global economy? The McCain who ran in 2000 is not the McCain running now.  He has lost his edge, he seems at times to run off the track and he certainly is not grasping basic facts about the war.  He is NOT experienced, he is just another rerun.  I want a new show.

I had decided I would not post anything about the "sexism" that supposedly cost Sen. Hillary Clinton the democratic nomination for President. Then I saw Djamo's piece entitled "Can We Talk About It NOW?"

My answer: nothing much to talk about.

Hillary (pardon my familiarity) did not lose because she was a victim of sexism. She did not lose because she ran a feminist campaign. Far from it. She lost because she ran a lousy campaign.

Let's explore the "feminist" side of the argument, because if there was gender-hate, surely a "feminism-based" campaign would have triggered the desired response to bring forth the woman-hating men.

Instead, she started this campaign and ran until her Iowa loss as an androgynous (neither male nor female) candidate. She was the heir-apparent (not "heiress.")

There was a debate where she claimed to have been "piled on" by the other seven men in the race, after first claiming they were not after her because she was a woman, but the front-runner. She made a trek back to her alma mater, and claimed that the all-female institution had prepared her for the "rough and tumble world of all-male Presidential politics." But the "Piling On" web commercial undercut her case.

Then there is the famous "Iron My Shirt" incident, where two college age young men held signs with the slogan. What it meant, I have no idea. But... But... a candidate who wanted to make a "feminist" point might have said to those two young men: "Gladly! Because women in every culture and of every generation all around the world have taken in washing, ironed shirts, darned socks, sold eggs, baked bread, done whatever they could to feed and clothe their families. When times were tough, your grandmothers grew vegetables in their victory gardens, sold apples and tomatoes to make ends meet. Iron your shirts? Sure, we've ironed the shirts of fathers and husbands and sons who wore the uniforms of this country and sent them to protect our nation while we kept the home fires burning. Iron My Shirts! young men is not a put down, but a rallying cry."

But Hillary didn't say that. She claimed instead that the boys were sent by Obama (with no evidence) to disrupt her campaign. Only privileged women would take exception to having to  do a little domestic housekeeping. After all, that's what maids are for.

Her husband and all of her other "defenders-in-chief" were men: Bill, Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, Phil Singer, Terry McAuliffe, Geoff Garin, Bob Buffenbarger, Gerald McEntee. Sure there was Ann Lewis and Stephanie Tubbs Jones. But the real dirty work was done by the men in the campaign.  A "real" woman puts up her dukes and fights for herself.

She relied on eight years of her husband's experience as President. Her "experience" was suspect. After being called the "face of foreign policy" and regaling us time and again with the evermore harrowing Bosnian sniper fire story, it turns out it was a blatant lie.

She flip-flopped on giving illegal immigrants driver's licenses but never decried the despicable round-ups and deportations of parents without their children. I did not hear one major speech on a woman's right to choose, although she thought nothing of lying about Obama's record on abortion rights when it suited her.

She whined about getting asked tough questions, hid behind an unbearable cackle when tough questions came her way. She threw a hissy-fit (and I mean those exact words) when David Shuster --using the common parlance -- talked about "pimping out her daughter" at the exact time, Chelsea -- not Hillary -- was calling super delegates begging for support, not talking to the media including 9-year old GIRL reporters, taking super delegates to breakfast, being auctioned off as a "date to the L.A. debates" on hillaryclinton.com. She wasn't hiring her daughter out as a physical callgirl, but certainly there is no dispute she turned her out as a political one.

There is the Tina Fey "bitch is the new black," where Fey -- calling both herself and Amy Poehler bitches, too -- talked about "bitches gittin' stuff done"  and included Hillary in the list.

Hillary didn't mind showing off her ability to memorize facts and rattle off twenty-point proposals, but she couldn't be bothered being a real woman. Little wonder people didn't believe her "precious tears" moment in New Hampshire. That followed the much vaunted "The Hillary I Know" tour. We never learned much about the real Hillary.

Her campaign was based on "can you top this moments," of chugging beers and shots, Mad Mom-like, clean your room rants complete with the "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" She claimed to have learned to shoot a gun with her grandfather as a single-digit girl -- but we were loathe to believe her tale, coming as it did on the heels of "dodging snipers." 

Hillary didn't run as the "wonan's candidate." That would have been a difficult pivot because far too few women would have raised their hands to authorize a war knowing it would be the death warrant for their sons and daughters. Hillary should have been "Another Mother For Peace." Her slogan could have been a reprise of " War is not healthy for children and other living things." But instead she told us of her and John McCain's lifetimes of experience which made them the only commader-in-chief material in the race. But here's the point to ponder: not one of the media types she is blaming -- well, her supporters are blaming -- now ever said anything to dispute her claim. If I wanted a "sexist" moment, I would have jumped on that one. No one ever questioned that neither she -- nor her  husband, whose experience as commander-in-chief she was borrowing -- had ever served in the military. 

It was only as her campaign drew to its inevitable conclusion -- not winning, but losing because she had played "coronation of the queen" a little too long -- that blaming the media for its "sexism" became the excuse du jour. 

Sure there were, are and will be some jerks out there. But Hillary lost for reasons other than sexism. She lost because she assumed she was a shoo-in. And that no one-term, tall, skinny, latte-colored, junior Senator from Illinois would have the audacity to challenge her. And be uppity enough to win.  

From 1919 to 1933, we conducted a national experiment in drug prohibition. The drug of choice at that time (besides marijuana and opium) was alcohol. The 18th Amendment made it illegal and sparked off a bloody war that only the 21st Amendment could bring to an end.

That is important to note. The only constitutional amendment in the history of our country to be repealed was the one that outlawed personal behavior.  Also, to outlaw personal behavior actually took an amendment to the Constitution, yet four years after the end of prohibition, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was passed.

More than 70 years after the marijuana witch hunt was started at the behest of Dupont and Hearst, our misguided and mismanaged "War on Drugs" continues to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives every year. We continue to lock up more people than any other country in the world, the vast majority of whom are non-violent drug offenders. We overload the Prison Industrial Complex (PIC) to the point that white child molesters go free after only a short time in jail while a black teen can get decades behind bars for a little bit of weed.

All without a Constitutional amendment.

We seem to make it a habit these days to violate the Constitution whole cloth and then wonder why nothing works. We aren't following the blue print. We weren't supposed to spend a trillion dollars a year policing the world. We weren't meant to spend 500 billion a year locking up people for using drugs. We weren't given a blueprint to create a unitary executive controlling a huge federal government with little or no accountability to the legislative or judicial branches, let alone the 50 states.

We have become a police state at our own request. We begged them to save us by abrogating our rights under the Constitution. The marketed the fear of "criminals" and "terrorists" to the point that cops now look like they are in the military. I see some of them swaggering around with the automatic weapons and pants tucked into their "combat" boots.  It takes two cars to conduct a routine traffic stop.  They treat everyone like a criminal, even more so if you are not white.  It's actually kind of insulting to see them acting like being a cop is the same as being in the military.  Like serving on American streets is somehow on par with Iraq or Lebonon.  Many police do an admirable job each day, but the tone and tenor of some has become decidely agressive in recent years.

Most of this attitude is a result of the War on Drugs.  When you have been convinced that this is a war, even though all evidence points to the exact opposite, then it becomes easier to justify unacceptable behavior.  We need to practice broken window policing.  New York City didn't clean up its crime problem by turning out beat cops in SWAT uniforms.  They did it by cleaning graphitti off the trains and policing the stations better. 

We will never have a real solution though. 

Between our corporate controlled media and a Prison Industrial Complex that is making some people very rich. Politicians of both parties pass laws to prove they are tough on crime when all they do is make our city streets more lawless and thus feeding the system more kids.  It is pathetic and tragic and a huge waste of our country's potential.  This is a hemorrage in our body politic and unless we fix it, we will bleed to death at some point.  This cannot be sustained anymore than our cancerous "growth" in the stock market can be sustained. 

We're in a lot of trouble.

As we gear up for November there is going to be a lot of talk about swing states and get out the vote operations around the country. But there is one group of critical voters who are (literally) not in range of the US media coverage - or polling.

Americans living abroad are keeenly sensitive to America's loss of international reuptation. They get media coverage that has been more consistenty critical of the Bush administration for longer than voters back home. And in the 2006 election there were more absentee ballots from overseas in the Virginia and  Montana Senate races than made up the margin of victory in those races. So yes, these voters do make a difference.

But finding overseas voters, informing them of their voting rights, getting them registered and ensuring they do actually vote can be exponentially harder than GOTV operations in the States - plus we are often subject to more restrictive laws. For instance, here in Europe there are stricter rules about data protection, making it more difficult for us to access personal information through third parties. In some countries, such as China, there are actually laws preventing a foreign political party from organising.

Below is a short guide to the overseas vote this year - how to do it and why it matters. I'd appreciate it if you could recommend this post to help us get the word out about these important voting tools, and if you could forward this information along to anyone you know who lives overseas.

Can Americans Abroad Vote?

Yes they can. For the past 40 years, expats have been eleigible to vote in US federal elections (presidential and congressional). Some states also allow us to vote in local elections as well, but rules on this vary. 

How Do they Register?

Americans Abroad can register via the embasy, or they can get help through the Federal  Voting Assistance Program.

But by far the easiest, quickest and most user-friendly way to register is through the Vote From Abroad Website.

www.votefromabroad.org

Although this tool was created by Democrats Abroad (the officially recognised "state party" of the Democrats for Americans abroad) the tool is non-partisan and can be used by Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. It does, however, ask users at the end of the registration process whether they would like to join Democrats Abroad - if so, then the party is able to provide them with ongoing voter information and advice. 

After completing the online form, the tool creates a PDF with all your details completed, along with full instructions of where you need to send your form (by physical post - no e-mail or fax submissions accepted, sadly).

Where Do Americans Overseas Vote?

Americans abroad must send their absentee ballot to the last state where they lived in the US. If you are a US citizen who has never lived in the US - typically these are children of US citizens who have always lived abroad - you must vote in your parent's last state of residence.

There are US expats from every state in the Union. The largest numbers probably come from big states such as New York and California, but there are also large numbers from states such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

How Many US Voters Live Overseas?

No one really knows. One estimate is that there may be as many as 6 million  with nearly 250,00 in my home city of London alone - but no one tracks this information in any consistent way. We do know, however, that there are more than enough to make a difference in this election.

At Democrats Abroad meetings I frequently encounter people who have been living abroad for decades and who are voting this year for the first time. Go to the American Schools here and you find hundreds of young people who are about to turn 18 years old and preparing to vote for the first time. Go to the financial district here and you find thousands of wealthy executives who have never donated money to a politician before, or who have given to Republicans in the past, who this year are making major donations to Barack Obama and the Democratic party.

How do Americans Overseas Vote?

It used to be claimed that most American Expat voters were Republicans, but in the past two election cycles we have seen a significant change in this pattern what seems to be an overwhelming tilt towards the Democrats.

Barack Obama in particular is wildly popular overseas, and this enthusiasm is reflected in the expat population, which voted for him overwhelmingly in our Democats Abroad Global Primary - giving him 65.8% of that vote.

In Summary

Finding and registering overseas voters is hard work, but well worth the effort since these voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic, vote in a broad range of critical swing states,  and are not included in US domestic polling. A huge upsurge in the overseas vote could be exactly the right thing to push our votes over the top in November. Please share the Vote from Abroad link widely and spread the word to every American you know who lives overseas. Thanks!

Karin

http://obamalondon.blogspot.com

Leave it to the American Election system to draw out some of the most idiotic and incredible statements and images that politicians and their surrogates are capable of portraying. There was the Dukakis tank, and I'm sure McCain will be a source of ridiculous things here and there for the next few months.

However, I have to say something about what is, in my opinion, the most ridiculous and frankly moronic things I have ever heard.

Women posing as passionate Clinton supporters claiming that they have been disenfranchised, that they have been stripped of their right to vote.

In an interview, Bartoshevich expressed lingering unhappiness over the Democratic nominating process, said Clinton was treated unfairly by the party, and said she has deep reservations about Obama's lack of experience and his judgment.

"I'm kind of disenfranchised," she said. (emphasis added)

The irrational old lady at the DNC Rules meeting, I am sure is a McCain mole, so I won't spend more time on her.

As for this Bartoshevich character, I wonder who disenfranchised her? The Wisconsin Democratic Party? No, she did that to herself by publically supporting one of the most misogynistic candidates to run for President in our day.

But, I digress.

What is disenfranchisement, really?

My parents emigrated from the Republic of China on Taiwan. Not the Taiwan we all know today as a miracle of sensible economics and democracy (relatively). The Taiwan of Chiang Kai-shek, which was a brutal military regime that posed as a Republic and denied the right to vote to millions, including thousands of people who pre-dated the presence of the Kuomingtang on the island.

My girlfriend's parents were driven out of mainland China by the even more oppressive Peoples' Republic. Her mother was guilty of one egregious crime: being the infant daughter of parents who, during the Period of 100 Flowers, mildly suggested that China should adopt democratic reforms, including enfranchisement. My girlfriend's parents to this day have no idea what happened to her grandparents, although, since what followed 100 Flowers in China was the Anti-Rightist Movement, and later on, the Cultural Revolution, we can be pretty sure that they were executed.

Executed simply for expressing the desire for enfranchisement.

I know many ardent supporters of Hillary Clinton. All of them are still behind her in regards to her future, and all of them have points of disagreement with Obama that are legitimate. I trust and know that they will make the choice that honors their conscience in November.

But to those supposed Hillary "supporters", or anyone else, who choose the easy path of claiming to be disenfranchised when the truth is far from it, I just have one thing to say.



You do not want to know what its really like to be disenfranchised.

Election 2008 is a battle against the Little Fascist War Party of the US, not dems v republicans

Forewarned is forearmed

They want to talk about Obama as black panther, black muslim, communist and closet peter puffer



Why do you think they do this?

Because they hate our values


From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

   Listen. What you are about to hear is the sound of John McCain flip-flopping his position on one of America's most cherished ideals.

    A top McCain advisor says the Republican presidential candidate agrees with President Bush's outrageous program of wiretapping Americans' overseas conversations without warrants.

    McCain previously had been critical of the Bush administration's unilateral decision, following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to let the National Security Agency eavesdrop on untold numbers of citizens.

    Before, McCain talked of the need for presidents to obey the law, just as other Americans must do.

    But now he suggests that a McCain White House would pursue the same unchecked spy powers as Bush.

    His flip-flop isn't as significant as the fact that McCain has gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick.

In 2008, it is not the economy stupid, no matter how many times CNN tells you otherwise

I always put out my American flag on Flag Day. It is something my family always did when I was young and now, I continue that family tradition. It is a ritual that makes me reflect upon the ideals upon which our country was founded and that I still believe in.

In a time when America's reputation has been tarnished at home and abroad because some of our leaders have lost their way, I love this simple, patriotic holiday that honors our national symbol. It makes me remember all the good things about my country. I think about the ideal of freedom and justice for all. I remember that I can speak my mind, even if my ideas are unpopular or disagree with those in power. I think about the the ideal that all men and women are created equal. I think about all the opportunity and rewards that a fast-held dream and hard work can deliver to many of us. I think about all the New Americans, many of whom risked everything to come here, who are building new, successful lives here. I think about all the progress we have made toward living up to all of these ideals that our country embodies and the new opportunities we continue to have to do better.

In spite of everything, in spite of our present government who seems to have forgotten too much of what it is that has made this country great, in spite of all that we need to fix and renew for America to regain her place as the shining beacon of freedom to the rest of the world, I still love this country very much.

Happy Flag Day!

Vermonters called on a prosecutor to issue an arrest warrant against the President.  John Turley reminded us a sitting President can be prosecuted, outside impeachment. Pelosi took impeachment off the table. McClellan wrote a book. Nuremberg reminds us that a civilized nation must either prosecute or impeach.

Nothing's happened.  Vincent Bugliosi in The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder establishes jurisdication to prosecute this sitting President. After the acknowledgments section in his book, Bugliosi presents a map of the United States shows post 9-11 combat deaths by county and state: "US deaths in Iraq from all corners of the nation"

* Jurisdiction for DA's, State AGs to Prosecute Bush For Murder

Bugliosi contends this map shows each of the county district attorneys and all fifty (50) state Attorney Generals have jurisdiction to prosecute a sitting President for murder. You have the information you need to present to your District Attorney, and make them explain why they have not heeded Vermonter's example, and issued arrest warrants against the President.

Some of the Attorney Generals have confronted the President on warrantless surveillance. Your State AGs cannot claim that there is no precedent for confronting this President at the state level. Once prosecuted at the state level, the President would have to request, but is not guaranteed, a pardon from your state's Governor.

The President though he could fool one Speaker. Now, the President has every District Attorney and State AG getting the question:

Where's the prosecutors plan to confront the President and Vice President with direction prosecutions and second guess Rove and Pelosi.

If you're wondering why the DNC and GOP are both opposing an impeachment, it's because of partisan goals. But there's more to the story. Scott McClellan in What Happened shares Rove's political strategies.

The President typically rallied around centrists policies to rally his base. Rove argued the President could not embrace immigration reform and other social issues until the DNC and GOP united behind the President. McClellan contends the DNC and GOP united on the idea of freedom for Iraqis, and ignored the illegal invasion and lack of imminent threat.

* Imbalanced Argument on Investigations

The GOP's agenda on impeachment has been to persuade the DNC to believe any investigation or impeachment would undermine the DNC; and that inaction would unite the country. Did you catch that convoluted argument?

What Rove's done is couch fact finding in terms of a negative for the DNC; and inaction as good for the country. Those two arguments are imbalanced and do not reconcile. Also, notice the GOP isn't mentioned; and we're asked to believe that "no facts" is beneficial. Where did we hear that before? WMD. In truth, inaction is only good for the GOP, the GOP base, and Rove's strategy. Not good for the Constitution, Pelosi, or the DNC.

* GOP Propaganda for GOP Interests

There is no data supporting any contention that fact finding is bad. The real aim of the President, GOP, and Rove is to avoid fact finding so the GOP base is not fractured. McClellan revealed in What Happened how Rove would guide the President to avoid issues which would undermine the GOP base. One way to do this is to avoid fact finding, and ensure the GOP does not confront any new information.

The GOP's goal with Pelosi is to convince her that inaction on impeachment and no investigations is good for the DNC. It's not a factor. There's no evidence showing that an investigation or impeachment will be bad for the DNC. It is a fabricated argument and propaganda. You will find no one in the DNC who has any data to support this assertion. It is GOP-sourced propaganda.

* Inaction to Minimize Impacts to GOP Base

The Goal of the GOP is simple. To motivate the GOP base -- on the basis of no facts, no information, no investigation, and no confrontation with reality -- that ignorance is leadership. The real objective of the GOP is to minimize the GOP losses, maintain and consolidate its base, and induce the DNC to believe that ignorance is in the interests of the DNC. No, ignorance is only in the interests of Rove, the GOP, and the President.

The public has the information in Bugliosi's book on how to prosecute a sitting President. The public must demand the GOP and DNC leadership provide data supporting their contention that fact finding will undermine the country. It will not. Fact finding will only further fracture the GOP base. Pelosi has been induced to believe that fact finding will tear the country apart. In truth, it will only further destroy the GOP.

* Illegal Propaganda To Avoid War Crimes Trials For Illegal Warfare Using Inappropriate Force

The Supreme Court said the President did not use appropriate force; Congress only authorized appropriate force.The DNC has nothing to fear by confronting the GOP, their propaganda, or the false pleas for "national unity." This is deceptive. These are the same arguments for "patriotism" which the GOP propagandists used to thwart challenges to the dubious WMD claims.

There was no imminent threat, and Ambassador Wilson knew this. 9-11 happened under George Bush's watch, but America blamed the intelligence community, not the President. This President illegally waged war against country that had no connection with 9-11, but upon thei return, on the board of the USS Lincoln declared "mission accmoplished" against Irquis who were (supposedly) behind the 9-11 attacks.

"With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters [in Iraq] declared war on the United States. And war is what they [the Iraqis] got."

This President continues to lie about why he invaded Iraq. He didn't believe anything. He knew he was fabricating a story, and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. McClellan knew it, Rove knew it, and the Congress knows it.

Any assertion that an investigation or impeachment will be bad for the DNC is reckless. An investigation will give us information: What is going on; what has happened; and what do we do. We don't have the information needed to make a decision to do nothing.

* Informed Voters Evaluating Reasonableness of Decisions

The public will be able to decide, based on that information, whether the decision to do nothing or impeach is or isn't reasonable. Right now, the public has no basis to believe that impeachment is unreasonable because the public has no information and there's been no investigation.

Rather, absent any evidence of innosense, the best way forward is to believe the opposite: There is a reasonable basis to start an investigation, and decide whether Pelosi should or should not be removed; or whether Pelosi and others in the DNC should have recused themselves, but are in Turley's word "collusion."

* Demanding Proof For Absurd Claims

For the above reasons, the public must -- as it failed to do with the Iraq WMD issues -- throw the argument back to the DNC and GOP leadership, and make them explain:

A. Where is the data supporting their contention that ignorance is the basis for prudence.

That is folly, sound policy making and leadership is based on facts, not this President's delusionary distractions.

B. Where is the data proving -- without information -- that the DNC base will oppose the DNC leadership for attempting to gather facts.

That is illusory and GOP propaganda, because fact finding will bolster the DNC's credibility, and give voters a chance to evaluate whether the President's decisions were or were not reasonable.

C. Where is the evidence proving -- without an investigation -- that a carefully considered House decision to challenge the President will undermine the country.

That claim is GOP propaganda, most likely linked to Rove. In truth, fact finding will undermine the GOP base.

D. Where is there any evidence proving -- without any facts or an investigation -- that the DNC "will" suffer a setback after conducting an investigation.

That claim is GOP propaganda, and the GOP fears further implosion with facts.

E. Where is the discussion about the impact facts would have on the GOP base?

GOP propaganda has induced Pelosi and the DNC to believe that the risks to the DNC overshadow the risks to the GOP. In truth, the prospect of GOP's implosion is a far more likely spectacle than any threat to the Constitution or nation.

F. Where is there any evidence that fact finding will destroy the country, cause dissension in the country, and be bad for the country?

That is GOP propaganda, designed to avoid an investigation, and block the voters from confronting information that would fracture the GOP base, not the country.

Scott McClellan's book lays the foundation to understand the propaganda behind Pelosi's absurd assertion that facts and confrontation will be bad only for the country or DNC. The GOP propagandists have one goal: To thwart a war crimes indictment through either impeachment or prosecutions.

* Prosecuting This Sitting President

The way forward is to use Bugliosi's book as the basis for your DA and State Attorney General to establish jurisdiction to prosecute this sitting President; immediately confront this President with grand jury indictments; and follow the lead of Vermont and issue arrest warrants.

No one has provided any information justifying confidence that facing facts is a danger, threat, or might be a problem for the Constitution. McClellan well shows Rove is willing to cross the line and do some sinister things. The public must work through the DAs and State AGs to do what the Congress refuses to do: Use all legal tools, including impeachment, to confront this President. The Congress refuses.

It's time for the public to contact the prosecutors at the local and state level and do what the House leadership refuses to do: Confront this President's illegal activity and prosecute him for illegal activity. Once prosecuted at the state or local level, some governors are prohibited form issuing pardons for treason. This will ensure the President is never given a chance to claim the charges and convictions have been forgiven.

Let's get to work at the state and local level; review Buliosi's book; and prosecute this sitting President. Then, we can move to prosecute legal counsel who refuse to enforce the law; and then confront Members of Congress who, in Turley's words, are in "collusion" with the President.

WRT, my Episcopal Bishop's pastoral letter.  You wanted to know what I was talking about when I said the diocesan called for a suspension of heterosexual marriages in Bay Area parishes?

Facilitate THIS moron...and in the future watch you mouth when addressing me

I urge you to encourage all couples, regardless of orientation,to follow the pattern of first being married in a secular service and then being blessed in the Episcopal Church. I will publicly urge all couples to follow this pattern.

Bite me asshole

Unpacking today.  Ran across a Robbie Robertson CD.  Put it on.  Thought about my friends on the good ship Obama.  Wish I could play it for you, but I don't know how to do that here.  Goes

There's gonna be a change of season
Indian Summer look around and it's gone.

Why you wanna save the best for last?
We grow up so slowly and grow old so fast.

We don't talk about forever
We just catch it while we can
And if I grab on to the moment
Don't let it slip away out of my hand.

What about now?
Forget about tomorrow.
It's too far away
What about now?
Close your eyes
Don't talk of yesterday
It's too far away, too far away
What about now?

I'm coming out of the shadows
I'm getting off of this one way street.

Blue memories they just gather dust
Leave them in the rain they turn into rust.

Did you see the march to freedom?
Did you ever see Savannah moon
In the middle of the night?

All the people walking in a line
Said to the man is it my time?

What about now?
Forget about tomorrow
It's too far away
What about now?
Just close your eyes
Don't talk of yesterday
It's too far away, too far away
What about now?

In the walk of a lifetime
When you know it's the right time
Bring it to me darlin'
I can't wait until the ship comes in
I can't wait starting all over again
The errors of a wise man
Make the rules for a fool.

What about now?
Forget about tomorrow
It's too far away
Don't talk of yesterday
It's too far away, too far away

It's all about now right now
Don't break the spell
All over by tomorrow
Don't break the spell

Bon voyage, my friends!  Don't break the spell.

For the past four years, ever since U.S. arms experts failed to turn up weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Washington insiders have been uneasy and divided about the Select
Senate Committee on Intelligence’s long-promised answer to the last and most fundamental question about the White House rush to war. Did senior Bush officials, from the president, Cheney, and Rumsfeld on down, knowingly or deceitfully manipulate, distort or “twist” intelligence to justify invading Iraq?

After its long-awaited final report last week, the Senate intelligence committee, one of Congress’s most powerful oversight and investigative bodies, issued a resounding “maybe,” unable to come to a conclusive judgment despite reams of evidence produced by previous official government reports and independent probes since the war began.

The committee’s collective spasm of indecision was the legacy of bitter partisan infighting that has gripped the committee since the Republican congressional supermajority was elected in November 2002. Now, six years later, the losers are the American people, a badly weakened intelligence oversight system, and a struggling
U.S. intelligence community badly in need of  resuscitation.

Clarity eluded the prestigious Senate committee. We have long known – and the White House has long admitted – that top Bush officials repeatedly made statements about Saddam’s WMD and ties to terrorists that were not “substantiated by existing intelligence”. Three years ago, in fact, the current committee chairman, Sen. John D. “Jay” Rockefeller (D-WVA), rejected the premise of this report, arguing that comparing official statements to the existing intelligence at the time “does not alone tell the story.”

He had good reason. Anyone who read past the introduction of the 2004 Senate intelligence report, the 2005 Robb-Silberman commission report on WMD, or countless other documents, saw repeated evidence of the Bush administration undercutting the CIA and Defense
Intelligence Agency and circulating alternative intelligence to policymakers to support its war aims.

Rockefeller, as vice-chairman of the Senate committee in 2005, vowed to conduct interviews with senior officials and if necessary “issue subpoenas” to get to the bottom of the
intelligence debacle that Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Powers now calls “one of the great cautionary tales of American history.”

Inexplicably, that never happened. Even an intriguing second committee report about secret Rome meetings in 2001 between Bush defense department officials and Iranian dissidents, left out one central player, Italian defense intelligence chief Nicolo Pollari. The Italian spymaster is suspected by investigators of helping Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghobanifar set up the meetings and providing the Pentagon with the infamous forged Niger intelligence that surfaced in the president’s 2003 State of the Union speech.

The best Sen. Rockefeller could do last week was to deliver his personal assurances that the Bush White House “led the nation to war on false premises.” That may have given war critics some satisfaction, but a similar indictment is nowhere to be found in the report’s findings. Of the Senate report’s 16 major conclusions about the statements made in five major speeches by top Bush officials, fully ten were purportedly “substantiated” by existing intelligence,
even if some were exaggerated, distorted, or later modified.
Yet even these ten statements turned out to be flat wrong, for reasons that had little to do with formal U.S. intelligence assessments. The trumped-up intelligence that made liars or dupes of senior Bush officials, more often than not, was the work of their own neoconservative cronies and enablers – whether in the famous case of the aluminum tubes, the
strategic threat of Iraqi drones, or charges that Saddam possessed biological and chemical WMD programs.

In the end, the 16 conclusions of the Senate intelligence committee boiled down to 16 brokered deals in search of an elusive political balance.

The remarks of key committee members at the end of the report make it easy to understand why. The committee’s deliberations were steeped in bitter partisan discord. Rockefeller archly noted that his Republican vice-chairman, Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-MO), the latest White House point man on intelligence matters, forced more than 300 revisions in the final text, unsuccessfully pressed for many more, and in the end “was unable to support these two remaining reports.”

Bond, for his part, veered between petulance and paranoia, complaining that Republicans had been frozen out of the proceedings and expressed anxiety “about the damage that this report will do.” He dismissed the report “a waste of time,” yet objected that top Bush officials were not provided the courtesy of personal interviews. Leery Democratic staff suspected Bond wanted more time to run out the clock on the investigation.

After four years of highly politicized strife within the committee – reflecting the take-no-prisoners, don’t-ask don’t-tell battle over intelligence that has marked the Bush war effort – this once-powerful symbol of effective Congressional oversight is all but dysfunctional. Next to the Iraq war itself, the breakdown of the Senate intelligence
committee is one of the most damaging legacies of the Bush years, rendering ineffective a critical counterweight to executive branch overreach and monitor of the intelligence community.

The effective collapse of the committee comes at a time the U.S. spy business is reeling from smouldering dissension over the Iraq war – and now, over Iran – as well as lack of leadership and an exodus of experienced agents. Seasoned analysts and agents have been stripped from the CIA and gone to work for the Director of National Intelligence, a product of the Bush showcase reforms, or left government for more lucrative private intelligence and security firms. Meantime, a surfeit of inexperienced recruits still lacks the language skills and trade craft to recruit agents who can operate effectively in a new world of lethal threats.

The intelligence oversight process sorely needs presidential and congressional leadership. Until then, the casualties will be ongoing executive grabs for judicial and legislative power, a full official public accounting of how and why the U.S. went to war in Iraq – and a wounded intelligence community, which must be revitalized if American policymakers are going to have the strategic intelligence to prevail in the war on terror.

The view from the Canadian Broadcasting Co

The blueprint for Forward Base America


Like the guy in the movie yelling pointlessly out the window how he's mad as hell and isn't going to take it anymore, American voters have a persistent fantasy about their own transformative powers.

They want out of Iraq, which is understandable. Beyond all the corpses, walking wounded and destruction, George W. Bush's expeditionary adventure in social engineering is costing Americans $2 billion a week and there are all sorts of good uses for cash like that here at home.

But most Americans don't understand what is going on right now, urgently and secretly, in Baghdad and Washington. Nor do they realize it may be part of a grand plan, hatched by the same conservative group that brought about the war on Iraq in the first place.


Been the NeoCon plan all along
Still is.
That's why McSame is running for president and why the War Party must defeat Barack Obama

 Howard Dean found out about the horrors of sexism in the media during the campaign at the RBC committee meeting.  Appaently he doesn't watch cable news and was wholly unaware Hillary had been the subject of sexist attacks in the media. Or perhaps now that Hillary's campaign had effectively ended, we could go back to actually speaking out against misogyny and sexism - you be the judge. The actual problem of sexism within the media in the context of the political campaign and is just starting to get the attention it deserved now that Hillary is no longer a candidate. I hope people and especially democrats in time will be able to look at what happened dispassioantely and say is this what a female politician, presidential candidate, public figure should expect?

Below is a link to the NOW website Media Hall of shame, a compliation of the greatest media hits on Hillary in this campiagn season.  Don't be scared to click on it!  I promise it won't make you stop shaving your legs, hate men, or enroll you in Hillaryis44! 

http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall_of_shame/index.html

They are still taking contributions and the list is far from complete, so if your personal favorite sexist moment is missing send you nominees to:

http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall_of_shame/suggestion.html

My personal favorite was Alex Castellanos on CNN saying it is NOT sexist to call Hillary a bitch because.... some women are actually bitches!  I don't know how MSNBC let that stellar commentator get away - you know how MSNBC loves disrespecting women!  I think they are being intentionally sexit to overcompensate for that very feminist MS. before NBC.

For those who denied sexism played any role in the primary campaign, I especially encouage you to view with an open mind and say if the same things are said about Michelle Obama (and believe me they will be) is this acceptable?

In a recent comment, Chino Blanco suggested that posts by obvious trolls be treated as open threads.  I'd just like to say that I think this is a brilliant idea, and it's great fun as well.  Let's share family recipes, movie reviews, favorite jokes, limericks, haiku, stories about your grandma--whatever.  Dominickdickhead has provided a few excellent opportunities recently via his/her inane Lyndon LaDouche posts.  I'm sure there will be many new opportunities as the election approaches and the Republican hordes invade sites like TPM.  Why not join get started with the post you're reading now?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/41047.html

Excerpt: Use the link to read the entire article.

last updated: June 13, 2008 08:44:46 PM

BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki raised the possibility that his country won't sign a status of forces agreement with the United States and will ask U.S. troops to go home when their U.N. mandate to be in Iraq expires at the end of the year.

Maliki made the comment after weeks of complaints from Shiite Muslim lawmakers that U.S. proposals that would govern a continued troop presence in Iraq would infringe on Iraq's sovereignty.

"Iraq has another option that it may use," Maliki said during a visit to Amman, Jordan. "The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil."

Earlier, Maliki acknowledged that talks with the U.S. on a status of forces agreement "reached an impasse" after the American negotiators presented a draft that would have given the U.S. access to 58 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for both U.S. soldiers and private contractors.

One of the best ones yet IMHO.

The DNC needs to make an ad out of this and just hammer away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GALgSFAS5RU

Much comment was made when Barack Obama made his now famous comments about bitter citizens clinging to guns and religion as they become disillusioned with politics, politicians and the US in general. In today's LA Times there is a story about how the NRA is losing some of it's influence (mostly because they've accomplished almost all their goals) and here is a quote from Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's erstwhile leader:

"Voters have proven election after election that this issue is one of their first freedoms," NRA Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre said in a recent interview. "When people feel uncertain, when people feel unsafe, they run right back to the 2nd Amendment."

Isn't what he is saying here about the same as what Senator Obama said? Does that make LaPierre and the NRA an elitist group or do they just get a pass on this?
Here is a link to the full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns14-2008jun14,0,2968796.story

I've been advocating Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for VP for a while now.

Part of the reasoning behind Sebelius is that she is well-qualified. She has served in elected office for 22 years. She served in the Kansas House of Representatives for 8 years. She then stood up to Blue-Cross Blue-Shield as Kansas Insurance Commissioner by blocking their attempts to buy up insurance carriers in Kansas. She served in that capacity for 8 years. As governor she eliminated a $1.1 billion debt without raising taxes.

Now I must admit the more nefarious and, to my mind, less idealistic reason why I favor Sebelius. It boils down to: I don't like Hillary Clinton.

Hillary is a power unto herself, that is undeniable. She represented roughly half the party. She also, in my opinion, has the remarkable ability to make her most diehard supporters just ignore her constant dishonesty and the constant racial references she, her husband, and her associates kept throwing around(hint: start with Bill Shaheen and "Is Obama A Drug Dealer?" and it's a long long timeline of covert race-baiting that culminated in the overt race-baiting of Geraldine Ferraro). She has the ability to have her top surrogate, Mark Penn, deem half of this nation as "insignificant" day-after-day memo after memo to the point of parody, and then pivot to comparing the self-inflicted Michigan and Florida debacles to Selma, Seneca Falls, and Zimbabwe. Her top surrogates bashed and insulted every state she didn't win, calling Iowa nothing but a mayor's race, implying that South Carolina was insignificant because the black guy always wins South Carolina, suing to stop the at-large precincts in Nevada. And can we all agree that whatever the independent merits of both Florida and Michigan's cases, the Clinton position was highly disingenuous and hypocritical given that they agreed with the original position of the RBC(I think they were given a gift, myself).

There were moments during the primary where I agreed with Peggy Noonan when she likened Hillary to "a political Rasputin", a miserable creature that haunts the Earth with its malice, refusing through bulletwounds and multiple glasses of cyanide and blows to the head with a baseball bat and attempted cremation to JUST FRICKIN DIE. (read about the bizarre death of Rasputin on wikipedia) I truly cannot stand Hillary Clinton. These past three months, all I've wanted was for her to just go away. After having Clinton put us all through this crap, she should be nowhere near the ticket. But to me, that is not enough. As long as Clinton holds an independent power base in the Democratic Party, she will always have the ability to undermine Obama.

Therefore, Barack Obama must destroy Hillary Clinton.

No, not personally. Senator Clinton will continue to serve in her capacities. Rather, she must be destroyed in the realm of presidential politics. The ground beneath her must be rendered inert so that she has no independent power-base to run on again. Barack Obama must finish the political coup he has started by wrenching away Clinton's base of support and rendering her irrelevant. He must make Hillary Clinton a has-been.

I think you can now see that this is a major reason why I'm a fan of Sebelius. I see nominating her as not merely a shot-across-the-bow but a wholesale power-play that over time will solidify Obama's power in the party and dissipate the Clintons'. I suspect a faction of Clinton support will be outraged and resist this nomination. I also suspect that, as with Obama's nomination, these holdouts will eventually be over-powered and overruled, and they will be forced to submit to the new reality that Kathleen Sebelius, not Hillary Clinton, will be the first woman elected to the White House.

Pretty crazy, I know, but bear with me.

What we are witnessing is a bloodless political coup. The first stage of this coup was Obama winning the nomination and gaining enough influence to force the Clinton camp to concede the race. The second stage in this political coup was consolidating the DNC into Obama's Chicago operations, making Obama's facilities the center of gravity in the Democratic Party. The third stage is what I am proposing: Put Sebelius on the ticket and consolidate Hillary's base under the Obama banner.

Question: Does wanting this to happen make me evil?

I watched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth again the other night, and it gave me a strong and sober reminder of how important it is to take immediate and consequential action to reduce our contribution to global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently concluded that global temperatures are very likely to rise between 3.2 and 7.2 degrees F (3 degrees and 5.8 C). Global warming will also contribute to extraordinary weather events, a view buttressed by the horrific impact of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.

This year's run ins with climate change have come a bit closer to home. Earlier this week, Boston experienced record high temperatures for this early in the summer, with temperatures in Boston in the high 90s. The heat took us by surprise because it has been relatively cool here throughout April and May.

More importantly, though, are the major flooding events that struck my family's homes in Iowa. Earlier this week, Decorah, home of my parents and Luther College, experienced major flooding after waters in the Upper Iowa (part of the Mississippi) flowed over and broke many of the levees. You can see some pictures here. The Cedar Rapids Gazette reported that Upper Iowa reached 17.9 feet, beating the previous record set in 1933 by 2 feet.

The residents of the city of Cedar Rapids, population of about 120,000, received more of a jolt when flooding broke levees there and put much of the city underwater. Waters there reached a stunning 29 feet, 17 feet above flood stage as the New York Times reported today. This broke the previous record by over 6 feet! “Usually if you break a record, you only do it by an inch or two,” said Jeff Zogg, a hydrologist for the Weather Service in Davenport, Iowa. “But breaking it by six feet? That’s pretty amazing.”

For me, the events in Iowa signal an urgent need to change our national priorities in order to prepare for rising temperatures and extreme weather events and to head off the worst global warming scenarios. This will involve a major cultural-mindset shift, where environmental issues displace traditional military priorities as the top national and international security issues. We have a long way to go. To give a quick preview, the current budget for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is $12.6 billion (see the Budget Details pdf), while the current budget for the Iraq War may end up being about $212 billion (the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) costs about $9 billion per month). Mr. Gore says frequently that "political will" is a "renewable resource." If we hope to avoid a climate catastrophe, we're going to need a lot of it.

The death of Tim Russert has shocked and saddened political junkies on both the left and the right. Commenters on both Huffington Post and Michelle Malkin have nothing but respect and praise for Russert.

But there is one particular group who's not mourning his death. In fact, this group apparently believes that, because he was part of the dreaded BIG MEDIA, he deserved to die. You see, it was BIG MEDIA who did in their goddess, Hillary Clinton, by asking her some tough questions. What most people would call "doing his job." So over at hillaryis44.com, they're taking a short break from sliming Barack Obama to celebrate the death of Tim Russert.

Now I know that these loonies represent a tiny minority of the 18 million people who voted for Hillary, but damn, they are a heartless bunch. One of the staff writers starts off by condescendingly saying that he/she's going to be "polite" by only posting links to a few of the many posts from their site that had previously attacked Russert. The commenters join in with some incredibly vicious and heartless attacks on a respected and beloved journalist who had passed on only hours before. They have to be read to be believed.

What is wrong with these people? Seriously. What is wrong with these people?

I think George Bush proved beyond any question of a doubt that debating and speaking skills (and the lack thereof) have no effect whatsoever on the outcome of an election.

If I were Barack, I'd just stay on the stump where my effectiveness is greatest. I'd let McCain continue to say stupid stuff, reverse himself, lie, and generally step on his own dick.

The podium is Barack's natural habitat, and one that is toxic for McCain. And although McCain is still McCain in face-to-face confrontation -- that is, he comes off like Dick Cheney but without the engaging personality -- Barack loses some portion  of his advantage in this environment. Most analysts agree that his electifying style loses its luster in debate settings.

A mesmerizing speaker should make mesmerizing speeches. Remember that the Lincoln/Douglas debates actually comprised a series speeches, not a give-and-take conversation.

Does anyone know what NBC is going to do?

I've been trying to think of what Tim Russert would have done if the decision were his, and I'm sure this is the process that the NBC brass is going through right now, but I'm at a loss. 

I feel like Mr. Russert wouldn't want it to be an hour long memorial, but rather a tribute by following his example and covering the campaign as he would have, but I don't know.

Does anyone know what they're going to do? 

What do you think would be the right thing to do?

I know I'll be watching.

June 14, 2008

To: The Corporate Congress Of The United States

Politics Before Principal?

Not In My United States!

Corporate Congress,

Those members of Congress (Democrat and Republican) who continue to be complicit in the crimes of this George W. Bush administration will find a pink slip in their in-box November 5, 2008 - God and an informed American voting public willing.

Your political stategy has not and will not work in the Democrats' favor. Those members of the Corporate Congress (Democrat and Republican) who have abandoned the Constitution and The Rule Of Law for political expediency will be removed from office by an informed and a very mad American voting public.

Your service to the United States and the people you are supposed to represent has been a disgrace - you do not belong in OUR (We The Peoples') government.

This present so-called administration makes the Mafia look like a bunch of choir boys!

History is not going to be kind to your politics of greed - perhaps you will find employment with your corporate pals "OFFSHORE".

Stupidity and Ignorance may be the downfall of this Republic; but, NOT ON MY WATCH.

The end does not justify the means - history should have taught you this!

Reminder:

Congressional / Corporate Media Overhaul Begins November 4, 2008!

Consider these candidates for office: http://peacecandidates.com/peace_candidate_list

Seven Years In Hell

Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)

Dear Mr. President

The American Dream

Masters Of War

The Future Is Now!
Register To Vote
Together We Can Make A Difference!

Michael E. Badgett
Mount Airy , NC 27030
mbadgett@roadrunner.com

 

Read more original pieces, satire, and analysis at The Left Anchor.

Joe Biden's Promises To Keep details his life and his political career.  Biden not only provides an excellent analysis of how he would deal with the problems facing this country, but also valuable insights into his internal motivations.

For example, Biden starts the book by discussing a stuttering problem that hampered him greatly until high school.  He worked hard to overcome the stutter, often standing in front of the mirror for hours repeating a single phrase until the stutter went away.  Biden's work ethic got him into a high school that his parents could afford; instead of settling for less, he spent the summer doing "work-study" -- grounds crew/janitorial work -- to make up the tuition difference.

But Biden's dedication wasn't always perfect.  He drifted through half of college and most of his time at Syracuse Law, attending class so rarely that at Syracuse that he didn't even understand legal citation rules.  It got him in trouble in his first semester when he was accussed of plagirism (he was cleared of all charges and merely cited improperly).

Biden's political career got off to an amazing start with two big upsets, winning a county commissioner seat in 1970 in a heavily Republican district, and at the age of 29 beating an incumbent Republican senator who had not lost a race in Deleware since 1946.  His first Senate victory was a tremendous story, to say the least.

Sadly, Biden's life was soon marked by tragedy when his wife and daughter were killed in a car accident just before he was sworn into office. With the help of family, Biden overcame the struggles and slowly came back to life.  He later remarried, and his distinguished political career began to point to the White House.

Then came 1988.  Biden made a bid for the Democratic nomination that year. His campaign was going along well when it was instantly derailed by charges of plagiarism (Biden failed to credit Neil Kinnock when he borrowed a few lines from one of his speeches at one event, though he had done so every other time he referred to Kinnock's speech).  Biden withdrew from the race, focused on the contentious Robert Bork hearings, and tried to put his disastrous campaign behind him.  But further tragedy stuck when shortly thereafter, he nearly died from a brain aneurysm.  After intensive brain surgery that could have been fatal, Biden healed and went back to work.  Talk about tough times, but Biden, a man who won’t allow himself to be beaten down, overcame them all.

This same fiery, feisty Biden appears throughout the book.  At a foreign policy briefing hosted by Henry Kissinger during Biden's first year in office – a meeting intended for sitting Senators – Kissinger initially prevented Biden (then barely 30 years old, making him the fifth youngest senator in history) from asking a question, noting that staffers were not allowed.  A member of Kissinger's staff informed Kissinger that Biden was, in fact, a senator.  Kissinger apologized, but then badly mispronounced Biden's name.  Biden acerbically responded by saying, "No problem, Secretary Dulles."

While I enjoyed Biden's discussion of the Bork hearings, his role in getting the United States involved in the Balkans, and his recount of getting the Violence Against Women Act passed, Biden's discussion of the War in Iraq is disappointing. 

Before getting into Iraq, Biden notes some initial problems the United States faced in rebuilding Afghanistann as well as the ideological dichotomy in the Bush Administration between Colin Powell and the neocons led by Cheney-Rumsfeld.  While Biden did attempt to limit the President's authority through a more restrictive resolution than the one that ultimately passed, his resolution failed and Biden ultimately voted for the resolution that led us down the path of war.  Biden claims that he did this in order to give the President a strong hand at the United Nations in order to get a meaningful response
from the United Nations. 

But Biden's explanation is unsatisfactory.  He doesn't explain why he had little to no concern about Iraq prior to the summer of 2002 and why his opinion about Hussein flouting U.N. resolutions suddenly changed.  He didn't say that it was based on a new-world view after 9/11, so I'm left trying to understand what motivated him to vote for that resolution.  He had been in the Senate for almost 30 years at that point, so he should have known that the intelligence was malarkey (a favorite word of his).  My guess is that it had something to do with the fact that he was up for reelection that year and he didn't want to have that issue hanging over his head.  After all, of 23 Senators who voted against the resolution, only three, Levin, Reed, and Wellstone, were up for reelection (if that number is incorrect, I apologize, I had to check that myself, I may have missed one or two).

In fairness to Biden, he admits that the vote was a mistake and that he just underestimated how badly Bush and Co. would handle everything.  I had a hard time wrapping my head around that at first, but then it all just fell into place.  I realized that a man who forgot more about foreign policy than Bush will ever know is unlikely to think that someone could just screw something like that up so badly.  In my opinion, Biden just couldn't foresee Bush being wrong on every single thing in Iraq, and while I know that a lot of us thought that the war was a mistake, I'm not sure that too many people thought that Bush would make nothing but wrong decisions.

Biden saw the problems and knew how to deal with him, but I don't think he understood that Bush's people wouldn't be able to do the same thing.  And Biden's constant criticism since demonstrates that he can be trusted to never let something like that happen again; he told Bush and Cheney face-to-face that Bush should fire Rumsfeld and, were it not for the fact that Cheney was a constitutional officer, Cheney should have been fired too.

This is a must-read book that I can’t recommend highly enough.  It confirms for me that Biden must be our next Secretary of State, despite his terrible mistake on Iraq.  He talks constantly of the need to engage in diplomacy and to talk to foreign leaders in order to resolve problems.  Biden is the man Obama needs to start talking with our enemies.   He appears willing to engage in the kind of diplomacy that Obama continues to put at the center of his campaign.

Here's a brief anecdote demonstrating just why Biden is so perfect for the position of Secretary of State. In the 1970s, Biden was sent by President Carter to meet with Soviet leaders regarding the arms limitation deal.  Biden spent much of the time listening to the concerns of the Soviet government, wanting to make sure he understood what motivated them, and what drove their worldview.  But when the Soviet Premier, Kosygin, began to make outlandish comments in order to bully the delegate into additional concessions, Biden would have none of it.  At the age of 38, Biden earned the respect the Soviet Premier who by looking him in the eye and telling him not to "bullshit a bullshitter".  Ballsy and brilliant, Biden knows how to talk, he knows how to listen, he knows how to understand, and he knows how to be tough; in short, he knows how to be a diplomat.  He's the man that Obama needs as Secretary of State.

Read this book, and I believe you’ll come to the same conclusion.

Far from having been stabilized, the global banking system is on life support, kept alive by extensive government funding while it is being restructured; capital injections are being arranged for failing institutions, steps are being taken to keep the book values of worthless securities from plunging to zero, while the banks are being forced to write down the values of their assets.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2008/3524banking_crisis_back.html

June 10, 2008 (LPAC)--Political action committees are organizing to urge Hillary Clinton to take her nomination fight on to the Democratic National Convention in Denver in late August.

People United Means Action, which describes itself as "completely grassroots,” is taking a multipronged approach:
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/06/10/clinton-supporters-want-take-nomination-fight-denver.html

June 10, 2008 (LPAC)-- The economic team of presumptive Democratic candidate Barack Obama has just been "outed" as part of a sub-cult at the University of Chicago known as "behaviorist economics."

This is where government regulation comes in, they argue, not to restrain the markets, but to restrain the humans.
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/06/10/obamas-economic-plan-obama-von-neumann.html

From the moment the McCain campaign issued its "10 Town Hall" invitation/challenge, it has seemed to me that their real desire is signified at least as much in the "10" as in the "Town Halls." From the beginning, they had to have known that their request was excessive, and that the  Obama campaign would never agree.  Moreover, no matter how much the "Town Hall" format might benefit  McCain, they also have to know that this is a relative benefit; in other words, it's better than a debate, but Obama still seems more likely to gain the immediate benefit from a joint appearance than does McCain.

So why ask for "10 Town Halls" when you know that, even if your opposition were so magnanimous as to grant all your wishes, so many joint appearances are, at best, a gamble for your candidate?  Is this a form of  campaign suicide?  A version of the "Bush strategy," whereby you acknowledge your opponent's intellectual and rhetorical superiority, then lower expectations to such a pitiful threshold that simply remaining upright and speaking makes you seem like a winner?  Or is the McCain camp actually crazy enough to believe that Obama would suffer from the contrasts raised in the course of multiple debates/town halls?
 
I think the "10 Town Hall" challenge is about something else altogether.   The McCain camp wants as many joint appearances as they can get, not because they think the appearances themselves will actually benefit their candidate.   They know that the best they could hope for is a close second (which is why they would prefer the town hall format). The idea here is to try to gain control over Obama's summer travel schedule. They tried the "joint Iraq trip" gambit. Obama didn't take the bait, and it didn't work as a talking point / campaign issue because it was so transparent. They're hoping the "10 Town Hall" challenge will work better because it's easier to frame as a call for "a different kind of campaigning," easier to spin as equally or more advantageous to Obama, and much easier to get the press to move for them (after all, it's not like the networks were clamoring to cover that "joint Iraq trip").

Everyone expects Obama to have an advantage over McCain in a joint appearance. But think about a typical of campaigning for Obama, versus a typical day of campaigning for McCain. Which do you suspect would be more lopsided, in terms of hour-for-hour impact:  a typical campaign day, or a day with a joint appearance?  I'm not just talking about the days with  mega-rallies, or the days with major policy speeches.  On a day with a joint appearance (whether debate or town hall), coverage of the event would dominate.  It wouldn't really matter who did well or who flopped:  the event itself would be the news.  McCain could fall on his face and still essentially come out even with Obama for the cycle, because the joint appearance would capture the coverage.

On a typical campaign day, however, coverage of the two candidates does not break down quite so evenly.  It is more likely that one or the other will "win" a news cycle on a day (week, month, etc.) where no joint appearances are scheduled.  It's not just about who can afford more advertising, or who is ahead in the polls.  One candidate will get more or "better" coverage, and one will say something stupid or give a terrible speech or have to answer for an associate's associate or, perhaps worst of all, simply get overlooked.  Since becoming the Democratic nominee, Obama has been winning most of the news cycles.  Even when competing with Hillary, he made far more effective use of a campaign day than did McCain (after all, we was able to fend off two challengers while McCain gained no ground running unopposed).

Beyond the daily news cycle, each day on the campaign trail translates into votes, money, organization, and other essentials that the candidates will need to see them through to election day.  Joint appearances take a candidate away from the trail not just for the time the debate or town hall takes, but for preparation, travel, scheduling arrangements, etc.  Just as he has won most news cycles, Obama has "won the day" against McCain on the trail:  he covers more ground both in terms of literal geography and in taking his argument to his selected audiences.  On a typical campaign day, he defines the terms of the national debate more advantageously without having to share the stage with McCain.  Obama is not simply a better speaker or a better debater than John McCain; he is, unquestionably, the better campaigner.  This is what the "10 Town Hall" challenge really hopes to address.

I've seen many references to the "losing candidate's strategy" of "debate-as-free-advertising."  I do think the Town Hall challenge works analogously on some level, but I really don't think that the McCain camp wants these joint appearances primarily for the appearance's sake.  I'm sure they would be just as happy if no one actually saw the town halls themselves.  But they do need a way to compete with Obama's dominant campaign.  They don't have the resources, the organization, or the planning to keep up. Obama needn't worry about the costs of personalized campaigning in far-flung locations, whereas McCain has to pick and chose where he will make his stops. Without overstating it, the "age factor" does probably come into play here, as well: I'm sure that McCain doesn't relish the thought of trying to keep up with his admittedly "much younger" opponent's schedule over the next five months.  Perhaps most importantly, however, is Obama's 50 state strategy. As he proved in the primary, Obama is a hands-on campaigner with remarkable abilities to mobilize and motivate on the ground. He has put states into play that haven't been in the "swing" column for generations.

Obviously, I don't want to understate McCain's strength as a "town hall" campaigner.  This is his format, and it does make sense that he would want to try to minimize his rhetoric gap against Obama by debating him in this manner. Regardless of the format, however, McCain can't really expect to accrue much benefit from any joint appearances, as speaking opportunities.  The real advantage lies in the opportunity to influence Obama's campaign schedule with the preparation, travel, and scheduling demands that multiple debates/town halls will create.  The McCain camp has proposed - and will likely continue to fight for - multiple joint appearances in a desperate attempt to divert Obama from personally campaigning in places like Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina, and who knows how many more soon-to-be-blue states?  The "10 Town Hall" challenge hopes to play Obama's rhetorical superiority against his organizational ability.  It's not about engaging issues, and it's really not about "winning" at any particular debate.  By calling for multiple joint appearances, McCain hopes to shift national attention to the debates themselves, and perhaps more importantly, to take Obama off the trail as often as possible.

Tim Russert.

Four innocent children gone.  Many more seriously injured.

There are tragic tales around the world, many we have not heard.

Pray for the fathers and sons.  For the sorrow.  If we have not felt it yet in our own lives, in some future way, we will.

So let's bow our heads and pray for us all.  We are one country, one people.  No matter your sex, creed, ethnicity or religion. 

Suffering is universal.

I've found it frustrating going to Obama's website and not being able to find a section on tax.   So it was great to see that the non-partisan Tax Policy Center has now put out a better analysis than its previous tries at it.
There are no surprises in that  the Center has everyone paying less under McCain with the huge beneficiaries being the wealthiest, while under Obama the rich would pay a great deal more while the middle class & low income would pay a lot less.
But what was really interesting was their conclusion that contrary to all his rhetoric, the MCCain deficit could well be greater than Obama's:
McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.  (The reason they speculate on this result is that they don't share McCain's confidence in
his ability to cut spending)
Tax bracket range impacts:


MCCAIN OBAMA Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885 $603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974 $227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12 $161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789 $112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204 $66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290 $38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042 $19K-$38K -$113 -$892 Under $19K -$19 -$567
If you want to check it out:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

Reportedly, Congressional and White House negotiators have agreed to the the basics of a FISA renewal bill that is, in essence, pretty much a warmed-over version of what Kit Bond proposed months ago.

The only diff is that district courts involved with actual lawsuits, and not the FISA court, would make the immunity calls.

More at my blog, including an appeal to Obama to filibuster, should this get to the Senate floor.

This over-the-top coverage on how Russert was the best-journalist-ever is not sitting right.  Yes, the guy just died, so everyone is understandably sensitive and magnanimous in their praise.  But there is a limit isn't there?  The New York Times is quoting Al Hunt as saying “He really was the best political journalist in America, not just the best television journalist in America."  

Uh, no.  He was affable, passionate, and a good mainstream journalist.  That's the truth, even though it isn't politically correct to say so.  I was so glad to see TPM just say it was a "sad day" and leave it at that.  It is a sad day.  He worked hard.  He was a good guy and a good reporter.  But he was not great.  Just read one of Josh's play-by-plays of the Obama-Hillary debates to find good examples.

I don't know why, but I have my television set on and it's set on MSNBC, and every time I glance over at it, I see flashes of Tim Russert followed by a very emotional Keith Olbermann....and now, Oh God, Chris Matthews has finally hung up his cell phone and is making a televised appearance from outside the studio and I just want to beg the two of them to please go home and cry their hearts out because I can see how they feel and the rawness of it breaks my heart.

At the same time, I love the fact that MSNBC is doing this tonight.  The only cable news channel holding a memorial for one of their own with the same honor and dignity that their own Tim Russert lived his all-too-short life.

But, every now and then, I hit the "channel" button and move up to CNN for a quick look-see.  And just two hours ago, I saw something that made me glad for the look-see:

A CNN poll shows that, in a comparison of registered Democrat and Republican voters, a whopping 63% of Democrats are VERY/EXTREMELY EXCITED about voting this year, compared to a a very dismal 37% of Republicans.

Mildly Excited earned almost 45-45, and "Not All That Excited At All" earned a low 20's to 30's for the Dems, and a huge and whopping 45% for Republicans.

Good news, on a very sad day.

If you didn't see him on Morning Joe today, he really was a class act: hammered McCain superbly on the disconnect between militarism and foreign policy.
It was great stuff seeing Mika so resistant, parroting McCain's experience of war and Clark pointing out that admirable though it may be, it simply isn't in any way relevant to understanding international relations.  He was great taking the viewer through the different grades in the military - and the limitations of them policy wise.  I was particularly chuffed to see him using McCain's absurd threat to try to chuck Russia out of the G8, and he also picked up Mika's example of torture to highlight that McCain really isn't the straight talk express - he's just another politician trying to win an election.
Is was terrific stuff.   Check it out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25139036#25139036

Have you wondered why Speaker Pelosi took impeachment "off" the table? She made this decision before conducting any fact finding. Or, so she wants us to believe.
The (apparent) truth is surprising. Information has been developed, and forwarded to Congressman Conyers, strongly suggesting Pelosi knows far more than she's admitting.
This week, Professor Turley accused the Congress of collusion. There's aparently some substance to this allegation.
Apparently, Pelosi was involved with policy making decisions on torture and NSA surveillance. We've also learned Harman knew some things, but didn't say something.
David writes, implicitly suggesting Pelosi must recuse herself:

Pelosi's [alleged] criminal participation and duties can be defined even more clearly, since she participated in discussions of both warrantless surveillance and torture -- Articles 24 and 18 of the Impeachment case.

Said another way, either Pelosi recuses herself and makes way for an impeachment investigation -- which may implicate her as an alleged co-conspirator; or the House must remove Pelosi as Speaker for her alleged ethics breaches and refusal to permit the House to enforce the laws of war through impeachment.

David: "I actually spoke with Chairman Conyers about this today, and he said he understood it and admitted Pelosi's involvement in warrantless surveillance." 

This may explain the reluctance of the lawyers to support either impeachment of Bush; or removal of Pelosi: They lawyers are connected to both.

The Department of Justice has been linked with online information warfare

"had a habit of instructing employees to go online and post comments rebutting news stories"

One Office of Special Counsel claimed they were a combat vet, but the OSC knows they were never in the military.
They weren't lying when they said they "weren't working in the Department of Justice." They goofing off, not working, lying about being a combat veteran.
The DC Attorney Ethics rules do not permit misrepresentation, and it is a violation of the ethics rules for an attorney to:

(c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;

Let me first state, please, that I idolized JFK as a child and his assassination has in many ways haunted me my entire life.

I have long since abandoned the silliness of Camelot and the Kennedy's of course.

I have no personal animosity toward and nearly no knowledge of Caroline Kennedy. Until recently, I remembered her only as the young child cavorting around the White House with her brother. I have not followed her career or anything else about her for decades.

My reason for writing is that we have already seen one of the three people chosen by Obama to be his VP-vetting team bite the dust, in disgrace. Eric Holder, one of the two still left standing doesn't interest me. But Caroline Kennedy does.

Why was she chosen? What particular qualifications, beyond her enthusiastic support for Barack and her name, does she possess to "vet" a potential VP candidate? I ask this question seriously.

Is she personally going to compose a list of names to be considered? Is she going to personally interview candidates? Is Obama going to sit at a table with her and ask, "So who should I choose?"

Oprah's a professional interviewer of the highest caliber; she's also perhaps the most successful female entrepreneur in the United States. She's not on the VP-vetting team. Why not?

I ask all the TPM Obama peeps: Of all the people out there in the country, Why Caroline Kennedy?

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

For the third time in re POWs, the Supreme Court reminded the President the Constitution still applies. The majority again opposed the President, but the Chief Justice is in denial:

"The majority is equally wrong"

Earth to Chief Justice Roberts, 

You lose. You're wrong. 

The Majority decided the Chief Justice and other lawyers are in the minority on Constitutional issues. When given a chance to vote, the "lawyers" learn the hard way: They might be on the wrong side of the Constitution.
Equally wrong on issues of impeachment.
One of the lawyer's jobs is to maintain public confidence in your profession, not sandbag the discussion out of fear the public might have a different view. You failed to make your case. You lost. Time to step aside, and let the adult leadership -- not in the legal community -- examine facts, review, and make decisions about whether the charge the President and others with a crime; or decide something else.
* Impeachment Is Required, Otherwise Americans Are Not Civilized
Here is the plain language showing impeachment is a required legal tool for the American lawyers to use to enforce Geneva, otherwise they are not civilized:

"Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance"

The Speaker needs to be removed, not enabled. It is reckless for anyone to argue impeachment should be taken off the table before examining facts of the case. Nuremberg requires impeachment or prosecutions to enforce the laws of war.

lawyers show they are not Gods, not divine saints, but fallible creatures, needing oversight. Had the vote gone the other way on Habeas, and the prisoners still denied a right to challenge their detention, the Italian War Crimes prosecutor might be discussing prosecuting the Supreme Court Justices per the Nuremberg Precedents. * Lazy, Incompetent, Unimaginative Lawyers
The American lawyers have recklessly refused to assert power, check their own, nor aggressively challenge this President. The lawyers are the domestic enemies. They need better oversight, a tighter leash, and they do not control the government. The Constitution does.
The lawyers have assaulted the Constitution, and left it to wither in the wind, demanding the public accept their excuses for laziness. * Unresponsive Lawyers Should Not Be Respected
We the People retain sovereignty. We may -- without notice -- compel the legal community to justify why anyone should continue paying them any money for their reckless assent to this President's and this Speaker's rebellion against the Constitution. The lawyers have put partisan goals before the legal requirement of Nuremberg to either impeach or prosecute. No lawyer has discretion to assent to war crimes; nor remain complicit. Your clients have apparently told you to not fully assert your oaths, and you have illegally obliged. Your illegal activity shows your judgement is flawed. The problem is not the voters. The problem is the leadership and the reckless legal counsel who have not timely confronted this President's confrontation with the rule of law. The problem is the leadership's failure and the laziness of legal counsel to mobilize and organize to timely correct the problem:

Reckless, incompetent legal counsel and leadership.

Lawyers need wakeup calls. The impeachment would focus their lazy minds on facts today, not elections tomorrow. 
Nuremberg reminds us that when the lawyers pretend they know best -- which they do not, as evidenced by this continued assault on the Constitution for seven (7) years, without a timely remedy or resolution -- they forget who or what they're working for. 
Your oath is to the Constitution. Your excuse has been the election, the voter, or the lack of time. That is not leadership. Your real loyalty is to your client, not the Constitution. * Unacceptable String of Abuses Under This Tyrant
Those who are satisfied with the home raids, intrusions upon our personal communications, warrantless interrogations, accusations on the presumption of guilt, you are free to do nothing: You have what you enjoy. Those who would like to discuss solutions, or consider alternative forms of oversight -- which is a lawful discussion -- you are free to present your views. If the lawyers knew what they were doing, they would have -- in 1789 -- discussed the solution that would have prevented this problem: Reckless legal counsel advising a tyrant.  Self evidently the reckless, lazy, incompent legal community still -- after 200 years -- has no solution, but devised methods to exploit the American public's misplaced trust in "experts" and "leaders". If you are satisfied with the state of affairs, there is no reason to fear a discussion about possible solutions. Legal counsel who -- for 200 years -- provide no leadership or solutions to ensure this abuse does not happen, cannot credibly ask any American to care that they are a lawyer, that they are certified, or that they are accredited to practice law. 
Those standards of "professional competence" have given us what we have: A tyrant and excuses to do nothing, while pointing to the possible shift in political winds. 

Where is the leadership in the American legal community to confront these war crimes, and alleged complicity of legal counsel with violations of Geneva and the Supreme Law?

The oath does not require any American to show deference, respect, or loyalty to those in the legal community who make excuses to do nothing, and rubber stamp legislation.
* DNC and GOP Legal Counsel Excuses For Complicity The GOP today -- as a minority -- is still able to block the solutions. The DNC -- when it was the minority -- cannot explain why it did not block the unconstitutional bills. The lawyers rolled over.
No American should look to this leadership and believe the lawyers have done anything to help. They've rolled over, made excuses, and remain fearful of fully asserting legislative power. That's not something Americans are obliged to follow, respect, or continue.
Article II lawyers have run circles around the American legal community. One would think, in a system of checks and balances that worked, the lawyers in the ARticle I branch would have reciprocated, fully asserted their oath, and devised a plan to respond. There was no plan, but capitulation.
This lazy crew thinks it can "not rock the boat," secure a political victory, and start with their agenda: More capitulation, excuses, and thwarting discussions. The same people who refuse to entertain solutions today are the same ones repeating the abuses of the GOP and DNC leadership:
"Oh, we have more important things to do than the Constitution." No they don't. The error is their misplaced agenda, reckless loyalty, and unwavering commitment to the illusion of competence. 200 years, and the legal community still has no legislative agenda to timely thwart this abuse of power. "Trust us" was the refrain of this PResident on WMD; and the same noise from the GOP-DNC lawyers in 2008.
* America's Lawyers Have Not Fulfilled Their Legal Obligations To the Constitution
We see no reason or evidence to trust the lazy, incompetent, and unhelpful legal community. They deserves to be closely monitored, patrolled, and independently audited. The arrogant notion that a DNC lawyer is "better suited" for leadership defies reason. Lawyers, self evidently, are not leaders, statesmen, nor Generals: They're lawyers. The American lawyers have made a mess of Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the United States Constitution. 
They refuse to remove themselves, nor confront the leadership with an impeachment investigation. They are complicit. Their legal machine is glacially responsive to the Constitution, if the weather if favorable.
* The Looming War Crimes Problem for American Lawyers The lawyers have not shown they can competently lead, advise, provide inputs, or make policy. But their reckless policies have given us illegal warfare, continued funding for that illegal activity, and no solution but excuses. The lawyers have not shown they can be trusted. They need to be prosecuted for complicity with war crimes. America's leaders are not leading that effort to reform the legal community. The public is not required to remain loyal to any lawyer or any tyrant who puts their personal agenda of power before the Constitution.
No American is obliged to follow, respect, or trust these lawyers who have led us astray, but then demand that we take responsibility for their betrayal. Americans have not seen leadership, but cowardly complicity from the American legal community. American citizens are not beholden to the American legal community. We are not your employees.
You work for us. You can be fired. And prosecuted.
The burden of proof, as always lies with the lawyer, not with the Client or the Constitution. Without notice, you can be fired, arrested, and adjudicated with war crimes. The public has the needed legal justification to unleash the full weight of the Constitution and Nuremberg precedents.
You wished this.

 [NOTE: I just posted this on the Official Obama Campaign Website, Where I Maintain a Blog.]

As ludicrous as it surely seems to most Americans, there apparently is a not-insignificant portion of the voting public who has doubts about the candidate's "Americanism."

And it's an issue that, like the Wright relationship, will not just die a natural death due to the silence of the Obama campaign.

Remember back a few months when the media was feasting on the "news" that Barack had for a long time in his youth gone by the first name "Barry?" Trivial story for sure.

My own first name, "Fredrick" (no "e" between Fred and rick because my father thought Fredrick looked and sounded stronger than Frederick, and I agree with him,) is nowhere as unique as "Barack."  Yet I have gone by Fred or Freddy my entire life, much less intimidating, much less Germanic than my full first name.

To my ear and to my eyes, both "Barack" and "Fredrick" register as patently assertive, vaguely intimidating first names. Cool with me; but maybe not with the "masses." Add the additional characteristic of a somewhat foreign-sounding tinge to "Barack" and something this silly could cost a guy the Presidency.

The following is going to sound so superficial that I'm almost embarrassed to write it, but here goes: would the candidate consider resurrecting, at least from time to time, "Barry?" How can anyone be suspicious of a guy named "Barry?" Or at least nicknamed "Barry," much as I am nicknamed "Fred" or "Freddy"?

Barry is approachable, a regular guy...so is Freddy; Barack and Fredrick aren't.

I'm talking about just injecting "Barry" into the discourse from time to time. "Yeah," Obama could say, "my old friends from the hood still call me Barry, as does my mother," for example.

Humanize the candidate somewhat. He's too good-looking, too smart, too eloquent, too well educated, too well tailored...and his first name is too intimidating and too unusual.

You can't make him ugly, you can't make him dumb, you can't un-educate him and he sure ain't gonna dress like a hick...but an occasional Barry may go a long way to making him "one of the boys."

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

I just received this email from the Obama campaign. 

We need your help right now.

In Quincy, Illinois and surrounding areas, the river is expected to crest on Monday or Tuesday.

There are emergency sandbagging operations going on right now and public officials have put out a call for all available volunteers. Your help is desperately needed.

The widespread flooding in the Midwest has affected millions of people. We have an opportunity to use our grassroots movement to make a real impact at a time of urgent need.

If you can assist, please travel to one of these areas this weekend:

QUINCY, IL

Oakley-Lindsey Civic Center
South 3rd St. and Kentucky St.
Quincy, IL 62301
Map and Directions

Saturday and Sunday, June 14th - 15th
6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Volunteers are asked to come through the north doors of the Oakley-Lindsey Center. Everyone will be asked to sign a registration sheet as they enter and leave so the city can keep track of the volunteer service.

Volunteers are encouraged to bring shovels, gloves and sturdy shoes.

NIOTA, IL

If you'd like to help sandbag in Niota you can call Hancock County emergency services at 217-357-6004 for more information.

URSA, IL

Volunteers are still needed in Ursa. The operation is underway at Shaffer Farm, along the Ursa blacktop road, 1/8 mile west of the North Bottoms Road.

Volunteers are also requesting cold bottled water for those who are working.

More information on volunteering in this area:

http://my.barackobama.com/floodvolunteer

Our thoughts and prayers go out to those who have been affected by the recent flooding through the Midwest.

If you are not able to make it to Quincy but would like to help, visit the American Red Cross to donate to their relief efforts or find out how to get involved.

Thanks,

Obama for America

I've never been asked for anything by any politician besides money.  I've never received an email that was about anything but politics - who said what about whom - or policy. 

Maybe I'm making a big deal out of nothing, but the campaign is using its donor list to get help for folks who really need it right now, and I am so proud to be on that list.  I can't explain it fully, but...I'm glad this person will be President in a few short months.

After 9/11 our "president" only asked us to shop.  For the first time in my life I'm proud of a leader I elected.

But enough about Obama...I'm going out to get an oil change and some air in my tires, 'cause it looks like I'm headed to Quincy tomorrow.

If any of you are anywhere near the Midwest, the folks in Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois, Nebraska and Kansas are not only dealing with the floods but have been devastated by the worst tornado season we've had in 10 years.  If you have time, come and help sandbag.  If you are far away or can't make the trip, please contact the Red Cross to donate blood, clothes and food.  It's really, really bad out here - people have lost everything they own to wind and water, and we know we can't yet count on our government to help them (not until January, anyway).

Thanks :)

There are 400 city blocks under water is Cedar Rapids, IA.  They are evacuating Des Moines.  This is the worst urban flooding this country has seen since Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. 

These people need help, and I'm sure Barack Obama, who owes so much of his political success to the people of Iowa, will want to help any way he can. 

My challenge to Senator Obama is that while he is speaking of IA, use the opportunity to draw contrast to the situation in New Orleans three years ago.  When I heard about the flooding in IA, my first thought was - I bet the government won't screw this one up like the did in New Orleans.  Iowa is too important politically, too quintessentially middle American, too white for them to let Cedar Rapids drown.

I'm pissed off that that was the first thought in my head.

I'm pissed off that it's probably an accurate thought.

I don't think I'm alone in these sentiments.

Barack Obama has been willing and able to speak about issues of race and inequality more forcefully, righteously, eloquently and fairly than anyone I've ever heard in my lifetime, and I'd like to hear him on this subject. 

What is happening to the people of Iowa is a national tragedy, just like what happened to the people of New Orleans.  I hope Senator Obama takes the opportunity to show the parallels and contrasts that exist and will exist between the response to the two tragedies.  I understand that it is a touchy subject, and thats why it has to be him.  I don't this anyone else has the oratory skill, credibility with all of the groups involved, or the stage that he has right now in this country. 

Please Barack, this is not something that you necessarily have to do, but it would be remarkable if you did.

We all know Fox News went there. I can't say it any better than this:

To everybody who cares about Obama’s racial identity, either positively or negatively, the man is a black man, married to a black woman, who has black children. Black black black black black black black black.

It sure as hell matters to Fox News, which is why it’s dog whistling about Barack so loudly that it’s vibrating the windows.

Calling Michelle Obama a “baby mama” isn’t just Fox News having a happy casual larf; it’s using urban slang to

a) remind you the Obamas are black,

b) belittle a woman of considerable personal accomplishment, and

c) frame Barack Obama’s relationship to his wife and children in a way that insults him, minimizes his love for and commitment to his family, and reinforces stereotypes about black men.

Someone at Fox News just ought to call Barack Obama “boy” at some point so we can have all the cards right out there on the table.

Or the N-word, perhaps. It really is quite curious.

Racist is as racist does.

Still, there's one question I'd like answered.

Will all the White women who hollered about the sexism thrown at Hillary please stand up for Michelle Obama?

Hey, Geraldine! I'm hearing crickets!

Are you kidding me?  In this version of the movie (Oliver Stone, pick up the phone...) everyone gets clean away.

Freedom's on th' march fer sure...What kind of government is susceptible to this sort of evidence of  open irrelevance?  

Someone who knows Sarah Cheyes, please ask her what's up, because it is evident that the writ of Kabul runs about five hundred yards away from the Presidential palace, and no further.

"Wali Karzai, the brother of President Hamid Karzai who is president of Kandahar's provincial council, said... ''all'' the prisoners escaped, ''There is no one left,''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Afghan-Prison-Attack.html?hp

Apparently John McCain and those who think like him are confusing our court system with plumbing. They are worried that a little thing like habeas corpus might clog things up, and for that reason John McCain calls the Supreme Court's upholding of this basic human right "the worst decision in History!"

There have been worse decisions, John. And this one doesn't qualify. You running for president might qualify, however.

Let me put it this way: Is the possibility of a few more court cases really more important than standing for what America always stood for - fairness, equality under the law and decency? Have you eaten the magic George Bush pill that makes you totally disinterested in human rights, international treaties, conventions and morals? Have you forgotten that some of the people tossed into jails like Guantanamo are INNOCENT!

When one innocent man or woman is railroaded into prison without any rights whatsoever, we don't have America. We have tyranny. And if there's one thing I think Bush desires, it's tyranny. If there's one thing that Cheney clearly desires, it's tyranny. So, John, are you with them or with America?

surprised TPM is not covering McCain's "worst decision in our country's history" comments in re the Supreme Court's ruling that habeas corpus applies to Guantanamo detainees (Dred Scott?  Plessy v. Ferguson?).  it is a political shift since yesterday--he's tacking towards Bush in the hopes of influencing the security/fear vote and painting Obama into the "card-carrying member of the ACLU" corner.  tricky for Obama to respond, although Kennedy's opinion is a good place to start:

"Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers."

or perhaps Ben Franklin:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I wish a reporter would ask McCain if he's read the opinions, which he surely hasn't. 

McCain's comment should remind everyone (perhaps Hillary loyalists in particular) that McCain, like George W. Bush, does not give a rat's tuckus about the law or the rule of law.  If he is elected, we can expect lots of little Scalias running around the halls of Justice for decades to come.

 

June 12, 2008 (LPAC)--The latest atrocity to come out of George Soros clone Howard Dean, is that the Democratic National Committee chairman is trying to shut the 18 million loyal Democratic and independent voters who supported Hillary Clinton out of the Denver convention altogether. http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/06/12/howard-dean-schemes-shut-down-democratic-convention.html

Who Is Howard Dean?
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/06/13/who-renting-howard-dean.html

How Soros got Slammed by JFK
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/06/13/how-soros-got-slammed-kennedy.html

The journalism community and all of us who consume healthy news are saddened by the loss of one of the great television reporters of our era. Barack Obama said it beautifully, "I am grief-stricken at the loss and my thoughts and prayers go out to his family. Many of us will remember how Tim called the Democratic primary race for Obama after Keith Olbermann asked him, "Did it just end tonight?" and Tim answered, "We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be and no one's going to dispute it, Keith." I was watching with Yohance and we both laughed, threw back out beers, and bumped fists. Watching the general election coverage with Tim missing will be sad, even as we celebrate a landmark victory and turn the page on the Bush years. Tim will be sorely missed as a family man, a passionate political junkie, and a journalist of the old school who analyzed with minimal spin and called it as he saw it. A link to Russert calling the race is here.

Tim Russert was a tenacious journalist, a proud American, and by all accounts, a loving son, father, and husband.  Whatever issues you might have had with his work, its hard to deny the enduring impact he had on "Meet The Press." It is his vision for that show, and his commitment to preserving it as an American institution that will be his greatest legacy. 

Though I took issue with his journalistic style (and occasional ethical slipperiness), I admired his insistence that continuing a heated political discussion was more important than breaking for commercials, and I came to love his peculiar but endearing quirk of  pointing at the camera.  I also appreciated the sense of gravity and drama that he brought to Sunday morning shows. Even when I had no plans of watching his stable of guests  (Carville, Matlin, Murphy, and Shrum, again?), I like to tune in just to hear the theme play and Russert's baritone voice intone: "Our issues this Sunday..." 

Russert deserves to be lauded for maintaining the old-fashioned simplicity of "Meet The Press" (as opposed to the flashier segments and sets of its competitors), no small feat in the corporate-driven world of television news.  With few exceptions, Russert did not interview politicians in more relaxed settings and he did not like to edit his interviews.  Instead, he put them at a chair at his set (implicitly keeping the home-court advantage on the side of the press and not the pol) and grilled them for ten, twenty, thirty minutes at a time, often without a single break or an edit.  His round table segments suffered from staleness, as he largely resisted bringing in younger, fresher voices and instead stuck to his favorite insidery operatives and the op-ed scribes of the Post and the Times. 

But at least he resisted the impatient jumpiness of the other Sunday shows (Fox News Sunday and ABC's This Week, I'm looking in your direction), maintaining only one lighter segment, the flashback clip at the end of the show.  He was proud of MTP's status as the Sunday show of record, and his old school aesthetic (dowdy graphics, a spartan set, the reairing of grainy black-and-white footage) was part of his deep respect for the past.

But while I mourn the loss of the iconic figure, I fear that the death of Russert will only invigorate and enliven Russertism, the brand of journalism that imitates all of Russert's macho posturing and cheap tricks and yet fails to appreciate his greatest strengths.

The coming flood of encomia will cast him as Edwin R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite rolled into one--it's a safe bet that both those names will show up in his official NYT obit tomorrow.   And, to be sure, Russert's combative, needling style had its virtues.  But his rise to the top of the DC chattering class unfortunately spawned a crowd of imitators and contributed to the current obsession with theater and trivia that dominates American political journalism.

The moments for which Ezra Klein rightly lauds him are the moments that Russert resisted his usual impulses towards indulging in Beltway clubbiness and sniffing out meaningless gaffes and gotchas.  Or, in other words, Russert was best when he resisted Russertism.  Although, unlike Victor Frankenstein, he never seemed that troubled by the lurching monster he created and unleashed.

In any case, the man is gone, and the impact of this election will likely be great.  I do feel sorry that he will not be around to see the outcome of this election that so clearly excited him.  Rest in peace, Russ. Go Bills!

Since the original Obama Sock Monkey post is soon to drop off the list, I wanted to forward this link and encourage all to check it out:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/obama-as-a-sock-monkey.php

Please keep up the pressure on the perpetrators of this repugnant item to discontinue it, by sending civilized, modulated and coherent expressions of outrage to:

customerservice@thesockobama.com
(David and Elizabeth Lawson, the creators/sellers)

quotes@customplushtoys.com
(the contracted manufacturer)

Tim: I say, farewell, farewell to you, the good and faithful servant. Your life blessed mine. You never failed to answer my e-mails. You made me proud to share our generation together. You gave a new meaning to the phrase, "public service." You showed me how to embrace and honor my father (now 85), to recognize his greatness. You did this for an entire country that is just now coming to terms with a transition of one generation (ours) to the next (our children). You demonstrated that asking tough questions of our leaders is Citizenship 101. You showed us that the truth is always better than the untruth. Or, in the words of the late Carl R. Rogers, "The facts are always friendly." I thank God that you have made me better, even as imperfect as I am. Farewell, farewell, farewell good friend.

In the news this week, was the launch by the Obama campaign of the FightThe Smears.com site.  Makes sense since everyone knows this will be an incredibly ugly campaign.  Ralph Reed has supposedly said recently that there's no way McCain will win this election, but Obama may lose it.  I see this unfolding as the Republicans throwing as much crap as they can at Obama.  If he can't do a strong enough job of responding, he loses.

The Fight The Smears site isn't really a site; that domain name simply redirects to a page on the MyBO site.  My instinct would have been to make it more free-standing.  I would agree with Kevin Drum's observation that the content structure will be hard to maintain once the accusations start piling up.  Do you only show the newest smears at the top? What about will become of Golden Oldies by July, such as the Muslim smear? If a smear is "popular," shouldn't it be immediately apparent as you visit that page?

(I'm not suggesting Fight the Smears should turn into a All-Barry-All-The-Time version of Snopes.com.)

By the way, I haven't been paying attention to the campaign blogs, but I would draw your attention to the critique of the McCain and Obama blogs by Mike Turk. if the content he describes is accurate, then the Obama campaign is on the wrong track. Don't be scared off by the Amanda Marcotte incident; a blog should be bloggy to succeed.

In America, very few men and women are considered to be "trusted" by an entire populace. But the fact that the moniker "the most trusted man in America" fell upon a TV newsman is no accident. That man was Walter Cronkite, and we're fortunate to still benefit from his wisdom today. Sadly, we cannot say the same for one of the true heirs to his legacy.

Tim Russert passed away today from a heart attack. He was 58. Two days before Father's Day.

I've only known Russert as two things: the moderator of the longest-running TV news program in American history, Meet the Press, a show I watched religiously; and as the most famous Buffalo Bills fan anyone knew. As both, he inspired me to value the art of interviewing, both in his good and less-than-artful moments and to remain true to your roots. But regardless what person sat across from him at that iconic table, the nation listened with rapt attention.

I'm not in the business of lionizing men after they've died, filling their legacies with flowery words of praise. But what can you be expected to do when you held a man in such high regard while he was here?

An excerpt from his final interview:

I remember being in Indianapolis covering the Indiana primary and a man came up to me and said he wasn’t going to vote for Senator Obama because he was very concerned about the comments made by Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor. I said, “That’s interesting. As a reporter, I’m curious what comments particularly bothered you?”

He said, “Well, I can’t think of any that come to mind, but I also read on the Internet that he’s a Muslim.” And I said, “Now wait a minute. You can’t have both. You can’t be offended by his Christian minister and then say he’s a Muslim. You’ve got to pick one.”

 

That's what American journalism will miss. A desire to understand paired with an unwillingness to let ignorance pass unquestioned.

Mr. Russert, may your celestial influence bring your Bills a title soon. God bless. You will be missed.

(Cross-posted at 1,369 lightbulbs.)

I suspect that few will be jumping to offer criticisms of MSNBC or Tim Russert at this time. But let me say that while many of us in the blogosphere are often quick to label the Mainstream Media ineffective or inadequate, I have always felt that NBC, and Russert in particular, showed at the very least a glimmer of the sort of reporting that should be expected in the dark times of the Bush era, and the corresponding attitudes towards freedom of speech and dissent. 

In the words of Edward Murrow, and more recently, Keith Olbermann: Good Night, and Good Luck. 

You remember Rudy's "9/11" mantra repeated ad nauseum? It looks like McCain has got one of his own.

McCain has had it easy. He won one highly contested congressional primary race in 1982. That's it! Since then McCain has won 1 congressional and 4 Senate Races by margins ranging from 20 to 52%. His curent performance on the campaign trail is, in my opinion, sophmorish, and likely the result of 5 easy elections over the past 24 years.

During his first primary election the issue of carpetbagger came up as he had just moved to Arizona the year before. When confronted, McCain responded with

Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi.

His defense du jour "I'm a POW ..." a replay of what has worked for him in the past, has already been used several times, in one form or another. during the past weeks in defending himself against Obama. I was surprised to see him use it so soon as it is his strongest suit. When responding to Obama's criticism of McCain's lack of support for the GI bill, McCain responded 

"And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did ... "

pushing the "inexperienced" moniker on Obama. McCain's implication that Obama's lack of lack of service, disqualifies him from questioning his judgment on military issues, is silly, elitist, reveals a disdain for Obama's candidacy and does nothing to forward the discussion. I'm sure that some in his base agree with McCain's assertions of superiority in all things military. While McCain's service is admirable, it does not entitle him to the Presidency, which he seems to think, against Obama, it does.

The McCain and Obama campaigns are debating the types and number of debates they have.  I have a suggestion for the Obama campaign.  Insist on having some of the events be completely unmoderated.  Just put the candidates on stage with a chess clock.  Put an hour on the clock for each cndidate and flip a coin to see who speaks first.  When ever one candidate has made his point he just hits the clock and his oponents time starts for rebutal or to make a new point.  Obama has said that he wants Lincoln, Douglas style debates and this is as close as you could get with modern attention spans.

Is Friday the 13th really bad luck? No. Of course not. But they actually wasted time and money to conduct a study to prove it.

 Dutch statisticians have established that Friday 13th, a date regarded in many countries as inauspicious, is actually safer than an average Friday.

A study published on Thursday by the Dutch Centre for Insurance Statistics (CVS) showed that fewer accidents and reports of fire and theft occur when the 13th of the month falls on a Friday than on other Fridays.

Maenwhile, the sun is eerily quiet. Could it mean the beginning of another ice age?

The sun's surface has been fairly blank for the last couple of years, and that has some worried that it may be entering another Maunder minimum, the sun's 50-year abstinence from sunspots, which some scientists have linked to the Little Ice Age of the 17th century.

Turning to more earthly and slightly more irrelevant matters, my favorite guilty pleasure, 24, has announced that John Voight (the actor!) will be playing a bad guy next season. I'm still kind of pissed that the writers strike left me without Jack Bauer saving the world this year by using tactics he learned on the set of The Lost Boys. But next season is definitely looking up.

In his first series role in 40 years, Jon Voight has signed on as a recurring character on the upcoming seventh season of "24."

On the Emmy-winning Fox drama, Voight will play the uber-nemesis of Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland), who is pulling the strings behind next season's terrorist threat.

Oh. And in case you didn't know, John McCain is old.

Weighing degrees of "freedom" in any society must include the question: What's the condition of information-exchange?

Is it free and open? Can citizens talk about any and all subjects, and, more to the point, express opinions about them? Is some language or opinion taboo? Even illegal?

The flip side of these considerations, as far as measuring societal freedom, is how much the regime that governs the society is allowed to know.

Can it eavesdrop on its citizenry - to make sure they’re not tormenting elderly relatives or hogtying baby seals to the blades of industrial turbines? …Or cooking up insurrection? Can the regime investigate citizens’ business records and associations with no legal oversight or challenge?

Ideally, the degree of freedom in information exchanges should be inverse to its level in official circles. In other words, the higher we go within the operational framework of a governing entity, the more sanctions should be placed on information-access, particularly with regard to individuals.

Ideally, of course.

On the touchy issue of censorship, a New York Times piece this week takes a look at hate speech laws, now so popular in Europe, Canada, and some other parts of the world – and the reasons the United States has been (so far) reluctant to implement them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

There is a dispiriting tone in the article that seems to acquiesce to at least the concept of censorship:

“…Even (Anthony) Lewis, a liberal, wrote… that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections ‘in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.’ In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.”

The Times, although tilting discussion of Canada’s odious, Orwellian Human Rights Commissions to the brief of critics of that encumbrance, also “loads” examples of Supreme Court affirmations of the First Amendment by citing decisions involving racists and Klansmen, construing these rulings as virtually misguided.

The simple fact is, whoever is the arbiter to define hate speech, controls all speech. The standard for what constitutes hate speech will default, naturally, to its most basic calibration: Hate speech is any speech I don't like.

Some of the most energetic lobbying for Web censorship comes from the Left, with the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center at the vanguard. Although avoiding the term “censorship”, these groups generally cloak their efforts to institute Internet policing as an extension of human-rights activism. To them, hate apparently is a unique manifestation of their political opposites, can be spread exponentially by information servers like the Internet – and can be righteously combated with legislation, often on an international scale.

It is within this context that ephemeral alliances emerge with right-wing groups – ubiquitous evangelical Christians taking the lead – in campaigns that target universally despised Internet manifestations like child porn and neo-Nazi sites. The repellant nature of these entities makes the idea of at least limited censorship, or “filtering”, an attractive option.

TPM poster Robert Feinman had an excellent entry this week on the decision by several ISPs to knuckle under to the Attorney General of New York and filter child-porn sites. Accurately (and chillingly) he entitled his piece "The End of the Internet."

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/the-end-of-the-internet.php

What can be so wrong about getting rid of child porn – even if it requires muffling a noisome, vital Internet? Well, as Feinman points out, the New York child-porn mandates put ISPs in role of law-enforcers. Because child porn is already illegal, there are already sanctions against it. If ISPs are in the business of deciding what qualifies as the dread stuff, can they not be empowered with defining and sanctioning anything they deem objectionable in their jurisdictions of the Web? What will their standards be, and just how qualified are these companies to make such calls?

As Feinman points out in his post:

“Those suspected of participating in criminal activity can be monitored using well-established procedures including authorized wiretaps and the like... Will some people get away with it? Yes, but how many people are getting away with illegal drug use? No society can have 100% enforcement of its laws. The best that can be expected is that most people will be disinclined to engage in criminal activity and that this will keep the rate low enough that enforcement can catch the bulk of those still engaging in such activity.”

In democracies, censorship rarely comes to us garbed in the sinister livery of despots. It comes to us wrapped in good intentions, and from agreeably sound impetus like political necessity and public safety. There are always good reasons for censorship… and censorship is always a bad idea. To the degree that information is muzzled in any society, that society is'nt free. In open systems, the best ideas - the best procedures and mechanisms - are recognized more quickly than in oppressive ones simply because ideas can be debated, discussed and openly studied.

It's odd that America seems to grow as conversely amenable to censoring as it becomes more and more intolerant of those annoying Constitutional fetters on secret surveillance. Under the Bush Administration, even the gelatinous bonds of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were too cumbersome for the post-9/11 War on Terror; the legislation set up courts to hastily review and approve official requests to probe and bug, but with phantom terrorists lurking ‘round every corner, even that paltry judicial footprint apparently is unacceptable.

In Salon this week, Glen Greenwald takes note just how closely the media enables this kind of Constitution-shredding in a post about a particularly egregious scare article in the New York Times:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/10/lichtblau/index.html

In it, Times writer Eric Lichtblau drags from the ash heap every scary pretext to excuse companies that cooperated with the White House in its years-long essay in “extra-legal” electronic eavesdropping. The Times is an on-again, off-again proponent of telecom amnesty, a position made all-the-more condemnable by the Times’ long history as booster of Bush’s Mideast policies.

The record of deceit includes the now-legendary front-page Weapons of Mass Destruction stories by Judith Miller in the runup to the Iraq War – a sorry tradition continued by Michael Gordon’s battlefield coverage. But the biggest stain soiling the Times reputation is its own hand in homeland spying: The newspaper of record sat on knowledge of unwarranted domestic surveillance before the 2004 Presidential election – and continued to keep mum for almost a year afterward. The paper that once gave us all the news that’s fit to print now admits to embargoing news that would give us fits.

This long, sordid tale still hasn’t puddled and cooled, as evidenced by TPM Muckraker coverage this week of the always-ebullient Rep. Silvestre Reyes’ hints that a compromise may be near to allow Bush’s paid co-conspirators – most American telecom companies – off the hook. (In case anyone thought Congress was free of taint in this crap.)

The centerpiece hazard generally escapes attention in panic propaganda like Lichtblau’s: Future Presidents will see unlimited wiretap privilege as a political tool too valuable to surrender. If they feel no compunction to reveal who they're bugging, what's to keep them from bugging their domestic political opponents? And if there's no official sanction to keep them from doing so, they will. Period. That's been the "Rovian" aspect of the wiretap case from the beginning - national security be damned.

Big Brother is watching us... and would muzzle us, too. The media has been a willing handmaiden in domestic spying, and if the censors are instituted as Red State Commissars, can we genuinely doubt the lickspittle industry will go along? To absolutely no one's surprise, there have been reports over the past two weeks that news executives have helped quash naysaying on the Iraq war's prosecution. Self-censorship is still censorship.

The New York Times article quotes Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer in Cambridge, Mass: “When times are tough, there seems to be a tendency to say there is too much freedom… Free speech matters because it works…"

Scrutiny and debate are more effective ways of combating hate speech than censorship, he said, and all the more so in the post-Sept. 11 era.

On the issues of censorship and surveillance, the real question is how much this government - or any government - trusts its citizens, and vice-versa. The degree of freedom in any society cleanly parallels that level of mutual trust.

 

Here are the top stories in criminal justice reform, taken from the Justice Newsladder.

The Texas state criminal appeals court officially exonerated Thomas Clifford McGowan, who spent 25 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. The rape victim picked McGowan from a photo lineup of seven men, saying she "thought" he was the attacker. Police pressed her to say she was certain it was him - McGowan and his attorneys said they initiated a "forced choice response" from the victim. His conviction was overturned by DNA evidence. (pr.inside.com)

Some of the current and former Dallas  County prosecutors responsible for sending 17 innocent men to prison for a total of 282 years spoke about those cases for the first time this week. Some feel remorse and regret while others contend they were just doing their jobs. (www.texaslawyer.com)

For years in Virginia, when new evidence about a crime was discovered, prosecutors and local police were informed, but not inmates serving sentences for those crimes. A new law requires the crime lab board to notify convicted felons when biological evidence surfaces relating to their cases, and the felon can subsequently ask that it be tested. (dailypress.com)

Fulton County's chief judge strongly criticized the closure of a metro defender office, saying it was poorly planned and will create a legal crisis for about 1,850 poor people charged with crimes. The closure announcement was triggered by a $3.6 million statewide cut in funding for public defenders who handle conflict cases. (ajc.com)

The Justice Project, an organization which works to increase fairness and accuracy in the American criminal justice system, is proud to sponsor the Justice Newsladder, a new tool to find the top news and articles about criminal justice reform.

The thing which makes us all uniquely human is our ability to call each other monkeys while denying our own essential monkey-ness.  Both bonobos and chimpanzees share 98.4% of their genetic make-up with Homo sapiens. They are more closely related genetically to us than they are to gorillas.  Humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are often placed in the same taxonomic family, Hominidae (though one can still find taxonomies that separate humans) and, of course, none of the apes, Hominoidea (humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangs and gibbons) are technically monkeys at all.

Nope, you’ve got to have a tail to be a monkey.  If it’s prehensile then it’s a “New World” monkey from Central or South America.  “Old World” Monkeys do not have prehensile tails. 

Then there are the lemurs.  If monkeys took to insulting other monkeys, they’d be calling one another lemurs.  Lemurs can only be found on Madagascar, because we monkeys have of way of taking out primate competitors if given the opportunity.  Lemurs managed to hide out on Madagascar for a while but we’re getting closer and close to getting the job done every day.

There is nothing inherently inferior about a monkey any more than there is anything inherently inferior about being tall or short, black or white; male or female.  The use of monkey as a pejorative says more about human ignorance than it does about primate taxonomy.  Name calling, the ad hominem attack, is born out of the inability to come up with anything intelligent to say.  It’s the reflexive reptilian response punctuated by that uniquely human ability to form words into sentences.

I am a monkey as were my fathers before me.  And I thank God every day that I wasn’t born a lemur…

Think progress has a clip of Hannity professing to be a McCain surrogate.

The interesting thing is that they go easy on his quote.  From think progress:

GIULIANI: I think — first of all, it’s different being a mayor and being a presidential candidate, and I think that you’re going to find that in both cases Senator Obama and Senator McCain — a lot of the attacking is going to be done by surrogates. And they’re going to — well, I mean.

HANNITY: People like me.

GIULIANI: Right. All of the attacking.

COLMES: You’re a McCain surrogate?

HANNITY: No, no, I’m the head of.

Am I listening to this wrong?  When I play the clip, I clearly hear Hannity saying: "No, no, I’m the head of the Surrogates to Stop Obama Express."

So, what do you think .... did think progress go easy on Hannity or am I imagining what he said?  It sure as hell didn't stop with "I'm the head of".

Remarks on Retirement Security

Senator Barack Obama

Friday, June 13th, 2008

Columbus, Ohio

As Prepared for Delivery

For generations, we have worked to keep a simple promise in this country – Americans who work hard their entire lives have earned the right to retire with dignity and security.

That is the promise that my grandparents knew, even though they came of age in the Depression. My grandfather would go on to serve in Patton’s Army, and my grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line while he marched across Europe. When they set out west from Kansas to build their lives after the War, they did so with the confidence that Washington would help them reach a secure retirement. That was the promise that FDR made, and it was a promise that Washington kept for decades while folks like my grandparents moved through the ups and downs of life in America’s middle class.

But today, Washington is not working to preserve this fundamental part of the American Dream.

A secure retirement is no longer a guarantee for the middle class. It’s harder to save and harder to retire. People are losing their pensions. If we do not act, the promise of social security will grow harder to keep. That’s why I will fight every day to extend the promise of a retirement that is dignified and secure when I am President of the United States.

It starts with protecting Social Security today, tomorrow, and forever. For millions of Americans, Social Security is the difference between a comfortable retirement and the risk of poverty. We have an obligation to secure the future of one of the most successful programs in our history. And that starts with talking straight to the American people about the challenges that lie ahead.

Social Security is strong, but as more baby boomers retire, the long-term cash-flow needs to be addressed. We have to make sure Social Security is there for future generations.

Now, John McCain’s ideas on Social Security amount to four more years of what was attempted and failed under George Bush. He said he supports private accounts for Social Security – in his words, “along the lines that President Bush proposed.” Yesterday he tried to deny that he ever took that position, leaving us wondering if he had a change of heart or a change of politics.

Well let me be clear: privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it. It’s a bad idea today. It would eventually cut guaranteed benefits by up to 50%. It would cost a trillion dollars that we don’t have to implement on the front end, permanently elevating our debt. And most of all, it would gamble the retirement plans of millions of Americans on the stock market. That’s why I stood up against this plan in the Senate, and that’s why I won’t stand for it as President.

But Senator McCain’s campaign went even further a few months ago, suggesting that the best answer to the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or to raise the retirement age. I think there is another option that is fairer to working men and women. We have to protect Social Security for future generations without pushing the burden on to seniors who have earned the right to retire in dignity.

Here’s where I would start. Right now, the Social Security payroll tax is capped. That means most middle-class families pay this tax on every dime they make, while millionaires and billionaires are only paying it on a very small percentage of their income. That’s why I think the best way forward is to first look to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like me pay a little bit more and people in need are protected. That way we can extend the promise of Social Security without shifting the burden on to seniors. And we should exempt anyone making under $250,000 from this increase so that the change doesn’t burden middle-class Americans. This means that 97% of Americans will see absolutely no change in their taxes under my plan – 97%.

Now, there was a time when John McCain thought this wasn’t such a bad idea. When he was asked a few years ago whether he could see himself lifting the cap on the payroll tax, he said, “I could.” But today, he’s attacking me for holding the very same position.

You know, John McCain has proposed a series of debates, and I’m looking forward to having them. But when it comes to Social Security, he might want to finish the debate with himself first.

Now, even if we keep Social Security strong for future generations, it’s still not enough to help seniors who are struggling with the cost of everything from gas to groceries – because we know that rising costs are hardest for folks on fixed incomes. That’s why I’ll make retirement more secure by eliminating income taxes for retirees making less than $50,000 per year. This would completely eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors. Two of those people are Ron and Jane Payne, who I just met before the event. Since they retired, they’ve been spending more and more of their limited income on gas and groceries and health care premiums. This tax cut would eliminate the income taxes they pay and save them over $1,400.

In contrast, John McCain believes that senior citizens living on modest incomes should continue to pay taxes. In fact, the tax cuts for the rich he is proposing would provide essentially no benefits to the vast majority of senior citizens.

And it’s time to end the outrage of CEOs cashing out while workers lose their pensions. Right now, bankruptcy laws are more focused on protecting banks than protecting pensions. And that’s how John McCain wants to keep things for another four years. He voted against a proposal that would’ve made the claims of workers and retirees a priority in bankruptcy court – and he opposed a proposal that said companies should not unfairly cut the pension benefits of men and women who’ve worked their whole lives to earn them.

Well that’s not fair. That’s not the America that I believe in. It’s time to stop cutting back the safety net for working people while we protect golden parachutes for the well-off. If you work hard and play by the rules, then you’ve earned your pension. If a company goes bankrupt, then workers need to be a top priority – not an afterthought.

As President, I’ll limit circumstances when retirement benefits can be cut, and increase the wages and benefits that workers can claim in bankruptcy court. We’ll require companies to disclose their pension fund investments. We’ll put an end to the outrage of executives getting bonuses while workers watch pensions disappear. And we’ll make sure that no American goes bankrupt just because they get sick.

Finally, we’re not going to help folks reach a secure retirement unless we encourage savings. But today, personal savings is at an all-time low as Americans are dealing with higher costs and a credit crunch. Meanwhile, 75 million working Americans don’t have employer-based retirement plans.

That’s why I’ve proposed automatic workplace pensions. There will be no red tape or complicated forms – employers will provide a direct deposit of a small percentage of each paycheck into your account. You can add to it, or you can opt out at any time. And employers will have an easy opportunity to match employee savings. If you switch jobs, your savings will roll over into your new employer’s system. If you become self-employed, you will control your account. Studies show that about 80 percent of Americans will enroll if given the option to pursue our type of plan. And we will also help middle-class families start their own nest egg by matching 50% of the first $1,000 saved – a match that will be directly deposited into your savings account; a tax cut that will truly encouraging savings, investment and wealth creation. These steps will put a secure retirement within reach for millions of working families.

Since the New Deal, we’ve had a basic understanding in America that if you work hard and pay into the system, you’ve earned the right to a secure retirement. That’s the promise that was kept for my grandparents and Michelle’s parents, and for so many families here in Oregon and across the country. And if we keep that promise today, we’re not just valuing work and our workers, we’ll be keeping our businesses and our economy strong for the next generation. That’s a future worth fighting for. And with your help, that’s what I will do when I am President of the United States of America.

But when has wisdom ever prevailed in the GOP?  Well, perhaps under presidents Lincoln and Eisenhower.

Having strenuously and painstakingly attempted to run an above-race ( some have called it post-racial ) campaign which nearly succeeded before the Clintons decidedly embarked on a systematic racialization of the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama is fully cognizant of the onerous task that lies ahead as the Republicans sharpen their knives for an overkill premised on their need to highlight Obama's racial identity as a black man. Rev. Jeremiah Wright has thus become their most valued weapon toward the achievement of that fundamental goal. Moreover, the "Muslim" label often tagged on Obama by Republican fringe groups on behalf of John McCain is all designed to construe to the often gullible and malleable electorate a co-ordinated message carefully caliberated to encapsulate an exotic and unAmerican imagery. Hence they are using Wright for no other reason than to remind voters that Obama is black. Obama's wife is being subjected to similar attacks on a daily basis and for the same reasons. This is part and parcel of their overall racist strategy congenial to their political culture. This is race-baiting of the first order the Republican and their conservative allies are accustomed to. These are the same elements with a history of vigorous opposition to the civil rights. They will not rest until Obama has been effectively disabled politically and rendered utterly unelectable.

 

.

    Obama: full speed ahead.

McCain: chugging slowly backwards, picking up speed, stuff falling off......by the time he gets to the Repug convention, he will be crashed and off the track entirely.
Just heard a caller on the Stephanie Miller show describe meeting McCain - don't remember her exact words to him but it was about her brother killed in Iraq. His reply was "He's lucky he died." The woman said McCain's handlers mouths dropped open and they rushed in to try to spin it.......

LINK TO FULL STORY AT EDGE

excerpt from pt 2;

Leading the local opposition to the court decision are a pair of Southern California businessmen, Howard Ahmanson, owner of Fieldstead & Co and Christian radio magnate Ed Atsinger. Both are evangelical Christians according to a May 27 report from Capital Weekly, a newspaper that covers California’s state government.

But a virtual who’s who of familiar right wing social conservative organizations have also converged on California and are making the overturning of the California court decision a priority. "There are a number of national religious right groups that are lending their resources to this effort," said Peter Montgomery, spokesperson at the People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group based in Washington DC.

"Many of these groups have their own networks of pastors and churches that agree with them on a number of social issues, and one of those happens to be gay rights," he said.

Now that Ron Paul is out, it seems Obama has an incredible opportunity to do as he has suggested before, which is to extend a welcome and an open ear to opposing viewpoints, in the way that Lincoln did in staffing his cabinet with many of his opponents. In reaching out to Ron Paul supporters, he can both signal his honest willingness to work with libertarian conservatives as well as possibly gain some of their votes. This might also have a ripple effect through the Republican party, where many are unhappy with the McCain candidacy, by demonstrating Obama's openness. Considering how Obama's campaign seems to be sprinting past McCain's, some of his voters might see his election as inevitable, but that gaining his ear might give them more influence on the coming government.

I disagree very strongly with a large portion of Ron Paul's views on the effectiveness of government versus the effectiveness of private business, but I admire his tenacity, and if nothing else, he has demonstrated that he is at once highly principled, competent, and articulate. Obama needs to surround himself with these types, regardless of viewpoints.

Perhaps Obama could offer Paul a cabinet position, or perhaps the DNC might invite Paul to speak at their convention. Why not?

In Josh's post, he writes that Hillary did Obama a favor by getting all of the bad out in the open, which now takes the sting from the scandals. He accuses Hillary of basically throwing the kitchen sink at Obama in her campaign to be the nominee. What is the evidence he lists? Wright, Rezko and Bitter. First, let's take Wright. Hillary didn't have anything to do with that blowup. That was pushed by the media. Josh Marshal just rewrote campaign history #1. Now, Rezko. While Hillary did mention it in a debate, it was to rebut Obama's attack earlier in the debate questioning Hillary's commitment to the fight against the ideas of Ronald Reagan and other conservatives. Further, the story was already out there, published almost exclusively by Chicago papers. Josh Marshall just rewrote campaign history #2. And now Bitter. Well, unfortunately he's wrong again because that story broke from a report by an Obama supporter on the pro-Obama Huffington Post site. Josh Marshall just rewrote campaign history #3.

I know Josh Marshall wants us all to believe that his support for Obama was based on the trashy attacks by Hillary, but it's just not true. Here's what Josh completely leaves out: how Obama told us that he would get all of Hillary's supporters, but she wouldn't get all of his; how Michelle Obama said she'd have to think about it before voting for Hillary if she were the nominee; how his campaign put out a talking points memo fanning the flames suggesting that the Clintons' comments in New Hampshire were racially charged. We also mustn't forget that when nearly everyone was saying who they endorsed or for whom they were voting, Josh Marshall did not. Much was discussed on this site re: such an endorsement - many implored him to endorse Obama, while others noted that it helped him keep his neutrality by not endorsing. His non-public endorsement was all but known from those who regularly read his posting, though, just like Donna Brazile - undeclared, but not uncommitted.

It must be nice being able to gloat about how you were right about everything - if only it were true.

There's been much ado in the outrageosphere recently about the appropriateness of depicting the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee as a monkey. Obama supporters look backwards, pointing to the long history of the simian slur in the racist iconography of African-descended peoples. Conservatives counter that if it's fair game to depict Bush as a monkey, it should also be within the domain of acceptable political discourse to represent Obama similarly. So who's right and who's full of sh!t? Although I suspect many of you already know the answer to this question, let's pretend for the moment to take it seriously on the off chance we find ourselves having to debate a skeptic.

To answer this question, it's helpful to briefly consider simian iconography in (relatively) recent political history. The image of the monkey has historically been deployed to dehumanize its targets: thus the German soldier of WWI became a culture-wrecking gorilla in American propaganda posters, and Bush's characteristic ineloquence and presumed mental simplicity feeds his own monkey metaphor. It's no great leap from here to conclude that the purpose of the Obama-as-monkey slur is to diminish his humanity as well.

But there's a crucial difference between Obama's case and those of Bush and WWI-era Germany. The latter two metaphors appeal to behavioral characteristics of their objects, while Obama-as-monkey plays solely on his identity. In other words, Germany's simian-ness manifested itself through the brutality of the brownshirts and the bellicosity of Kaiser Wilhelm, and Bush's via his decidely un-presidential mannerisms. By contrast, Obama has rarely, if ever, been observed to act like a monkey, at least in public. In order even to begin to claim equivalence between Obama-as-monkey and Bush-as-monkey, one would need to demonstrate that the basis of the latter lay not in Obama's identity as a black man but rather in some aspect of his behavior. Even if such a behavioral justification existed, it wouldn't be possible to sever the clear link between the long, ugly history behind historical-Africans-as-monkeys and Obama-as-monkey. But the fact that it doesn't shows that the promulgators and supporters of the offending T-shirts and dolls are trying to have it both ways by exploiting racism while denying that they are doing so.

The Supreme Court found Congress only authorized "appropriate" military force. Nuremberg adjudicated war crimes against policy makers, leaders, organizers and planners for illegal war crimes.  Impeachment is a legal weapon to enforce the laws of war and Nuremberg precedents: 

Illegal, preemptive war planning requires preemptive House impeachment.

Congressman Kucinich offered Thirty Five (35) Articles of Impeachment, which the House referred to the Judiciary Committee. Thirty-five is a large number, Nixon only had three (3) . We're asked to believe the House has no time for impeachment because the Senate will not convict on any of the thirty-five charges.
Some members of Congress, who refuse to impeach now, have said they will impeach the President if he attacks Iran. That would increase the Kucinich Articles of Impeachment from thirty-five to a stunning, thirty-six, still ten-times what Nixon faced. The House leadership fails to explain why adding a single, new article to the list of thirty-five would justify believing why the Senate will suddenly vote to convict.
The House must remove Pelosi as Speaker to make way for this preemptive impeachment.  Waiting impermissibly signals to the President and Speaker that their defiance of the Constitution and Geneva Conventions is tolerated. 
The House must take an expansive view of legislative power. All Article I Section 8 powers this Congress has unconstitutionally delegated to the President must be revoked.  All rule making powers the Congress delegated to the President must end. The House must deny the President any authority to write rules regulating how the Armed services conduct operations. This is an exclusive power delegated only to the Congress.
The House must support a standing Judicial Court to review evidence of war crimes, high crimes, and other offenses this President, his officers, and Members of Congress are complicit.

"To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court";

A I S8
This House impeachment will give fair notice to all American military personnel, agents, intermediaries, civilians, and contractors that all orders related to Iran are illegal and cannot be lawfully followed. The Constitution only recognizes the President as "Commander in Chief" when troops have been called into lawful service. An AUMF is not a declaration of war. The troops have not been lawfully called into service in Iraq or Iran. The President is not the lawful Commander in Chief over combat forces in Iraq or Iran.
Only the Congress may issue a declaration of war. The House must remind military officers, enlisted personnel, civilians, and contractors that they are subject to impeachment by the House and trial before the Senate; then subject to war crimes adjudication for following any illegal orders to attack Iran.
Expansive View of Legislative Power
The House must take an expansive view of Federalist 69, and the power of the House to deny a pardon. The House must construe the Constitutional language, "in cases of impeachment" to mean all charges filed under those articles of impeachment; and all future criminal prosecutions of those charges. 
Hamilton warned us that no President can engage in illegal activity with the knowledge he could pardon his co-conspirators, and be immune to the consequences of trial: 

Federalist 69: "Would not the prospect of a total indemnity for all the preliminary steps be a greater temptation to undertake and persevere in an enterprise against the public liberty, than the mere prospect of an exemption from death and confiscation, if the final execution of the design, upon an actual appeal to arms, should miscarry"

This impermissibly nullifies the Constitution. The House must broadly interpret Hamilton's call for Presidential accountability in Federalist 69 to mean that once the House charges a President with a crime in an impeachment, no future President may pardon that President for any charges the first President is convicted in a subsequent criminal trial. 
Preserving Constitution, Confronting Domestic Threats
The prospect of a pardon means no President is constrained by the Constitution or the House. This is impermissible.  Permitting any future President to pardon an earlier President for illegal activity after this House has refused to confront the President for thirty-five articles of impeachment, sends a reckless message the American leadership is not enforcing the Geneva Conventions.
The House must declare any future Presidential pardon of President Bush -- on any criminal activity subject to House impeachment -- as unconstitutional, subject to a subsequent impeachment. The House has the power to issue reports in one session; President do rely on earlier House reports to expand power. The House must reciprocate. Future leadership in the House must be able to point to this Session of Congress as the controlling language to impeach this President after he leaves office, or other Presidents who attempt to unconstitutionally pardon this President for any crimes.
The House must remind the President that the House may -- without notice -- file future articles of impeachment against the President when he leaves office. The Senate has no power to block the House from filing future charges against former officers of the United States or President. 
Inaction on any of the above may be entered into evidence before a war crimes tribunal as evidence of individual Member of Congress alleged complicity with war crimes, illegal policies, and agreements to thwart enforcement of the laws of war.

There is really only one way for McCain to close the gap on Obama before the general election. McCain must (and will) launch a sustained attack on Obama using words like “terrorists”, “imminent danger” and “commander in chief.”   

For all of her virtues Mrs. Clinton cannot assuage the fears evoked by such language. But what if, instead of upgrading his pawn to queen, Obama moves immediately to checkmate? Securing retired four-star general Wesley Clark would be this kind of move.

Obama will win New York, California and Illinois in the general election. These are in the bag. McCain will win Texas, Florida and Ohio. Pennsylvania and Michigan are wild cards at this point. Virginia may in fact be this year’s Florida in the general election. In other words, it may become the large swing-state that matters (can a state be both red and swing?).

But even if Virginia can be contested, if McCain takes Pennsylvania, it may be the ballgame... Unless Obama can pull off what he did in Iowa and Mississippi in two or three more traditionally “red” states.

What will ultimately draw voters to McCain is his military expertise and unabashed hawk-like confidence. An enormous amount of Americans want to know that their president will indeed launch a counterstrike if necessary. These folk seem to think that the fear of retribution will deter terrorists from attacking (as if suicide bombers generally avoid actions that put their lives in danger). According to this philosophy, being gun-shy isn’t a luxury that an American president can afford. McCain will continue to play up this angle and do so adeptly.

On the left, Americans want to know that their president will not take preemptive military action that will risk lives and billions of dollars unnecessarily. Most of this contingent wants military action to be a final option once all other avenues have been explored and found to be dead ends. Obama has done better with this group than any other Democrat in the past twenty years. His success with this talking point hasn’t even been deterred by his cowboy bravado with regard to Pakistan. He keeps saying that he’ll scour the caves of Pakistan for Osama bin Laden and send a precision air raid. Peaceniks still fawn over him.

Obama can’t shift his message for fear of alienating the left. Moreover, I don’t believe that he would do it even if politically advantageous. He really does seem to believe that war is a last resort. More importantly, even if he did start talking Hawk-ese, he’d never be able to outdo McCain. McCain is a West Point man. Obama is a Harvard man. You can’t be one and pretend to be the other. Enter Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander for NATO Europe
The best solution for Obama is to secure a running mate that fortifies his greatest weakness. Normally this is done by regional analysis. Past candidates who needed to pluck a Southern state have chosen candidates from that region. But this year, it would be wiser to select a running mate that fortifies the nominee ideologically. Obama needs a vice that is a West Point man.
Not only is Wesley Clark a retired (albeit youthful looking) four-star general, he was the… it’s just fun to write it… Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Europe. You’ll forgive me for writing it again (say it aloud as you read): the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Come now, you have to admit that any official title with the descriptor “Supreme” in it is worth some political currency.

Sure, Clark has his peccadilloes. He’s been inconsistent with his position on Iraq. He’s made some enemies on the other side of the aisle. Who hasn’t? Clark was the valedictorian of his class at West Point (has a certain ring). He was awarded a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford (daddy likes). He speaks Russian fluently (take me home).

One could hardly imagine a politician with more foreign policy expertise. And, by whatever quirk of fate, he is a Democrat. Indeed, he ran for president last term but didn’t receive the nomination. This is unfortunate because he was the only democratic candidate that had the chops to out-hawk Bush from the left.

Obama desperately needs this kind of military clout. Mrs. Clinton, for all of her strengths, cannot provide this.

There is one minor glitch here. Clark is in Clinton’s camp and has been rather public about his support for her. But, given that Mrs. Clinton herself is still considered a viable candidate for VP, I see no reason why Clark should be off limits.

An Obama/Clark ticket would secure two or three more traditionally red states. Clark can assuage the fears of those older voters that aren’t quite ready for a president with a Muslim name. It may help Obama in Pennsylvania and Michigan. But, more importantly, it will put several Midwestern states into play.

Icing on the cake: Clark was raised and lives in Arkansas. Obama did horribly in that state in the primary (for good reason: Clinton and Huckabee have strong ties there and soaked up most of the votes). If he could bag Arckansas, Obama could win every southern state between Texas and Florida. This would easily offset a loss in Pennsylvania.

Campaigning in Pennsylvania is delicate business. What’s good in Pittsburgh may not be good in Philadelphia. A simple faux pas on gun control can lose you half the state. It would take a political gymnast to appeal to both ends.

Mr. Obama, instead of jumping into the Pennsylvania quagmire (again), why not aim at two or three more red states? Wes Clark is your man for that job. Oh, and he might actually be a handy resource once hope becomes reality. CCO

On Tuesday of this week, David Brooks had a very good column called “The Great Seduction” about the America’s epidemic of personal debt. The article is based on a new report issued jointly by the Institute for American Values (which concerns itself with marriage and divorce, among other things) and a number of other think tanks, including Demos and the New America Foundation. The report and Brooks’ column make a number of very good recommendations, such as credit card reform, regulation of payday lenders, and programs to promote saving. But at the end of the column Brooks returns to one of his regular themes:

There are dozens of things that could be done. But the most important is to shift values. Franklin made it prestigious to embrace certain bourgeois virtues. Now it’s socially acceptable to undermine those virtues. It’s considered normal to play the debt game and imagine that decisions made today will have no consequences for the future.

He is, of course, correct, but the difficulty is knowing how to change values. We can state our values and identify our chosen virtues, much as Franklin did, but merely calling for a kind of behavior does not always do the trick. Values often follow behavior, rather than the other way around. We acquire many virtues by practicing them. Parents model truthful statements, hard work, and thrift, and they reward us for following their lead. Our modern problem stems from those instances—and there are many—when our behavior is molded by commercial and technological developments, and a new and less virtuous value results.

Take, for example, pornography. Once a very seamy commodity consumed by only the most depraved members of the community. To find it you had to go into parts of town most people preferred not to visit. Then came the VCR. With the introduction of videocassettes that could be watched at home in privacy, many of the social barriers were removed. Distribution took a further leap forward with hotel and home cable systems, and finally, the internet really brought pornography home. The result is that, despite our highly religious society (compared, for example, to Europe), pornography has become much more acceptable than it was thirty years ago. Jenna Jameson has written a bestselling book How to Make Love Like a Porn Star, and the line between acceptable celebrity and unacceptable celebrity has been blurred. Porn has come out of the closet, driven not by a change in values but by a change in technology. Behavior that is popular begins to appear normal. Today, only child pornography is truly beyond the pale. 

So the problem with thrift is that debt is the new pornography. Actually the two have come along together. The introduction of credit cards, 800-telephone numbers, home shopping channels, and the internet have served to eliminate many of the natural barriers to indebtedness. We live in a consumer society that depends on spending and has made it easy to act impulsively 24-hours a day. Popularizing thrift as a virtue is important, but unless we also find ways to encourage virtuous behavior, we are unlikely to demonstrate those values. Brooks’ column—and the report upon which it is based—make many good suggestions, but we also need to acknowledge the powerful effect of the contemporary marketplace on our choices to spend and save. If we can make it easier to show virtuous behavior, the change of values Brooks seeks will follow.  

by Dan Tynan
Special to The WitList

As we all know, reverse racism is a terrible thing. For years White Americans have suffered at the hands of those privileged to possess a higher melanin count and superior vertical lift. We have been victimized by a vast Afro-American conspiracy to keep us from appearing on the BET network, starting at point guard for the Los Angeles Lakers, or dating Oprah.

Now, with the Obamas poised to move into the White House, it's time to reverse reverse racism before it's too late.

In truth, the problem lies not with Barack Obama. He's like Tiger Woods without the Swoosh. And being half white, there's a good chance he has an average-sized penis.

Michelle Obama, on the other hand.... Big Problem. Not only is she black and female, she's also angry. And there is nothing more dangerous to White America than an Angry Black Female With an Enormous Penis.

Despite near-documentary evidence to the contrary, Michelle Obama continues to deny she used the phrase “Whitey” in a conversation with Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Jeremiah Wright about the elimination of the Caucasian race. Maybe that's true. But if she's not a reverse racist, why does her official campaign limo have a “Honk if you're a honky” bumper sticker on the back? And why does she refer to the Oval Office as the “Ofay Office” when white people aren't listening?

White America demands and deserves answers to these questions.

But wait, it gets worse. Thanks to our exhaustive research, we've uncovered more damning evidence of Michelle Obama's hatred of her paler peers. Over the years she's made a number of comments harmful to the white race, followed by pitiful denials. Here are just a few examples.

“Stick it to da man.” While touring a furniture factory in Ohio, the would-be first lady was heard to reveal her master plan for dealing with whites after ascending to the White House. Obama claims she actually said “Stickley – he's the man,” referring to Gustav Stickley, master furniture maker of the early 20th century. Oh come on. How would a black person know anything about that?

“Foshizzle ma nizzle.” Michelle Obama was clearly seen lip syncing this phrase when she appeared in a Snoop Dogg rap video as one of his bitches. Obama claims to have never appeared on stage with the Snoopster in any venue, taped or otherwise. She did not, however, deny being one of his bitches.

“I was marinatin' on the porch with my homies sippin on a 40.” Obama claims this refers to marinating pork at home for Barack's 40th birthday. This clearly an outright lie. We all know Muslims don't eat pork.

“I'm gonna bust a cap in that white bitch's ass.” Obama claims this statement concerns a visit to her veterinarian's office and an anal suppository, and that “white bitch” refers to her Alaskan Eskimo dog, not Hillary Clinton. Please. Do you think we've never seen Cleopatra Jones or Get Christie Love?

“Dyn-o-mite!” Obama admits she actually did say this.

This charade has gone on long enough. Can we really be expected to believe that the wife of the country's first semi-black presidential candidate could conduct herself as an adult in public? That a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law isn't hooked on Ebonics or out to destroy the White Race as we know it?

What do you think we are, stupid?

Keith Olbermann has fallen out of favor with many on the left lately, mainly as a result of his annoying tendency to call 'em as he sees 'em.  Well, he's calling 'em as he sees 'em again, and I'd say he's spot on.

Olbermann's latest incredibly annoying rant

I'll take one Keith Olbermann over a hundred Katie Courics any day of the week.

Phase one complete, power is out in washington DC

Phase two begins this afternoon at the press conference.  Now that they are in the dark, guess what the press will be fed.

I am 73 years old, and rarely enter into a conversation online.  But I just felt compelled to tell you all how much I appreciate your comments on the Obama sock.  I am well educated with a masters and ABD on a doctorate in early childhood, and I am also black.  By the way, my name Scottiann is not because I am gay....it's my father's nickname for me because he always wanted a boy.  I honor him today by using his given name Scott as part of my screenname.  As a black woman who has seen so much racism in my day, it brought tears to my eyes to finally see that there are people who understand how much we have suffered over the last 400 years.  Obama does not deserve to be catergorized as a monkey...a term white people have used to refer to us for 400 years.  You can never imagine the pride, and the love we have for Obama.  And every time I hear him speak, I get tears in my eyes because I thought I would NEVER live to see a black man or woman run for president.  You don't know how much I appreciate your comments and understanding of how devastating this is to us as a race and to all of us as a nation.  Thanks again.
And may you have all of the blessings that God can give for making my day.

I found a Wall Street Journal hanging on my door again this morning. I've been wondering when this would happen:

Stung by Soaring Transport Costs, Factories Bring Jobs Home Again (pay)

The rising cost of shipping everything from industrial-pump parts to lawn-mower batteries to living-room sofas is forcing some manufacturers to bring production back to North America and freeze plans to send even more work overseas.

"My cost of getting a shipping container here from China just keeps going up -- and I don't see any end in sight," says Claude Hayes, president of the retail heating division at DESA LLC. He says that cost has jumped about 15%, to about $5,300, since January and is set to increase again next month to $5,600.

The article goes on to describe various small manufacturers that are finding that transportation costs have made production in China, and even Mexico, less competitive, or even non-competitive with local production. Due to the rise in oil prices and other energy costs we are witnessing either a hiccup or a reversal of a three-decade trend of out-sourcing manufacturing jobs. While this could be some relief for the US worker, the article does not speculate about how China may react if a larger percentage their firms start losing these opportunities. AIUI, China holds a lot of US paper.

At a recent rally McCain misquoted Obama's 'bitter' comments by saying:

We’re going to go to the small towns in Pennsylvania and I’m gonna to tell them I don’t agree with Senator Obama that they cling to their religion and the Constitution because they’re bitter. I'm gonna tell them they have faith and they have trust and support the Constitution of the United States because they have optimism and hope... That's what America's all about.

Interesting for two reasons: the 'quote' isn't and McCain is only in favor of the Constitution when it's convenient to his agenda.

For a candidate who doesn't want his age to be an issue in the general, you'd think he'd make sure to quote accurately the statements of his opposition. After all, with his considerable medical history, I don't think McCain wants dementia so much as mentioned.

That being the case, you have to assume it wasn't a misquote at all, but rather an attack on the Senator from Illinois; who has a Harvard law degree, was the president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor of Constitutional law for 12 years.

Which leads me to believe McCain is certainly losing his mind. They say half the battle is choosing the ground on which it will be fought. If that is the case then McCain has well and truly lost the battle.

First his position in favor of 'being in Iraq as long as it takes' is greatly weakened, of not entirely destroyed, this week by the Iraqi parliament. And now it's on the Constitution, a field in which Obama is consummate professional. Far more damaging than his position on American troops in Iraq is his stance on when the Constitution is applicable and when it is not. For example, he doesn't feel that Guantanamo detainees deserve Constitutional rights. And far worse, and with even further reaching implications, he doesn't feel Americans do either.

On the issue of domestic surveillance, McCain supports warrantless wiretapping programs against Americans, as well as presidential signing statements, based on the theory that the president's wartime powers trump federal criminal statutes and court oversight; contrary to the Constitution.

Naturally, this only has implications if we are, in fact, at war. Bush says the 'War On Terror (tm)' is a 'war'. So then, is the 'war on drugs'? The 'war on poverty'? How about the 'war on Constitutional reform'? In fact, if you want to class 'war' as Bush has and McCain will, could it not be said that we have been 'at war' for more than 30 years? And this being the case, does it mean that the Republicans believe the office of the president should continually have the power to do whatever they like, whenever they like, however they like, no matter what the Constitution has to say about it? Is this not exactly the abuse of powers which the Constitution guards us against?

Guess it's understandable that McCain doesn't consider the Constitution all that important when dealing with domestic and foreign affairs. What isn't understandable is that he has chosen this field on which to pitch a battle. A battle which he has neither weapons to fight nor positions of defense.

A battle he will lose before the first salvo is launched.

Is David Seaton the best troll McCain can send to TPM?  Come on!  Dude is a weak troll at best and kind of insulting to boot.  At least give us someone who is on par with the best of the Hillary trolls, who are now part of the progressive majority that will kick McCain's ass in the general. 

I had my issues with "Louisville1976" but he was entertaining and well informed about many things outside of our respective candidates.  Above all, he could turn a phrase and elicit a laugh every now and then.  Seaton is simply pedantic and not the least bit entertaining.  Not to mention cynical and pessimistic and detached from reality in any meaningful way for many of his posts.

I would suggest McCain actually invest some money in hiring better trolls.  Otherwise, the thumping he'll get in November will be both historic and embarrassing.

 

June 11, 2008 (LPAC)--This was Lyndon LaRouche's comment upon hearing Barack Obama's response to a question posed to him on Tuesday in an interview broadcast on NPR's "All Things Considered." Obama was asked if he was "willing to deliver the unwelcome message" that high gas prices are here to stay.
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/06/11/larouche-obama-idiot-and-you-can-quote-me.html

LaRouche: How To End Oil Price Inflation
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/06/11/larouche-how-end-oil-price-inflation.html

 

Hair dye.

Just saw GWB making a speech in europe.  I think he dyed his hair, he had a lot more gray before, and now it is unnatural brown and blond.

the cheerleader is dying his hair.

Yikes

Yesterday I posted a speculation about the famous/infamous, true/false, existent/inexistent, Michelle "tape/dvd". I was gratified by the tremendous response I received. This forum is a unique opportunity to take the pulse of any issue and anyone who earns his bread and cheese in political speculation has to be grateful for this opportunity.

I had to really dodge the flung dung.

In fact, the reaction I received to my post convinces me more than anything else that there is something to this rumor. Or  perhaps I should say that it proves that there is a tremendous fear among Obamites that there is something out there of equal caliber and destructiveness.

There is a famous Italian saying about certain rumors; "Si non e vero, e ben trovato",   it means: if it isn't true, it's well...made up.

For example if we were going to invent scurrilous rumors about John McCain, we would probably invent things like his having incipient Alzheimer or wearing diapers. Because of his great age, some  people might believe it.

However, if we spread it about that he was a sex addict or a child molester or that he took drugs, or often missed his naps, very few would find that credible, again because of his great age.

I really can't imagine either McCain or his supporters mobilizing masses of people to refute any of these inventions, either the credible or the incredible.

In the case of Michelle Obama, this tape rumor is either true or it isn't.... and if it isn't, it will die a natural death.

However, the hysterical reaction of the Obama campaign and  the Obamites in general makes me smell a rat. It proves that as Maureen Dowd writes in the NYT.

“Michelle,” as one political observer puts it, “is a target-rich environment.”

The Obamite reaction will prove to the Swiftboaters that they are close to pay dirt. Obviously the Obama campaigh want to intimidate them.
_______________________

As to the rumor itself... there is one detail that is either true, or the work of master rumor monger: that is the bit about Michelle's denouncing Bill Clinton's inaction on the Rwanda genocide.

That is a story that surfaced a couple of months before her supposed speech to the Rainbow/Push conference in 2004 and which quickly dropped out of the public eye, a political junky's collector's item, it is certainly something too old and too obscure for a crude forger to use today.

This is a guy who alleges he did cocaine and had oral sex with Senator Barack Obama in 1999.

His claims do not hold up. Even as swiftboating, it's pretty lame. For the number of times his story has been proven to be a downright lie, like a Bozo punching toy, he gets right back up and says the same thing again. Nothing in his story holds up, and he is a convicted felon who has failed a rather notable lie detector test. See below.

Under the banner of the National Press Club, we will hear more from this tortured soul later this month. For the moment, for those who actually found real news to report or read, a few notable pieces of how we got to this point. Oh yeah, the National Press Club doesn't even want Sinclair to use their logo or suggest he is coming as their guest or at their invitation.



Start here...

Sinclair attempted to sue Obama, Axelrod and the DNC.

Really. Would I kid you?

The Magistrate's Report

From 'Sinclair v. Obama' - "Sinclair alleges that “he personally engaged in sexual activity and personally used illegal drugs in November 1999 with U.S. Senator Barack Obam [sic] on two separate occasions.” See, Complaint, Docket No. 1, p. 2, ¶4. Sinclair also alleges that he “attempted to contact defendant Obama in the fall of 2007 to advise defendant Obama” that Obama should publicly acknowledge the alleged sex and drug use incidents. Id. Obama assertedly ignored Sinclair’s effort to contact him, and therefore, in January of 2008, Sinclair allegedly “contacted numerous news papers and news networks with this information” -- presumably, the alleged sex and drug use incidents. Id. at ¶4.

Despite Sinclair’s purported efforts to contact the media, his allegations against
Obama did not receive the publicity that Sinclair intended, by all appearances, to
generate. As a consequence, Sinclair created a videotape, in which he personally recited his allegations against Obama, and then posted that videotape on an internet site known as “YouTube.” Id. Thereafter, according to Sinclair, he received “repeated threats of violent attacks against [Sinclair’s] person via the internet...

...At the outset, we note that the Complaint fails to explicitly identify any legal
basis for Sinclair’s lawsuit against the Defendants. The Complaint cites Title 42
U.S.C. §1981, but that statute is available only for claims of racial discrimination.
See, Forbes v. Arkansas Educational Television, 22 F.3d 1423, 1428 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995)(the failure to allege racial discrimination bars a Section 1981 claim); Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 943 (8th Cir. 1999)(a Section 1981 claim is properly dismissible where there was no evidence tending to show racial discrimination); Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 168 (1976); see also, Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 609 (1987). There are no allegations in Sinclair’s Complaint that so much as intimate that Sinclair is the victim of any racial discrimination. Indeed, Sinclair’s race is not mentioned, nor even alluded to, in any aspect of the Complaint. As a result, Sinclair may not sue the Defendants based upon Title 42 U.S.C. §1981...

...The Complaint also includes an unexplained reference to the First Amendment, see, Complaint, supra at p. 1, ¶3, and a conclusory allegation that the “[a]ctions of defendants are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, violate [Sinclair’s] right to free speech, conspire against the rights of citizens as a whole.”

The key point of the finding is that The Obama Campaign and the DNC did not violate Sinclair's right to free speech. They did not find his sex and drug claims true or even relevant.

"Sinclair’s Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations which demonstrate that their acts violated his rights under the First Amendment. To the contrary, it appears that Sinclair has had an unfettered opportunity to exercise his constitutional right to free speech, and has exercised that right by posting his video on YouTube...While Sinclair appears to complain that the publication of his allegations has received public criticism, the First Amendment provides no absolute protection from critical public comment. As a consequence, Sinclair has failed to raise any cognizable deprivation of his First Amendment rights."

The case was dumped February 25, 2008.

Check out Ted Frank at Overlawyered : Larry Sinclair v. Barack Obama

Slanderous Kook: I'm a Slander Victim
Man sues Obama, Dems over response to his tawdry sex-and-drugs tale


Sinclair is angry with a variety of people. Taylor Marsh? Drinking the kool-aid? Where was he last month?

Posted by Larry Sinclair on Thursday, June 12, 2008
"Who is Taylor Marsh?  And who does she think she is to BAN someone?  Taylor, if you spent more time on research, and less time drinking kool-aid you might actually be able to speak truthfully once in a while.  But thank you for publicizing my June 18, 2008 National Press Club event. Ms. Marsh, you really should stop repeating the same old false statements from Kos et.al.  It really makes you look some what delusional."

His phony lawsuit is called a delusional pro se case, per Overlawyered.

Tech note...he links to himself quite a lot to bump up his google numbers. So his link is not here.


End here...


He has been proven a fraud. He is a convicted felon. He failed a 'web famous' lie detector test.

He claims to be neutral in the race, but he is connected to Larry Johnson of No Quarter and 'the whitey video' lie, and is very pro-Hillary on his page. I would be interested in hearing from Hillary or Bill on their opinions about Sinclair, or his use of her name favorably on his blog.

An unknown group called Veritas Federal Media is giving him a platform at a room they rented at the National Press Club. NPC actually rents rooms out to various groups offering opinions and unsubstantiated items. No matter how they nuance this, the National Press Club is giving this throughly debunked fraud a showcase with prestige.

Sinclair's lawyer Montgomery Sibley, was also the lawyer for Jeane Palfry...of DC Madame fame. And has a little problem of his own.

Larry Sinclair: Obama Accuser Attorney, Montgomery Sibley, Suspended by FL Bar

My sense is, with the pushbacks of the facts known about Larry Sinclair and just how fraudulent this story is, it makes him look loonier than people who have seen him on YouTube suspect. Excellent links at Death By 1000 Paper Cuts and Mitch&Nan.

Unlike, say, Gennifer Flowers, here we have a guy who doesn't have a relation to the words 'sane' or 'credible.' And again, the more you know about him and his tale, the worse you feel for him and the people giving him a microphone. This guy is sick, some even think dangerous. As in psychopath.

Sinclair adds "I have removed the National Press Club logo from the post at their request.  I would respectfully ask Zach Jones and anyone else who copied my article to another site to also remove the NPC logo.  The NPC is being inundated with calls as we all suspected they would be once I confirmed the room at the NPC.  They have been polite and professional, an I believe their request to remove their logo is proper.  Any one else posting the NPC logo is respectfully requested to remove it from your site."  

For those who don't quite get how badly this could go for the NPC, here are a few links that are driving Sinclair further up the wall evidently.

Every Picture tells a Story.

Photos show how Sinclair is lying about the timeline. By his own age and appearance. And inability to use Photoshop.

"We went looking on the worldwide web and found a photo of Larry which we believe originated closer to the time frame of Larry’s alleged encounter with Obama. We found a photo of one Larry Wayne Sinclair, courtesy of the Pueblo County Sheriff’s Department’s Crime Stoppers site. "

Larry Sinclair: Lots of Fund Raisers, Little Proof for Obama Accuser

"Initially, we gave Sinclair and his claims a fair hearing. But, when someone brings serious accusations against a presidential candidate–and we can muster little enthusiasm for any of Obama’s stands on the issues–the burden of proof falls on the accuser. Sinclair, 4 months and counting after since the release of his YouTube video detailing his initial accusations, has come up empty in the Proof Department.

When readers of his accusations–they have grown to include other persons and issues–raise any point concerning the little matter of evidence, they are put into the Larry-O-Matic Response-A-Tator.

1- They’re called a name; “Bitch” is popular.
2- They’re labeled as an Agent of Obama by Larry or his minions, who lurk beneath the surface of the blog and contribute to the cause; either monetarily or by hounding non-believers.
3- They’re threatened. Verbal abuse is the appetizer, then Chef Larry hints at darker legal fates. Now, Sinclair employs a trusty host of Mini-Larries to attack the skeptical. But ocassionally, he will tear himself away from the oven and launch his own verbal salvos.
4- The subject is changed. Can’t produce proof about Obama? In LarryWorld, it’s an acceptable substitute to offer observations about the inquirer’s mother–or about something, anything, different. As long as it’s not about the uncomfortable topic raised by the reader, then it works."

Death By 1000 Papercuts files on Sinclair

Larry Sinclair Is A Wanted Fugitive. (Check fraud.)

Minnesota Man Claims He Took Drugs & Had Sex with Barack Obama in 1999

Larry Sinclair Polygraph Test Indicates "Deception" In Obama Claims

Dismissed as an outright fabrication.

Larry Sinclair Making Death Threats Via The Mitch and Nan Show Site

Sinclair - "Hey Sheila Bryant, Paul Day, Scott Covington and the little bitch mitch. Wait til you see what comes back on all you little fucking sorry punk ass bitches. Keep posting punks, my next stop, the Boston area, then Georgetown GA. Wanna play bitch, you got it. Lets see what the FBI thinks of your post and comments, and lets see what the DNC says as well on video. Guess what punks, even Levy will be shutting the fuck up after I am done with him and PCLG by Friday."

Site - "Long ago, I pointed out the concern that Larry Sinclair was not only nuts, but a danger to himself and others.  While I am not happy to say I was obviously correct, I believe it to be true.  There are a few people who I feel responsible for and I have done my best to encourage them to protect themselves."

What if…Larry is setting up a way out of getting back up by a Limo Driver?

"So tell me Larry - if you were planning to go with a story of the limo driver being a current business associate who is interested in protecting his business connections to Obama, then why oh why would he have been in weekly contact with you and willing to come forward if you broke into the MSM?"

FireDogLake Petitions the National Press Club about Larry Sinclair


National Press Club 202-662-7500

Ira Isaacs may be in the middle of the most serious obscenity trial in the U.S. in years if not decades, Judge Kozinski aside.

You can read my take on it as part of my regular Friday SCATblogging series, a takeoff on Friday catblogging by Kevin Drum and others.

I went to the John McCain event at Federal Hall in New York City this evening.  It's not because I am a McCain supporter - I assure you I am not.  I just happen to go to the New York Sports Club next door to Federal Hall, and I am easily distracted.  
I noticed the motorcade immediately, which reminded me that there was a McCain event to begin with.  There weren't any campaign posters advertising the appearance anywhere.  I was intrigued, and really only want to try and get my picture taken if McCain worked the rope line.  They told me to go around back because I would have a better chance there.  When I got to the back I noticed that there was a line to get in, and there were signs posted that said it was a ticket-holder event only.
I asked if there were additional tickets available, and they said they were completely full.  I waited around for a few minutes with other hopefuls, and eventually they let us in.  It was a fairly straightforward campaign stop, but I noticed these three things that could affect the general election:
1.  John McCain looks like a lizard
2.  He does not know how to tailor a message.  There is a difference between pandering (coming up with b******t to tell the audience for the express purpose of getting elected) and tailoring your message (omitting ideas when talking in front of an audience that will be hostile to said idea).  McCain should learn that before railing against economists for not supporting his gas tax holiday, especially when only a stone-throw from the stock exchange.  Men in business suits made up a significant percentage of the audience (again, we were in the heart of the financial district).  These were people who understand economics and indeed profit of economic research.  The audience was noticeably chilly during that part of the speech, and I also noticed that McCain did not pause for applause.  If he wants to appeal to voters he needs to learn to tailor his message, and that means not telling a room full of stock brokers that you don't trust economists.  
3.  John McCain does not generate excitement.  What else is new, right?  But you would think that filling 200 seats in downtown New York City in a weekday at 7pm should be no sweat - even for a tickets-only event.  Right?  Wrong.  I was astonished that I was able to get in.  John McCain is as close to rock star status as most Republicans can ever hope to get.  Everybody knows the McCain story (for the people who can't read and thus haven't read the McCain bio in the news will soon be able to get it as a children's book courtesy of Meghan McCain).  His biography alone should fill an auditorium ten times as big as today's venue.  But after the ticket holders went inside tonight's event they realized they didn't have enough people to fill all the seats.  They couldn't find enough McCain supporters to fill 200 seats!  So they let in a dozen people (myself included) from the street.  Even more astonishing is that I saw numerous McCain staffers sitting down filling up space (staffers normally stand on the periphery).  Clearly they were not able to fill the place, even with passers by, and used staffers to fill in the rest so it would not look empty broadcast live on Fox.  
These things tell me that not only is he a bad campaigner, but his lousy campaigning is turning people off so much that he has trouble filling a small space.  I may be completely misreading the situation, but that was my feeling from inside.  If anyone has another take, I'd love to hear it in the comments section.

Puppy-throwing Marine is removed from Corps...  but human torturing and murdering Marine given a medal!
Victim of stop-loss?  Wanna get out of Iraq and go back to the USA?  Now all you need is a puppy and a camcorder (and don't forget the cliff).

I added the onion like second part of the headline.  What is wrong with our society when there is such outrage for the death of a puppy, but we don't bat an eye about torture, murder, rape, and looting. 

PETA needs to remember that people are animals too.

I don't know where it came from, or who came up with it, but please, for the love of GOD Almighty, stop using the word SCOTUS.  Yeah, I get it, Supreme Court of The United States.  But why they hell isn't it SCOTUSOA.  What communist decided to drop Of America.  And since when does "Of The" get initialis in an abbrieviation.  We don't call the President the POTUS or POTUSOA.  We don't call the Congress the COTHUS or COTHUSOA.  So stop it already.  I don't know what fool came up with it (although my guess is they work for MSNBC) but its time to end it.  Just call them the Supremes, the Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court, or The Supreme Court of the United States.  BUT STOP CALLING THEM SCOTUS.   I HATE IT AND IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!!

The Episcopal Bishop of California (Bay Area parishes) just released the following Pastoral Letter on Gay Marriage

Translation: Since the Church has no rite for marrying Adam and Steve, it will no longer marry Adam and Eve in the Diocese of California
xoxoxo
The Bishop of California

ruh roh

Pastoral Letter from our Bishop Regarding Same-sex Marriage

June 9, 2008

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

I welcome the ruling of the California Supreme Court affirming the fundamental right of all people to marry. I am writing to you now to recommend a path to use this decision to strengthen our support of our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered sisters and brothers, and our continued witness to God’s inclusive love.

Clergy and lay leaders in the diocese have been working for the rights of LGBT people and for their full inclusion in our Church for more than forty years. Today, we continue to walk a journey that includes:

• Bringing the witness of our LGBT sisters and brothers to this summer’s Lambeth Conference,
• Combating a ballot initiative this November that will attempt to take away the rights recently recognized by the California Supreme Court,
• Providing leadership at next summer's General Convention to bring our marriage practices and theology in line with our fundamental baptismal theology.

For far too long the onus has fallen on marginalized people to bear the burden of inequalities that exist within the Church, and the decision by our state’s Supreme Court has given us the opportunity to level the playing field.

To that end, the Diocese of California seeks to provide, by advocacy and example, a way forward for The Episcopal Church so that the marriage of same-sex couples will be a part of our official marriage rites, without distinction. Although The Episcopal Church does not have canonical rites for same-sex marriage, it is our goal that all couples be treated equally by the Church, as they are equally loved by God.

I therefore provide you with the following pastoral guidelines:

29060. jexster - 6/13/2008 3:46:24 AM


• I urge you to encourage all couples, regardless of orientation, to follow the pattern of first being married in a secular service and then being blessed in the Episcopal Church. I will publicly urge all couples to follow this pattern.
• For now, the three rites approved for trial use under the pastoral direction of the bishop, adopted by resolution at the 2007 Diocesan Convention (see appendix), should be commended to all couples (again, regardless of orientation) to bless secular marriages.
• All marriages should be performed by someone in one of the secular categories set forth in California Family Code, section 400 (see appendix), noting that any person in the state of California can be deputized to perform civil marriages. The proper sphere for Episcopal clergy is the blessing portion of the marriage.
• The understanding of The Episcopal Church currently is that blessings are an extension of the pastoral office of the bishop. I ask that you continue to inform me of all same-sex blessings.
• Couples who have been married under the auspices of the California Supreme Court ruling must have the same pre-marriage counseling as that required of any couple seeking marriage or blessing of marriage in The Episcopal Church. This should be understood as an offering of the Church’s support for marriage.
• I urge Episcopalians, clergy and lay, to volunteer as Deputy Marriage Commissioners. There are over 4,000 civil same-sex marriages planned in a short period of time in the city of San Francisco alone and the city is asking for help in meeting demand. I intend to volunteer for this at my earliest opportunity. This would be one sign of affirmation for the Supreme Court ruling from our diocese. By city requirement, clergy will not be allowed to wear collars when presiding at secular marriages. (For more information about how to be deputized, see the attached appendix.)
• All people receiving blessings of civil marriages in the Diocese of California are free to use the same degree of publicity (e.g., newspaper notices).

29061. jexster - 6/13/2008 3:47:18 AM


These are interim measures as the Diocese of California and The Episcopal Church continue our journey in the context of this prophetic opportunity provided by the California Supreme Court’s ruling. I have already initiated a process to arrive at a more studied, permanent answer for Episcopal clergy presiding at same-sex marriages in this diocese. That process includes the formation of a panel of diocesan clergy to make recommendations about how to move toward equality of marriage rites for all people. These recommendations will be discussed across the diocese resulting in an official diocesan policy.

In the coming days, I will publicly state my opposition to the initiative to overturn the Supreme Court ruling. The Diocese of California will publish advertising around June 17 celebrating the Supreme Court ruling and inviting same-sex couples to our churches for pre-marital counseling and nourishment in communities of faith.

As always, I welcome your wisdom, your insights and your input on these matters, and I continue in my commitment to work for a Church that sees all of God’s children through the same eyes that God does.
Peace,
The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus
Bishop

Sociology professor Frank Furedi's <a href=""Barack'>http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/212/">"Barack Obama and the politicisation of lifestyle"</a> makes the case that it's the politicization of lifestyles, not reasoned debate based on principles, that governs America's politics. Here's one important paragraph:

<blockquote>A columnist for The Village Voice wrote of the ‘monumental apathy and programmed ignorance of at least half the American public’. A leading liberal writer argued that Americans were voting in a ‘fog of fear’, and thus they could not be trusted to think about ‘real politics’ in a serious manner. Apparently, thanks to President Bush’s ‘unremitting fearmongering’, ‘millions of voters are reacting not with their linear and logical left brain, but with their lizard brain and their more emotional right brain… It’s not about left wing vs right wing; it’s about left brain vs right brain.’ </blockquote>

I love the lizard brain v. logical brain angle on politics, because it captures the distinction between attitudes derived from pre-formal stages of cognition v. formal stages. What the liberal writer thinks of as differences in psychological styles and reactions, and Furedi thinks of differences owing to the politicization of identity, <a href="Fourth'>http://joe-perez.com/fourth-way-politics/">Fourth Way politics</a> says are differences owing to distinctions of <a href="consciousness/altitudehttp://www.holons-news.com/altitudes.html">consciousness/altitude</a> represented by voters' measurement at the egocentric or ethnocentric (magenta, amber, and red) v. worldcentric (orange and higher) values mode/line of moral development.

Furedi is obviously preturbed by the psychologization of politics, though his prescription for overcoming our differences is rather measured. He continues:

<blockquote>Of course, once an individual’s identity and political outlook become entwined, then debate becomes highly charged – and highly personal. Arguments come to represent a statement about the self. When public issues are taken so personally, political dialogue becomes deeply confusing. It is always difficult to respond in a cool and detached manner to what we perceive to be an insult. When people endow their lifestyles with moral meaning, even relatively minor differences with others can acquire monumental significance. Often, people use statements such as ‘they are not like us’ to affirm their own identity. Criticising other people’s consumption of junk food or adherence to religious values is a way of making a statement about the self; those who advocate different kinds of behaviour and different values come to be seen as a threat to one’s own identity....

Of course, identity does play an important role in public life. But people’s identity is far from fixed; certainly the simplistic association of parenting style with political affiliation overlooks the fluid, unpredictable manner in which people engage with public issues. If identity has become an important factor in voting behaviour today, then it has less to do with people’s ‘father figures’ than with the politicisation of lifestyles. At a time when there is very little to separate the presidential candidates, politicians have sought to politicise people’s personal lives. Today, most of the wedge issues that divide the American electorate – guns, same-sex marriage, abortion, school prayer – directly impinge on individuals’ identities. When issues become personal, debate becomes polarised. This process looks likely to entrench the sense of social fragmentation rather than alleviate it....

Obama’s victory in the Democratic nomination process reveals that much has changed in America. The old-fashioned politics of race is far less important than it was in the past – but it is being replaced by a new, individuated, culture-based divide between different sections of American society. </blockquote>

In short, Furedi seems to want politicians to pay less attention to values and identities and instead engage Americans in reasoned debate. It's worth granting Furedi that political observers should balance any temptation towards a rigid and deterministic psychologizing with an awareness of "the fluid, unpredictable manner in which people engage with public issues". However, as <a href="Rod'>http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/06/furedi-on-us-identity-politics.html">Rod Dreher notes</a>, his argument is somewhat weakened by its failure to look at how it's not just persons of the blue-state persuasion who vote their identities.

Interestingly, despite mentioning Obama in the title of his article, Furedi fails to make a point that seems obvious to me. Voters in America may be voting with their identities and values more than ever, but Obama stands out among our politicians for attempting valiantly to resist a demeaning and divisive political style.

In contrast to his some of his partisan supporters who often feel that every political issue incites passion and excitement, Obama himself maintains a refreshingly calm and tempered presence whose sense of identity seems secure and well-integrated. Make no mistake, in an America divided by politicized identities and psychological politics, leaders like Obama are needed more than ever.

Cross-posted at Joe-Perez.com.

I've heard some of you lately ask others to join the fight to impeach George W. Bush.

That is ridiculous. First of all, there are no grounds to impeach Bush, or Cheney. Second of all, even Obama has expressed his view that this is a bad idea.

Will you trust Dennis "UFO" Kucinich? Or Barack Obama?

I think the answer is not too difficult.

Take a minute or two to reflect on this. It's not going to happen because we don't have the votes, and again, there are no grounds for impeachment. If you are planning to state that Bush lied us into war, be aware that it was our intelligence agencies that provided the opinions that led us into war. What was Bush to do?