I'm going to stick my neck out and make a prediction. You heard it first on This Ain't My First Rodeo [and on the Wayne Madsen Report]

The Clintons have stuck it out this long
and common sense itself now demands that Hillary drops from the race on
behalf of party unity. But, if I read them correctly, the Clintons have
always been closer to the neocon "middle" than any other candidate.
Declaring themselves "New Democrats"
and racing everyone else to the middle was the strategy they used to
beat an incumbent Bush-41 in the wake of the conservative "Reagan
Revolution."

McCain has been nailed down on the far right, probably with the help of the Clintons in the back rooms. They are currently furiously working to associate him with the Reverend John Hagee, a right wing-nut. The country has had it with these hate-filled apocalyptic Dominionists who have sold their populist souls to the elite corporatists of "the Military-industrial Complex."

We've all figured out by now they are not really even "Christian," at least in the ancient foundations they themselves would have a revivalist America focus upon -- they
are Zealots, the chief rivals of early Christians who struggled to come
to terms with Roman occupation in the midsts of The Jewish Wars of
Zealot insurgency that led to the destruction of the Second Temple in
68 AD, followed by the Great Diaspora and the final stand of Zealot forces at Masada in the second century.
Early Christianity thus took hold among the Hellenized general diaspora
of Jews already scattered throughout the Roman Empire. Once the
decision was made to admit into full communion the Gentiles who had
already taken an interest in Judaism, the course for peace and
reconciliation with the reality of Rome's supremacy "in the world" was
set. The next stage of development, in the face of the persecutions,
occurred when the Christianized diaspora began to distance themselves
from the the Jews of the homeland whose Zealot insurrections they saw
as the cause of their persecutions as Jews. This began with the efforts
of Paul to convince Nero that the Christians were of a different
character and that they intended to remain "subject to the higher
authorities." St. Paul never saw the affects of his writing;
nevertheless, the final and complete severance from Judaism occurred in
the fourth century when Constantine declared of political
necessity,Christianity the religion of the realm without ever having
been baptized himself.



Stay with me; I'm not just bullshitting for the sake of bullshitting.

Any educated "Christian" knows full well that the Messiah was not a messiah of insurrection; he was "The Prince of Peace." So in reaction to the arch-conservative nationalism and triumphalism of right-wing Zealots such as Richard Land, Rev. John Hagee, Pat Robertson and the politicians who
have exploited them, there has emerged within the various populist
movements a pervasive ethical and religious ambiguity. This cultural
ambiguity can be summarized as a confusing mix of metaphors, for
example the leftest Christian view of "Washington-as-Rome" versus its
polar opposite in the left-wing Zealot black community, "Washington-as-Babylon" versus the extreme right-wing view that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon
in Rome. To wit, any less strident, tolerant and ethically directed
notion of the historical and political role of Christianity in a
secular society has to come to terms with the democratic concept of
pluralism with its inclusive respect for both the inalienable
rights of the individual and minorities, as well as the safeguards
against the tyranny of the majority institutionalized in the
Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Opposing the ever
resurgent Theocracy sought by the Extreme Right from age to age, this
more Enlightened pluralistic view
of our forefathers moves the multifarious and contravening institutions
of religion which from time to time run afoul of Civil Liberties with
the best of intentions, to a more peripheral political role of
influence, while respecting their universal spiritual value, by
avoiding absolutist and authoritarian abuse in the nation's own state of affairs.

Theologically, if only for the sake of respite, we leave the Book of Revelations to the realm of the angles without forsaking the Gospels, we can acknowledge that mainstream Christianity represents The Kingdom of Heaven which is "IN the world but not OF the world."
The recognition of this universal spiritual principle calls us to an
altogether higher level of freedom. Subsequently, as the underlying
scriptural ambiguities brought to light by our contemporary "Culture
Wars" are worked through in the mainstream, the ongoing reconciliation
process is driving folks of all extremes back to a less
confrontational, less muscular Middle Way, to a place more in partnership with "the poor" and in identification with their suffering. Moreover, the traditional Christian
notions of community, compassion, reconciliation, surrender, conversion
at depth, spiritual growth and the longing for Peace -- The Way of Wisdom -- seem ever resilient in the face of such Zealotry as we have tolerated from the authoritarian
Right to the point of impatience. A coalition of human secularists with
mainstream Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Native American and various
"churched" and "unchurched" is beginning to emerge into a new
Progressivism and is drawing populists of every tradition back to that middle place.

And Here Waits the Clintons. Hillary is holding on, working the split within the Democratic Party
so that in September or early October she will have brought the nation
to the great political nexus that has been coming anyway.

The Independent Party candidate for 2008
who will win the presidency will be
Hillary Rodham Clinton.



The "October Surprise" of 2008


Independent Joe Lieberman will move quickly to endorse her followed by hundreds from both parties, perhaps even Rush Limbaugh who knows full well where his bread is buttered.


John McCain will go away into retirement exasperated and confused.

John Edwards will have recognized that holding off any endorsement of Obama was wise for him personally but traitorous to the cause of Progressivism. *The
only viable candidate with any chance of facing Clinton in 2012 will
come from a new Progressive Party, formed under resentment by minority
members and ideologically dedicated liberals who felt betrayed by a
Democratic Party turned "independent" who abdicated their economic and
social responsibilities to the people while appropriating the "Southern
Strategy" to maintain its hold on power.



Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Playin' through:

In an interview with Politico / Yahoo News released today, President Bush says he decided by express solidarity with our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan... by giving up golf!

Yes, you read that right. No, this isn't some rend in the time/space continuum. He's bagged up the clubs until the boys come home.

If you really want to read the fool gibberish of the man Pat Buchanan calls a lame duck scared of how history will remember him, it's here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10314.html

Adverse Determination

The title kind of says it all, but there are far more serious consequences to the price of oil reaching $126/barrel, or wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, copper et al reaching exorbitantly inflated prices than Cisco or Juniper Systems or Yahoo stock behaving similarly, as they did in the late 1990's.

Commodities are things the "real" economy needs and uses to function. Commodities have "use" value. Stocks have only "exchange" value.

Nobody needs to buy Cisco at $90 per share. But people do need to buy oil at $126 per barrel.

I'll try writing further articles on the fungibility of various commodities--e.g., coffee vs. tea--but for now I'll only comment thus:  Essential commodities are too important to the literal survival of the world to be treated as if they were common shares of Microsoft, mere vehicles of financial speculation. And these essential raw materials are now being transformed into speculative investment vehicles, probably through the ingenious proliferation of derivatives and the sudden attraction by "investors" to commodities as a better store of value than alternative investments.

Sometimes, most of the time, so-called free markets function quite efficiently. But there are exceptions, as even the most conservative of economists would agree.

We are right at the beginning of what could be a pernicious extension of free market, speculative capitalism into a sphere previously dominated by real-world economic conditions of supply and demand. For example, if suddenly the demand side for corn is radically increased not by more users of corn, but by speculators whose only concern is that the price of corn will rise, the use-market be damned, the risks of creating artificial non supply/demand dislocations to the real economy may have consequences that reach far beyond Forex traders.

This is a topic I'm researching and thinking about. It's very interesting, very complicated and urgently important.

While we were sleeping it seems there's been a coup in the Democratic Party

Boy those in the Clinton machine must be pissed and looking for the exits to the New Regime

This is EXACTLY the plan. That was the overarching message at Camp Obama which trained cadres for the Primaries

Obama Organizing Fellows will carry on this summer for the general election.

ObamaNation - The Stunning Consolidation of the Democratic Party
by: Matt Stoller
 
You know all that old-style Washington politics preventing real change? As hard as it might be to handle, in a lot of ways he means that those of us who believe in partisan hard edged combat are part of an outmoded system. It doesn't actually divide cleanly; old hand Tom Daschle is a key figure and likely to be Obama's chief of staff, and Artur Davis is likely to be his Attorney General. These are old school Democrats, and Obama's machine is full of the Congressional wing of the party that lost out in 1992 to Clinton and his people.

This isn't a criticism; again, Obama made his bet that the country isn't into ideological combat and wants a politics of unity and hope, and he has won at internally. In terms of the 'Iron Law of Institutions', the Obama campaign is masterful. From top to bottom, they have destroyed their opponents within the party, stolen out from under them their base, and persuaded a whole set of individuals from blog readers to people in the pews to ignore intermediaries and believe in Barack as a pure vessel of change. It's actually very similar to Clinton from 1994-2000, where power and money in the Democratic Party is being centralized around a key iconic figure. He's consolidating power within the party.

Now here's the part that's unclear. Obama has successfully remade the Democratic Party already, and shown that old partisan Washington politics is over if you are a Democrat. Can he do that with Republicans? By stripping power, money and responsibility from outside groups and opponents, Obama is increasing his control of the party apparatus. He is also, however, putting everything on his own shoulders. When the Swift Boaters come back, and they will, it's all on Obama and his movement to hit back. He's betting that he can strip power from their base just as he stripped power from the old Washington way of doing politics within the Democratic Party.

The article currently running on TPM's front page about Carbon Dioxide levels being at their highest in 650,000 years is something that certainly grabs my attention and shouts: "EMERGENCY!" to me.  It is one of the more disturbing headlines I have seen lately and I've been seeing an increasing number of such headlines in recent months.  I've also been quite disturbed by just going outside and seeing what is going on with our environment and how obviously screwed up things are.  I don't understand why this subject isn't on the lips of every Democratic candidate for every office, every single day.  Nor do I undertstand why this is not on the front pages of the newspapers every single day or why it isn't the lead on every news broadcast every hour.  How can we, as a society be so nonchalant and apathetic about the destruction of the very thing that keeps us alive and that provided the circumstances for our emergence as a species? 

If we were all on a wooden boat handed down to us by our ancestors on a vast ocean planet with no land we wouldn't light it on fire for a profit would we?  Of course, not.  It is as though we are not human beings who comprehend the consequences of our actions but dumb animals who no more understand what is going on in the environment anymore than they understand quantum physics or sanskrit.

When I look out my window at the ongoing monsoon rains battering the midwest at the wrong time of year, when I see that strong winds and freak cold snaps are beginning the process of deforestation of what was once the most bountiful land on earth, where endless hardwood forests and abundant water created what my ancestors viewed almost as a new Eden, and when I see the increasingly violent storms, tornadoes and such devastating our communities and countryside, the sense of horror I feel about what we have wrought is quite real and growing.  I grew up during the Cold War fearing that nuclear cataclysm would unmake the world.  Now we face a less immediate threat, but one with no less devastating an outcome in the end and perhaps an even more devastating outcome.

Why we need any additional  headlines to motivate us to demand immediate and drastic action form our political leaders to halt and reverse the destruction of our atmosphere is beyond me.  No scientific studies are required.  All one need do is look outside and the evidence that something is clearly amiss in our environment is as plain as day---every day.

I cannot imagine a bigger sin or a more hideous crime against humanity than that which we all are currently participating in which is pushing our planet's atmosphere so out of balance that we may push it past the point of no return.  How could any moral people stand by doing nothing, allowing apathy denial to destroy the planet that is the source and security of all life as we know it?  How could any sentient being with a sense of self preservation stand by and doing nothing to prevent this very preventable disaster?

What alarms and disturbs me most is not the facts we know about global warming and it's effects.  By far the most alarming thing is that as a civilization we are doing so little about it when we already clearly understand that inaction equals disaster and potentially doom for humanity.  The situation is truly insane.

I know they have position papers on this but I simply don't hear our candidates for President discussing global warming/climate change with the sort of urgency it clearly demands.  With each passing day more reports are in the news indicating that the process of global ice melting is much more rapid than previously believed and the accumulation of carbon dioxide is accelerating even more than estimated which means we have less time than we thought before things go too far.  Perhaps things have already gone too far?  It is impossible to know and it is inexcusable to do nothing while any chance remains.  I could be wrong, yet I cannot help but to think that there is no action too drastic at this point that would be more of a risk than our continued inaction which threatens not our lives, but the lives of our children and of posterity which is literally all the children to come.  It is appalling to contemplate it.

I am unconvinced that any of our national leaders, except Al Gore, actually appreciate the enormity of what is taking place and how little time we have to begin the work of saving our home and thus the home of all those to come after us.  Have we completely lost our minds and our sense of obligation to the future? 

Perhaps I am the only one who thinks this way, but when I see the shocking changes in our weather I can think of nothing else but the effect this is going to have on my children and grandchildren and how there isn't any chance at all that it will be anything but bad.  I think to myself, "how can I look my son in the eye and tell him I'm sorry I was too busy to save your world."  We simply must make it our business to stop and reverse the destruction of this incredibly beautiful and valuable planet and we must do whatever it takes to do so.   As reports make clear on a daily basis there is simply no time to lose. 

Some might poo-poo this sort of reaction to the reports that we've done far more damage than previously believed.  But what is the downside of over-reacting compared to the downside of not doing enough?  The only downside to over-reacting to this greatest crisis ever to face humanity is a cleaner and healthier planet for generations to come.   So I think it's time to get moving on this problem and not to be moderate in our approach.   And what if those who counsel a take it slow, moderate approach to address this crisis are wrong?  What is the downside of not acting as quickly and forcefully as necessary?  If we err on the side of moderation, move too slowly, protect the wealthy and their profits too much and end up killing off humanity, it seems like a pretty bad trade off to me. 

All other issues are academic if we screw this one up folks.  We must act now.  We cannot wait.  Individual actions are nice, but an organized, collective, international, government led effort will be required.  If we don't demand that our leaders take such action immediately, I'm convinced it will not happen.  So demand action now, before it is too late.

In world-class chess matches between International Grand Masters, when one of the opponents recognizes that he (not many "she's" in this arena of competition) is in an unwinnable position, he resigns. No dishonor attached to it...it's expected. In fact, it's an implicit complement to his opponent's skill. (If I can see I'm done, he also can.)

Hillary Clinton has established herself as an International--or perhaps more difficult in the USA-- as a National Grandmaster of Politics. She knows she is in an unwinnable position. Yet, unlike the Grandmasters of Chess, she refuses to concede.

She, unlike chess players, clings almost obsessively to a hopeless cause...a terrible trait for a chess player and an even more terrible one for a President of the United States.

Her (failed) campaign has opened the door for qualified women to run as serious candidates for the office in the future. Despite her inexplicable, bold-faced lying during the campaign, she has managed to go where no (US) woman has gone before: A female candidate that was taken seriously by the electorate, regardless of party affiliation---something no other woman in the history of the country has ever done.

She was able to accomplish this on the sparsest of resumes; she displayed both the emotional and physical fortitude that voters expect in a potential president; she certainly outdid her distinguished husband on the "grace under fire" front, never appearing peevish or overly sensitive to criticism, never getting red-faced pissed-off at questioners...just a few tears welling up in New Hampshire. Overall, a fantastic performance.

She had the bad fortune to run against a phenomenon: an African-American, good-looking, younger, JFKesque orator who could only be criticized--ironically enough--as "elitist." Who the hell would ever have thought the first serious African-American prez candidate would have to refute charges of his elitism?

She did the best she could; and in doing so elevated all women.

She failed on the combination of her own flaws and Obama's extraordinary talents.

She should resign with honor, like an International Grandmaster in Chess.

The Clinton campaign, teetering on its last throes, and ensconced in its self-delusion...as expectation would have it... is set on an impending landslide victory in West Virginia. But, taken at face value, it would seem like only a morale booster that fosters an illusion of a "come-back" mantra that has come symbolize the mystique of the Clinton's "insurmountable" political prowess. Hence this victory, if anything, will engrave in their psyches a false illusion of rescuscitated strategic possibilities and inhibit their ability to grasp the inevitabilty of Hillary Clinton's political demise, at least as pertaining to the current presidential electoral cycle. This is not to rule out renewed Hillary attempts in the near future at another run for the White House, if only she could admit that for now it's over, and that she could still be a winner just by repositioning herself for a possible #2 slot as Barack Obama's running mate. That is, if he would be kind enough to accept her. 

As I read about West Virginia, including about racist attacks (I think only verbal) on Obama campaigners, I wonder how, if Hillary were miraculously to become the Democratic nominee, she could run in West Virginia as a candidate who did not pander to the voters there.

Non-right-wing evangelicals are rightfully distressed by Hagee's preaching. However, there's more than that.  Aside from the many books he sells on his website reflecting his unenlightening edicts on marriage, women's place, and American history, he also sells the books of one Don Colbert, MD who offers a mix of faith and near-quack cures to the gullible.  In Salon recently, a physician rightly criticized PBS for airing an infomercial by one Dr.  Amen.  A physician could also do a scathing review of the work of Dr. Colbert who, by the way, graduated from Oral Roberts med school as did Dr. Amen.

Will he or won't he take public financing?

The answer is NO

He's  going wire to  wire with the ObamaNation

Obama Tells Major Donors Not to Fund Independent Groups

Donors and Democratic activists have been quietly debating Obama’s motives: Is he simply interested in keeping his Democratic efforts within his campaign, which is so well funded he doesn’t need outside help? Or is he, as some believe, cutting off funds to groups whose leaders – Brock and Podesta – some Obama aides view as too tightly linked to Clinton?

In either case, Pritzker’s words are the latest in Obama’s remarkably swift and complete consolidation of Democratic Party power. It’s an unprecedented seizure of control that has built him, over the course of a year, the most powerful field organization and the largest financial network in American politics, leaving many existing structures – traditional party organizations in many states, the Clintons’ long-nurtured national network – in the dust.

Just last summer, Matt Bai’s widely accepted analysis identified the “billionaires” and the “bloggers” as the key, emergent players in the Democratic Party’s infrastructure. But Obama has marginalized both groups. Pritzker’s words are part of a move to keep Obama’s grip on the sole important funnel of Democratic money this year. And his campaign has largely ignored the existing network of liberal bloggers, and actively opposes their embrace of fierce partisanship.

“Obama has created a number of significant infrastructure pieces through his campaign, displacing traditional groups the way he promised he would by signaling the end of the old politics of division and partisanship,” the blogger Matt Stoller wrote recently of Obama’s “consolidation of the party,” which he called “stunning.”

Hillary and her supporters must be so proud.  Ignorance and racism is your base!  Excellent!

Good Morning America, on the scene in West Virginia, introduced their viewers to Janis. She's not a particularly enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter, but for her, Hillary has got one thing on Barack Obama: she's not a Muslim. Of course, neither is Obama.

[WATCH.]

var config = new Array();
config["videoId"] = 1543318529; //the default video loaded into the player
config["videoRef"] = null; //the default video loaded into the player by ref id specified in console
config["lineupId"] = null; //the default lineup loaded into the player
config["playerTag"] = null; //player tag used for identifying this page in brightcove reporting
config["autoStart"] = false; //tells the player to start playing video on load
config["preloadBackColor"] = "#FFFFFF"; //background color while loading the player
config["wmode"] = "transparent"; //Share popup windows should overlay player

config["width"] = 486;
config["height"] = 412;

/* do not edit these config items */
config["playerId"] = 1443726242;

createExperience(config, 8);

KATE SNOW: Janis said she can't support Obama.

JANIS: He's Muslim and that has a lot to do with it. I just, you know, I just would rather have Hillary.

SNOW: Just for the record he constantly says he's a Christian -

JANIS: I know he does.

SNOW: You don't believe him?

JANIS: No.

Now, it's hardly newsworthy to learn that stupid people exist and they do, in fact, vote. I mean, we have this whole thing called "the Bush Administration" that more or less proves that. But it's a little astounding to hear Kate Snow, who, as a reporter, is ostensibly charged with informing the public, offer up the mealy mouthed, "Just for the record, he constantly says he's a Christian..." As Snow well knows, there's a reason that Obama constantly says he's a Christian: it is because he is a Christian. The correct response would have been, "I'm sorry, but you are mistaken." Or, failing that, at least show us a voter capable of making a passionate and authoritative case for Clinton.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

- From 1984 by George Orwell

There have been many examples of doublethink in regards to criticisms of Obama, especially in this primary season. 

- Obama is an extremist liberal or even a communist who praised Reagan and voted for Cheney's energy bill
- Obama is an extreme atheist anti-religion, an extreme Muslim terrorist AND a Christian demagogue (TRIPLEthink!)
- Obama doesn't have the experience with the political establishment of Washington politics and he's got too much experience with the political establishment of Chicago politics.
- Obama is a partisan black nationalist who hasn't done anything specifically for the black community and doesn't deserve their support.

There are so many I could go on forever.  Doublethink is the weapon of choice against Obama by Republicans and the more partisan of Clinton supporters and will be in the future.

Jodi Rell.         Why?
1. She's a woman.2. She's a great governor - took over for the crook Rowland.3. She is a centrist Republican.4. In one fell swoop, he would major constituencies that have eluded him for Hillary.5. She would validate the "bringing together of America" statement.
Just my two cents.

From the grapevine:

"(Karl) Rove wants to lead the GOP's 527 effort... There are going to be strategy meetings, people who are not yet associated with 527s but who will later on associate themselves and spread the strategy..."

Strategy? So what's the central, focal point he's got against Obama?

"Oh, that's easy, Karl's got it all in his head. And I mean that - he's got it memorized. 'His pastor said 'Goddamn America', and said that AIDS was concocted by our government, as a genocidal tool'. And then, ummm... Oh yeah: 'this pastor wants black and white to come out against corporate America. Throw in Rezko' - we have our own people constantly taking notes at his trial. 'Combine that with Obama's obvious anti-patriotism, and we've got ourselves one toxic cocktail.'"

"He just keeps repeating that mantra over and over again. Every group of depressed GOP'ers he talks to, he just repeats those lines."

To which I said, "yeah - but people won't fall for that, 'cause you know it ain't true. And Obama's campaign knows it, and they'll tell the voters that it ain't true."

"Hah!", said the conversationist. "Now you're sounding like one of those fringe netroot bloggers. Why do you think that people like Rove are succesful?  Lee Atwater, Roger Stone? Because they know, and have always known, that it doesn't matter whether something's true or not. All that matters is what sticks in the voter's mind."

And then I remembered this little gem, written by Hunter S. Thompson in "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '74".

It's Lyndon B. Johnson's senatorial campaign in Texas and he's trailing his GOP opponent by just a few percentage points. It's very close to election day and his campaign manager has just told LBJ that he's out of options.

"Hmmm," LBJ grunts. "Wait a minute - doesn't that guy own a pig farm? He does, doesn't he?"
"Errr, yeah he does, but I don't see - "
"Well, why don't we let it leak that he's humpin' his own pigs?"
"SIR!" the campaign manager blurts, "we can't - I mean, we - sir, we know he's not doing that!"
"I know that, and you know that," LBJ said, "but let's have the son of a bitch deny it."

The rest is history.

It's what sticks.

And with registered voters like the ones in this gem here - http://www.kajleers.nl/?p=140 - you know that a lot will stick.

I was sent this somewhat depressing article from WaPo this morning. I guess we were all hoping that this kind of thing was a thing of the past....

Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause

Remember those famous 'Bitter' comments about guns that Barack Obama made that made the media and some voters get into a tiffy about awhile back in Pennsylvania?  Well it seems Obama had said something much more acceptable just prior to that fundraiser:

In the private event just prior to his infamous San Francisco fundraiser, Obama offered an interpretation of Second Amendment rights likely to go over smoother with rural America.

"We need sensible gun laws," said the Senator. "I just got back from Montana where just about everyone has guns. In that culture, fathers and sons bond over hunting. You can't take that away from rural America. But the inner city is different, and we should tighten the laws on gun purchases and close the loopholes in gun show sales to unscrupulous buyers. The gun control people and the right to bear arms people are talking past each other about disconnected topics."

The remarks, delivered at an event in Silicon Valley and shared with The Huffington Post by an attendee, suggest that even in private, Obama's view of gun ownership is far from the condescending anti-Second Amendment characterization that his critics have painted. Rather, they imply that Obama actually does view the right to bear arms as a personal tradition passed through generations, but one that does not necessarily comport to every geographic region...

It's too bad the man that handed this to HuffingtonPost.com couldn't have done so during the time it was being widely discussed.

Mon cousin James Carville

    Every time the people want answers to a scandal - the Republican portion of congress blocks or/and sides with the people (the White House) who do the unethical - unmoral - scandal's that just keep piling up daily. We all could pick a government agency and will find some form of scandal deeply rooted in the culture of each agency. But, why does it continue? What is their motive?  Money - maybe, Power, yea - but what is the real reason...we might never know; but since this pattern of scandals keep building...what they have done is DUG a big hole that they may not be able to climb out of!

In the House of Congress, Minority Leader Rep. Boehner is something of a cartoon character that just keeps its viewers wondering whats he going to do next. He cries, He wines, He pleas, who is he? Why is he able to keep plugging alone with such child like character flaws?

With the chamber of the House, he uses the "People's House" as if its his own, but its not! He has led the why to block votes, stomps his feet screaming and crying like a four year old not getting their way! He is a person who has major emotional issues and shows signs of someone who is hiding something, what unknown. 

So, my question is...What is Boehner and other Republican hiding from the People? and why? Well, my only conclusion can be, his hand is in the "cookie" jar, and he knows too much on what unknown! The signs are there, well documented in the behavior, and just one day, hopefully soon, he and others will be caught and be outed from the Halls of Congress. He is shameful site to see and shows all the  major signs of  a man who needs something and is hiding everything, what it is...I just don't care, he needs to go! 

(The author is a mac user).
This article made me laugh.  Microsoft is "re-introducing" visual basic into their next version of office for the mac, finally having listened to their users.  IMO, they did no such thing.
They were in a pretty vulnerable position.  XP, though popular, was an aging and increasingly insecure platform.  They were under tremendous pressure to release Vista, an OS that (if my colleagues are to believe) was a nightmare to use.  MSFT knew it was buggy when they released it.
At the same time, the Mac OS gets rave reviews for reliability and security and with the intel macs, speed as well.  The only thing really preventing wholesale changeovers are compatibility issues, and most enterprises run Office (the other MSFT monopoly).  However, in enterprises, you need standardized forms and macros, which visual basic provided.  (I'm a novice with Excel, but I use Macros in word all the time).   
By refusing to add visual basic support, the program becomes useless in mid to large enterprises.  Voila, market preserved, and temptation to switch to Mac platform abates.  The functionality will get "re-added" four years down the line, after the kinks in Vista have been worked out.  
I haven't bought into the cult of mac (publications like macworld are written by the Cupertino sect of the Branch Davidians), but they are damn good machines to use once you get used to them.  MSFT knows that. There's no way they would take any chance of losing their enterprise markets in either Office or the windows operating system.  Just one (non-expert) opinion.

Daily Kos has the latest in the WVWV controversy here.

The whole thing sounds really crazy to me. DairyStateMom got one of their forms in the mail last week, months after she voted in our primary. The Kos item linked above says that they appear to be pretty indiscriminate about how they get people registered:

Guy Zeigler, clerk of the Franklin County Board of Elections in
Frankfort, Ky., estimates that about half of the forms from Women's
Voices that are returned to his office come from people who are already
properly registered to vote -- raising questions about how the
nonprofit measures its success.

In West Virginia, Secretary of State Betty Ireland issued a press release
[pdf] on Thursday, May 8 cautioning voters about Women's Voices
"potentially misleading" registration efforts. The warning came after
the organization began mailing voter registration forms to more than
16,000 unmarried women across the state right before the primary election, but after the April 22 deadline to register for that election
had already passed.

So the whole thing is goofy, but what is the real agenda, do you think? I've been running one hypothesis after another through my pea-brain and can't make sense of it.

Are they
1) Well meaning but inept?
2) Well meaning and clever? (If so, explain how this is really clever.)
3) Up to no good and clever? (So then what is their real intent and agenda?)
4) Up to no good and inept? (And if so, what will the real impact be, intended or not?)

I came across this wonderful post from the site below and I just wanted to share. When things seem down or we begin to worry about racism and hate (from today's Washington Post article), read this to remember why we are all so involved this time. There is much more to this campaign and we will fix the "system" so that we can all understand each other better.

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles
/Obama_Campaign_Journal_
Now_I_m_in_it_for_Mrs_Trivedi_5664.html

Obama Campaign Journal: Now I’m in it for Mrs. Trivedi
by Jay Jonah Cash‚ May. 13‚ 2008

Barack Obama is no longer the icon of this presidential election. He has been quietly replaced by a widowed Indian immigrant mother from Fleetwood, Pennsylvania … at least for me. This is how that happened.

I became an Obama precinct captain in San Francisco less than 24 hours after Clinton fatigue hit me like a Wal-Mart truck. That was still my motivation when I flew 1,875 miles to Corpus Christi, 13 days before the “Texas Two-Step” primary caucus.

But while in Texas I realized Barack Obama was the strongest (“I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq!"), and became convinced that he was by far the best candidate in the race.

That is what, 13 days before the Pennsylvania primary, got me to fly 2,929 miles to JFK Airport and then take a Bieber Tourways bus 110 miles to Kutztown, PA – population 5,067.

In travelling the almost 5,000 miles for the Obama Campaign, I didn’t see much scenery. I was busy making calls, literally running from house to house on the weekends and entering data when I finished calling or I got back to the office at night.

It’s the people who stand out.

Nancy: Who was, in both San Francisco and Corpus, the caring house mother and calming “adult in the room.”

Sarah: The LA fashion designer who, at the peril of her business, skipped REAL Oscar Parties to be with us, and who helped clean the Corpus Christi office bathroom on the night of the broadcast.

Warren (aka “Montana”): The young progressive cowboy from Missoula who hitched a ride with friends to Vegas and then took a very, very long bus ride to Corpus Christi.

Kathleen: Who drove me and Montana down the highway and out of Port Aransas during a tornado warning.

Joel: The former telephone sales-rep who I actually think persuaded more people to vote for Obama than probably any other volunteer in Berks County. He would always show up in a coat and tie, including the days that we got him to physically canvas.

Maureen and Barbara, the mature duo, who drove to Kutztown from D.C. to spend four days knocking on doors in their running shoes telling people how “We’ve lived and worked in Washington for decades, and we’ve never seen it like this. We need to move on as a country. Now!”

But the one that stood out most, and still does, is Mrs. Trivedi.

A couple of weeks before the Pennsylvania primary, one of Mrs. Trivedi’s doctor sons (the one in D.C.) wanted to travel back home to help with the election. She decided to help too. And one day, about a week before the election she walked into the office without me noticing.

I was then startled by a quiet voice.

“Hello, I’m Mrs. Trivedi and I’m here to help you.” (Seriously, that’s what she said.)

I smiled, introduced myself, and then showed her how to use the phone and she went at it. She completed several dozen calls and dutifully checked the appropriate boxes on the tracking sheets and then went home.

She was back the next day, but the campaign had changed to a longer “persuasion” script, and by the time Mrs. Trivedi got through it, a whole lot of people had already hung up.

“It’s my accent,” she said.

It seemed that way to me too, and it bothered me. I knew the reaction of the people she was calling. While it wasn’t really racism, it just seemed a little too much like it.

She kept going, but was getting disheartened and I gave her some tips and encouragement and kept listening in the background while my heart continued to break. I imagined that, in rural Pennsylvania, in an area that was once a pretty active Klan location, that it might have been something she had endured before.

Finally, it became obvious that my verbal “tips” were ridiculously confusing, so I asked her to take a break and I typed her a much shorter script that identified that she was a local.

“Hello, my name is Mrs. Trivedi and I’m calling from the Barack Obama office here in Kutztown. How are you doing today?”

Simple. People started talking to her again.

What impressed me was how dignified she was through the whole thing. But it was also the fact that she didn’t blame the people that were hanging up on her. She didn’t attack them and say they were ignorant or intolerant, and she didn’t give up either. She just kept going.

Mrs. Trivedi didn’t need to do that. Making political phone calls is hard. Making political phone calls in rural Pennsylvania with an Indian accent is harder. She just didn’t need to do it. But the fact that she did it for days demonstrates that SHE has confidence in this country. SHE believes in it, no matter how consistently imperfect it can be.

The fact that people did start talking to her again is also important to me. It wasn’t the person (Mrs. Trivedi) or the people (the registered voters) that were the root of the problem. It was simpler than that. It was just the script. The “system” was the problem.

It would have been easy for everybody to give up somewhere along the line. But by making a simple change to the system, things started to work again.

Kindness, dignity, persistence, purpose … that’s the kind of country I want to live in. Mrs. Trivedi is the kind of person I want engaged.

There is much talk about the divisions in the Democratic Party, but without this extended primary season there would be dramatically fewer motivated grassroots-level activists prepared for the fall campaign. The Obama campaign especially got huge numbers of people involved, new people, in nearly every state. What has happened is that there are now thousands of individuals that have never – and I mean never – been involved in the process before who are now trained and motivated.

Those individuals are not part of the recalcitrant system. Instead those individuals are now beginning to challenge it. That deeper, grassroots change is what gives me an increased confidence in the future of this nation. It really does. The Democratic Party may or may not have been strengthened by this process, but our democracy itself has definitely been strengthened.

Whatever happens, this country is better because Barack Obama, the community organizer, decided to run for President.

Being with all these other volunteers, assisting them and learning from them, simply witnessing them come alive and feel they can really actually make a difference … has been amazing. It is, by far, one of the most moving and rewarding things I have done in my lifetime.

I’m back home now. This past Saturday I trooped around San Francisco neighborhoods registering voters for seven hours (Hayes Valley, Civic Center, a smattering of SoMa), approximately 1.5 miles from my apartment. I was doing it to move the country forward, and because I want Barack Obama to be President.

But I was doing even more so because I can’t get enough of getting people involved … people like Mrs. Trivedi. They’re out there, and now, so am I.

Jay Jonah Cash is a local writer who likes to travel the country and redecorate campaign offices in his spare time.

From the Washington Post via Demonwatch:

Prince George's County Executive Jack B. Johnson, a Democratic convention delegate pledged to support Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said yesterday that he thinks Sen. Barack Obama has "in a real sense" won the Democratic nomination and that he now plans to support Obama at the August convention.

What on earth is going on here?  I can't imagine the Obama campaign was in favor of this switch (and according the the Demconwatch post, Plouffe has said as much) -- and I furthermore can't imagine that the Democratic party would have much use for someone who's violated the intent (though not the letter) of the convention system.  But operating under the assumption that politicians support their own self-interest first, what could Jack B. Johnson hope to gain from this positioning?  Seems like he's trying to play the roll of a superdelegate but without that authority.  Anyone have insight here?