Do We Have A Free Press?...Open Thread Version

Diane,

Fantastic article. I think you should post it at Kos and DU. I think you should send it to Huffpo and see if they'll post it.

I found this little story that reminded me of a certain regime we all know and hate...

Here's the anecdote:

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and spotted a woman below. He descended a bit more and shouted,

“Excuse me, can you help me?

I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”

The woman below replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You’re between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude.”

“You must be in Information Technology,” said the balloonist.

“I am,” replied the woman, “How did you know?”

“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is, technically correct, but I’ve no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help at all. If anything, you’ve delayed my trip.”

The woman below responded, “You must be in Management.”

“I am,” replied the balloonist, “but how did you know?”

“Well,” said the woman, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You have risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise, which you’ve no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it’s my fault.”

Good one, sparrow

And so true of the management at major corporations.

I've been doing research on United Airlines, for example, as part of my novel writing, and its management's ineptitude is appalling (these are NOT even airline/aviation people). And every time they screw up, the rank-and-file (like my protagonist) pay the price.

Ally,

The same is true for the auto corps. The people and engineers have been wanting to work on smaller cars and hybrids for YEARS if not DECADES. But management decisions at the top have brought an end to the big-three as we know it and have killed a working community in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.

nmp--I watched kayak's video on the last thread. Loved it!

Thanks Sparrow!
This article is an "exclusive" for DCP! I occasionally put something at Docudharma but for DKos I'm mostly a lurker (stories fall down too fast) and as far as DU I take what I'm sent from Robin, a long-timer, as that site overwhelms me. I read HuffPo but have never even posted there, though I have a friend who writes for them. I pretty much stick to here as far as a regular participant, and of course, Silenced Majority (Bert fr Mpls, Nyc fr NYC) and now Barack Like Me (Nyc & I & it's all positive). I am now a "Policy Analyst" for Northwest Progressive Institute, and have been lurking at the campaign blogs and will occasionally post at Barack's site and have benefitted very much from joining Seattle for Obama, which is just a treasure house. So little time, even for a fast typist and reader!

sparrow

Thanks for reminding me. Yes, it's those MBA's and CEO's that wanted the fatter profit margins of the SUVs. Marketers often win battles over engineers - the prime example being my now-retired 1999 Ford Contour, an excellent car at first (in 1995) but a victim of major cost cutting in all parts of the car by the time I bought it. It was positively the worst POS anyone in my social circles had ever owned.

And when Toyota runs circles around them, they have the galls to blame their unionized workforce (as opposed to Toyota's right-to-work one). AFAIK, the unions only do what they're ordered to do - no more, no less - and they've done exactly what the inept management ordered them to do.

DU... I'm sick of their overly political correct stance.

nmp--you should still post this as a diary over there where more people can see it. Also, I think you should send it to different schools. It might go in their spam, or it might be appreciated and used as a lesson plan. You've got it all there.

I couldn't decide what to write/post as a blog header (open thread) today. I was trying to decide between the job outlook as reported in my daughter's school paper (which she copy-edits) or an article I saw on TMP-election.

The article at TPM reminded me of Diane's article. Basically, Bush is so reviled that in McCain's own state, they're not selling enough tickets to have a fundraiser at the convention center. So instead, as a means of stopping the media from reporting on these dire results for McCain, they've moved the fundraisers to peoples' living rooms. I guess instead of the 500 supporters, they've got 5. (wink)

At any rate, I also found a comment buried in that thread about the Democratic v Republican turnout in traditional 'red' states. And once again, the media is not reporting on that either, but instead they're trying to make it a 'horse race.'

Here's the money quotes:

Primary Turnout

Here's something I've been gnawing on for a few months, and have yet to see any pundit mention it. Democrats have been showing up to vote in the primaries in record numbers, while Republicans have been staying home. It's not even close.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914

All of my numbers come from MSNBC, and I assume they are correct. Let's take a few states that typically go red, and see how the primaries went (not including states where on party had a caucus and the other had a primary election, apples to apples):

Georgia:
Obama 700,366 66%
Clinton 328,129 31%
Edwards 17,990 2%
------------------
1.05 millions votes cast by dems

Huckabee 326,069 34%
McCain 303,639 32%
Romney 289,737 30%
Paul 27,978 3% 0
Giuliani 7,039 1%
--------------------
940,000 votes cast by reps

Kansas:
Obama 27,172 74%
Clinton 9,462 26%
Edwards 53 0%
Uncommitted 8 0%
-----------------
36,600 votes by dems

Huckabee 11,627 60%
McCain 4,587 24
Paul 2,182 11%
Romney 653 3%
Uncommitted 84 0%
--------------------
18,000 votes cast by reps

McCain 142,826 72% 0
Huckabee 16,344 8% 0
Paul 13,419 7% 0
Uncommitted 10,756 5%
Romney 9,210 5% 0
Giuliani 3,057 2% 0
Keyes 2,046 1%

The pattern goes on an on. Dems having been going to the polls in numbers ranging from 50% to 100% over their republican counterparts! Why doesn't the MSM report this? They love a horse race. If they told everyone it was going to be a blowout, the republicans would blow a gasket and pull out the old liberal-bias standup routine.

Sparrow
Thanks for the ideas! I'll try to do something because it's more a resource than topical. That is also the kind of thing we're doing at Northwest Progressive Institute, which is like an "idea factory" and progressive think tank.

About the turnout .. probably it's not reported because it doesn't favor the Republicans and that is where the disenfranchisement starts.

Put the machines in the closets in the areas with minorities, throw people out who have names similar to terrorists etc.

The article I'm working on for Monday relates directly to this.

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/24/obama-campaigns-in-puerto-rico/

more on Puerto Rico / Obama
First it was Christian Broadcasting Company and now Fox.
Where is the rest of the media?

It occurs to me that though PR has more delegates than SD & MT combined, & HRC will use edge in the "popular vote" to boost her case & try to get the number of delegates needed increased (by how it's decided to seat MI and FL on 5/31), PR is not allowed to vote in the general election, so their popular vote total isn't meaningful. It isn't anyway, as nomination isn't decided by popular vote.

I was wondering how the turnouts have been for the Republicans, and hadn't heard anything on it until now. Why, then, is the media reporting the numbers on polls taken between Hillary/McCain and Obama/McCain being so close?
How do they arrive at those figures? Doesn't look like they are even accurate.

TSP,

Those polls you refer to are for likely voters in the general elections. While it is reassuring to see so many Democrats exercising their right to vote in the primaries, I would not be too sanguine about the likelihood of a Democratic landslide. As it is, there are many Clinton supporters who are determined not to vote for Obama, but may instead vote for McCain. Also, if Clinton gets the nomination (which I do not think will happen), there will be millions of younger voters who absolutely will not show up at the polls.

I think the high turnouts for the Dems would help but the Repubs may counter with voter suppression (hiding machines, sending out robocalls with false information etc)

on Hillary Clinton's bizarre reference to the assassination of RFK ..

Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager Donna Brazile, an uncommitted superdelegate who has been complimentary to Obama, told Newsday: "I am numb."

New York Times offered:

..she issued one of those tedious non-apology apologies in which it sounds like the person who is being offended is somehow at fault: “I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.”

Markos Moulitzoz:

It looks like many of Hillary Clinton's apologists and several political pundits claim that her assassination remarks can be explained because of fatigue. Perhaps. In fact, it's likely. But won't she be fatigued at 3 a.m. in the morning?

Obama's Classy Response:

"I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make and I think that is what happened here. Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that," Obama told Radio Isla Puerto Rico.

http://www.silencedmajority.blogs.com

What an interesting RUMOR
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/24/181842/091/532/522208

54

Why in the hell aren't Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico allowed to be states? It seems like they contribute. With Puerto Rico, is it because they speak Spanish.

Consider:

Puerto Ricans aren't allowed to vote in the general presidential election in November. Some questioners at today's event told Obama that it's unfair that Puerto Ricans who fight for the U.S. don't have full representation in Congress. Puerto Ricans have served in all U.S. wars and conflicts since 1917.

On a per-capita basis, Puerto Rico has sent more active- duty forces to Iraq and Afghanistan than all U.S. states except Nevada, according to Defense Department figures.

Obama said today, should he become president, he would look into whether Puerto Rican veterans need an official liaison to the White House.

NMP:

OK, I know I am stupid. But this stuff about RFK is even stupider. RFK was making a serious run at HHH in June -- who knows where it would have gone if he hadn't been killed. I am sure he was behind in delegates and all but even so he represented a part of the party that felt it wasn't represented by HHH. So HRC, when asked a question about why she is running for POTUS, uses that as a historical example of people staying in the primary race in June even though they are behind in pledged delegates (several others come to mind as well, such as Ted Kennedy against Carter in 1980, Brown against Clinton in 1992, Reagan aagainst Ford in 1976). Why is that bizarre? Why was Donna Brazille numb? That seems bizarre to me. What's to explain? I really don't get this one. What does Obama mean she was careless? Is that like what he meant when he said it's unfortunate to point out that LBJ signed the civil rights bill? Inquiring minds do occasionally want to know. Why is her remark in any way even remarkable?

Chuck in Houston

Chuck,

Donna Brazille was probably numb because Obama, unlike other unknown candidates, had to get secret service because he's had death threats since he first decided to run.

Now, you and I both know that she probably didn't mean it to sound like a death threat. But there are people who will read her statement that way, and those people are both Obama supporters and Hillary supporters. But unfortunately for her, it's a faux pas that is pretty darn serious.

In fact, I can't imagine anything that would have shut down her campaign faster than what she just said--even unintentionally.

who would have known that he was so cool.

http://www.johnmccain.com/ActionCenter/BlogInteract/BlogInteract.aspx

Sparrow:

I guess I still don't get it. Why is it a faux paw? Incidentally, I think all serious primary candidates get security details and have since the seventies. I could be wrong, but that is my impression. But to the point, are you (or Donna Brazille) saying that Hillary might have issued a death threat? That is a very, very serious thing to imply, especially when there is no reason whatsoever to impute anything out of the ordinary to these remarks. Implying that to me seems very, very bizarre. I just don't get politics these days I guess. What in the world could someone be thinking to impute that to this? What in the world is going on here? Weird....

Chuck in Houston

Chuck
From everything I've gathered over the past three days, the objections comes because of the timing of Ted Kennedy's illness, because of the upcoming 40th anniversary of RFK's assassination, because of the horror and bloodiness of assassinations in general, because of the threats to Obama and the timing, as if she might benefit if it were to come to pass, and also some think it sounds callous and that her apology rang hollow.

These are not my quotes but what I have gathered and I also updated my son, who had been working and missed all of this - I played him the original clip and Olbermann's reponse. I do not agree with those in HRC's camp who would vote for McCain rather than Obama and I support the plan for Bill Clinton to make peace and involve Gore as well.

Also, I agree that the nomination is based on delegates rather than popular vote, especially since Puerto Rico cannot even vote in the general election, though I think they should soon be able to, given that they have lost so many in wars for the US since 1917.

I think some of the comments at http://www.hillaryclinton.com, http://www.hillaryis44.com, http://www.barackobama.com and http://www.dailykos.com and other sites as well as at the end of various newspaper articles, and on YouTube are divisive on both sides.

We need to start focussing on McCain and not allowing him to be President.

Remember when Obama's "bitter" comment was made - it could also have been argued that he was "fatigued" and he in fact made a classy response in Puerto Rico when asked about what Hillary said.

It's time to get our act together against McCain, I repeat.

NMP:

The "bitter" thing was pretty well stated in context and I feel pretty confident that I know exactly what Obama meant. On the RFK thing, the coincidence with Ted Kennedy's diagnosis and any anniversaries might well explain why that particular primary season was on Hillary's mind, but I do not see in any way how that makes it somehow immoral to mention that, in 1968, the Democrat primary was in question in June even though the party elite and probably the delegates had already picked HHH. I just don't see it. Anyone that spins that otherwise, to my mind, is not being entirely honest.

The nomination is based on pledged delegates, that you get in the primaries and caucuses (with or without Florida and Michigan, depending on how that gets decided in the old smokeless-back-rooms) plus the other delgates, who can change thier position at any time up to the convention.

Neither candidate in the Democratic Party at this point will be able to achieve a majority of delegates though the primaries and caususes.

Did I miss something?

Chuck in Houston

NMP:

I think the Democratic Party will nominate Senator Obama for POTUS. Both McCain and Obama claim to be mavericks that will unite the country. How do you see Obama uniting the country? How about McCain? Obama claims to appeal to Republicans. What GOP issues do you see Obama supporting, as a Democrat? What Democrat ideas do you see McCain supporting, as a Republican?

Chuck in Houston

NMP:

And it gets even more interesting. Obama has alienated the "Reagan Democrats." McCain has alienated the "Evangelical Republicans." What does that mean?

Chuck in Houston

NMP:

Now, of course, if Obama goes on to turn off Clinton Democrats (and there is such an animal -- moderate Democrats) in addition to the Reagan Democrats, then we are looking at a McCain GOP POTUS and a fairly strong Democrat majority in the Legislative, which is sort of like the 'eighties (McCain's Savings and Loan days, come to think on it)....

Chuck in Houston

Chuck
I don't think the comment by Hillary could be said to be immoral but perhaps insensitive. I also think I know what Obama meant by "bitter" and the context. I think both comments were "used" as Hillary said something similar in March and it's quoted in Time magazine, but it wasn't picked up on by many. Near the end, everything is at a fever pitch.

I agree that neither candidate will get enough delegates through primaries and caucusses. It will come down to some votes by superdelegates and then there is the matter of the "magic number," to be decided 5/31 unless enough Superdelegates decide by then, and still, the decision could be appealed all the way to the Convention Credentials committee, which I hope it isn't.

That's a hard question- off the top of my head - I don't know that Obama would appeal to Republicans so much as Independents and same for McCain, & Independents are a mixed bag. That said, Obama has been touted (as in this article at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/24/obama_gop/ Salon, as being willing to reach across party lines. McCain has actually done so, working with Democrats such as Feingold. Not Obama, but a possible mentor, Ted Kennedy, has worked closely with Orrin Hatch. It can be done. McCain could appeal to Independents and some Dems on the basis of being less conservative than Bush on the environment and global warming, as well as immigration.

I think it might come down to more of a perception than actually policies and issues. The Ron Paul people have a rather striking video at YouTube which initially masquerades as a pro-Obama video and when people only can identify "Change" as a pro for Obama, the interviewer asks them to be more specific and they can't. If they are at all, the video reveals that Ron Paul fits the bill. I am not touting Ron Paul but the point was made with me, that some Obama supporters get the global picture but don't fill it in well. Similarly, some Hillary supporters who consider themselves feminist might register a protest vote with McCain but his positions are largely nonfeminist.

As you said the other night, alot of it is dysfunctional. Remember that at one time I would have supported Hillary and even now I am not one of the worst haters. I favor the "rumor" that Bill Clinton is going to help mend fences, with the help of Gore. I understand the two of them got estranged at some point, along with Carter, and this needn't be. There will never be total Democratic unity - it would be like herding cats - but we should beat McCain and mend things as much as possible.

Taking the party back after 9/11 is hard and reforming it is harder. Clintons have been out of office for awhile and things have changed - it's time for change. Maybe they can change and maybe the new blood can finally accept some of their Experience, for a stronger product.

I am not going to fight about it. I have thought about it alot. I started to support Obama in January.

Chuck

McCain might get SOME of the Reagan Democrats. Obama hasn't alientated ALL of them though Clinton did do well with MANY of them. If McCain alienates SOME of the religious right, he'll have to pick up votes elsewhere on the spectrum and that will have to be from the Independents. Bush's father lost 2nd term because he failed with the religious right. Bush II learned to "work" them.

Now McCain has given back the endorsement of Hagee because of the comment about Hitler and the Jews, yet conservative Jews are now rallying around McCain, presumably because they're part of that Christian/Jewish conservative coalition that believes in the Rapture and takes the Bible literally, which scares me as much as Al Quaida.

McCain has a Bush fundraiser in Phoenix that had to move to a smaller venue and I have emailed myself a long article about the uphill climb for McCain's campaign. Yet my son believes this country would even "buy" a McCain/Lieberman ticket. Woo Boy.

Chuck,

I'm just telling you how I 'took' her comments together. And yes, that's exactly why I believe it was a serious mistake because I'm not the only one who heard her words that way.

What it boils down to is that communication is a two way street. She may have said one thing and meant another. Or maybe the combination of recent events coupled with the word, "Assassination..."

As I stated...I don't believe she intended it to be more than a history 'lesson' but when the word 'assassination' is tossed out regarding a person who she is embattled with...

Sorry Chuck. It may be a stretch of the imagination for both of us. But it sounded like a Freudien slip to me.

It also doesn't help that Huckabee made a threat towards Obama at the NRA convention. That's extremely inappropriate and yet nobody has done diddly-squat to him!

Regarding offenses by Obama. I would hope that the threat of 4 years with McCain would make Reagan Democrats realize they have to give a little too-and all of us have to stop fighting and unite against McCain.

Chuck
You have to also consider that Hillary may have alienated some of the African American and what Begala called the Egghead vote (latte drinking elite) - I have a PhD but grew up in a trailer court. I am a self-made elite. Hillary can't "assume" such people will vote for her, nor can people like Maria Cantwell and Patti Murray, though many of us probably would. Doesn't mean we would work hard for and donate as much money as we could, as we might have had we not been at least partially alienated.

Obama and Hillary attract different constituencies, as Feinstein says. Schumer and some others think they should run together but there is alot of sentiment against that. Now I know that the loud and vociferous voices of the internet/blogosphere can't be said to represent the rest of the country.

Chuck
I am glad you have come here to talk. McCain is encouraging bloggers from his camp to go to places like DailyKos. I was deleted off the Clinton blog and I didn't say anything bad. I only talked about the pitfalls of voting in protest for McCain.

This all reminds me of Kerry v Dean but I don't think it ever got this bad. That is one of the bad parts of stringing the campaign out til June or later.

On the other hand, all of this may be a distraction away from McCain.

NMP:

That whole "Independent" label is always a riddle to me. I mean, is a Green the same thing as a Libertarian? Not in my experience!

I am thinking on the rest. I am no longer partisan. With the legistlative safely Democrat I am no longer worried about the GOP. I think they learned their lesson about Hubris.

Some, all, many....

You put your finger right on it! It is a weird situation and a new day. I'm back where I was in 1992....

Chuck in Houston

NMP:

You got in three or so posts while I was composing my one!

More in a second....

Why did I quit smoking? It's just going to make me draw more non-existing social security!!!!

Chuck in Houston

Here is the article about weaknesses in the McCain camp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/us/politics/25mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I was state typing champion for South Dakota in 2000 plus Betty Crocker Homemaker of the Year.

Chuck
Glad you quit smoking. Please tell my husband how.

Chuck,

Trust me when I say that I'm sorry what happened to Clinton happened. I would have liked to have voted for a woman, but for me, she changed from the woman I liked in the 90's to the woman who ran these last few years.

That was important to me.

I didn't start out as an Obama supporter. And regardless, I am more in the middle just watching both sides. I don't feel involved in either campaign.

What I do know is that the primaries got mean and BOTH candidates and their supporters said something or did something to piss off the other side.

The thing is that McCain is corrupt. He's going to hurt this country as much as Bush did. The only difference is that he'll KNOW it; whereas, Bush is probably drugged somewhere and is in lala land.

I hope you understand what I'm saying. But it's up to US to shake off any splitting of the Democratic party and to put aside anger or resentment.

I hope that Hillary's comment will not impact her future as Senate leader or Justice or whatever she has her hopes on. But I think it's definitely going to affect her presidential campaign.

I'm Going to bed now...

NMP:

Obama alienated Clinton Democrats and Clinton alienated Kennedy Democrats. They both did this on purpose to play to their bases. That is normal. In addition, Obama played the race card, which put him over the top (in a race-neutral setting, both white and black working class would have been a Clinton advantage -- I could speak to that more if you want but at this point I think that is water under the bridge and there really is no point). So he will probably win the primaries on that basis, which is OK, a win is a win. But, in doing so, it is, indeed, a victory of the "egg heads and the african americans" against everybody else in the party. Now, to take that into the generals is to play to Democrat weaknesses -- we have the base (egg-heads and AA's, if you will), but how do we extend that into an electoral majority? Or is this a Rovian tactic of "motivate the base?" I am thinking as I type....

Chuck in Houston

Sparrow:

Likewise, at the beginning, I sort of liked Obama. The happenings have sort of given me pause. I guess I am finally an independent!

Chuck in Houston

Chuck
I trust you are right. I read Nedra Pickler's article today and found out who were the chief strategists behind the campaigns - I'm not talking about people like David Axelrod or Mark Penn but the people who go even deeper. As far as Clinton vs Kennedy Democrats, this is nothing new. What is new is what strategy to use in terms of electoral votes. Demographics are changing as is technology and we also have all the wild cards such as terror alerts, though I hope the Republicans have learned that they can't step in the same river twice. We know too well the myths of The Boy Who Cried Wolf and The Emperor's New Clothes.

If it's any consolation, the Republicans are having a parallel problem, as you alluded - how to position between the "swing" voters and the religious right.

Chuck
An independent may not be a bad place to be. At least you are aware of the factions in the party.

NMP:

For the record and against interest, some of my friends and most of my enemies would characterize me as an egg-head. But none of them were Hosford GS 1975.

Chuck in Houston

Chuck
I'm kind of an egghead but I do not come from the same background as most. So far, it has given me an edge in certain situations. I actually identify with both Clinton and Obama. Like Clinton, I am Irish. LIke Obama, I have been on food stamps but got an advanced degree.

At least not to my face.

Strength in swing states:

Obama Shows Strength in Swing States (with MAPS)
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/24/233549/533

Chuck
"Egghead" is not the insult it seems. It means smart.

GOP Strategists Mull McCain "Blowout"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10585.html

I'm ready to have the Clintons, Gore - whomever - as "assets" - and go to war against McCain.

NMP:

On the smoking thing, there is nothing to tell him. Not smoking is much worse than smoking except you feel morally superior and your insurance goes down. Check back in a year or so and I'll let you know if there is any physical manifestation of that. On the other hand, this Welbutrin (sp?) drug did help me quit. You take it and it makes you very edgy but you do not feel nicotine withdrawls.

Chuck in Houston

Sparrow:

That's funny! I didn't like Hillary in the 90's but I like her now! Seems like we crossed paths on that somewhere -- me on the Hillary upswing and you on the Hillary down-swing. In fact, back then, I thought she should not run because I thought she didn't know retail politics. I thought she was just Bill's wife. Then, in the C-SPAN Senate hearings and the debates I saw a good mind there so I changed my mind. Of course, being a moderate Democrat, I was easy to convince on that. Silly me!

Chuck in Houston

The only people I saw playing a 'race card' is Hillarys people.

If you take away the blacks and 'eggheads' that leaves you with a white uneducated base.

How sad.

"Anyone that spins that otherwise, to my mind, is not being entirely honest."

And yet, we already know you will flat out defend her when she is lying.

The reason the argument is sooo damn offensive, is because it has become obvious that her only hopes of winning is if something bad happens, you know, like a bullet hits him.

And it would be her only shot at winning, because even if you seated Florida and Michigan, Obama still wins.

Unless, her hopes and dreams come true and someone kills him.

Chuck
He tried Welbutrin and the edginess was too much for him so he quit and went back to cigarettes but as far as I know he is not smoking but is on the patch - the smallest one. That's still nicotine in the blood but not lungs. How he'll wean off that I don't know. He's like a crack baby of cigarettes and his parents had huge ashtrays in the house and car ones too (in the old Cadillac) - kids started at age 12 or so.

Yes Hillary has a good mind and so does Bill. Just have gotten mixed feelings over the years because they have long careers. I started to support this new guy about the time Kerry endorsed him.

My son started early though (for Obama) and this is the oldest letter in my email box, from February 2007, from his friend Josh (who went to PA from WA for Barack, and his dad works with homeless vets):

Hi everyone,

It is very early in the presidential race but with all of the candidates already jumping in, raising money, campaigning, etc, I think its important to start thinking about which Democrat has the right stuff to lead the country and the right political skill to take back the White House. I'm not sure where you stand, if you support another candidate, or if you are simply waiting to support the nominee that emerges. In 2004 I did just that, wasn't particularly behind anyone, and when Kerry emerged triumphant he had my full enthusiastic support. I look at the field now and I have not a shred of doubt in my mind that I want Barack Obama to beat every Democratic contender in every primary state possible and go on to the general election to take out whoever the Republicans prop up. In order to do this he will need to gain as many supporters and raise as much money as he can starting NOW.

I love Hillary Clinton and will not remark on my reservations about her candidacy along with the other contenders such as Edwards and Richardson. I will only say that I sincerely believe Obama has what it takes to lead the country and is the best chance we have at taking back the White House from two terms of incompetent Republican rule. He has a magic about him that resonates with people and his story and vision will inspire the country to stand with him. I also think he's a fighter and will not sit down while Republicans try to swift boat him and raise questions about his credibility. The country wants new blood and bold vision to lead us out of the wilderness George Bush has created. Therefore I stand with Barack Obama in his fight for the nomination.

I have created a group on Obama's website (www.barackobama.com) called "Washingtonians for Obama 2008!" and it already has over 200 members since it was created this last weekend. You can look it up easily on his website by clicking on "Groups" and typing in your WA-based zip code. You'll see the pretty picture on the profile of the Space Needle and Mount Rainier in the background. If you are interested and either considering or fully supporting Obama's candidacy, I would encourage you to create a profile on his website and join this growing group of Washington residents who are jumping on the Obama bandwagon!

Thank you and keep up the good fight!

Josh Castle

A Memo to Senator Obama
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138611/page/3

This was placed on his website with the comment:

REALLY good stuff in this article. Especially on the last page about how to connect with "working class white" people in Appalachia and elsewhere by using socioeconomic status affirmative action rather than racial affirmative action. Apparently BO has already alluded to suggesting this and I think it would be very effective in his campaigning.

I hope HQ reads this (or better yet, they probably have already got everything in this article on their agenda!).

Here is what it says and it brings me back to when I was young and lived in one of the poorest states (South Dakota) - JFK had grants to the poorest schools & I was a direct beneficiary & it was based on poverty not race.

Here's the Memo:

You need an issue that plays against prejudice or typecasting. Affirmative action is deeply unpopular with white, working-class voters who see African-Americans bestowed with privileges long denied poor whites. You've suggested—obliquely, but nonetheless provocatively—that you might prefer seeing affirmative action for disadvantaged whites rather than black elites, noting that you wouldn't expect your private-school-educated daughters to need an admissions break at college. Taking a stand for affirmative action based on socioeconomic class rather than race would send a powerful signal.

These are not messages that can just be handed down from on high, from network studios or mass urban rallies. Lyndon Johnson went to Appalachia before launching the War on Poverty; Robert Kennedy went into the hollows of mining towns in his crusade against child hunger. You need to go there, too. You can sound a little haughty at times, and it is crucial that you do not condescend to voters who are proud and self-reliant but have not had your breaks in life.

Sen. Jim Webb, the ex-Marine elected from Virginia, noted recently on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that his people, the Scots-Irish who so heavily populate the hills of Appalachia, are like "tortured siblings of black Americans. They both have a long history and they both missed the boat when it came to larger benefits that a lot of people were able to receive." If poor rural whites and African-Americans could sit down together, they would find that they have much in common. When you visit West Virginia and Kentucky, you could begin that conversation with some town meetings. Webb has also observed that the Scots-Irish hill folk are by nature scrappers and fighters. That's one reason they admired Hillary and voted for her. You need to show them you are a fighter, too—and that you will fight for them.

With Richard Wolffe, Suzanne Smalley, Holly Bailey and Sarah Kliff

This link opens to page one and I'm going to read the whole thing thoroughly and then go to bed. I have insomnia.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/138611/page/1

By the way, the Shepard Fairey poster I bought for $70 is now out of print and selling on eBay for $401 so far.

http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/2008/05/shepard-faireys.html

From Harold Ford, Jr.
"Go Meet them Senator"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138511

I found my soulmate:

I've been fighting insomnia so went online to check if we got any more super delegates today and again I am hit by how the internet allows for the most vile, anonymous hate spewing and I just want to urge my fellow Obama supporters to edit themselves in the same way Senator Obama has conducted his campaign. With dignity and class, not nameless bashing. I have been waiting to call Obama my President since 2004 but what is happening between Clinton and Obama supporters online is ugly and I think we should all take a lesson from Barack and take the high road. In another few days or weeks we can all celebrate his nomination but can we try and do it without slinging mud? In order to bring the party together we have to proceed with humility and grace if we are going to convince Clinton supporters that we all have more in common with each other than against one another.

OMFG!

To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ENEMY_COMBATANT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-05-24-09-57-22

Source: McClatchy

In a week of dramatic developments in the Middle East, the most dramatic development of all may have been the fact that the United States, long considered the region's indispensable player, was missing in action.

As its closest allies cut deals with their adversaries this week over the Bush administration's opposition, Washington was largely reduced to watching.

More painful for President Bush, friends he's cultivated — and spent heavily on — in Lebanon and Iraq asked the United States to remain in the background, underlining how politically toxic an association with the U.S. can be for Arab leaders.

.....

Others said that by refusing to talk to adversaries and using bristling "with-us-or-against-us" rhetoric, Bush has cut his administration out of the game.. Under Bush, U.S. diplomats have had few substantive discussions with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah or the militant Palestinian group Hamas, which in 2006 won elections that the White House had pushed for.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/38319.html

A woman president in the White House will be nothing like Hillary Clinton

The next major female presidential candidate will be well advised to stuff any errant husband into a rucksack and chuck him down a laundry chute.

Camille Paglia

An observation from across the Atlantic......which should help to reassure the worry worts who are paying too much attention to the Clinton-spun MSM (mainstream media) in the US.......

It's 11:30 AM, Saturday, May 24th, and I've just watched a rebroadcast of last night's BBC program, "Newsnight." The main story was US foreign policy and what the world might expect to see from the next administration. There were clips shown of stump speeches and interviews with experts and an assessment of the current administration.

The show analyzed two possibilities - a McCain presidency or an Obama presidency - there was no discussion of a possible Clinton administration. Not only was it not discussed, the name "Clinton" was never spoken, not even once.

Oh yes, she did merit a minute of coverage on the regular BBC news broadcast, which showed her RFK gaffe and subsequent attempt to explain. The introduction to the clip was something like, "Clinton's worst 24 hours yet."

An American in Europe,
Laurie Singh
Brussels, Belgium

Meanwhile in Europe at a book event, Jimmy Carter told Reuters:

"I'm a superdelegate ... I think a lot of the superdelegates will make a decision quite, announced quite rapidly, after the final primary on June 3," he told Sky News. "I have not yet announced publicly, but I think at that point it will be time for her to give it up," Carter said.

Read more: http://www.silencedmajority.blogs.com

My son will march down the aisle to Quincy Jones.
Jessica Lange told Sarah Lawrence students to work for peace.

Now if you go to this link here and now, you can see Barack Obama address the students of Wesleyan University in place of Ted Kennedy, who had to cancel.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream2

BTW, I would love to convince clinton supporters that we have more in common than what sets us apart.

HOWEVER, that is slightly difficult to do while hillary is up there saying 'Maybe I can win if someone will shoot him!'.

And what do her supporters do? Just like when she was caught outright lying repeatedly about sniper fire, here they come to justify it with the lamest excuses they can find.

The clinton supporters who are threatening to vote mccrazy... LET THEM. If any self respecting democrat can honestly turn down Obama to go vote for mccrazy, then what the hell kind of democrat are they and why should ANY OF US care to make nice with them when they obviously are willing to put liars and crooks above a good man?

Even if half of hillarys supporters go mccrazy or stay home Obama still wins. Their threats ring as hollow as their excuses for her does.

Just a wild thought:

Now that Hillary made her comments about RFK and Obama has said it is time to move on, and has been complimentary to the achievements about her campaign does that increase the possibility that Obama and Hillary could or would run on the same ticket? i.e is he trying to help her bury the hatchet and if they do, will he offer and will she accept?

Christy
We have to make sure there are enough people who are NOT voting for McCain directly or voting for McCain indirectly (as a protest vote against themselves, especially women.)

They would have to vote against health care and schools for their kids, against choice, against the environment (he has lame programs), and for more war, more downfall of America's reputation.

I still have this CNN Live player on and it has the Libertarian Convention in Denver so some entertaining nutjobs. (I am only Libertarian when it comes to a couple of things I don't like the government involved in that involve privacy and person) My brother is doing stage and lights for them. Maybe someone will convince him because once he went to a fundie camp with a neighbor and came home "born again" but it only lasted 2 weeks.

Obama got an Honorary Degree in Law as well as delivering the address.

OnCall
I read that Obama's search committee has been working on VP picks. When I can find info on who has backed him early on, I am impressed with what I find. I am reading all I can on his organization and McCain's. I imagine there should be some bridge between the Kennedy and Clinton Dem clans that Chuck mentioned. This has gone on for years. I don't like how moderate the party got under Clinton/Gore, because I'm a liberal not a moderate. Even the right has to move more to the left and that would be McCain, but he also needs to lose. He needs to be enough left of far right to ditch the religious conservatives without picking up too many swing voters/Independents/moderate Democrats. Fortunately, Obama does well with Independents and Republicans in some sectors and is moving up some in states that need to be competitive. The hard group is Dems who score high on "racial resentment." Clinton is not the only running mate who could help there, as there is Webb, Nunn etc. (too conservative for me but big improvement over Cheney) - who knows. Did the Clintons want power back? Maybe it's true what they say about power corrupting absolutely. How many countries have coups and then the coup leaders become greedy .. seems America though has been working on a coup in the Democratic party for a long time, since Hart then Dean etc & this one has the support of Kerry Kennedy Gephardt Daeschle etc.

Also I am a liberal and most of my friends are progressives, so vote their consciences, support third parties, go outside the Dems. I'm more of a reform Dem. It leads to some interesting arguments. I'm just one of those people who would like to see more of our taxes spent on health and education and less on war preparation. It's pretty simple.

The Fall of Conservatism
http://www.truthout.org/article/the-fall-conservatism

See at the end where McCain has to wimp out re conservatism because the country won't elect an arch conservative any more?

I hope he's true but yet that we don't end up with him.

I am going to register voters today at FolkLife and if people seem to be already registered I will work on those "leaning Nader" types or those "feminist protest" votes as I've done time in those sectors & have my "hairy armpit degree" and so on already decades ago.

NMP,

After reading your comments, I think Obama must be your choice. So the question then becomes: if Obama does pick Clinton and she accepts (another big if), does he have a better chance of beating McCain or do the Republicans unleash not just both barrels of the attack machine, or do they drop the atomic bomb? And if they drop the bomb, do too many Americans accept the distortions and lies and vote for McCain? Always interesting to speculate, isn't it?

Have you seen the latest poll numbers NMP?

The only ones voting for mccrazy are the lunatics. The gop is no longer g.

And, suddenly, finally, all the sane people are awake, aware, and moving to the voting booth for an election that will be remembered forever among our people.

I understand the fear of an inparty split. But for 1 the fear itself is counterproductive, and for 2, it is about damn time democrats get rid of the dinos.

Only a totally bitter and ignorant assh*le would vote for mccrazy at this point, or even threaten to. Frankly, I am sick of those people. And if they want to 'leave' the party, then get the hell out and go vote for mccrazy then, even though they know damn well they are voting for a monster, that is for THEM to live with. Not me because I will be voting for the guy that wins.

Like I said, even if half of hillarys supporters stay home or go mccrazy,... Obama still wins.

This country is poised to purge ANYONE who in any way remotely acts like they are in support of our current policies. Republican OR democrat.

And if Obama puts a CLINTON on the ticket, well, what about that says 'change'...? Because that is STILL ANOTHER bush or clinton to continue on the long unbroken line of bush or clintons being in power.

And if her only way to the VP slot is to threaten to send her voters to mccrazy... Let her threaten away. Because it will not matter one bit at the polls, but she will be remembered for it forever.

It is no damn wonder the republicans are freaking out, because the polls do not just show them being swept out of power, it foretells a massacre, and extinction of the GOP that may last the rest of our lifetime.

What I do not understand is why, before she ruined her own reputation, why did she not bow out and head up a NEW political party? She could have broken the two party system all by her little self, yet instead she would rather be a dino and attack Obama with ever tactic known to republicans.

It is going to be damn hard to heal the rift between the two camps, but at some point you have to ask, why bother? It has become a waste of time, focus, and energy. It has become stupid redundant. And the daily insults to our collective intellegence are just not freaking worth it.

I would rather spend my time whipping mccrazys arse than arguing with hillarys supporters about why she can not break the rules, lie repeatedly, shoot her opponant, ect. ect. ect.

If they don't get it by now, it is because they don't want too. They refuse too. Again.. total waste of time we don't have.

This paragraph is pivotal (from the above cited article on Fall of Conservatism):

Obama, of course, is an entirely different personality in a different time, but the interminable primary campaign has shown his coalition to look very much like McGovern's: educated, upper-income liberal voters; blacks; and the young. Nixon beat McGovern among the latter even after the Twenty-sixth Amendment lowered the voting age to eighteen; but times have changed so drastically that, according to Pew Research Center surveys, almost sixty per cent of voters under thirty now identify more strongly with the Democrats, doubling the Party's advantage among the young over Republicans since 2004. And the demographic work of John Judis and Ruy Teixeira in their 2002 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," showed that the McGovern share of the electorate - minorities and educated professionals working in post-industrial jobs - is expanding far faster than the white working class. This was the original vision of a McGovern adviser named Fred Dutton, whose 1971 book, "Changing Sources of Power: American Politics in the 1970s," cited by Perlstein, foresaw a rising "coalition of conscience and decency" among baby boomers. The new politics was an electoral disaster in 1972, but it may finally triumph in 2008.

OnCall
I support Obama since this January. Prior to that time I was undecided. I was influenced strongly by the Kennedy and Kerry endorsements and by the ability to overcome alot of challenges. I'm not worried so much by what will be on the surface, as I think what lies below it is much more interesting and important. Demographics, demographics, demographics. Also, McCain has plenty of skeletons.

If Obama picks clinton, every single person that believed him when he said 'change' will feel betrayed.

And they should.

Stephanopolous actually confronts KARL ROVE! HAHA!

Rove Issues Non-Denial Of Role In Seigelman Case: ‘I Read About It In The Newspaper’

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House aide Karl Rove to determine his knowledge and role in the decision to prosecute former Democratic governor of Alabama Don Siegelman.

ABC’s This Week host George Stephanopolous asked Rove if he was directly or indirectly involved in Siegelman’s prosecution. Having trouble coming up with a coherent explanation, Rove simply offered this legalistic non-denial denial. “I learned about Don Siegelman’s prosecution by reading about it in the newspaper,” Rove said.

When Stephanopolous continued to press Rove about his involvement in the case, Rove stuttered and stammered, then responded by again saying he learned about it in the newspaper. Stephanopolous astutely noted, “That’s not a denial”:

STEPHANOPOLOUS: But to be clear, you did not contact the Justice Department about this case?

ROVE: I read about — I’m going to simply say what I’ve said before which is, I found out about Don Siegelman’s investigation and indictment by reading about it in the newspaper.

STEPHANOPOLOUS: But that’s not a denial.

ROVE: Uh. I’ve — I’ve — I’ve — uh — you know, I read about it. I heard about it, read about it, learned about it for the first time by reading about it in the newspaper.

Watch it:

Trying to defend himself, Rove said “everyone who was supposedly on that telephone call” — which points to Rove’s involvement in the case — says it “never took place.” But when Stephanopolous pointed out that there is a cell phone record of the call, Rove had nowhere to go.

Unfortunately for Rove, dealing with the House Judiciary Committee isn’t going to be as easy as ducking questions on a Sunday talk show. As committee chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said recently, “We’re closing in on Rove. Someone’s got to kick his ass.”

Think Progress. org

And, suddenly, finally, all the sane people are awake, aware, and moving to the voting booth for an election that will be remembered forever among our people.

I sure as hell hope so Christy, we have waited 8 friking years for the sane people to finally wake up/

NMP,

Unless Obama, and mostly his surrogates, decide not to campaign with a message highlighting McCain's hypocrisy, it really wont matter if McCain's closet is stuffed to the ceiling with bones.

Christy,

Let me ask you, would you vote for Obama if he picked Hillary? I would, but it would leave me a bit uncomfortable.

Montana's huge black population gives Obama the edge
by kos

Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:29:02 PM PDT

Census numbers:

Black Persons, 2006: 0.4%
White Persons, 2006: 90.8%

The rest are either Latino (2.5%) or Native American (6.4%).

Montana is also the nation's fifth poorest state. It's poor, it's white, and has no African Americans to speak of. Therefore, if what the Clinton campaign and its apologists say is correct, if what the political news media tell me is accurate, Clinton should have another 30-point blowout in store. Right?

Mason-Dixon for Lee Newspapers. 5/19-21. Likely Democratic primary voters. MoE 5% (12/17-19 results)

Obama 52 (17)
Clinton 35 (29)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/25/131838/888/200/522548

By the way, I would vote for an Obama/Hillary ticket - I voted for Gore/Lieberman. Kind of burned out on Darth Cheney and his puppet though so hope there wouldn't be some kind of wierd behind-the-scenes pressure. Tired of invisible shadow government. Obama/Hillary would remind me of some of the wierd power-sharing agreements they end up with in other countries. Like Musharaf was supposed to share with Bhutto and .. oops .. won't go there.

By the way, Vanity Fair already has an RFK cover. Everything needs to get settled soon or there will be an awkwardness. & everyone needs to stop worrying about Obama as every President is endangered from something. There is a reason the airspace is closed off when Bush/Cheney travel and they only play small venues. We just don't hear about it. It will be interesting some day if some Secret Service Agent Man decides to write a tell-all.

Did you guys see front cover of the New Yorker?

Guy walks through the airport screening thing starkers.

(from Seattle for Obama)

Just imagine if this woman said this about Bush.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for MurderVincent Bugliosi, 05.19.2008

To discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous. But we are dealing with the president of the United States here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html

Yes I would vote for him even if she is VP, but then again, I really would not have a choice either.

Would I?

Like you I would feel very uncomfortable and I would never ever fully trust him again because I will never trust her.

Bush VP, bush VP, Bush Prez. Clinton Prez. Clinton prez. Bush prez. and now AGAIN a clinton VP?

Hell no, not if you are serious about change.

Like you I would feel very uncomfortable and I would never ever fully trust him again because I will never trust her.

Amen.

(photo by DiAnne Grieser, taken at Seattle International Folklife Festival 25 May 2008)

Powerful Shiite Cleric Forbids Selling Americans Food In Iraq

Flashback: "We Will Be Greeted As Liberators"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/25/shiite-cleric-al-sistani_n_103493.html

Arlington West, Santa Monica, California, today:

Colonel Ann Wright speaks out

CODEPINK LA banner drop

Actor Ed Asner delivers a fiery speech

I spent some time with Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin of CODEPINK (Medea recognized me from our previous meeting in San Francisco), as well as Col. Ann Wright. They have strong praises for DCP and Karen's work!

Check my blog for details:
http://rachelkso.blogspot.com/2008/05/arlington-west.html

Hmm photos didn't work... :( Check the link to my blog for the photos. Sorry!

50 delegates need over the next week

http://www.baracklikeme.blogspot.com

Defend the Constitution that Georgie and his band of thugs, have so deliberately set out to destroy.

Military Chief Warns Troops About Politics

“As the nation prepares to elect a new president,” Admiral Mullen wrote, “we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/us/politics/26military.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1211785916-5bbxiqbH+mAONj+nNkqX8A

Now clintons people are saying the assasination remark was all Obamas fault for taking it 'out of context'.

Funny, cause me too, every time I suggest someone could be assasinated, they get all upset and say it means something. I mean, really, how dare they?!

Assassination is a taboo topic because of our brutal history and the fine line between talking about something uncomfortable and being heard as making a veiled threat.

While I doubt Clinton meant that, her timing and sensitivity were so poor that some interpreted it as a Freudian slip. She said the same thing in Time magazine in March and it went largely unnoticed but this late in the game, any gaffe or strange out-of-context remark by anyone will be pounced on by rabid press, opposition researchers and warring activists.

There is a new front page thread.

I agree it was more a matter of her tin ear than a real wish that something bad could happen... BUT... as you point out, she has said it before. Which takes it into the relm of the creepy.

But her lack of sensitivity and her bad timing is the problem. It is a problem that consistantly happens to her, and most of us are still shocked at what a...sloppy... politician she has become. She needs to shut up now.

Once you are in the hole, best to stop digging.

Also, as far as assasination being taboo, it reminds me of that Vietnam exchange we had recently.

Perhaps if we actually ignored the taboo, and fully discussed the matter anyway, it would not only break the fear but it would finally put us in a position to fully be honest about history and asses our future realisticaly.

We can torture people, yet talking about it is taboo. We can unjustly start a war and get over a million people killed, but punishing anyone for it is taboo. We can set up things like the World Court, but talk of subjecting our own leaders to it is taboo.

I can not watch TV without some chick in a bikini trying to sell me car wax, but a nipple is so taboo, we can not even tolerate a breastfeeding mother in public.

My God! Don't pull out your booby it is taboo! The baby will stop crying eventually.

I mean, really, at what point do we say 'To hell with your taboos, and your need for nice truths, we are going to solve these problems in spite of your shocked sensabilities!'

At what point does our fear of a taboo make us look like the most stupid and cravenly 'free people' on earth? I would say too damn late for that. So, we may as well talk about it.

ALLLLL of it.

Screw taboo. Our inability to break taboos is what got us into this damn situation in the first place.

World leaders make gaffes all the time, but it would definitely be nice to have someone out there who is intelligent, sane, thoughtful, calm out there.

new shirt

Clinton's comment about RFK was a sure sign of fatigue and a self perceived victimhood that she has cultivated ever since Iowa. The fact that she said the same thing in March confirms that she felt she was a victim early in her campaign. Her "emotional" response to the woman in New Hampshire who asked Clinton how she keeps going was one of the best political con jobs I have seen in a long time, and ever since that moment, she has been playing that card as often as she possibly can. Other than Obama saying Clinton is "likable enough", I challenge anybody to show me when Obama himself suggested that because Hillary is a woman, she could not be President.

With all that being said, I believe that Obama will choose Clinton to be his Vice President. Like he said at his campaign stop in Florida, he wants to form the best possible government that he can, and to him that may mean choosing Clinton to run with him. Similarly, he may do best to keep his "enemies" closer to him.

With all that being said, I believe that Obama will choose Clinton to be his Vice President. Like he said at his campaign stop in Florida, he wants to form the best possible government that he can, and to him that may mean choosing Clinton to run with him. Similarly, he may do best to keep his "enemies" closer to him.

I hope not Ocall, America loses if he does that, it will be the same old same old, and I could not imagine he would let the millions of voters that put him where he is today, down that way.

I just do not think that he will do that, but then again, I would not have believed that Georgie could have stolen two elections.

kangaroo,

I misspoke by making such a declarative statement, but I can see it happening.

I don't disagree with your assessment that it would not be what most of his supporters would want. Personally, I just want him to be President. If Hillary is the price he has to pay, so be it. I have no doubts that she would be a distraction during his Presidency, but she has proven herself to be tough as nails on the campaign trail. To me the bigger question could or would she be satisfied in the role of subordinate? However, he is trying to get elected President and there are political realities that one has to consider. I recall him saying during his run for the Senate that he had no intention of running for President during his first Senate term. Politics.....

I think if Obama choses Hillary it will only be after he has a face to face look with BOTH Clintons. They will have to come to terms with Bill's role and with Hillary's role. They will have to come to terms with the Clinton's 'friendship' with the Bush's and any investigation of the Bush's! And they will have to make sure that Bill knows WHO is in charge.

Yes, they have to represent change and it's awfully hard to represent change with Hillary on the ticket. So I guess that's going to have to be another issue to have decided ahead of time.

Obama also has to make sure that Hillary and Bill don't use their media resources to back-stab him.

Every reason he has for picking her is counter intuitive.

Any benefit he gains for it, will be overshadowed by how much he has to lose by her hanging around.

If you were about to pick a VP, would you really pick someone who's marriage is a constant source of piblic discourse?

And really, if she is VP how will he ever get anything done between her anticipating his assasination and bills bimbo eruptions...?

I just do not see in any way where the benefit of picking her outwieghs the downside.

Not only that, but rightly or wrongly, bill clinton WAS impeached.

What kind of attack is just waiting for her as vp when her husband was IMPEACHED...?

Anyways, does ANYONE really want to relive all of that, impeachment, monica, all over again and again for the next 4 or 8 years?

Christy,

You make excellent points. I am sure Obama has considered them and then some.

But am I getting ahead of myself? Is she going to go the convention still claiming she should be the nominee? Or will the party leaders tell her the gig is up?

NMP:

I don't know about you, but I think that Camilia Paglia or however you spell that is a weird chick. Not my cup of tea anyway.

Christy:

Bill Clinton was wrongly impeached. That is all there is to it. If you support that wrong, then you support it. Tom Delay is your man in that case.

Also, anyone construing Clinton's remarks on RFK other than to point out that past primaries have run into June is, how can I put this nicely, either lying or being ... (I am trying to think of a nice way to put this).

Chuck in Houston

Christy:

Also, I for one would like to relive the 1990's. At leat this time I would know it was OK to invest my money in the US economy!

DChuck in Houston

In general, why alienate potential allies with gossip and innuendo? What is the point to that?

Chuck you had no problem with her flat out lying repeatedly. Your observations on who is lying now is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.

And yes, he was WRONGLY impeached, which is why I added 'rightly or wrongly'. But even wrongly it still does not matter when the point is, it is just yet another example of the constant bullshit we have to put up with every time a clinton walks into the room.

Christy:

To me, what you just said is bullshit. What did any Clinton ever lie about? I know a few things Obama lied about but I don't want to go there. What's the point? So what did any Clinton lie about? To save time, I'll admit that Monica had a stain on her dress and that Hillary was not shot at in Bosnia. Anything else you might come up with is sheer innuendo, I would guess.

Chuck in Houston

"So what did any Clinton lie about? To save time, I'll admit that Monica had a stain on her dress and that Hillary was not shot at in Bosnia."

Oh, you mean other than THOSE LIES...

Christy:

Yes, I mean other than that.

Chuck in Houston

Thank you for proving my point.

Now, if your were a fair person, you could address Obama's evolving position vis-a-vis his church or even his evolving position on the Iraq war or gas taxes or anything else. Or, in a more general fashion, you could simply admit that no one is perfect.

Christy:

Likewise, thank you for proving mine.

Chuck in Houston

Obamas church is not any of my damn business. I came up around black preachers and his black preacher does not offend nor scare me. You are going to have to do better than that if you want me to believe somehow Obamas relationship with GOD is in question.

Evolving position on Iraq. Let's see, he was against it before he was MORE against it.

No one is perfect, but not everyone get IMPEACHED FOR LYING. But I am sure if we all did, you would defend us all.

You don't have a point Chuck, other than to defend the clintons, even when you have to admit they are liars yourself.

There is no point to this. Which is exactly why hillary needs to go home and shut up so people like you are not left trying to defend the indefensible.

Christy:

Huh? I guess you don't know what Obama said in 2004 on Iraq. I also guess you don't know that lying is not an impeachable offense.

Chuck

Cut it out, everyone. There's plenty of time to figure who lied and when.

Listen, when I sit in a hearing on the Hill and watch no one even blink an eye when someone from the GAO says there are two sets of numbers--the ones we see and the ones they see--it tells me we have absolutely NO IDEA if and when we are being lied to.

All we can do is read and think it all through and observe what we can.

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but not his/her facts. The facts are those things we can prove. Throwing opinions back and forth does not reveal any actual facts.

Christy:

On a larger level, why do you care about what I want to defend? On topic, why ought people like me go home and shut up?

Chuck in Houston

PS: And maybe even more interesting, what might happen if we did?

I know what Obama said in 2004.

And no lying is not an impeachable offense, unless, you know, they impeach you for it.

BTW, when will you clintonites put the blame for the lies clinton told to get himself impeached ON CLINTON..?

Oh, yeah, that is right. Yall are republican light so lying is not the sin, getting caught is.

I disagree Karen.

The time to deal with the lies are NOW. Before they go any further.

Christy:

OK, so impeachment means you have the majority in the House. I can live with that. It's dysfunctional, but it is within established procedures. Like I said, if you are with Tom Delay, I can see where you are coming from. If you are not, I don't get it.

By the way, if you want all your political representatives to to be some sort of moral paragons that have never told a lie in their lives, then I pity you and all the poor fools that could live under such a theology.

Chuck in Houston

BTW Karen.

I had an offer on the Bhutto portrait I did. But I didn't take it, mostly because I didn't like the offer I guess, but also I have been thinking about something...

Ever since I painted her, I can not help but feel she belongs with the Gandhi portrait. They are in the same basic colors, so they match physically, but also .... I guess it is like Yin and Yang. A Pakistani and Insian martyr, they belong together.

So... Before I put it away again, I was going to ask you if you wanted it to go with Gandhi?

Christy:

On another level, Bhutto and Ghandi belong together because both familiies are dynasties in their respective countries.

Chuck in Houston

So now I am 'with' Tom Delay.

Why not Hitler...?

Pathetic. I mean really, that is so sad I don't even know what to say except 'Bite me.'

"By the way, if you want all your political representatives to to be some sort of moral paragons that have never told a lie in their lives, then I pity you and all the poor fools that could live under such a theology."

I CAN NOT TELL A LIE!

I CUT DOWN THE FREAKING CHERRY TREE!

Oh, yes, what poor fools we must be to believe our leaders be some sort of MORAL PARAGON.

I mean, that is worse than being called elite or unamerican, or tom delay!

Your defense of a liar has come to the point of treating with CONTEMPT the thought that our elected officials BE HONEST.

All I can do is Thank GOD I am not you.

Christy:

You can say bite me. I guess I can say the same, except I don't want to be bitten. To be techincal, while Hilter did not vote to impeach Bill Clinton, Tom Delay did, hence the reference. Christy -- check back with me after November if you want and I am sure I will be able to supply you with a lie told by the POTUS-elect, whomever that might be.

Chuck in Houston

Christy:

Likewise. I don't even want to think about the moral gyrations I would have to go through to support the liars you seem to support.

Chuck in Houston

You still just don't get it, do you?

If you can selectively dismiss her lies, anyone elses lies you point out is suspect simply because you are selectively doing so.

If you are so willing to defend her lies, why does Obamas percieved lies seem to offend you so? Your bias is totally relevent.

You will defend her lies, will you also lie for her?

Christy:

Both of them lie. That is my point. Both of them tell the truth. That is also my point. When you say she lies, it only makes me think how much he lies. If you were to emphasize how much he told the truth, I might be more disposed to underline where she told the truth. Why are we enemies? We must be friends.

Chuck in Houston

Funny how you don't bring up Obamas 'lies' here. No, instead you simply say we are all liars if we point out she is a liar.

You bring up wright, rezko, his CHURCH... all of the manufactured CRAP republicans use to smear someone out of a race, but you have yet to point out any actual 'lie' Obama told. You simply hope insinuating he is lying is enough to bring him to her moral level.

Just like when you said he 'played the race card'. The days where simply saying it and everyone will just believe he must have, because, he's black, those days are over. We all know who played the race card and her name is hillary, a demonstrable liar.

If you want to talk about Obama, fine, talk about Obama, because the rest of this reoublican crap you learned from your new bff lush limpball is becoming boring.

I am not your enemy Chuck.

I am not your friend either.

I love me and you love me, why not just leave it at that?

Christy:

"I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Chuck in Houston

Dear friend, enemy,
doubly am I beholden to you:
for it was your ceaseless attack
that drove me to the depths of my being
to find my true self -responsible, inviolable, precious.
But more than that, it is through trying to find
your most compassionate and protective core
within the mist of your supposed enmity
that I am plunged grieving, sobbing, breathless,
into intimate love for you
from which I emerge unvanquishable,
having drunk of the elixir of life.

How then can I but be utterly at your mercy?
I shall suffer in silence -not your slings and slander,
which were merely phantasms of my own creation;
nor for missing your friendship,
for I have been and am one with you;
but this futile loss of precious life
flung cheaply into the bog of sloth
to be compacted and thrown into the flames of purification.
There shall you be, friend; friendless
while I, your enemy, grieve your absence.

http://isaiahknows.blogspot.com/2006/08/ode-to-enemy.html

Christy:

Since you asked, Obama lied about his relationship with his preacher and he lied about his position on NAFTA. He lied that he is against the Iraq war and he lied about much more. So if you are against any of that and for him I guess you are a liar too.

And yes, he played the race card. Right after Iowa, which is to say, as soon as it became usefull. After that he got some 80-90 percent of the black vote. He is a liar. I might still vote for him though as he is a Democrat.

Chuck in Houston

Look, Everybody knows (that excludes the right wingnuts) that Bill Clinton was the victim of one of this country's most shameful political lynchings, but everybody also knows (and that includes the wingnuts) that what he did was incredibly stupid. And I think that everybody knows that what Hillary said about RFK was also pretty stupid, but that can not be extended to suggest that she was sending out a message that she wanted Obama assassinated. What most people don't know though is that Bill Clinton's nomination was essentially wrapped up by April, and that the California primary was inconsequential to the eventual outcome. Even Gerry Brown stopped campaigning, for all practical purposes, by May. And I also think that most people know that Obama does not agree with some of the ridiculous comments made by his pastor. But, the fact that he did not leave that Church also makes many people uncomfortable too. His eloquent speech on race relations notwithstanding, will not be enough to satisfy a lot of people who don't understand why he did not join another church.

Christy:

I read yours after I posted mine so I will close in the hopes that you will not judge me too harshly in the end. I just get my Irish up more than I ought too. I hope we are on the same side and I hope that everything is going to be allright.

Chuck in Houston

Bill Clinton took 83% of the black vote. But when a white man does it, it isn't playing the race card, it is called pandering.

When you say he lied about NAFTA you are not talking about the crap with the Candaians are you? Because they said it NEVER HAPPENED and I am sick of having to prove it but if I must, if that is what you are reffering too, then I will be happy to do so again.

He lied about his relationship with his PREACHER? Show us the lie, show us exactly how it was a lie, and then tell us why we would want to go there.

The relationship between a man and his preacher is only second to a man and his God. It is as intimate and private as a mans relationship with his wife.

Whatever is wrights problem is wrights problem, Obama has said repeatedly, strongly he disagrees and that is enough for me.

Unlike other people I don't need him to throw a preacher out of tower window to prove to me his 'relationship' is not what I have been told it was.

Christy:

I do not believe Obama will change NAFTA.

Chuck

You said he lied.

Either prove he is a liar, or this conversation take a sudden turn back into enemy territory.

Christy:

The lie with his preacher is quite simple. He said that what the preacher said was wrong. Then, when the preacher said no, you are crawfishing on me, Obama repudiated the preacher.

In other words, when Obama could no longer "slick-willy" the situation, he went after the preacher, at which point the preacher called him out for the hypocrite he is.

Just calling it the way I see it.

Chuck in Houston

For just a moment, let us just marvel at the hubris it takes to say this about Obama

"could no longer "slick-willy" the situation,"

Wow. I mean, freaking, wow.

And how in the hell is Obama disagreeing with his preacher a demonstration of HIM LYING...?

The reason he finally did repudiate wright is because wright wanted another 15 minutes and took it before a national audience, even after Obama strongly disagreed with him.

You have yet to prove in any way whatsoever that Obama opened his damn mouth and a LIE popped out.

And frankly, I think that is the whole point. You have NOTHING, except insinuations and half truths and speculation.

But then again, I suspected that was the hand you were holding all along.

Why did I ask you if you would also lie, in defense of her?

Every time you called Obama a liar, you were yourself LYING about him.

To SLANDER HIM.

When this party splits and the republican lights all wander off into the wilderness trying to figure out why their futures seem so dark and scary, I will personally make it a point to see you off Chuck, and wish you God Speed on your exodus.

Or is it exile?

Whatever.

Obama Lie 1: I am against NAFTA.

Obama Lie 2: I didn't know what my preacher was saying.

Obama Lie 3: LBJ had nothing to do with civil rights in the USA.

Obama Lie 4: The Clinton's are racists.

Which of the four points above do you deny?

Chuck in Houston

I mean freaking wow

Not even to mention what our foreign policy should be these days, or even how we might go about achieving energy independence.

Exodus....

I deny all of them, none of them are words Obama used. They are all the 'points' you somehow think will substitute as proof of him lying.

Show us whate he said, when he said it, how it was a lie, and then, just for good measure, include why these PERCIEVED lies are somehow more offensive to you than her lies are. Lies which can be handily documented.

Exodus ... Movement of the People:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NHbOqmNVm8

Your own credibility is now on the line Chuck. Which is exactly what I meant the other day when I said if you are in an awful position for an HONEST man to be n.

Can you PROVE Obama lied...?

Because so far you have not provided a single shred of actual PROOF.

Christy:

So, it is OK to put words in the mouths of Clintons and impute motives to them but we can't do that with the Obamas. OK. You deny that Obama is pro-NAFTA. That can be dis-proved. I am not going there but don't take my word for it. He is not an idiot. Of course through channels he told players in Canada and Mexico that his populist bullshit to get elected in the US was not the policy we would set.

On the preacher shit, Obama needed him to become a senator in Illinois, but once that became an embarrasment, he cut him loose. Exodus....

Likewise on LBJ and the charge that the Clintons and their supporters are racists. I say all of you that say that are trying to destroy the party! Just google it and you will see how many people hit the Clintons with that after NH. That entire issue was started by Obama, not Clinton, and the point was to win SC.

That's my take anyway. You all can think what you want.

Chuck in Houston

"Both of them lie. That is my point. "

I can prove she lied repeatedly. And we all know I can.

Either prove Obama is a liar, or you are the one lying just to slander him to other party members.

PROVE IT GODDAMN IT!

You have some nerve talking about who is going to destroy this party.

People like you are the reason it has become utterly corrupt and ineffective in the first place.

Do not doubt for a moment it will be an exile. A long, deep, and bitter one. Friend.

If you can not go in peace you will be escorted out by a new generation that is TIRED OF IT.

Christy:

"We all" know nothing. You can not prove one lie of Hillary Clinton. Not one. Obama lied repeadedly about his relationship with his pastor. (No, I can't prove that, though I can aduce numerous links).

I can prove, I can prove, I can prove, I can prove....

Bullshit. None of us can prove such things.

Chuck in Houston

Hillary caught red-handed lying about being under sniper fire after she landed in Tuzla, Bosnia in 1996

WITH VIDEO OF HER DOING IT.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/22/161812/428/776/482309

Clinton Caught Lying (About Nafta)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLF_8RNWX1I

Christy:

Escort me wherever the heck you please. I am just saying. You all go and do what you think is right. You are all so smart and righteous. Good luck to you all and God Bless you all.

Chuck in Houston

"Obama lied repeadedly about his relationship with his pastor. (No, I can't prove that)."

No, it is you who are the liar.

Every time you called him a liar with NO PROOF not a shred of evidence, every time you insinuated he lied, even as you admit you can not prove it, you lied.

That is simply no longer deniable.

If he can not even prove Obama lied, just think how hard it is going to be on republicans to prove it.

But, then again, they just make things up anyway as substitute for real proof, but even so...

If not even he can prove it, the republicans have a real problem on their hands.

I really wanted Hillary to be the First Female POTUS

When Hillary Clinton first announced that she was going to run for POTUS I was so excited.

"The First Female President"

I, along with millions, thought it was truly time, if not extremely overdue, and that she would do a wonderful job; because the fact that she was a woman.

I thought she would treat this country like a mother treats her child. I thought she would bring a fresh perspective and new attitude; something that we had never seen before in a President.

Sadly though, since the process began I have seen her act more like she was running an orphanage, and watched as she treated this country and it's voters more like red-headed step children that she couldn't get rid of.

It's sad really. It truly has been one the greatest disappointments in modern politics. Someone who had such wondrous potential, or at least seemingly so, falling so hard and so fast because of one major personality flaw.

The inability to say the words "I'm Sorry"

Hillary Clinton has made gaffe after gaffe after gaffe, and each time rather than offering up a sincere apology, she either decided to half-ass it and say I "regret" if "You Were Offended" or simply deflect the blame onto Obama for... well... existing I guess.

I'm not even talking about her war vote or bankruptcy vote; as bad as those were. I'm just talking about the primary campaign.

First she signed the agreement not to participate in FL or MI (which includes being on the ballot; as that IS participating) and went on the record to say that they broke the rules and should not count. Then, after she wins what was essentially a name recognition poll, she blames Obama for disenfranchising voters there. (even though she has said that none of the Caucus states count.)

This of course happened after she realized she was not going to win the nomination without their delegates, and needed to change the rules.

But of course, that isn't where it ended. She, Bill and her surrogates REPEATEDLY played up the race card and them blamed Obama; even now she continues to play up the phrases "white voters" and "hard working whites" over and over in some last ditch effort to drive a bigger wedge between blacks and whites. We're not stupid. We know exactly what she's getting at. She's disgusting for doing it.

And what did Obama do or say about it? Nothing. He did what he had to do; he shut up and refused to become the "Angry Black Man" the Clintons were hoping to see.

I keep reading all these opinion pieces about how Obama played the race card. You know what I haven't seen though? ANY video footage of him actually doing it. So please, spare me the Hillaryis44 link. Got Video? If not... don't bother.

I got a video for you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

The Clintons participated in voter suppression in NV and then turned around and blamed Obama... and continued to do the same damned thing in state after state.

And now the worst. She has a PATTERN of bringing up the possible assassination of Obama. No, she never says "I'm in it in case he gets assassinated" Of course not. Hillary never "SAYS" anything; just infers and suggests. And then she has the nerve to blame Obama... for what? Existing?

And of course, she offered up another half ass non-apology apology, just like she always does. Of course she didn't even address the people she should have been apologizing to; Malia and Sasha. The Children.

As a mother first, she should have apologized to them. We all saw what happened when Chelsea was brought to the forefront in the primary; Hillary defended her with full force and nearly got Shuster fired over it.

Where is THAT Hillary now? I mean, I know they aren't "her" children, but as the POTUS, I expected her to treat us ALL as her children.

I don't care what her motives were. She shouldn't have said it.

Plain. And. Simple.

And then we hear that it's just "faux outrage" on the part of Obama supporters. Really? I mean... Really?

It's faux outrage when Hillary Clinton invokes RFK's assassination for the THIRD time, but "fingergate" and "hand-shake-gate" and "baby-punishment-gate" and "bitter-gate" were all REAL outrage.

You MUST be joking!

No, it's not faux outrage. It's REAL outrage. It's disgusting. I don't care what the damn motive was.

And as far as I am concerned, I have permanently lost respect for that woman. There is nothing she can EVER do to get it back, because at this point I KNOW it's nothing but political posturing.

And now we all wait with bated breath for her to do the right thing. However, now I'm not sure she knows exactly what that is; or for that matter, that she would do it if she did. And that's sad.

Hillary, that is just sad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6133946

Wrights opinions are not Obama's opinions. I have had preachers who say some things I totally disagree with, but then, I doubt there is any one person on earth I would agree with about everything. That isn't what friendship and loyalty is based on. It's based on knowing and trusting the character of the person you befriend. It's not black or white, there are shades of grey. Obama explained that Wright came out of a generation before him, and lived during some very racially bigoted times when he was a young man, and he still carries some of those scars (Wright does, not Obama). Obama obviously thought alot of Wright as a pastor, and said he didn't talk alot about political issues from the pulpit, but more emphasis was put on the social gospel, helping aids patients, the poor, the sick, etc. Obama saw that side of Wright probably alot more often than he ever heard him mutter his own perception about current events or politics. Obama explained that Wright was his pastor, his spiritual mentor for some years, but NEVER his mentor on political matters. Obama tried to look at the whole man, and see him in totality, both the good, and the not so good. He was loyal to him. Wright then decided he wanted to go on the circuit to talk when in my opinion he should have been keeping quiet. That is when Obama HAD to distance himself from Wright, because Wright was more concerned at that point about his own reputation and fifteen minutes than he was about Obama's reputation or the welfare of the nation at that point.

Bottom line on the Wright thing: Obama put distance between himself and Wright. Wright has been retired for over a year now and is NO LONGER THE PASTOR OF THE CHURCH OBAMA IS A MEMBER OF. Obama told how he came to greatly respect the people of that church for the good works they do, helping people in need ~ so much so that that is one of the reasons he joined that church ~ not because he was "buds" with Wright. Now you can be cynical all you want, but I have to respect a man who will remain with his fellow church members who help people who have aids, are poor, in need of help of one kind or another. Why should he even be expected to "leave that church"? The church isn't to blame. The church didn't make the statements ~ Wright made the statements, and he is now retired and not even a preacher or pastor there any more or anywhere. Much ado about nothing.

You can take a church, ANY church, and go down the rows, and see a mixed bag of people in each row. They are human. They wrestle with problems, addictions, faulty thinking, you name it, they've probably got at least a touch of it.
But.....and I say but.....no more so than your average Joe or Jane who does not attend church. The danger comes when they get all pious and self righteous because they attend church. A church is not a castle for the perfect. It is a hospital for sinners, which we ALL are, and in some churches people are healthy enough to help others grow out of destructive habits and take on more constructive ones. If Obama has ministered to others as a result of his association in that church, and been ministered to as a result of it why should he have to LEAVE that church when Wright isn't even the pastor there any longer?

My point is that I once belonged to a dance team at a church I attended. There were eleven of us on the team, and one day our dance leader asked us if we wanted to wear our shirts tucked in or out during our performance. She got back eleven different answers. Her remark was "Ask eleven people what they want and you'll get eleven different answers." It is a misconception that all people in all churches are brain dead or manipulated into all thinking alike. Some do, sure, to be accepted by "the group", but there are plenty more who have the courage to think for themselves, and they don't need everyone around them to agree with them in order to feel comfortable with their positions and in their own skin.

"A church is not a castle for the perfect. It is a hospital for sinners, "

Amen!

And I know where you are coming from Christy, regarding having respect for a candidate until you see them constantly put their hoof in their mouth for a year. It has changed my opinion of her drastically. I know political posturing and pandering when I see it, and for the record, I don't want any POTUS who embellishes a sniper fire story any where near the "button".

Nor do I want a Vice-President who embellishes (or mis-remembers, or thought she saw and heard sniper fire when there wasn't any) a heart beat away from the Presidency. I too have lost respect for her, and trust.

It has been a sad fall to watch.

I also never saw an outright manifestation of the sexism her supporters always claim they are fighting.

I think even with men, her being a woman simply made her more easy to sympathize with. No one wanted her to fail just because she is a woman.

I would have been so proud to vote her in, but... this campaign, her own actions, has made it impossible for me to support her at all in good faith.

You can not deal in good faith with someone willing to outright lie.

I wish it had been different. But she is the one who lost her core values, not the rest of us. It has been so damn painful to watch, I can only say I wish she had made different choices.

"You can not prove one lie of Hillary Clinton. Not one. "

"None of us can prove such things."

It is still hard to even believe I read that. I can not believe the depth of dishonesty in those words.

I am not sure which I feel more accutely, stunned outrage, or amazed disbelief.

Surreal.

Is the Secret Service Investigating Liz Trotta and Fox News?

FOX News political pundit Liz Trotta jokingly suggested this weekend that someone should assassinate an American presidential candidate. She had first "mistakenly" referred to Obama as "Osama" while discussing theories that Hillary Clinton's recent comments about the RFK assassination was in fact a suggestion that someone "knock off Osama." When she was corrected and reminded that she meant "Obama," she then said, "Well, both if we could."

The United States Secret Service is charged with the protection of all presidential candidates and famously takes all threats seriously, so it's important to ask the question whether they will be investigating Liz Trotta's comment, FOX News' response to that comment, and any collateral threats that may have been generated by the comment.

Assassins throughout our history have repeatedly claimed to find their motivations in the media. John Hinckley claimed his attempted assassination of Reagan was because of his obsession with Jodie Foster, Mark David Chapman cited The Catcher in the Rye and the film Ordinary People as inspirations for his assassination of John Lennon, and Charles Manson claims his murders were a result of his twisted interpretation of The Beatles' "Helter Skelter."

While these so-called motivations are inexplicable to a healthy mind, it is foolish and naive not to accept as a terrifying fact that psychotics can and will be triggered by almost anything, which is why it's not only vulgar but completely reckless, irresponsible and bordering on criminal for those who comment on politics and political figures to say the kind of disgusting thing that Liz Trotta said. It's also, not incidentally, why the world pounced so quickly and decisively on Hillary Clinton's comments about the RFK assassination.

This from the Secret Service website: "The Secret Service is interested in legitimate information relating to threats, plans or attempts by individuals, groups or organizations to harm Secret Service protectees. However, the agency does not desire or solicit information pertaining to individuals or groups expressing legitimate criticism of, or political opposition to, the policies and decisions of the government or government officials."

The questions the Secret Service should be asking are: Were Liz Trotta and FOX News criminally negligent in using the public airwaves to suggest the assassination of a presidential candidate; Is the suggestion of political assassination an example of legitimate criticism; and, If the First Amendment doesn't allow one to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or "Bomb!" on an airplane, how could it allow a public "joke" about assassinating a political candidate?

And what is the question the rest of us should be asking? How about, what kind of world are we creating for ourselves and our children where we allow our political divisions to become so deep that the suggestion or even the joke about a political assassination is in any way acceptable?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/is-the-secret-service-inv_b_103565.html

(CNN) -- President Bush Tuesday will travel to Arizona for a fundraiser for Sen. John McCain, the first time the unpopular president will appear with the man he hopes will succeed him in over two months.

Bush, acting has his party's fundraiser-in-chief, will fly to Phoenix, Arizona, after attending fundraisers for Republican candidates in New Mexico.

Tuesday's event will be the first time Bush and McCain will appear together since the president endorsed the Arizona Republican in a Rose Garden ceremony at the White House on March 5.

Bush, who remains popular with the Republican party base, has been one of the Republican Party's most prolific fundraisers, and McCain will need help to keep up with Democratic fundraising this fall.

But Bush also suffers from some of the highest disapproval ratings for a president in history, which makes any any joint appearances with the president a potential political liability for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Nearly three quarters, 71 percent, of those polled in a CNN survey released on May 1 disapproved of the president. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The Phoenix fundraiser was originally to be held as a public event at the Phoenix Convention Center but was later moved to a private residence.

The McCain campaign said the fundraiser was moved to the residence for privacy's sake.

But the Phoenix Business Journal said the event was moved from the convention center due to lackluster ticket sales and concern over anti-war protesters. A McCain aide denied the report on poor ticket sales.

The aide also denied that the event wasn't moved to the private residence to avoid having the senator and president appear together on camera.

"We have a policy that fundraising events are closed events," the aide said, adding that any confusion about the fundraiser originally being open to the press should be chalked up to the campaign "working out the kinks" on its first event with Bush.

Because the fundraisers will be closed to press coverage, Bush and McCain will rarely be seen in public together on Tuesday.

The press will only have one opportunity to photograph the candidate and the president together at the Phoenix airport when Bush heads to Colorado Tuesday evening.

more smoke and mirrors...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/27/mccain.bush/index.html

... and yes, by all means, let's have the debate between Obama and McCain over what so-called 'judgement and experience' brings to the Iraq debate, for, if I'm not mistaken, it was just the kind of 'judgement and experience' that McCain claims Obama lacks that caused McCain to support the worst foreign policy blunder in our nations history, and continues to enthusiastically support our current policy there... which we all know is going so wonderfully well and is being so widely supported by the citizens, right?

Hocus McPokeus

I will say this again and again, for everyone.

The DLC must go away, or the Democratic Party as a whole deserves to die.

Look at the Labours in the UK. They are in a sorry shape because of the likes of Blair and Brown. And they deserve to die too, to be replaced by Lib Dems.

Get a clue from the demise of the Labours.

Continental jet has near miss with 'rocket'

12:39 PM CDT on Tuesday, May 27, 2008

By Jeremy Desel / 11 News

HOUSTON -- Jet pilots aren’t used to sharing their airspace, so you can bet a rocket will get some attention.

Continental Flight 1544 was flying at 5,000 feet about 11 miles east of Bush Intercontinental Airport after takeoff Monday morning when the pilot called the tower to report an object headed toward the plane. The pilot described seeing a fast moving object with a thick smoke trail nearing his airspace.

The FAA now says it thinks that object was some kind of model rocket. Both the FAA and the Houston Area Joint Terrorism Task Force continue to investigate the incident that KHOU.com first reported early this afternoon.

Neither said conclusively what the pilot saw was indeed a model rocket, but an FAA spokesperson told 11 News that it was likely a high-powered model rocket. It is a federal crime to launch a rocket of any sort without notifying the FAA.

The plane was at about 5,000 feet at the time of the sighting and the flight continued on to Cleveland.

Sources told 11 News that the flight was met by Continental officials and FAA investigators to interview the passengers and crew.

Part of that investigation included a FBI call to John Etgen, who is an officer with one of the local model rocket clubs in the area.

When the FBI told him what had been reported, the rocket enthusiast was shocked.

"This is completely outside of all of our safety codes and all of our practices. We actually behave a lot like visual flight rules pilots. This is if we can't see clear airspace and already have permission to be in that air space we are not allowed to launch and we don't,” said Etgen.

Etgen said it's certainly possible for a model rocket to get that high up, but he also said the description given by the pilot doesn't match up.

At that height, a model would have been coasting for quite some time and maybe emitting a small trail of white smoke and not the thick smoke like the pilot’s report.

He explained that while model rocketry is supposed to be fun, it is also highly regulated. Regulated by the same federal agency that has oversight of the airlines – the FAA.

The FAA confirmed that there were no requests to launch or notifications filed for the Houston area for Monday.
There are also no official launch sites within 50 miles of Bush airport.

The Boeing 737 with 148 passengers and six crewmembers aboard, took off from Terminal C at Bush IAH at 10:17 a.m. Monday and arrived at Hopkins International Airport in Cleveland at 2:13 p.m. – nine minutes later than scheduled.

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou080526_tj_flight1544.30439636.html

Ally, I left a post for you on the art blog.

What would happen if you set Mark Twains words to a cartoon...?

Absolute brilliance, that's what.

http://thewarprayer.com/war_film.html

Christy

Answered the post!

Sometimes what may look like a fall from grace is actually a person's true colors coming out.

At this point I question, is she staying in the race because of ambition, or because she truly loves America?

Siegelman On Rove: Probably The Most Devious, Evil Political Operative In History

Recently released from prison, Don Siegelman refuses to drift away quietly. The former Alabama governor, whose corruption charge reeked of political motivation, accused former Bush strategist Karl Rove of outright lying for claiming non-involvement in the prosecution.

"Karl Rove saying he's had nothing to do with firing U.S. Attorneys and nothing to do with my case is like President Bush saying he's had nothing to do with the war in Iraq because he hasn't pulled a trigger," said Siegelman.

The comments came just one day after Rove said his involvement in le affaire Siegelman consisted of learning about the investigations in a newspaper article. The former governor, who was sentenced to more than seven years in prison in 2006, wasn't exactly sold on the line.

"I think Rove is probably the most devious and evil political operative who has been trained to come on to the political scene in certainly the last fifty years," he said. "I can't think of anybody in the annals of history who could even rival this man's pernicious thoughts. It is a lifetime's work for him... I think he learned two things from Watergate: you don't need to establish a secret plumbers union at a mid level office in the White House when you can take over Department of Justice and have them do your dirty work for you, and secondly, you don't leave tapes behind, you destroy evidence."

Last week, the political world moved closer to unraveling the political malfeasance that surrounded Siegelman's prosecution when Rove was issued a subpoena to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Siegelman had recently been released from jail after, among other developments, a Republican campaign volunteer said she overheard a phone conversation suggesting Rove was linked to his case. The former governor heralded the subpoena -- which came after Rove refused to appear voluntarily -- as a late-in-coming but still important development.

"I think the objective from my point is not my case or my vindication or proving any one particular egregious act, but to expose a pattern and practice of political wrongdoing, of abuse of power, of misusing the Department of Justice as a political tool," he said. "I do think that my case offers the best route to prove that, and it is the easiest and fastest way to get at abuse from Karl Rove."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/siegelman-on-rove-probabl_n_103682.html

Foreclosures in Military Towns Surge at Four Times U.S. Rate

Source: Bloomberg

May 27 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Air Force Technical Sergeant Jeffrey VerSteegh, who repairs F-16 jets for the 132nd Fighter Wing, departed Des Moines, Iowa, in April for his third tour in Iraq. The father of four may lose his home when he returns.

The four-bedroom farmhouse he and his wife, Kathleen, own near the Iowa State Fairgrounds went into default in December after their monthly mortgage costs doubled to $1,100. Kathleen missed work because of breast cancer and they struggled to keep up the house payment, falling behind on other bills. Their bankruptcy was approved by the court a week after VerSteegh left for Iraq.

In the midst of the worst surge in mortgage defaults in seven decades, foreclosures in U.S. towns where soldiers live are increasing at a pace almost four times the national average, according to data compiled by research firm RealtyTrac Inc. in Irvine, California. As military families like the VerSteeghs signed up for the initial lower rates and easier terms of subprime mortgages, the number of people taking out Veterans Administration loans fell to the lowest in at least 12 years.

``We've never faced a situation like this, not in the Vietnam War, World War II, or the Korean War, where so many military are in danger of losing their homes,'' said Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, a Washington-based advocacy group started in 2002 by Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans. ``No one asked them for their credit score when we asked them to fight for us.''

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=awj...

Foreclosures in Military Towns Surge at Four Times U.S. Rate

Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act

http://www.uscg.mil/legal/la/topics/sscra/about_the_ssc...

BAN CLUSTER BOMBS NOW!

In the next 72 hours, 109 countries are negotiating to ban cluster munitions -- weapons that, like land mines, kill children long after wars have ended.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/ban_cluster_munitions/12.php?cl=91672046

Ex-Bush press sec. in 'scathing' tell-all

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.

Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”

• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html