Where Obama Has Already Won Change: Campaigning and Campaign Staffs

One thing I wholeheartedly admire about Senator Barack Obama and his presidential campaign: his willingness to change the nature of campaigning, campaign teams and transforming presidential campaigns overall.

While I still think that all things consideredere, Hillary would make the best president for now, I think there is much to be admired about (and learned from) Senator Obama and his campaign management. I would love for him to be President — in eight years, after two terms of Hillary (or should the unthinkable happen) in four years if the repugs win in '08 (it is the dems' election to lose and they will have to screw the pooch royally in order to lose). I still prefer a Hillary-Obama in 2008 ticket. I still do not think the 'super delegates' should be awarded to Hillary in back-room machinations if the majority of democratic primary/caucus voters have chosen Obama.

His team has out-thought, out-smarted, out-strategized and out-campaigned team Hillary almost every step of the way since things really got underway. They are adaptable and innovative; capable of changing their strategies and making the needed changes. They actually had a plan and strategy beyond Super-Tuesday. Clinton did not. Clinton's team apparently kept little notice of all its expenditures nor the effect of Soliz-Doyle on 'outsiders' — perhaps that's a willingness to delegate and not micro-manage, but that's delegation at the expense of Senator Clinton herself (too much Bill, too much McAuliffe, too much Carvile). And it ultimately reflects poorly on her decision to go with the 'ole-boys' old-style/yesterday's politics masterminds and in that regard, gives me serious pause about Clinton's choices, i.e. old vs. new, stale vs. innovative, hope vs. ... not hope? Not feeling the love today.

More to come...a work in progress.

Footnote: Without a doubt, one of the worst things about the Clinton campaign: Howard Wolfson. The second worst thing: Mark Penn. Ugh. If they think accusing Obama of plagiarism is going to score many points; I simply can't see it. This just seems petty, superficial and stupid. And desperate. Not a good sign. (Talk about 'Old School Politics' — blech.) If that's the best criticism of Obama they can come up with, grabbed at straws have more heft. Double Ugh.

Technorati Tags:
plagiarism, Howard Wolfson, Mark Penn

Why Did Barack Obama Support & Campaign for Joe Lieberman if He Was So Anti-War?

When Obama had a chance to 'speak truth to power', when he had the opportunity to support the anti-war voters of Connecticut, why didn't he? Instead, Barack Obama endorsed and campaigned for Joe Lieberman. Say What?

Obama pro-actively supported Joe Lieberman, the ex-democrat who couldn't win the democratic primary fair and square, so he changed his party affiliation in order to be put back into office by the pro-war republicans. Obama supported Lieberman: the one who has whole-heartedly endorsed and been campaigning for Republican John McCain. Obama supported Lieberman: the one who has continued to side with the Republicans in the Senate in order to prevent the Senate Democrats from bringing about change.

What does that say about Obama's ACTUAL willingness to stand up to the actual status quo when given the clear choice and opportunites? (as opposed to the theoretical one that he has never faced, unlike Hillary.) What does that say about his actual judgment? (as opposed to the theoretical one after the fact where everyone is always a better Monday-morning quarter back) What does it say about how much change he's really willing to advocate for in the face of the pro-war, pro-zionist, pro-right-wing republican, defense department, military industrial complex?

Senator Obama really in actuality abandoned the people he claims to stand with: those who actually voted for anti-war candidate Ned Lamont — who actually won the primary. But Obama chose Lieberman, he stood, acted, campaigned in favor of the war, chose in reality to stand for and with those in power, one of the biggest pro-war hawks in the country, much less the Congress.

Why hasn't the media raised this specific issue? Not to mention so many others such as "what are the specifics" of all these beautiful but vague hopes and dreams?

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

I don't begrudge Senator Obama his support or his supporters or his willingness to benefit from the sexism and misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton (okay, maybe that last part I think he's been a bit of a coward about. And what was with his wife not being willing to back Hillary if she wins? What the hell is that all about? Not to mention all those homophobic, right-wing supporters who don't seem to bother him -- hey, what does THAT say about his judgment? He's not right on that issue. What others are there that simply haven't been raised, researched, answered?)

He's gotten a free ride from the media. There's just no way to deny that. Studies have already been done. Senator Clinton hasn't. If you watched any of Glenn Beck last night, you'll have begun to hear the underpinnings of the right wing attacks that he has yet to fathom, much less experience. They're not pretty.

Look, I'm for Clinton. It's very clear she's gotten extremely unfair, unequal, grossly sexist and misogynist treatment from mainstream and broadcast media (see MediaMatters.org). If it had all been even-handed, no problem. But it hasn't been. Obama has benefited from the disparate treatment and love-affair support from the media — for now. I don't have a problem with him winning fair and square. But that's not the way it's been. (Not really his fault, not under his control; he could've been more up front about that fact, but he hasn't.) It's the media  — both mainstream and right-wing, and so-called liberal and progressive media — which have treated poured every unnamed anxiety, fear, bias, lie, distortion into their coverage of Clinton.

I'm interested to read the definitive book/analysis about this after it's all over. It kinda reminds me of the hysteria (violence, bigotry, extremism) which emerged toward anyone who seemed  'middle eastern' after September 11th.

If Obama wins, I will vote for him. There's too much to at stake. I think it will take him longer to adjust to the office, to get things done that need to be done, and I think the repugs will pull out all their tricks to block and stymie him if he does win.

It's the unjust, unfair, disgusting treatment of Hillary Clinton that will (and should) haunt this nation's psyche for year — at least those who have any conscience or soul or who long for justice and fairness.

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

There's a Time magazine article about Obama from two years ago, describing his desire to be liked by everyone. Where have we heard THAT before? "The minute you start casting votes, you make some people happy and some people unhappy"

If there's one thing we don't have to worry about with Hillary, it's whether she'd rather be liked or rather accomplish the hard work and actually achieve something!

And you might want to read this news story reprinted by Common Dreams:

Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists’ Interests

by Justin Rood

Away from the bright lights and high-minded rhetoric of the campaign trail, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has quietly worked with corporate lobbyists to help pass breaks worth $12 million.

In his speeches, Obama has lambasted lobbyists and moneyed interests who “have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”

“It’s an entire culture in Washington — some of it legal, some of it not,” the Democratic hopeful told a New York crowd in June, rallying support for his ethics reform agenda.

But last year, at the request of a hired representative for an Australian-owned chemical corporation Nufarm, Obama introduced nine separate bills exempting the company from import fees on a range of chemical ingredients it uses in the manufacture of pesticides and herbicides. Nufarm’s U.S. subsidiary is based in Illinois.

Nufarm wasn’t the only beneficiary of Obama’s efforts to reduce customs fees and duties. In early May of 2006, two Washington lobbyists registered to work on behalf of Astellas Pharma, a Japanese-owned drug company which also has offices in Illinois.

The lobbyists’ task? “Introduce legislation to temporarily suspend customs duties for the importation of a pharmaceutical ingredient,” they wrote on their lobbying forms. Less than three weeks later, the men had earned their $20,000 fee, thanks to Obama. On May 26, he introduced S. 3155, a bill specifically exempting Astellas’ key ingredient from tariff payments. The bill cost the federal government more than $1 million in lost revenue, according to government estimates.

Together, Obama’s obscure measures — known as tariff suspensions — steered more than $12 million away from federal coffers, according to government estimates.

A spokesman for the senator defended Obama’s efforts on behalf of the two firms.

“Sen. Obama helped his constituents obtain foreign products necessary for their business at an affordable rate,” said Ben LaBolt, noting that Obama made sure all the products “met strong environmental standards” before pushing to make it cheaper to import them.

While legal, Obama’s bills on behalf of Nufarm and other companies are part of the special treatment machine Washington rolls out for special interests, say good-government watchdogs.

“If you have a company…there’s a whole factory set up to help you get these suspensions,” said Steve Ellis, president of the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “It’s a pay-to-play system you have to rev up and work.” Hire the right lobbyist, pay the right fee, and you can save millions, he explained.

In Nufarm’s case, Obama’s staff met with a lawyer representing the company, Joel Junker, in person and on the phone several times, Junker told ABC News. Junker says he worked with Obama’s staff to craft the nine bills and keep them moving forward.

“To the extent [the legislation] needs a little shepherding, you work with their staff, to be aware of the status, and work with the committee staff,” he said, and spoke highly of Obama’s staff. “Everything was very professional, very constituent-service oriented.”

Unlike Astella’s representatives, Junker did not register to lobby on behalf of Nufarm and did not disclose his fees. In an interview, Junker declined to say whether he believed his work could be considered “lobbying.”

Obama’s office said its staffers met once with Junker and once with the Astellas lobbyists, but it did not know how often the senator’s staffers spoke with Junker or the Astellas lobbyists by phone. Astellas did not respond to a request for comment on this story. Nufarm Americas’ marketing director, Tim Stoehr, confirmed his company had requested several tariff suspensions, including on products it “bought” from other Nufarm subsidiaries overseas.

A review of campaign finance records turned up no record of contributions from Nufarm to Obama. Astellas Pharma employees gave $1,100 to Obama’s campaign in recent months, the documents show.

Junker defended tariff suspensions as good for American businesses. The high fees are charged to protect American manufacturers from being undercut by cheap imports, argued the former U.S. trade official. If no U.S. firm makes a particular item, the cost only hurts a company which needs to buy it overseas.

“It’s nothing to be embarrassed, ashamed or suspicious of,” he said.

In letters to Congress supporting Obama’s measures, Junker justified the breaks for Nufarm to import a chemical known as 2,4 D and other ingredients by claiming they would “eliminate these unnecessary and avoidable…costs to [Nufarm’s] consumers.”

In a statement to ABC News defending the measures, Obama’s spokesman echoed Junker’s argument.
“Just like he fought for funding to ensure Chicago’s transit system remains affordable and to invest in ethanol research, Senator Obama helped keep costs low for Illinois residents by helping them get the goods they need to do their jobs,” Ben LaBolt wrote.

But the company’s financial reports indicate that may not be the case. In a glowing financial report issued just two months after Obama introduced Nufarm’s numerous tariff-lifting bills, Nufarm told its shareholders it was making more money than ever before in North America because it had increased its prices on its U.S. and Canadian customers, predominantly farmers.

Nufarm saw “strong revenue growth” in North America, it said in a July 31, 2006, company report. “Net profit was also up strongly,” driven in part by “price rises on key products,” it said. Nufarm trades on the Australian Stock Exchange.

When asked about the company’s contrasting statements, Nufarm America’s Stoehr told ABC News the financial report wasn’t accurate.

“I don’t know if I believe that,” he said. “A lot of that is a little more hype.” If the company had increased its prices, said Stoehr, it was only because its costs had “skyrocketed.” “Our profit remained steady,” said the executive.

In particular, “price rises on phenoxy herbicides,” a family which includes 2,4 D, “improved the profitability of those products, despite no significant increase in sales volumes.”

Economics aside, some medical researchers also harbor concerns over 2,4 D. Studies have purported to find a link between high exposure to the chemical and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of cancer. Defenders of the chemical say it is safe, and note that even scientists who believe a link exists cannot explain how the chemical may cause the cancer.

With a dozen tariff suspension bills to his name, Obama stands out as the most prolific of any Democratic presidential hopeful on the topic. Sen. Hillary Clinton, N.Y., has introduced none, although she has co-sponsored 19 that were introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Seven were to benefit the Honeywell Corporation, whose lobbyist has contributed $6,500 to Clinton since 2005. Sen. Joseph Biden, Del., has introduced none.

Only one other 2008 presidential hopeful has introduced more tariff suspension bills than Obama. Longshot GOP candidate Sen. Sam Brownback, Kan., introduced 30 such measures in the 109th Congress. Fellow dark horse candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., introduced one in 2001; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. have introduced none.

Some say the tariff suspension process isn’t how Washington should operate.

“We all saw ‘Schoolhouse Rock’ and learned how Washington is supposed to work,” Taxpayers for Common Sense president Steve Ellis told the Blotter on ABCNews.com. “There’s no ‘Schoolhouse Rock’ episode on tariff suspensions.”

In his speeches, Sen. Obama seems to agree.

“We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich well-connected friends and high-priced lobbyists, but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American,” the candidate said in his June speech. “That’s the kind of president I intend to be.”

Mansi Mehan contributed to this report.

>>............................................................

Donate to Hillary Clinton Online

(and any way you can). Fast. Easy. Secure. ............................................................

Technorati Tags: Lieberman,lobbyists, lobbying, corporate lobbyists

Bob Herbert Agrees With Me!

It's Definitely (mostly, mainly, primarily) the Economy, Again, Dumkoffs!

Recently I wrote:

We need a new 'put america back to work' public-private initiative

Here's what I think we need with a new president starting on day one:

a new 'put america back to work' WPA type public-private initiative with a focus on including:

• repairing/updating/improving all aspects of the infrastructure; include job training and career-shift education which puts americans to work in good paying jobs (with benefits) created from public-private partnerships;

• a commitment to oil/gas-free energy independence/green technology/energy innovations (mostly avoid biofuels because it does more harm than good in the long run; see recent research/reports);

• a focus on fast-tracking science and technology education for public schools, community colleges, universities (includes job-training/ed for adults); create public private partnerships and feeder schools in urban, suburban, rural hubs -- those things focus on both items above.

Today Mr. Herbert wrote:

The essential question the candidates should be trying to answer — but that is not even being asked very often — is how to create good jobs in the 21st century. Thirty-seven million Americans are poor, and roughly 60 million others are near-poor. (These are people struggling to make it on incomes of $20,000 to $40,000 a year for a family of four.)

The middle class is hardly flourishing. In testimony before a House subcommittee last year, Harley Shaiken, a Berkeley professor who is an expert on labor and employment, remarked: “During a period of robust economic growth, record profits and the fastest sustained productivity increases since the 1950s, only a thin slice at the top of the economic heap is enjoying higher living standards.”

Now the country is faced with a possible recession and the likelihood of moving further backward rather than forward on employment.

“We’re building exit ramps from the middle class,” said Mr. Shaiken during an interview. “But what is the path to the middle class for most Americans now? We need to figure out how to resume building entrance ramps.”

The most direct route to the middle class has always been a good job. An obvious potential source of new jobs would be a broad campaign to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure — its roads, bridges, schools, levees, water treatment facilities and so forth.

Another area with big job creation potential is the absolutely vital quest to develop alternative sources of energy. That effort should carry the same high national priority that was accorded the Manhattan Project during World War II. I’d even call it Manhattan II.

There are moments in history that demand not just talent in a nation’s leadership, but greatness — men or women with the courage to dream bigger and the ability to convince others that those dreams can be realized.

He goes on to claim no presidential candidate has shown the required bold vision and leadership, but I have to disagree. Obama shows leadership qualities and Senator Clinton has shown a keen grasp of the dilemmas of the middle and working class and has consistently promoted her policies to rebuild the economy, stimulate green collar investments and jobs, and rebuild the infrastructure. She's not the beneficiary of the broadcast or print media lovefest. Shame on his colleagues (you know who you are). Shame on any voter who falls for hype over substance, fear-mongering and bullying over intellectual power, relevant experience and a history of political and moral commitment to families and workers.

Herbert barely mentions McCain or the republicans as part of this discussion: they will continue to decimate workers and the national infrastructure while enriching themselves and their oil/energy/overseas cronies and buddies.

Herbert may have missed the vision thing in the details of Clinton's policies -- not to mention the bloviating, Hillary haters, attackers, loudmouths and self-indulgent whiners getting so much air time, press and print space, including those at his own paper.

I'm just happy he's finally getting informed about the economic realities of working men, women, families in this nation and that he agrees with me about putting America back to work fixing and rebuilding our infrastructure. Roosevelt would have been proud!

Herbert's column is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/opinion/09herbert.html

Technorati Tags:
working class, working families, Bob Herbert, infrastructure, middle class, jobs, American workers, American jobs

Krugman: Next President Must Have Two Key Attributes for Economic Success

It's the Economy ... and the Incompetency ... and jobs, and healthcare, and interest rates, and housing, and the war ...

From Krugman:

.....some highly respected economists are issuing dire warnings. There has been a lot of buzz about a new paper by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff that compares the United States in recent years to other advanced countries that have experienced financial crises. They find that the U.S. profile resembles that of the “big five crises,” a list that includes, for example, Sweden’s 1991 crisis, which caused the unemployment rate to soar from 2 percent to 9 percent over a two-year period.

...by January the White House will have a new occupant. If the slump is still going on, which is likely, this will offer a chance to consider other, more effective measures.

We need a new 'put america back to work' public-private initiative

In particular, now would be a good time to think about the possibility of going beyond tax cuts and rebate checks, and stimulating the economy with some much-needed public investment — say, in repairing the country’s crumbling infrastructure.

The usual rap against public spending as a form of economic stimulus is that it takes too long to get going — that by the time the money starts flowing, the recession is already over. But if this turns out to be a prolonged slump, which seems likely, that won’t be a problem.

But we won’t get any innovative action to help the economy unless the next president has a couple of key attributes.

First, he or she has to be free of the ideological blinders that make the current administration and its allies fiercely oppose the idea that the government can do anything positive aside from cutting taxes.

Second, he or she has to be knowledgeable about and interested in economic policy. Presidents don’t have to be their own chief economists, but they do need to know enough to take the right advice.

Will we have that kind of president? Stay tuned.

Here's what I think we need with a new president starting on day one:

a new 'put america back to work' WPA type public-private initiative with a focus on including:

• repairing/updating/improving all aspects of the infrastructure; include job training and career-shift education which puts americans to work in good paying jobs (with benefits) created from public-private partnerships;

• a commitment to oil/gas-free energy independence/green technology/energy innovations (mostly avoid biofuels because it does more harm than good in the long run; see recent research/reports);

• a focus on fast-tracking science and technology education for public schools, community colleges, universities (includes job-training/ed for adults); create public private partnerships and feeder schools in urban, suburban, rural hubs -- those things focus on both items above.

Those are just the off-the-top-of-my-head ideas about what the current admin has failed to do in all its glorious incompetence and abysmal domestic failures and what the next president must be held accountable to do, in addition to healthcare coverages, repairing the damage of the Iraq War, fixing the failing Afghanistan War failures, etc.

and I think it's compatible w/ what Krugman is discussing in today's column.

Krugman's entire column: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08krugman.html


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

Donate to Hillary Clinton Online

(and any way you can). Fast. Easy. Secure.
............................................................

Technorati Tags:
2008 election, economic stress, economy, it's the economy

Hillary Needs Your Donations, Large, Medium or Small!

Donate to Hillary Clinton Online

(and any way you can). Fast. Easy. Secure.



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

More reasons why I support Hillary now -- a clip from the online Politics chat with journalist Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post:

Washington: Despite many observations that support is trending Obama's way, I find myself moving the opposite way. I was extremely impressed with his articulateness and ideas initially; now I hear comparisons to Kennedy, and Obama's laundry list of "we can do this" and "we can do that" and I find myself thinking "where's the beef?"

Before I was old enough to vote, I worked at the polls handing out Kennedy materials. Later, as a Hill intern, I remember many Democrats observing -- often privately -- that the Kennedy administration had been one more of style than substance. (Mrs. Clinton was correct that it took President Johnson to get civil rights and "Great Society" legislation through Congress.) Much as I would like to see the Country elect a black on principle, I have decided that it is better to go with Clinton, who Hill insiders tell me is a competent and hardworking Senator (and that Obama is less so).

Ruth Marcus: This is an interesting and thoughtful reaction. Wonder if others will start to experience the same.

link to the full chat: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/03/DI2008020302978.html

Meanwhile, John 'master flip flopper & con artist' Anti-Choice McCain is pandering to the right wing nuts of the CPAC - conservative political action conference - again! We have lots of work to do. No rest for the weary and those who have the most to gain from electing Hillary: American citizens and the world community.

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

Donate to Hillary Clinton TODAY!

Technorati Tags:
Donate Hillary, Hillary Donations, campaign donor

Primaries 2008 Candidate Updates: Chart Compiled from Media Projections

Super Tuesday Projection Updates: Democrats
Clinton	Obama
Tennessee Arkansas Oklahoma Massachusetts New York New Jersey California*	Georgia Illinois Delaware Alabama Kansas (caucus, not primary) Connecticut Minnesota (caucus) North Dakota (caucus) Idaho (caucus) Colorado (caucus) Alaska (caucus)

A list of the democratic delegate counts and the type of Super Tuesday voting (primary or caucus) at wikipedia.

Note: If Hillary wins, I believe it's not about 'racism' (Obama is winning almost 50% of whites, including a higher percentage of white males who have a much deeper affinity toward racism historically). Nope -- it's (partly) about the women voters (and men) in this country having a keen sense of fairness.  There's a strong sense of injustice and unfairness in the media treatment of Hillary; of being sick of rich, white, privileged, elitist, hypocritical, smug, hateful, cruel, punitive, Hillary-obsessed males telling everyone who they must vote for ... combined with major concerns about: Healthcare (Hillary's plan covers everyone), Jobs & Economy (women are paid less, mature women treated poorly), Families, Equality, War -- 400 years of rich (white) men controlling everything and screwing over women (and people of color) a million times more than has ever been imagined or voiced.

I think if Obama wins, everyone who supports Hillary will get behind him gladly (polls released today show 71-72% of Democrats are happy with both candidates and could vote for either). 

But I know there simply are alot of us who are sick and tired of the vitriol and sexism by the overwhelmingly privileged, entitled male journalists, mainstream media (overwhelmingly white, male, bullies -- they are looking more stale by the day), disgustingly biased pundits and misogynist sexist smug bloviators like Chris Tweety Spitball Matthews and Joe Scumbag of MS/NBC (owned by the military industrial complex no-bid contract corporate giant, G.E./General Electric) and the equally disgusting and transparent (and talk about living in the past) Carl Buttstein of CNN/Time Warner -- ugh!

G.E., like Halliburton, is but one of many such war profiteering enterprises who fear Hillary much more than Obama. Why? Because she knows the intricacies of their systems after 15 years of studying it and being attacked by it, and they know she knows how to begin dismantling the machine and the repairing the (largely unknown) damage the rich republicans have done these past 15 years to our Nation (they were in control of Congress until last year). They fear her, they hate her, they know she will begin the deconstruction of their evil webs on day one. They prefer Obama because he'll be easier to defeat; but if he were to win, they know he will be chasing ghosts until he wises up, and that takes years. We don't have years.) Meanwhile, I think Women Boycott MS/NBC would be a good campaign to start after Hillary completes the campaign process.

If women aren't going to take a stand now, of all times in history, then when?

Quick Note: 12PM EST/9PMPST Clinton leading in CA. Obama is talking too long in IL (reminiscent of Bill Clinton's long-windedness?) Jeez. First time I've felt this way while listening to him;  I have to wonder if the more he does that, the more annoying it becomes, especially since there are so few details?

The good thing about the repugs: they're so divided (and divisive) that the half-way honest, everyday regular voters will surely be tired of the incompetence and lies of the repugs these past years (and decades).

*12:10-12:13PM EST/9:13PST Media/networks declare Clinton the winner of the California Primary (although the delegates will be distributed proportionally). Tweety the drooling bully must be truly humiliated! Yay!

Technorati Tags: primaries, primary, Super Tuesday, 2008 campaigns, 2008 election

Krugman: Only Clinton Achieves Universal Healthcare, Obama Won't

Universal Health Care: Only One Candidate's Plan Achieves It

(and it sure ain't one of the Republicans)

The New York Times's Economist and Columnist, Paul Krugman's analysis and bottom line: If Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.

...the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.

Obama's plan costs more than 80 percent as much as Clinton's and covers only about half of those 47 million currently uninsured

...the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

That doesn’t look like a trivial difference ... One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although [Obama's plan] costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.

Krugman's complete explanation of his analysis is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

Clinton & the Dems Should Not Cede the South

A new wave of Dixie Democrats is re-awakening and they're not the same ole bigots of the past.

They may not be the most progressive left wing of the party either, but they're not the same ole southerners as the dinosaurs of the past. Change in the South tends to be more incremental.

Some people assume Edwards supporters will go for Obama. Based on what? In the FL counties that voted for Edwards, especially those bordering Alabama and Georgia, Clinton was a very close second. I've read reports that some polling data shows Clinton was the second choice for many voters who have voted for either Edwards or Obama.

I have also heard a retired vet of the U.S. Army Airborne Division say he would vote for Hillary because of his complete disgust and disillusionment with the republicans and the fact that he, his family and from what he could tell almost EVERYONE did better economically under Bill Clinton. So he would vote for Hillary based on that.

I also listened to John Grisham, the writer from Mississippi who lives in Virginia now. He explained on Charlie Rose last night why he supports Clinton and why in 8 years (after some 'seasoning' he thinks Barack would make a great president). I think Grisham also taps into a stream of some of the educated males of the south who see the economic disparities affecting their friends, neighbors, communities and are not so selfish like the Trent Lotts and old guard of southern white republicans.

Look at the Edwards votes in Florida. The Clinton campaign has no reason to cede any of the democratic voters in the South, including adult white males. Not everyone is an angry irrational reactionary; some are just workaday regular guys that are more pragmatic than ideological and who want the best for their families and friends.

We now know for sure (30+ years of hard facts and economic data) the republicans reserve the 'best' for all their rich cronies and to hell with the rest of us.

Let us not forget: Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and the scores of corporate lobbyists sucking like the greedy pigs they are at the public trough these past 8 years. And don't forget about the $490,195,000,000 -- Yep, that's $490 BILLION (that we know about) spent on the illegal Iraq invasion. And that's only (what they've been forced to make public) about the war in Iraq -- not the concomitant costs here, elsewhere, or any of the costs associated with the war-dead or war-wounded.

Democrats can take back (a large part of) the south, they really can. But they sure can't 'play the race card' if they're going to do it. If they go there, they can forget about it.

Especially since mainstream (broadcast) media has proved they're in the hip pocket of the republican party -- after all, they're OWNED by corporate America and Wall Street, the very ones who are pillaging your and other's 401k and pension plans, stripping the remaining jobs of benefits wherever possible (except for the upper tiers), shipping your jobs overseas every day. The ones they decide to bring back, pay a lot less and have no benefits. You really think there's not a corporate agenda at work?

Bless John Edwards for raising some critically important issues and highlighting the economic disparities which have exponentially grown under the Republicans the past 30 years (interruped only by Bill Clinton's term in office) and which have accelerated under George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Your vote counts this year more ever. Probably more than any since FDR and John F. Kennedy. It's the defining vote of a nation to either kickstart into the 21st century or come to a dead stop in the 20th. A new future or the old past, that's what this election is about. I agree with Grisham when he said Hillary is ready to be President from day one. In eight years, Obama will be ready on his first day in office.

Technorati Tags:
John Edwards, Clinton supporters, Clinton endorsements, Presidential endorsements, Charlie Rose, John Grisham, southern white males, southern voters, dixie democrats, southern democrats

Bill Clinton has actually done Obama a favor hasn't he?

The Favor. Not a pretty one. Not a nice one. But an inadvertent wake-up call type of favor.

If anyone thinks the stupid clumsiness of Bill Clinton is 'hurtful' or 'not playing fair', just what laser-guided anti-personnel bombs do you think the republicans and right-wing 527s are going to do? Ugly? Yes. Wish it wasn't like that? Darn right. Naive enough to think the repugneocons are going to play fair? No frickin way.

I love Obama. I love his philosophy and soaring rhetorical inspiration. (I don't like his pandering to the homophobes and the religious right - I hate it when any candidate does that).

I hope he can accomplish what he says he wants to accomplish. Can he do it from day one? I don't know. I have serious doubts about 'operational readiness.' How long will it take him to 'learn on the job', find out that the repugs have more dirty tricks than he has even dreamt of.

And if he can't pull a victory out of the nominating process, shouldn't there be a Plan B? Contingency planning -- the lack thereof is part of what we all know with certainty to be MAJOR FAILURES on the part of the current administration:

• the willful failure to listen to those who knew Osama Bin Laden was a serious threat and that something near September 11 was about to happen
• the debacles, lack of preparation, mismanagement of the (illegal) Iraq War and occupation
• failing to capture Bin Laden and stay focused on Afghanistan which is a complete mess reverting back to Taliban control and Islamic fascism
• the horrors and mismanagement of FEMA in response to Hurricane Katrina, to name but four major examples.

I know for certain that Hillary can hit the ground running on day one. And who has more reason/motivation to have already created a systematic plan that starts on Jan 21, 2009 to undo the horrible damage of the past 7 years (really, the past 12+ because republicans were in control of the house and senate most of the time Bill was prez).

Hillary is not Bill. Bill is one weapon in her secret armament. She is much more committed to and determined to achieve REAL social justice and she will have a much deeper impact and longer lasting progressive legacy than Bill ever could have.

To consider all this does not make one a 'traitor' to the progressive cause. I'm not Anti-Obama. I'm definitely ANTI-Republican. I'm more pro-Democrat (because realistically there is no other option -- are they flawed, yes, dreadfully -- but there's the whole lesser of two evils strong at work now). And at this point -- any of the dems will do -- whoever can win, that's who i will support.

But disturbingly, most of the supporters of Obama seem to actually be not just Pro-Obama, but even more Anti-Hillary instead of Anti-Republican. The magic of sexism lives.

Hillary is not Bill. She may use some of his strategies, tactics, tools, connections, knowledge -- but she is NOT Bill. I'm pretty sure she will be her own president once in the white house -- using the good from Bill, combined with her own 'powerful intellect' (NYT endorsement) and multiple formidable strengths. That is what the republicans fear most. That's why they're anxious for Obama to win the nomination. They know he's ripe for plucking in a hardball world. And that the dems, once again are forming a shooting squad in a circle.

What bugs me most about Obama (my way or the highway) Supporters is their "I'll take my toys and go home if I can't play and win only on my terms." Fine. but that attitude of (especially white) entitlement is part of what cost Gore the election in 2000 when the purist left voted for Nader. Those purist idealists got us 8 years of hell, war, economic devastation, dismantling 60 years of hard-fought, hard-won progress. We don't even know the extent of the damage -- it's far worse than anyone can imagine.

Clinton supporters are perfectly willing to support Obama if he wins, but the reverse apparently is not true. If that's the attitude, look forward to 16 more years of Bush-Cheney-Rove if Clinton wins the nomination and the Obama-ites pack up their purist 'principles' and go home instead of participating in the most important election of the 21st century.

Real life and real politics is not pretty. There is no such thing as perfection in a flawed human system, especially one that was rooted in corruption and hypocrisy from the beginning. Idealism must be tempered with pragmatism and actually getting things done (GTD).

We can't afford to be naive. We have a mixed economy. Capitalist Patriarchy has most of the tools and is invested in retaining their power, privilege, control, influence and economic power. The USA is not going to become a socialist utopia anytime soon. Not when there is so much at stake. We all have a lot to lose (more than ever now) -- especially by being 'purists' -- also known as being dogmatic. Isn't that what Obama preaches against?

I have a longer term view that I don't hear from many of the (mainly white) youthful Obama supporters (who are so urgent, demanding, 'entitled' to everything happening NOW.) They seem to have a total Gen Y/Gen X slacker attitude more in line with customer service/consumer entitlement than strategic pragmatism combined with knowledge of both short & long-term impacts, combined with 'the vision thing' that Obama definitely has. I hope he can pull it off.

My gut tells me the repubs, the right, the corporations and the ultra-wealthy have too much at stake to do anything close to 'playing fair'.

Should Hillary learn from Obama's wisdom, knowledge and obvious strengths? Yes, absolutely. But if anyone knows the ugly tricks of the right, and has been strategically preparing for them for 10+ years, and knows how to dismantle them, it's Hillary Clinton.

Here's what I'd like to see: a Clinton-Obama ticket winning in 08, Obama would become president in 2016 -- we'd ultimately have at least 16 years of progressive democrats in charge of the White House. Okay, maybe I am still an idealist at heart.

Just my 2 cents on a work in progress.

Addendum: Richard Cohen of the Washington Post writes something quite insightful (and a bit more reality based from my perspective than all the right wing, left-wing, media pundits and talking heads at MSNBC, Faux News, CNN, etc, all the right-wing radio hosts, chattering stenographers, I mean 'reporters' and especially the oh-so concerned-about-racism-now republicans):

If the Clintons beat Obama on the merits, then [he] has lost. If they beat him on account of race, then the rest of us have lost as well.

Media Critique Worth Reading: Is CNN the Corrupt News Network?

Regarding Media / Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times

CNN: Corrupt News Network

A self-serving agenda was set for the Republican presidential debates.

Tim Rutten
Regarding Media

December 1, 2007

THE United States is at war in the Middle East and Central Asia, the economy is writhing like a snake with a broken back, oil prices are relentlessly climbing toward $100 a barrel and an increasing number of Americans just can't afford to be sick with anything that won't be treated with aspirin and bed rest.

So, when CNN brought the Republican presidential candidates together this week for what is loosely termed a "debate," what did the country get but a discussion of immigration, Biblical inerrancy and the propriety of flying the Confederate flag?

In fact, this most recent debacle masquerading as a presidential debate raises serious questions about whether CNN is ethically or professionally suitable to play the political role the Democratic and Republican parties recently have conceded it.

Selecting a president is, more than ever, a life and death business, and a news organization that consciously injects itself into the process, as CNN did by hosting Wednesday's debate, incurs a special responsibility to conduct itself in a dispassionate and, most of all, disinterested fashion. When one considers CNN's performance, however, the adjectives that leap to mind are corrupt and incompetent.

Corruption is a strong word. But consider these facts: The gimmick behind Wednesday's debate was that the questions would be selected from those that ordinary Americans submitted to the video sharing Internet website YouTube, which is owned by Google. According to CNN, its staff culled through 5,000 submissions to select the handful that were put to the candidates. That process essentially puts the lie to the vox populi aura the association with YouTube was meant to create. When producers exercise that level of selectivity, the questions -- whoever initially formulated and recorded them -- actually are theirs.

That's where things begin to get troubling, because CNN chose to devote the first 35 minutes of this critical debate to a single issue -- immigration. Now, if that leaves you scratching your head, it's probably because you're included in the 96% of Americans who do not think immigration is the most important issue confronting this country. We've got a pretty good fix concerning what's on the American mind right now, because the nonpartisan and highly reliable Pew Center has been regularly polling people since January on the issues that matter most to them. In fact, the center's most recent survey was conducted in the days leading up to Wednesday's debate.

HERE'S what Pew found: By an overwhelming margin, Americans think the war in Iraq is the most important issue facing the United States, followed by the economy, healthcare and energy prices. In fact, if you lump the war into a category with terrorism and other foreign policy issues, 40% of Americans say foreign affairs are their biggest concern in this election cycle. If you do something similar with all issues related to the economy, 31% list those questions as their most worrisome issue. As anybody who has looked at their 401(k) or visited a gas pump would expect, that aggregate figure has increased dramatically since Pew started polling in January. Back then, for example, concerns over the war outpaced economic anxieties by fully 8 to 1. By contrast, just 6% of the survey's national sample said that immigration was the most important electoral issue. Moreover, that number hasn't changed in a statistically meaningful way since the first of the year. In other words, more than nine out of 10 Americans think something matters more than immigration in this presidential election.

So, why did CNN make immigration the keystone of this debate? What standard dictated the decision to give that much time to an issue so remote from the majority of voters' concerns? The answer is that CNN's most popular news-oriented personality, Lou Dobbs, has made opposition to illegal immigration and free trade the centerpiece of his neonativist/neopopulist platform. In fact, Dobbs led into Wednesday's debate with a good solid dose of immigrant bashing. His network is in a desperate ratings battle with Fox News and, in a critical prime-time slot, with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. So, what's good for Dobbs is good for CNN.

In other words, CNN intentionally directed the Republicans' debate to advance its own interests. Make immigration a bigger issue and you've made a bigger audience for Dobbs.

That's corruption, and it's why the Republican candidates had to spend more than half an hour "debating" an issue on which their differences are essentially marginal -- and, more important, why GOP voters had to sit and wait, mostly in vain, for the issues that really concern them to be discussed. That's particularly true because that same Pew poll reported findings of particular relevance to Republican voters, the vast majority of whom continue to support the war in Iraq.

According to this most recent poll, a substantial number of Americans believe the surge is working. As Pew summarized their findings, "While Iraq remains a deeply polarizing issue across party lines, there has been improvement in how both Democrats and Republicans view the war. At the lowest point in February, barely half of Republicans (51%) said things were going well. Today, 74% of Republicans say the same. And while Democrats remain far more skeptical than Republicans, the proportion of Democrats expressing a positive view of the Iraq effort has doubled since February (from 16% to 33%).

"Independents' assessments of how the military effort is going remain far closer to the views of Democrats than of Republicans. Currently, 41% of independents offer a positive assessment, while half say things are not going well. In February, 26% of independents expressed a positive view of the situation in Iraq."

Those are significant swings of opinion, yet the poll also found that more than half of Americans still favor withdrawing American troops. That disconnect is a real issue for the GOP candidates, all but one of whom support the war. Unless we're going to believe that the self-selecting YouTube questioners were utterly different from the rest of American voters, it seems pretty clear that CNN ignored these complex -- and highly relevant concerns -- for an issue that served its ratings interests -- immigration -- or ones that made for moments of conventional television conflict, like gun control, which doesn't even show up in surveys of voters' concerns.

THIS is intellectual venality, but it pales beside the wickedness of using some crackpot's query about the candidates' stand on Biblical inerrancy to do something that's anathema in our system -- to probe people's individual religious consciences. American journalists quite legitimately ask candidates about policy issues -- say, abortion -- that might be influenced by their religious or philosophical convictions. We do not and should not ask them about those convictions themselves. It's nobody's business whether a candidate believes in the virgin birth, whether God gave an oral Torah to Moses at Sinai, whether the Buddha escaped the round of birth and rebirth or whether an angel appeared to Joseph Smith.

The latter point is relevant because CNN's noxious laundering of this question through the goofy YouTube mechanism quite clearly was designed to embarrass Mitt Romney -- who happens to be a Mormon -- and, secondarily, to help Mike Huckabee -- who, as a Baptist minister, had a ready answer, and who happens to be television's campaign flavor of the month.

Beside considerations like these, CNN's incompetent failure to weed out Democratically connected questioners pales.

In any event, CNN has failed in its responsibilities to the political process and it's time for the leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties to take the network out of our electoral affairs.

timothy.rutten@latimes.com

MoDo: Repugneocons Dying for Another Daddy

Old School Inanity

by Maureen Dowd

OP-ED Columnist, NYTimes,
Saturday, September 8, 2007


WASHINGTON

Dying for a daddy, the Republicans turn their hungry eyes to Fred.

Fred Thompson acts tough on screen. And like Ronald Reagan, he has a distinctively masculine timbre and an extremely involved wife.

In his announcement video, Mr. Thompson stood in front of a desk in what looked like, duh, a law office, rumbling reassuringly that in this “dangerous time” he would deal with “the safety and security of the American people.”

As Michelle Cottle wrote in The New Republic, far more than puffy-coiffed Mitt and even more than tough guys Rudy and McCain, the burly, 6-foot-5, 65-year-old Mr. Thompson exudes “old-school masculinity.”

“In Thompson’s presence (live or on-screen),” she wrote, “one is viscerally, intimately reassured that he can handle any crisis that arises, be it a renegade Russian sub or a botched rape case.” But she wondered, was he really “enough of a man for this fight,” or just someone who meandered through life, creating the illusion of a masculine mystique?

“What kind of male obsesses over his bike riding time, other than Lance Armstrong or a 12-year-old boy?”

Newsweek reported that some close to the Tennessean “question whether moving into the White House is truly Thompson’s life ambition — or more the dream of his second wife, Jeri, a former G.O.P. operative who is his unofficial campaign manager and top adviser.”

It took only two days of campaigning to answer the masculine mystique question. Fred gave an interview to CNN’s John King as his bus rolled through Iowa.

“To what degree should the American people hold the president of the United States responsible for the fact that bin Laden is still at large six years later?” Mr. King asked.

“I think bin Laden is more of a symbolism than he is anything else,” Mr. Thompson drawled. “Bin Laden being in the mountains of Afghanistan or — or Pakistan is not as important as the fact that there’s probably Al Qaeda operatives inside the United States of America.”

Usually, you can only get that kind of exquisitely inane logic from the president. Who does Fred think is sending operatives or inspiring them to come?

Fred is not Ronnie; he’s warmed-over W. President Reagan always knew who the foe was.

Fred followed W.’s nutty lead of marginalizing Osama on a day when TV showed another creepy, fruitcake manifesto by the terrorist, who was wearing what seemed to be a fake beard left over from Woody Allen’s “Bananas” and bloviating on everything from the subprime mortgage crisis to the “woes” of global warming to a Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory to the wisdom of Noam Chomsky to the unwisdom of Richard Perle to the heartwarming news that Muslims have lived with Jews and not “incinerated them” to the need to “continue to escalate the killing and fighting” against American kids in Iraq.

Can we please get someone in charge who will stop whining that Osama is hiding in “harsh terrain,” hunt him down and blast him forward to the Stone Age?

Fred must have missed the news of the administration’s intelligence estimate in July deeming Al Qaeda rejuvenated and “a persistent and evolving terrorist threat” to Americans.

Pressed by Mr. King on the fact that the Bush hawks went after Saddam instead of Osama, Fred continued to sputter: “You — you’re — you’re not served up these issues one at a time. They — they come when they come, and you have to — you have to deal with them.”

Democrats pounced. John Edwards issued a statement saying, “That bin Laden is still at large is Bush’s starkest failure.” John McCain and Rudy Giuliani also stressed the need to take out Osama.

Fred quickly caved on the matter of men in caves. At a rally later in the day he manned up. “Apparently Osama bin Laden has crawled out of his cave long enough to send another video and he is getting a lot of attention,” he said, “and ought to be caught and killed.”

He continued to insist that killing bin Laden would not end the terrorist threat, without realizing that this is true now because, by not catching bin Laden, W. allowed him to explode into an inspirational force for jihadists.

Republicans are especially eager for a papa after their disappointing experiences with Junior. After going through so many shattering disasters, W. seems more the inexperienced kid than ever.

In Australia, the president called Australian soldiers in Iraq “Austrian troops,” and got into a weird to-and-fro on TV with the South Korean president.

W. cooperated with Ropert Draper, the author of a new biography of him, yet the portrait was not flattering. Like a frat president sitting around with the brothers trying to figure out whether to party with Tri-Delts or Thetas, W. asked his advisers for a show of hands last year to see if Rummy should stay on. And W. is obsessed with getting the Secret Service to arrange his biking trails.

“What kind of male,” one of his advisers wondered aloud, “obsesses over his bike riding time, other than Lance Armstrong or a 12-year-old boy?”

Technorati Tags:
Fred Thompson, Daddy Party, Lance Armstrong, Bin Laden

George Will Thinks You and Your Children Are Too Stupid to Deserve Prosperity and Success

Anyone pay attention to Mr. Ivory Tower Pedantic George Will on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos today? Not that Will ever writes or says anything of much consequence, but today he nakedly revealed one of the true fundamental beliefs of the conservative, elite, republican right: If you're not rich, it's because you're too stupid and therefore you don't deserve to be economically secure or prosperous. At least half of all Americans and their children are 'below average intelligence' according to Will and therefore ... you get what you deserve. Tsk tsk you stupid people. Hands washed. As Georgie porgie revealed, the repubs and privileged elite rich folks like George are just so over your tired selves.

The video isn't up yet, but here are the responses so far to his comments during the Roundtable portion, which included progressive Economist and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich (new book is $ Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life) and Matt Bai of the NY Times.

Where does George live? This economy stinks! In Illinois, rural Illinois for that matter, the economy is so bad. I wr for a social services agency that works with developmentallydisabled. I love my work but let's see if George or any one in the Congress either state or federal level would work for $26000 a year. Oh by the wa I have a bachelor's degree and working on a Masters. I would love to see them try and make a rent, car payment, utilities, and groceries, let alone try to go back to school on tha kind of a wage. That is the norm out here. Where does George think the economy is stable ? The work we do is sooo under paid and so badly needed. I don't have health insurance either. So I think it was a slap in the face for Tony Snow to say what he makes, I feel badly for him andfamily but at least they have healh insurance. Many out here in Rural Illinois don't. I think that is what is one of the things wrong with out country. There is no middle class, there s either the wealthy like Mr. Snow, the Bushes, Congressmen, etc., then there are the working poor who are workig hard to make their bills and not able to save or barely pay the bills. I wonder if they would like to have to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet? CJ Illinois
Posted by:
cmsj91

I did [have] respect for George Will until today! The economy is in good shape for those (according to Snow) that make more than $168K a year! I work as a substitute school teacher because my retirement income isn't enought to support me. "No child left behind" only means to pass kids to the next grade no matter what they know. When I see child after child in the 8th grade, ready to make the next step into high school and can't read or solve simple math equations we are in deep, deep trouble as a nation. Not only do parents need to get involved with their kids, politicians and businesses as well. We ALL have to take a stake in helping these kids see how important education really is to them personally and to our nation.
Posted by:
Retired77

All I know is that when the Republicans came in to power I had reached "lower middle class" status. That was a welcome change from struggling to make my bills week-to-week with no more than $300 in the bank. Since they have been "in charge", I find myself sinking backward. My sister (developmentally disabled with muscular dystrophy and receives Medicare/Medicaid) receives $13,440 a year in disability and I (with health insurance where I have to pay half) earn $24,000, before taxes, a year. Between high property taxes, property insurance, health insurance, and auto insurance in Florida, I just don't see where Tony Snow is having that hard of a time. By the way, isn't this awesome economy how Hugo Chavez was able to rise to power in Venezuela? This country is sowing the seeds for another "Venezuela" to happen. Sound good?
Posted by:
mtaylor84

I hope you have George Will on video from today talking about how most americans and their children are below average intelligence and thus only the gifted and entitled rich should become even richer. He epitomizes the conservative elite view: "we got ours, to hell with anyone else. If you're not rich, it's because you and your children are too stupid (based on our irrelevant elite IQ tests by the way").Dems should use that video clip to show the reality of what the republican 'conservative' party and their elite toadies like Will (Cheney, Bush, Thompson, McCain and all their ilk) really believe: They don't give a flying flip about working people or poor people or average Americans (except as how they can manipulate their base hysteria and emotions and get their uninformed votes).What a guy George. A true believer in only the elite should rule because everyone else is too supid to understand reality. Not that George would know the reality of working people if it bit him in the backside.
Posted by:
rayagogo

I respect George about as much as I do Hair-al-Doh at this point. He lost all of my respect for him when he took a jab at RON PAUL at the end of their interview, by saying "you're not going to win" to Ron with a smug look on his face. He is about as snob based as George Bush in my eyes now. No brag. Just fact.
Posted by:
Rude Awakening Again

I found the comments by Tony Snow about the difficulty of supporting his family on just 168,000 a year very upsetting. Talk about two americas maybe it's time to listen to John Edwards.
Posted by:
cindoo96

George Will is obviously and consistently concerned with profit and lower taxes and productivity and unconcerned with the suffering of the American people. He is a conservative to promote the interests of the wealthy as all conservatives are.
Posted by:
Joan15136

how big is the risk of subprime defaults and falling real estate prices. factor in the millions of jobs lost through immagration enforcment and tens of thousands of bussiness going under. is the banking industry safe? what if we had a run on bank of america, could it survive?
Posted by:
juriscurious

Tony Snow had to quit his job of which he makes $168K and get full health insurance and your guest can understand why he had to resign - Help, we average Americans don't have a chance if your guests can understand that.
Posted by:
wifl07

Georgie 'Let Them Eat Cake' Boy spouted the Bush/Repugneocon line: the numbers we tell you are great, therefore the economy is great, therefore end of story. No worries for the rich. So why should he (or the republicans) care one peep about anyone else. He predicts the economy is not an issue in the 2008 election.

As Matt Bai pointed out, the admin (once again) showed their tone-deafness and tin-ear (and disdain) for working and middle class Americans when Tony Snow complained that even on the best health care plan in America making $168,000 year, he was losing money.

Robert Reich predicts the economy is an issue and that we are headed into a recession. Stay tuned.

buzzzed.blogspot.com
www.buzzzed.com
buzZzed blue

Technorati Tags:
George Will, conservative values

Bush Wants $50 Billion More for the War

Bush Likes to Keep Wasting Your Money on Illegal, Unjust Wars While People at Home can GO TO HELL (and to the hospital emergency room if you don't have health care or health insurance).

JUST SAY NO!

AND WHILE WE'RE AT IT ASK BUSH & CONGRESS IF THERE AREN'T BETTER THINGS AT HOME WE COULD USE THAT MONEY FOR:

• What about our crumbling infrastructure?

• What about New Orleans?

• What about the 49 million americans (at least) without access to health care and health insurance?

• What about all the decent-paying jobs that have been replaced by minimum wage part time jobs at Wal-mart and Mcdonalds?

• What about seriously restoring our now third-world educational system?

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION: WHAT ABOUT THIS:

Let's use that 50 billion dollars to re-create a new:

'Re-Build America Project'

A new type of public/private partnership -- a new WPA that uses all the talent we have here to:

create real jobs while re-building, improving, repairing our failing physical and energy infrastructure;

get us off of foreign oil (the REAL reason we are in iraq);

protect our ports and borders HERE from REAL terrorists not the pretend threats manufactured by racist xenophobes;

protect our food supplies and re-build our agricultural food production (and family farm systems);

get americans some much-needed health care, and while we're at work and getting health care --

you watch america start losing all that weight and lard-asses from the crap cheap fast food working people have to eat while working at crap minimum wage jobs.

How come we don't hear any candidates -- not even the Democrats -- (because Jesus knows the Republikkkans would never even think of it much less advocate it) -- but why isn't anyone talking about that kind of plan for america?

Technorati Tags:
economy, worst health care system, WPA, Rebuild America, Jobs

What's Wrong With America? Why Americans Should Not Elect ANY Republicans to ANY Office Again.

An Important Reminder About What's at Stake in 2008

AFL-CIO Democratic Debate, Aug. 7, 2007


A retired steelworker who was forced to retire due to a disability and who lost his pension and his health care coverage asks John Edwards what's wrong with America and what will you do to change it? Edwards responds with what he'd do and stresses the importance of unions and universal health care.

Run time: 02:44
direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaBvGEklBvg

Clearly Edwards meant this gentleman is an example of the consequences of Republican policies including: Greed; Profits Before People; Accountability is for Suckers; American Voters are Suckers; Americans Vote Against Their Own Economic Interests in the Hysteria of Right-Wing Hate and Fear... and many others -- which ones come to mind for you?

Technorati Tags:
economic justice, economic stress, health insurance, inequality, injustice, John Edwards, presidential forum, uninsured, universal health care, voter responsibility, working families, Keith Olbermann, youtube

The LOGO Debate: Why Marriage Is NOT The Only Question

Watched the majority of the Human Rights Campaign + LOGO Presidential Candidates Forum last night.

Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic has "A Reported Blog on Politics" with a post-HRC/Logo entry entitled The LOGO Debate: Marriage Is The Question which really was mainly an overview of what the candidates said, mainly about the issue of gay marriage.

Ambinder writes that " It’s helpful to look at this debate through two lenses: the hopeful lens of the gay community and the skeptical lens of the pundit who is always peering around the corner at the general election."

One commenter wrote: "The LGBT community will never accept John Edwards as long as he keeps up with his stump speech about how "conflicted" he is over gay marriage."

But as Ambinder writes "...gay marriage – that’s the holy grail for many (though by no means all) of the gay community."

I couldn't agree more. And that's what I wrote at Marc's blog too:

Am I disappointed that Edwards is not more 'developed'? Sure, but I have not completely dismissed his viability as an electible presidential candidate. I for one am not a single issue voter, or okay, i am RARELY a single issue voter.

Something I would argue is valuable to keep in mind about what John Edwards does bring to the table: Economic Justice issues for working and middle class folks -- that includes most of us in the GLBT community, some are far more privileged and economically elite, but most of us are not.

Here's why I believe Edwards should not be completely dismissed: His focus on the economy and economic justice, health care and his national economic stimulation plans to put people to work for more than minimum wage and to make sure workers no longer suffer while the richest and greediest -- the friends of Bush and Cheney -- become even wealthier at the expense of all the rest of us.

When the majority of regular working people begin experiencing and reaping economic benefits which currently are not available to most working people, zero to poor people and most are not being experienced by many other middle class working families -- i.e. the less stressed, less crunched they feel and the less economically stressed they actually are -- the more open to change, the more generous their attitudes in many areas toward social progress, social justice including GLBT issues.

Kevin Phillips and others have well-documented Republican administrations' devastation to working families (especially pointed beginning with Reagan) -- it has become far worse under Bush Cheney despite the happy talk. Look what is happening in the financial markets right now. None of these people give a crap about whether middle class, working, much less poor people have houses, health care or jobs. All they care about is whether their investments make profits. That is the real republican mandate. They obfuscate that truth and hide it from the stupid evangelicals with emotional sleights of hand to keep them from understanding and knowing their own economic issues.

How/Why do we fail to understand the same thing?

While their own economic survival is at stake -- which it very much is at this point in our country -- It is harder for people to feel generous and tolerant toward others.

When people feel/believe/know/experience the very real economic devastation this administration has wrought on working people and on this economy for the past seven years (helped along by Bill Clinton's kowtowing to the global profiteers and multinational corporations via NAFTA), they do not/are not feeling very 'secure' and thus less tolerant, less generous, less sure about what this means for them.

Couple that with the mean-spirited divisiveness -- the republicans have known exactly how to keep americans divided, stressed, fighting, fragmented and NOT focusing on the most foundational important issues, especially the utter lack of concern that the republican party truly has for anyone but the truly wealthy. Right now they are demagoging the color of brown people and immigration BECAUSE it takes our eyes off the economic devastation they have inflicted upon this citizenry.

I do not condone Edwards' lack of progress in the marriage issue (Hillary and Obama are no better in their explanations), but I believe there are underlying foundational issues -- ECONOMIC ISSUES, THE ECONOMY, ECONOMIC JUSTICE -- to consider which have a critical impact on how people view/experience/talk/feel about not only OUR issues, but others such as: WAR, DOMESTIC SECURITY, IMMIGRATION, INTERNATIONAL POLICIES...etc

These are especially interconnected and extremely linked to how working families are doing economically (in addition to the leadership of our so-called leaders, grassroots efforts, personal relationships that folks have with their GLBT family members and friends....)

There are historical trends (yellow scare, brown scare, civil rights, womens rights, gay rights) which are deeply linked to economic (and educational and legal) progress as experienced by the masses in industrial societies.

I'm actually far more concerned about first tackling economic justice, health care, restoring pensions and benefits to retirees and workers, getting jobs to inner city -- and RURAL -- citizens and youth....because if our economic foundation crumbles further (like our infrastructure is doing), you can bet there will little or no mass support for OUR issues -- which will seem irrelevant to many many people.

If the republicans and their toadies continue to destroy the working families of this country (including GLBT families), there will continue to be accelerating, even more rapidly growing legions of our fellow citizens who are living in perpetual violence, despair, base indignities, who have children who are starving, dying, murdering, being murdered, parents who cannot get health care or elder care ... this is the road we are headed down at this moment unless there are major changes toward putting people in this country back to work at jobs that pay more than McDonald's or Walmart pittances.

That is why I will still listen to what John Edwards has to say despite his lack of progress at this point -- he has the capacity to learn and grow -- just like Obama, just like Clinton -- and one of these three -- or hell if only Gore would jump in, i'd support him -- but more than likely one of these three (none of whom has the perfect position on our issues) is likely to be the candidate. Sure I'd love Kucinich, but it's not realistic.

I for one am sick of the evil of the republican demagogues and if Edwards can win key voters in key states that Hillary and Obama can not, then his economic justice and health care platform combined with his commitment to full legal rights, is a major step in the right direction. I have no doubt that just as america will come along over the next five years (like Gravel stated), Edwards will grow too.

I could be wrong, but that's my take on things at this point. I'm not willing to count Edwards out yet.

Ambinder's Atlantic blog on the topic is here, my specific comments (mostly the same as above) here. And HRC Back Story Blog has some analysis and linked stories, too.

Technorati Tags:
HRC, LOGO,presidential forum, Los Angeles, human rights campaign, health care in America, health insurance, inequality, injustice, universal health care, John Edwards, Kucinich, economic justice, working families, working class, Kevin Phillips, economy,inner city, economic benefits, economic stress, financial markets, housing market

Krugman Restates the Obvious about the GOP Repugneocons

PAUL KRUGMAN: Don’t Blame Bush

NY Times, May 18, 2007

I’ve been looking at the race for the Republican presidential nomination, and I’ve come to a disturbing conclusion: maybe we’ve all been too hard on President Bush.

No, I haven’t lost my mind. Mr. Bush has degraded our government and undermined the rule of law; he has led us into strategic disaster and moral squalor.

But the leading contenders for the Republican nomination have given us little reason to believe they would behave differently. Why should they? The principles Mr. Bush has betrayed are principles today’s G.O.P., dominated by movement conservatives, no longer honors. In fact, rank-and-file Republicans continue to approve strongly of Mr. Bush’s policies — and the more un-American the policy, the more they support it.

Now, Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney may have done a few things other Republicans wouldn’t. Their initial domestic surveillance program was apparently so lawless and unconstitutional that even John Ashcroft, approached on his sickbed, refused to go along. For the most part, however, Mr. Bush has done just what his party wants and expects.

There was a telling moment during the second Republican presidential debate, when Brit Hume of Fox News confronted the contenders with a hypothetical “24”-style situation in which torturing suspects is the only way to stop a terrorist attack.

Bear in mind that such situations basically never happen in real life, that the U.S. military has asked the producers of “24” to cut down on the torture scenes. Last week Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, circulated an open letter to our forces warning that using torture or “other expedient methods to obtain information” is both wrong and ineffective, and that it is important to keep the “moral high ground.”

But aside from John McCain, who to his credit echoed Gen. Petraeus (and was met with stony silence), the candidates spoke enthusiastically in favor of torture and against the rule of law. Rudy Giuliani endorsed waterboarding. Mitt Romney declared that he wants accused terrorists at Guantánamo, “where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil ... My view is, we ought to double Guantánamo.” His remarks were greeted with wild applause.

And torture isn’t the only Bush legacy that seems destined to continue if a Republican becomes the next president. Mr. Bush got us into the Iraq quagmire by conflating Saddam with Al Qaeda, treating two mutually hostile groups as if they constituted a single enemy. Well, Mr. Romney offers more of that. “There is a global jihadist effort,” he warned in the second debate. “And they’ve come together as Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda with that intent.” Aren’t Sunnis and Shiites killing each other, not coming together? Nevermind.

What about the administration’s state of denial over Iraq, its unwillingness to face up to reality? None of the leading G.O.P. presidential contenders seem any different — certainly not Mr. McCain, who strolled through a Baghdad marketplace wearing a bulletproof vest, accompanied by more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees while attack helicopters flew overhead, then declared that his experience proved there are parts of Baghdad where you can “walk freely.”

Finally, what about the Bush administration’s trademark incompetence? In appointing unqualified loyalists to key positions, Mr. Bush was just following the advice of the Heritage Foundation, which urged him back in 2001 to “make appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second.” And the base doesn’t mind: the Bernie Kerik affair — Mr. Giuliani’s attempt to get his corrupt, possibly mob-connected business partner appointed to head the department of homeland security — hasn’t kept Mr. Giuliani from becoming the apparent front-runner for the Republican nomination.

What we need to realize is that the infamous “Bush bubble,” the administration’s no-reality zone, extends a long way beyond the White House. Millions of Americans believe that patriotic torturers are keeping us safe, that there’s a vast Islamic axis of evil, that victory in Iraq is just around the corner, that Bush appointees are doing a heckuva job — and that news reports contradicting these beliefs reflect liberal media bias.

And the Republican nomination will go either to someone who shares these beliefs, and would therefore run the country the same way Mr. Bush has, or to a very, very good liar.

GOP ManDate (get it Man-Date?)

Equality: What a Quaint Concept!
True Brilliance by Matt Wuerker of Politco.com

Regarding the Repugnacon GOP Presidential Debates and Field of Candidates:

Not only does he blatantly skewer the claims, contradictions (as in contradicted by REALITY) and the unrelenting Hypocrisy of the Republican Big Tent -- it's still really the same 'Old Boys Club' where women are not allowed, not welcome and in fact are FEARED. Further, by employing an indeterminate Janitor of Color, Wuerker effectively evokes today's invisible, (usually silent) racism and still harkens us back to then-very-visible racist labels of the 50s on bathrooms, water fountains, restaurants indicating "Whites Only" and "Colored" -- labels and divisions which the southern conservatives, fundamentalists and true believers of the Reagan-forward-through-Bush Repug Party dearly wish still existed today.

He also addresses the underlying issue (growing gap) of "Haves and Have Nots" not only by the Janitor but by the 'Wealthy Privileged Moneyed Business MAN' entering the White Male Boys Club, a domain off-limits to anyone not in the frat-boy in-group; the source, origins and purveyors of truly disgusting, vile, dirty, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, hypocritical, power-privilege-and- greed-above-all-else in-the-sewer, gutter politics.

Republicans, right wingers, theocrats, fundamentalists and conservatives who believe in white male power, privilege and entitlement (as opposed to fairness, equality and justice) have made a cottage industry of scripting spin and talking points, unceasingly portraying themselves as perpetual, pitiful victims of 'Affirmative Action', the Civil Rights, Women's and Gay Rights movements of the 60s and 70s all the while for the past hundreds of years maintaining and extending their power, privilege and control in the Halls of Power, the Economy, Wall Street and everywhere they deem 'important' to control.

A truly brilliant political cartoon. One of the best ever.

CBSNews.com Turns Off Comments on Obama Stories: Racism Prevails in USA

Today CBSNews.com informed its staff via email that they should no longer enable comments on stories about presidential candidate Barack Obama. The reason for the new policy, according to the email, is that stories about Obama have been attracting too many racist comments. One site writes this pointed commentary:

Who said AmeriKKKa is ready for a President of Color or a Woman for President?
Not the troglodytes, knuckledraggers and poor, pitiful immature developmentally arrested whiney baby perpetual 'poor me' victim-mentality hypocritical republican WHITE MALE abusers, opressors and predators who have been complaining about their 'unfair treatment' for the past 50 years (since the Civil Rights & Women's Movements; how ironic is that? Conicidence—NOT).

Like Imus they refuse to grow up and insist that they are perpetual poor pitiful victims when in reality THEY CONTINUE TO BE THE MOST RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIC VIOLENT OPPRESSIVE MEMBERS OF OUR CULTURE. (see the LATimes Op-ed in the prior blog entry.)

The right-wing and Republikkkan party continues to count on, exploit and perpetuate this hypocritcal, contradictory, disconnection from reality. But that's what oppressors and exploiters do: they twist and manipulate so that everything is self-serving and selfishly self-interested. There is no room for justice and equality in racism, sexism, patriarchy and especially not in developmentally arrested narcissism.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The CBS Public Eye story is here.

Frank Rich: Defending the Indefensible

FRANK RICH: If defending the indefensible can reduce even a politician of John McCain’s heroic stature to that of Dukakis-in-the-tank, the Iraq war die-hards have nowhere to go but down.

Sunday in the Market With McCain

By FRANK RICH
NYTimes OP-ED COLUMNIST
April 8, 2007

John McCain's April Fools’ Day stroll through Baghdad’s Shorja market last weekend was instantly acclaimed as a classic political pratfall. Protected by more than a hundred American soldiers, three Black Hawk helicopters, two Apache gunships and a bulletproof vest, the senator extolled the “progress” and “good news” in Iraq. Befitting this loopy brand of comedy — reminiscent of “Wedding Crashers,” in which Mr. McCain gamely made a cameo appearance — the star had a crackerjack cast of supporting buffoons: Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who told reporters “I bought five rugs for five bucks!,” and Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, who likened the scene to “a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime.”

Five rugs for five bucks: boy, we’ve really got that Iraq economy up and running now! No wonder the McCain show was quickly dubbed “McCain’s Mission Accomplished” and “McCain’s Dukakis-in-the-Tank Photo Op.” But at a certain point the laughter curdled. Reporters rudely pointed out there were 60-plus casualties in this market from one February attack alone and that six Americans were killed in the Baghdad environs on the day of his visit.“ Your heart goes out to just the typical Iraqi because they can’t have that kind of entourage,” said Kyra Phillips of CNN. The day after Mr. McCain’s stroll, The Times of London reported that 21 of the Shorja market’s merchants and workers were ambushed and murdered.

The political press has stepped up its sotto voce deathwatch on the McCain presidential campaign ever since, a drumbeat enhanced by last week’s announcement of Mr. McCain’s third-place finish in the Republican field’s fund-raising sweepstakes. (He is scheduled to restate his commitment to the race on “60 Minutes” tonight.) But his campaign was sagging well before he went to Baghdad. In retrospect, his disastrous trip may be less significant as yet another downturn in a faltering presidential candidacy than as a turning point in hastening the inevitable American exit from Iraq.

Mr. McCain is no Michael Dukakis. Unlike the 1988 Democratic standard-bearer, who was trying to counter accusations that he was weak on national defense, the Arizona senator has more military cred than any current presidential aspirant, let alone the current president. Every American knows that Mr. McCain is a genuine hero who survived torture during more than five years of captivity at the Hanoi Hilton. That’s why when he squandered that credibility on an embarrassing propaganda stunt, he didn’t hurt only himself but also inflicted collateral damage on lesser Washington mortals who still claim that the “surge” can bring “victory” in Iraq.

It can’t be lost on those dwindling die-hards, particularly those on the 2008 ballot, that if defending the indefensible can reduce even a politician of Mr. McCain’s heroic stature to that of Dukakis-in-the-tank, they have nowhere to go but down. They’ll cut and run soon enough. For starters, just watch as Mr. McCain’s G.O.P. presidential rivals add more caveats to their support for the administration’s Iraq policy. Already, in a Tuesday interview on “Good Morning America,” Mitt Romney inched toward concrete “timetables and milestones” for Iraq, with the nonsensical proviso they shouldn’t be published “for the enemy.”

As if to confirm we’re in the last throes, President Bush threw any remaining caution to the winds during his news conference in the Rose Garden that same morning. Almost everything he said was patently misleading or an outright lie, a sure sign of a leader so entombed in his bunker (he couldn’t even emerge for the Washington Nationals’ ceremonial first pitch last week) that he feels he has nothing left to lose.

Incredibly, he chided his adversaries on the Hill for going on vacation just as he was heading off for his own vacation in Crawford. Then he attacked Congress for taking 57 days to “pass emergency funds for our troops” even though the previous, Republican-led Congress took 119 days on the same bill in 2006. He ridiculed the House bill for “pork and other spending that has nothing to do with the war,” though last year’s war-spending bill was also larded with unrelated pork, from Congressional efforts to add agricultural subsidies to the president’s own request for money for bird-flu preparation.

Mr. Bush’s claim that military equipment would be shortchanged if he couldn’t sign a spending bill by mid-April was contradicted by not one but two government agencies. A Government Accountability Office report faulted poor Pentagon planning for endemic existing equipment shortages in the National Guard. The Congressional Research Service found that the Pentagon could pay for the war until well into July. Since by that point we’ll already be on the threshold of our own commanders’ late-summer deadline for judging the surge, what’s the crisis?

The president then ratcheted up his habitual exploitation of the suffering of the troops and their families — a button he had pushed five days earlier when making his six-weeks-tardy visit to pose for photos at scandal-ridden Walter Reed. “Congress’s failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines,” he said. “And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to.”

His own failures had already foreordained exactly these grim results. Only the day before this news conference, the Pentagon said that the first unit tossed into the Baghdad surge would stay in Iraq a full year rather than the expected nine months, and that three other units had been ordered back there without the usual yearlong stay at home. By week’s end, we would learn the story of the suspected friendly-fire death of 18-year-old Pvt. Matthew Zeimer, just two hours after assuming his first combat post. He had been among those who had been shipped to war with a vastly stripped-down training regimen, 10 days instead of four weeks, forced by the relentless need for new troops in Iraq.

Meanwhile the Iraqi “democracy” that Mr. Zeimer died for was given yet another free pass. Mr. Bush applauded the Iraqi government for “working on an oil law,” though it languishes in Parliament, and for having named a commander for its Baghdad troops. Much of this was a replay of Mr. Bush’s sunny Rose Garden news conference in June, only then he claimed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was taking charge of Baghdad security on his own. Now it’s not even clear whom the newly named Iraqi commander is commanding. The number of military operations with Iraqis in the lead is falling, not rising, according to the Pentagon. Even as the administration claims that Iraqis are leading the Baghdad crackdown, American military losses were double those of the Iraqi Army in March.

Mr. Bush or anyone else who sees progress in the surge is correct only in the most literal and temporary sense. Yes, an influx of American troops is depressing some Baghdad violence. But any falloff in the capital is being offset by increased violence in the rest of the country; the civilian death toll rose 15 percent from February to March. Mosul, which was supposedly secured in 2003 by the current American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is now a safe haven for terrorists, according to an Iraqi government spokesman. The once-pacified Tal Afar, which Mr. Bush declared “a free city that gives reason for hope for a free Iraq” in 2006, is a cauldron of bloodshed.

If Baghdad isn’t going to repeat Tal Afar’s history, we will have to send many more American troops than promised and keep them there until Mr. Maliki presides over a stable coalition government providing its own security. Hell is more likely to freeze over first. Yet if American troops don’t start to leave far sooner than that — by the beginning of next year, according to the retired general and sometime White House consultant Barry McCaffrey — the American Army will start to unravel. The National Guard, whose own new involuntary deployments to Iraq were uncovered last week by NBC News, can’t ride to the rescue indefinitely.

The center will not hold, no matter what happens in the Washington standoff over war funding. Surely no one understands better than Mr. McCain that American lives are being wasted in the war’s escalation. That is what he said on David Letterman’s show in an unguarded moment some five weeks ago — though he recanted the word wasted after taking flak the morning after.

Like his Letterman gaffe, Mr. McCain’s ludicrous market stunt was at least in the tradition of his old brand of straight talk, in that it revealed the truth, however unintentionally. But many more have watched the constantly recycled and ridiculed spectacle of his “safe” walk in Baghdad than heard him on a late-night talk show. This incident has the staying power of the Howard Dean scream. Should it speed America’s disengagement from Iraq, what looks today like John McCain’s farcical act of political suicide may some day loom large as a patriot’s final act of sacrifice for his country.