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.
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.
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."
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."We have to ask:
An FBI home interview, "The President isn't connected and doesn't know anything."
Why is it beyond imagination to consider the President is linked with the FBI Wecht Jury interviews?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.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.
"I'm kind of disenfranchised," she said. (emphasis added)
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.
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.
"With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters [in Iraq] declared war on the United States. And war is what they [the Iraqis] got."
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.
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
