Hillary showed up at the Tavis state of the black union symposium in New Orleans.   Given how the Clintons have been belittling the black community, it took a bit of courage to show up there.  

I don't think Obama should have been there, I'm not saying it wasn't merely tactical on Hillary's part, I'm not dismissing the despicable attacks they're directing at Obama. 

John McCain, on the other hand, didn't bother showing up at the predominantly black Morgan State University debate last fall.  I thought that took arrogance.  

I admire people who don't just pander to people they know like them and will elect them.  

I copied and pasted this Howard Wolfson post from http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/
No need to read the whole thing, just scroll to the end.    
I think Wolfson is despicable for doing this.  He should be fired immediately.  HUBdate: Final Momentby Howard Wolfson, Communications Director2/22/2008 9:31:37 AM

If You Watch One Thing Today: In the final moments of last night’s debate, Hillary demonstrated her strength, life experience and compassion. Watch.

One-on-One: Hillary’s closing remarks received a “standing ovation.” Her “last statement was the most effective moment she's had on television since the New Hampshire primary.” Hillary sounded “calm, in charge, deliberate,” “made an effective argument against John McCain” and had “very good moments on health care and the economy.”

Previewing Today: Hillary appeared on NBC’s “Today Show,” ABC’s “Good Morning America” and CBS’s “Early Show.” Hillary attends early vote events in Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas and holds a town hall in Columbus and a rally in Toledo, Ohio… President Bill Clinton thanks volunteers in Corpus Christi, Texas.

Endorsement Watch: In Texas, former Reps. Chris Bell and Bob Gammage endorsed Hillary… In Ohio, State Sen. Teresa Fedor and former Cleveland Mayor Jane Campbell endorsed Hillary… In Rhode Island, the Providence Democratic City Committee’s Executive Committee and Ward chairpeople endorsed Hillary.

Active in Vermont: Today, the campaign opens an office and holds a phone bank in South Burlington…  Yesterday, Hillary supporters gathered for a debate watch party at the University of Vermont in Burlington... Earlier this week, the campaign announced that former Gov. Madeleine Kunin and House of Representatives Speaker Gaye Symington will co-chair state efforts.

Recapping Yesterday: In Laredo, Texas, Hillary spoke to an “enthusiastic crowd” and “earned loud applause in calling for a comprehensive solution to… the immigration problem.” One woman waited five hours at the rally site to present a rosary to Hillary… In Odessa, “they came early and stayed late to hear former President Bill Clinton.” In San Angelo, his “event attracted people of every race, gender, and creed.” When President Clinton recounted his wife’s accomplishments, “each accomplishment garner(ed) a louder cheer.”

FactCheck: Last night, Sen. Obama flip-flopped on normalizing trade relations with Cuba while his campaign distorted Hillary’s record on comprehensive immigration reform. Get the facts here and here.

In Case You Missed It: “Obama once visited '60s ‘terrorists’.” Read more.

I've read that a hearing has been put off until April 2008. I have to admit, I don't know much about this but perhaps TPM readers do.

Here's a link to the video.

Here are just a few questions I'd like answered:
Senator Clinton, why were you absent from the recent FISA vote?
Name five specific oversight actions you'll enact to assure the American public that no president, including you, will abuse the power of executive privilege.
You haven't released your tax statement.   It's been 8 years and the public is still barred from accessing hundreds of thousands of records from your time as first lady.   If elected president, why should we believe that your administration will be more transparent than the current one?
(feel free to add to this list of questions)

When it comes to the future, some people look around and envision a world not as it is, but as it once was.
Like ye olde U.S. Republicans. They still think if they build the largest military industrial complex in the galaxy, then civilization will be saved.

But at a time when other countries have emerging economies and all over the world, distinctly different ways of life are flourishing, you can't just barge into another country and play king of the hill.
It's rude.
Foreign relations are now too intricate to be handled with a blunt instrument.
It's like sporting a stinger at a diplomacy party.
Try as you may, you just can't solve 21st century problems by applying mid-20th century foreign policy.
Yet that's what's going on.

Why? Because some only view national national security through a military scope.  
John McCain, born on a Naval Base, has often favored military action over diplomacy. Like it's the only effective instrument handy.
It's like they say. If all you have is a hammer, every solution looks like a nail.
Missing from the national security conversation is the economy. George Bush was recently suggested that essentially, the two have nothing to do with each other. He might be the only one who thinks that. Today, economic power, in the long run anyway, trumps military power. And we've overstretched both. Foreign debt has never been greater. We're living off China's credit card. In fact, we're their biggest customer. Saudi Arabia owns more of American interests than this administration would care to admit. In the Reagan years, we promised to give the Saudis military cover in exchange for pumpiing out more oil, causing the price to plummet and taking down Russia's economy down with it. Saudi Arabia is America's sugardaddy.  
International terrorism is certainly a dangerous issue and it needs to be addressed in a more focused way.
But our economy is the more imminent threat to our national security. 
That's the case Barack Obama needs to make before the American people.

The economy touches every person's life.  
And it takes more than a commander-in-chief to breathe fresh air into it.

If you're 56 or younger, there's been a Bush, McCain, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Clinton in U.S. government your entire life. 

Or certainly there influence has.

There may have been some years in between, but other than that, these men have had major  influence over the  U.S. government for over half a century.   

 I believe Prescott Bush started it all in 1952 as a U.S. senator from Connecticut.  

If this is even almost true, does anyone know what the U.S government would be like without them?

I've posted before about the confluence of events that all point to the U.S. trying to gather international support to "shut down" Iran.  Now they're pressuring the EU to close down two Iranian banks they claim are funding terrorists.  

As I see it, the NIE that declared Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2002 only delayed but didn't stop the Bush/Cheney military motives to "disable" Iran.  
Nor did the incident in the Strait of Hormuz where it was alleged an Iranian speedboat threatened to blow up a U.S. naval destroyer in the strait.  After some very irresponsible reporting by the NYT, thousands of reader comments doubted the assertion.  Long story short, the story from our own military wasn't true.  

On Sunday, the day Iran opened its first Oil burse, (one that doesn't plan to trade oil for dollars, but rather, euros)a report was released by the U.S. military and was carried on practically every newswire:  It alleged that weapons caches in Iraq appear to have growing links to Iran.  
In addition, there are reports that five undersea cables used for electronic communications into and out of Iran have been cut over the last month or so.  The cover story seems to be that these are random and coincidental occurrences.

And yesterday, it was reported, once again, that certain Iranian leaders advocate the complete destruction of Israel. 

On occasion, timing really is everything.  Patterns emerge. 
But let me be clear.
 I don't underestimate the dangers that Iran could pose.  And I don't know enough to declare that all actions taken against Iran by the U.S. are unwarranted.  In fact, many are.  

But I do know this;  I can't trust Bush/Cheney.  Too incompetent.  
With regard to Iraq, they didn't even do the wrong things right. 

 I also know I run the risk of being labelled a "supporter of terrorists" simply by raising questions about what kind of treatment Iran does or doesn't deserve. In the same way that Americans opposed to the war have been called "unpatriotic".

But let's not forget the fact that the U.S. overthrew the first democratically elected government in Iran.   We installed the Shah.  Let's also not forget that it was the U.S. that was responsible for the birth of nuclear power in Iran.   We helped build their program.  In fact, we encouraged them to build 23 nuclear facilities.  

It's hard to insist that we can't allow Iran to have the "knowledge that could lead to the building of a nuclear weapon",  when in fact,  we're responsible for giving it to them.  (at least, the beginnings of a program.)

There is a great deal of hypocrisy here, no doubt. 

Now how does this relate to the 2008 presidential election?
There are two mentalities "running for office".  One looks at the world in the eyes of a 20th century military superpower, bent on complete dominance.  An outdated, self-perpetuating idea that the United States is THE greatest country in all the world.  Period.  And no one will take that away.  

The other mentality has a more forward-thinking guiding philosophy: We are a great country among many great countries.  The days of playing king of the hill are over.  Yes, there are dangers in the world and we have every right to defend ourselves.  
But the future belongs to those countries that work multi-laterally, buying and selling goods, mutually beneficial relationships.  The future belongs to those countries that allow science and innovation to flourish.   
And most importantly, the future belongs to those countries that allow and enable their own citizens to flourish.  
Only wars that are absolutely necessary should be waged.
The world is bigger than fear.  
Which candidate understands that fighting terrorists is not a good enough reason for America to exist?

I can think back to Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony during Monicagate and I don't think at that time, he would have been saying "words don't matter".
I'll leave it at that.  

The Bush administration is ratcheting up the rhetoric about Iran again. And this time seems a little scarier than others:
-Iran opened up its first oil bourse on Sunday. This is especially worrying to the administration because Iran plans to link their oil trade to the euro, not the dollar. (Saddam did the same thing and we know what happened)
-In the last several weeks, five different undersea cables that carry all electronic communications in and out of Iran have been "accidentally" cut.
-On the same day Iran opened its new oil exchange, a new U.S. military report was released that linked Iran to weapons caches in Iraq. Actually, the report said that the weapons caches have "growing links" to Iran.

I found an article on the Energy Bulletin website written in 2006 which predicted this chronology of events:

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

I don't know enough to draw a conclusion, but we should be aware of this right now as it would dramatically effectthe narrative of the 2008 presidential election.
McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee and Bush 41 is endorsing him today, and the rest of the warmongerson the Republican side are starting to back him.
If national security replaces the debilitated economy as the number one issue, McCain, rightly or wrongly, would be the beneficiary.
As I've mentioned before, these people will do anything to secure their power.
All we can do is make sure congress prevents Bush and Cheney from declaring unilateral action