[Cross-Posted at Library Grape.]
As to the Bush administration's illegal excesses over the last eight years, there are a few salient options: (1) let bygones be bygones; (2) sic prosecutors after the lawbreakers; or (3) form up a South Africa-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
I am starting to lean toward option three. It would have the benefit of partially muting the "Witch hunt!" wing of the naysayers and, above all else, have the power to bring to light all of the illegal things that have been done in our name over the last eight years.
Here's where the action comes in. Representative John Conyers has introduced legislation to create a Truth Commission:
There is established the National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the "Commission") to investigate the broad range of policies of the Administration of President George W. Bush that were undertaken under claims of unreviewable war powers, including detention by the United States Armed Forces and the intelligence community, the use by the United States Armed Forces or the intelligence community of enhanced interrogation techniques or interrogation techniques not authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, "ghosting" or other policies intended to conceal the fact that an individual has been captured or detained, extraordinary rendition, domestic warrantless electronic surveillance, and other policies that the Commission may determine to be relevant to its investigation (hereinafter in this Act referred to as "the activities").
To date, Conyers' bill has only received 12 co-sponsors. We need to get the word out to Congress that Conyers' bill is important and has our support. If you have a few minutes, please write or call your Congressperson today to express your support for the Conyers bill: H.R. 104.
I just watched all the Sunday morning talk shows and one overriding theme emerged.Nearly everyone, Democrat or Republican, that got up and talked about our current economic crisis largely blamed the lack of oversight and regulation.Let me repeat that. The consensus is that a lack of meaningful oversight and regulation is now causing us to socialize the financial industry and put at risk at least $1 trillion of taxpayer money to bail it out.In light of this, the choice for President in this coming election has now become absolutely and unarguably clear.McCain has spent his nearly three decades in Washington being aided and abetted by Phil Gramm and his cronies in pushing through every possible measure to keep the financial industry from being subject to meaningful oversight and regulation. This is how the New York Times describes his pedigree:
[McCain's] record … suggest[s] that he has never departed in any major way from his party’s embrace of deregulation... [H]e has consistently characterized himself as fundamentally a deregulator [yet] he has no history prior to the presidential campaign of advocating steps to tighten standards on investment firms.McCain has always been in his party’s mainstream on the [economic] issue. In early 1995 … McCain promoted a moratorium on federal regulations of all kinds. 'I’m always for less regulation,' he told The Wall Street Journal last March…. 'I am fundamentally a deregulator.'
Many people over the last several months have asked me why I am so worked up over this election. Prior to November of last year, I had switched off any interest in politics and hadn't much cared about national elections for, oh, something like 10+ years. My answer to the question always involves two important elements.
The first element of my answer is my enthusiasm for Barack Obama as a person and a candidate. Once I took the time to research and learn more about him, I saw in Obama one of the most fundamentally decent politicians to run for the office of President in recent memory. I found him to be intelligent, engaging, contemplative, honest, forthright and candid -- all qualities that have been so obviously missing over the last eight years. Listening to him speak and reading what he wrote sold me on his story, his commitment to this great country, and his fundamental decency and quality of character. However, my enthusiasm for Barack Obama as a candidate is only one aspect to why I am so passionate about this election.
[Originally Posted to My Blog] [Digg This Post Here]
The second and perhaps more passion-inspiring aspect to my enthusiasm for electing Obama is my deep-seated need for the American electorate to say "Enough!" to all of the terrifying qualities that we have seen infect and and spread throughout our communities and government over these past eight years. Above nearly every other consideration on the table at this point, I desperately need to see America send up a powerful and resounding rebuke to the tone, tenor and ideology underpinning one of the most necrotic, corrupt and incompetent administrations in American history.
You may call me naïve for saying this but I yearn to wake up one day and not be afraid to learn what my government has done in my name. I am profoundly tired of waking up to learn that our country has unconstitutionally exceeded the powers of the executive branch, tortured terrorism suspects, illegally populated the Justice Department with people whose primary qualification was the sufficiency of their partisanship, mishandled domestic national disasters resulting in the deaths of thousands of people, obstinately refused to address climate change, illegally revealed the identity of a covert CIA agent, used hatred and fear of gays and lesbians to scare up votes in an election season, stymied research into embryonic stem cells based on religious faith alone, instituted a Pentagon propaganda campaign to sell an unjustified war, invaded a country that never participated in an attack on American soil and never posed an existential threat to our national security, and pathologically lied to the American people about every matter, large or small -- with all of these acts done in our name without a shred of meaningful accountability brought to bear upon any of the misguided criminals involved in their perpetration.
To put it mildly, I am ashamed, and profoundly so. Nearing as I am the age of 32, you'd think that my shame and cynicism would have led me to give up on any hope for honesty and competence in my elected leaders -- and for a while, I had. However, I see in Obama a golden opportunity (perhaps the last one we'll have in a long, long while) to forcefully cast off the last eight years of unchecked lies, misdirection, corruption, misinformation, illegality and incompetence.
As Obama himself has admitted, he is of course an imperfect messenger -- just as any person seeking the most powerful office in the world would be. However, this election means much more to me than just electing a person to fill a role -- it can also mean that we, as Americans, have borne witness to the evil that has been done in our name and have decided to forcefully and unequivocally declare that we will stand for it no longer!
With the two primary aspects to my passion for electing Obama being laid out above, please permit me go one step further and explain one of the main ways this passion gets channeled on a day-to-day basis.
I have gone through most of my life in a position of relatively comfortable middle-class privilege. My stepfather was a college professor and my mother an accomplished artist and homemaker. My sisters and I generally didn't want for anything. I came out of the closet in high school at the tender age of 13 and was lucky enough to grow up in a loving family that accepted me fully for who I was. Coming out so early, however, left my still-forming psyche fully exposed to the harsh winds of a culture and society that is still too often prone to demonizing gays and lesbians for no reason other than the gender of the person they choose to love.
I became involved in politics and activism during my teen years in the small town of Eugene, Oregon during an unfortunate episode in our state's history when a radical right-wing organization called the Oregon Citizen's Alliance successfully placed an initiative on the statewide ballot in 1992 called Measure 9 that would have revised the Oregon constitution to read:
All governments in Oregon may not use their monies or properties to promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism. All levels of government, including public education systems, must assist in setting a standard for Oregon's youth which recognizes that these behaviors are abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse and they are to be discouraged and avoided.
Thankfully, Measure 9 failed, but only by a margin of 44% in favor to just 56% opposed. As I look back on it, I think this was the first concrete time in my life when I truly sat back and thought, "Dear God, there is an enormous percentage of the population out there for whom ignorance and gullibility is a virtue and who are capable of using their ignorance as a sword to strike out and try to hurt other people, and the country, with their vote!" This general realization about the fundamental nature of a large portion of the electorate eventually drove me into a self-induced fog of anger and cynicism that was only more strongly reinforced by America's reelection of George W. Bush after much of the information that has recently driven his approval ratings into the low 20s was already evident.
The upshot of all this background information is how it reflects on my outlook today. Although I labored in a fog of anger and cynicism for 15-odd years, it wasn't enough to completely kill off my hope for an episodic emergence of the inherent goodness in people that I never stopped believing in. I still fundamentally believe that a large majority of people in this country and around the world have, at their core, a well of goodness that can be easily shrouded by any number of suppressive factors, i.e., abuse, privation, religious fundamentalism, divorce, deaths in the family, etc. Although all-too-often lying dormant, the shroud covering this inherent goodness within us is periodically peeled back to allow for radical, transformative change, e.g., abolishing slavery, giving women the right to vote and ending segregation.
Over the last seven or more years, the shroud covering many of our better instincts was metastasized by, among other things, the tragic events of 9/11. Too many of us retreated into our cocoons and gave our government free reign to run roughshod over many of the rights we hold dear and slaughter tens of thousands of innocent civilians in order exact vengeance upon a shadowy and intangible threat that emerged from a world to which we often pay far too little attention and spend little time trying to understand.
Owing much to our lust for vengeance and a profane President and his administration that, unchecked by any authority, has taken every opportunity to knowingly and vigorously violate the cherished morals, ethics, values, laws and international standards we once held so dear, we are now at a precipitous crossroads in our country's history. This is not just a fight against the poisonous depravity of the Bush administration, this is also a fight against our lesser instincts, our apathy and our complicity in what our government has become. It is not enough to simply write off the last eight years as the result of some compartmentalized bad actor and his cronies occupying and mismanaging the White House. We must systematically, and with great wisdom and purpose, reject and denounce the entire paradigm of accepting the presentation of falsehoods from those who would seek to govern us, justifying the torture of prisoners as an evil means toward a noble end, and cavalierly relinquishing the rights and freedoms for which so many brave souls have fought and spilled their blood over the centuries of our proud country's history.
In this election, the Republican candidate for President has embraced and expanded upon all of the worst instincts and tactics that drove our current President into the White House. With every new day, John McCain and his surrogates have proven in new and creative ways how much contempt they possess for concepts such as honesty, dignity, integrity, candor, humility and compassion. It is not enough to get angry about the fact that they put out jaw-droppingly obvious lies and misdirection on a daily basis. We must dig deeper and fight the very premise that underlies their shameful and dishonorable tactics: the idea that selling lies to the American electorate will work because we are too stupid, comfortable, uninformed and apathetic to realize that they are deceiving us! The next time you hear a McCain surrogate parrot talking points that falsely accuse Obama of wanting to raise taxes on people making $42,000 per year or claim that McCain is not, and has not always been, 100% committed to criminalizing abortion, dig below your righteous anger and react more strongly to the fact that we are responsible for giving them the impression that they can shamelessly peddle their lies with impunity. The stakes are too high in this election, and the challenges we face are too great, to simply leave this despicable premise unchallenged.
Fighting John McCain's dishonorable underlying premise does not just involve simply going to the ballot box and voting for Barack Obama on November 4th; it requires a much greater commitment than that. In past elections, when faced with an uninformed friend or relative that promulgates a new lie du jour that emanated from a surrogate of the opposing campaign, many of us have all too often held our tongues in order to avoid making waves or having others think less of us. This needs to end, quickly.
We have a civic duty, at this point in our country's history, to become properly informed about the facts underlying all of the main issues circulating in your family and community and, when faced with a lie promulgated by the McCain campaign, not only speak out forcefully, with limitless respect and patience, against the particular lie under discussion but also enter into a discussion of McCain's underlying premise. The impact of refuting a lie will always be less significant than helping someone come to realize that the systemic pattern of lies and misdirection put out by the McCain campaign presupposes that we are all too stupid, comfortable, uninformed and apathetic to realize that they are deceiving us.
I know that, like me, your view of national elections and politicians has all-too-often sprouted from a fertile bed of cynical cop-outs, e.g., picking the lesser of two evils, thinking that your vote doesn't count, believing that all politicians are just craven liars and discounting the election because it doesn't matter who you choose because they'll all screw you over anyway. At this moment in history -- when we are faced with record oil prices coupled with an ever-dwindling, non-expandable supply of fossil fuels, an economy with sectors not far off from permanent systemic failure and a standing and moral authority in the world worse than at any point in the last century -- we cannot allow ourselves to take false comfort in these reassuring, emotionally protective clichés.
[Cross-posted on my blog.] Please digg this story here.
Obama pledged Sunday to close the so-called Enron Loophole. As a bit of background, the Enron Loophole is a provision that was slipped into the Commodities Futures Modernization Act that exempted energy trading on electronic platforms from regulation and oversight.
Guess who slipped the loophole into the law? That's right, McCain's chief economic advisor Phil Gramm, who was at the time a powerful Texas senator.
Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday that "as president he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil." Obama "singled out the so-called 'Enron loophole' for allowing speculators to run up the cost of fuel by operating outside federal regulation." The Obama campaign "blamed the loophole on former Sen. Phil Gramm," who serves as Sen. John McCain's campaign "co-chairman and economic adviser."
Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday that "as president he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil." Obama "singled out the so-called 'Enron loophole' for allowing speculators to run up the cost of fuel by operating outside federal regulation."
The Obama campaign "blamed the loophole on former Sen. Phil Gramm," who serves as Sen. John McCain's campaign "co-chairman and economic adviser."
The reason why the loophole got dubbed the "Enron Loophole" is because soon after the Act's passage, the lack of regulation and oversight over Enron's electronic energy trading market led to Enron (on whose board Gramm's wife sat) bilking California out of $40 billion and causing a summer full of rolling blackouts.
Guess what McCain's position on the Enron Loophole is?
Yep, he's all for keeping it, on the advice of Phil Gramm.
[A McCain] aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee also opposes the farm bill because Gramm advised McCain that he should resist its regulatory language on the energy futures market.
Someone tell me again why most of the MSM refuses to give McCain a fraction of the scrutiny devoted to Barack Obama's flag pins and Michelle Obama's patriotism?
Here we have the chief architect of a horrific loophole in a regulatory scheme specifically advising John McCain to keep it and McCain then dutifully going along with it.
Think we'll get 24x7 coverage on CNN on this? Read More: Obama Vows To Close "Enron Loophole" For Oil Speculators; McCain Defends 'Enron Loophole'
Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of Sen. Clinton's closest supporters, kept pushing the false "Clinton won the popular vote" meme today on This Week with George Stephanopoulus:
"Hillary Clinton is well known, certainly she had the popular vote in this election."
Politico reports:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein reiterated that Clinton had won the popular vote -- an assertion that is not accepted by Illinois Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's camp and one that, if repeated often, could harm Democratic attempts to unify behind him.
If this meme keeps getting repeated, it will metastasize the (largely justified) disappointment and hurt that Clinton supporters are feeling right now and will solidify for them the notion that Hillary was somehow robbed of the nomination.
[Cross-posted to my blog]
Now add to the mix that Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan (from which state Clinton supporters continue to unfairly insist that Obama got zero votes, even though the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee reached a compromise and apportioned all of "uncommitted" delegates to Obama). In addition, none of the candidates were allowed to campaign for votes in Florida. Further stir into the Michigan and Florida equation the fact that hundreds of thousands of people did not vote because they were told that their vote would not count at the Convention (as reflected in the fact that both states' voter turnout was far lower than expectations) and you get a highly polluted set of data from which to draw "certain" or "unquestionable" conclusions.
Final data point. In Washington, Iowa, Maine and Nevada, these states did not release an official estimate of voter turnout. However, Clinton supporters like Sen. Feinstein are content to completely disregard any tabulation or estimate of the turnout in such states in order to make the damaging argument that Sen. Clinton somehow "won" the popular vote. Are voters' voices in Washington, Iowa, Maine and Nevada not supposed to be heard?
There are only two conclusions to draw:
Here is where we stand:
Obama is now the presumptive nominee.
Hillary Clinton has suspended her campaign and endorsed Obama with a ringing call for party unity.
In the interest of party unity, as so eloquently expressed by Senator Clinton yesterday, we all need let the whole popular vote argument go. It can only serve to make people angry, prolong the grieving process and hurt the Democrat's chances in the fall against John McCain.
This is exactly the wrong sentiment to be spreading for the national news media to grab onto.
Regardless of your support for either of the Democratic candidates, it is unhelpful for the Democrats' changes in November to be repeating the wounded "I'll take my toys and go home" canard that if someone can't have their candidate nominated, they'll go vote for the other party.
I have seen this sentiment echoed on sites like MyDD.com for months. And now, a bunch of Clinton supporters demonstrating outside the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting are continuing and heightening the threat:
"We are all a nation together, there are 50 states, not 48," said Constanta Nour-Hinkle, 35, who traveled by train from Reading, Pa. today to attend the rally. "I felt I needed to make my voice hear and I wanted to show solidarity with the 2.3 million voters [in Florida and Michigan] whose voices were not heard." Mrs. Nour-Hinkle said she would rather vote for Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, than for Mrs. Clinton's rival, Sen. Barack Obama -- echoing the sentiments of many protesters. "It would be the first time in my life I would vote Republican for president," said Mrs. Nour-Hinkle, 35. "I think Obama is an empty shirt, the same as [President] George W. Bush but only a Democrat." John Overton, who shouted pro-Clinton slogans outside the hotel, said he would leave the party if Obama receives the Democratic nomination for president. "I can't stand for the Democratic Party if they don't stand for voters' rights," said Mr. Overton, who traveled from his home in Chapel Hill, N.C., to attend the rally. The party "would no longer exist to me as a party." "I don't scream like this normally, I'm a rational guy, but I've never felt like this before," he added. "This had been a travesty of democracy."
"We are all a nation together, there are 50 states, not 48," said Constanta Nour-Hinkle, 35, who traveled by train from Reading, Pa. today to attend the rally. "I felt I needed to make my voice hear and I wanted to show solidarity with the 2.3 million voters [in Florida and Michigan] whose voices were not heard."
Mrs. Nour-Hinkle said she would rather vote for Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, than for Mrs. Clinton's rival, Sen. Barack Obama -- echoing the sentiments of many protesters.
"It would be the first time in my life I would vote Republican for president," said Mrs. Nour-Hinkle, 35. "I think Obama is an empty shirt, the same as [President] George W. Bush but only a Democrat."
John Overton, who shouted pro-Clinton slogans outside the hotel, said he would leave the party if Obama receives the Democratic nomination for president.
"I can't stand for the Democratic Party if they don't stand for voters' rights," said Mr. Overton, who traveled from his home in Chapel Hill, N.C., to attend the rally. The party "would no longer exist to me as a party."
"I don't scream like this normally, I'm a rational guy, but I've never felt like this before," he added. "This had been a travesty of democracy."
Look, I know a lot of bad things have been said and done by supporters of both candidates in this campaign.
But, the simple fact is that Clinton OR Obama would do a LOT more for progressive issues, like ending the war in Iraq, universal health care and reversing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, than John McCain and the Republican Party ever would.
We really need to stop this madness. The race will be decided soon, the RBC will make their decision, and the last primaries will be held. We will have a nominee and we need to focus on unity, not childish threats.
Update: Here's more commentary on the insanity:
Howard Dean may hope that the "healing will begin today," but two blocks away from the northwest Washington Marriott where the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting right now to try to figure out Florida and Michigan, the Hillary protesters are occupying an utterly alternate (and healing-free) universe: a universe in which one of the big lawn rally's speakers yells that the Democratic Party no longer is in the business of "promoting equality and fairness for all"; in which a Hillary supporter with two poodles shouts, "Howard Dean is a leftist freak!"; in which a man exhibits a sign that reads "At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen" and shows Dean whipping handcuffed people; and in which Larry Sinclair, the Minnesota man who took to YouTube to allege that Barack Obama had oral sex with him in the back of a limousine in 1999, is one of the belles of the ball. Snip. Clusters of people in Hillary shirts ask to take their photo with him, one woman covered in Clinton buttons introduces him to Greta Van Susteren, and he estimates he has handed out 500 fliers. "You could improve your credibility if you downplayed the gay sex and focused on the drugs," sagely advises one Hillary supporter with auburn hair and elegant makeup. But in this universe, Sinclair's credibility doesn't seem to be suffering too much. In fact, he's treated nearly as well as he might be at a meeting of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy. In the thirty minutes I stand with him, only one woman expresses disgust at his fliers and his willingness to chattily discourse on whether Obama is "good in bed." Snip. It's easy to sink into despair here. Standing and watching all these Democrats chat up Sinclair--who's retained Montgomery Blair Sibley as his lawyer and says the Republican National Committee has also been in touch with him--makes me want to fall to my knees, rend my garments, and start insanely screaming, "Wake up! Wake up! You'll hate a President John McCain!" But the rhetoric from the top has imparted its poison below, and the bitterest criticisms of Obama gain traction as they circulate through the virulently-pro-Hillary echo chamber. "Would you rather have a president who had an affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]?" Jeannie, the Greensboro Democrat, asks a fellow in a floppy Tilley hat and Hillary buttons. "That's a good point," he replies.
Howard Dean may hope that the "healing will begin today," but two blocks away from the northwest Washington Marriott where the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting right now to try to figure out Florida and Michigan, the Hillary protesters are occupying an utterly alternate (and healing-free) universe: a universe in which one of the big lawn rally's speakers yells that the Democratic Party no longer is in the business of "promoting equality and fairness for all"; in which a Hillary supporter with two poodles shouts, "Howard Dean is a leftist freak!"; in which a man exhibits a sign that reads "At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen" and shows Dean whipping handcuffed people; and in which Larry Sinclair, the Minnesota man who took to YouTube to allege that Barack Obama had oral sex with him in the back of a limousine in 1999, is one of the belles of the ball.
Snip.
Clusters of people in Hillary shirts ask to take their photo with him, one woman covered in Clinton buttons introduces him to Greta Van Susteren, and he estimates he has handed out 500 fliers. "You could improve your credibility if you downplayed the gay sex and focused on the drugs," sagely advises one Hillary supporter with auburn hair and elegant makeup. But in this universe, Sinclair's credibility doesn't seem to be suffering too much. In fact, he's treated nearly as well as he might be at a meeting of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy. In the thirty minutes I stand with him, only one woman expresses disgust at his fliers and his willingness to chattily discourse on whether Obama is "good in bed."
It's easy to sink into despair here. Standing and watching all these Democrats chat up Sinclair--who's retained Montgomery Blair Sibley as his lawyer and says the Republican National Committee has also been in touch with him--makes me want to fall to my knees, rend my garments, and start insanely screaming, "Wake up! Wake up! You'll hate a President John McCain!" But the rhetoric from the top has imparted its poison below, and the bitterest criticisms of Obama gain traction as they circulate through the virulently-pro-Hillary echo chamber. "Would you rather have a president who had an affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]?" Jeannie, the Greensboro Democrat, asks a fellow in a floppy Tilley hat and Hillary buttons. "That's a good point," he replies.
[Cross-Posted on My Blog]
What have we been left with over the past 8 years of George W. Bush with regard to international treaties?
Over and over again, the U.S. stands alone in opposing treaties that have overwhelming support in the international community.
Remember the Kyoto protocol? The global warming treaty signed by 178 countries and rejected by the Bush administration?
Well, here we are again.
A group of 100 countries came together in Dublin Ireland and agreed today to a treaty that would ban the use of cluster bombs, those canister munitions filled with bomblets that are often left in civilian areas long after the conflict is over where they maim and kill the innocent, especially children.
If Hillary Clinton, John McCain and George W. Bush had their way, the U.S. would again stand nearly alone in the developed world in supporting the use of cluster bombs.
From The Swamp:
The U.S. has opposed the treaty because it wants to maintain the military option of using them as a defensive weapon, a position that has placed it at odds with global human-rights groups. The U.S. is joined by Russia and China in opposing the ban. It's not just the Bush Administration that opposes the treaty. There was a telling vote in September 2006 on legislation that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain voted against the ban which failed 70-30. Sen. Barack Obama voted for the ban.
Here's Wikipedia on cluster munitions:
While all weapons are potentially dangerous to civilians, cluster bombs pose a particular threat to civilians for two reasons: they have a wide area of effect, and they have consistently left behind a large number of unexploded bomblets. The unexploded bomblets remain dangerous for decades after the end of a conflict. Cluster munitions are opposed by many individuals and hundreds of groups, such as the Red Cross, the Cluster Munition Coalition and the United Nations, because of the high number of civilians that have fallen victim to the weapon. Since February 2005, Handicap International called for cluster munitions to be prohibited and collected hundreds of thousands of signatures to support its call. 98% of 13,306 recorded cluster munitions casualties that are registered with Handicap International are civilians; however they also note releasing the report "Despite a general lack of information on casualties both during and after strikes..."
While all weapons are potentially dangerous to civilians, cluster bombs pose a particular threat to civilians for two reasons: they have a wide area of effect, and they have consistently left behind a large number of unexploded bomblets. The unexploded bomblets remain dangerous for decades after the end of a conflict.
Cluster munitions are opposed by many individuals and hundreds of groups, such as the Red Cross, the Cluster Munition Coalition and the United Nations, because of the high number of civilians that have fallen victim to the weapon. Since February 2005, Handicap International called for cluster munitions to be prohibited and collected hundreds of thousands of signatures to support its call. 98% of 13,306 recorded cluster munitions casualties that are registered with Handicap International are civilians; however they also note releasing the report "Despite a general lack of information on casualties both during and after strikes..."
Please, God, let this election deliver us from hawkish cowards, who stand up in Congress and vote with the fear that they shall be seen as weak on national security.
Please, God, give us a President who has the strength and courage to stand up for what he believes and join the international community in addressing serious dangers like global warming and humanitarian blights like cluster bombs.
[Cross-posted on my blog]
This is truly beyond the pale.
Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama."My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.
[Cross-posted on my blog] [Please forward this on!]
Thanks to everyone that made the petition I started to stop Hillary Clinton from stealing the nomination by seating the Florida and Michigan delegations a roaring success. Only by word of mouth, and without any kind of mainstream exposure whatsoever, the petition has garnered over 4,500 signatures from people all across this great country of ours in a few short months.Now that the time is upon us, I am printing out the 400 pages that all of these intrepid signers (and their commentary) take up and am sending them out in a package to Howard Dean, the DNC, and the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC.
If you haven't signed the petition, do so NOW! I will send off an addendum next week with everyone that signs in the next 7 or so days.Make your voice heard! Don't let Hillary Clinton bludgeon her way to some measure of power in this race! Down with the Washington politics of the last 16+ years!
I'm not sure, but I think I'm breaking a story here.
The below post is from my blog at http://weneedobama.blogspot.com/2008/03/clinton-campaign-lies-about... If you like this article and want to get the word out, please Digg It at http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinton_Memo_Lies_About_Obama_s_D... In response to Senator Obama's excellent speech today on the economy and the need for a new framework for governmental regulation of the financial markets, the Clinton's campaign has issued a statement from its policy director, Neera Tanden. She says, in part, that:
Senator Obama announced a series of broad, vague principles, while offering no new concrete solutions to provide Americans with greater confidence in the market or keep them in their homes. The contrast could not be clearer -- on Monday, Senator Clinton announced a detailed, specific plan to address the housing and credit crisis. On Tuesday, Senator McCain announced that he had no plan. And today, Senator Obama offered just words.
In addition, the Clinton team circulated a list of what they claim are the donations Obama has received from "the top 10 issuers of subprime loans."
So, I agree that now that the day is winding down, this meme could be getting a bit played out, even though to "misspeak" means that you said something accidentally rather than intentionally mischaractered some fact.
Well, that was until I read this gem from her interview today with a Pennsylvania newspaper that offers up an even bigger, steamier lie:
On saying last week that she landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996, when she was first lady: "I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke."
This might be a good explanation if it weren't a cold, calculating, obvious lie on top of a lie
After all, her comments about her harrowing entrée into Bosnia were in the printed text of her speech.
Not to mention the fact that she repeated exactly the same story on multiple occasions (see here for an example).
Remember, politicians all-too-often get caught up more in the misstatements about the original event than the event itself.
FACT: Her comments prepared in advance of the event (and repeated at 3 other events) were written exactly as she said them.
As a result, she LIED.
There is a must-read review of past American Presidents' experience as it relates to their perceived quality of governing at http://www.electoral-vote.com/.
How good are experienced presidents, anyway? Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln. Your pick disagrees with that of most historians, who see Lincoln as the greatest President ever and Buchanan as the second worst ever, better only than Warren "Teapot Dome" Harding. Both served in what was probably the most difficult period in American history, where slavery and secession tore the nation asunder.Before becoming President, Buchanan had served 6 years in the Pennsylvania state legislature, 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, 4 years as ambassador to Russia, 10 years in the Senate, 4 years as Secretary of State, and 4 years as Ambassador to England. Talk about experience, Buchanan did just about everything except serve on the Supreme Court, a job he was offered by President Polk and refused. Yet by any measure, he wasn't up to the job as President. In contrast, Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois legislature and one term in the U.S. House (1847-1849), a decade before becoming President. The rest of the time he was a lawyer in private practice, a bit thin one might say.
Note that there are a lot more Presidents in the bottom left than the top right.
There have been 55 presidential elections in US history. 28 times the person with most "experience" wins.20 of 28 times was a reelection. There have been 21 elections which resulted in a change of party in power. 14 of those elections were won by the candidate with the least experience. Since 1900 there have been 10 elections resulting in a change of the party in power. In 9 of those elections the candidate with the least amount of experience won. Examples: 2000 Bush vs. Gore most experienced lost 1992 Clinton vs. Bush most experienced lost 1980 Reagan vs. Carter most experienced lost 1976 Carter vs. Ford most experienced lost 1968 Nixon vs. Humphrey candidates were equal in experience. 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon most experienced lost 1952 Eisenhower vs. Stevenson most experienced lost 1322 FDR vs Hoover most experienced lost 1920 Harding vs Cox most experienced lost 1912 Wilson vs Taft and Teddy Roosevelt moreexperienced lost
There have been 55 presidential elections in US history. 28 times the person with most "experience" wins.20 of 28 times was a reelection.
There have been 21 elections which resulted in a change of party in power. 14 of those elections were won by the candidate with the least experience.
Since 1900 there have been 10 elections resulting in a change of the party in power. In 9 of those elections the candidate with the least amount of experience won.
Examples:
2000 Bush vs. Gore most experienced lost
1992 Clinton vs. Bush most experienced lost
1980 Reagan vs. Carter most experienced lost
1976 Carter vs. Ford most experienced lost
1968 Nixon vs. Humphrey candidates were equal in experience.
1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon most experienced lost
1952 Eisenhower vs. Stevenson most experienced lost
1322 FDR vs Hoover most experienced lost
1920 Harding vs Cox most experienced lost
1912 Wilson vs Taft and Teddy Roosevelt moreexperienced lost
Update 2: Here is some additional analysis from another commenter:
Time Magazine had TWO excellent articles about Presidential experience: "Does Experience Matter as a President"http://www.time.com/... "Experience, in other words, gets its value from the person who has it. In certain lives, a little goes a long way. Some people grow and ripen through years of government service; others spoil on the vine.[snip]Baker, a former Secretary of State, still believes that a candidate with credentials should certainly tout them, but in the end, "there's no such thing as presidential experience outside of the office itself." The quality we ought to seek "is leadership." and a second one:"The Science of Experience"http://www.time.com/... "...three decades of research into expert performance has shown that experience itself — the raw amount of time you spend pursuing any particular activity, from brain surgery to skiing — can actually hinder your ability to deliver reproducibly superior performance. " "in the end, determining which of the presidential candidates pays more attention to your concerns requires not adding up their years of experience but a far more complex calculation: deciding what their experiences have led them to truly value."
Time Magazine had TWO excellent articles about Presidential experience:
"Does Experience Matter as a President"http://www.time.com/...
"Experience, in other words, gets its value from the person who has it. In certain lives, a little goes a long way. Some people grow and ripen through years of government service; others spoil on the vine.[snip]Baker, a former Secretary of State, still believes that a candidate with credentials should certainly tout them, but in the end, "there's no such thing as presidential experience outside of the office itself." The quality we ought to seek "is leadership."
and a second one:"The Science of Experience"http://www.time.com/...
"...three decades of research into expert performance has shown that experience itself — the raw amount of time you spend pursuing any particular activity, from brain surgery to skiing — can actually hinder your ability to deliver reproducibly superior performance. "
"in the end, determining which of the presidential candidates pays more attention to your concerns requires not adding up their years of experience but a far more complex calculation: deciding what their experiences have led them to truly value."
Read More: http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Well, it looks like Hillary Clinton shows no signs of letting up in her quest to make the case that John McCain is better than Barack Obama:
"I think that since we now know Sen. McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington. "I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said. Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a "distinguished man with a great history of service to our country," Clinton said, "Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold."
"I think that since we now know Sen. McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.
"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.
Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a "distinguished man with a great history of service to our country," Clinton said, "Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold."
Hillary Clinton should stop making her case by talking up John McCain. This will be terrible for the Democrats in the general election!!
Sponsored 3 Obama Volunteers to Texas
I am in a really great mood today due, in large part, to sponsoring three eager students from across the U.S. -- either by way of helping them get a plane ticket or helping with accommodations -- to fly down to Texas to volunteer for the Obama campaign. Please check my blog regularly (WeNeedObama.blogspot.com) as they will be sending me news, photos and anecdotes from the campaign trail that I will be posting there. Here are the intrepid folks I'll be following over the next week:
Good luck Wendi, Aaron and Kingsley!
I am watching Meet the Press and heard presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin (bar none the most authoritative voice I've heard on presidential history) make an excellent point in response to a statement by New York Times commentator David Brooks to the effect of "You really have to wonder how Obama can bring about this 'change' and 'unity' with these 70-year-old committee chairmen on the Hill."Her response was highly elucidating:
"What history argues -- and I think that this is what [Obama] is arguing -- is that the only time we've seen progressive change in this country is when the country is mobilized to push the people in Congress to action.That's what happened in the progressive movement at the turn of the century; that's what happened in the New Deal; that's what happened in the 60s.I think that's what he's arguing -- I can't just get it done by myself; I need to have that movement out there that will push us in Washington (me and them included) [to make that change happen]."
Sign the petition to urge Clinton to stop pushing to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates!
Rules are rules!
Over 4,100 people have already signed!
Go to http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Give-Us-Fairness
Senator Obama is not a cult leader (as Senator Clinton is now so absurdly suggesting).Senator Obama is a Catalytic Leader, as I will describe shortly below. This is the exact style of leadership our country and our interconnected world requires at this point in history. Without this more accurate framing, the media will continue to parrot Senator Clinton's talking points by attributing Senator Obama's message and popularity to hero worship, charisma, blind faith or "cultmania", etc.Catalytic Leadership is a style of leadership whereby a leader inspires diverse constituencies to step forward and work together and where effective solutions to problems are created by such constituencies working together, with everyone buying into the problem solving process. By being involved and invested in the process, stakeholders who may desire different outcomes may yet come to support a solution because they were made a part of the process. They can say "WE DID IT!"Senator Obama is clearly a charismatic figure. However, to write him off as simply a "charismatic figure" is too simplistic. His true power lies in what appears to be his natural leadership ability and his skill at drawing together a variety of diverse constituencies into his decision-making process. Not everyone will agree with the outcome of every initiative he puts forward but everyone will at least be able to say that they were consulted and had their voices heard. Thus, his message of "Yes WE can!".The complexity of the problems facing our country and world involve highly divergent points of view and diverse people/communities that must somehow find common ground in order to move toward solutions, and a Catalytic Leadership style is the one that is necessary. This is one of the critically important skills that Senator Barack Obama will bring to the presidency, as is already profoundly evidenced in his ongoing campaign.A Catalytic Leader is the antidote to our current woes and to Clinton and the media's recent "cultmania" spin in answer to Obama's popularity and his ability to inspire and involve so many patriotic Americans -- whether Democrat, Independent or Republican.We cannot suffer through another era where "leadership" is defined as forcing your will upon others, not consulting with opposing voices and falling prey to the supposed collective wisdom of a coterie that has never disagreed with you.For more on the concept of Catalytic Leadership, check out the seminal work on the topic by my late stepfather: "Catalytic Leadership" by Professor Jeffrey Luke.Also, check out another great article: The 'Cult' of Obama?
2,500+ Signatures So Far!!
I have been incensed by Hillary trying to steal the Democratic nomination by changing the rules in the middle of the game. Please sign the petition I just created and speak out on this outrage!Here is the petition:
Dear Senator Clinton:We, the undersigned, are concerned Americans and have been dismayed to learn recently that your campaign has chosen to push to change the rules while the Democratic nominating process is already underway.We were shocked to learn that your campaign is advocating for the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates after the Democratic National Committee stripped both states of their delegates in response to each state's decision to move up their primary date.As Josh Marshall noted, it is inappropriate to "Change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another." As Joe Gandelman points out, you yourself made that very argument months ago. We are concerned that your attempt to seat delegates from states in which you and your opponents explicitly pledged to not campaign will have disastrous implications for the Democratic Party and the Democratic nomination process. As Ezra Klein warns, "This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart." As a result, we strongly urge you, in the interest of the Democratic Party and the millions of Americans who have a strong interest in avoiding a fractious, divisive Democratic National Convention, to abide by the rules set down months ago and explicitly agreed to by your campaign and abandon your push to have the Michigan and Florida delegates seated in the upcoming Democratic National Convention.Thank you for your time and consideration.Concerned Americans for a Fair Nomination Process
Dear Senator Clinton:We, the undersigned, are concerned Americans and have been dismayed to learn recently that your campaign has chosen to push to change the rules while the Democratic nominating process is already underway.We were shocked to learn that your campaign is advocating for the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates after the Democratic National Committee stripped both states of their delegates in response to each state's decision to move up their primary date.As Josh Marshall noted, it is inappropriate to "Change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another." As Joe Gandelman points out, you yourself made that very argument months ago.We are concerned that your attempt to seat delegates from states in which you and your opponents explicitly pledged to not campaign will have disastrous implications for the Democratic Party and the Democratic nomination process. As Ezra Klein warns, "This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart."As a result, we strongly urge you, in the interest of the Democratic Party and the millions of Americans who have a strong interest in avoiding a fractious, divisive Democratic National Convention, to abide by the rules set down months ago and explicitly agreed to by your campaign and abandon your push to have the Michigan and Florida delegates seated in the upcoming Democratic National Convention.Thank you for your time and consideration.Concerned Americans for a Fair Nomination Process
