Skip To Content
Skip To Navigation
Dorothiea Roberts's Blog
About The Author...
Dorothiea (Blue Bell, PA)
Profile Picture

User Profile
Profile Picture
User:
Name:


The Time Is Right For Real Change, Sen. Barack Obama, Is The Right Man, To Implement This Change And Has The Vision As Well As determination To Bring It About. All Of Us As American Citizens, Working Together Can Make It Happen. It is a very important time in American History, were each and every one of our voices is a drum beat for change. We must all work together to elect Sen. Obama for President. Each and every one of you are very important in this process. Your voices, you desire for change, as well as your votes are what is going to make a difference, It is imperative that we get started now! Health Care, Good Schools, and Jobs, are what is needed now, not more war. That is why it is so important now that we continue to work towards these common goals. It is our job to see that the "We The People" voices are heard. Please know that our journey toward a progressive America has always been bigger than any one man. The current leg of our journey is just beginning -- we're still learning how to build a citizen-based politics together. But it's a journey our nation has been on for a long time. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." Together we can make it happen! Let us Together, be a drum beater for change. Please Vote. Sen. Obama 2008 See you soon! Dorothiea Statement Of Sender: "Place me not with those who are weak of mind and willingly give up the rights of others, for these poor ignorant souls know not that the rights they give up are their own!" -- Warren Friton "May it be to the world...to assume the blessings and security of self- government." -- Thomas Jefferson, June 24, 1826. "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings." "A time comes when silence is betrayal." Rev. Martin Luther King Knowledge is power. Information is valuable. A people who are ignorant of their past will defile the present and destroy the future. At a time when the landscape of our culture is changing rapidly, the need to examine and share knowledge is more profound then ever. My goal is to share "Knowledge" so that we as a people may become wise with wisdom, and to bring insight to all areas which influence our lives, and also challenge conventional ways of viewing those areas. "Until The Lions have Their Historians, Tales of This Hunt will be told Only by The Hunters" Praying we all become Historians. Much Love and Peace, Dorothiea Lets Play To Win! Thanks For All You Do God Bless

Dear Friend,

I wanted to share with you my blog about the Pennsylvania primary
that was posted last night on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360.  As I
state in the entry, the presidential primary is "a race for
delegates, and Barack Obama has acquired a nearly insurmountable
lead."  So, while watching and hearing all the commentary and
analysis about the results from one state -- don't get lost in
the moment, remember the math!   

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/23/despite-pennsylvania-obamas-the-winner

Jesse Jackson, Jr. - Congressman Second District of Illinois
http://www.jessejacksonjr.org



 

                                                       

 

This week David A. Love and Peter Gamble are Mark's guests

This report was originally published on Sunday, April 20, 2008. When a story warrants publication prior to our normal Thursday publication day, we send out a special publication email notice. If you don't want to miss a breaking story from BC, please click here to get on our free email list.

Note: In a year of political absurdities, where one candidate--Senator Obama--is being held accountable for his friends and acquaintances and everything that they have said and done during their life times, we have stumbled across a problem. Had Senator Clinton not been as self-righteous in her attacks on Senator Obama concerning his associates, including Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Chicago activist Bill Ayers, the following would probably be a footnote and blemish--albeit significant--on the Presidency of one William Jefferson Clinton. Yet, insofar as Senator Clinton has decided to hold her opponent responsible for the words and actions of others, we pose this question: should Senator Clinton be careful where she throws bricks?

Now Senator Hillary Clinton (D, NY) has some explaining to do.

BlackCommentator.com has learned that Bill Clinton, while president, repeatedly praised the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). This is an organization that many, including some whites and a former U.S. senator from Illinois, have called racist.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, the UDC is a neo-Confederate organization which is affiliated with such white supremacist groups as the Council of Conservative Citizens and the League of the South. Formed in 1894, the UDC limits its membership to women who are related to Confederate veterans of the “War Between the States.”

In 2000, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that "[a]lthough the UDC promotes an image of genteel Southern ladies…its publications” tell a different story, adding that recently the “UDC’s president, Mrs. William Wells, shared the podium with…white supremacist lawyer Kirk Lyons.”

In a 1989 UDC Magazine article, Walter W. Lee argued that “purchasers of the slaves” were actually victims of slavery, while “the worst suffering group among those engaged in the trade” were “the crews of slave ships.” Lee also made light of the horrific and deadly Middle Passage, claiming that "the sixteen inches of deck space allotted each slave is not all that much smaller that (sic) the eighteen inches that the Royal Navy allowed for each sailor's hammock and the slaves rapidly had more room due to the much higher death rate."

In her quest for the presidency, the U.S. Senator from New York has presented herself as a qualified expert on civil rights and a participant in the civil rights movement.

Senator Clinton has also put forth her belief that all candidates for the office should be thoroughly scrutinized, that no one should be immune, and all of the presidential candidates should be required to justify their stance on the issues before the voters and explain any contradictions that might arise.

Senator Clinton frequently speaks of her eight years experience “in the White House”. During that time Bill Clinton lavished praise on the United Daughters of the Confederacy. BlackCommentator.com has seen the following documents and presents copies of them here.

  • June 21, 1994 Letter from President Bill Clinton to the United Daughters of the Confederacy printed in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine, September 1994, Vol. 57 No. 8, page 9.  This was a special centennial anniversary edition of the magazine and has an outer cover and a standard magazine cover.

In the letter to the UDC President Clinton wrote:

The White House

Washington

June 21, 1994

I am delighted to honor the United Daughters of the Confederacy as you celebrate your 100th anniversary.

One of the most rewarding of human experiences is the coming together of people to share common experiences and interests. For 100 years, the United Daughters of the Confederacy has maintained and built upon the wonderful legacy of your founders. The strength of your organization today is a testament of the vision of your founders and to your commitment to your shared goals.

I congratulate you on your achievement, and I extend best wishes for many years of continuing success.

Bill Clinton 

(Note: these are relatively large scanned images and may take a moment to load depending on your connection speed – please be patient)

Click on any of the links below to view the images.

June 21_1994 President Clinton UDC Praise Letter

UDC Magazine Contents Page

UDC Standard Magazine Cover

UDC Outer Cover

  • A letter of September, 1994 from Bill Clinton with the same wording as the one above to the United Daughters of the Confederacy was printed on the inside of the front cover of the February 1995 issue of United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine. This letter praised the Georgia Division of the UDC.

    Sept 8 1994 President Clinton UDC Praise Letter

  • A letter of August 9, 1995 from Bill Clinton to the United Daughters of the Confederacy was printed on the inside of the front cover of the Sept. 1995 issue of United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine. This letter read as follows:

    Greetings to everyone gathered in our nation's capital for the 1995 National Convention of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Congratulations on beginning of the second century of your organization -- your long history is a tribute to your dedication to and respect for the ideals of your founders.This week marks a special time for the members of your organization to share memories, traditions, and goals. I hope that your visit to Washington is an enjoyable one and that you will take advantage of its unique beauty and many historical sites. Best wishes to all for an enjoyable convention. Bill Clinton

Aug 9 1995 President Clinton UDC Praise Letter

Lest anyone think this organization is nothing more than a group of women in fancy dress who gather for tea and cookies the facts show otherwise.

  • Former Illinois senator Carol Moseley Braun condemned the UDC on the floor of the Senate in 1993. Adam Clymer in the July 23, 1993, New York Times wrote:

    The Senate’s only black member, Carol Moseley Braun, made the chamber listen today as freshmen seldom do. Her oratory of impassioned tears and shouts, stopped Jesse Helms in his tracks as he defended the Confederate flag.

    Senator Helms, the 20-year North Carolina Republican, had sought -- and seemed to be finding -- a roundabout way to preserve the design patent held by United Daughters of the Confederacy on a symbol that includes the flag.

    He proposed language to that effect as an amendment to the national service bill, which would provide educational grants in return for various forms of service. With many senators unaware of what they were voting on, he won a test vote, 52 to 48.

    Then Senator Moseley Braun, a freshman from Illinois, took the floor in outrage at the defense of a symbol of slavery. She told the Senate:

    "On this issue there can be no consensus. It is an outrage. It is an insult.

    "It is absolutely unacceptable to me and to millions of Americans, black or white, that we would put the imprimatur of the United States Senate on a symbol of this kind of idea."

Less than one year after this event, Bill Clinton wrote his first letter of praise to the UDC.

  • As recently as Nov. 2007, the UDC Magazine printed an article titled, “Confederate Classics,” as part of a regular column, “Confederate Notes,” by Retta D. Tindal which made the following reading recommendations:

    “Some books are classics that never go out of style. As we approach the gift-giving season, there are four books that I treasure and use over and over, whether for research or reference or just to refresh my memory of the special heritage I have.”

    Tindall recommended the white supremacist racist text, “Southern By the Grace of God,” by Michael Andrew Grissom, a Ku Klux Klan praising book, not just the Klan of Reconstruction but the Klan of the 1920s, which in turn recommends “The Clansman” by Thomas Dixon, which later was made into the notorious movie “Birth of a Nation”.

    UDC Magazine Column of Nov 2007

  • The United Daughters of the Confederacy have consistently defended the Ku Klux Klan. For example a postcard showing a Grand Cyclops of the KKK could at least at one time be found in the UDC Chapter Room at Florence, Alabama.

Grand Cyclops of the KKK Postcard

According to Time Magazine, Bill Clinton sent a wreath to the Confederate Monument in Arlington Cemetery while president each year.

If Senator Hillary Clinton is going to be viewed as ready on "day one" partially because of her eight years at 16-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue it would be reasonable to find out if elected President will she continue the tradition of support and praise of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

Click here to comment on this story and contact BlackCommentator.com, David Love and Peter Gamble.

BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member David A. Love, JD is a lawyer and journalist based in Philadelphia, and a contributor to the Progressive Media Project, McClatchy-Tribune News Service, In These Times and Philadelphia Independent Media Center. He contributed to the book, States of Confinement: Policing, Detention, and Prisons (St. Martin's Press, 2000). Love is a former Amnesty International UK spokesperson, organized the first national police brutality conference as a staff member with the Center for Constitutional Rights, and served as a law clerk to two Black federal judges. His blog is davidalove.com.

BlackCommentator.com Publisher Peter Gamble is the recipient of a national Sigma Delta Chi award for public service in journalism and numerous other honors for excellence in reporting and investigative reporting. The "beats" he covered as a broadcast journalist ranged from activism in the streets to the State Department and White House.

                                                                                                           

 

FREE OFFER! — Get these cards FREE, Click Here NowDeck of Hillary Playing Cards More Images

Sick of the media’s puffery of Hillary Clinton and her new book in an obvious effort to help her presidential chances?

Now Newsmax.com has the perfect antidote to the liberal media’s Hillary love fest: the Deck of Hillary.

That’s right – the Deck of Hillary is a set of playing cards that will not only make you laugh out loud – it also blows the lid off her lies and her new book.

In the Deck of Hillary, Newsmax.com reveals the real Hillary – by using her own quotes. These quotations are even sourced to some of the most respected writers and media sources.

Newsmax was among the first to offer the Iraqi Most Wanted cards. Then we came out with the Deck of Weasels, which exposed the 54 worst celebrities and politicians who blame America first. Our Deck of Weasels became a national best seller.

Now the Deck of Hillary is set to rock America.

In fact, Newsmax has a goal – we want to sell more Decks of Hillary than Hillary sells of her own book. It’s a big goal – but with your help we can do it and tell the big media about our success.

Hillary thinks she can get away from her record by rewriting her history and that of her husband’s sordid administration.

We’re calling her bluff with the Deck of Hillary, which raises the ante by spilling everything that her highness doesn’t want you to know.

You’ll find out all about her:

  • Outrageous rantings about Jews and Minorities.
  • Hilariously half-hearted defenses of hubby Bill.
  • Comical explanations for why men hate her so much.
  • Bizarre claim that Christians can’t be Republicans.
  • Hillary promises she wouldn’t run for the Senate and she won’t run for president.
  • The unbelievable comments made to Secret Service agents, state troopers, presidential mistresses and other working stiffs.
  • Deep-seated paranoid theories on why the Republicans are opposed to her.
  • Knee-slapping comment about Bill’s relative in the KKK.
  • Her angry orders about the White House American flag.
  • Hillary's explanation as to why so many women are becoming lesbians

Don’t worry, the cards are suitable for all audiences, because we’ve bleeped out Hillary’s frequent use of profanity.

In four suits of the deck, we tell Hillary’s unvarnished story:

  • The Spades reveal “The REAL Hillary” – including her phony claims she was a duck hunter and a Marine recruit.
  • The Hearts tenderly and not so tenderly describe “Bill & Me” – her decades-long business and political partnership with her husband, the impeached former president.
  • The Diamonds recount her diamond-hard reign as "The First Lady.” Learn what she really thought of the Secret Service – and about the special Secret Service Free Zone she created around herself!
  • The Clubs, appropriately, offer Hillary “The Feminist.” And yes, girls like baseball, too. Hillary was a Yankees fan. How do we know? Because she said so.
  • And as for the Jokers, they expose Hillary’s two biggest concoctions in recent memory – you’ll just have to see them for yourself.

The Deck of Weasels was the biggest seller in Newsmax’s history and the Deck of Hillary has become a runaway best seller.

You’ll die laughing at Hillary, from our “Statue of Hillary” design on the back of every card, modeled after the Statue of Liberty, to the great photos that capture the real Hillary – to her own shocking statements over several decades in public life.

Millions of Americans will use, play and read the Deck of Hillary – millions more than read her book!

And millions will agree, Hillary Clinton should never be president of the United States.

All quotes in the Deck of Hillary were excerpted from the book "I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: The Greatest Quotes of Hillary Rodham Clinton," edited by Thomas Kuiper, with an Introduction by Dick Morris.

No Knockout for Hillary; Obama Will Prevail
Friday, April 25, 2008 9:42 AM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size

 

Sports metaphors are trite and too male-oriented, but sometimes they are so apt they are unavoidable.

The Clinton-Obama contest is like a 15-round heavyweight title bout in boxing.

Hillary went for an early knockout. All previous Democratic races since 1960 have been decided that way, with one candidate winning decisive primaries, forcing his opponents to withdraw. But Obama beat her to the punch in Iowa, survived a loss in New Hampshire, and countered her sweep of New York, New Jersey and California on Super Tuesday by winning a large number of smaller states, largely by out-organizing Hillary in caucus states.

While most traditional candidates are forced out if they lose key states because their money dries up, Obama’s ingenious use of Internet funding provided him with an ample financial base even as he fell behind Hillary in the delegate count.

But Hillary, in spending all her resources on an early Super Tuesday knockout, was too depleted to do well in the middle rounds — the February caucus and primary states.

Her focus on an early knockout led her to neglect organizing in these states, and her insistence on spending every dime she had in pursuit of an early win left her financially incapable of competing in these February contests.

Obama won round after round on points, sweeping 11 states in a row and establishing a solid lead in elected delegates.

Obama piled up such a lead in points in the middle rounds that Hillary has been forced to go for a knockout in the final rounds. Knowing that Obama has more delegates, she has to win decisively in the late primaries to have a chance at persuading the superdelegates to flip and abandon the voters’ choice. But, so far, the proportional representation rules and Obama’s daunting financial advantage have denied her the elusive knockout. Obama can’t knock her out, but he doesn’t need to. Remember, he’s ahead on points.

Hillary won in Pennsylvania for two key reasons:

1. Pennsylvania only permits Democrats to vote in its primary. Hillary has always won among Democrats. It is among independents, the swing voters in November, that Obama has manifested his greatest strength.

2. Pennsylvania is the second oldest state in the nation after Florida. But while the elderly moved to Florida, Pennsylvania acquired its status by having its young people move out. The result is a demographically atypical electorate.

Both Indiana and North Carolina, the next two states, allow independents to vote in Democratic primaries, and North Carolina has a decidedly young population. (It is here that the Pennsylvanian youths moved!) Obama should win both of these states, North Carolina by a lot, Indiana by a little, and their combined effect should wipe out most of the gains Hillary got from her Pennsylvania win.

By the time the voting ends on June 3, Obama will still lead Hillary among elected delegates by 100 to 150 delegates.

At that point the gang of four — Gore, Edwards, Pelosi, and Dean — will probably call on the superdelegates to make commitments in the next 10 days so that the race can draw to a close and the party can have its nominee.

Shortly thereafter, Obama will be able to claim that he is above 2,025, the threshold for victory. And the ref will be raising his arm in triumph.

© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Hillary's Terrorist Ties
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann  

In this week’s debate, Hillary Clinton said all of her “baggage” has been “rummaged through” for years. But important features of her close relationship with known terrorist sympathizers and Hamas supporters are still opaque to the public view.

Her relationship with terrorists began in the mid-1980s when she served on the board of the New World Foundation, which gave funds to the Palestine Liberation Organization, at a time when the PLO was officially recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization.

In 1996, the first lady initiated an outreach program to bring Muslim leaders to the White House. But, as terrorism expert Steve Emerson noted in The Wall Street Journal “Curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations.

"A review of the statements, publications, and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy as ‘mainstream’ and ‘moderate.’”

Among these radical groups was the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, both groups that support Hamas, who attended a White House reception hosted by Hillary in February, 1996.

Emerson says that its leaders “have sanctioned terrorism, published anti-Semitic statements, and repeatedly hosted conferences that were forums for denunciations of Jews and exhortations to wage jihad.”

The American Muslim Alliance was headed in the '90s by Abdulrahman Alamoudi who met with Clinton and Gore in 1995. Emerson notes that “Mrs. Clinton [allowed] the American Muslim Alliance to draw up the Muslim guest list for the first lady’s . . . White House reception.”

Alamoudi, Emerson says was “the primary defender of Musa Abu Marzug, the Hamas political bureau chief responsible for creating the group’s death squads.” Marzug took “credit” when Hamas brigades sprayed machine gun fire into a crowded Jerusalem mall. But less than three days after Marzug was arrested by the FBI in July of 1995, Alamoudi said that Marzug “had never been involved in terrorism” and called his arrest “an insult to the Muslim community. Emerson reports that he “elicited contributions fro Marzug’s defense fund” and called him a “political prisoner.”

Then, Hillary ran for Senate on her own and suddenly it was payback time. On June 13, 2000, the American Muslim Alliance’s Massachusetts Chapter held a very successful fundraiser for her candidacy. Tahir Ali, the chairman of the chapter, said “we must support all who have [Muslim] interests at heart.”

Perhaps conscious of how controversial the contribution would be, Hillary or someone on her staff, tried to pull a fast one, recording the donation on federal filing forms as being from the “American Museum Alliance.” But alert observers weren’t fooled and Senate candidate Clinton was forced to acknowledge who the real donor was and, four months after getting the money, she returned it.

But by then, a few weeks before the election, she had abjured the use of soft money in her Senate campaign, so the donation was, in practical terms, useless, since it was well over the limits for hard money contributions.

The Palestinian terrorists know that Hillary hears their point of view. WorldNetDaily.com reported on Oct. 7, 2007, that leading terrorists have publicly called for her election. Aaron Klein, WorldNet Daily’s Jerusalem correspondent, wrote, in his wonderful book "Schmoozing with Terrorists," Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group said “I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq.”

Senakreh has high hopes for a Hillary presidency. He told Klein “I hope also that she will maintain her husband’s policies regarding Palestine and even develop that policy."

Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in Gaza, noting that “the Iraqi resistance is succeeding,” said that “Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal.” Then he added, helpfully, “Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change American policy.”

He explained that “President Clinton wanted to give the Palestinians 98 percent of the West Bank territories. I hope Hillary will move a step forward and give the Palestinians all their rights.”

Clearly Barack Obama should not have stayed in Rev Wright’s church and his campaign should not maintain a “friendly” relationship with William Ayers. But what about Hillary’s service on a board that gave money to a terrorist organization? And her hosting of a terror supporting group in the White House? And her acceptance of a $50,000 contribution from that group? And the statements of terrorists that they are hoping for her to win?

These are far more serious connections than have been established for Obama and either Wright or Ayers.

© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee is one of the few superdelegates who refuses to join the "Isn't-this-great?" chorus of smiley-face politics. Rather than extolling Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania win as a splendid example of good, clean and continuing Democratic fun, Bredesen painted a bleaker and far more realistic picture of what it portends:

"This is exactly what I was afraid was going to happen. They are going to just keep standing there and pounding each other and bloodying each other."

That pugilistic quote appeared in a NY Times' article whose headline -- "The Bruising Will Go On for the Party, Too" -- was inspired by the metaphor-invoking governor. This primary race is no longer reflective of any internal, Democratic values; it's merely a slugfest for the benefit of one.

Amid all the lopsided cheering and hallelujah hallucinations, the article's author, Adam Nagourney, pointed to the clearer light of day: "Mrs. Clinton’s margin was probably not sufficient to fundamentally alter the dynamics of the race, which continued to favor an eventual victory for Mr. Obama." There are, after all, and as Nagourney understated it, "significant hurdles" obstructing her nomination -- such as Obama's delegate count, lead in the popular vote, number of states won and, by now, the little time that's left.

None of this, of course, has fazed Hillary in the least. With each passing hour, it seems, and always out of whole cloth she conjures a new argument for the urgency of her democracy-toppling nomination. Her latest is that she actually leads in the popular vote, assuming one counts a couple of major states that don't, and in no way can, count.

Yes, yes, I know, it's laughable. On the other hand, Hillary knows her target audience -- those kings of vacillation and spinelessness, the uncommitted superdelegates. They could have secured the nomination for the party's still-presumptive nominee by now, so that he could get on with the more urgent contest of boxing McCain rather than shadows, but that would be too institutionally businesslike and politically sane for these grand poobahs of Democracy. Better to wait a while longer and test the political winds once again, and again ... and again. One never knows, is their motto.

But let's try to think like a superdelegate for a moment and join with Hillary in putting aside all those "significant hurdles." Just forget about them, as Hillary and her supporters are somehow able to do. Let us assume that Obama has no real lead in any of the above and customarily decisive categories. From this artificial balancing we start from scratch; the candidates are even-steven -- right?

Wrong. Because still trailing Hillary like toilet paper stuck to her shoe is that little matter of her negatives, something you and the superdelegates won't ever hear Mrs. Clinton advertising. They are grim, devastatingly grim, over-before-it-starts grim, and which the Washington Post deconstructed last week.

To quoth the black raven sitting atop her electoral burial marker: "While Clinton retains a big edge over Obama on experience, public impressions of her have taken a sharply negative turn. Today, more Americans have an unfavorable view of her than at any time since The Post and ABC began asking the question, in 1992." Pucker up, Mrs. Clinton -- as well as all you uncommitted superdelegates -- because "54 percent said they have an unfavorable view" of you.

That, right there, is the game ender, as virtually any objective political adviser would agree. No presidential candidate with negatives in the high 40s, let alone in the mid 50s, is going anywhere after an election but home. That's just a fact of political life that's also going ignored amidst all the Clintonite hoopla.

And it gets even worse. An accompanying WaPo piece noted that "Clinton is viewed as 'honest and trustworthy' by just 39 percent of Americans ... compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest."

The real killer, of course, was her Bosnia fantasy, against which Obama's "bitter" comments or guilt by pastoral association pale. There's a huge and game-ending difference between recidivist lying to successive public audiences and dropping indiscreet remarks to a few privately huddled San Franciscans, and don't think Americans -- not to mention the salivating GOP machine -- don't know it.

Hillary's verbal contortions regarding her Iraq-war vote have been bad enough; her Bosnia-war whoppers are but 60-second visuals of the final touches, encased as they are within indiffusibly negative atmospherics.

So back to reality as we reassemble things: Obama leads in the delegate count, the popular vote and states won and nothing will change these dynamics, while Hillary leads only in historic negatives. And what conclusion do the uncommitted superdelegates derive from all this? Let us, they say, wait and see.

Please respond to the commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

Truth Detector

The Pennsylvania Primary was Hillary Clinton's last chance to deliver a game changing blow to Obama's campaign for the nomination. She failed to deliver.

Pennsylvania provided her with her final real opportunity to knock the wheels off the Obama campaign. She needed a crushing victory of 18% to 25% to have any real chance of altering the math or the psychology. Demographically, Pennsylvania was made for Hillary: the second oldest state in the nation, heavily blue collar, Catholic and rural -- Hillary's voter profile. She started with a lead of almost 20 points. But her final margin -- which the Pennsylvania Secretary of State says was only 9.2% -- fell far short of what was needed to stop Obama's nomination. Here's why:

1). Pledged Delegates. By CNN's count, Clinton netted about 14 pledged delegates in Pennsylvania. That still leaves Obama up by 151 pledged delegates. It is likely that after Guam, Indiana and North Carolina, there will be no net change in pledged delegates, even if Clinton wins Indiana, since Obama will certainly pick up delegates in North Carolina. But at that point only 251 pledged delegates will remain to be chosen.

Even if she got 80% of all of the pledged delegates that remain after Indiana, she would still trail Obama at the end of the day.

The battle for the pledged delegate advantage is over.

2). Popular Vote. Pennsylvania was her best opportunity to really close in on Obama's popular vote lead. She picked up about 216,000 net votes. But that still leaves her over 600,000 votes behind, and Obama will likely increase his popular vote margin further after the contests on May 6th. Her failure to blow Obama out in Pennsylvania makes it almost impossible for her to close the popular vote gap.

3). Electability. Clinton's entire strategy rests on the premise that she can convince Super Delegates that Obama is unelectable. Only a massive win in Pennsylvania would have credibly made that case. Clinton's victory did little to enhance her argument.

Regardless of the passions of the moment, history shows us that just because voters prefer one candidate in the primary, it doesn't mean they won't vote for her Democratic opponent in a general election when the choice is a Republican. When all is said and done, primary voters almost always vote for the candidate of their party in a general election - regardless of what they might say (on either side) in the middle of a primary fight.

In fact, the people who decide general elections rarely set foot in primary voting booths. They are the independent voters who vote only in general elections and unengaged voters who are would vote Democratic, but have to be mobilized to go to the polls.

The fact is that to whatever degree Hillary might have more appeal among independent rural and blue collar voters, Obama more than makes up in additional appeal to independent suburban voters. Obama's ability to mobilize new young and African American voters in the general election is indisputably greater than Clinton's.

And of course, Obama will not go into the General Election burdened by the towering Clinton negatives that her own negative campaign strategy increases daily.

The polls, and even Pennsylvania Governor and Clinton supporter Ed Rendell, make it clear that Obama can win Pennsylvania in the general election. But Obama can also broaden the playing field with a shot at winning states like Colorado and Virginia.

4). Super Delegates. Finally is a fact that is generally overlooked by pundits. At the close of the primaries, Obama will not need a stampede of Super Delegates to clinch the nomination. In fact he will only need about 40% of those that remain today.

Let's make the most conservative assumptions about the outcome of the remaining races: Guam, even; North Carolina, 58%-42% Obama; Indiana, 54%-46% Clinton; Kentucky, 60%-40% Clinton; West Virginia, 60%-40% Clinton; Oregon, 56%-44% Obama, Montana 56%-44% Obama; Puerto Rico, 60%-40% Clinton. That would leave Obama at 1,846 delegates at the close of the Primaries.

He would need only 41% of the Super Delegates remaining today to clinch the nomination with 2,025. And let's remember, he has picked up almost one Super Delegate a day for the last month. There is no reason to believe he won't keep picking up Super Delegates as the contest continues. So by the end of the primaries he will need an even lower percentage of the Super Delegates that remain.

All that remains for Clinton are more opportunities have her own campaign to be shut down. If she loses Indiana and North Carolina it will be extremely hard for her to continue. But there is no longer any opportunity for her to defeat Obama.

Clinton's may have won last night, but she failed to do what she needed to do to derail Obama's march to the nomination. In retrospect, Pennsylvania will appear as Clinton's Waterloo.

Why Shouldn't We Be Bitter?
    By Michael Winship
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Wednesday 16 April 2008

    Having grown up in a small town, I'm always struck at how rarely movies and television shows and other art forms capture the quality of life there. The false notes are thumped as discordantly as the "Moonlight Sonata" on a badly tuned spinet; the citizens portrayed as homicidal mouth breathers, amusing rubes or country sages with an unsullied rustic wisdom that astonishes visiting city slickers.

    Some get it right. A weekend attending a conference in Columbus, Ohio, ended Sunday at the small, Victorian boyhood home of one of my literary heroes, James Thurber. In his short stories and reminiscences, it was his "sure grasp of confusion," as a magazine once put it, his understanding of small town, family dynamics and foibles that instantly won my heart, even at an early age.

    And though Thurber, like me and so many others, wound up in Manhattan, exploring the anguishes and delights of the big city, he himself wrote, "My books prove that I am never very far away from Ohio in my thoughts, and that the clocks that strike in my dreams are often the clocks of Columbus."

    So, it was with a mixture of bemusement, bewilderment and vexation that I've been watching the furor around Barack Obama's remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser, the ones that have led to accusations of elitism and belittling folks from small towns.

    With the critical Pennsylvania primary a week away, this is the Obama sentence that, as Thurber would say, has torn up the peapatch: "It's not surprising then that they [small town people] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

    The response to this by the media and the attempts to exploit Obama's words by Senators Clinton and McCain have been mind shattering in their hypocrisy and cynicism. As political operative Bob Shrum wrote in The Huffington Post, "Ironically, Obama's the one raised by a single mother. He's the one who only recently finished paying off his student loans. He doesn't know what it's like to have $100 million. The opponents who are attacking him are the ones who inhabit that financial neighborhood."

    First, place Senator Obama's words in greater context. Here is more of what he ACTUALLY said, ending with the sentence in question: "Here's how it is. In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, they feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it.

    "... Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

    Different, huh? Especially, as Salon.com's Joan Walsh pointed out, when you consider what Obama added after the spittle hit the fan. "They're frustrated and for good reason," he said. "Because for the last 25 years they've seen jobs shipped overseas. They've seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their healthcare.

    "And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said we're going to make your community better. We're going to make it right and nothing ever happens. And, of course, they're bitter. Of course they're frustrated. You would be, too. In fact many of you are."

    Most of the punditocracy that analyzes the political scene with the avidity of a high school biology teacher dissecting a dead frog is as tin-eared and condescending as the movie and TV producers when it comes to the realities of small town life. Such places are in the "flyover zone" between the urban centers of the East and West Coasts and the media know little about what it's like to live there or how the residents think. A few weeks in primary and caucus states every four years doth not a Middle America expert make.

    Most small town people with whom I've spoken aren't as put off by Obama's words as they are by the depths to which this presidential campaign now has sunk (and it's only April!). Rather, as fellow small town boy John Baer wrote in his Philadelphia Daily News column on Monday, "Despite carping from Hillary Clinton and annoying yapping from her surrogates (really, it's like turning on the lights at night in a puppy farm), I take no offense.

    "What's offensive to me is suggesting that small-town, working-class, gun-toting and/or religious Pennsylvanians are somehow injured by a politician's words. Are you kidding me? They're injured all right, but the injury is long-term and from lots more than 'just words.' They've been injured from decades of neglect by political cultures in Washington and Harrisburg driven by special interests."

    The Campaign for America's Future reports 31 percent of those polled by the Gallup organization say they're worse off than they were five years ago - that's the highest since the mid-1960's. The Census Bureau reports the median household income, $48,201, is lower - adjusted for inflation - than it was in 1999. At the same time, the tax contribution of American corporations has dropped from 50 percent in 1940 to 14 percent today. The majority pays no taxes at all.

    Toward the end of his life, physical blindness and other afflictions frequently made James Thurber a bitter man, yet he still reveled in his dreams and memories of the clocks of Columbus. With time, we, too, can shake off a bitterness that is not just a small town malaise, but endemic to a country that has had enough. The clock is ticking toward November. With luck, hope takes the upper hand and bitter will yield to the ballot.

 

    Michael Winship, president of the Writers Guild of America, East, and former writer with Bill Moyers, writes this weekly column for the Messenger Post Newspapers in upstate New York. This article has been previously published in the Messenger Post Newspapers.
  Sign the petition: "Debate moderators abuse the public trust every time they ask trivial questions about gaffes and 'gotchas' that only political insiders care about. Enough with the distractions—ABC and other networks must focus on issues that affect people's daily lives."
http://pol.moveon.org/enoughdistractions/?id=12457-4770726-cu1tve&t=2Sign the petition

Watch video excerpts:

http://pol.moveon.org/enoughdistractions/?id=12457-4770726-cu1tve&t=3

Dear Member,

If you missed the Democratic presidential debate on ABC last night, Editor & Publisher called it "perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years."1 (Click below to see video excerpts.)

Moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson spent the first 50 minutes obsessed with distractions that only political insiders care about—verbal gaffes, polling numbers, the stale Rev. Wright story, and the old-news Bosnia story. And, channeling Karl Rove, they directed a video question to Barack Obama asking if he loves the American flag or not. Seriously.

Enough is enough. The public needs the media to stop hurting the national dialogue in this important election year. Can you sign the petition to ABC and other media outlets and pass it on to friends who are also fed up? Click here for our must-see video with excerpts from last night—and to sign the petition:

http://pol.moveon.org/enoughdistractions/?id=12457-4770726-cu1tve&t=4

The petition says: "Debate moderators abuse the public trust every time they ask trivial questions about gaffes and 'gotchas' that only political insiders care about. Enough with the distractions—ABC and other networks must focus on issues that affect people's daily lives."

We'll deliver petition signatures to ABC and the networks hosting future debates. And if we reach 100,000 signatures, we'll reprint the petition in an ad campaign targeting the networks on this issue.

ABC's natural inclination will be to ignore their critics, so we need to go above and beyond to show them that the public is truly outraged. So, please, think about some friends who may be fed up with 2008 media coverage and forward them this email. If thousands of us do that, it'll make a huge difference.

The reaction to last night's debate has been very consistent:

"A stinker, an absolute car crash—thanks to the host network ABC...[It] ran the gamut from banal to inane. At the end of the debate members of the crowd appeared to be booing moderator Charlie Gibson."—The Guardian's Richard Adams2

"Halfway through the debate, not a single question on any policy issue had been asked."—OpenLeft.com's Chris Bowers3

"For the first 52 minutes...Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with."—Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales.4

"We've revisited bitter. We've gone back to Bosnia. We've dragged Rev. Wright back up onto the podium. We've mis-spent this debate by allowing Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos to ask questions that skirt what in my mind is what we need to know now."—Philadelphia Inquirer's Daniel Rubin5

Shame on ABC for letting voters down with last night's abysmal debate. Bad debates aren't just painful to watch—they actually hurt the country by distracting voters and politicians away from big issues of the day.

Please send a message to ABC and other media outlets that we need our national dialogue to focus on the real issues facing Americans. Click here to sign the petition:

http://pol.moveon.org/enoughdistractions/?id=12457-4770726-cu1tve&t=5

Thanks for all you do.

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008
An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapoulos

By  Mark Crispin Miller

Dear Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos,

It's hard to know where to begin with this, less than an hour after you signed off from your Democratic presidential debate here in my hometown of Philadelphia, a televised train wreck that my friend and colleague Greg Mitchell has already called, quite accurately, "ashameful night for the U.S. media." It's hard because -- like many other Americans -- I am still angry at what I just witnesses, so angry that it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking. Look, I know that "media criticism" -- especially when it's one journalist speaking to another -- tends to be a genteel, colleagial thing, but there's no genteel way to say this.
With your performance tonight -- your focus on issues that were at best trivial wastes of valuable airtime and at worst restatements of right-wing falsehoods, punctuated by inane "issue" questions that in no way resembled the real world concerns of American voters -- you disgraced my profession of journalism, and, by association, me and a lot of hard-working colleagues who do still try to ferret out the truth, rather than worry about who can give us the best deal on our capital gains taxes. But it's even worse than that. By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself. Indeed, if I were a citizen of one of those nations where America is seeking to "export democracy," and I had watched the debate, I probably would have said, "no thank you." Because that was no way to promote democracy.
You implied throughout the broadcast that you wanted to reflect the concerns of voters in Pennsylvania. Well, I'm a Pennsylvanian voter, and so are my neighbors and most of my friends and co-workers. You asked virtually nothing that reflected our everyday issues -- trying to fill our gas tanks and save for college at the same time, our crumbling bridges and inadequate mass transit, or the root causes of crime here in Philadelphia. In fact, there almost isn't enough space -- and this is cyberspace, where room is unlimited -- to list all the things you could have asked about but did not, from health care to climate change to alternative energy to our policy toward China to the deterioration of Afghanistan to veterans' benefits to improving education. You ignored virtually everything that just happened in what most historians agree is one of the worst presidencies in American history, including the condoning of torture and the trashing of the Constitution, although to be fair you also ignored the policy concerns of people on the right, like immigration issues.
You asked about gun control -- phrased to try for a "gotcha" in a state where that's such a divisive issue -- but not about what we really care about, which is how to reduce crime. You pressed and pressed on those capital gains taxes, but Senators Clinton and Obama were forced to bring up the housing crisis on their own initiative. Instead, you wasted more than half of the debate -- a full hour -- on tabloid trivia that for the most part wasn't even that interesting, because most of it was infertile ground that has already been covered again and again and again. I'm not saying that Rev. Wright and Bosnia sniper fire and "bitter" were never newsworthy -- I myself wrote about all of these for the Philadelphia Daily News or my Attytood blog, back when they were more relevant -- but the questions were stale yet clearly intended to gin up controversy (they didn't, by the way, other than the controversy over you.) The final questions of that section, asking Obama whether he thought Rev. Wright "loved America" and then suggesting that Obama himself is somehow a hater of the American flag, or worse, were flat-out repulsive.
Are you even thinking when simply echo some of the vilest talking points from far-right talk radio? What are actually getting at -- do you honestly believe that someone with a solid track record as a lawmaker in a Heartland state which elected him to the U.S. Senate, who is now seeking to make some positive American history as our first black president, is somehow un-American, or unpatriotic? Does that even make any sense? Question his policies, or question his leadership. because that is your job as a journalist. But don't insult our intelligence by questioning his patriotism.
Here's a question for you, George. Is it true that yesterday you appeared on the radio with conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity, and that you said you were "taking notes" when he urged you to ask a question about Obama's supposed ties to a former member of the Weather Underground -- which in fact you did. With all the fabulous resources of ABC News at your disposal, is that an appropriate way for a supposed journalist to come up with debate questions, by pandering to divisive radio shows?
And Charlie...could you be any more out of touch with your viewers? Most people aren't millionaires like you, and if Pennsylvanians are losing sleep over economic matters, it is not over whether the capital gains tax will go back up again. I was a little shocked when you pressed and pressed on that back-burner issue and left almost no time for high gas prices, but then I learned tonight that you did the same thing in the last debate, that you fretted over that middle-class family that made $200,000 a year. Charlie, the nicest way that I can put this is that you need to get out more.
But I'm not ready to make nice. What I just watched was an outrage. As a journalist, you appeared to confirm all of the worst qualities that cause people to hold our profession in such low esteem, especially your obsession with cornering the candidates with lame "trick" questions and your complete lack of interest or concern about substance -- or about the American people, or the state of our nation. You embarassed some good people who work at ABC News -- for example, the journalists who worked hard to break this story just last week -- and you embarassed yourselves. The millions of people who watched the debate were embarassed, too -- at the state of our political discourse, and what it has finally become, at long last.
Quickly, a word to any and all of my fellow journalists who happen to read this open letter. This. Must . Stop. Tonight, if possible. I thought that we had hit rock bottom in March 2003, when we failed to ask the tough questions in the run-up to the Iraq war. But this feels even lower. We need to pick ourselves up, right now, and start doing our job -- to take a deep breath and remind ourselves of what voters really need to know, and how we get there, that's it's not all horserace and "gotcha." Although, to be blunt, I would also urge the major candidates in 2012 to agree only to debates that are organized by the League of Women Voters, with citizen moderators and questioners. Because we have proven without a doubt in 2008 that working journalists don't deserve to be the debate "deciders."
Charlie, I'm going to sign off this letter the way that you always sign off the news, that "I hope you had a great day."
Because America just had a horrible night.
Posted by Will Bunch @ 12:23 AM 
 

Why I Am A Bitter Man

by Stephen Pizzo  
 "Bitter: angry, hurt, resentful, because of one's bad experiences or sense of unjust treatment."
Webster's Dictionary.


I am a bitter man. I admit it. I'm neither proud nor happy about it. But it's not my fault, either.

Eight years ago I was annoyed, but I wasn't bitter. Being annoyed with government is the natural state of the governed. It's the catalyst that keeps politicians paranoid about what we're up to out here while they, hopefully, try to do enough things right to get our vote next time around, even if resentfully.

But bitter is a different kind of catalyst. It's the emotion that freed these former colonies from Britain. It's the emotion that motivated American blacks to come together in the 1960s and demand an end to segregation, once and for all. At the turn of the century in Russia bitterness caused the Russian people to put an end to careless, self-indulgent, wasteful monarchy. Before that, in France, bitterness among the peasantry caused a whole lot folks to loose their heads -- literally.

In short, bitterness is a motivator -- maybe the motivator when it comes to the forcing of social tipping points.

So, while I'm bitter that this administration has turned me bitter, I am crystal clear on the reasons why I'm bitter:

I am bitter because this administration led my country into a completely unnecessary war. A war they justified on flawed, and what history will surely eventually prove, entirely fabricated intelligence. 

I am bitter that this administration has soiled, not just America's image, but it's very soul by resorting to the kind of brutal treatment of prisoners for which we once tried, convicted and executed enemy commanders.

I am bitter that after the hard lessons of Vietnam, a war that took the lives of over 50,000 of my generation, that this administration repeated those mistakes, costing the lives of over 4000 of this generation's best and brightest -- so far -- and counting.

I am bitter that the only reason our kids must continue dying in Iraq is soley to buy time for this administration to get out office next January leaving the mess and clean up to the next administration.

I am bitter that this administration mismanaged the only justifiable military action they took -- the invasion of Afghanistan -- allowing the men actually behind 9/11 to escape capture and punishment, and to continue to spread their twisted ideology and murderous activities.

I am bitter that this administration gutted our national treasury, pissing away a $5.2 billion surplus by lavishing tax breaks on the already wealthy and then, once out of money, putting an additional $4.5 trillion on the national credit card.

I am bitter that this administration has so bankrupted my nation that we can't provide health coverage for nearly 50 million of us but instead continue to borrow $12 billion a month to fund operations in Iraq.

I am bitter that our students continue to be "left behind,"  to test below average -- often far below average -- when compared with students in other developed nations, and that we have neither the money or will to do a damn thing about it.

I am bitter that, thanks to this administration's cynical manipulation and suppression of scientific evidence, that my children and grand children will spend their entire lives battling the potentially deadly effects of global warming.

I am bitter that this administration has engage in the same kind of religious fundamentalism for which they criticize in Islamic nations. That they can't or refuse to recognize the inherent contradiction in their support for such things as prayer in public schools and other government-funded "faith-based" programs and Islamic government funded madrasas they condemn in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

I am bitter that this administration gutted the nation's regulatory apparatus for the sole purpose of boosting industry profit margins, resulting first in the mortgage meltdown and more recently safety maintenance chaos in the airline industry.

I am bitter that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq has gotten 4000 other people's children killed while their daughters have been allowed uninterrupted lives of privilege and safety.

I am bitter that this administration has treated the US Constitution and Bill of Rights as though they were suggestions rather than the sacred law of the land.

I am bitter that this administration placed one of the nation's most powerful agencies of government, the Department of Justice, in the hands of a man. Alberto Gonzales, who's only claim to fame is that he was unqualified, unprincipled and underhanded.

I am bitter that congress has shown neither the patriotism or guts to step up to their constitutional duty to impeach members of this administration for breaking existing laws, violating our civil rights and showing utter contempt for the separations of powers mandated in the US Constitution.

But most of all I am bitter that it appears almost certain that the criminal acts committed by members of this administration will go unpunished. That they will indeed get away with it all. And that that will set a precedent for the next George W. Bush-type who finagles his/her way into the Oval Office.

Those are the reasons I'm bitter. And it you're one of those folks Hillary and McCain keep assuring me are "not bitter," I have only one question for you:

What the hell's wrong with you? http://www.newsforreal.com/

Punished for the Truth

Catherine Crier
Sat Apr 12, 1:46 PM ET



Here are the controversial comments Barack Obama uttered in San  Francisco.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of  small
towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and
nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton administration,
and  the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said
that  somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And
it's not  surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
antipathy to  people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or
anti-trade sentiment  as a way to explain their frustrations."

Inartful. That is the only fair criticism of this analysis. Let's ask the
voters in Pennsylvania these questions. If the 'distracting' issues of guns,
gay  marriage and abortion were all resolved to their liking, would their
economic  lives change? How about immigration? If all illegal aliens were to
disappear,  would those rust belt jobs return? For so many years, such
issues have been used  to corral blue collar workers into a party and
political philosophy that serves  the elites in this country. When someone
speaks the truth and acknowledges that  this sector of our society has been
royally deceived, that issues they rally  around have little to do with
their ultimate welfare, it is time to banish such  a person from the
campaign trail.

Heaven forbid we should suggest that bitterness might exist in this country
of such optimism or that this emotion might be an appropriate and effective
reaction to current circumstances. Hillary Clinton countered with this
statement. "Well, that is not my experience," she said. "As I travel around
Pennsylvania I meet people who are resilient, optimistic, positive...If we
start acting like Americans," she said, "and role up our sleeves, we can
make sure  that America's best years are ahead of us." McCain's spokesman
chimed in. "It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking
Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking...It is hard to imagine
someone running for president who  is more out of touch with average
Americans."

Are you kidding me? Pulling the curtain back on a very effective political
trick, the old bait and switch, is far from elitist. Americans are working
harder than ever. Two job families are the norm. Yet the poor and middle
class are falling further behind. What is breathtakingly condescending is
watching two  candidates stroke this group with platitudes about their being
tough and resilient. What exactly has that gotten them? Nada. The real
stereotype Clinton  and McCain are playing on is that blue collar workers
are easily manipulated and  will 'stay down' if you just tell them they are
hardworking, patriotic, value-driven Americans.

It is time for these people to get mad. Illusion may make us feel better,
but it simply serves to keep us tilting at the wrong windmills. It is time
to embrace the truth and turn that anger, yes bitterness, on those who
created such  conditions. The alternative is to pat ourselves on the back
for our optimism and  'can-do' attitudes while politicians in Washington
laugh at such naivite and  continue on their destructive course.


2008 HuffingtonPost.com. All rights reserved.

Politics  is like driving. To go backwards, put it in R.
To go forward, put it in  D.
Obama for AmericaPlease Check Out This Very Powerful Video, By Zoe Kravitz And Many Others.http://www.dipdive.com/dip-politics/wato/
Senator Clinton Doesn't Really Oppose the Colombian Trade Agreement: Just look at Her Senior Staff, Including Bill ClintonSubmitted by mark karlin on Wed, 04/09/2008 - 9:10am. EditorBlog

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

by Mark Karlin
Editor and Publisher, April 9, 2008

p

Mark Penn, Not Gone and Not Forgotten

I recently detailed how Mark Penn’s visit with the Colombian ambassador to the U.S. about the proposed free trade agreement with that nation, where union leaders are regularly assassinated, was in all likelihood carried out as part of his dual roles as then top Clinton campaign strategist and on behalf of Burson-Marsteller, which he also represented since he never stepped down as CEO -- and that was fine with Senator Clinton.

The key evidence in this theory is that the President of Colombia, as I detailed, denounced Barack Obama for his opposition to the Colombia trade agreement -- opposition due primarily to union rights concerns (particularly the right not to be murdered) -- two days after the meeting with Penn, and then again two days later. So twice in one week the Colombian President lacerated Obama but didn’t utter a word about Hillary Clinton’s claimed opposition to the trade agreement.

It’s extremely unusual for a foreign country to become officially and vocally involved, at the presidential level, in taking sides in a presidential primary race in the United States, to say the least. But it is even more remarkable that the leader of Colombia would only launch an attack on one of the candidates, even though the other candidate is holding out to Pennsylvania union voters that she also opposes the pact.

Mark Penn, as we said, wasn’t "officially" demoted because he met with the Colombian ambassador. As we observed, his title was "officially" taken away because he got caught, allegedly by Republican dirty trickster, Roger Stone, about whom BuzzFlash also has written. (If true, then Stone leaked the story to The Wall Street Journal.)

In what is likely an election ruse by the Clinton campaign to pretend to be against the Colombia agreement, they even misled the press into posting headlines and stories that Penn was fired. But that was a lie. He is still, according to published reports, daily on press phone calls and also directly advising Hillary Clinton -- and he speaks regularly with Bill, who, in turn, advises Hillary. In short, nothing much has changed except that the Clinton campaign was panicking because union leaders were calling and asking for Penn’s head.

So Senator Clinton, who along with Bill, allegedly loves Penn’s loyalty since 1996 (Penn was brought into the Clinton inner circle by Dick Morris, by the way, in ’96, and Morris was brought into the White House by -- well -- Hillary Clinton, and she brags about it in her memoir) decided to simply change Penn’s nameplate, but keep him as a key adviser on her campaign. Penn was, and this is undisputed, not fired, not by a long shot.

The New Republic recently published an analysis about why the Clintons are so fond of Penn, and here is one of the reasons that The New Republic notes:

Others in the party object to, if not Penn's disdain for liberals, then his chronic inability to hide that disdain. "One of his favorite things is the 'double-push off,'" chuckles the colleague from a past race. "On the one hand, he's attacking Bush and pushing off of him. On the other hand, he's attacking and pushing off the excesses of the left." And while this tendency risks alienating many within the party's base, Penn's rough handling of liberals rarely upset the Clintons too severely, considering Bill's historical success with triangulation.

But back to why Hillary Clinton is probably lying about her opposition to the Colombian free trade pact. The answer is simple, very key people on her staff -- and her political partner, Bill -- support it. In fact, Bill has financially benefited from the relationship to at least the tune of $600,000.

It’s not just Mark Penn. Howard Wolfson, who is now the new "co-key-strategist" of Clinton’s campaign has a large (perhaps million dollar) equity interest in a firm doing work on behalf of passing the pact.

The New York Times reported on just some of the Clinton team connections to passing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement:

To help make its case, Colombia had already hired at least three firms on Capitol Hill, in addition to the work by Mr. Penn’s firm, Burson-Marsteller, paying out from $15,000 to $40,000 a month. Collectively the Colombian government has paid more than $1 million to firms that have negotiated or lobbied on behalf of the deal.

They include the Glover Park Group, the fast-growing firm set up by former Clinton White House aides including Joe Lockhart, who was chief spokesman for the president. (Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign communications director, was a partner at the firm but has taken a leave of absence.)

The ties between the lobbying firms and the Clinton campaign illustrate the complexity of Washington’s political world, where players are often switching positions or playing multiple roles. While Mr. Wolfson has taken a leave from Glover Park, for example, he still has equity in the firm valued at $500,000 to $1 million, according to a disclosure form.

A long list of former Clinton administration aides, including Mack McLarty, the former counsel to the president; Donna E. Shalala, the health and human services secretary; and Leon E. Panetta, the onetime chief of staff, also have come out in support of the deal. It puts them in alliance with Mr. Bush and Republican leaders.

Either Senator Clinton has very poor judgment about how who you employ is perceived by foreign governments, or she is basically lying about her opposition to the Colombian Free Trade Agreement in order to placate the union vote in PA, which she desperately needs.

Either way, she is not a good match for a presidency that has to deal with both perception and action when dealing with sensitive issues like the proposed Colombian Free Trade Agreement and the challenge of the Colombian political mess in general. Senator Clinton hired all these people already knowing about their multiple conflicts of interest, not just on the Colombian trade proposal, but also on unions, big tobacco, big oil, and so on. In short, she was sending out a signal in her choice of key campaign staff that business would be conducted as usual in D.C. with the K Street lobbyists -- and against the public interest. Otherwise, she would have picked a different staff.

As for Bill, no one, especially Hillary, denies that they have a political partnership. She also benefits from his earnings, as in the case with Colombia. This is an inherent conflict of interest, given that Bill Clinton is her chief surrogate and is a former President of the United States. Lobbying is all about influence, and no one has more influence on Hillary Clinton than Bill Clinton, and vice versa, by their own accounts.

When Penn went to the Colombian embassy, a spokesperson claimed not to know whether Penn was representing the Clinton campaign or Burson-Marsteller:

A spokesman for Colombia's President Álvaro Uribe said the ambassador met with Mr. Penn to discuss the bilateral agenda. "There have also been meetings with the advisers to the campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain," he said. "It's the embassy's job to explain Colombia's reality."

"The spokesman said he didn't know if Mr. Penn was representing Sen. Clinton or Burson-Marsteller, which signed a $300,000, one-year contract with the Colombian Embassy in March 2007 to work on behalf of the trade deal and anti-drug-trafficking initiatives, according to the Justice Department filings."

That is an astonishing statement, but it reveals that either Senator Clinton is utterly naïve in terms of the game of perception and foreign policy, or knew all along what Penn was up to, her reported feigned outrage aside.

How can you hire as your key strategist a liberal hating guy who insists on not taking a leave of absence from a firm that represents the lead line-up of bad boy corporations, and then claim ignorance about what he is up to?

The very act of letting Penn remain CEO of Burson-Marsteller, while paying his own firm (another one, yes) more than $10 million (and currently owing him an estimated $2.5 to $3 million), sends a signal to the dark side of the corporate world. (Blackwater was one of Burson-Marsteller’s clients.)

It is quite worthy of note that when Senator Clinton finished questioning Crocker and Petraeus on April 8th, "… reporters spilled out to follow her down the hallway and stairwell … Shortly afterward, she was asked, twice, why she was keeping Mr. Penn on the campaign and whether his influence had waned. She had nothing to say, and walked out the door."

Nothing to say, indeed.