A Patriot's Message to the Right-wing & Republican Party

Came across this among the responses to David Broder's newest column entitled "The GOP Loses Ground" at the Washington Post website.

charliemunn wrote:

I'm an average, Independent American who retired from the USAF. I don't believe in pre-emptive wars, and do believe in fiscal responsibility. I hate Big Money Lobby and our bought and paid for, do nothing, blow hard congress. Because I retired from the USAF, wife and I have good health care which mimics socialized medicine. We've also long advocated single pay universal health care, strong unions, and breaking up large corporations such as GM, et al, into small worker owned and managed co-ops. That is, we are capitalist who believe in the fundamentals of Adam Smith and David Hume. Smith and Hume firmly believed in small business, either family owned or worker owned, as well as tight government regulations. They did not believe in large corporations which must grow or die and are inherently unsustainable.

If polled, I'll tell you I'm a conservative after the style of Einsenhower. Based upon that one question, today's so-called "republican" would incorrectly label me as center right. But based upon all of my other beliefs, that so-called "republican" would call me a communist, or worse. That is, you and your ilk just don't get it. Most of you are ideological Reaganista's who pull your "beliefs" out of thin air. You spend government money like drunken sailors, never questioning your leaders and seem to be intent on destroying unions, and the blue collar working class who built this country. Yet you claim to believe in fiscal responsibility and the working man. That's obviously a blatant lie that you either can't see, or refuse to admit. Either way, I don't want that kind of person in our government. My last republican vote was for George H. W. Bush when he was candidate for the republican party. When that phony old B movie star won, then made our country into a debtor nation, I suspected it signaled the end of the republican party.

Although I'm not that happy with spineless, bought and paid for democrats, I now belong to the Obama movement. We intend to continue to put pressure on all politicians, including Obama. We'll only vote for those who work against Big Money Lobby, and for We The People, and we don't give a damn what you call us.

Another poster responded: "Bravo, Airman."

Bravo, indeed.

Broder's column is here. It's impossible to link to the Airman's post in the comments section because the page numbers shift as new comments are posted. Look for the posts by "charliemunn" and "Attucks".

About the photograph:

WISE, VA - JULY 26, 2008: Patients await dental care at the Remote Area Medical (RAM) in Wise, Virginia. The free clinic, which lasts 2 1/2 days, is the largest of its kind in the nation, and organizers expected to treat more than 2,500 people over the weekend, mostly providing dental and vision services. Residents of the "coal counties" of Appalachia are some of the most impoverished in the nation, and most are either underinsured or have no health insurance at all. For many, the RAM clinic is the only medical care they may receive each year.

And Now the Press Begins Picking Apart Obama: No longer the shiny new object

Contains updated material:

As the iconic California pol, Willie Brown, wrote a couple of days ago: "The democrats are in trouble. Period."

His column was entitled "Palin floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee."

"Whenever you start having to explain things, you're on defense." He added that dems don't win elections while on the defensive. Since the brilliant pick of Palin, the dems have been on the defensive. Completely and totally. And totally screwing it up.

The media is bored with Obama.

Here's another reason why Obama is failing to connect as an online reader posted on the washington post politics chat with Dan Balz this week with regard to the race for the White House:

"New York: Dan, as someone who intends to vote for Obama, I'm constantly puzzled at how he seems flummoxed when answering questions he should clearly expect to be asked: about NAFTA, when life begins, and most recently the surge. He seems to be thinking out loud, as though he hasn't thought it through ahead of time. Maybe the campaigns folks just don't consider these burning issues? But it seems to me it goes to character and trust, which may matter more than issues. What's going on here?

Dan Balz: That's an interesting point. ...... Does his style of answering questions make him look less decisive than he really is?"

Duh. Yeah. Looks and sounds unsure, defensive, whiny, complaining (or as Cohen wrote today -- detached, disconnected, dispassionate, disinterested and thus reinforces the NOT READY meme.)

Mostly I keep hearing " those mean republicans aren't playing fair!!! boo hoo hoo! wah wah wah."

Every clip I have seen of Obama recently he sounds like a defensive distant clueless ineffectual John Kerry in 04 -- (sighing Gore in 2000, Dudley Dukakis in 88, Carter in 80) -- he's taken to whining and complaining about the unfair mean old republikkkans. Boo Hoo Hoo some more.

Total losing / loser tactics.

Plus Obama looks like he is sleep walking through this. As if all he needed to do was win the primary and the anointment would be complete. give me a break.

Tom Friedman puts it this way:

...[H]ere’s what I’ve been feeling for a while: Whoever slipped that Valium into Barack Obama’s coffee needs to be found and arrested by the Democrats because Obama has gone from cool to cold.  ...

I don’t know how long or high the “Sarah Palin bounce” will go, but I would take her very seriously as a politician. She may not know nuclear deterrence theory, but she can deliver a line. 

Sarah Palin is ... is connecting at a gut level. So does McCain — and, therefore, they don’t need to give their constituents many details.

This race has a long way to go. It is still Obama’s election to lose. But Obama got where he is today by defining himself as the agent of change and by defining change as the issue in this election. McCain, with Palin’s help, has once again not only made Obama’s experience an issue, but has now moved in on Obama’s strength and tried to define the G.O.P. ticket as the party of “change.”

How, you ask, can two people running with the exact same policies as the party that has been in power for eight years, claim to be the agents of “change?” That’s politics. There’s no shame. But what this has done is to make the word “change” as a campaign slogan meaningless. Obama will need to find another way to connect his ideas — clearly, crisply and passionately.

Because, while the pollsters tell us it is still really close, my own totally unscientific, seat of the pants poll tells me this: When you say Obama’s name today and ask people for their first impression — a quick, flash, gut, first impression — no single word or phrase or policy comes to mind. His opponents will fill that vacuum if he doesn’t. They already are.

Surprise. It's Not Over! Obama only won the primary, not the election (barely) and The democraps are not winning the national election anymore —again. If Obama does lose, there are some party heads that should roll: start with Dean, Pelosi, Reid.

Sarah Palin didn't have to prove she was "of the people."
She really is the people.

P.S. It's not Hillary Clinton's responsibility to win independents, other Hillary supporters, and white working class voters for Obama. That's his responsibility. And he's blowing it.

Hillary is doing the smart thing by NOT joining the hysterical hatefest against the talented and energetic Palin. After all, she knows exactly what being on the target end of that hatefest is like.

The media is bored with Obama. They need their "newness" fix. Obama's no longer the shiny new object that captured the A.D.H.D. stenographers' pool 20 months ago (yes, that's sarcasm, not intended for most of the print-only press). The "shiney new object" honor, especially as regards the cable news tweeties and their ilk, now goes to Sarah Palin (once they get past their snobbish boorish behavior; they'll likely never get over their sexism, however).

Here's more keen insight from Willie Brown (and bad news for the dems/Obama):

As for Palin herself, she is going to be very, very effective on the campaign trail, especially if McCain's people can figure out how to gently keep her from getting into confrontations with the press.

If she can answer questions like she handled herself at the convention, Palin will turn out to be the most interesting person in all of politics, and the press will treat her like they treated Obama when he was first discovered.

And remember, the Palin bandwagon needs to roll for only two months.

And as was easily predictable, Obama's adoring media is now turning the corner, turning on him, and will join together to throw him under the bus soon. Then wash their hands with a "Tsk tsk." Totally predictable.

Once again: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Updates: several columns on this very topic beginning to pop up:
And another blogger, Leah McElrath Renna, at the Huffington Post is in full-blown panic mode:

Most of us are out here watching, listening to and reading media that shows a campaign continually in responsive mode and not in charge of the message..."

Actually, I'd use the word "reactive" instead of "responsive."

Chris Cillizza's The Fix on WashingtonPost.com: Obama on Losing End of Personality Contest

WP's right-leaning Richard Cohen: Too Cool to Fight? Obama's moral commitment is being tested, and he doesn't seem to care.

Tom Friedman's NYT column is here.

Be sure to read those columns!

•••••••••••••••••••••••

Upon re-reading it, I think the full text of Willie Brown's thoughts are worth posting en toto:

The Democrats are in trouble. Sarah Palin has totally changed the dynamics of this campaign.

Period.

Palin's speech to the GOP National Convention on Wednesday has set it up so that the Republicans are now on offense and Democrats are on defense. And we don't do well on defense.

Suddenly, Palin and John McCain are the mavericks and Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the status quo, in a year when you don't want to be seen as defending the status quo.

From taxes to oil drilling, Democrats are now going to have to start explaining their positions.

Whenever you start having to explain things, you're on defense.

I actually went back and watched Palin's speech a second time. I didn't go to sleep until 1:30 a.m. I had to make sure I got the lines right.

Her timing was exquisite. She didn't linger with applause, but instead launched into line after line of attack, slipping the knives in with every smile and joke.

And she delivered it like she was just BS-ing on the street with the meter maid.

She didn't have to prove she was "of the people." She really is the people.

There is one thing she should have done: announced when her 17-year-old daughter and the teenage father of the girl's unborn child are getting married and invited all of us to the wedding. It should be like Sunday at church.

As for Palin herself, she is going to be very, very effective on the campaign trail, especially if McCain's people can figure out how to gently keep her from getting into confrontations with the press.

If she can answer questions like she handled herself at the convention, Palin will turn out to be the most interesting person in all of politics, and the press will treat her like they treated Obama when he was first discovered.

And remember, the Palin bandwagon needs to roll for only two months.

Here's the transcript from the Washington Post Dan Balz chat. Here's the complete Willie Brown column in the San Francisco Chronicle; it includes a few thoughts on John and Cindy McCain, too.

.

A Neocon's Admission: Good Reasons for The Vanishing Republican Voter

"

the trend to inequality is real, it is large and it is transforming American society and the American electoral map. Yet the conservative response to this trend verges somewhere between the obsolete and the irrelevant.

"

[Meanwhile...]

Wealthy Americans live in a world in which things work.

In case you missed it:

Excerpts from David Frum's New York Times Magazine editorial 9/7/08:

pervasive economic unease ... is capsizing the Republican Party ... Republican economic management ... has not yielded many benefits for middle-income America.

Meanwhile, the argument over same-sex marriage has become worse than a distraction... [a cruel, sadistic joke perhaps?]

...[C]onservatives need to ask ourselves some hard questions about the trend toward the Democrats among America’s affluent and well educated.

[Seven] of America’s [ten] best-educated states are strongly “blue” in national politics, and the others (Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia) have been trending blue. Of the 10 least-educated, only one (Nevada) is not reliably Republican.

Republicans have been badly hurt in upper America by the collapse of their onetime reputation for integrity and competence. Upper Americans live in a world in which things work. The packages arrive overnight. The car doors clink seamlessly shut. The prevailing Republican view — “of course government always fails, what do you expect it to do?” — is not what this slice of America expects to hear from the people asking to be entrusted with the government.

...low-skilled immigration enriches upper America, lowering the price of personal services like landscaping and restaurant meals. And by holding down wages, immigration makes the business investments of upper America more profitable. 

Of course Frum's primary concern is about the Republicans "losing" POWER and wanting to "win" again. He's actually not that concerned about income inequality as a moral or social justice issue (not even just basic 'fairness'), nor does he mention the growing disparities over the past 30 years which began in the Reagan era. Only Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin (his Secretary of the Treasury) slowed it somewhat (remember, the republicans were in power in the Congress from 1994—2006!) and made America work better again for working people and families as well as for those who had the tools and skills for success. They made it work well for MOST, not just the top 10 percent!

The biggest reason to read the piece is that it's an especially valuable set of facts about why NOT to vote for McCain and the Republican Party this year or any time in the forseeable future.

The complete online NYT Frum piece is here.

.

Desperately Seeking ... intellectual honesty and internal consistency?

Samantha Bee and Comedy Central visit the Republican Convention

What's that word I'm Looking for?
Bristol Palin has made the decision to have her baby, but Samantha Bee tries to remember another word for it.

More republican right-wing hypocrisy on choice, privacy, personal decisions: do as I say, not as I do. It's my choice but I'll take away your right to make your own decisions.

Logic is not the Point: Political Savvy & Emotional Intelligence Are

On CNN, Jeffrey Toobin concluded Sarah Palin's speech was much better than Joe Biden's. The democrat party and Biden have already proved they will have trouble knowing how to handle her without descending into sneering condescension.

Cogent analysis from Tom Shales TV Review column.

"

Palin gave the impression of an entire party rolling up its sleeves and digging in, never mind whether some of its arguments were illogical or shot full of holes, or even blatantly ridiculous, as when she portrayed the party as pro-environment and Giuliani earlier portrayed it as feminist-minded.

She proved herself in the great arena; that's what counts politically. Nobody could watch that speech and still consider her a joke, no matter how flimsy her credentials and qualifications may seem on paper. The joke, it seems, is on those who'd been laughing at her. Last night the laughing ended -- and the cheering began.

"

We'll see if the Obama campaign can adapt. It's clear the democratic party still hasn't. They're making the same tired defensive, deer-in-headlights whiney complaining statements they've always made or completely inappropriate off-base ones that show how condescending they are toward women candidates in general and Palin in specific. Call it a major deficit of emotional intelligence.

I don't mind seeing them get their butts kicked around for a while. I can imagine some well-earned schadenfreude and a few knowing smiles on the part of Hillary Clinton. Hillary's earned a well-deserved rest while the circus plays out. The dems threw her overboard — or under the proverbial bus — I think she's earned sitting on the sidelines from here on out, watching for as long as she wants. It's Obama's responsibility to earn the votes.

But ultimately I would not like to see Team McCain elected in November. It's also richly entertaining to see the Republicans become more wedded to their right wing anti-science, anti-choice, compulsory pregnancy, theocratic wing nuts.

The G.O.P. Vetting Emporium: coming soon to a mall near you!

A little humor along the campaign trail.

That being said, the extreme left, obamabots and newly converted zealots have not failed to show their complete lack of empathy for a woman (and her children) who while being wrong on the issues, has shown some impressive qualities as an individual personality and as a strong woman. Hypocrisy can amply be found in both campaigns in heaping steaming piles.

The personal attacks truly are evidence of the ubiquity of sexism and misogyny in our culture -- it sure wasn't in Hillary's mind -- not to mention the complete effete sniffing snobbery of the belt-way elites, partisan bloggers and the media. Cynicism is the daily vitamin of both sides of the aisle.

Meanwhile: the dems should concede that Sarah Palin may be an impressive person with charming qualities. The republican party is not impressive in the least.

Hillary Rosen has a smart post over at the increasingly out-of-touch-with-reality Huffington Post.

Warning! This pundit isn't feeling the same way as most of my colleagues about Sarah Palin. She is being attacked for her lack of experience for the job and for whether she should be putting her family first instead of her career. This just isn't that unusual in my book. And the more it goes on, the more uncomfortable I feel with that message.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

I'm glad that Ms Palin and her family have the choice to make their own decisions, which should be private decisions. I'm especially happy that they and their children and soon to be grand-child will continue to have access to top-notch medical care; in fact if she wins, they will have the best medical care in the world.

I only wish they and the republican party agreed that all americans have constitutional rights to make their/OUR own personal and medical choices in privacy and that all americans should be afforded access to medical care at least as good as that of our elected federal representatives. We're the only industrialized nation which does not promote the health and well being of its citizens. The republicans have proved they intend to continue dismantling what is left of both privacy rights and the social safety network and social contract.

Don't forget the Republican Health Care Policy for at least 47 million of us:

Hillary's Creeping Judgment Problems

See Update: Hospital Story is True

1. Mark Penn: What the frak took so long to dump this sleezebag?

2. As I've pondered before: why did she hire/trust/entrust her campaign to him in the first place? (He's easily the equivalent of Dick "among the worst of the worst scumbags in politics" Morris, someone we can credit to the first Clinton campaign for subjecting us to the past 15+ years.)

3. Finally, what the fracking frak is up with the truthiness of the Bosnia and dying woman/hospital anecdotes — where the frak are her key campaign staff to prevent such carelessness? More proof of incompetence? And if on the off-chance they were there trying to 'vet' every story that comes forth from her mouth (as they should and must), but she overrode their attempts to vet/correct/confirm the information/stories, why didn't she listen to them? Bad judgment due to sleep deprivation? Or something worse than confusion and chaos?

Hardball politics. Supposedly the Clintons not only play them, they helped invent them and they should be prepared for them, too.

Now I remember why I registered as an independent (again), after having signed up with the democrats for a while. Sigh...where is the pragmatic progressive party?

The problem and the reality is, there is no viable alternative. And we the people truly can't afford another republican presidency: especially not their violence, their disregard for human life (excepting the theoretical unborn and the rich), their unquenchable greed, their profiteering from irresponsible wars, their right-wing fascist and pro-corporation judges, and their total destruction of regulations and laws set up to protect working people against the growing, creeping wealth and power of the richest of the rich who are always the biggest beneficiaries of the republicans (as has been well-documented by many, including Kevin Phillips).

Still conceded: Obama has run a much better campaign overall. It doesn't mean however, that Obama's prepared for the republicans. But with all the recent (and cumulative) bone-headed miscalculations and mistakes of the Clinton campaign, I'm not sure they're prepared either. I'm seriously reconsidering (again) whether EITHER democrat is electible much less prepared to head this nation, much less prepared to truly LEAD its citizens. At this point, Obama has a slight edge, but he still has his own serious judgment and electibility problems mired in the muckiness of our racist history and his own issues of disingenuousness.

Doubts creep in and they could have easily been avoided.

Get Your Vintage & New Campaign Collectibles
candidate, party and election, pins, stickers, buttons, bumper stickers, posters, autographs and more!

Technorati Tags:
Dick Morris,Mark Penn

Obama Now Has a Growing 'White Problem' Thanks to Pastor Wright

Poll shows Rev. Jeremiah Wright hurting Barack Obama

More proof that journalists have been lazy and overtly biased and caught up in Obamamania. The first tape in question about "God Damn America" has been in existence since September 2001.

Before going into hysterics: Anyone who stopped for a moment to think/empathize with the experiences of black folks in America and US history could understand how Wright could say what he said. And Obama has distanced himself (although you would think he would have had the judgment to understand this would be a problem when he first started to think about running for president.)

Given all that, I do sadly think Wright's anti-Hillary comments indicated an appalling lack of acknowledgment of and disregard for the effects of sexism in our culture, especially regarding what Hillary has endured for 15+ years. That's disappointing as well.

However, as they say, "With Friends Like These..."the republican and right-wing 527s are going to have a field day if Obama is the democratic nominee. That will very possibly lose him the election, if not the democratic nomination. I'll be interested to see how he handles it going forward. It's a big problem and it won't go away easily: that seems clear.

What also seems clear is that the old identity politics, politics of 'victimization', who's suffered more, politics of 'essentialism', are/is not going to sit well with the majority of voters, who happen to be white. That path can only benefit John McCain and the Republicans.

Regarding the Judgement/Judgment to be President issue: I also have to wonder why the Obama campaign didn't have the judgment to have seen this coming long before now.

Technorati Tags:
2008 campaigns, 2008 election, judgment, judgment to be president, judgement, judgement to be president

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

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

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.

NYTimes 08 Primary Endorsements: Clinton, McCain

Times Endorses Clinton, McCain in Primaries

Clinton is overall favorite

The editorial board touts Senator Clinton's "powerful intellect" and her genuine, needed ability to 'hit the ground running on day one' to solve the complex problems cause by the ineptness of George Bush (and the republicans).

Unlike the in-depth analysis of Clinton's strengths, what's interesting about the paper's endorsement of McCain is that more space is spent dismantling the other Republican candidates than on McCain, who wins their endorsement in the Republican primary mainly because he "promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field."

We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.

As to why they're not endorsing the city's 'favorite son' (Giuliani):

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

Here is the entire Clinton endorsement and the reasoning behind it:

January 25, 2008
NYT EDITORIAL

Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton

This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.

The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image. On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.

On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course — shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind education program.

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right.

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America’s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t be able to do it town by town.

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

Clinton endorsement here; McCain here.

The Squandered Bickering of the Democratic Front-Runners = Schadenfreude for Right Wingers

Maybe I'll have some more personal insights as this ugly thing moves forward (or actually as it drags us backwards), but for now I wanted to quickly capture my current stream of consciousness (and fragmentation) about the latest drama of Hillary, Bill, Obama:

As an ex-republican, I have little doubt that Karl Rove, the republican presidential candidates, all the current republican members of congress and party officials, the swift-boat-type 527s gearing up since 2004, and all the evil brains and strategists of the republican party are smacking their lips, gleefully applauding this sand-box behavior by the democrats -- they simply couldn't be happier.

As a white anti-racist activist/educator who was born in and raised for the first 13 years in Mississippi, and who has lived in the Southwest and on both coasts: WTF were both Bill & Hillary thinking? Clearly not thinking things through carefully. As Oprah sometimes reminds us: "Words have meaning, words have energy, words have consequences."

As a white anti-racist, social justice, women's rights feminist/activist/educator: I know very well that racism "infects" us from birth in this country. I know that participating in the struggle to 'disappear' all forms of bigotry and racism from our culture, combined with my own internal struggle for personal integrity, combined with an ever-present awareness of the myriad, unconscious ways in which the ugly virus of racism spreads its infection, means that we always have work to do. That struggle to defeat the residual molecules inside us never ends just as it is clear the struggle outside -- out in the world, the community, the schools, the churches, etc -- must continue.

And so I ask myself: what is it about being American (especially WHITE and American) that we're so arrogant (and defensive) to presume that we have to be always right (and perfect)? I know part of the answer to that for myself and my culture, but it's for another day. So, Bill, Hillary: why don't you just apologize, acknowledge you're not perfect on this issue -- who is perfect on this ugly issue? -- and move forward, promising to be more aware, more thoughtful and more sensitive. A little authentic humility could go a long way. You have fanned the flames by your stubborn refusal to take responsibility for being unconscious and careless even though you clearly weren't intentionally doing so (and probably a lot tired and fuzzy-minded in addition to being defensive).

It makes me question whether I want leaders who can't admit they're not perfect or all-knowing who can't learn from mistakes and move on to not repeat those particular mistake(s) again.

As a lesbian woman (who has been a single-mom raising a son) and who knows full well the ugly combined effects of sexism and homophobia and their stubborn resistance to innoculation and healing, I'm still hurt that Obama has pandered to the ugly homophobia of the black and intolerant religious communities. It makes me question whether I want leaders who can't admit they're not perfect or all-knowing who can't learn from mistakes and move on to not repeat those particular mistake(s) again. Because of this well-known incident, it makes me reluctant to trust Senator Obama. Which makes me understand even more why my african-american brothers and sisters may feel very reluctant to trust Hillary again.

As a white southern woman from Mississippi with working class roots and my family's middle class aspirations and who was raised on much of the 'hidden' as well as overt racism of the South, this is exactly the kind of "P.C." (politically correct) crap -- arguing over who is more 'pure', who's more of a 'victim' -- known in identity politics and academia as 'essentialism' that becomes tiresome very quickly -- even moreso for folks who really aren't that keen about working on the 'inner demons' -- they just want people to get along and move on.

As an idealist: I especially gravitated to the fact that Obama had been using a more conscious, more sophisticated (and spiritual) language of inclusion, transformation -- with great potential for moving us past the old stale model that Hillary still knows and practices very well

As a pragmatist and realist: I realize that knowing how to negotiate that old stale model may be necessary with the ugly republicans and their ugly strategies that WILL occur once the nominees are chosen.

As a developmental humanist, life-long learner and educator: I believe the democratic party began a developmental, ultimately necessary, but very painful process during the 70s (which the Republicans used, manipulated, exploited to great effect during the 80s) that drove almost all white Southerners and countless other white working class voters from the democratic party (to the republicans and distressingly against their own economic interests).

As a competitive political activist and human being who wants things to change and especially sees the need for turning away from the rich-getting-richer to hell with everyone else Republicans: A return to the ugliest aspects of that process could quickly cement into a dead-stop roadblock of what has recently become a gathering downhill steamroll for the democratic party. The candidates and their campaigns better stop it NOW if they truly care about the country, the voters, the citizens, families and working people of this nation (and beyond).

As a southern woman raised to believe in 'good manners' and whose family knew well how to fight verbally and viciously to the bitter end (but not to make up and heal things over -- much less how to 'use your words' to avoid the ugly words in the first place): I viscerally recoil from and hate the ugly conflict and the public display of bad manners and family disputes. Conflict can usually be resolved, if both parties are willing participants -- but conflict can also have real consequences, often very NEGATIVE, long-term consequences. Some people have a higher tolerance for it and are more resilient, but not everyone.

Like good southern girls are raised to do, and because it's my authentic nature, I mostly try to avoid conflict when possible, especially the dishonest indirect manipulative, passive-agressive stuff that BOTH of these campaigns and candidates have been engaging in (and yes, I think it originated in the Clinton campaign). But please, if you're going to disagree, do it respectfully, peacefully, honestly, and directly. Those are communication and assertiveness skills I've worked hard to learn and master -=- admittedly with mixed results. But then again, they're all much more privileged, far richer, more educated, well-traveled and supposedly 'experienced' than most of the rest of us. How come they're acting worse than pouty, bratty children?

As an independent-minded progressive with a strong, core focus on the woeful economics of our country for working folks and families, and who is one of the 47 million without access to health care, who sees that these 'potential presidents' are squandering precious time, resources, creativity, brain power at a critical time, and whose friends, community, family members have lost ground financially especially since the Bush-Cheney rape and pillage of our country, and who knows that if people can't feed their families, don't have decent work or a place to live that NONE OF THIS CURRENT PEDANTIC SQUABBLING WILL MATTER if the Republicans continue to turn us into another third world country of plutocrats and elites ruling over the rest of us, another has-been former empire crumbling at the seams, with leaders and the power elites continuing to grow fat, rich, richer and fiddling while our own version of Rome burns, while we the people continue fighting over the 10% of the crumbs that the indifferent-to-the-suffering/plight-of-others upper 10 percent brush off their well-enriched, overflowing, privileged, mean tables, I ask myself: WTF are they doing? And I can't help but answer: John Edwards is looking pretty good right now. How ironic is that?

Matt Lauer Interviewing the Lying Hypocrite Larry Craig

Initial impressions:

Honestly. Who does this full-of-internalized-homophobia, big fat self-hating homophobe homo gay fag REPUBLICAN think he is fooling?

Personally, I don't want him on "our" team. Please. Go back to your wife. Hurry.

As usual: The Repugs, so full of utter hypocrisy and bigoted crap.

Kudos to David Shuster's B.S. Detector

Bless David Shuster's keen laser-like eye for hypocrisy.

GOP hypocrisy? Click image above or direct Video Link: http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??f=00&g=2df39653-2eb2-4b19-a4bc-bee20666e4df&rf=buzzzed.blogspot.com

Hat-tip to Daily Kos

David moved in for the jugular. He asked her, what is the name of the last soldier from her district killed in Iraq. Congresswoman Blackburn was forced to admit that she didn't know. David then told her. He was 18 years old (will check for this on C&L so I can get his name). He then reiterated his puzzlement about why it is that Congresswoman Blackburn knows so much about MoveOn.org, yet doesn't know the names of KIA from her own district--this was after she claimed that she and her staff "keep in touch every day" about what is going on with service people from her district.

THIS is how you respond to the Repubs about The Ad. David, you the man!!!

.....

Finally, and the heart of what this is really about:

The soldier from Ms. Blackburn's district was named Jeremy Bohannon. He was killed in Iraq on August 9, 2007 and was just 18 years old. Our prayers for him and the loved ones he left behind.

Technorati Tags:
GOP hypocrisy, David Shuster, dailykos, video, moveon ad, blackburn

Frank Rich: Will the Democrats Betray Us?

Will the Democrats Betray Us?

FRANK RICH

OP-ED Columnist

NYTimes

Sunday, September 17, 2007

"SIR, I don't know, actually": The fact that America's surrogate commander in chief, David Petraeus, could not say whether the war in Iraq is making America safer was all you needed to take away from last week's festivities in Washington. Everything else was a verbal quagmire, as administration spin and senatorial preening fought to a numbing standoff.


Not that many Americans were watching. The country knew going in that the White House would win its latest campaign to stay its course of indefinitely shoveling our troops and treasure into the bottomless pit of Iraq. The only troops coming home alive or with their limbs intact in President Bush's troop "reduction" are those who were scheduled to be withdrawn by April anyway. Otherwise the president would have had to extend combat tours yet again, mobilize more reserves or bring back the draft.

On the sixth anniversary of the day that did not change everything, General Petraeus couldn't say we are safer because he knows we are not. Last Sunday, Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the C.I.A.'s Osama bin Laden unit, explained why. He wrote in The Daily News that Al Qaeda, under the de facto protection of Pervez Musharraf, is "on balance" more threatening today that it was on 9/11. And as goes Pakistan, so goes Afghanistan. On Tuesday, just as the Senate hearings began, Lisa Myers of NBC News reported on a Taliban camp near Kabul in an area nominally controlled by the Afghan government we installed. It is training bomb makers to attack America.

Little of this registered in or beyond the Beltway. New bin Laden tapes and the latest 9/11 memorial rites notwithstanding, we're back in a 9/10 mind-set. Bin Laden, said Frances Townsend, the top White House homeland security official, "is virtually impotent." Karen Hughes, the Bush crony in charge of America's P.R. in the jihadists' world, recently held a press conference anointing Cal Ripken Jr. our international "special sports envoy." We are once more sleepwalking through history, fiddling while the Qaeda not in Iraq prepares to burn.

This is why the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, including those more accurate than Mr. Bush's recent false analogies, can take us only so far. Our situation is graver than it was during Vietnam.


Certainly there were some eerie symmetries between General Petraeus's sales pitch last week and its often-noted historical antecedent: Gen. William Westmoreland's similar mission for L.B.J. before Congress on April 28, 1967. Westmoreland, too, refused to acknowledge that our troops were caught in a civil war. He spoke as well of the "repeated successes" of the American-trained South Vietnamese military and ticked off its growing number of combat-ready battalions. "The strategy we're following at this time is the proper one," the general assured America, and "is producing results."

Those fabulous results delayed our final departure from Vietnam for another eight years — just short of the nine to 10 years General Petraeus has said may be needed for a counterinsurgency in Iraq. But there's a crucial difference between the Westmoreland show of 1967 and the 2007 revival by General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Westmoreland played to a full and largely enthusiastic house. Most Americans still supported the war in Vietnam and trusted him; so did all but a few members of Congress, regardless of party. All three networks pre-empted their midday programming for Westmoreland's Congressional appearance.

Our Iraq commander, by contrast, appeared before a divided and stalemated Congress just as an ABC News-Washington Post poll found that most Americans believed he would overhype progress in Iraq. No network interrupted a soap opera for his testimony. On cable the hearings fought for coverage with Britney Spears's latest self-immolation and the fate of Madeleine McCann, our latest JonBenet Ramsey stand-in.

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker could grab an hour of prime television time only by slinking into the safe foxhole of Fox News, where Brit Hume chaperoned them on a gloomy, bunkerlike set before an audience of merely 1.5 million true believers. Their "Briefing for America," as Fox titled it, was all too fittingly interrupted early on for a commercial promising pharmaceutical relief from erectile dysfunction.

Even if military "victory" were achievable in Iraq, America could not win a war abandoned by its own citizens. The evaporation of that support was ratified by voters last November. For that, they were rewarded with the "surge." Now their mood has turned darker. Americans have not merely abandoned the war; they don't want to hear anything that might remind them of it, or of war in general. Katie Couric's much-promoted weeklong visit to the front produced ratings matching the CBS newscast's all-time low. Angelina Jolie's movie about Daniel Pearl sank without a trace. Even Clint Eastwood's wildly acclaimed movies about World War II went begging. Over its latest season, "24" lost a third of its viewers, just as Mr. Bush did between January's prime-time address and last week's.

You can't blame the public for changing the channel. People realize that the president's real "plan for victory" is to let his successor clean up the mess. They don't want to see American troops dying for that cause, but what can be done? Americans voted the G.O.P. out of power in Congress; a clear majority consistently tell pollsters they want out of Iraq. And still every day is Groundhog Day. Our America, unlike Vietnam-era America, is more often resigned than angry. Though the latest New York Times-CBS News poll finds that only 5 percent trust the president to wrap up the war, the figure for the (barely) Democratic-controlled Congress, 21 percent, is an almost-as-resounding vote of no confidence.

Last week Democrats often earned that rating, especially those running for president. It is true that they do not have the votes to overcome a Bush veto of any war legislation. But that doesn't mean the Democrats have to go on holiday. Few used their time to cross-examine General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on their disingenuous talking points, choosing instead to regurgitate stump sentiments or ask uncoordinated, redundant questions. It's telling that the one question that drew blood — are we safer? — was asked by a Republican, John Warner, who is retiring from the Senate.

Americans are looking for leadership, somewhere, anywhere. At least one of the Democratic presidential contenders might have shown the guts to soundly slap the "General Betray-Us" headline on the ad placed by MoveOn.org in The Times, if only to deflate a counterproductive distraction. This left-wing brand of juvenile name-calling is as witless as the "Defeatocrats" and "cut and run" McCarthyism from the right; it at once undermined the serious charges against the data in the Petraeus progress report (including those charges in the same MoveOn ad) and allowed the war's cheerleaders to hyperventilate about a sideshow. "General Betray-Us" gave Republicans a furlough to avoid ownership of an Iraq policy that now has us supporting both sides of the Shiite-vs.-Sunni blood bath while simultaneously shutting America's doors on the millions of Iraqi refugees the blood bath has so far created.

It's also past time for the Democratic presidential candidates to stop getting bogged down in bickering about who has the faster timeline for withdrawal or the more enforceable deadline. Every one of these plans is academic anyway as long as Mr. Bush has a veto pen. The security of America is more important — dare one say it? — than trying to outpander one another in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate need all the unity and focus they can muster to move this story forward, and that starts with the two marquee draws, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It's essential to turn up the heat full time in Washington for any and every legislative roadblock to administration policy that they and their peers can induce principled or frightened Republicans to endorse.

They should summon the new chief of central command (and General Petraeus's boss), Adm. William Fallon, for tough questioning; he is reportedly concerned about our lapsed military readiness should trouble strike beyond Iraq. And why not grill the Joint Chiefs and those half-dozen or so generals who turned down the White House post of "war czar" last fall? The war should be front and center in Congress every day.

Mr. Bush, confident that he got away with repackaging the same bankrupt policies with a nonsensical new slogan ("Return on Success") Thursday night, is counting on the public's continued apathy as he kicks the can down the road and bides his time until Jan. 20, 2009; he, after all, has nothing more to lose. The job for real leaders is to wake up America to the urgent reality. We can't afford to punt until Inauguration Day in a war that each day drains America of resources and will. Our national security can't be held hostage indefinitely to a president's narcissistic need to compound his errors rather than admit them.

The enemy votes, too. Cataclysmic events on the ground in Iraq, including Thursday's murder of the Sunni tribal leader Mr. Bush embraced two weeks ago as a symbol of hope, have never arrived according to this administration's optimistic timetable. Nor have major Qaeda attacks in the West. It's national suicide to entertain the daydream that they will start doing so now.

Originally published: NYTimes

=========================

Rich fails to mention the actual (known) costs of at least $10 BILLION dollars per month. And almost 3,800 American service members killed, almost 28,000 maimed or seriously wounded, somewhere around 75,000 Iraqi citizens killed ... As Senator Chuck Hagel asked: "For What?"

Meanwhile the Dems fail to show leadership that matters and Republicans will do whatever it takes to once again divert both the media and the voters from holding Bush or their party accountable by pointing to superficial but 'emotionally salient' and largely irrelevant issues. Short attention spans easily tempted or distracted by gee gaws and shiny objects.

Technorati Tags:
Al Qaeda, Bin Laden