Posts with the tag New York Times

NYT RIP

Steven — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:11:39 EDT

The New York Times has gone gaga. There is a terrible, ignorant editorial in there today about Obama's speech to school children:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/opinion/05sat2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

The editorial defends Obama, and rightly points out that this is not socialism, but then goes on an insane tear against socialism and its evil history. For someone educated in Britain, and a historian knowledgeable about the history of socialism, this is an incredibly ignorant mistake for the NYT. They meant, I assume, communism or Stalinism, not socialism--unless they are now the Washington Times. I wrote a letter which was a shortened version of the following:

To the Editor,

In your editorial today “Respect Your Children” you state, correctly, that there is “nothing socialist in any of Mr. Obama’s policies”, but then add “as anyone with a passing knowledge of socialism and its evil history knows”. You continue: “But in this country, unlike actual socialist countries, nobody can be compelled to listen to the president.” To quote Repesentative Barney Frank, what planet are you on? Socialism as a philosophy and political movement, represented by parties such as the Labour Party in Britain, has been responsible for most of the progressive changes in Western political systems in the twentieth century, including universal suffrage. Liberals and conservatives might challenge the effectiveness of socialism to “deliver the goods” when it comes to wealth creation, but “evil history”? Was Léon Blum “evil”? Was Clement Atlee “evil”? Olaf Palme? Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt? Yet they were all socialists. Is universal health care, an achievement mainly of socialist parties in Europe “evil”? No, they were the leaders of peaceful social change through the ballot box towards a fairer, more just society, which they thought best achieved by increased state intervention in the economy (nationalization) and civil society, because the state was, after all, run by the people in a democracy. Current socialist parties in Europe have backed away from this and adopted a “social market” approach, but the socialist heritage is anything but “evil”.

And what “actual socialist countries” do you mean? There are none. Sweden comes close, but even that country never gave up the basic profit incentive of capitalism (and did very well despite its near-socialism). The socialist parties never really attempted a complete socialization of any country. If you mean North Korea, or the Soviet Union and its satellites, or perhaps Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, then I would put it to you that you are making an elementary mistake, confusing socialism with either communism or totalitarian personality cults, and have been reading far too much Hayek for your own intellectual good. Unless, of course, you are no longer the New York Times, but have morphed overnight into the northern edition of the Washington Times?

Next time, do not let someone with a “passing knowledge” of anything write editorials, if you want to preserve your newspaper’s estimable reputation as publishing all that is fit to print. This editorial was not.

Steven Beller, Washington DC

A Comment Posted to the NYT that got 439 Recommendations

Nina — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:31:18 EDT

Sometimes all this activism seems to be vanishing into the void, but I was happy to see that one of my comments on the NYT site garnered 439 "recommendations." It was in response to Paul Krugman's article about the seeming lack of trust in the voting base...

Here it is:

NinaDenver, CoAugust 21st, 20097:20 amI think you've put your finger on it, Mr. Krugman, liberals aren't jumping to enthusiastically promote the president's agenda because they don't trust that he will stand firm on his agenda. They worry they'll pour their passion into the cause only to find out that he has "given away" one of their core causes.

After hearing about the possible loss of a public option, I jumped into action, but not to follow the president's lead. Rather I am pushing for the public plan and for roundly rebuking the Blue Dogs, Senators Grassley, Baucus, and Conrad, and all the other obstructionists. I urge every interested party to call the DNC and complain about the lack of cohesion in the party and the bad behavior of those in the Senate finance committee.

I respect the president and still hold out hope, but he does have to realize that he is dampening the passions that carried him into the White House by failing to follow the rules of hardcore negotiating. My mother, who worked as an environmental lobbyist (on the good side), always said that you pick a "red herring"--a more extreme, but less desired aspects of a bill--and treat it as your do-or-die issue. Then, when you agree to get rid of the item, you insist that your opponents won't get further concessions (leaving intact the elements you really wanted). Mr. Obama starts off with nothing extra in his legislation, stripping it down to its barest elements, so that when his opponents demand concessions, they are major concessions that cripple the legislation. He doesn't seem to understand the nature of industry and corporate power either--he treats them as equal parties in any negotiation, not realizing that their goal is to eviscerate him (i.e., the industry-paid "grass roots" town-hall-meeting kooks). He needs to seriously learn to fight back to power and out-threaten those who threaten him (tell the Blue Dogs that's that, tell industry he'll switch to single-payer if they don't back the more moderate public option).

More than anything, Mr. Obama needs to return to a position of bold vision and strong leadership, firmly stating his demands and holding true to them--rallying his supporters when needed. If they have full faith that he won't waver, they won't waver either. Industry should not be making these decisions for us. Our elected leaders should be listening to the real (not the industry-financed) American people who spoke out clearly in November.Recommended Recommended by 439 Readers

SENATOR KENNEDYS HEALTHCARE PETITION...

karenbenzer — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:46:24 EDT

I've seen our health care system up close over the past year.

I'm fortunate to have the finest medical care in the world. But I've seen far too many people unable to obtain the care they need because they can't afford it.

That's wrong. It's got to change, and it's about to change.

We're fighting for legislation in Congress to fix our broken health care system. Under President Obama's leadership, Republicans and Democrats are working together to write a bill that will guarantee good care at long last to everyone who needs it.

But we'll need strong nationwide support to produce the 60 Senate votes that will probably be required to avoid a filibuster and actually pass the bill. I need your support. Please sign our petition for quality, affordable health care for every American:

http://www.democraticmajority.com/healthcare

Our legislation includes five major provisions:
We give Americans better choices for health insurance. We follow a simple principle: If you like the coverage you have now, you can keep it. If you don't like your current coverage, our bill offers new and more affordable options. We'll negotiate with insurance companies to keep costs low, make it illegal for companies to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and give Americans the option to enroll in a public insurance program.

We reduce the cost of health care. We'll crack down on fraud and abuse, and we'll reduce red tape to keep costs down. We also make sure doctors use the most effective therapies to treat illnesses, so patients aren't paying extra for treatments that don't work.

We put new emphasis on prevention. The best way to treat a disease is to prevent it from ever striking, or to catch it at an early stage. By giving every American access to affordable health care, we'll enable millions of people to be screened for diabetes, heart disease, cancer and depression.

We bring more help to the elderly and the disabled. We make it easier for these Americans to live independently. We help pay for home upgrades such as wheelchair ramps, and for regular home care to enable people to live in their own homes, not nursing homes.

Finally, we develop a better health workforce, delivering modern and responsive care. We invest in doctors, nurses, and other health professionals to meet the needs of patients more effectively for years to come.
These changes won't be easy to enact -- but we can't afford to wait, and we can't afford to fail.

Show your support for health reform that will benefit all our citizens, reduce the financial burdens on our nation's people and businesses, and put our health care industry on a strong and sustainable basis for the future:

http://www.democraticmajority.com/healthcare

I'll be working hard to pass this bill in the weeks ahead, and I hope you'll be there with me.

Thank you so much for the very real difference you can make in achieving this great goal we share.

Sincerely,

Senator Edward M. Kennedy

I'll Take Mine Black, Thanks

Henry M — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:25:27 EDT

Tea Parties Forever
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 12, 2009
This is a column about Republicans — and I’m not sure I should even be writing it.
Today’s G.O.P. is, after all, very much a minority party. It retains some limited ability to obstruct the Democrats, but has no ability to make or even significantly shape policy.Beyond that, Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people.
Better, perhaps, to focus on the real policy debates, which are all among Democrats.But here’s the thing: the G.O.P. looked as crazy 10 or 15 years ago as it does now. That didn’t stop Republicans from taking control of both Congress and the White House. And they could return to power if the Democrats stumble. So it behooves us to look closely at the state of what is, after all, one of our nation’s two great political parties. One way to get a good sense of the current state of the G.O.P., and also to see how little has really changed, is to look at the “tea parties” that have been held in a number of places already, and will be held across the country on Wednesday.
These parties — antitaxation demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so. But everything that critics mock about these parties has long been standard practice within the Republican Party. Thus, President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.But the charge of socialism is being thrown around only because “liberal” doesn’t seem to carry the punch it used to. And if you go back just a few years, you find top Republican figures making equally bizarre claims about what liberals were up to. Remember when Karl Rove declared that liberals wanted to offer “therapy and understanding” to the 9/11 terrorists?
Then there are the claims made at some recent tea-party events that Mr. Obama wasn’t born in America, which follow on earlier claims that he is a secret Muslim. Crazy stuff — but nowhere near as crazy as the claims, during the last Democratic administration, that the Clintons were murderers, claims that were supported by a campaign of innuendo on the part of big-league conservative media outlets and figures, especially Rush Limbaugh.
Speaking of Mr. Limbaugh: the most impressive thing about his role right now is the fealty he is able to demand from the rest of the right. The abject apologies he has extracted from Republican politicians who briefly dared to criticize him have been right out of Stalinist show trials. But while it’s new to have a talk-radio host in that role, ferocious party discipline has been the norm since the 1990s, when Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, became known as “The Hammer” in part because of the way he took political retribution on opponents.
Going back to those tea parties, Mr. DeLay, a fierce opponent of the theory of evolution — he famously suggested that the teaching of evolution led to the Columbine school massacre — also foreshadowed the denunciations of evolution that have emerged at some of the parties.
Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.
But that’s nothing new, and AstroTurf has worked well for Republicans in the past. The most notable example was the “spontaneous” riot back in 2000 — actually orchestrated by G.O.P. strategists — that shut down the presidential vote recount in Florida’s Miami-Dade County.
So what’s the implication of the fact that Republicans are refusing to grow up, the fact that they are still behaving the same way they did when history seemed to be on their side? I’d say that it’s good for Democrats, at least in the short run — but it’s bad for the country.
For now, the Obama administration gains a substantial advantage from the fact that it has no credible opposition, especially on economic policy, where the Republicans seem particularly clueless.
But as I said, the G.O.P. remains one of America’s great parties, and events could still put that party back in power. We can only hope that Republicans have moved on by the time that happens.

Henry M

Rabbi in the (Extended) First Family

Henry M — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:47:28 EDT

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/magazine/05rabbi-t.html

Hallelujah, shalom: Rabbi Funnye singing at Shabbat services.
Alec Soth/Magnum, for The New York Times

Rabbi Capers Funnye celebrated Martin Luther King Day this year in New York City at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, a mainstream Reform congregation, in the company of about 700 fellow Jews — many of them black. The organizers of the event had reached out to four of New York’s Black Jewish synagogues in the hope of promoting Jewish diversity, and they weren’t disappointed. African-American Jews, largely from Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens, many of whom had never been in a predominantly white synagogue, made up about a quarter of the audience. Most of the visiting women wore traditional African garb; the men stood out because, though it was a secular occasion, most kept their heads covered. But even with your eyes closed you could tell who was who: the black Jews and the white Jews clapped to the music on different beats.

Alec Soth/Magnum, for The New York Times
Rabbi Capers Funnye
Funnye, the chief rabbi of the Beth Shalom B’nai Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation in Chicago, one of the largest black synagogues in America, was a featured speaker that night. The overflowing audience came out in a snowstorm to hear his thoughts about two men: the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama. King is Funnye’s hero. Obama, whose inauguration was to take place the following day in Washington, is family — the man who married Funnye’s cousin Michelle.
A compact, serious-looking man in his late 50s, Funnye (pronounced fu-NAY) wore a dark business suit and a large gray knit skullcap. He sat expressionless, collecting his thoughts, as Joshua Nelson and his Kosher Gospel Band steamed through their sanctified rendition of the Hebrew hymn “Adon Olam.” Nelson, a black Jew, was raised in two Jewish worlds — a white Reform temple in New Jersey and a Black Jewish synagogue in Brooklyn — and he borrows from both. The first time the Rev. Al Sharpton heard a recording of Nelson’s “Adon Olam,” he said, “I can hear that’s Mahalia Jackson, but what language is she singing in?”
Mary Funnye, Capers’s wife, tapped her foot to the music and smiled with apparent equanimity, but her husband knew she was seething inside. “Mary has been a rabbi’s wife for a long time,” he told me a few weeks later. “She has an excellent synagogue poker face. But she really wanted to be in Washington that night” — for the early inauguration festivities — “not New York. And you can’t really blame her.”
The Funnyes were invited to Washington by the Obamas for a full calendar of inaugural events, including a dinner that evening held by the president-elect for his family and close advisers. Mary’s brother, Frank White Jr., a businessman who served as a prominent member of Obama’s national finance committee, was invited. So were three of Funnye’s sisters. It was going to be the family reunion of the year, the social event of the season and a crowning moment in American history. Mary had a formal gown ready. But here she was, singing “Adon Olam,” as she did virtually every Shabbat in Chicago.
Still, to be fair, this night was a historic moment for her husband too. For the first time in a rabbinical career stretching back to 1985, Funnye had been invited to speak at a white, mainstream synagogue in New York. Plenty of black Christian ministers, in a spirit of ecumenism and racial harmony, have addressed Jewish congregations in the city. But a black rabbi? Many American Jews regard the very concept as an oxymoron, or even, given the heterodoxies of much Black Jewish theology, some sort of heresy. Funnye has been trying for years to demonstrate that he and his fellow Black Jews belong in the Jewish mainstream. Mostly he has been ignored.
But it is hard to ignore a man with a cousin in the White House. Tonight was payback for all those years of stupid jokes (“Funnye, you don’t look Jewish”), insulting questions and long, wondering stares. Funnye was finally being given the stage at a high-profile Jewish event. “My Broadway debut,” he said, without evident irony, as he prepared to go on. “Been a long time getting here, but I’m ready.”

Henry M

Obama Scores Another Major Victory

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:40:47 EST

The Republicans must have been in a long period of hybernation for the last two years and missed everything that was happening throughout the campaign period. They surely still believe that Barack Obama won the election by chance, even though he defeated some of America's most seasoned politicians during the Democratic primaries and caucuses - including Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton; and even though he won a landslide general election by trouncing America's most known war hero alive - John McCain. Barack Obama is no fool. He is a smart and tough guy. He gave the Republicans an opportunity to join in crafting a bipartisan economic recovery bill; he stretched out his hand in a gesture of friendship. What did the Republicans do? They bit his fingers and tried to cut out his hand. So he recoiled, and hit back. He hit hard with a victory for the people. We now have our economic stimulus plan, and the lazy, do-nothing Republicans can do nothing about it! Instead of gathering around real leaders in order to figure out things, they're instead turning their party to Rush Limbaugh's schizophrenic leadership. How sad. America deserves a better opposition to the ruling party than what the Republicans have offered. Frank Rich tells us in his most recent NYT op-ed, why the the Republican Party is becoming more and more irrelevant...

Maureen Dowd Goes Down....

James — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:11:00 EST

Down and dirty. Our lovable lady scounderal is finally back from wherever the hell she went. A couple of real thinly written columns, some wishy-washy stuff about utter nonsense...hell, maybe she was afraid to be in the same issue as that horrid article about the 'Black Heart.' You know, the medal this idiot (sanctioned by the governing idiots of the New York Times) columnist put forward, in place of the Purple Heart for sufferers of post traumatic stress disorder, was labeled the Black Heart. I still have trouble getting past that slight against all veterans who have ever been in combat. How could the Times 'dis' us like that? I don't know, but I am not done with them over it either. Today, at the North Chicago Naval complex I brought the article to the attention of the commanding Admiral of the base. He was outraged too. He is going to bring it to the attention of the Pentagon. Whatever the hell that means. Still, it is better than nothing, or simply blogging away into the twilight of late inattentive reading times. Some tattered and tough Marine needs to be ordered to present himself in full uniform at the offices of The New York Times and call them out. That's right. The senior editor of the New York Times needs to have his ass kicked for that one (hell, I hope the editor is a guy, or there could be trouble there).

Maureen, bless her lovely soul, is going down on these bastards that have stolen all the money, and keep stealing all the money, as it is continuously forked over in one bailout after another. Maureen, to her great credit, attacked these bastards this morning. She demanded some sort of violent retribution against them. And, make no mistake, as Nixon would say, this is not the kind of retribution wherein the thieving cretins get to simply be fired and escape with their forty to fifty million dollar parachutes. No, when Maureen goes down, she goes down all the way. To their slimy little hidey-holes (normal people would refer to those as chateaus). To their well-stocked, well furnished but poorly disguised lairs. As I have been saying out here, for quite some time, the addresses of these people are available online. They never thought to hide. They never thought the money would all be stolen and that there would be nothing left. And if they did think about that, they thought that nobody would do anything to them about it. Well, readers out there, have a go at Maureen's column. She is not quite as over the edge about this as I am, but she is getting closer. And don't be fooled by the fact that some of these murderous crooks are catching on, and deeding their multi-million dollar chateaus over to their wives and children. They are still going to be living there. When you have lost your home, some of you. When you have lost your job, some more of your. When you have lost any shred of an ability to house and feed your family....do not commit suicide. No, that would be a waste of your abilities and allow those creeps to be victorious. Get on the internet. Find out where those people live and then put your thumb out. If anybody stops to pick you up, in this day and age, then tell them about your mission. I am willing to bet that, almost to a single person, your ride will drive you all the way to the door of your intended target. If you don't have any 'mission equipment' then just ask around, again telling your story and intent. America is armed to the gills. You will likely find arsenals of 'mission equipment' dropped at your feet.

I am not losing my home. My income has not suffered because of this coming nightmare, and it is not likely to. And I wonder about that. Here I sit, relatively immune. But I am at least pitching in where I can. And i don't mean by writing this blog. I have helped save two homes from foreclosure (it is wondrous, the power of a retained attorney to get the attention of mortgage bankers who think that they are dealing with people on their last legs, or taking their last financial gasp!). I have taken in a few people and placed them into situations where they can still have a decent income and a roof over their heads. I visit prisoners when I can get into those places (it is hard to visit prisoners today, if you have not tried. Our cold uncaring corrections officers do not want the prisoners to have visitors). I experience collect calls from people inside in the order of over a hundred bucks a month. Yes, I believe in second, third and fourth chances. But that is me. And here I am, about as unlikely a package as you might want to run across; not believing in Christ but trying to be 'Christ-like,' angry with systems that are unfair and torturous, but trying to work within those same system rules to relieve unfairness and torture, in search of a redemption that I have not one hope of ever coming close to accomplishing, and finally, never believing that I am doing nearly enough. What about you? What are you doing? What are you thinking?

Thank you Maureen Dowd. I love you. I know you are probably some effete snob, back there in New York society, but I will continue to try to minimize that in my mind. You write hugely, and have a tremendous voice out here, compared to most of us on the fringes of the publishing world. You are in 'the show,' so to speak, and your meaning and understanding reaches greats swaths of humanity. I encourage you to continue. Take from wherever you must (including here!) to maintain the momentum of this last column. Now, start writing it every day. I do, and I don't have your talent. But I do share your mission. You have many more people behind you than you know. Most just read, then move on, like at this site. Very few comment. But they are there and they are thinking...and loving you too.

from-the-chateau-dif.blogspot.com

NYTimes: Melding Obama’s Web to a YouTube Presidency

Mike W — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:44:08 EST

Melding Obama’s Web to a YouTube Presidency
By JIM RUTENBERG and ADAM NAGOURNEY
New York Times
Published: January 25, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us/politics/26grassroots.html

WASHINGTON - Lyle McIntosh gave everything he could to Barack Obama’s Iowa campaign. He helped oversee an army that knocked on doors, distributed fliers and held neighborhood meetings to rally support for Mr. Obama, all the while juggling the demands of his soybean and corn farm.

Asked last week if he and others like him were ready to go all-out again, this time to help President Obama push his White House agenda, Mr. McIntosh paused.

“It’s almost like a football season or a basketball season - you go as hard as you can and then you’ve got to take a breather between the seasons,” he said, noting he found it hard to go full-bore during the general election.

Mr. McIntosh’s uncertainty suggests just one of the many obstacles the White House faces as it tries to accomplish what aides say is one of their most important goals: transforming the YouTubing-Facebooking-texting-Twittering grass-roots organization that put Mr. Obama in the White House into an instrument of government. That is something that Mr. Obama, who began his career as a community organizer, told aides was a top priority, even before he was elected.

His aides — including his campaign manager — have created a group, Organizing for America, to redirect the campaign machinery in the service of broad changes in health care and environmental and fiscal policy. They envision an army of supporters talking, sending e-mail and texting to friends and neighbors as they try to mold public opinion.

The organization will be housed in the Democratic National Committee, rather than at the White House. But the idea behind it — that the traditional ways of communicating with and motivating voters are giving way to new channels built around social networking — is also very evident in the White House’s media strategy.

The Black Heart

James — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:56:14 EST

This should have been a day of great reading, because the first thing that caught my attention was the little additive at the end of my namesake's column (that would be William Kristol). He is done at the Times. Today was the end. He is out of there. That is great news! The Times is waking up. The only downside is that I will not have Kristol to pick on anymore. I am not going out to get the Nation, or one of those magazines, to find out what idiocy he is putting on paper there. I mean when he is really gone. His departure article was actually not bad. It was a 'damn Obama with faint praise' kind of a thing. He took Obama's inauguration speech apart. That speech was written by Obama himself, which should be applauded in this day and age. We heard, on the given day, a speech from the man himself, not some sycophant'a abridged, negotiated and aborted step-child of a speech. You know, the 'norm' of today. I did note that several of the networks discussed the 'speech writers' anyway, even though there were none. Obama wrote the thing on the train, just like Lincoln did when he created the Gettysburg Address. That speech was panned the next day in the Boston Globe. I have a copy of that paper! William Kristol's existence is of multiple continuance. He is born-again. To totally mis-use that phrase.

But that good thing was it, as things sort of stuttered to a halt. I read on. Right down the center of the paper's op-ed section ran two articles about the Purple Heart Decoration. Our nation's award for the combat wounded. I know it well, as I have one for what happened to me in Vietnam. Neither writer of either article has a Purple Heart. I did not need wikipedia to come to that conclusion. It was obvious from the writing. The first article laid out the facts. It seems that there is controversy over the merits of the award these days because of another of my regular subjects. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Some people wanted to have the decoration issued for returning combatants who are diagnosed with this psychological problem. I would be willing to bet that the idea, and it's support, came from returning veteran's who wanted to enjoy the benefits of having the medal (like free license plates and special treatment at V.A. centers). The problem, which you yourself have probably already concluded, is that the diagnosis for this disorder is conjectural. The diagnosis is primarily based upon a psychologist's opinion. He gets his information mostly from the veteran. Records in combat are not too detailed. If the records say a veteran served in an area where combat occurred, that is about all the support the veteran needs. The rest of the conclusion rests upon the veteran's word. Quite properly, the panel evaluating this issue came to the conclusion that the Purple Heart was not intended for such stuff, and they denied the petition, or whatever the paperwork was.

But now we come to the second article. I thought the author of that article was being funny, as I read. It seems that the thrust of this article was based upon acceptance of the idea that the Purple Heart would be the wrong decoration for PTSD sufferers too. So, a new medal was conjectured. The Black Heart. I kid you not! I started to laugh. I thought the author was being funny. But no. The article went on to list why such a designation would have merit; the black feelings of PTSD sufferers, the black bleak existence they have....and so on. I stopped laughing. What kind of research had the author done for this article? Could the author really be that unaware? Having a black heart in almost all Western cultures is indicative of being evil. This is the designation we want to assign returning warriors who suffer terrible mental problems from doing our bidding overseas? Maybe it was humor. Humor of the very worst sort. But, and once again, we come back to the idiocy of the editorial board of the New York Times. This article was barely read by them. If they read it, and cleared it, then shame on them. Again. As they correct one mistake (Kristol) they commit another. On the same day and on the same page. They are arcanely and brilliantly displaying some sort of twisted stupidity, or a depth of perverted intellect I cannot reach....or, I can, but don't want to.

Indeed, based upon this article alone, the New York Times itself may be said to have a black heart. A sign of our Times.

from-the-chateau-dif.blogspot.com

Not me, not you, not Obama!

James — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:09:26 EST

I real Gail Collins in the Times this morning. Harvey does not like her, and cats are to be respected. Maybe it is that I complain a bit about her. Harvey sits there this minute, as I mouth strange things to myself about her, and pundits in general. Sometimes I think that he looks at me with a 'you are just jealous that you have not been selected to be one of them' kind of a look. But maybe that is my imagination. When I get in the tub every morning, he stands on the very thin edge with all four paws (how do they do that?), then he dips one into the water and has a taste. I yell at him. He yells back. Then he goes to lay next to the hot air vent on the rug, near the wall. Smug. Looking at me. Like he has done his duty. What duty? Yes, there is something there. I just don't get it. I will never get it. But back to Collins. She is not all that obnoxious, really. It is this Geithner thing that has got me going, because she is so totally wrong, and her opinion is read by so many. Half of her column in the paper was spent running on about the fact (her fact) that anyone whom is brought into this current administration must be squeaky clean. They must bear no stain of failure at all. And Geithner is her example of the kind of failure that should be given enough negative credit to have him disqualified from service. He did not pay enough in taxes for two years. Oh please. And here is Gail Collins, another of the Ivy Leaguer's. I have been hard of them of late, mostly because of the devastation they have wrought with their 'legacy' operation of our nation's financial houses. Gail would allow us to believe that the best person for any job is the person who has never had a published or demonstrated failure. In any way. In any area. Else Geithner's venial sin would not even be brought up by her. The current crop of Ivy Leaguer's running the banks had no failures. No, most of them went straight to their top positions right out some post college training program (usually owned by their Dads). Do we not all know, deep down in our heart of hearts, that failure is the single force that has helped us all be better at what we do? When we fail we are faced with only one real conclusion. That we failed in some way. Even in a marriage gone bad. The other person may have gambled, drank, drugged or slept around...but, at the very least, we failed in selection going in. We face the full realization, when we fail, that we are not so great. That we must do better. That is what we are looking at right this minute, as an entire nation. We have failed. What are we to do? Follow Gail's unspoken advice? Move aside and let another country lead? Resign? Be fired? Assign ourselves to the scrap heap, for cause? No, I do not believe so. Not me. Not you. Not Obama. We need the weathering and toughness our failure has wrought. We need it for the awareness, the hyper vigilance it can give us.

I went to dinner with a guy who wears a phoniy Seiko watch. I did not know that they made phony Seiko watches. I would have thought that the phony watches out there, and there are a whole ton of them, would have Seiko insides. But I learn as I age. It seems that there is an automatic special Seiko that is fairly expensive, so it is worth it to some to copy and make a cheaper version. What does this fact have to do with anything, as the man who was wearing it exudes quality in every other area of his life. It was a conundrum and I had a hard time trying to puzzle the opposition out. The obvious opposition of genuine quality demonstrating fakery and trash. He let me carry that mental juggling load all through dinner. Then he revealed that he had acquired the watch to wear for our dinner alone, so that I would have to spend the evening in wonder. I have a very few friends (this one is like no other) who are every bit my equal when it comes to arcane clever aforethought and deep consideration. My friend will read this blog and find my rendering of the event as a bit fictional. He will wonder why I added or subtracted from what really happened. Or so I hope.

from-the-chateau-dif.blogspot.com

Love Life:Barack & Michelle

Aia — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:35:18 EST

Recently, I questioned marriage and swore away the idea of giving birth. When I look at the two of them, I see a couple who loves beyond what many of us have yet to imagine or realize. In light of other opportunities to branch out and grow intimately with another, they seem to share a mission and it consumes their relationship, family and life. Do Barack & Michelle inspire you to love intimately? Do they give you hope in finding true love? Do you believe your love will soar with a greater sense of purpose? Do you believe you'll CHANGE your mind about true love, marriage or family? I have. How do you envision "the new family structure" or your future love life?

C.E. Morgan

James — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:06:25 EST

Not long ago I wrote about an article which appeared in the New York Times by this new author. Her article was, in fact, a short story. I did not take to the story, but I am going to read it again. In light of a communication I received, and I believe the writer, the author of that work (Ms. C.E. Morgan) is anything but what I described her to be. She is not connected to the Times by birth or management situation. Not by marriage or monied influence. She is just good enough to have her stuff accepted by the New York Times on its editorial page. In fictional form, no less. And I stand corrected. This email I received, about C.E. Morgan, made me feel less of a person for my writing than I would have thought such a communication could. And, so, because C.E. Morgan is probably a whole lot more like what I would like to be, and because I did not properly do my homework before I offered a public assassination piece about her, I apologize. And I really really mean it. I will not write about a budding new author like that again. Not without doing the homework I get so angry with other people for not doing.

God Bless you C.E. Morgan, and I hope God continues to make his face smile down upon you. I hope my small following of readers will see this retraction. It is the first I have ever written. And I do not like the feeling inside me which caused me to write it. I am a better person than that. Or, at least, I will be. This retraction and apology will also appear on my 'outside' blog (from-the-chateau-dif.blogspot.com) in a few minutes, for those of you who run back and forth.

from-the-chateau-dif.blogspot.com

Women’s Legal Resource will lobby for Domestic Violence Reform

Randi from Van Nuys, CA — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:07:50 EST

Domestic Violence laws are in desperate need of change on how abusers are prosecuted across the nation. Tougher laws need to be implemented and taken out of the States hands and be prosecuted on the Federal Level. Thus, making it tougher for the perpetrators of violence to plead down to lessor charges and the safety of all women and their children will be protected. Within this reform, child visitation and child custody will be change, as well, how protection orders are obtained and enforced. There are more women disappearing at the hands of their abuser’s and murdered. Abusive father’s gaining custody of their children with the carelessness of the courts blind eyes and not protecting the interests and safety of children, for fear of violating parental rights. Protection orders not being enforced and many violations are ignored because the lack of “proof”. This has to change.

Women’s Legal Resource Foundation will lobby for the Regan Martin Domestic Violence Reform Act commencing immediately. Please join Women’s Legal Resource in our crusade to change Domestic Violence Laws.

For more information please feel free to email all inquiries to: randi@womenslegalresource.com

Thank you for your support.

Peace4 The Missing, A Community Of Support and Hope For Families and Friends

Randi from Van Nuys, CA — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:49:12 EST

By: Randi Rosen
Women’s Legal Resource

An astounding 2,300 Americans are reported missing every day, including both adults and children. But only a tiny fraction of those are stereotypical abductions or kidnappings by a stranger.

For example, the federal government counted 840,279 missing persons cases in 2001. All but about 50,000 were juveniles, classified as anyone younger than 18. In an article by David Krajicek on Tru TV reports, Slightly more than half—about 25,500—of the missing are men. About four out of 10 missing adults are white, three of 10 black and two of 10 Latino.

Among missing adults, about one-sixth have psychiatric problems. Young men, people with drug or alcohol addictions and elderly citizens suffering from dementia make up other significant subgroups of missing adults.

About half of the roughly 800,000 missing juvenile cases in 2001 involved runaways, and another 200,000 were classified as family abductions related to domestic or custody disputes.

Only about 100 missing-child reports each year fit the profile of a stereotypical abduction by a stranger or vague acquaintance.

Two-thirds of those victims are ages 12 to 17, and among those eight out of 10 are white females, according to a Justice Department study. Nearly 90 percent of the abductors are men, and they sexually assault their victims in half of the cases.

So where does this leave family members and friends of missing persons? Where do they go? Sure, there are support groups within local church organizations, social services and victims of crime organizations, but is that enough? What happens to those who can’t speak out about their loss? What happens to those who are hurt so much so, to get out of bed is a task in itself. The grief no one can imagine but the person feeling it. With missing persons, there is never closure, no finality until that person is found and often a lifetime goes by without a sound. Sitting by the phone dreading the day it rings with news but in your heart,you know they are not alive. How do you remember their face? How do you remember their voice, their dreams?

When I started Women’s Legal Resource, I focused on domestic violence, divorce and custody issues. Women go through much more at the hand of their abusers without being in court. More and more women each day are missing at the hands of their abusers. Women are no longer just beaten down, they are murdered and never to be found again. I met a woman by the name of Delilah. Delilah shared with me a story of a little girl who died in a car crash and was set to testify against the man who molested her. Becca McEvoy who endured a year of rape and sodomy at the hands of her step father, Bob Ingle, a police officer. This man was going to get away with this crime because now since in a court of law, you are entitled to face your accuser and since Becca McEvoy is no longer alive, no crime? Crawford vs Washington . The law is not black and white, nor is justice balanced.

I followed Delilah to her site Peace4 The Missing. I was in awe. I joined with no expectation but to be a resource of support, instead found a community of people helping one another in a very special way. Delilah and Maggie’s Rose are Co-founders of Peace4 The Missing, who found each other while on a blog for Stacy Peterson and who both held the same compassion to see Stacy’s safe return home. As I became more involved with Peace4 The Missing, I felt cared for, nothing like I have ever felt in a online-community before. This felt different, I felt safe and never did I feel preyed upon by nosy newbies butting in trying to force their opinion of how I should feel, like most other online communities do.

These ladies have created a network of love, support, hugs, buddies all with a will to let you know you are okay and that it’s okay to feel not okay. With little baby steps, new members speak of their pain, loss and fears and are always embraced with love, kindness and respect. Each member has a unique story to tell and are not always willing to tell it. With the more time you spend on Peace4 The Missing, the more you want to tell your story to be understood or to just let it out once a for all with hope to reach out to another member who is pain and needs a hug.

For example, it was Christmas time and for most people, not a very happy time of the year. I know for myself personally, I wish they would let Christmas fly by without notice. Delilah and Maggie’s Rose created the buddie system and each member was paired up with a member for the holiday. I found that to be a warm act of kindness. I was notified of my buddy and I sent emails of support and hugs. However, I was not a great buddy as I was sick more than present, but none the less I checked in to let them know I was there for them without feeling burdened or wanting to hide under the covers until Spring.

Peace4 The Missing has over 240 members and counting and has over 34 different and unique groups. If you have family member who is missing, you can post your photos, get advice on how to search for a missing person and other very valuable information you need in every state. If you are a victim of an unsolved homicide and need support, you will find it here and all with unconditional love. I am proud to be a member of this community, I have gained new friends who mean a great deal to me and I have a better understanding of what it’s like to feel the loss of someone missing something I never experienced before.

You can start your own blog, post events and conferences about Missing Persons and be rest assured the administrator will be there to protect you at all times. Be forewarned, this is not a community where you will be invisiable, you will picked to participate, either on the newsletter, or remembering someone’s birthday, this community helps you come out of your shell and to become pro-active and embraces you to be part of a very special family.

The Aftermath

James — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:55:17 EST

It is two days after. My hangover is just starting to clear, and I do not even drink. The weather has responded in kind, with a tepid weepy mess of a presentation, splashing ran all over the lovely clean snow mass out there. Well, it was lovely and clean out there before, albeit cold as hell. Fog. Gray. Christmas is gone. I have a wonderful Mont Blanc pen that the professor gave me, two shirts and three new sweaters. They are all green, or so I am told, being color blind as I am. I put one sweater on this morning. I had laid out the best one (in my damaged opinion) but, after finishing morning clean-up and shave, I forgot I had laid it out and instead threw on one of the other folded one's. I guess I can't tell the difference, and that is okay. Einstein used to have five suits, all of the same color and cut. Then he wore only white shirts and black socks. I like Einstein's style. He was probably as color blind as I, but he was too important for anybody to ask him to his face, or make fun of him (but then, maybe they did and that is why he ended up with the collection he came up with). Harvey has gone into the basement to hunt his 'stocked' supply down there. The pump is running non-stop, but keeping up. Harv checked that out, but, after just one sniff, went back to his dogged pursuit of his genetically enhanced prey. He is not quiet down there. Empty boxes fly and stacked stuff tumbles. The only rule is that he cannot bring his catches up here though, so I ignore a muted crash or two, coming from down there. If he has any catches I mean, which I doubt. But, in his world, as in mine, make believe is a lot more important than reality.

C.E. Morgan wrote a Christmas story and got it placed in the editorial section of the New York Times on Christmas Day! How do you get a short story into the New York Times at all? By being family I guess. I don't know who C.E. Morgan is, except I did read that the first novel written by this person was demanded by the publisher. That same publisher produced a mid-six figure advance. It is all a crock. Oh, it happened all right, but you see, nobody, and I mean nobody unheard of, gets a six figure advance on a first novel. And nobody gets a short story published on the editorial page of the New York Times on Christmas Day. And finally, nobody gets a rotten story published like that. 'Over By Christmas,' the name of the story that person wrote, should really be the title of the author's career, if the story is any indication. A story about the killing and/or training of horses...and the 'gift' of the necessary torture applied during the training process. "You can't shoot a dog while patting it's head, she had learned the hard way..." Good Christ, what bunk. Then there was the phony alternate sub-story of 'Dean, over in iraq, talking to her on the phone. In the background was an explosion so loud it made her "cry tearlessly." I have already used the phrase 'Good Christ,' so what can I reach for now? Cry tearlessly, give me a break. And somebody died from that explosion, in her story. Now what are the chances of that? Zip. Only in a bad story does that happen. Why am I going on about this? Because C.E.'s very existence in print displays one of the major problems we have in the withering writing culture of our nation. Good writing is seldom read, much less published. Instead we have a litany of the 'Over by Christmas' crap. And, instead of looking at the origin of the piece for answers, we question ourselves. "What is wrong with me? Why can't I understand this story?" It is not you. It is poor leadership. it is nepotism. It is profit-taking. It is keeping it in the family. It is good for them, in the short run, but bad for us all in the long run. The New York Times is dying and the stench of that slow decay is right there, seeping out from the Christmas Day editorial page.

Today, we have humor, once again, from that same editorial staff. Judith Warner, one of my favorite dumb columnists, has a run down one side of the page, while Bob Herbert ("I can too push a pencil across a table top with my nose") Herbert has the opposing side. His article is titled "Stop Being Stupid," but then, of course, he writes on and becomes illustrative of his own title! Part of his rant is about people being so stupid as to purchase houses that they knew they would not be able to afford. What rubbish. People buy a house on hope. And then there is the assistance from the talking heads they got. Even the head of the Federal Reserve was telling them that everything would be alright. He sure as hell was not telling them that whatever they bought would be worth fifty percent less one year later! But, in Herbert's twisted view, it was those poor people once again, pulling us all down. Those grubby, selfish and unionized auto workers. You know the routine. But back to the humor. Judith Warner starts her column with this sentence: "What if you could just take a pill and all of a sudden remember to pay your bills on time." I looked at that sentence and then back over at Herbert's title and then started to laugh. You guys! Saturday Night Live is not that droll!

As if we have a problem, in this current culture, remembering to pay the bills. We are not paying the bills because we do not have the money!!!! We remember. No kidding. We remember every night we go to bed and try to think about the unpaid bills. We remember because our phone does not stop ringing, and it is not friends calling because they forgot Christmas! Judith Warner and Bob Herbert do not have those problems. If you are writing regular columns for the New York Times you are wealthy. Not to mention the books and other perks that go with those jobs. Judith's article was all about a group of shrinks that think it is great to take some of these new 'brain enhancing' substances produced by our wonderful drug companies. How it is as okay as enhancing our intellect by eating a proper diet or working out. Trash. Go ahead, take the junk. Prosac and Paxil and Zanax, and all of the other's of the same ilk, were created to help people who suffer from depression. They take those drugs and become robots. Robots who tend to kill themselves. And the shrinks even know that but prescribe them anyway. I know two people who might benefit from those intelligence enhancing drugs, however. They are both columnists writing on the same page, this day, in the New York Times.

Knights in White Satin...

James — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:41:00 EST

Ami Pedezhur, columnist with the New York Times, writes to us this day about the spawning of terrorism. You see, in her view, it goes all the way back to the sixties. It was just not called terrorism then. More high humor from supposedly intelligent writers, or maybe writers who simply have a goal other than that which they claim. You see, terrorism began when we wanted it to begin. It has been a very useful word, since it was coined and then converted into our modern linguistic medium. We actually have a war on terrorism. War on a word. Not a specific enemy, no that was back in the old days when we fought the terrible Hun (Germans), the Japs (well, you know who) and the Gooks (Vietnamese). Now we no longer need to specify an opponent, and that is so much more convenient for the military industrial complex and governmental leaders. Terrorism, even using the modern definition, is merely that activity which opposes any current government or force in control, with violence. What kind of violence does not matter, although it seems to be better for everyone if it involves suicide, bombs of any kind, and damage to 'innocent' victims. That we carpet bombed and burned Dresden, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, well, that would never ever be termed terrorism. Nor A-bombing Nagasaki or Hirosima. Those were not exactly military targets, and we could have picked military targets if we chose to at the time. So terrorism is really more like piracy. It goes way way back. In fact, it is all over the Old Testament. That we rail against terrorism all the time now is indeed true, but the question is why. Why do we so go on about it? Because it supports decisions to spend money and control people's lives. We won't even let our vaunted, and supposedly free, press view and report on such stuff anymore. We have not covered Iraq or Afghanistan anything like we covered Vietnam. The complex and the government did learn a lot from Vietnam. Tell the people nothing and they have nothing upon which to make decisions. Kill the reporters, if necessary. Bar the reporters from the return of our dead troops, from going to the funerals. It is all there right in front of us. We will always be at war against terrorism, unless intellect and sanity take over. Which is not likely. Oh yes, Barack is intelligent. There is no question about that. But does he want to give up the war on terror? Does he want to give up the perks available to people who maintain the war on terror? I don't know. This coming year is going to be a really interesting one. And it is portended by ominous talk on Obama's part. He wants a huge surge in Afghanistan. What for? Whom do we have to beat over there? The Taliban? Who the hell cares? The Taliban, last time around, eradicated the Opium production of that country. We took over and brought Afghanistan back to being the world's largest opium producer. So what are we doing there? Really. We don't have a clue. We are depending upon Obama. And the outlook is not good, not in this area.

Bob Herbert wrote of the end of the war on American workers. We have a new Labor Secretary coming in who is fond of the American workers, and unions even. Supposedly. This person has never been a Secretary of anything, other than a steno pool, perhaps. Take a look at the auto bailout. It is so badly written that Ford opted out. They would rather risk bankruptcy than take that worm medicine. At the top of the agreement is wage cutting. We have got to get the wages of American workers down to those of the Japanese companies in the U.S. who have American workers. The fact that those companies have not been here long enough to have pension obligations, well, that is ignored. The unions must also accept the fact that, instead of money going into the current worker's pension plans, under this bill, they will get some kind of equity transfer. Have we not heard enough of this kind of 'garbage financial talk' from these creeps? The Congressional creeps? The Republicans? So the bailout passed American Auto Workers, but it is a mighty cold and snowy world out there this December, if you have not noticed. And those executives and members of Congress still have their residence addresses online and in phone books. Firewood is to be found there. The only. I repeat. The only way that our leadership is going to make the changes you need to survive yourself and your family in any credible and comfortable way is to cause fear to live and breathe inside these dreadfully powerful people. It is just the way it works. It has always worked that way, except for brief respites too short to even mention. You either run them or they will run you. Take note of the last eight years. We have been run right into the ground in just about every area that can be mentioned. The only person, whom I have noticed, that has done anything at all about it is locked up in an Iraqi prison, being tortured by our people right this minute. He threw his shoes at George Bush. By God that took balls. By God that took good judgment. By God I love that guy. If it could only start a trend. Wherever that Bush clown goes, people throw shoes. Not at him, as that will get you twenty years in administrative maximum in this country. No, people should just throw shoes before him. Let him get the idea. Let him understand that God, and we, can punish very very harshly and for a very long time. This guy and his people hurt the hell out of us and we are a long way from being beyond that hurt. Do you feel it yet? This country is built upon a Puritanical base of Calvinistic thinking and is righteous in the presentation of those ideas and philosophy. It is time to get righteous indeed.

My cards are not done. I labor on into the night. The foil is hard to work with. But the effect is great. That the cards will be taken from their envelopes, briefly read and then discarded is not the issue (although I do indeed sometimes think about that). The issue is that it is meaningful for me to do it. It is good to think of the neat nature of every one of the people I am sending to. I thank God that I have fifty of them. Many people have none. It is a Merry Christmas, as it has been for many years, at least for me. And it is snowing again. My Advent trees stagger under the weight. I thought it could not snow more than last year but I was mistaken. Global warming is making it colder. I do not understand that, but I think that I am not supposed to. Sometimes global warming, the phrase, seems to sound like terrorism.

My cards are like the song, maybe: Knights in White Satin, never reaching the end, letters I've written, never meaning to send. There was a television show on the science fiction channel a while back. I liked it. Most of the show was hookum (everyone above a certain age had died of a virulent virus) but the show always opened with this really poignant scene. The protagonist was standing over an open fire, reading a letter he had written to his father that day (the father had, of course, died from the virus years before) and then burning it. There was no point to it. But there was every point to it. Letters I've written, never meaning to send.

The Oscillating Pendulum

"Voice for Humanity" — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:09:16 EST

The historic election is over and the new administration is in the process of recruiting members for key positions.

It is still important to reflect on the role of media and news organization in this electoral process.

Extreme media bias towards one candidate and overwhelmingly condescending against another caused a great deal of frustration, anger and disappointment among the electorate.

The anti-media sentiments reverberated all over the cyberspace.

Media hype was intense during the Democratic Primary election.

Since I was vigorously involved during that time, I have great memories that will remain part of me for a long time.

There were several incidents but some of them have a greater impact on individuals, more severely than others do.

Mainly due to the smear tactics and negative attacks hurled on people like me entering the political campaign for the first time as surrogates, representatives or grass root supporters.

One particular incident is worth the spotlight because it is about the media personalities conducting themselves as the world authority in all matter especially the political race such as the Presidential election.

Ironically, in this Presidential election they were repeatedly wrong with both Democratic and Republican nominees.

Why?

They followed the conventional wisdom and failed to see or accept new possibilities and developments.

Only to steer course once the tide turned in a different direction sweeping anything and everything on the way.

The spotlight is precisely on MSNBC.

The network that took lot of heat from the public and rightfully so, for being excessively in favor of Obama Campaign in an unprecedented appeasement of the candidate then, Senator Barack Obama.

It is noteworthy that MSNBC initially rejected the candidate Senator Barack Obama against their preferred candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton.

Likewise, the venerable New York Times endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton way back on January 25, 2008 as the “IDEAL COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.” and

Emphasizing that President-elect Barack Obama was not qualified in that respect,

Quoted by the recent Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman through national and international telecast on CNN.

I was devastated to note the hasty decision by a leading and the most respectable news organization such as New York Times.

Immediately, I made my first and only contact with the cable media outlet, Free Speech and World Link Television expressing my emotion on the endorsement.

Here is extract of the email titled The Moment of Truth sent to Amy Goodman of Free Speech Television on January 25, 2008, 12.22P.M PST , in that context:

“This morning the endorsement by New York Times is another way of indicating that Senator Clinton will be the future President of the United States.

Senator Clinton made many overtures in her recent T.V talk show appearances that I should go away and abandon the Obama campaign to suppress the Iraq war issue finally.

The impression I have is,

If Senator Obama becomes the nominee, there is absolutely no turning back for him as he would win the general election.”

———————————————-

In reality, what exactly happened prior to our President-elect Barack Obama establishing himself as a formidable candidate in the election is attention worthy.

First, my personal experience with MSNBC goes back to the days when the incumbent administration laid out the strategy to sell the unpopular Iraq war to the public and the United Nations.

I happened to be one of the unfortunate victims of mandatory public opinion survey superficially conducted by the administration to gain public support for the illegal invasion of Iraq.

This matter verified and confirmed truthful by the Institute for Public Policy, a non-profit organization, following the claim in my blog post during the Democratic Primary election.

With the relentless pro-Iraq war rally from networks such as MSNBC and FOX, the administration successfully launched their mission.

Although, there were other major networks equally involved in drumming their support for the Iraq war…

MSNBC displayed no qualms in abruptly eliminating dissent like the popular and visibly democratic, none other than their own talk show host, Mr. Phil Donahue.

My first unpleasant experience with MSNBC is regarding the anti-Iraq war message conveyed to the administration in response to the mandatory survey.

In my statement, I clearly emphasized the blunder by the administration on their commitment to wage war against Iraq and,

The consequences ensuing in terms of loss of lives, economic costs, national reputation and everything else that followed the disastrous war.

The born again liberal MSNBC demonized and targeted me as anti-patriotic with spam mail flooding my Inbox.

Further, the obscene materials via virus corrupted my database, forcing me to abandon the hard disk for a new one.

It was nothing short of homegrown terrorism for my anti-war position.

It is important to cite the article by Victor Davis Hanson, A senior fellow at the Hoover Institution,

Ref. San Jose Mercury News, November 13, 2008.

The article quotes “Most polls reveal that American voters believed that their media was biased in favor of Obama.

The popular journalist Chris Matthews even bragged that it was his job responsibility to see that Obama succeeds.”
———————————————————————-

Chris Matthews brags about his support to Obama during the election.

It might be the case but the evidence is against such claim.

Chris Matthews threw his weight not until the candidate Barack Obama proven the Democratic nominee against all odds.

Mr. Chris Matthews clearly knows about what this is.

During the fiercely battled Democratic Primary election, Nevada Primary & Caucus held on Saturday, January 19, 2008.

I published the following blog post that morning 4.19 am EST, my time 1.19am PST causing fury and anger among the Clinton campaign and their surrogates in the media, especially Chris Matthews of MSNBC.

Post from Padmini Arhant’s Blog: - www.my.barackobama.com

Electability Factor
By "Voice behind the movement" - Jan 19th, 2008 at 4:19 am EST

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content
Electability Factor:

The voters should focus on the electability factor when casting the vote in the primaries for their respective candidates.

The candidate, who can eventually lead the Democratic Party to victory in the general election in November 2008, will be the ideal nominee.

There will be various issues discussed and debated between the two parties during the general election.

Given the track record of the Republican Party in the general election, the Democratic Party would be well positioned with a candidate voting against the Iraq war.

Senator Barack Obama had consistently opposed the Iraq war.

He voted for the funding of the Iraq war to protect the interest and security of our brave young men and women in harm’s way and enable Iraq stabilize as a sovereign nation ultimately leading to the withdrawal of our troops.

The illegitimate Iraq war has been a major catastrophe for our national economy, security, credibility to deal with International crisis, and our image as the leader of the new world.

The Republican Party nominee voting for the Iraq war could be challenged and held accountable by the Democratic Party nominee voting against the war.

The victory strategy for the Democratic Party in the general election should be on the premise of Iraq war to honor the sacrifice by brave young men and women who lost their lives and all those currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The victory for Democratic Party would then truly represent the ‘real change’ against the ’status quo’ or the establishment.

Padmini Arhant - Copyrights reserved

OBAMA SUPPORTER

————————————————————

To emphasize again, the blog post created enormous outrage with the Clinton campaign bitterly complaining about my attempt to influence the election negatively on that date.

As usual, mainstream media lend support to the power and establishment expresses their reaction in a manner to warn a private citizen like myself to stay off the campaign trail.

Like the BET CEO, Mr. Robert Thompson a close Clinton surrogate, with his exclusive appearance on–

The Situation Room, hosted by Mr. Wolf Blitzer, on CNN specifically advised me by referring to me as,

The “woman of color” to cease my campaigning for the candidate then, Senator Barack Obama.

The Nevada Primary was won by Senator Hillary Clinton.

President-elect Barack Obama had the caucus victory.

The MSNBC coverage on Saturday, January 19, 2008, the day Nevada results was declared, is evidence to the outburst of a media commentator against a private citizen.

Chris Matthews, in particular admonished me directly by wagging his finger and in uttermost condemnation of my interference in the Presidential election.

He said, “This is not a horse race for betting. It is a serious Presidential race.

Individuals with no knowledge or experience should stay out of political campaigns.”

It was a clear indication that individuals like me have no place in politics or public forum.

The sentiment was shared by another MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell who initially tried to remain objective during the discussion with Clinton aid about that particular blog post that morning.

However, she later on made a bizarre remark about a possible substance abuse by me because of my daring attempts to envision a future with an African American Presidency.

Only, if Andrea Mitchell would have played a similar role in critiquing her spouse and the ex-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan,

Equally responsible for neglecting the warnings of the economic turmoil that nearly brought the domestic and international financial markets on the brink of collapse,

The recent bailouts may not have been necessary.

Thankfully, we are living in a technology driven age, where such incidents cannot possibly be buried in a time capsule with a hope of never being found until it becomes irrelevant.

All these blatant attacks and innuendoes were to demoralize me and debilitate my effort in spreading the message of our movement.

I owe my passion, commitment and drive to get further involved in the campaign to my children especially my eleven-year-old child.

He encouraged me to stand up to partisan politics and send a strong message to commentators like Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell and the likes,

That, ordinary people can do extraordinary things in life.

In fact, he was targeted as well with a nickname sidekick by the President-elect Barack Obama’s opponents for his exceptional role in exploiting the web technology with the publication of my blog posts.

My son’s advice to me was, not to rest until Senator Barack Obama is elected "The President" Barack Obama.

I am glad and proud of my son’s advice to fight against the odds given the extreme stressful situation at that time.

Surely, children have a better sense of rationality enabling them to behold a different vision for the world.

They realize the burden on them with respect to the national debt, credibility and financial security as future taxpayers of the economy.

Prior to the election coverage, MSNBC’s show –

The Countdown by Keith Olbermann targeted the American idol contestant Sanjaya Malakar and

Sadistically mocked him almost on a daily basis to survive competition with condescending remarks through critic like Maria Melito.

Maria Melito in her brutal attack against Sanjaya Malakar claimed that the reason for Sanjaya to gain unprecedented votes was because…

“The people of his ethnicity i.e. India, voting for him never had anyone rise to the hall of fame in history.”

Sadly, such comment reflected ignorance as anyone born on Planet Earth, should know the ancient Indus valley civilization which is India is not new to fame and wisdom.

The land in South East Asia is the origin and birth place of celestial beings like the Holy Lord Krishna, Holy and Graceful Gautama Buddha and sentient beings of the twentieth century such as Mahatma Gandhi –

The noble soul, the light of the world, the mentor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Dr. Nelson Mandela, preached and practiced non-violence, peace and unity that are oxy-moron in the contemporary world.

Not excluding other notable scholars like Nobel laureates…

The Poet Rabindra Nath Tagore for literature in 1913 and DR. Har Gobind Khorana for Physiology or Medicine in 1968 to name a few.

Besides, Sanjaya Malakar fan base sprawled across the social spectrum as demonstrated by his young admirer, Ashley Ferl awestruck during his performance.

Young Ashley Ferl, was in return summoned to the Senate for rigorous interrogation by the elected officials…

Prioritizing investigation of genuine admiration for a young performer on the national stage over serious issues like Abu Ghraib, Katrina and deliberate exposure of CIA overt operative Mrs. Valerie Plaim.

To revert to the article by Victor Davis Hanson, ref. San Jose Mercury News, Nov 13, 2008, titled — “The kind of real ‘hope and change’ we can believe in for next year”

“The media, meanwhile should be careful not to abandon fairness and discretion for short-term political advantage.

When the wheel turns - and it too, always does - what you did or said will come back to haunt you.”

I could not agree more with the affirmation.

I hope Chris Matthews and others learned a lesson or two from this historic political event.

When Change occurs, it happens all around much to the dismay of those consumed with fallacy and egocentrism regardless of the empire they reign.

The mainstream, far left and right media as well as some news organization with an exception of cable network like –

“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”, “The Colbert Report” and “The Late Night Shows”,

Failed to meet the journalistic standards of objectivity and professionalism required in the presentation of views and analysis of any events particularly a Presidential election or for that matter, serious missions like the war.

The role of MSNBC and FOX in their relentless bashing of the candidates from both political aisles successfully drove the viewers to the cyberspace in search of…

Truth and Transparency desperately sought by people of the human race.

Whether it is young Sanjaya Malakar reaching for the stars or young Senator from the State of Illinois, President-elect Barack Obama successfully taking a shot at the highest office on land,

Their audacity of hope was challenged with rhetoric filled with racial slur, negative attacks and divisive politics to deny them the spotlight.

It is admirable that both individuals displayed a decorum signifying unity and poise seen unlike before in dealing with excessive criticism from the entities exhibiting power in the corporate media and Public office.

United States is a nation of immigrants from all over the world.

Any social progress to the satisfaction of all those feeling disfranchised is attainable only if the media and the elected officials recognize their share of responsibility in the service to democracy.

Further, the author of the cited article, Mr. Victor Davis Hanson, concluded with the following passage:

“Obama and his giddy Democratic majority sound like they think they will now be novel exceptions to these iron laws of politics, as if they really believe their hype that they are the “change” we have been waiting for, with cosmic power to stop the planet from heating and the seas from rising.

But the only real difference from the past old politics is that the present avatars of “hope and change” apparently don’t believe that the age-old adage - “The more things change, the more they remain the same” - will really apply to them as well.”

————————————————————–

It does not require the cosmic power to stop the planet form heating and the seas from rising.

It is doable by the ordinary human power to respect life in general and act responsibly for their survival now and in the future.

Failing that,

Perhaps the cosmic power could influence the resisting human nature to preserve and protect the ecological balance necessary for the sustenance of the planet.

As for the age-old adage referenced above applying to the present avatars of ‘Hope and Change”,

It entirely depends on the agents of change and their target.

The age-old adage applies to those involved in cosmetic change rather than fundamental change, the ultimate goal and mission of the present avatars of “Hope and Change.”

Cosmetic change is delusional and beneficial for short-term gains affecting a selective few, hence it yields “more of the same” result.

Whereas, fundamental change target the philosophy of the institution as the sovereign power and,

Therefore, it is real, long lasting and universal.

As per the Hindu mythology, Almighty God Shiva is depicted the

“Lord of Destruction.”

Destruction is Deliverance for a New beginning with a divine commitment to depart from the age-old adage towards new-era prophecy, a divergence from

“The Oscillating Pendulum.” –

The significance and the sole purpose of the avatars of “Hope and Change.”

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

World Welcomes Obama

Gaurav Singh — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:46:20 EST

America has chosen Barack Obama but most of the world has readily welcomed him with open arms. He brings hope!

It's been only a day and the history made here has rippled across the world in a very positive way. There were worlwide celebrations on his victory including Israel, India, Italy, France, Iraq, Iran, China, and especially in Kenya, where Obama's father was born, and Indonesia, where Obama went to school in his early childhood.

The New York Times released an article describing Obama as a "promise" to rest of the world. Fox News even published a story "Obama: President of the World?" wherein there are numerous mentions of joyous celebrations around the planet. The article is accompanied by a picture gallery reflecting the happiness of the inhabitants of the world. The words like "world community" or "international citizen" seems not that hypothetical anymore -- at least not for our president-elect Obama.

June 12, 2008 - The Pew Global Project Attitudes [Complete Report ]

[Source: New York Times, Fox News, Foreign Policy]

WHAT A FEELING

nazzcaveman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:30:08 EST

I live in Malaysia. I don't know why this kind of feeling exist in my heart once I heard the news of Mr. Obama's victory. My eldest son (10 years old) kissed me and congrats me for the victory. What a touchy and I cried.

I cried only because of 1 thing. This is a Great History. I prayed for this victory This is the victory of all Americans and entire Human Race. This is the victory of PEACE against WAR.

I can feel the feeling. Congratulation to the PEACE FIGHTERS WHO LOVE PEACE of America and entire World. Congratulation Mr. Barrack Hussein Obama and Mr. Joe Biden. Congratulation Democrats, Congratulation Americans and Congratulation to those who believe in CHANGE !!!

Nazzcaveman

http://umnokapar.blogspot.com/

New York Times' Endorsement of Barack Obama

Sheldon from Doylestown — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:47:41 EDT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

Editorial

Barack Obama for President

Published: October 23, 2008

Hyperbole is the currency of presidential campaigns, but this year the nation's future truly hangs in the balance.
The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush's failed leadership. He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its citizens — whether they are fleeing a hurricane's floodwaters, searching for affordable health care or struggling to hold on to their homes, jobs, savings and pensions in the midst of a financial crisis that was foretold and preventable.
As tough as the times are, the selection of a new president is easy. After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proved that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States.
•
Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation's problems.
In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism. His policies and worldview are mired in the past. His choice of a running mate so evidently unfit for the office was a final act of opportunism and bad judgment that eclipsed the accomplishments of 26 years in Congress.
Given the particularly ugly nature of Mr. McCain's campaign, the urge to choose on the basis of raw emotion is strong. But there is a greater value in looking closely at the facts of life in America today and at the prescriptions the candidates offer. The differences are profound.
Mr. McCain offers more of the Republican every-man-for-himself ideology, now lying in shards on Wall Street and in Americans' bank accounts. Mr. Obama has another vision of government's role and responsibilities.
In his convention speech in Denver, Mr. Obama said, "Government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology."
Since the financial crisis, he has correctly identified the abject failure of government regulation that has brought the markets to the brink of collapse.
The Economy
The American financial system is the victim of decades of Republican deregulatory and anti-tax policies. Those ideas have been proved wrong at an unfathomable price, but Mr. McCain — a self-proclaimed "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution" — is still a believer.
Mr. Obama sees that far-reaching reforms will be needed to protect Americans and American business.
Mr. McCain talks about reform a lot, but his vision is pinched. His answer to any economic question is to eliminate pork-barrel spending — about $18 billion in a $3 trillion budget — cut taxes and wait for unfettered markets to solve the problem.
Mr. Obama is clear that the nation's tax structure must be changed to make it fairer. That means the well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately from Mr. Bush's tax cuts will have to pay some more. Working Americans, who have seen their standard of living fall and their children's options narrow, will benefit. Mr. Obama wants to raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation, restore a climate in which workers are able to organize unions if they wish and expand educational opportunities.
Mr. McCain, who once opposed President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy as fiscally irresponsible, now wants to make them permanent. And while he talks about keeping taxes low for everyone, his proposed cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the top 1 percent of Americans while digging the country into a deeper fiscal hole.
National Security
The American military — its people and equipment — is dangerously overstretched. Mr. Bush has neglected the necessary war in Afghanistan, which now threatens to spiral into defeat. The unnecessary and staggeringly costly war in Iraq must be ended as quickly and responsibly as possible.
While Iraq's leaders insist on a swift drawdown of American troops and a deadline for the end of the occupation, Mr. McCain is still taking about some ill-defined "victory." As a result, he has offered no real plan for extracting American troops and limiting any further damage to Iraq and its neighbors.
Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq, and he has presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces. Mr. Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, has only belatedly focused on Afghanistan's dangerous unraveling and the threat that neighboring Pakistan may quickly follow.
Mr. Obama would have a learning curve on foreign affairs, but he has already showed sounder judgment than his opponent on these critical issues. His choice of Senator Joseph Biden — who has deep foreign-policy expertise — as his running mate is another sign of that sound judgment. Mr. McCain's long interest in foreign policy and the many dangers this country now faces make his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska more irresponsible.
Both presidential candidates talk about strengthening alliances in Europe and Asia, including NATO, and strongly support Israel. Both candidates talk about repairing America's image in the world. But it seems clear to us that Mr. Obama is far more likely to do that — and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world.
Mr. Obama wants to reform the United Nations, while Mr. McCain wants to create a new entity, the League of Democracies — a move that would incite even fiercer anti-American furies around the world.
Unfortunately, Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, sees the world as divided into friends (like Georgia) and adversaries (like Russia). He proposed kicking Russia out of the Group of 8 industrialized nations even before the invasion of Georgia. We have no sympathy for Moscow's bullying, but we also have no desire to replay the cold war. The United States must find a way to constrain the Russians' worst impulses, while preserving the ability to work with them on arms control and other vital initiatives.
Both candidates talk tough on terrorism, and neither has ruled out military action to end Iran's nuclear weapons program. But Mr. Obama has called for a serious effort to try to wean Tehran from its nuclear ambitions with more credible diplomatic overtures and tougher sanctions. Mr. McCain's willingness to joke about bombing Iran was frightening.
The Constitution and the Rule of Law
Under Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the justice system and the separation of powers have come under relentless attack. Mr. Bush chose to exploit the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, the moment in which he looked like the president of a unified nation, to try to place himself above the law.
Mr. Bush has arrogated the power to imprison men without charges and browbeat Congress into granting an unfettered authority to spy on Americans. He has created untold numbers of "black" programs, including secret prisons and outsourced torture. The president has issued hundreds, if not thousands, of secret orders. We fear it will take years of forensic research to discover how many basic rights have been violated.
Both candidates have renounced torture and are committed to closing the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
But Mr. Obama has gone beyond that, promising to identify and correct Mr. Bush's attacks on the democratic system. Mr. McCain has been silent on the subject.
Mr. McCain improved protections for detainees. But then he helped the White House push through the appalling Military Commissions Act of 2006, which denied detainees the right to a hearing in a real court and put Washington in conflict with the Geneva Conventions, greatly increasing the risk to American troops.
The next president will have the chance to appoint one or more justices to a Supreme Court that is on the brink of being dominated by a radical right wing. Mr. Obama may appoint less liberal judges than some of his followers might like, but Mr. McCain is certain to pick rigid ideologues. He has said he would never appoint a judge who believes in women's reproductive rights.
The Candidates
It will be an enormous challenge just to get the nation back to where it was before Mr. Bush, to begin to mend its image in the world and to restore its self-confidence and its self-respect. Doing all of that, and leading America forward, will require strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand.
Mr. Obama has those qualities in abundance. Watching him being tested in the campaign has long since erased the reservations that led us to endorse Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries. He has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility.
Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing. His righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians.
He surrendered his standing as an independent thinker in his rush to embrace Mr. Bush's misbegotten tax policies and to abandon his leadership position on climate change and immigration reform.
Mr. McCain could have seized the high ground on energy and the environment. Earlier in his career, he offered the first plausible bill to control America's emissions of greenhouse gases. Now his positions are a caricature of that record: think Ms. Palin leading chants of "drill, baby, drill."
Mr. Obama has endorsed some offshore drilling, but as part of a comprehensive strategy including big investments in new, clean technologies.
•
Mr. Obama has withstood some of the toughest campaign attacks ever mounted against a candidate. He's been called un-American and accused of hiding a secret Islamic faith. The Republicans have linked him to domestic terrorists and questioned his wife's love of her country. Ms. Palin has also questioned millions of Americans' patriotism, calling Republican-leaning states "pro-America."
This politics of fear, division and character assassination helped Mr. Bush drive Mr. McCain from the 2000 Republican primaries and defeat Senator John Kerry in 2004. It has been the dominant theme of his failed presidency.
The nation's problems are simply too grave to be reduced to slashing "robo-calls" and negative ads. This country needs sensible leadership, compassionate leadership, honest leadership and strong leadership. Barack Obama has shown that he has all of those qualities.

NYT EDITORIAL - Barack Obama for President

Kelly Williams — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:33:36 EDT

October 24, 2008Hyperbole is the currency of presidential campaigns, but this year the nation’s future truly hangs in the balance.

The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush’s failed leadership. He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its citizens — whether they are fleeing a hurricane’s floodwaters, searching for affordable health care or struggling to hold on to their homes, jobs, savings and pensions in the midst of a financial crisis that was foretold and preventable.

As tough as the times are, the selection of a new president is easy. After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proved that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States.

•

Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation’s problems.

In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism. His policies and worldview are mired in the past. His choice of a running mate so evidently unfit for the office was a final act of opportunism and bad judgment that eclipsed the accomplishments of 26 years in Congress.

Given the particularly ugly nature of Mr. McCain’s campaign, the urge to choose on the basis of raw emotion is strong. But there is a greater value in looking closely at the facts of life in America today and at the prescriptions the candidates offer. The differences are profound.

Mr. McCain offers more of the Republican every-man-for-himself ideology, now lying in shards on Wall Street and in Americans’ bank accounts. Mr. Obama has another vision of government’s role and responsibilities.

In his convention speech in Denver, Mr. Obama said, “Government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.”

Since the financial crisis, he has correctly identified the abject failure of government regulation that has brought the markets to the brink of collapse.

The Economy

The American financial system is the victim of decades of Republican deregulatory and anti-tax policies. Those ideas have been proved wrong at an unfathomable price, but Mr. McCain — a self-proclaimed “foot soldier in the Reagan revolution” — is still a believer.

Mr. Obama sees that far-reaching reforms will be needed to protect Americans and American business.

Mr. McCain talks about reform a lot, but his vision is pinched. His answer to any economic question is to eliminate pork-barrel spending — about $18 billion in a $3 trillion budget — cut taxes and wait for unfettered markets to solve the problem.

Mr. Obama is clear that the nation’s tax structure must be changed to make it fairer. That means the well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately from Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will have to pay some more. Working Americans, who have seen their standard of living fall and their children’s options narrow, will benefit. Mr. Obama wants to raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation, restore a climate in which workers are able to organize unions if they wish and expand educational opportunities.

Mr. McCain, who once opposed President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy as fiscally irresponsible, now wants to make them permanent. And while he talks about keeping taxes low for everyone, his proposed cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the top 1 percent of Americans while digging the country into a deeper fiscal hole.

National Security

The American military — its people and equipment — is dangerously overstretched. Mr. Bush has neglected the necessary war in Afghanistan, which now threatens to spiral into defeat. The unnecessary and staggeringly costly war in Iraq must be ended as quickly and responsibly as possible.

While Iraq’s leaders insist on a swift drawdown of American troops and a deadline for the end of the occupation, Mr. McCain is still talking about some ill-defined “victory.” As a result, he has offered no real plan for extracting American troops and limiting any further damage to Iraq and its neighbors.

Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq, and he has presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces. Mr. Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, has only belatedly focused on Afghanistan’s dangerous unraveling and the threat that neighboring Pakistan may quickly follow.

Mr. Obama would have a learning curve on foreign affairs, but he has already showed sounder judgment than his opponent on these critical issues. His choice of Senator Joseph Biden — who has deep foreign-policy expertise — as his running mate is another sign of that sound judgment. Mr. McCain’s long interest in foreign policy and the many dangers this country now faces make his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska more irresponsible.

Both presidential candidates talk about strengthening alliances in Europe and Asia, including NATO, and strongly support Israel. Both candidates talk about repairing America’s image in the world. But it seems clear to us that Mr. Obama is far more likely to do that — and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world.

Mr. Obama wants to reform the United Nations, while Mr. McCain wants to create a new entity, the League of Democracies — a move that would incite even fiercer anti-American furies around the world.

Unfortunately, Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, sees the world as divided into friends (like Georgia) and adversaries (like Russia). He proposed kicking Russia out of the Group of 8 industrialized nations even before the invasion of Georgia. We have no sympathy for Moscow’s bullying, but we also have no desire to replay the cold war. The United States must find a way to constrain the Russians’ worst impulses, while preserving the ability to work with them on arms control and other vital initiatives.

Both candidates talk tough on terrorism, and neither has ruled out military action to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But Mr. Obama has called for a serious effort to try to wean Tehran from its nuclear ambitions with more credible diplomatic overtures and tougher sanctions. Mr. McCain’s willingness to joke about bombing Iran was frightening.

The Constitution and the Rule of Law

Under Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the justice system and the separation of powers have come under relentless attack. Mr. Bush chose to exploit the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, the moment in which he looked like the president of a unified nation, to try to place himself above the law.

Mr. Bush has arrogated the power to imprison men without charges and browbeat Congress into granting an unfettered authority to spy on Americans. He has created untold numbers of “black” programs, including secret prisons and outsourced torture. The president has issued hundreds, if not thousands, of secret orders. We fear it will take years of forensic research to discover how many basic rights have been violated.

Both candidates have renounced torture and are committed to closing the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

But Mr. Obama has gone beyond that, promising to identify and correct Mr. Bush’s attacks on the democratic system. Mr. McCain has been silent on the subject.

Mr. McCain improved protections for detainees. But then he helped the White House push through the appalling Military Commissions Act of 2006, which denied detainees the right to a hearing in a real court and put Washington in conflict with the Geneva Conventions, greatly increasing the risk to American troops.

The next president will have the chance to appoint one or more justices to a Supreme Court that is on the brink of being dominated by a radical right wing. Mr. Obama may appoint less liberal judges than some of his followers might like, but Mr. McCain is certain to pick rigid ideologues. He has said he would never appoint a judge who believes in women’s reproductive rights.

The Candidates

It will be an enormous challenge just to get the nation back to where it was before Mr. Bush, to begin to mend its image in the world and to restore its self-confidence and its self-respect. Doing all of that, and leading America forward, will require strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand.

Mr. Obama has those qualities in abundance. Watching him being tested in the campaign has long since erased the reservations that led us to endorse Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries. He has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility.

Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing. His righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians.

He surrendered his standing as an independent thinker in his rush to embrace Mr. Bush’s misbegotten tax policies and to abandon his leadership position on climate change and immigration reform.

Mr. McCain could have seized the high ground on energy and the environment. Earlier in his career, he offered the first plausible bill to control America’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Now his positions are a caricature of that record: think Ms. Palin leading chants of “drill, baby, drill.”

Mr. Obama has endorsed some offshore drilling, but as part of a comprehensive strategy including big investments in new, clean technologies.

•

Mr. Obama has withstood some of the toughest campaign attacks ever mounted against a candidate. He’s been called un-American and accused of hiding a secret Islamic faith. The Republicans have linked him to domestic terrorists and questioned his wife’s love of her country. Ms. Palin has also questioned millions of Americans’ patriotism, calling Republican-leaning states “pro-America.”

This politics of fear, division and character assassination helped Mr. Bush drive Mr. McCain from the 2000 Republican primaries and defeat Senator John Kerry in 2004. It has been the dominant theme of his failed presidency.

The nation’s problems are simply too grave to be reduced to slashing “robo-calls” and negative ads. This country needs sensible leadership, compassionate leadership, honest leadership and strong leadership. Barack Obama has shown that he has all of those qualities.

Gail Collins hits, and also misses, the mark

mathpol — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:25:41 EDT

“Confessions of a Phone Solicitor” is the title of Gail Collins’ column in today’s New York Times. Here are some excerpts.

[A] telemarketer named Ted Zoromski quit his job this week over John McCain’s message. Zoromski was prepared to interrupt people during their dinner hours to encourage them to vote Republican. But when he got the script saying “you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge’s home and killed Americans,” he packed it in.“Even though I was paid to do it, I didn’t feel comfortable,” Zoromski told WKOW-TV.

This story … struck me because I once worked as a telemarketer, and it is an occupation so soul-numbing that it is hard to imagine that anything could make it worse. I woke up people on the overnight shift who had just managed to fall asleep for the first time in six days. Sometimes, when there was clearly nobody at home, I would just let the phone ring and ring in order to avoid having to call anybody else. …

So truly, if you can come up with something that would send a telemarketer over the edge, you have really overachieved on the offensiveness front.

She then goes on to give a vivid description of all the vile mud-slinging being done by McCain, Palin, et al. My issue is with the first part of the article. Here is the comment I posted.

Once again Collins has missed the mark. Telemarketers make nuisance calls. That's what advertising is all about. It is not unethical for them to do their work. No one told Collins to let the phone keep ringing when she was a phone solicitor. Ted Zoromski quit his job because he was asked to deliver a dishonest and hateful message. Now that Collins is a Times columnist, after having been a Times editor, she feels free to trash those in her earlier line of work. This is true elitism.

Collins plays fast and loose with the facts and often fails to reason properly. This is a lot more harmful than disturbing people at dinner. The Times has a Doctor Jekyll-Mr. Hyde combo (Dowd-Collins). Maureen's brilliance is matched by Gail's dalliance. Too bad more of your readers don't catch on to this. Perhaps it is because Collins’ column causes so much ringing in their ears.

Getting back to the main point of her article, here is the front page and an inside page of a recent RNC mailer.

Reality Check: Bush And McCain Budgets

Jack — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:01:55 EDT

DEBATE REALITY CHECK: BUSH AND MCCAIN BUDGETSOctober 02, 2008Tonight, Joe Biden said: “[McCain] voted 4 out of 5 times on George Bush's budget.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

FACT: MCCAIN SUPPORTED 4 OF 5 BUSH BUDGETS

· McCain Voted for 4 of 5 Bush Budgets Adding Up To $9.8 Trillion In Spending. McCain supported four of the five Bush budgets that the Senate voted on from 2001-2006. McCain voted for the FY 2002 budget, the FY 2005 budget, the FY 2006 budget and the FY 2007 budget. The budgets added up to $9.8 Trillion in spending. [2001 Senate Vote #98; 2004 Senate Vote #58; 2005 Senate Vote #114; 2006 Senate Vote #74]

FACT: MCCAIN’S SPENDING PROPOSALS DON’T ADD UP AND ARE FAR MORE COSTLY THEN OBAMA’S PLANS

· McCain Offers Four More Years Of Soaring Deficits. Just like George Bush, McCain budget plan offers four more years of soaring deficits. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center said McCain’s tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the debt over the next decade, and cuts for the wealthy instead of middle class families. [Tax Policy Center, 7/23/08, p. 42]

· New York Times: McCain’s Budget Will Add $200 Or $300 Billion To The Deficit Per Year. “The Obama campaign claims it can pay for all this, and even reduce the deficit, through tax increases and spending cuts. I think a more skeptical look at its budget leaves you worried it may add something like $50 billion a year to the deficit. But applying the same arched brow to Mr. McCain’s stated plans leaves you worried that he will add $200 billion or $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more.” [New York Times, 6/18/08 ]

· McCain Has No Plan To Pay For His Tax Cuts For The Wealthy And Corporations. McCain’s promise to continue George Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and give big corporate interests a tax cut would cost $340 billion a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and New York Times have all raised questions about whether McCain can pay for these tax breaks. In fact, a Washington Post editorial even said that his budget plan is “not credible” [Editorial, Washington Post, 7/14/08 ; Editorial, New York Times, 7/12/08 ; Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]

· Washington Post: McCain’s Approach To Taxes Is Far More Costly Than Obama’s. “There is a serious debate to be had in this presidential campaign about the fundamentally different tax policies of Barack Obama and John McCain. Then there is the phony, misleading and at times outright dishonest debate that the McCain campaign has been waging -- most recently with a television ad. The two candidates have very different positions on taxes. Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and cut them substantially for low- and middle-income taxpayers. He would cut taxes for more households, and by a larger amount, than Mr. McCain, who would give the greatest benefits to wealthy households and corporations. … The McCain campaign insists on completely misrepresenting Mr. Obama's plan. … The country can't afford the tax cuts either man is promising, although Mr. McCain's approach is by far the more costly. We don't expect either side to admit that. But neither side should get to outright lie about its opponent's positions, either.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/31/08 ]

· Washington Post: McCain’s Plan To Balance The Budget By 2013 “Is Not Credible.” “McCain says that President McCain would balance the federal budget by 2013. The plan is not credible. … Mr. McCain sells American voters short -- and he does himself a disservice -- with his implausible claim.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 7/14/08 ]

· New York Times: McCain Cannot Balance The Budget On A Crusade Against Pork And A One-Year Sliver Of Federal Spending And He Either Has A “Secret Plan To Balance The Budget Or He’s Blowing Smoke.” “Mr. McCain’s main campaign promises, if fulfilled, would lead to huge budget deficits. Extending the Bush tax cuts, enacting more tax cuts of his own and staying the course in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more, every year, than the small bore spending cuts he has specified. Mr. McCain cannot balance the budget on a crusade against pork and a one-year freeze in a sliver of federal spending. Either he has a secret plan to balance the budget or he’s blowing smoke.” [Editorial, New York Times, 7/12/08 ]

Internationals - Get out the Vote

EMGEE — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:53:22 EDT

The United States is a melting pot for people from almost every country on the planet. Which means that every country has at least one family member or friend who is a citizen of the United States.

I would like to create a movement in these important last days of the campaign to urge all countries around the world to exhort their families and friends who are citizens of the United States to VOTE, FIRST OF ALL, and of course, vote for Obama/Biden ticket.

From Albania to Zimbabwe and all countries in between - text/email/blog/skype/call your families and friends, citizens of the United States and remind, urge, implore, tell them to VOTE. VOTE EARLY, VOTE NOVEMBER 4, 2008, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE...

Lessons from William Ayers

Doug Robinson — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:32:35 EDT

Now more than ever we need tolerance for those among us who offer a different approach than what we consider normal. Tolerance for differing views and experiences can help each of us to expand personal horizons, thus promoting individual growth and enrichment. Without the influence of differing ideas we all will only become increasingly narrow in our views over time, growing correspondingly limited in our ability to respond to the wonder of life around us. Above all, peace requires tolerance, conflict denies tolerance. While there are certainly things no democratic society should condone, we must also be judicious in where we place these restrictions lest we harm our own freedom and ultimate humanity in the process.

McAcorn

Henry M — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:22:01 EDT

Any number of respected news outlets have done a decent job of correcting the MC Caine's assertion during the last debate that "We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama's relationship with Acorn, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy. The same front outfit organization that your campaign gave $832,000 for "lighting and site selection." So all of these things need to be examined, of course. " You can read all about Acorn in the New York Times, for instance: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17fri1.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=acorn%202006&st=cse&oref=slogin , which concludes:

But for all of the McCain campaign’s manufactured fury about vote theft (and similar claims from the Republican Party over the years) there is virtually no evidence — anywhere in the country, going back many elections — of people showing up at the polls and voting when they are not entitled to.
Meanwhile, Republicans aren’t saying anything about another more serious voter-registration scandal: the fact that about one-third of eligible voters are not registered. The racial gaps are significant and particularly disturbing. According to a study by Project Vote, a voting-rights group, in 2006, 71 percent of eligible whites were registered, compared with 61 percent of blacks, 54 percent of Latinos and 49 percent of Asian-Americans.
Much of the blame for this lies with overly restrictive registration rules. Earlier this year, the League of Women Voters halted its registration drive in Florida after the state imposed onerous new requirements.
The answer is for government to do a better job of registering people to vote. That way there would be less need to rely on private registration drives, largely being conducted by well-meaning private organizations that use low-paid workers. Federal and state governments should do their own large-scale registration drives staffed by experienced election officials. Even better, Congress and the states should adopt election-day registration, which would make such drives unnecessary.
The real threats to the fabric of democracy are the unreasonable barriers that stand in the way of eligible voters casting ballots.

All well and good, but has McCain forgotten, and why isn't the mainstream media reporting, that in 2006, McCain wasn't afraid of voter registration efforts and organizations and supported Acorn?

McCain To ACORN: You Are 'What Makes America Special'

Marc Ambinder digs up a pretty damning video, given McCain's current line of attack on Barack Obama. In 2006, McCain told members of ACORN, UNITE HERE, SEIU, and PAW that they were "what makes America special."
As Ambinder says:
McCain had no trouble fraternizing with ACORN in 2006 when their political interests coincided with his. Now, his campaign is writing e-mails in his name bashing ACORN as a tool of the Obama machine.
Ben Smith also posted a picture of McCain at the same rally. Here's the video Ambinder posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9wy2MI1NI

If you liked this message, then please have a look at my blog, http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/henrymu and support and contribute to the campaign (it’s not over until the polls close): http://tinyurl.com/henrym4obamafundraising

Henry M

Obama: Revving up the Volunteers - Not out of touch

Lee from Durham, NC. — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:36:22 EDT

The New York Times ran a blog post in The Caucus, describing Obama making a surprise visit to rev up the campaign volunteers in Columbus, Ohio. Apparently, Obama made a surprise stop at a all-day training session attended by 750 Obama volunteers. According to the Times, "the room erupted into pandemonium when he walked in". The post describes Obama telling the campaign volunteers that “Now’s the time to really make this thing work.” Read the post to get a feel of him 'revving' the volunteers up. But he did far more than that. Follow me under the fold to see Obama demonstrate that he is not out of touch.

Farmer In Chief

B. Atkins — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:16:03 EDT

"Dear Mr. President-Elect, It may surprise you to learn that among the issues that will occupy much of your time in the coming years is one you barely mentioned during the campaign: food."

So begins the article Michael Pollan wrote for the recent Food issue of The New York Times titled "Farmer In Chief" that we should all read. I think we should make sure that Senator Obama's Economic, Energy, and Agriculture advisors read it too. I sent a copy to both of my Senators (from Montana) and my Representative as well.

Food and Agricultural policy is definitely an issue often overlooked, yet central to improving the state of our country on many fronts over the next decades. From National Security to Health Care to Climate Change, improving and changing our food system from Fossil-Fuel centric to Solar centric, and from Consolidated to Diversified can have positive ripple effects across the board. I won't argue that it's going to be a good change for everyone, but for the bulk of the country, these changes can create a win-win-win sitution.

The originator of the "Obama is Muslim" smear is a rabid Anti-Semite

Tal from NPR/Trinity — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:16:46 EDT

So now we know the genesis of the false Obama-is-a-Muslim rumor. According to the New York Times, Patient Zero in this particular epidemic which has virally spread around the nation thanks to the Internet is a fellow named Andy Martin, known for filing copious lawsuits that on occasion have contained very anti-Semitic language. After reading the NYT story that places Martin at the starting point of the unfounded rumor (Obama is a Christian) you come away with the very strong impression that Martin is a man with some serious issues, to say the least. As the NYT reports: Until this month, the man who is widely credited with starting the cyberwhisper campaign that still dogs Mr. Obama was a secondary character in news reports, with deep explorations of his background largely confined to liberal blogs. But an appearance in a documentary-style program on the Fox News Channel watched by three million people last week thrust the man, Andy Martin, and his past into the foreground. The program allowed Mr. Martin to assert falsely and without challenge that Mr. Obama had once trained to overthrow the government. An examination of legal documents and election filings, along with interviews with his acquaintances, revealed Mr. Martin, 62, to be a man with a history of scintillating if not always factual claims. He has left a trail of animosity -- some of it provoked by anti-Jewish comments -- among political leaders, lawyers and judges in three states over more than 30 years. He is a law school graduate, but his admission to the Illinois bar was blocked in the 1970s after a psychiatric finding of "moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character." There's more: He prepared to run as a Democrat for Congress in Connecticut, where paperwork for one of his campaign committees listed as one purpose "to exterminate Jew power." He ran as a Republican for the Florida State Senate and the United States Senate in Illinois. When running for president in 1999, he aired a television advertisement in New Hampshire that accused George W. Bush of using cocaine. In the 1990s, Mr. Martin was jailed in a case in Florida involving a physical altercation. Then there's this passage which gets to when Martin started the rumor: Theories about Mr. Obama's background have taken on a life of their own. But independent analysts seeking the origins of the cyberspace attacks wind up at Mr. Martin's first press release, posted on the Free Republic Web site in August 2004. Its general outlines have turned up in a host of works that have expounded falsely on Mr. Obama's heritage or supposed attempts to conceal it, including "Obama Nation," the widely discredited best seller about Mr. Obama by Jerome R. Corsi. Mr. Corsi opens the book with a quote from Mr. Martin. "What he's generating gets picked up in other places," said Danielle Allen, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University who has investigated the e-mail campaign's circulation and origins, "and it's an example of how the Internet has given power to sources we would have never taken seriously at another point in time." Here's more on Martin and anti-Semitism: Yet in various court papers, Mr. Martin had impugned Jews. A motion he filed in a 1983 bankruptcy case called the judge "a crooked, slimy Jew who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race." In another motion, filed in 1983, Mr. Martin wrote, "I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did." In an interview, Mr. Martin denied some statements against Jews attributed to him in court papers, blaming malicious judges for inserting them. It's remarkable that the originator of the rumor that has hounded Obama throughout the presidential campaign has been narrowed down to onc person. The falsity seemed like one of those items that could have had dozens of authors. As many of you already know, Sean Hannity gave Martin and his colorful fabrications major exposure last week when he had him on his show as part of a "documentary" on Obama's Chicago years. Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, administered a memorable beatdown of Hannity for having Martin, who many people would consider a crackpot and with much justification, on his program. It's must-see TV if you haven't watched it already. Here's a 2006 Chicago Tribune story on Martin with a few more details: Perennial candidate back for another race The self-styled consumer advocate has run unsuccessfully for office for more than 3 decades Date: Friday, February 10, 2006 By John Chase and Rick Pearson, Tribune staff reporters Dressed in a green sport coat, khakis and a beat-up pair of New Balance running shoes, Andy Martin stood on a downtown Chicago sidewalk recently for one of his numerous news conferences to deliver a message to the voters of Illinois. "The bottom line is, the momentum has shifted," the 60-year-old Republican candidate for governor told a lone reporter. "There's an awareness statewide now that I'm a fully fledged player in this race."That's a view Martin has often espoused in more than three decades of unsuccessfully running for offices ranging from county clerk and mayor to legislator on to Congress and the presidency--sometimes as a Republican, other times as a Democrat--in Illinois, Florida and Connecticut. Though his ads featuring "Stars and Stripes Forever" have aired on Chicago radio stations, political organizations, debate planners and the media usually shun Martin. More than just a perennial candidate, he bills himself as a self-styled consumer advocate willing to take on Microsoft, housing developers and other firms with legal action. "I have 40 years of exceptional public service. Successful public service," Martin said in a recent letter addressed to the Tribune. "And true integrity fighting public corruption." Yet the Illinois Supreme Court denied him a law license, saying he lacked the fitness to be an attorney. Federal courts have repeatedly sanctioned him for what judges have said is his filing of hundreds of largely meritless legal actions. He's had several stints in jail. He has repeatedly refused to answer questions from the Tribune and has in the past unsuccessfully sued the newspaper for libel. On Thursday, during a telephone news conference, he threatened to sue the Tribune over a recent poll on candidates for governor that showed he had support from fewer than 1 percent of likely Republican voters. Martin also has expressed anti-Semitic attitudes in the past. When he ran for Congress in Connecticut in 1986, the name of his congressional campaign committee included the phrase "to exterminate Jew power in America," Federal Election Commission records show. In a 1983 personal bankruptcy case, he referred to a federal bankruptcy judge as a "crooked, slimy Jew, who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race." In a related court filing in the case, he also expressed sympathy to the perpetrators of the Holocaust. "I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did, when Jew survivors are operating as a wolf pack to steal my property," Martin wrote in an April 21, 1983, personal bankruptcy proceeding. In 1973, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to allow Martin admission to the bar. The court's decision noted that Martin, a University of Illinois law school graduate who was previously known by the name Anthony R. Martin-Trigona, had a Selective Service record that showed he had a "moderately-severe character defect manifested by well documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character." Still, the court noted that "issues raised as to [Martin's] mental stability" did not need to be considered in light of other matters it cited in deciding that Martin lacked the qualities of "responsibility, candor, fairness, self-restraint, objectivity and respect for the judicial system" required for the administration of justice. Among issues the high court cited in denying his law license were Martin's criticism of members of a bar review panel as "emotionally ill" and "scum," his filing of a petition asking that a parking violation be lifted because it was "entered by an insane judge" and his description of an attorney as "shaking and tottering and drooling like an idiot," according to court records. A decade later, the federal court system began issuing sanctions against Martin for his filing of what one federal judge, Edward Weinfeld of New York, termed as "a substantial number of lawsuits of a vexatious, frivolous and scandalous nature." The courts eventually required him to obtain prior approval to file any legal action at any federal court. The restrictions require that judges, who are not identified to Martin, decide whether the filings have merit and should proceed. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted Martin's litigious conduct appeared to be an attempt to "harass persons who have unluckily crossed his path." The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago noted Martin's tendency "to exaggerate, to believe himself the victim of conspiracies where none exist, and to suspect without any reasonable basis that others are persecuting him." Martin often touts his background as an assistant to the late U.S. Sen. Paul Douglas (D-Ill.). Martin told a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1975 that his service was as a summer intern for Douglas in 1966 and that he received $152 in pay. Martin is currently registered to vote in two locations, one in Chicago and another in Florida, according to an election official in Florida and records in Chicago. But those same sources show Martin has not cast a vote in Chicago since he registered in 2003 or in Florida since 1996. Still, Martin has run or attempted to run for public offices in Illinois and Florida numerous times since 1996, including for the U.S. Senate in Florida in 1998 and 2004, the presidency in 2000 and Florida governor in 2002. In 1998, Martin was on the ballot in Florida and received 184,739 votes, or 33.6 percent, in the GOP primary for U.S. Senate. In 1996, he was the Republican nominee in Florida for a seat in the state Senate. He received 31,919 votes, or 27.4 percent of the vote. In his current campaign, Martin has quoted from a 1978 Tribune editorial that called him "an absolutely brilliant campaigner" when he was running as a Democrat for U.S. Senate. But the rest of the editorial, which Martin does not quote, added that he "has no more business in the U.S. Senate than an elk has in a phone booth." Martin has also had run-ins with the law. In 1980, he was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison after being convicted of mail fraud. The conviction was later overturned. Federal Bureau of Prisons records show Martin has spent several stints in several federal prisons on issues related to contempt of court. Back in Florida, Palm Beach County Court officials say an arrest warrant for him remains active. Officials with the Palm Beach clerk's office said the warrant is still outstanding for Martin for violation of probation, stemming from a 1996 criminal mischief case in which he damaged a video camera belonging to a local TV station covering his campaign for state Senate. A judge ordered Martin to spend several months in jail but a paperwork glitch resulted in Martin's release after only about one month. They say he still has several months left to serve.

Community Organizing

NTodd — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:56:02 EDT

What it's all about.

ntodd

"I was just kidding..."

Henry M — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:46:12 EDT

Almost as funny as "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran."

I get jokes… when they are jokes: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015040.php

* REPARATIONS TO BLACK COMMUNITY: Opposes before Election Day and supports after Election Day.
* FREEDOM OF RELIGION: Mandatory Black Liberation Theology classes taught in all churches - raise taxes to pay for this mandate. ...
* FOREIGN RELATIONS: Appoint Al Sharpton as Secretary of State, Jesse Jackson as UN Representative ...
* NATIONAL ANTHEM: Change to the "Black National Anthem" by James Weldon Johnson. And raise taxes.
* CURRENCY: Update photos to reflect U.S. diversity: include pictures of "great Americans" such as Oprah Winfrey, Ludacris, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and William Jefferson (Obama's new Secretary of the Treasury...)

Download the whole piece here: http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-10/42750415.pdf

Uhm, don't bother sending comments to media outlets that won't publish or even tally them. Try the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, the two most respected newspapers in the country… even Palin claims to read'em: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/henrymu/gGxMqT

If you liked this message, then please have a look at the rest of my blog, http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/henrymu and please consider donating to the campaign: http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/PListe4Obama

Henry M

MAKE THE CONNECTION: Vicki Iseman(Lobbyist) and John McCain/Why is Keating Five Relevant TODAY?

The Pollitikat — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:17:26 EDT

I know that everyone is getting excited about the Keating Five controversy but lets not lose our focus. Why it is relevant today, well let’s think back to early February when the New York Times released an article questioning John McCain’s claims of being ethical. Many focused on his relationship with the young lady (Vicki Iseman) as possibly a romantic one, but the important little facts about that relationship is that the young lady was a lobbyist and John McCain wrote letters to regulators on behalf of Vicki Iseman’s client list.

http://www.nytimes.com/...

Learn about McCains relationship with Vicki and the relevance to the Keating Five and why it shows that John McCain is still unethical and has no character at all, he will continue to be corrupt and when he gets caught he tries to act magnanamus by quiting and then trashing his former associates. But as soon as things die down he goes right back to being the same corrupt, wreckless, immoral individual he has always been. This is a man that made a joke about a sitting presidents child, stood there and laughed when someone called Hillary Clinton a bitch, votes against veterans while declaring his love for them, screamed about experience and then selected Sarah Palin.

Guys we must write the media and make the connection because you know they will not do it without being pushed. They are going to sit right there at Keating Five and Ayers. Write to you local media and remind them of the New York Times story, because there is so much more there--there!!!

TAKE THE POLL ON DAILYKOS: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/6/74323/9819/5/621384

Here Comes The Smear

Charley James — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:44:57 EDT

My deep, sincere apologies to The Beatles for turning the title of their wonderfully hopeful song Here Comes The Sun on its head, especially to use it in describing the only tactics left to save the sinking Republican ship SS McCain with Cap’n Palin on the bridge.

But make no mistake: The last 30 days of the campaign will see McCain, Palin and their surrogates turn into an army of Dark Knights of Evil. In fact, the Republican campaign machine admits it.

''We're looking at a very aggressive last 30 days of turning the page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans,'' senior adviser Greg Strimple told reporters on Thursday.

“Very aggressive” and “too risky” is politicode for mud slinging lies, half-truths, innuendo and surrogate-mounted smears, racial and other.

Freddie And Bill

It’s started already.

A few days ago I received an e-mail from a Deep South conservative Republican raising again the thoroughly discredited claim that the former heads of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are now working for the Obama campaign. Apparently, it’s not enough that both Fox News and The Washington Times – hardly liberal rags – debunked the smear weeks ago; die-hards will keep spreading the phoney news anyway.

And get this: The AP is reporting this morning that Sarah Palin accuses Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists" for his association with a former 1960s radical.

Palin is referring to Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the group the Weather Underground in the 1960s. The group took credit for several bombings, including non-fatal explosions at the Pentagon and the Capitol four decades ago – when Obama was about eight years old.

In remarks Saturday to GOP donors in Englewood, Colorado, Palin said Obama seems to see the US as being so imperfect that, in her words, "he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

Her idiotic statements were triggered by a New York Times story on Saturday that traced Obama’s sporadic interactions with Ayers, now a respected education professor in Chicago where he worked on an education project with Obama when the candidate was a community organizer and then state senator. Palin never mentioned that Ayers denounced his past activities decades ago.

As Stephen Fox, contributing editor of the New Mexico Sun News, put it in a blog post here, “I remember meeting Mark Rudd, who either blew up a building or tried to, I don't remember which. I met Angela Davis, and golly, very early one Sunday morning after one of the famous San Francisco Peace Marches to end the Vietnam War in 1967, I even saw Janis Joplin driving a yellow Porsche Convertible about 60 miles an hour through Haight-Ashbury.

“Just because 20 years ago, you befriend someone and talk intelligently with them, what does that mean, anyway? That you are learning. Does that mean you are sitting at the feet of the 9/11 bombers? Of course not, but the Republicans will use this ludicrous and deranged line of reasoning to scare the elderly as they have already done in South Florida, the undecided, the apathetic … who don't read (a newspaper) everyday,” Fox concludes.

Shifting Undecided’s

Meanwhile, undecided voters – can there actually be any of these still around? – are trending Obama, along with the rest of the country.

Undecided voters who watched Thursday's vice presidential debate really like Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin but they're not certain she's ready to lead the country, according to the findings of a new Ipsos/McClatchy poll published Sunday morning.

If they had to vote immediately after watching the debate between Palin and Biden, 52% of the 456 undecided voters who were surveyed would vote the Obama/Biden ticket, the poll found.

It also found that Palin's performance in the debate did nothing to clinch undecided votes for her running mate. Before the debate, those same undecided voters were leaning 56% to 44% for McCain. The day after the debate, the numbers tilted 52% to 48% for Obama.

No wonder the McCain-Palin campaign is starting to throw mud. It’s all they have left.

DICK CHENEY-ROLE MODEL Editorial, New York Times

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:23:14 EDT

October 4, 2008

In all the talk about the vice-presidential debate, there was an issue that did not get much attention but kept nagging at us: Sarah Palin’s description of the role and the responsibilities of the office for which she is running, vice president of the United States.

In Thursday night’s debate, Ms. Palin was asked about the vice president’s role in government. She said she agreed with Dick Cheney that “we have a lot of flexibility in there” under the Constitution.

And she declared that she was “thankful that the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president also, if that vice president so chose to exert it.”

It is hard to tell from Ms. Palin’s remarks whether she understands how profoundly Dick Cheney has reshaped the vice presidency — as part of a larger drive to free the executive branch from all checks and balances. Nor did she seem to understand how much damage that has done to American democracy.

Mr. Cheney has shown what can happen when a vice president — a position that is easy to lampoon and overlook — is given free rein by the president and does not care about trampling on the Constitution. Mr. Cheney has long taken the bizarre view that the lesson of Watergate was that Congress was too powerful and the president not powerful enough.

He dedicated himself to expanding President Bush’s authority and arrogating to himself executive, legislative and legal powers that are nowhere in the Constitution. This isn’t the first time that Ms. Palin was confronted with the issue.

In an interview with Katie Couric of CBS News, the Alaska governor was asked what she thought was the best and worst about the Cheney vice presidency. Ms. Palin tried to dodge: laughing and joking about the hunting accident in which Mr. Cheney accidentally shot a friend.

The only thing she had to add was that Mr. Cheney showed support for the troops in Iraq. There was not a word about Mr. Cheney’s role in starting the war with Iraq, in misleading Americans about weapons of mass destruction, in leading the charge to create illegal prison camps where detainees are tortured, in illegally wiretapping Americans, in creating an energy policy that favored the oil industry that made him very rich before the administration began.

Ms. Couric asked Joseph Biden, Ms. Palin’s rival, the same question in a separate interview. He had it exactly right when he told her that Mr. Cheney’s theory of the “unitary executive” held that “Congress and the people have no power in a time of war.” And he had it right in the debate when he called Mr. Cheney “the most dangerous vice president we’ve had in American history.”

The Constitution does not state or imply any flexibility in the office of vice president. It gives the vice president no legislative responsibilities other than casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate when needed and no executive powers at all. The vice president’s constitutional role is to be ready to serve if the president dies or becomes incapacitated.

Any president deserves a vice president who will be a sound adviser and trustworthy supporter. But the American people also deserve and need a vice president who understands and respects the balance of power — and the limits of his or her own power. That is fundamental to our democracy.

So far, Ms. Palin has it exactly, frighteningly wrong.

Suspension [Bridge to Nowhere]

Amy Matthews — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:43:50 EDT

Here is the latest Op-Ed piece from Frank Rich: in the New York Times:

September 28, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

McCain’s Suspension Bridge to Nowhere

By FRANK RICH

WHAT we learned last week is that the man who always puts his “country first” will take the country down with him if that’s what it takes to get to the White House.

For all the focus on Friday night’s deadlocked debate, it still can’t obscure what preceded it: When John McCain gratuitously parachuted into Washington on Thursday, he didn’t care if his grandstanding might precipitate an even deeper economic collapse. All he cared about was whether he might save his campaign. George Bush put more deliberation into invading Iraq than McCain did into his own reckless invasion of the delicate Congressional negotiations on the bailout plan.

McCain Gambling Interests & Gaming the Families of POWs/MIAs Top the News

Brian M Ross — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:20:55 EDT

You always save the the most obvious for last, I suppose, in the political news game during the waning days of an election cycle. As some of the media outlets smell blood in the water, it is safer to start dropping a few of John McCain's political skeletons into the news stream.

While McCain may not have created the Internet, he is the father of modern gambling in America...

Sarah Palin: Witchcraft Free At Last!

Charley James — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:13:36 EDT

I’ve finally found a positive quality Sarah Palin might bring to the vice presidency: She would be the first veep guaranteed to be witchcraft-free, thanks to Rev. Thomas Muthee.

This would be a refreshing change from Dick Cheney who clearly is a warlock; it’s one of the few things that can explain adequately his darker-than-the-night eight years in office.

A video went up on YouTube yesterday showing Muthee “laying hands” on Palin, imploring Jesus to protect her from "the spirit of witchcraft." It would be hysterically funny if it weren’t so scary.

Best of all, Palin gave her own personal testimony to the power of Muthee’s prayers, saying publicly after she was elected governor what a dramatic effect he had on her election.

While maybe it’s time we have a vice president we know is free of witches and witchcraft, there’s a serious point being made here.

After the broadcast and cable network newscasts pelted us for days with the same 14 second clip of Rev. Jeremiah Wright giving a vitriolic sermon when Barack Obama wasn’t even in the church, why is it that we’ve barely seen Rev. Muthee laying his hands on Palin to protect her from witches – or her “testimony” in the Wasilla church to his purported power?

Why isn’t the footage leading every cable news segment, the way the Wright video did? Where are the bloviators speculating that this might end her chance of being elected, as they did with Obama? Why isn’t she giving a major speech to discuss witchcraft in American politics the way Obama responded to the Wright controversy by talking about race in America? How come no one is calling the video a “bombshell,” and wondering “what might come next?”

When the Rev. Wright controversy broke, somber publications such as The New York Times and The Washington Post gave it front page prominence. I’ve yet to see any coverage of the Muthee-Palin nonsense anywhere in either paper, not even a few column inches way in the back, wedged between wedding announcements and the obits.

Maybe it’s because the Muthee business is so ridiculous the video almost comes across like a Saturday Night Live sketch. Or a parody of an SNL bit. Maybe it’s because the news media doesn’t poke fun at the mentally unbalanced.

But, still, this is noteworthy stuff.

It can’t be that newspapers, magazines and networks “got religion” – pardon the expression – and turned serious in the months since the Wright tempest in a teapot bubbled and boiled. Rather, I suspect it’s because we’re seeing a prime time, front page, living, breathing, spell-casting example of just how frightened much of the media is of the right, and the religious right in particular. We’re also seeing the myth of the “liberal media bias” laid bare.

Mary Todd Lincoln and Nancy Reagan communed with the spirit world when their husbands were president, but neither woman ever ran for office. Sarah Palin wants to be Vice President of the United States.

Come to think of it, if she and McCain happen to win it might just be because there are witches and warlocks flying around on broomsticks after all. Still, I can’t help but wonder if religious "re-education" centers are waiting in the wings.

MCCAIN AIDE'S FIRM WAS PAID BY FREDDIE MAC

N. E. Wright — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:27:35 EDT

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 -- 7:15 PM ET
-----

McCain Aide's Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac

One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the
credit crisis paid $15,000 a month to a firm owned by Senator
John McCain's campaign manager from the end of 2005 through
last month, according to two people with direct knowledge of
the arrangement. The disclosure contradicts a statement
Sunday night by Mr. McCain that the campaign manager, Rick
Davis, had no involvement with the company for the last
several years.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na

September 24, 2008McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac By JACKIE CALMES and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON-- One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager from the end of 2005 through last month, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement. The disclosure contradicts a statement Sunday night by Mr. McCain that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had no involvement with the company for the last several years. Mr. Davis’s firm received the payments from the company, Freddie Mac, until it was taken over by the government this month along with Fannie Mae, the other big mortgage lender whose deteriorating finances helped precipitate the cascading problems on Wall Street, the people said.

They said they did not recall Mr. Davis doing much substantive work for the company in return for the money, other than speak to a political action committee composed of high-ranking employees in October 2006 on the coming midterm congressional elections. They said Mr. Davis’s his firm, Davis & Manafort, was kept on the payroll because of Mr. Davis’s close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who was widely expected by 2006 to run again for the White House.

Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis & Manafort for the duration of the campaign, but as a partner and equity-holder continues to share in its profits.

A Freddie Mac spokeswoman said the company would not comment. The McCain campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. McCain’s campaign has been attacking l Senator Barack Obama, his Democratic rival, for his ties to former officials of the mortgage lenders, both of which have long histories of cultivating allies in the two parties to fend off efforts to restrict their activities. Mr. McCain has been running a television commercial suggesting that Mr. Obama takes advice on housing issues from Franklin D. Raines, a former chief executive of Fannie Mae, a contention flatly denied by Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign. Freddie Mac’s roughly $500,000 in payments to Davis & Manafort began immediately after Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in late 2005 disbanded an advocacy coalition that they had set up and hired Mr. Davis to run, the people familiar with the arrangement said.

Between 2000 and the end of 2005, Mr. Davis had received nearly $2 million as president of the coalition, the Homeownership Alliance, which the companies created to help them oppose new regulations and protect their status as federally chartered companies with implicit government backing. That status let them borrow cheaply, helping to fuel rapid growth but also their increased purchases of the risky mortgage securities that were their downfall.

On Sunday, in an interview with CNBC and the New York Times, Mr. McCain responded to a question about Mr. Davis’s role in the advocacy group by saying that his campaign manager “has had nothing to do with it since, and I’ll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it.”

Such assertions, along with McCain campaign television ads tying Mr. Obama to former Fannie Mae chiefs, have riled current and former officials of the two companies and provoked them to volunteer rebuttals of what they see as the McCain campaign’s inaccuracy and hypocrisy. The two officials with direct knowledge of Freddie Mac’s post-2005 contract with Mr. Davis spoke on condition of anonymity. One is a Democrat and the other a registered independent. Four other outside consultants, three Democrats and a Republican also speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that it was widely known that Mr. Davis was being paid though his firm.

As president of the Homeownership Alliance, Mr. Davis got $30,000 to $35,000 a month. Mr. Davis, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have characterized the alliance as a coalition of many housing industry and consumer groups to promote homeownership, but numerous current and former officials at both companies say the two mortgage companies created and bankrolled the operation to combat efforts by competitors to rein in their business. They dissolved the group at the end of 2005 as part of cost-cutting in the wake of accounting scandals and, at Freddie Mac, a lobbying scandal that forced out its former top Republican lobbyist.

On Monday, the McCain campaign accused The New York Times of bias for reporting the payments to Mr. Davis from the mortgage giants. Mr. Davis said that had worked not for the two companies but for the advocacy group, which included other nonprofit organization as well.

After the Homeownership Alliance was dissolved, Mr. Davis asked to stay on a retainer, the people familiar with the deal said. Hollis McLoughlin, who was chief of staff to Richard F. Syron, Freddie Mac’s chief executive, arranged for a new contract with Davis & Manafort, at the reduced rate of $15,000 a month, they said. Mr. Syron lost his job in the government takeover this month. Mr. McLoughlin, who through a spokeswoman declined to comment, was a former chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady in the first President Bush’s administration, and has longstanding Republican ties.

Mr. Davis was hired as a consultant, not a lobbyist, the officials said. Davis & Manafort in recent years has filed federal lobbying reports for a number of companies, including SBC Telecommunications, Fruit of the Loom, Comsat, Gtech, Airborne Express, BellSouth and Verizon—all businesses with legislative interests before the Senate Commerce Committee, where Mr. McCain has been chairman or senior Republican. It has filed no reports registering to lobby for Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.

Later in 2006, Mr. Davis was working on Mr. McCain’s emerging presidential campaign, as chief financial officer. The only thing that Freddie Mac officials could recall Mr. Davis doing for the company was the October 2006 pre-election forum with mid-level and senior executives who contribute to Freddie PAC, the company’s political action committee.

An electronic invitation to the employees, read by an official to the New York Times, said “Please join us for political food for thought” with Paul Begala, a longtime Democratic consultant, “and Rick Davis, former 2000 presidential campaign manager and current advisor to Senator John McCain.” Mr. Begala, who also was a paid consultant to Freddie Mac until this month, confirmed that the event took place.

A Freddie Mac executive said that as the event was being planned, and organizers were looking for a speaker from each party, “People at the office were saying, ‘Well, we have Rick Davis on contract and we never use him for anything. Why don’t we at least get him up here to talk like he knows what’s going on in the campaigns?”

It was not unusual for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to have well-connected people from both parties on their payrolls, but doing little work, in the high-flying days. The purpose, people who worked at the companies said, was bipartisan insurance against new regulations or loss of the implicit government guarantee, which seemed at risk during both the Clinton and current Bush administrations.

At least two other people associated with Mr. McCain have ties to either Freddie Mac. The lobbying firm of the Republican that Mr. McCain has enlisted to plan his transition to the White House should he be elected, William Timmons Sr., earned nearly $3 million from Freddie Mac between 2000 and its seizure, federal lobbying records show. Mr. Timmons is founder of Timmons & Co., one of Washington’s best-known lobbying shops. The payments were first reported by Bloomberg News.

Mark Buse, Mr. McCain’s chief of staff for his Senate office, also is a Freddie Mac alumnus. He and his former lobbying employer, ML Strategies, registered to lobby for the company in July 2003, and received $460,000 before the association ended after 2004.

Mr. McCain and his advisers have argued that whatever connections Mr. Davis and other McCain campaign officials have had to the mortgage giants, Mr. McCain in the Senate has been an advocate for reforming them. And they have suggested that Mr. Obama is linked to the companies through donations from their employees ties to former officials there, including James Johnson, another former chief executive of Fannie Mae who was the head of Mr. Obama’s vice presidential search team until stepping aside after coming under criticism for getting a mortgage on favorable terms.

In an interview Tuesday with conservative talk-radio host Neal Boortz, Mr. McCain said, “I remember warning at that time that Fannie and Freddie were out of control and that they needed to be reined in. And, frankly, I warned that this kind of thing could lead to serious problems. Now, in full disclosure, I didn’t foresee something this huge, but certainly I saw the fundamentals there for serious problems when you have a quasi government agency acting the way they did.”

When Mr. Boortz noted approvingly that Mr. McCain had co-sponsored a Senate bill to mandate new regulations, Mr. McCain said, “I remember it very well.”

But a Freddie Mac official said Mr. McCain “never took on the role that some other Republicans did” to try to limit the companies. He named instead Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, all of whom were on the banking committee during recent years. “I remember working against a number of amendments and they were always introduced by Hagel and Sununu. John McCain was never anywhere to be found.”

A check of the records for the legislation that Mr. Boortz mentioned shows that Senator Hagel was the original sponsor on Jan. 26, 2005, and Senators Sununu and Dole were co-sponsors then. Mr. McCain did not sign on as a co-sponsor for more than a year, on May 25, 2006.

Bail Out Proposal Qualms

Marcia — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:17:43 EDT

This is an excerpt from the NY Times.com website. Legitimate and serious doubts. Response to the crisis is being determined by the current Congress, so our opinions are best expressed (quickly) to our elected Senators and Representatives.

It would be a very good idea for Congress to stay in session the extra time it takes to figure out a workable bill.

If you, like me, can't grasp $700 Billion, think of it as $2000 from every American. Or maybe more than that from every younger American who will actually have to pay down the national debt at some future time. Supposing that a financial rescue is necessary, what kind of rescue will actually work, and work best for all of us - the best value for our money?

By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: September 21, 2008

Some skeptics are calling Henry Paulson’s $700 billion rescue plan for the U.S. financial system “cash for trash.” Others are calling the proposed legislation the Authorization for Use of Financial Force, after the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the infamous bill that gave the Bush administration the green light to invade Iraq.

There’s justice in the gibes. Everyone agrees that something major must be done. But Mr. Paulson is demanding extraordinary power for himself — and for his successor — to deploy taxpayers’ money on behalf of a plan that, as far as I can see, doesn’t make sense.

Some are saying that we should simply trust Mr. Paulson, because he’s a smart guy who knows what he’s doing. But that’s only half true: he is a smart guy, but what, exactly, in the experience of the past year and a half — a period during which Mr. Paulson repeatedly declared the financial crisis “contained,” and then offered a series of unsuccessful fixes — justifies the belief that he knows what he’s doing? He’s making it up as he goes along, just like the rest of us.

So let’s try to think this through for ourselves. I have a four-step view of the financial crisis:

1. The bursting of the housing bubble has led to a surge in defaults and foreclosures, which in turn has led to a plunge in the prices of mortgage-backed securities — assets whose value ultimately comes from mortgage payments.

2. These financial losses have left many financial institutions with too little capital — too few assets compared with their debt. This problem is especially severe because everyone took on so much debt during the bubble years.

3. Because financial institutions have too little capital relative to their debt, they haven’t been able or willing to provide the credit the economy needs.

4. Financial institutions have been trying to pay down their debt by selling assets, including those mortgage-backed securities, but this drives asset prices down and makes their financial position even worse. This vicious circle is what some call the “paradox of deleveraging.”

The Paulson plan calls for the federal government to buy up $700 billion worth of troubled assets, mainly mortgage-backed securities. How does this resolve the crisis?

Well, it might — might — break the vicious circle of deleveraging, step 4 in my capsule description. Even that isn’t clear: the prices of many assets, not just those the Treasury proposes to buy, are under pressure. And even if the vicious circle is limited, the financial system will still be crippled by inadequate capital.

Or rather, it will be crippled by inadequate capital unless the federal government hugely overpays for the assets it buys, giving financial firms — and their stockholders and executives — a giant windfall at taxpayer expense. Did I mention that I’m not happy with this plan?

The logic of the crisis seems to call for an intervention, not at step 4, but at step 2: the financial system needs more capital. And if the government is going to provide capital to financial firms, it should get what people who provide capital are entitled to — a share in ownership, so that all the gains if the rescue plan works don’t go to the people who made the mess in the first place.

That’s what happened in the savings and loan crisis: the feds took over ownership of the bad banks, not just their bad assets. It’s also what happened with Fannie and Freddie. (And by the way, that rescue has done what it was supposed to. Mortgage interest rates have come down sharply since the federal takeover.)

..... (Op Ed continues)

No Laughing Matter

Craig from Houston, TX — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:12:46 EDT

No, Friedman is not always correct but lately the drum he is beating needs to be heard by far more people and those POLITICIANS in WASHINGTON especially.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21friedman.html?ref=opinion

---------

OP-ED COLUMNIST

No Laughing Matter

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: September 20, 2008

Of all the points raised by different analysts about the economy last week, surely the best was Representative Barney Frank’s reminder on “Charlie Rose” that Ronald Reagan’s favorite laugh line was telling audiences that: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’ ”

Hah, hah, hah.

Are you still laughing? If it weren’t for the government bailing out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and A.I.G., and rescuing people from Hurricane Ike and pumping tons of liquidity into the banking system, our economy would be a shambles. How would you like to hear the line today: “I’m from the government, and I can’t do a darn thing for you.”

In this age of globalization, government matters more than ever. Smart, fiscally strong governments are the ones best able to empower their people to compete and win. I was just in Michigan to give a talk on energy. I can’t tell you how many business cards I collected from innovators who had either started renewable-energy companies or were working for big firms, like the Dow Chemical Company, on clean energy solutions.

It just reminded me how much innovative prowess and entrepreneurial energy is exploding from below in this country. If it were channeled and enhanced by better leadership in Washington, no one could touch us.

If I were to draw a picture of America today, it would be of the space shuttle taking off. There is all this thrust coming from below. But the booster rocket — Washington — is cracked and leaking energy, and the pilots in the cockpit are fighting over the flight plan. So we can’t achieve escape velocity to enter the next orbit — the next great industrial revolution, which is going to be E.T., energy technology.

In many ways, this election is about how we get our groove back as a country. We have been living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. President Bush has nothing to offer anymore. So that leaves us with Barack Obama and John McCain. Neither has wowed me with his reaction to the market turmoil. In fairness, though, neither man has any levers of power to pull. But what could they say that would give you confidence that they could lead us out of this rut? My test is simple: Which guy can tell people what they don’t want to hear — especially his own base.

Think how much better off McCain would be today had he nominated Michael Bloomberg as his vice president rather than Sarah Palin. McCain could have said, “I’m not an expert on markets, but I’ve got one of the best on my team.” Instead of a V.P. to re-energize America, McCain went for a V.P. to re-energize the Republican base.

So what would get my attention from McCain? If he said the following: “My fellow Americans, I’ve decided for now not to continue the Bush tax cuts, because the most important thing for our country today is to get the government’s balance sheet in order. We can’t go on cutting taxes and not cutting spending. For too long my party has indulged that nonsense. Second, I intend to have most U.S. troops out of Iraq in 24 months. We have done all we can to midwife democracy there. Iraqis need to take it from here. We need every dollar now for nation-building in America. We will do everything we can to wind down our presence and facilitate the Iraqi elections, but we’re not going to baby-sit Iraqi politicians who don’t have the will or the courage to reconcile their differences — unless they want to pay us for that. In America, baby sitters get paid.”

What would impress me from Obama? How about this: “The Big Three automakers and the United Auto Workers union want a Washington bailout. The only way they will get a dime out of my administration is if the automakers and unions come up with a joint plan to retool their fleets to get an average of 40 miles per gallon by 2015 — instead of the 35 m.p.g. by 2020 that they’ve reluctantly accepted. I am not going to bail out Detroit with taxpayer money, but I will invest in Detroit’s transformation with taxpayer money, provided the management and unions agree to radical change. At the same time, while I will go along with the bailout of the banking system, it will only be on the condition that the institutions that got us into this mess accept sweeping reforms — in terms of transparency and limits on the leverage they can amass — so we don’t go through something like this again. To help me figure this out, I’m going to keep Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson on the job for a while. I am impressed with his handling of this crisis.”

Those are the kind of words that would get my attention. The last president who challenged his base was Bill Clinton, when he reformed welfare and created a budget surplus with a fair and equitable tax program. George W. Bush never once — not one time — challenged Americans to do anything hard, let alone great. The next president is not going to have that luxury. He will have to ask everyone to do something hard — and I want to know now who is up to that task.

A version of this article appeared in print on September 21, 2008, on page WK11 of the New York edition.

Start Cramming

Patricia Miller — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:07:21 EDT

If you haven't read Frank Rich's column in Sunday's New York Times (or, for that matter, his previous Sunday columns of the last year or two), get a strong cup of coffee and start cramming. Few writing today cut through the fog of politics with more precision, or provide more clarity on what's at stake in this election, or offer a more accurate compass for the direction Barack's campaign should be going. Frank Rich does not suffer fools and he has much to teach the rest of America on the subject. When he takes a week off, there is a palpable vaccuum.

Every Sunday morning his column is the very first thing I take in with my coffee, before reading the front page or any other column, and I recommend that you do the same if you want to clear the week's cobwebs out of your brain.

Before going out to fight for the soul of this country, arm yourself with a clear head courtesy of Frank.

Americans Believe Obama Most Likely to Deliver Change, Share Values, & Improve Global Standing

Deborah Simmel — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:16:39 EDT

A new New York Times/CBS News poll shows the Republicans' convention bounce has receded, and more people name Senator Obama as the candidate most likely to bring about change in Washington, more likely to share their values, and most likely to improve our nation's relations with foreign countries.

(Can we say a collective "I told you so"?)

Enjoy on your own: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/us/politics/19pollcnd.html?adxnnl=1&fta=y&adxnnlx=1221908420-6aZBOvBMDj2EOEqTEzx4Zw

Another McCain-Palin Lie: Their Health Coverage Plan Has Nothing To Do With Health Or Coverage.

Charley James — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:11:41 EDT

Countdown’s Keith Olbermann is donating $100 to charity for every lie told by or on behalf of John McCain and Sarah Palin during the campaign. McCain invented the Blackberry? $100. Palin says she’ll help special needs kids but neglects to mention that she vetoed $250,000 for the Special Olympics? Another $100 from Keith. Every day seems to cost him another $100.

But this particular lie is so huge it ought to cost Olbermann a bundle because it’s worth a lot more than $100.

In late April, McCain rolled out what he called a universal health care plan which, it turns out, offers neither a health plan nor universal coverage. Instead, McCain’s approach should be dubbed “The Health Insurance Industry Relief Act” because it is a not-so-carefully disguised money grab, moving cash from the wallets of already hard-stretched working people to line the pockets of wealthy insurers.

The mainstream media hasn’t bothered going to McCain’s website to read the down-and-dirty of another of his “You get sick, my pals get rich” scheme. But New York Times columnist Bob Hebert finally did, prompting him to ask on Tuesday, “Has anyone bothered to notice the radical changes that John McCain and Sarah Palin are planning for the nation’s health insurance system?”

Apparently not, because no one seems to notice that McCain wants to require workers to pay taxes on the value of the health benefits paid by their employers. Say what? That’s right: Employees will not only continue to pay part of escalating premiums, but also a tax on the benefits. In return, McCain would give families a $5,000 tax credit, and individuals a $2,500 credit, to lure them out of employer plans and into the individual insurance market. McCain and Palin – both of whom are covered by lush government plans – hope people will forget that premiums are super high and scrutiny of health conditions is super tough for individual health policies in the private market.

As a result, in not reporting what the McCain-Palin plan is, the news media hasn’t mentioned that, for most people, the tax credit won’t buy much coverage given sky high premiums. Nor have reporters written about the fact that the plan is worth a lot more to younger workers, who don’t get sick, than older ones who are more likely to get ill and thus pay more because of their age. More critically, nowhere other than Hebert’s column has anyone realized that the McCain-Palin approach would eventually destroy employer-based coverage.

Herbert then connects the consequences of destroying the employer market with McCain’s plans for the individual market, writing that McCain wants “to undermine state health insurance regulations by allowing consumers to buy insurance from sellers anywhere in the country.” Allowing insurers to cross state lines will not lower insurance premiums but it will eliminate valuable protections many states give their residents in regulating insurance companies.

A study published in the health policy journal Health Affairs explains in detail what is likely to happen with McCain’s approach. Its conclusions: The number of people without health insurance will actually grow over time and increase a family’s costs for medical care.

This is just the opposite of what we’ve heard from McCain and it should cost Keith Olbermann another $100 donation to charity. Maybe editors, producers and reporters finally will take notice – but I doubt it.

McCain's Health Plan

Jeff Hoffman — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:50:23 EDT

From an OP Ed piece in the NY Times (bob Herbert): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?ref=opinion

"For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on.

“It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are going to have to pay taxes on that money,” said Sherry Glied, an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health."

As Herbert points out in the piece, the idea is to force people out of their employer-based healthcare plans and into the "free marketplace"--that great wide-open heartland where the market forces create a utopian of wholesomeness and fairness.

Palin

Jeff Hoffman — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:32:25 EDT

Here's a quote from a NY Times Op Ed post by David Brook's--

"Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."

And Brooks is a conservative! To read his entire Op Ed piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?ref=opinion

Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

Bullekat — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:39:04 EDT

Another must read!

New York Times article "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=politics

By JO BECKER, PETER S. GOODMAN AND MICHAEL POWELL
Published: September 13, 2008

Ms. September

Meghan from New York, NY — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:05:21 EDT

That's how some English press refer to Palin.

Just read the New York Times article: In Office, Palin Hires Friends, Hits Critics. It's astonishing (worse than I could have imagined).

The Obama campaign has handled an exceptionally repugnant campaign extremely well (though I still wish they'd borrow from the Daily Show to attack with humor- contradicting montages).

I will be extremely proud to vote in November and even more so to hear President-elect Obama's acceptance speech.

GObama!

Huffington Post reporting: NYT slams Spiro T. Palin

Martin Edwin "Mick" from Churchton, MD — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:13:36 EDT

PAGE 1 NY TIMES
PALIN’S RECORD AS MAYOR OF WASILLA AND 2 YEARS AS GOVERNOR

Personal

Vendettas... Censorship... Cronyism...
Secrecy And Lying...

Letters to CNN, #6 and #7

CentralCoastCarol — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:04:53 EDT

Sept. 10, 2008

To all CNN journalists and news producers, #6

Big kudos to Campbell Brown and staff of the Election Center for tonight’s program. It was exhilarating to watch the factual content of your program on so many fronts. Kudos to Campbell for interrupting one partisan commentator (former press secretary to Newt Gingrich) when he tried to answer a question by ducking it and talking about something somebody in South Carolina did. Kudos to Randi Kaye for a more in-depth look at Palin’s record as Mayor and Governor.

Keep the facts coming!

Respectfully,

Carol Benham

Sept. 11, 2008

To CNN Journalists and news producers, #7

No more lipstick stories, please, or any other phony charges of outrage over imagined and nonsensical slights. Let’s get back to the issues and report facts about the record of Gov. Sarah Palin. There’s so much we need to know about Gov. Palin’s record and performance in office. How about investigating and reporting on these issues:

The Wall St. Journal has reported on issues and problems with the building of the sports complex she championed: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905483.html

The New York Times (and others) have reported on her unusual practice of claiming per diem while working at home as Governor: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/politics/10billing.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

ABC News has run investigative pieces on Palin’s firing of the city librarian after inquiring about the librarian’s views on censorship. Palin rescinded the dismissal only after a public outcry. There was no list of books to be banned, but taken in context, the firing of the librarian is a telling story: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5766173&page=1

ABC News has reported on Palin’s firing of the Wasilla police chief and why he says he was fired: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5713866&page=1

The Associated Press has reported that a judged warned the Palin family three years ago not to disparage her sister’s ex-husband. As we all know, the Palin family and staff did anyway and brought pressure to bear on the Public Safety Commissioner to fire the trooper.

Gov. Palin, after promising complete cooperation with the Legislative inquiry into the possible abuse of her office regarding attempts to pressure the Public Safety Commissioner to fire her sister’s ex-husband, is now fighting the inquiry, claiming the Legislature has no jurisdiction. This seems like a blatant attempt to slow the process down until after the election.

Reported by a veterans organization, Palin’s promotion of Alaska National Guard commander smells like old-fashioned bribery: http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1869

Gov. Palin’s attempt to stop the federal government from placing polar bears on the endangered species act

Gov. Palin’s support of aerial hunting for wolves, and a rumored offer she made to give $150 to each hunter that brought in a right foreleg of a wolf.

I count on CNN for facts and news, delivered without bias. Don’t let these diversionary tactics about personal slights, real or imagined, keep us from learning the facts in the days remaining before Americans vote.

Respectfully,

Carol Benham

Palin and McCain, lies and distortion.

Michael Oakes — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:53:13 EDT

Here's Newsweek's fact check on the convention speeches:http://www.newsweek.com/id/157206?tid=relatedclHi,This is a response to an e-mail forwarde by a family member, purpoting to show a NYT article by Mareen Dowd showing Obama was funded by Saudi's and Iranian's. It was a smear of course. I want to thank you for engaging in this discussion. I'm learning a lot. Here's the real scoop.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_funds.htm

Comments: New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd did not write this article. Not only does it not appear on her list of published columns, she has also denied being its author. "The line about it being the 'most shocking revelation,' I don't think I've ever said those words, except in a satire," Dowd said in a statement to the Huffington Post. "Also, it is about money, which I never write about."

Beyond that, the text is riddled with errors and falsehoods. I found no record of anyone in the Obama campaign stating that the average individual contribution amounts to between $10 and $25 (in fact, the stated average is around $100). Nor have there been any public revelations (apart from the unsupported allegations in this anonymous email) to the effect that "security people" (whoever they might be) have raised alarms about contributions flowing into the campaign from overseas. Obama's website states that no donations are accepted from foreign nationals, and all online contributors are required to certify that they are U.S. citizens.

This is in line with federal laws stipulating that foreigners may not contribute to U.S. political campaigns and prohibiting finance committees from "knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving" such funds.

Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Where to begin? For starters, the average Obama contribution has been around $100, not $15. The campaign, by law, must disclose all donors who have given over $200. And, most obviously, a review of the paper of record shows that Dowd's column on June 29 was not on Obama fundraising but rather Hillary Clinton supporters.

Dowd herself found the email an exercise in absurdity, not to mention -- quite possibly -- the first time she's been indirectly involved in a smear campaign.

"The line about it being the 'most shocking revelation,' I don't think I've ever said those words, except in a satire. Also, it is about money, which I never write about," she told the Huffington Post. "Sometime you try and protest things you hear about, but sometimes it's just not worth it... It is hard to track down and control these things, and anyone who reads my column knows that this wasn't me. I got to the second line and I knew it wasn't me."

The Obama campaign, as is now its practice, addressed the fake Dowd column in a post today on its website, Fight the Smears. But sometimes it's worth noting just how outrageous and offensive -- both to Obama and the public's intelligence -- these attacks can be.

Smear campaigns have been a big part of politics for some time. Unfortunately, Right Wing Republican's have taken it to new heights with the combined power of the internet, the media, and the Government. I've found it difficult to cut through, but luckily the Democrats are trying, having learned from the past. It is sad that whole groups of American's have to be engaged in exposing wild lies and distortions instead of discussing real issues, but here's a link to Sen. Obama's official site. I find the pages on the issues and policies much more interesting, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/, but if you are one likely to be swayed by smears, this may help you separate the wheat from the chaff. There is an update specifically on the "Fake Maureen Dowd Column" (I couldn't open it but hopefully you can. I gather it was a fabrication) Apparently, e-mails full of lies are par for the course. I hope you can turn some of the indignation you feel towards Sen. Obama when you read these scurrilous smears and rumors, into righteous indignation toward those who spread them and subvert our democracy with propaganda worthy of Goebbels. After all, they are the same ones who smeared presidential candidates and Vietnam Vets Al Gore and John Kerry, and oh yes, John McCain. (Remember the "McCain fathered a child with a black women" lie sent out during the 2000 Republican primary in the south?)http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshomeandhttp://factcheck.barackobama.com/

Well, we're sure you were moved greatly by the speeches at the GOP convention. So was I. I can see clearly the appeal. After the last 8 years, even other Republican's look good. These ones have served their country, or have children who have or will, and I honor that. They would bring unique life experiences to the White House, including Mrs. McCain.

Unfortunately, they would also bring much of the same failed policies concerning our economy, taxes, energy, the war in Iraq, war with Iran, education and the environment. So take some of Gov. Palin's own advice and don't be swayed by what she herself belittles a "pretty speeches". Especially ones that focus so little on issues and policy. Especially ones, like hers, largely written by Bush speech writers and filled with the same old lies, distortions, and divisive rhetoric. Her main point seemed to be, trust me, I'm an good, honest, family person who will bring Christian integrity to the office. How could she then, in her first real address to the American people, lie about her own record, and Sen. Obama's? I was astounded that she repeated the sound bite, "I told Congress "thanks but no thanks" for the "bridge to nowhere", and said if we're going to build a bridge, we'll pay for it ourselves." Big cheers; isn't she gutsy, honest, and a reformer? The facts are that only two years ago, she ran for Governor on the slogan, "Build the Bridge", and as Tom Brokow reported, only suspended the project when Congress said the state would have to pick up the tab! And of course her unprecedented actions as Mayor to hire a Washington lobbyist and get her small town $25 million in Federal earmarks. Sen. McCain again emphasized that he would veto earmarks, and "Call out the names of those who sponsor them, and make them famous!" It seems he should start by calling out the name Sarah Palin. Though McCain is ten times the man Bush was, his policies are nearly identical. Unfortunately the lessons he learned from the suffering of war seem to be that you must keep fighting every war, no matter how ill conceived, hopeless, endless, costly, immoral and bloody. Not every patriot can support our country giving so much of our resources to military contractors for immoral wars and the endless occupation of an oil rich nation. Not every patriot supports passing a bankrupt government on to the next generation, which McCain sais he cares so much about. Not every patriot thinks it is honorable to never mention the 1.2 million Iraqi lives we've taken; the innocent civilian children, women, elderly we've killed, imprisoned, tortured and raped. While his own suffering was on display, he showed no compassion for the innocent victims of a war built on lies. And despite the image created by his well crafted and heart felt speech, his reputation and record are full of true examples of his hot headed temperament, unstatesmanlike comments, shoot from the hip decisions, and poor judgment. From opposing the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, to supporting George Bush against fellow decorated Vietnam Vet, Sen. Kerry, to peddling his influence as a Senator as one of the notorious Keating 5, to supporting this misguided war in Iraq from its ignominious inception through today, to clearly indicating his militaristic world view with statements like, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.", 'We may have to stay in Iraq 100, 1000, even 10,000 years." And, "There will be many more wars for us to fight." It has been said, you can't work for peace while preparing for war. I know the macho, jingoistic slogan of coming from a position of strength. But does not power corrupt. Much of the world has seen America as a bully, an imperialist, militaristic, murderers, and a Great Satan. They don't feel this way because we fought a revolution for human freedom, because we fought each other for liberation, because we fought fascism in WW ll, because we fought totalitarian communist regimes, or even because we fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The human heart knows when a fight is just. The world and history revile us when we use our power unnecessarily, un-wisely, callously. When we hypocritically speak of keeping the world safe for democracy, and prop up dictators. When we get bogged down in foreign Civil wars and proxy wars that lead us to commit atrocities and near genocide on civilian populations: like the millions killed in Vietnam, Korea, South America, and Iraq. All these mis-adventures, John McCain supported, and still supports. These failed, militaristic policies have not only reeked untold misery on humanity, they have stained our flag with innocent blood and hurt our countries standing in the world. Peace through war has never worked. The best examples of peaceful change for human kind are non-violent; Jesus, Buddha, Schweitzer, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Dr. King, the Dalai Lama. Barak Obama has demonstrated, certainly not the pacifism of a saint, but at least the wisdom and judgment of a statesman to know when and where, and who, and why to fight. This is the leadership our country needs now. This is the hope the people of the world now anticipate: an America that inspires, instead of dominates them. This is change that Sen. McCain, this wounded warrior from a military lineage, simply cannot muster. As John Adams said, "I practice war so my children can practice politics, and my grandchildren can practice music."But getting away from those personality/judgment/temperament considerations, it is his policies and platform that should concern us all most. Here is a link to Sen. Obama's detailed policies. This is the nuts and bolts of what he means by change.http://www.barackobama.com/issues/On the economy, precious little was said. Maybe that's because as McCain himself said, "The economy's not my strong point." Palin let herself be used as a mouthpiece to dissemble Sen. Obama's tax plan. "How are the fisherman, and the teacher, and the truck driver going to be helped by Sen. Obama's increased tax burden?", she went on and on. Well, they'll be helped because their tax burden would go down, and Bush's record tax cuts to the wealthiest people and corporations in the country would be eliminated, moving more of the burden back to those who can most afford it. McCain supported Bush's tax plan and unbridled military spending, and plans to continue it. The plan which in 8 years has taken America from the largest surplus in history, to the greatest debtor on earth. What's patriotic about that? McCain pledges to continue the greatest redistribution of wealth to the top in our nation's history, while millions of families are fighting for their homes. He'll do little to address the 45 million uninsured Americans. How's that fighting for his fellow American's, for the average Joe? He and Gov. Palin have an out dated oil centered energy policy that will lead us away from a sustainable future, be a disaster for our environment, and have virtually no impact on our energy needs. That means it's going to leave us in the same boat, still dependent on foreign oil for 97% of our demand. They give only lip service to the renewable alternatives that should be the center of a sustainable energy policy. They seem unable to reconcile the concepts of energy independence, sustainable economic development, environment, and Global Climate Change. They emphasize only the evils of foreign oil, and ignore the incontrovertible evidence and dire consequences of Global Warming, and the need to break our addiction to oil, period. This energy policy out oils Bush/Cheney. Sen. Obama has set a goal of energy independence in 10 years, with a focus on building a clean economy. Hardly "doing nothing", he has a detailed plan, widely supported by experts.And that's the problem with the Republican platform and policies for years. Rhetoric about small government, and unlimited spending. Acting like good old boys, reformers, and Hokey mom's, while taking millions from Political Action Committees, and Big Oil. Evoking FDR, Truman, and Kennedy, while dismantling the social safety net they strived to create: Social Security, Public Schools, worker protections, the right to organize, universal health care. Perpetuating tax breaks for the wealthiest, while driving millions into poverty. Crying out for de-regulation, even as we bail out Wall Street and Banks gone under due to de-regulation. Where's the change there?Showing no understanding that protecting our Environment is an economic, human health, and ethical necessity. No sense that clean water and air, healthy food and land, flourishing forests and diverse communities of life, are the birth right of every child. Stuck in the outdated and false dichotomy of ecology vs. economy. Still blind to what many big businesses and governments alike can see; that pollution equals waste, that green means efficient, that those nations and companies leading the way to sustainable development will win in the Global economy. With so much talk about leaving the world a better place, Palin and McCain literally smirk at someone trying to "Save the planet." No change there either.John McCain certainly fought for our country. Gov. Palin may be sincere in her convictions. On almost every issue important to our nation's future, they proudly proclaim that they are ready to lead, but in the wrong direction. They will perpetuate the hold on power and the failed policies of a Republican Party rank with corruption. Their policies have and continue to do great harm to the country we all love. From the unnecessary loss of innocent lives in an immoral war, to an unlevel playing field where the rich get richer and the poor get shafted, to the hypocrisy of calling for Change in Washington, while employing the same old partisan attacks, lies, and smears. Saying you've taken on Big Oil, when you are sponsored by them. The cynical choreography of having someone else make the false attacks and smears, while the candidate assumes an air of statesmanship. This is exactly the Bush/Cheney/Rove model. So, what else is new? The question is, will we fall for it yet again. The other major theme of all the speeches was the Sen. Obama has no accomplishments. Gov. Palin said "Here's a man whose never passed a single piece of legislation or even a reform." Here's a sample of Sen. Obama's record; you decide if Gov. Palin and the Republican's were "Talking straight":March 08, 2008Fact Check on Story that Minimizes Obama's Senate Accomplishments

REALITY: Obama Has Passed Several Important Laws In The Senate, Including Legislation To Prevent Terrorists From Obtaining WMDs, Increasing U.S. Investment In Alternative Energy, And Improving Services For Our Troops And Veterans

ETHICS/TRANSPARENCY

Obama Was A Key Player In Assembling And Passing The 2007 Ethics Reform Law, Which Curbed The Influence Of Lobbyists And Was Described As The "Most Sweeping Since Watergate." In the first week of the 110th Congress, Obama joined with Senator Feingold to introduce a "Gold Standard" ethics package. Many of the Obama/Feingold bill's most important provisions were included in the final ethics reform package passed by the Senate in late January: a full ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists including those paid by the firms that employ lobbyists; an end to subsidized travel on corporate jets; full disclosure of who's sponsoring earmarks and for what purpose; additional restrictions to close the revolving door between public service and lobbying to ensure that public service isn't all about lining up a high-paying lobbying job; and requiring lobbyists to disclose the contributions that they "bundle" - that is, collect or arrange - for members of Congress, candidates, and party committees. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial that "...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package." In September 2007, the AP reported, "President Bush signed a bill Friday that will require lawmakers to disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a measure that backers call the biggest ethics reform in decades...Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. who had pushed for the bundling provisions..." [S. 230, 110th Congress; S.1, Became Public Law 109-110-81, 9/14/07; AP, 9/15/07; Washington Post, Editorial, 1/21/07]

Obama Passed A Bill Creating A "Google-like" Database For The Public To Search Details About Federal Funding Awards. In 2006, Obama was an original cosponsor of a bill to create a "Google-like" database of information on federal spending. The bill requires the OMB by January 1, 2008, to make available to the public a searchable, free website that includes the (1) amount; (2) transaction type; (3) funding agency; (4) North American Industry Classification System code or Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number; (5) program source; (6) an award title descriptive of the purpose of each funding action; (7) the name and location of the recipient and the primary location of performance; and (8) a unique identifier of the recipient and any parent entity. The site must allow users to conduct separate searches that distinguish between awards that are grants, sub-grants, loans, cooperative agreements, and other forms of financial assistance and awards that are contracts, subcontracts, purchase orders, task orders, and delivery orders. [S. 2590, Passed by Unanimous Consent, 9/7/06; Became PL 109-282, 9/26/06] SEE THE DATABASE HERE

Obama Passed Into Law Legislation Requiring Lobbyists To Disclose Their Bundling Activity, Making Him Unpopular Even Among Other Democrats. Obama sponsored an amendment to require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged. The amendment was passed by unanimous consent and attached to the Senate ethics bill, which was signed into law on September 15, 2007. The New York Times wrote, "The disclosure idea's lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama... 'has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks,' said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill." [S. Amdt. 41 to S. 1, S. Amdt. 3, Submitted 1/11/07, Agreed to By Unanimous Consent, 1/18/07; S. 1, Signed into Law 9/14/07; New York Times, 1/20/07; CQ, 9/15/07]

FOREIGN POLICY

Obama Passed Law Requiring Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction Strategy To Secure Weapons And Usable Nuclear Material. "Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced that a provision authored by Obama and Senator Hagel (R-NE) in the Senate and advanced by Schiff in the House requiring a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan passed as part of the omnibus appropriations bill. This provision requires the President to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 from the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose. The Senate passed the omnibus appropriations bill last night and the House approved the same bill today. It will now be sent to the President to be signed into law…The Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction provision requires the President to develop a strategy that will: ensure that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 against the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose; ensure adequate accounting and security for such materials on an ongoing basis thereafter; include a plan for expanding the financial support and other assistance provided by other countries, particularly Russia, the European Union and its member states, China and Japan, for the purposes of securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material worldwide; and outline the progress in and impediments to securing an agreement from all countries that possess nuclear weapons or weapons-usable material on a set of global nuclear security standards, consistent with their obligation to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540." [Obama Press Release, 12/20/07]

Obama Passed Legislation To Keep Weapons Of Mass Destruction Out Of The Hands Of Terrorists. In 2006, Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. The legislation was included in an appropriations bill that was later signed into law by the president. [Congress, S. 2566, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 456, 5/25/06; Provisions included in H.R. 6060/P.L. 109-706]

Obama Passed Law to Promote Relief, Security, and Democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In 2005, Obama sponsored the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006. The bill would set forth specified U.S. political, social, civil, and economic policy objectives (policy objectives) with respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and obligated a specified minimum amount of foreign assistance funding for FY2006-FY2007. [S.2125, 12/16/05, Become Public Law No: 109-456, 12/22/06]

HEALTH CARE

Obama Passed An Amendment Into Law That Pressured The EPA to Comply With New Lead-Paint Regulations After Seven Years of Delay. In 2005, Obama passed an amendment, which became law, to the FY 2006 Department of Interior Appropriations Act prohibiting the use of funds in the bill to delay or contravene implementation of an existing but unmet statutory requirement passed by Congress in 1992 that the EPA rewrite regulations on dispersal of lead paint by home remodeling contractors by October 1996. As of July 2005, the regulations still had not been written. Weeks after Obama’s amendment passed the Senate, Obama received commitments in writing and during a Senate hearing that the EPA would comply with the law. According to an Obama press release, "In 1992, Congress required the EPA to write regulations relating to the dispersal of lead paint by contractors during home remodeling by October, 1996. As of July 2005, these regulations still have not been written. In April, Administrator Johnson stated that to address the problem of lead paint poisoning, the EPA ‘will determine what additional steps may be necessary, including regulation’ despite the fact that the 1992 law does not say the regulations are optional." [SA 1061 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent, 6/28/05, Obama Press Release, 7/25/05; H.R. 2361, Became Public Law No: 109-54, 8/2/05]

EPA Finally Published Nine-Years-Overdue Proposal For Lead Paint Regulations Four Months After Obama Passed Legislation And Held Up EPA Nominations. Building Products wrote, "The EPA recently published long-overdue proposed regulations that affect contractors working on older houses that contain lead-based paints. The regulations, if adopted, would require that contractors be trained in lead-safe work practices and be certified by the EPA. The rules also would impose protective standards for those working on houses with lead paint. In 1992, Congress directed the EPA to write regulations that would limit lead paint pollution during home remodeling by October 1996. By last summer, with no sign of the new regulations, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-III., introduced more legislation designed to encourage the EPA to publish the rules. When that didn't work, Obama announced in the fall that he would block the appointment of every nominee to top EPA jobs until the agency produced the new rules. The EPA finally announced the proposed regulations Dec. 29, 2005." [Building Products, March-April, 2006]

Obama Passed A Law Requiring The Defense Secretary To Report On The Pentagon's Efforts To Prepare For Military And Civilian Personnel For A Possible Influenza Outbreak. In 2006, Obama sponsored an amendment to the FY 2006 Defense Authorization Act that required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the Pentagon's efforts to prepare for pandemic influenza, including pandemic avian influenza, including status on the procurement of vaccines, public health containment measures that could be implemented on military bases and other facilities; surge capacity for the provision of medical care during pandemics; surveillance efforts domestically and internationally and how such efforts are integrated with other ongoing surveillance systems; the integration of pandemic and response planning with those of other Federal departments; collaboration (as appropriate) with international entities engaged in pandemic preparedness and response. [SA 1453 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent, 11/18/05; S. 1042/H.R. 1815, Became Public Law No: 109-163]

Obama Passed Legislation Providing $25 Million In Funding For Avian Flu Research And Containment Efforts By U.S. Agencies In South East Asia. "The amendment calls for greater investment in our preparedness efforts by providing more than $3 billion to build a stockpile of antiviral drugs and necessary medical supplies...Obama first introduced legislation in April requiring the United States to stockpile antiviral drugs...In May, Obama worked with a bipartisan group of Senators to appropriate the $25 million called for in the Foreign Assistance Act authorization bill. This money is currently being used by U.S. agencies in South East Asia to combat and contain possible outbreaks of avian flu." [Obama Press Release, 1/12/07]

ENERGY

Obama Passed Legislation Creating A Tax Credit For The Installation Of E-85 Fuel Pumps. In 2005, Obama introduced legislation that provided a tax credit for up to 50% of the cost of installing an E-85 pump. Obama passed the tax credit as an amendment to the 2005 transportation bill. The amendment was not included in the final version of the bill but was signed into law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The AP reported, "Under the provision, gas stations would get a tax credit to install equipment accommodating E-85 - an ethanol-based fuel alternative that its promoters say is up to 50 cents cheaper per gallon than unleaded gasoline. The credit would cover 30 percent of the installation costs at a given station up to $30,000...Freshman Sen. Barack Obama introduced the tax-credit measure in the Senate in the spring, and it was co-sponsored by Illinois' other Democratic senator, Dick Durbin. Obama also worked for the credit's inclusion in the energy bill as one of the conferees preparing the Senate-House conference committee report..." [AP, 7/27/05; H.R. 6, Became Public Law No: 109-58; S. 918, 109th Congress; SA 670 agreed to, 5/12/05; H.R. 6, Became Public Law No: 109-58; S. 918, Referred to the Committee On Environment and Public Works]

Obama Passed An Amendment Into Law To Fund Research For Hybrid/Flex Fuel Vehicles. In 2005, Obama sponsored an amendment, which was signed into law, to the Energy Policy Act that established an applied research program to improve technologies for the commercialization of a combination hybrid/flexible fuel vehicle; or a plug-in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicle. The program would provide grants with preference to proposals that achieve the greatest reduction in miles per gallon of petroleum fuel consumption, achieve not less than 250 miles per gallon of petroleum fuel consumption and have the greatest potential of commercialization to the general public within 5 years. [SA 851 to HR 6, Passed by Unanimous Consent, 6/23/05; H.R. 6, Became Public Law No: 109-58]

EDUCATION

Obama Passed Legislation Into Law Making Black Colleges Eligible For $15 Million In Federal Funding. In 2007, Obama introduced legislation that would make a predominantly black institution eligible for federal grant money. The legislation was written into the "The bill would define a PBI as a college of at least 1,000 undergraduates in which Blacks represent 40 percent or more of the student body. At least half of all undergraduates also must be low-income or first-generation students. The legislation would provide a minimum grant of $250,000. Jackson, another NAFEO board member, says Medgar Evers could find immediate uses for the funding." [S. 1513, Referred to HELP Committee, 5/24/07; H.R. 2669, Became Public Law, 9/7/07; Diverse Issues In Higher Education, 6/29/07]

Obama Passed Into Law An Amendment Establishing A Grant Program To Support Summer Curricula That Emphasize Math And Problem Solving. In 2007, Obama sponsored an amendment, which became law, to the America Competes Act that established a competitive state grant program to support summer learning opportunities with curricula that emphasize mathematics and problem solving. [S.Amdts. 924, Agreed to by unanimous consent, 4/25/07; S. 761, Incorporated into H.R. 2272, which became P.L. 110-289, 8/9/07]

MILITARY ISSUES/VETERANS

Obama Passed An Amendment, Which Became Law, Preventing The VA From Conducting A Review Of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Cases Aimed At Reducing Benefits. In 2005, Obama was an original cosponsor of an amendment that became law preventing the VA from conducting a review of cases, without first providing Congress with a complete report regarding the implementation of such review. In November 2005, the VA announced that it was abandoning its planned review. "Obama had several generations of veterans in mind, he suggested, when he joined fellow Democrats Richard Durbin (Ill.), Patty Murray (Wash.) and Daniel Akaka (Hawai'i) Sept. 22 on a successful amendment to block the Department of Veterans Affairs from reviewing case files of 72,000 veterans rated 100-percent disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder…VA officials believe some PTSD claims have been decided for veterans without proper documentation. They announced their massive review only after the VA inspector general studied 2,100 randomly selected cases of PTSD disability awards and found that 25 percent lacked documents to verify that a traumatic, service-connected incident occurred…But the Senate's amendment would bar the VA from conducting its case review until it justifies the program to Congress." [SA 1864 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote, 9/22/05; Became Public Law No: 109-114; Military Update, 10/3/05]

Obama Passed Legislation, Which Became Law, Improving And Increasing Services For Homeless Veterans. In 2006, Congress passed a Veterans Affairs Committee bill which included several provisions originating in Obama's SAVE Act (S. 1180) and Homes for Heroes Act (S. 3475). "The legislation...includes a number of proposals from legislation Senator Obama had previously introduced (S.1180, the SAVE Act and S.3475 the Homes for Heroes Act) to expand and improve services for homeless veterans. The bill permanently authorizes and increases funding to $130 million per year for a competitive grant program to provide homeless services to veterans. It greatly increases a successful program to provide rental vouchers to homeless veterans. The legislation extends programs to providing treatment for veterans with mental illnesses and other special needs. And it permanently extends VA's ability to transfer property it owns to homeless shelters." [S. 3421/P.L. 109-461; S. 1180, 109th Congress; S. 3475, 109th Congress; Obama Press Release, 6/26/06]

Obama Passed Legislation Extending Tax Credits For Military Families By Allowing Service Members Deployed In War Zones To Apply Non-Taxable Combat Pay To The EITC. In 2006, Congress passed legislation based on a proposal sponsored by Obama, Kerry, and Pryor that extended tax credits for military families by allowing service members deployed to war zones to apply their non-taxable combat pay toward the Earned Income Tax Credit. The amendment was introduced during debate on the Senate’s 2006 tax reconciliation bill, ruled out of order, but later included in the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act, which passed both chambers and became law on December 22, 2005. [H.R. 4440, Became P.L. 109-135, 12/22/05; SA 2616, 109th Congress]

Obama Passed An Amendment, Which Became Law, To Require The VA To Conduct A Campaign To Inform Disabled Vets Of Disparities In Compensation And Explaining Their Rights To Seek Review. In 2005, Obama was an original cosponsor on an amendment requiring the VA to conduct a campaign to inform veterans in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Connecticut, Ohio and New Jersey about their right to seek a review of their past claims. Specifically, the legislation required the VA to send letters to all veterans currently receiving disability who live in six states with a past history of below-average disability compensation, informing them of the past disparity, and explaining how to request a review of past claims and ratings and how to submit new claims. The VA was also required to inform all other veterans whose past claims may have been properly denied of this disparity by other means such as broadcast of print advertising. States whose average annual disability compensation payment was less than $7,300 qualified as below average. In 2003, Illinois veterans received an average of $6,802. The amendment became law on November 30, 2005. [S. Amdt. 1865, Passed by Voice Vote, 9/22/05, to H.R.2528, Signed by the President and Became Public Law No: 109-114 on 11/30/05]

HOMELAND SECURITY/DISASTER RESPONSE

Obama Passed A Law Initiating A Long Overdue Investigation Into FEMA Failures And Response To Trailers Contaminated By Formaldehyde. “U.S. Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Barack Obama (D-IL) lauded Congress’ passage of their proposal to launch an investigation into reports that housing trailers contaminated with formaldehyde were provided to Hurricane Katrina victims. This provision, which is contained in the Omnibus Appropriations package soon to be signed into law, will initiate a long overdue investigation into why the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) failed to prevent the contamination or investigate the allegations.” [Obama Press Release, 12/21/07; H.R. 2764, Became Public Law No: 110-161]

Obama Passed Legislation Prohibiting DHS From Entering Into Open-Ended, No-Bid Contracts For Emergency Response Activities. "Legislation authored by U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) that will stop the abuse of no-bid contracting in the aftermath of a disaster was included in the final Department of Homeland Security funding bill likely to pass the Senate today. After Senate passage, the bill will go to the President's desk to be signed into law...After Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency used emergency authority to enter into open-ended, no-bid contracts. What was meant to be temporary stop-gap authority ballooned into wasteful contracts that lasted many months and wasted significant federal resources. Obama and Coburn legislation will stop this practice by restricting the use of emergency contracting authority only to urgent needs in the immediate response to emergencies...On three separate occasions, Obama and Coburn have passed legislation in the Senate that would end no-bid contracting with Gulf Coast reconstruction funds. Legislation that would have specifically prohibited no-bid contracts with Gulf Coast reconstruction was stripped from a previously passed funding bill." [Obama Press Release, 9/29/06]

Obama Passed An Amendment Into Law Creating A National Family Locator System. In 2006, Obama passed an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Act that required the Department of Homeland Security to create a centralized family locator system through which family members can contact their lost loved ones during disasters. The amendment, which was signed into law as part of the final version of the bill, was based on legislation Obama introduced immediately after Hurricane Katrina. [SA 4573 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent, 7/13/06; H.R. 5441, Became Public Law No: 109-295; S. 1630, 109th Congress, Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs]

WORKING FAMILIES

Obama And Hatch Passed Legislation To Protect Individuals' Rights To Continue Donating To Charities And Religious Organizations During Bankruptcy. In 2006, Obama was an original cosponsor of a bill that protected individuals' rights to continue donating to charities and religious organizations during bankruptcy proceedings. The Hatch-Obama bill responded to a court ruling that above-medium income debtors in Chapter 13 bankruptcy could not deduct charitable contributions, including religious contributions, from their payment plans. The ruling was based on an interpretation of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). Hatch and Obama authored S. 4044 to ensure that all individuals in bankruptcy, no matter their income, would be able to continue giving to charity and their church. The bill passed the senate by unanimous consent and was signed by the president. [S. 4044, Signed 12/20/06, Became Public Law No. 109-439]

REALITY: BAMA "STEPPED FORWARD" AND STRENGTHENED THE CASE FOR HIS PRESIDENCY BY LEADING ON ETHICS REFORM

Washington Post: Obama Deserved Credit For Assembling And Passing "Strongest Ethics Legislation To Emerge From Congress Yet." The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, "The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D--Wis.) and Barack Obama (D--Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package." [Washington Post, Editorial, 1/20/07]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Obama Stepped Forward, Did a Wonderful Job. "And finally, Senator Obama. I chose personally Senator Obama last year to work on ethics and lobbying reform, and he's done a wonderful job. He's stepped forward. He's been a leader with Senator Feingold...And I admire and respect his stalwartness in moving forward on this." [Press Conference Transcript, Federal News Service, 1/18/07]

Madison Capital Times: Obama's Work On Ethics Legislation Strengthens Case For Presidency Candidacy. In an editorial, the Madison Capital Times wrote of Obama and Feingold, "The two senators are sponsoring groundbreaking ethics legislation that they say will improve upon Senate Bill 2349, the lobbying disclosure and ethics measure that the Senate passed in March 2006. 'Our goal,' say Feingold and Obama, 'is to restore the public's faith that Congress places its interest ahead of special interests.' The bottom line is that this is a real reform. No one will be surprised that Feingold's name is associated with this effort. But the fact that Obama is so willing to be a part of it will only strengthen the case for consideration of his potential presidential candidacy." [Madison Capital Times, 1/12/07]

Dayton Daily News: Obama Ethics Amendments Got Reform Bill "Watered Up." The Dayton Daily News wrote in an editorial, "Indeed, the bill goes further than Democrats even promised during the campaign. This was one of those rare occasions when a reform bill is introduced, then, rather than get watered down, gets watered up. This fact has been widely attributed to the work of Sens. Barack Obama, D--Ill., and Russ Feingold, D--Wis. They proposed reforms that the other senators -- while reportedly not happy about -- decided they couldn't oppose in the current political environment." [Dayton Daily News, Editorial, 1/24/07]

Obama Was Named Democrats' Point Person on Ethics. Under the headline "Obama is Democrats' point man on ethics," the Chicago Tribune wrote, "As Democrats attempt to capitalize on the perceived ethical shortcomings of Republican congressmen and staffers, party leaders have tapped Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to be their point man to carry the message of ethics reform during the midterm election year. Obama begins his assignment Wednesday when he joins Democrats at the Library of Congress to unveil proposals intended to limit the influence of Washington lobbyists on politics and policy. The task is the most visible--and potentially partisan--role Obama has taken as he begins his second year in office." [Chicago Tribune, 1/18/06]

REALITY: OBAMA ALSO PASSED SWEEPING ETHICS LEGISLATION IN ILLINOIS

Obama Passed Illinois State Gift Ban Act "Heralded As the Most Sweeping Good--Government Legislation in Decades." In 1998, Obama passed the Illinois Gift Ban, which prohibited legislators, state officers and employees, and judges from soliciting or receiving gifts from a person or entity with interests affected by government. The Chicago Tribune called it wrote, "an ethics and campaign finance package heralded as the most sweeping good--government legislation in decades." The law also required greater campaign finance disclosure and limited the uses for which raised money could be spent. [HB672, 3R P 52--4--1, 5/22/98; PA 90--0737, 8/12/98; Chicago Tribune, 8/13/98; Chicago Independent Bulletin, 6/4/98]

Illinois Campaign for Political Reform: Sponsors Of Ethics Legislation "To Be Strongly Commended" For "Bipartisan," "Landmark Legislation." The leaders of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform wrote, "The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform applauds the Illinois legislature for passing the bipartisan campaign finance and ethics package...the bill's sponsors, state Sens. Kirk Dillard (R--Hinsdale) and Barack Obama (D--Chicago), and state Reps. Gary Hannig (D--Litchfield) and Jack Kubik (R--La Grange Park), made campaign finance reform in Illinois a reality by forging areas of common ground. With the support of legislative leaders, both parties and houses moved beyond their differences to pass this landmark legislation. All are to be strongly commended." [Chicago Tribune, 6/20/98]

Ethics Reforms Championed By Obama "Revolutionized" Illinois Politics. The New York Times reported, "The disclosure requirement 'revolutionized Illinois's system,' said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. By giving journalists immediate access to a database of expenditures and contributions, it transformed political reporting. It also, she said, 'put Senator Obama on a launching pad and put the mantle of ethics legislator on his crown.'" [New York Times, 7/30/07]

Mendell Called Ethics Reform Obama's "First Major Legislative Accomplishment;" The Bill Did Not Sit Well With Some Of His Colleagues. In From Promise To Power, Mendell wrote, "His first major legislative accomplishment was shepherding a piece of campaign finance reform in May 1998. The measure prohibited lawmakers from soliciting campaign funds while on state property and from accepting gifts from state contractors, lobbyists or other interests...The bill was not a watershed event anywhere but Illinois. It essentially listed Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay--to--play politics, into the modern world when it came to ethics restrictions. The bill gave Obama a legislative success, but his public criticism of Springfield's old school politics did not sit well with some of his colleagues who already considered the Ivy League lawyer overly pious." [From Promise To Power, 124]

REALITY: OBAMA EXPANDED HEALTH CARE IN ILLINOIS

Obama Passed Bipartisan Legislation That Expanded Health Care Coverage To 154,000 Residents, Including 70,000 Children. As a state senator, Barack Obama sponsored and helped pass legislation that expanded and made permanent Illinois' KidCare program by raising eligibility from 185% to 200% of the federal poverty level. The legislation provided coverage for an additional 20,000 children and 65,000 more Illinois adults in the first year, and by 2007 had expanded health care to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In its endorsement for his Senate race, the State Journal--Register wrote, "Obama brings similar common--sense views to improving health care in America -- for example, as a state senator he championed the successful KidCare program that assists thousands of children of the working poor." The bill was sponsored in the state House by Sandra Pihos, a Republican and passed 42--13. [93rd GA, SB 130, 3R P 42--13--2; Signed into law 6/30/03, PA 93--0063; Chicago Daily Herald, 7/2/03; Blagojevich release, 1/9/07; Blagojevich release, 4/13/07; Kaiser family report, 5/07; State Journal--Register, 10/29/04]

Obama Passed Health Care Justice Act; IL's Largest Health Care Coalition Applauded Obama's Leadership In Passing the Bill. In 2004, Obama was chief sponsor of bill creating the Health Care Justice Act, providing that the State of Illinois shall implement a health care access plan that provides uniform benefits for all Illinois residents by establishing a Bipartisan Commission that is required to submit a report to form the basis for the health care access plan to: "1) Provides access to a full range of preventive, acute and long--term health care services; 2) Maintains and improves the quality of health care services offered to IL residents; 3) Provides portability of coverage regardless of employment status; 4) Provides core benefits for all IL residents; 4) Encourages regional and local consumer participation; 5) Contains cost--containment measures." The Journal Register wrote the bill was "amended to make full access to health care a goal instead of a policy and to strongly encourage, instead of require, the state to implement a health--care access plan." The bill passed. When the bill was funded in 2005, Jim Duffett, executive director of Campaign for Better Health Care, the largest health care coalition in Illinois, said, "We applaud the leadership of Governor Blagojevich, state Rep. William Delgado and former state Sen. Barack Obama, who were the chief sponsors of this act." [93rd GA, HB 2268, 5/19/04, 3R P; 31--26--1, 6/24/04, Sent to the Governor; Lexington Herald Leader, 1/18/07; State Journal--Register (Springfield, IL), 6/15/04; Campaign for Better Health Care release, 7/31/05]

REALITY: Obama Began Calling For A Phased Withdrawal From Iraq In November 2005

11/22/05: Obama Called for A Phased Withdrawal From Iraq, A Commitment To Having No U.S. Bases In Iraq Within a Decade. "First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.' This course of action will help to focus our efforts on a more effective counter-insurgency strategy and take steam out of the insurgency...Second, we need not a time-table, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pull-outs, but a time-frame for such a phased withdrawal. More specifically, we need to be very clear about key issues, such as bases and the level of troops in Iraq. We need to say that there will be no bases in Iraq a decade from now and the United States armed forces cannot stand-up and support an Iraqi government in perpetuity - pushing the Iraqis to take ownership over the situation and placing pressure on various factions to reach the broad based political settlement that is so essential to defeating the insurgency." [Obama Speech, 11/22/05]

12/8/05: Obama Said He Supported A Phased Withdrawal To Avoid Security Vacuum; Said War In Iraq To Blame For Terrorist Problems. Obama favors starting 'a phased withdrawal process' of troops next year. The process would be based on what happens with the elections, he said. 'What we're engaged in is a difficult balancing act here…Having gone in, how do we step back but ensure that there's not such a vacuum that either chaos occurs or jihadists take over critical areas that can make huge problems elsewhere? The irony, of course, is that there really wasn't a terrorist problem before we went in. There is now.'" [State Journal-Register, 12/8/05]

1/8/06: Obama Said It Was Important To Start Phasing Down Troops. The Sun-Times wrote, "Obama said 'if we don't see significant political progress' over the next six months or so, 'we can pour money and troops in here until the cows come home but we are not going to be successful.' It is important, Obama said, 'to start phasing down the troops' and 'to give the Iraqis more ownership.'" [Chicago Sun-Times, 1/8/06]

4/13/06: Obama Said U.S. Should Start Phasing Down U.S. Troop Presence In Iraq By The End Of The Year. At a town hall meeting, Obama said, "'If I continue to see what seems to be the case right now--an inability and unwillingness on the part of the various factions to want to live together--we can't be in a position where we're in the middle of a civil war...If we're not seeing a government that is actually committed to working together, then I don't see how our presence there can be helpful,' Obama said. Even if a new government is formed, Obama said, by the end of the year 'our job as the police and army of Iraq should be complete. We will have done our task and we should start phasing down our troops.'" [Chicago Tribune, 4/13/06]

REALITY: Press on significance Of Obama’s Ethics Reform Legislation

Obama Was A Key Player In Assembling And Passing The 2007 Ethics Reform Law, Which Curbed The Influence Of Lobbyists And Was Described As The "Most Sweeping Since Watergate." In the first week of the 110th Congress, Obama joined with Senator Feingold to introduce a "Gold Standard" ethics package. Many of the Obama/Feingold bill's most important provisions were included in the final ethics reform package passed by the Senate in late January: a full ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists including those paid by the firms that employ lobbyists; an end to subsidized travel on corporate jets; full disclosure of who's sponsoring earmarks and for what purpose; additional restrictions to close the revolving door between public service and lobbying to ensure that public service isn't all about lining up a high-paying lobbying job; and requiring lobbyists to disclose the contributions that they "bundle" - that is, collect or arrange - for members of Congress, candidates, and party committees. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial that "...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package." In September 2007, the AP reported, "President Bush signed a bill Friday that will require lawmakers to disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a measure that backers call the biggest ethics reform in decades...Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. had pushed for the bundling provisions..." [S. 230, 110th Congress; S.1, Became Public Law 109-110-81, 9/14/07; AP, 9/15/07; Washington Post, Editorial, 1/21/07]

NYT: 2007 Ethics Reform Bill "Quickly Sent A Ripple Of Fear Through K Street" And Was "Already Changing The Culture Of Washington" Before It Was Signed Into Law, Beginning With "More Dutch Treats And Fewer Steak Dinners." "The new law has quickly sent a ripple of fear through K Street...Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington defense lawyer who usually represents Democrats, said the law was a sea change. ''It should send shivers down lobbyists' spines,'' Mr. Brand said. ‘It is a minefield now...President Bush has not said whether he would sign the bill, but it is already changing the culture of Capitol Hill in myriad ways, beginning with more Dutch treats and fewer steak dinners...One lobbyist, who would speak only anonymously to avoid attracting the attention of prosecutors or rivals, said he had started sending himself date-stamped e-mail to create a record of every phone conversation he had with a lawmaker. Then he stopped making campaign contributions...For lobbyists -- who live at the nexus of contributions and favors -- it is an alarming trend. ''They might as well just pull up the paddy wagon outside the Capital Grille,'' one lobbyist said, referring to a clubby steakhouse near the Capitol that is a well-known K Street hangout. [New York Times, 8/7/07]

Good Government Groups: Ethics Reform "Shouldn't Be Belittled." The good-government groups that criticized Mrs. Clinton took issue with her comments about the ethics reform bill. While she voted for it, she has suggested that the legislation was not a landmark change and that Mr. Obama was hardly alone in championing it. Fred Wertheimer, president and chief executive of Democracy 21, which promotes campaign finance reform, said the bill contained some of ''the most important and comprehensive ethics and lobbying reforms since the Watergate era.'' Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, said: ''I think it should be seen as the decent, credible and substantial legislation that it was. It shouldn't be belittled.'' [New York Times, 1/15/08]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Obama Stepped Forward, Did a Wonderful Job. Senator Reid said, "And finally, Senator Obama. I chose personally Senator Obama last year to work on ethics and lobbying reform, and he's done a wonderful job. He's stepped forward. He's been a leader with Senator Feingold...And I admire and respect his stalwartness in moving forward on this." [Press Conference Transcript, Federal News Service, 1/18/07]

Washington Post Said Obama Deserved Credit For "Strongest Ethics Legislation...Yet." The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, "The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package." [Washington Post, Editorial, 1/20/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama and Feingold Pressured the Senate Into Adopting Tougher Ethics Reforms. "After Democratic and Republican leaders introduced their bipartisan working version of an ethics plan, pressure from Obama and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) inspired them to open the measure up for some tougher restrictions." [Chicago Tribune, 1/19/07]

Dayton Daily News: Obama Ethics Amendments Got Reform Bill Improved Instead of Watered Down. The Dayton Daily News wrote in an editorial, "Indeed, the bill goes further than Democrats even promised during the campaign. This was one of those rare occasions when a reform bill is introduced, then, rather than get watered down, gets watered up. This fact has been widely attributed to the work of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. They proposed reforms that the other senators - while reportedly not happy about - decided they couldn't oppose in the current political environment." [Dayton Daily News, Editorial, 1/24/07]

REALITY: Significance Of Obama’s “Google For Government” Bill, Which Was A Landmark Effort In Bringing Transparency To Federal Spending And Was Passed Against Strong Opposition

Providence Journal: Coburn And Obama “Deserve Credit For Fighting Doggedly For This Legislation.” “What a great idea: Create a searchable online data base of federal grants and contracts, identifying the members of Congress behind the spending, so that citizens, even on their home computers, can easily determine where, how and why the government is spending their money. A bill to do just that, sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., with the bipartisan support of such heavy hitters as Republican Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., has passed the Senate and may soon become law…For a time it looked dicey. In an impressive display of the arrogance of power, two of Congress's most egregious kings of pork - Sens. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. - secretly put a hold on the legislation. After citizens groups smoked out this betrayal of the public, Byrd and Stevens backed off…That may be why liberal Democrats have joined with conservatives on the bill. It presents an opportunity to break the deathgrip of incumbency. Coburn and the co-sponsor, Sen. Barak Obama, D-Ill., deserve credit for fighting doggedly for this legislation.” [Providence Journal Editorial, 9/20/06]

The Google For Government Bill Was A “Fine Accomplishment” And “Passed Largely Because Of The Bipartisan Leadership Of Tom Coburn, R-Okla And Barack Obama, D-Ill” “The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act is a fine accomplishment. It will create an earmark database that the public can easily access on the Internet. The bill passed largely because of the bipartisan leadership of senators Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill.” [Chattanooga Times Free Press, 10/15/06]

REALITY: Falsely Implied That Obama Has Not Been Committed To Immigration Reform, And Neglected To Mention The Key Role He Played In Major Debates

Gannett: “Low-Ranking Obama Front-And-Center On Immigration.” In an article entitled, “Low Ranking Obama Front-And-Center On Immigration, Gannett News Service reported, “When the president sat down with eight senators to strategize about immigration last week, the group represented the Senate's elite on the issue. Among them were the top Democratic and Republican leaders, those from border states, two Hispanics and those with a history of involvement with immigration legislation. And then, there was Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois' junior senator, who ranks 98 out of 100 in seniority in the Senate. He is not on the Senate's Judiciary Committee where immigration legislation originated and the state he represents is closer to the Canadian border than the deserts of Mexico…Alejandro Lugo, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois who studies border issues, says Obama's recognition of a border control problem coupled with a practical solution will play well if people are paying attention.” [Gannett News Service, 5/1/06]

Kennedy And McCain, Authors Of Immigration Reform Bill, Thanked Obama As One Of Small Bipartisan Group Of Senators Who “Stood Together To Make This Legislation Possible.” McCain said, “After several weeks of extensive debate and consideration of numerous and complicated amendments, the Senate is about to move to final passage on S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act…I also commend the Senate Leadership on both sides of the aisle for their efforts to ensure that the Senate addressed this important issue and gave us more than adequate time for a thorough debate. This is a proud moment for the United States Senate, as we have conducted good work and returned to orderly traditions of the legislative process as envisioned by our founding fathers…And of course, I commend Senator Kennedy, who is perhaps the leading expert on this difficult issue…I also want to thank Senators Brownback, Lieberman, Graham, Salazar, Martinez, Obama, and Dewine for their shared commitment to this issue, and working to ensure this bill moved successfully intact through the legislative process.” In a speech on the Senate floor, Kennedy said, “I thank those of our bipartisan group who stood together to make this legislation possible--Senator Graham, Senator Salazar, Senator Martinez, Senator Hagel, Senator Durbin, Senator Lieberman, Senator Brownback, Senator Obama, and Senator DeWine.” [McCain Press Release, 5/25/06; Congressional Record, 5/26/06]

Illinois Coalition For Immigrants And Refugee Rights Praised Obama For Leadership In Moving Congress Towards New Immigration Laws. “Fred Tsao, policy director for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, praised U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for their leadership in moving toward new immigration laws on Capitol Hill. But ‘we must demand similar leadership from the president and the speaker of the House,’ he said. ‘We need real comprehensive immigration reform that will allow the undocumented to gain legal status, bring families together, respect hard work and help students realize their dreams.’” [Chicago Sun-Times, 4/24/06]

Obama Passed Amendments To The Senate’s 2006 Immigration Bill That Would Have Established An Employment Verification System And Protected American Workers From Losing Jobs To Guest Workers. In 2006, Obama passed an amendment t

Candidate McCain's Big Decision (New York Times Editorial, September 2: no one has stated it more clearly; please forward this widely to family,friends, and colleagues!)

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:16:21 EDT

Senator John McCain speaks with his wife, Cindy, in St. Louis. (Photo: Getty Images)

More often than not, the role of a vice president is a minor one, unless some tragedy occurs. But a presidential nominee's choice of a running mate is vitally important. It is his first executive decision and offers an important insight into how that nominee would lead the nation.

If John McCain wants voters to conclude, as he argues, that he has more independence and experience and better judgment than Barack Obama, he made a bad start by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Mr. McCain's supporters are valiantly trying to argue that the selection was a bold stroke that shows their candidate is a risk-taking maverick who - we can believe - will change Washington. (Mr. Obama's call for change - now "the change we need" - has become all the rage in St. Paul.)

To us, it says the opposite. Mr. McCain's snap choice of Ms. Palin reflects his impulsive streak: a wild play that he made after conservative activists warned him that he would face an all-out revolt in the party if he chose who he really wanted - Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

Why Mr. McCain would want to pander to right-wing activists - who helped George W. Bush kill off his candidacy in the 2000 primaries in a particularly ugly way - is baffling. Frankly, they have no place to go. Mr. McCain would have a lot more success demonstrating his independence, and his courage, if he stood up to them the way he did in 2000.

As far as we can tell, Mr. McCain and his aides did almost no due diligence before choosing Ms. Palin, raising serious questions about his management skills. The fact that Ms. Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant is irrelevant to her candidacy. There are, however, very serious questions about her political past and her ideology.

If Mr. McCain wanted to break with his party's past and choose the Republicans' first female vice presidential candidate, there are a number of politicians out there with far greater experience and stature than Ms. Palin, who has been in Alaska's Statehouse for less than two years.

Before she was elected governor, she was mayor of a tiny Anchorage suburb, where her greatest accomplishment was raising the sales tax to build a hockey rink. According to Time magazine, she also sought to have books banned from the local library and threatened to fire the librarian.

For Mr. McCain to go on claiming that Mr. Obama has too little experience to be president after almost four years in the United States Senate is laughable now that he has announced that someone with no national or foreign policy experience is qualified to replace him, if necessary.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who has been one of Mr. McCain's most loyal friends, said Tuesday that he was certain that Ms. Palin would take the right positions on issues like Iraq, Russia's invasion of Georgia and Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. That seemed based largely on his repeated assertion that Ms. Palin would be tended by Mr. McCain's foreign policy advisers. That was not much of an endorsement.

Some of the things Ms. Palin has had to say in the recent past about foreign policy are especially worrisome. In a speech last June to her former church in Wasilla, Ms. Palin said the war in Iraq was "a task that is from God." Mr. Bush made similar claims as he rejected all sound mortal advice on how to conduct the war.

Mr. McCain, Mr. Graham and others also claim that Ms. Palin is a fearless reformer who is committed to fighting waste, fraud and earmarks. Ms. Palin did show courage taking on some of the Alaska Republican Party's most sleazy politicians. But she also was an eager recipient of earmarked money as a mayor and governor.

Mayor Palin gathered up $27 million in subsidies from Washington, $15 million of it for a railroad from her town to the ski resort hometown of Senator Ted Stevens, now under indictment for failing to report gifts.

The Republicans are presenting Ms. Palin as a crusader against Mr. Stevens's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere." The record says otherwise; she initially supported Mr. Stevens's boondoggle, diverting the money to other projects when the bridge became a political disaster. In her speech to the Wasilla Assembly of God in June, Ms. Palin said it was "God's will" that the federal government contribute to a $30 billion gas pipeline she wants built in Alaska.

Mr. McCain will make his acceptance speech on Thursday, and Ms. Palin will speak on Wednesday. Those two appearances will go a long way to forming voters' views of this Republican ticket.

As Senator Graham noted, Mr. McCain has to reach out beyond the party's loyal base. "We're going to have to win this thing," he said. "This is not our race to lose."

Mr. McCain's hurdles are substantial. To start, he has to overcome Mr. Bush's record of failures. (The president addressed the convention Tuesday night and now, McCain strategists fervently hope, will retire quietly to the Rose Garden.) That record includes the disastrous war in Iraq, a ballooning deficit, the mortgage crisis - and the list goes on.

To address those many problems, this country needs a leader with sound judgment and strong leadership skills. Choosing Ms. Palin raises serious questions about Mr. McCain's qualifications

Maureen Dowd: Vice in Go-Go Boots

jgabriel — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:31:11 EDT

Maureen Dowd of the NY Times weighs in on the Palin pick.

It’s easy to see where this movie is going. It begins, of course, with a cute, cool unknown from Alaska who has never even been on “Meet the Press” triumphing over a cute, cool unknowable from Hawaii who has been on “Meet the Press” a lot.
Americans, suspicious that the Obamas have benefited from affirmative action without being properly grateful, and skeptical that Michelle really likes “The Brady Bunch” and “The Dick Van Dyke Show,” reject the 47-year-old black contender as too uppity and untested.
Instead, they embrace 72-year-old John McCain and 44-year-old Sarah Palin, whose average age is 58, a mere two years older than the average age of the Obama-Biden ticket. Enthusiastic Republicans don’t see the choice of Palin as affirmative action, despite her thin résumé and gaping absence of foreign policy knowledge, because they expect Republicans to put an underqualified “babe,” as Rush Limbaugh calls her, on the ticket. They have a tradition of nominating fun, bantamweight cheerleaders from the West, like the previous Miss Congeniality types Dan Quayle and W., and then letting them learn on the job. So they crash into the globe a few times while they’re learning to drive, what’s the big deal?
Obama may have been president of The Harvard Law Review, but Palin graduated from the University of Idaho with a minor in poli-sci and worked briefly as a TV sports reporter. And she was tougher on the basketball court than the ethereal Obama, earning the nickname “Sarah Barracuda.”
The legacy of Geraldine Ferraro was supposed to be that no one would ever go on a blind date with history again. But that crazy maverick and gambler McCain does it, and conservatives and evangelicals rally around him in admiration of his refreshingly cynical choice of Sarah, an evangelical Protestant and anti-abortion crusader who became a hero when she decided to have her baby, who has Down syndrome, and when she urged schools to debate creationism as well as that stuffy old evolution thing.

Grandpa and The Beauty Queen

Charley James — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:26:21 EDT

Watching John McCain hug Sarah Palin yesterday was almost creepy: It was like seeing an old man not fit to be president trying to grab one last piece of lost youth by copping a feel off a woman roughly half his age who’s not fit to be vice president. Eerily, it happened the day McCain turned 72 and a day before Michael Jackson turned 50.

Alright, that’s out of my system.

While McCain’s choice for vice president may energise the Republican Party’s shrinking base and shore up his credentials with the one issue evangelicals who drive the party’s platform, the Hail Mary pass her selection represents is the best indication yet that John McCain will do and say anything to win the election. (Of course, in a way it’s not surprising since some of his fellow Hanoi Hilton residents still insist he did and said anything to get better treatment as a POW.) So much for McCain’s remaining shards of integrity.

As Gail Collins points out in today’s New York Times, McCain’s blatant pandering to women is an insult to their intelligence. Yet Janice Shaw Crouse of the far right group Concerned Women for America said in a statement yesterday, "How refreshing that now we have a woman who reflects the values of mainstream American women.''

Oh, really? How mainstream can Palin be when polling reveals her positions are the exact opposite of “mainstream American women?”

The vast majority of American women want to have the freedom of choice over their own bodies.

Mainstream American women are deeply concerned about the environment, which Palin – like McCain – doesn’t believe is under any serious threat as she urges intense ANWAR drilling, claims climate change is a fiction and doesn’t think Polar Bears need protecting.

Mainstream women want the troops – their sons and daughters – out of Iraq, and right now.

Mainstream women are concerned about gun violence in cities.

They want to be paid the same as men and have the same opportunities, something Palin has never said she supports.

Mainstream American women want the federal government to spend money on health care, and schools while Palin supported spending hundreds of millions on the “Bridge to Nowhere” before she opposed it.

Mainstream American women are terrified that Social Security won’t be there at retirement because, the way things are going, IRA’s and 401(k) plans will be completely devalued and private pensions washed away in a tide of corporate bankruptcies while Palin has never uttered a word about the uneconomic security choking the country.

No wonder McCain picked Palin: She’s able to alter positions on a dime, depending on which way the political winds are blowing. Would that the Exxon-Valdize been that maneuverable.

Mainstream American women want a vice president whose experience includes more than simply 20 years as a hockey mom, a few years as a semi-full time mayor of a tiny Alaskan town and not quite 18 months as governor of a state whose population is less than that of many Congressional districts in the “lower 48.”

The risk Democrats face with Palin is three-fold: Underestimating her (which isn’t hard to do), dismissing her as a Dan Quayle joke (which she is) or thinking that simply exposing facts about Palin and her lack of depth, experience, knowledge or understanding of the world will overshadow in people’s minds the way they actually vote: On emotion as much as facts.

What can be of use is that she’s made plenty of trouble for herself back in Alaska. In a state rife with Republican corruption, she brushes against it. And she has a short fuse with a stubborn streak straight out of the Bush mold. For example, in August the Anchorage Daily News wrote that Palin revealed her ugly side during the Troopergate scandal, adding “… Sarah Palin is not handling pressure well.”

The paper adds that she reacted to sharp criticism of her attempt to get a state trooper, a former sort-of relative, fired, by “Portray(ing) the brave men and women of the Alaska State Troopers as weak because they are afraid of losing their jobs and their ability to feed their families. What's wrong with these guys?”

Sound familiar? We’ve heard the same insults from The White House and Republicans in Congress for years.

Sarah Palin is not a “fresh face.” She’s simply another version of the same old same old the GOP and Bush White House has forced down our throats for the last eight years.

Our Barack is Barack! Magnificent!

Food Fascist — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:14:02 EDT

Did you see the 360 degree interactive pan on the New York Times this morning!

GLORIOUS - check it out, here!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/08/28/us/politics/20080828_OBAMA_PANO.html

RE-play the Senator's Powerful, Look out We're Here Speech! NOTE: An indexed transcript is included on the right hand scroll bar!

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/20080828_OBAMA_SPEECH.html#

Check out the NY TIMES web page about Obama's speech last night

Mark Ungemach (Democratic Committee Person, Franklin Township, Landenberg, PA) — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:53:03 EDT

See http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/20080828_OBAMA_SPEECH.html?th&emc=th#

Press Sampling On Biden Selection As VP

Charley James — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:36:37 EDT

The world's news media has chimed in on Barack's selection of Joe Biden to be his running mate, and it is highly favorable - even from stalwarts on the right such as David Brooks.

Biden is steady. He acquitted himself well in his brief presidential run. He did well in debates, intelligent and witty and he off some nice zingers, like that line about every sentence uttered by Rudy Giuliani consisting of "a subject, a verb and 9-11.” Biden can say of John McCain, in a way most other pols can't, "Just because John served five years in POW camp doesn't mean he understands healthcare policy better than the rest of us, and he doesn't." – The Guardian

Barack Obama's campaign for the White House was back in its groove yesterday, when he called upon the political equivalent of Big Bertha by naming Senator Joe Biden to be his vice-presidential running mate. – The Independent

He has disdain for privilege and for limousine liberals – the mark of an honest, working-class Democrat. – David Brooks, New York Times Columnist

Picking Biden is a solid choice that adds political savvy, national security experience and a pit bull campaigner to Obama’s ticket. – Des Moines Register

Mr. Biden is a foreign policy heavyweight with a decade longer in the Senate than the seasoned Republican presidential candidate, John McCain. – Globe and Mail

Delaware Senator Joe Biden brings the foreign-policy expertise and gravitas that first-term Illinois Senator Barack Obama appears to need in his presidential battle with Republican John McCain. – The Toronto Star

It looks as if the team is off to a solid start.

How The CIA Kinda Helped Make “Obama Nation” Smear A Best-Seller

Charley James — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:40:08 EDT

When Jerome Corsi’s latest distortion-and lie-packed smear book, Obama Nation, hit the best seller lists this week, Corsi and his Republican Party apparatchik turned hack publisher can thank a precedent established by the CIA in the early 1950s.

Obama Nation owes its hit status to what The New York Times says are “bulk purchases” of the tome. In other words, right wing groups from the Republican National Committee to 501(C)(3) organisations to who knows which group of wingnuts bought boxes of Corsi’s deranged musings. What they do with the volumes is anyone’s guess: Hand them out to fellow travellers, distribute them to delegates in “welcome packages” at the Republican convention in St. Paul, or just stack the boxes in closets.

This is precisely how then-CIA director Allan Dulles made a national best seller out Darkness at Noon, Arthur Koestler’s sombre, brooding, anti-Communist fictional rant, in the early 1950s. The unintended consequence was to force millions of baby boomer junior and senior high school students in the US to read the monstrosity.

How the CIA came to be a factor in the book publishing business in the America is a fascinating story, a historical footnote that shows Langley was interfering in domestic politics long before the Church Commission exposed Richard Nixon’s use of the agency to spy on anti-war activists during Viet Nam.

In fact, the ploy traces its roots to the end of World War II. When William “Wild Bill” Donaldson established and ran the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during the war, he worked closely with both Dulles and Koestler. Dr. Mark Levine, an English professor at the University of Toronto and noted Koestler scholar, has told me that after the war as Donaldson and Koestler shared a long boat ride home from Europe they talked about their belief that an OSS-like organisation should continue to play a role in intelligence gathering. By the time the ship docked in New York, they had conceived the structure, organization, duties and responsibilities of what would become the CIA. Donaldson presented Pres. Truman with his idea who sent a bill to Congress which quickly passed the measure into law. Dulles became its first director.

Spurred by the Soviet’s blockage of Berlin, by the late 1940s and extending into the Fifties the United States was gripped with Communist paranoia. The Red Menace everywhere: Politicians, statesmen, screenwriters and directors, maybe even grocery store bag boys all were suspected of being Commies or Communist “sympathizers” and countless Congressional committees obsessed on uprooting and exposing them.

In the middle of this national psychosis, Koestler – a long-time anti Communist who was imprisoned briefly by the French in 1941 – showed Donaldson a copy of Darkness at Noon, which he’d written in 1941. Wild Bill thought it ought to be one of those “must read” books and handed a copy on to Dulles, now ensconced as the CIA’s director. Dulles, no slouch himself in spotting the Reds In Every Bed, decided the best way to bring the 10-year old, inconsequential novel to America’s attention was to make it a best seller. It was easy enough for Dulles to it pull off. With the CIA’s many secret operating funds, he sent agents fanning out across New York to order – it was barely in print in the States at the time – and buy up all of the copies of the book they could lay their hands on. The books were sent back to Dulles who ordered them stored in CIA vaults.

Because the CIA refused repeatedly over the years to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests about its role in making Darkness at Noon a cultural phenomenon in the 1950s, it’s not known whether Koestler’s books are still collecting dust in the Company’s storage bins a half-century later. The University of Toronto’s Dr. Levine believes they remain buried at Langley.

So read the best-seller listing this week of Obama Nation with scepticism. Its sudden prominence owes a debt of gratitude to the CIA, Bill Donaldson and Allan Dulles.

Thank You Maureen Dowd of The New York Times!

Adrienne Zurub — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:15:36 EDT

Ms. Dowd today, August 14, 2008, in The New York Times, speaks truthfully of the agendas of 'The Great Vaginal Hope' and her husband Bill. What slimy creatures they both turned out to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

Also, take some time to read my June 2008 article in The Cleveland Free Times entitled:

'The Great Vaginal Hope' at the link below:

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/15/60/the-great-vaginal-hope

Adrienne Zurub

http://adriennezurub.typepad.com

Doris Kearns Goodwin on post-partisan governance; Dowd is no Jane Austen reader

Taube — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:04:32 EDT

Goodwin offers key points of post-partisanship in presidential history with no specifics for doing same in a 24/7 cable news cycle in her op-ed in 08 03 08 NYTimes. Doris Kearns Goodwin notes both major candidates embrace post-partisan governance:

Doris Kearns Goodwin "Defeat Your Opponents. Then Hire Them."
ON the campaign trail, Barack Obama has applauded Abraham Lincoln’s decision to bring his three main rivals for the Republican nomination into his cabinet, suggesting that he might also invite his opponents to join his administration, if it would help create “the best possible government.” Lincoln understood, Mr. Obama said, that personal feelings mattered less than the issue of “How can we get this country through this time of crisis?” John McCain, too, has embraced the idea of moving beyond partisanship: “We belong to different parties,” he has said, “not different countries.” ...

read the entire op-ed essay at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/opinion/03goodwin.html?ref=todayspaper

On the same page, Maureen Dowd casts Obama as Mr. Darcy of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice", with American voters as Elizabeth Bennett, and McCain as Wickham, which I think borders on slander since Wickham has no redeeming qualities. Ms. Dowd has the wrong Jane Austen novel. We are in "Sense and Sensibility", with American voters as the irrationally romantic Marianne Dashwood waiting for a hero to save her, Obama as good-hearted Willoughby, and McCain as the too-old war hero, Colonel Brandon. Austen devotees, post your comment to Dowd's contribution to the myth that racial prejudice is the sole problem of America, and whether you agree with her literary metaphors at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/opinion/03dowd.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

Low-Road Express

jgabriel — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:12:34 EDT

Obama has debuted a new site dedicated to fighting the smears and untruths coming directly from the McCain campaign, "Low-Road Express" - http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/mccainslowroadexpress/

The site takes its name from a July 30 editorial in the NY Times lambasting McCain for his sudden turn toward aggressive, nasty attacks - most likely a direct result of his hiring of several individuals from the Bush reelection campaign. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/opinion/30wed1.html?_r=2&oref=login&pagewanted=print

Tell me again how he's so different from George W. Bush?

The Times' Distorted Professor Obama

Chinni — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:42:09 EDT

The Times' Distorted Professor Obama

John K. Wilson, June 30 2008

Today's New York Times features a lengthy story by Jodi Kantor about Obama's time as a teacher at the University of Chicago Law School. Since I took a class from Obama in the mid-1990s on "Race, Racism, and the Law," I thought I could offer some insights into Obama, and what this article gets wrong. Although the article offers some interesting insights, it also distorts Obama's past and tries to attack Obama's candidacy by using his experiences at the University of Chicago as a way to confirm many of the false assertions made about Obama: that he's a politician who doesn't stand for anything, that he's an aloof elitist, that he only pretends to listen to opposing viewpoints. The author even tries to smear Obama as someone who taught law school with an eye toward his own political ambitions..
..concludes with this dismissive comment:
So even some former students who are thrilled at Mr. Obama’s success wince when they hear him speaking like the politician he has so fully become. “When you hear him talking about issues, it’s at a level so much simpler than the one he’s capable of,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “He was a lot more fun to listen to back then.”
This seems to be an attempt to attack Obama by dismissing him as just another elitist politician speaking down to the American people. During the campaign, Obama often spoke at a serious intellectual level. But whenever he did so, the media ignored him, or attacked him. It's because of the dumbed-down press coverage of issues that Obama has to simplify what he says. But if Obama wasn't running a University of Chicago law class at a higher intellectual level than what the general public hears from the press, he wouldn't be doing his job. Far from being a reason to condemn him, this should be the clearest evidence yet of Obama's skills as president...

From the NYT: "How Obama Became Acting President"

Jen G. In St. Louis — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:13:06 EDT

This op-ed piece is so great that I decided it needed to be posted here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27rich.html

How Obama Became Acting President

By FRANK RICHPublished: July 27, 2008

IT almost seems like a gag worthy of “Borat”: A smooth-talking rookie senator with an exotic name passes himself off as the incumbent American president to credulous foreigners. But to dismiss Barack Obama’s magical mystery tour through old Europe and two war zones as a media-made fairy tale would be to underestimate the ingenious politics of the moment. History was on the march well before Mr. Obama boarded his plane, and his trip was perfectly timed to reap the whirlwind.

He never would have been treated as a president-in-waiting by heads of state or network talking heads if all he offered were charisma, slick rhetoric and stunning visuals. What drew them instead was the raw power Mr. Obama has amassed: the power to start shaping events and the power to move markets, including TV ratings. (Even “Access Hollywood” mustered a 20 percent audience jump by hosting the Obama family.) Power begets more power, absolutely.

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE PRESIDENCY

Harlan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:26:15 EDT

Before Senator Obama's plane landed in The Middle East, McCain was already crying media bias! Certainly the senator has been around long enough to know that he can't have it both ways. He and his handlers basically dared Obama to visit Iraq, but what they did not anticipate was the favorable (not biased) media coverage that his opponent would receive from doing just that. Did you see the reception in Berlin? Wow! Senator Obama looks good on the world stage; he appears confident and comfortable. I think McCain's supporters (both reluctant and enthusiastic) see how natural Obama looks on the world stage and it frightens them.

Senator Obama has made it clear that his overseas trip is in the capacity of a Senator, but I think most world leaders understand that whatever the outcome of U.S. elections, that they are witnessing history in the making. Meanwhile, back at home McCain continues to suffer from MDD (Message Deficit Disorder) and has become so desperate that he has generated this little rhetorical gem: "Obama would rather win the campaign and lose the war." It's obvious that he's pandering to the bottom feeders of the right-wing, but we must send a message to him (hope he doesn't steal it) that this sort of juvenile and mean-sprited campaigning is beneath the dignity of a potential president. Perhaps Senator McCain's time would be better spent developing a strategy beyond simply criticizing Obama or trying to pass himself off as some bedrock of national security from the cheese aisle of a grocery store.

Someone should inform McCain that Obama gets favorable (not biased) media coverage because he has something to say; he on the other hand is the political equivalent of a blind man wandering around without a cane. Smarting from his New York Times Op-Ed rejection, McCain has chosen to take his tantrum on the road, making wild assertions about media bias that just doesn't exist. If anyone has been the beneficiary of media largesse, it has been McCain; in fact, his voting record, lobbyist associations and business dealings have not undergone the kind of media or public scrutiny as Obama's. No one has accused him of being something he is not, no one has talked about Senator McCain's lack of general knowledge about the warring factions in Iraq, and no one has called him on his lack of support for Senator Webbs GI Bill. Both he and Bush were against many of the provisions in the bill and yet they took credit for the bill in its final and more robust form. No one asked Senator McCain why he as a victim of torture, would change his position (flip-flop) from firmly against it and compromise his own principles to support the brutal tactics of a rogue administration. That's not change we can use. Bush is a scoundrel. McCain is a scoundrel and his reputation as a "maverick," is for the most part media mythology. Having been part of one of, if not, the most partisan conservative administrations in history, an occasional bi-partisan sponsorship of a few bills of the no-brainer variety ( The Patient Protection Act with Senator Kennedy comes to mind) erroneously established him as some some sort of maverick.

We applaud Senator McCain for his bi-partisan gestures, in fact I almost bought into the hype during the last election cycle, but the truth of the matter is, McCain has supported the party line for the Bush Administration over 95% of the time. I think Senator McCain is confusing Obama's incredible charm, intelligence, and contagious positivity with "media bias." I guess he missed the memo that the republican message, which has guided and shaped public policy for so long, no longer resonates with the majority of Americans; we've had eight years to witness and experience the damage caused by the Bush Administration and we say no more! If only there were a market for boring lackluster speeches that drone on and on about nothing; if only the masses were clamoring for dry passionless displays of artificial stoicism or begging to revisit the last eight years of The Bush Administration, then John McCain would be sitting very well.

I realize that as someone blogging on Senator Obama's official website that I am preaching to the choir, but I am extremely puzzled about why McCain is so close to Obama and gaining ground in battle-ground states. McCain has no platform beyond maintaining the status quo and at times appears to be in the early stages of dimentia. In the face of soaring fuel prices, record home foreclosures and bank collapses, why would anyone choose to vote for more of the same? Thanks for the Obama Hatefest this morning Washington Journal! Obama gets good press, because he is a good man.

McCain wrong on the surge. Iraq policy Fizzles.

Jai — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:47:14 EDT

   In what will likely be considered one of Barack Obama's best weeks of his campaign, one of the first news headlines included a complete reversal of White House policy when talks between them and the Iraqi government let out that they were in agreement for a so called "time horizon" for U.S. withdrawal. This comes at a critical time when republicans and John McCain have beefed up their use of the surge's success in Iraq as a way to try to convince voters that Obama had been disastrously wrong on opposing the troop surge and the "recklessness" of setting a timetable for withdrawal without looking at conditions on the ground (in light of the fact that despite John McCain's assurances, Obama has always maintained he would tie in withdrawal with conditions on the ground).

   This shift in policy took the form of one that the democrats have been pushing for years. Even the idea of benchmarks, forcing the Iraqi government to more quickly implement the fundamental structural changes that for all intents and purposes seem to now be in play, never came to fruition despite that apparent connection to "conditions on the ground" that would've satisfied republicans as well as democrats. This middle ground idea never formulated solely because of republican opposition; its failure to be implemented in part causing the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq and a need for the surge in troops. It was increasingly clear we were not pressing hard enough to the Iraqi government that they needed to pass sweeping reforms in the interest of national unity and to avoid civil war and consequently alleviate the strain we already have on our military. It is indeed clear that Iraq could not maintain a stable peace by simply making insurgents flee to Afghanistan as the success of the surge and deterioration of Afghanistan seems to show. Several intelligence reports that came out this week also seem to suggest that Al Qaeda is focusing a majority of their operations to Afghanistan which supports the idea that the surge was perhaps not so successful, but rather sent Al Qaeda packing somewhere else.

   In light of all this, it is increasingly odd that Bush and other Republicans are trying to pass themselves as having IN FACT been the advocators of the same policies that won democrats the House and Senate in 2006 and that will likely give democrats the White House in November. This "time horizon" reeks of a ploy that feeds off of "Change Republicans" and conservative democrats who are supporting Obama, while trying to paint themselves as not being so hard lined, as this administration has shown itself to be. They similarly eased their policy towards Iran's nuclear issue, again, with striking similarities to the tactics suggested by the democratic presidential nominee.

   Even with this feeble attempt to redress their party, they could not have expected the blow they received this week by Iraqi Prime Minister Al Maliki's endorsement of Barack Obama's plan for a 16 month withdrawal based on ground conditions. The blow exacerbated every problem with having shifted their other positions to mirror democrats' to a degree that left most republicans with their mouths hanging wide open and democrats were and are far from willing to let this go. The most confounding thing about this endorsement was the extensiveness of the immediate fallout. Last year, President George W Bush expressed this thought on Iraq and our occupation,

   "We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million    people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their governments choice. If they were to    say, leave, we would leave." - George Bush (2007)

   Even John McCain in 2004 made a similar statement saying, "it is obvious we would have to leave" in reference to the Iraqis asking the U.S. to bow out. The most astounding thing is the fact that both the McCain campaign and the Bush administration tried very hard to deny what had been said. Both campaigns responded saying that Maliki must have been misunderstood or misinterpreted. Make no mistake, there was no misinterpretation by anyone on Maliki's statements. As we know, the German newspaper had the interview interpreted by someone who worked IN Maliki's office. Several Maliki staffers and Maliki himself also clearly pointed out that the presidential candidate supporting earlier withdrawal clearly has a better understanding of conditions on the ground in Iraq less than a day after the apparent endorsement. This, of course, does not help McCain, who's best estimation about when to leave Iraq is one-hundred years, since he has not proposed any other timetable for withdrawal whatsoever.

   It is curiously startling that McCain still hasn't backed off his position on Iraq or even refined it. He overstates that his support of the surge in Iraq is the only reason that we would even be talking about a phased withdrawal. The truth of the matter is that McCain is completely wrong on this issue. Is it no surprise that as republicans hailed the surge a victory in progress, the death rate in Afghanistan began to look more like the death rate in Iraq and the death rate in Iraq like the rates of Afghanistan only a couple of years back? Obama quickly attacked back saying that it was the surge and the Iraq war was a distraction to the real front against terrorism, which is Afghanistan, as over 65% of Americans believe it is. He is completely right on this, if you simply look at the raw data. Tensions between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq seemed to be lessening and their attention focusing on Al Qaeda. Militarily, it's never a good idea to fight a two front war, and when you lose one of the fronts, the best idea is to consolidate your forces and focus on one area. Al Qaeda has visibly become more focused on Afghanistan, the place where our greatest foe, Osama Bin Laden, is said to possibly be hiding in.

   John McCain's gravest mistake this week had to be his rejected opinion/editorial piece that he sent to the New York Times to top off the week. Republicans decried the rejection as being biased. The most interesting part of the whole story is not that it was rejected, but the reasons it was being rejected. The New York Times in an incredible display said that they could not print the piece as written. They criticized it as not having any new information and that it didn't go into detail about his policies such as defining "victory in Iraq". They blatantly called for McCain to write a piece similar to Barack Obama's. The New York Times became the clincher for McCain's Iraq policy. At the end of the disastrous, almost cruel week on John McCain's campaign, the NYT rejection concluded that John McCain effectively does not have a policy on Iraq. McCain has never seemed to consider withdrawal from Iraq to come any time soon and never has articulated what victory in Iraq is. He has been quick to call democrats' efforts for withdrawal or even a shift in focus to be surrender, but has failed to ever articulate what the opposite was. It comes down to McCain simply not knowing when or even how victory is possible in Iraq which leaves nothing more than a fizzled policy. If it indeed was victory in Iraq for troops to come home in 2010, then John McCain must not have known about it, since recent reports say commanders have been talking about beginning to withdraw troops, as conditions on the ground are looking better, among that the Iraqi's recent call for a withdrawal from 2010. This coming from the candidate calling Barack out on being insufficiently experienced on foreign policy.

   At the end of the day, many of the things that John McCain will have to embrace on the policy he was supposed to win so easily are things that have been suggested by his rival, a thought so unpleasant to Mc, that his frustration is now evident on his person. Consistency is only good if the message delivered produces some sort of results. Because McCain's position has now been undermined, he now seems to be consistent on having an unclear message. He has squandered away the one issue that could've landed him the presidency in November, granted that the events that have legitimized Obama's position weren't exactly all under his control. Nonetheless, His stance on Afghanistan had to be emphasized quickly after Barack made a foreign policy speech stressing the issue. The American people have clearly now shifted their attention to Afghanistan, as many now feel that we can confidently say "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, whether or not that is true and we need to seriously seek to find and kill Osama Bin Laden. The problem is Obama has long said Iraq has been a distraction from the true front against terrorism in Afghanistan and finding Osama. The bad and troubling news for John McCain is, barring that Americans change their minds on Afghanistan (John McCain has seemed to as well) and change their minds about the Bush administration being a total failure for failing to catch Osama Bin Laden (and believe me, they wont), whether Obama is right or wrong on Iraq being a distraction from Afghanistan, America will agree with him and he will be right.

NYT Poll Analysis Highly Misleading

Bill Marjenhoff — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:12:45 EDT

Today’s New York Times analysis of their poll on the racial dimensions to this election is highly misleading. Times Analysts Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee conclude that “The results of the poll, conducted against the backdrop of a campaign in which race has been a constant if not always overt issue, suggested that Mr. Obama’s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.” Or as Wonkette’s Sara K. Smith asks, tongue-in-cheek, “How can Barack Obama be elected president when he can’t even solve a simple issue like America’s 400-year-old race problem?”

The story ignores multiple and significant pieces of poll data that actually indicate a trend much different from that which the story suggests. Here are some straightforward points from the data that are omitted from the story:

1) More white voters say Obama cares about people like them, than say the same thing about McCain by 31 to 23.

2) On the essential issue in this campaign bringing about change in Washington Among white voters, Obama is seen as the change agent by 52% to 30%.

3) Obama’s 31% favorable rating among white voters is virtually identical to McCain’s, which is at 34%.

4) By a 2 to 1 margin over McCain, white voters are more likely to say that Obama would improve America’s image in the world.

5) 'Racial dissension' around Mrs. Obama’s 24% favorable rating among whites is an extremely odd description given that Mrs. McCain’s favorable rating among white voters is 20%.

6) Enthusiasm for Obama’s candidacy is roughly 2.5 times higher among white voters than is enthusiasm for McCain’s.

7) Obama is winning by 6 points against McCain and the gap among white voters is only -9 – a margin smaller than independent expert on voting patterns, Ruy Texiera, said would give Obama a 'solid win.'

8) Though there is a six-point margin of error among black voters the NYT describes the 7-point change in black voters’ views that whites had a better chance of getting ahead as slightly higher than 8 years ago. Given that the Times reports horserace questions as statistically even when the margin falls within the margin, it seems that this shift from seven years ago among black voters is well within the margin of error.

Why Obama Must Be the Next President

Cindy in Salt Lake — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:45:25 EDT

We must do all we can to elect Obama as the next President of the United States. He will end the Iraq war and take the fight to Afghanistan. Wouldn't you just love to see Osama bin Laden finally captured?

After reading his op-ed in yesterday's New York Times, it befuddles me that people see McCain as stronger on foreign policy, despite his jokes on killing Iranians and wanting a U.S. military presence in Iraq for maybe 100 years.

My Plan for Iraq by Barack Obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

News Articles, and a Plea from David Plouffe, Barack's Campaign Manager

jgabriel — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:59:25 EDT

Hello everyone,

First off, Barack's plan for Iraq, an op-ed in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?ref=opinion

An interesting Newsweek piece about Barack's religion and religious beliefs (perhaps you can share this with one of the 12% of Americans who think he is Muslim):

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145971/page/1

Here is a piece from the New Yorker on Obama's Chicago rise:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?printable=true

Another piece from the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/21/080721taco_talk_hertzberg) on Obama's supposed flip-flops. Quoted from the story:

"Meanwhile, McCain has been busily reversing his views in highly consequential ways. He opposed the Bush tax cuts because they favored the rich; now he supports their eternal extension. He was against offshore oil drilling as not being worth the environmental damage it brings; now he’s for it, and damn the costs. He was against torture, period; now he’s against it unless the C.I.A. does it. He keeps flipping to the wrong flops. But he and Obama can both take comfort in what they’re avoiding. If they were clinging to every past position, the flip-flop police would be busting them for stubbornness and rigidity in the face of changing circumstances. Bush all over again! Flip-flops are preferable to cement shoes, especially in summertime."

And finally, David Plouffe has made a video call to donors to help make up the difference with the RNC. According to his calculations, the RNC/McCain war chest is about a $100 million. Take a look here: https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/stepup?source=20080714_PV_ND_B-STCO

End Right-Wing Stupidity in the White House

Henry M — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:24:33 EDT

Young, smart and left-of-centercenter/medium-rare Obama beats old, not exceptionally bright, right-wing/overdone McSame.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html?em&ex=1216008000&en=9b84851132386e0d&ei=5087%0A
I know, I know. You’re upset. You think the guy you fell in love with last spring is spending the summer flip-flopping his way to the right. Drifting to the center. Going all moderate on you. So you’re withholding the love. Also possibly the money.
<snip>
It’s that he hates stupidity. “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war,” he said in 2002 in his big speech against the invasion of Iraq. He did not, you will notice, say he was against unilateral military action or pre-emptive attacks or nation-building. He was antidumb.
Most of the things Obama’s taken heat for saying this summer fall into these two familiar patterns — attempts to find a rational common ground on controversial issues and dumb-avoidance.
On the common-ground front, he’s called for giving more federal money to religious groups that run social programs, but only if the services they offer are secular. People can have guns for hunting and protection, but we should crack down on unscrupulous gun sellers. Putting some restrictions on the government’s ability to wiretap is better than nothing, even though he would rather have gone further.
Dumb-avoidance would include his opposing the gas-tax holiday, backtracking on the anti-Nafta pandering he did during the primary and acknowledging that if one is planning to go all the way to Iraq to talk to the generals, one should actually pay attention to what the generals say.

Pass it on!

Henry M

Please contribute to Obama if you can: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4gddt

The Audacity of Listening

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:59:00 EDT

Some of us are questioning Barack's recent political moves; but should we first question our own motives?

Center stance very disappointing

Angel from Tucson, AZ — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:36:25 EDT

Senator Obama, I have supported you from day One but your latest turn to the right on some issues is very disturbing. The most recent issue regarding immunity to telephone companies for illegal wiretapping is by far your most reprehensible especially after your vow that you would not let telephone companies off the hook. I am beginning to feel betrayed. All of us who have supported you feel this way. Please follow the path you promised to follow. Do not become a wheeler dealer politician. We are counting on you!

Re: Time' Story: Delicate Talks for Democrats on a Path to a Unified Party

rwordplay — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:02:42 EDT

It's certain any role the Clinton's play in Obama's campaign will be self-serving and somehow damaging to Obama and his interests. Why should Obama, or any of his supporters, help retire Mrs. Clinton's debt? The Clintons are millionaires many times over and Bill's various and sundry business interests almost guarantee him many many millions more, if history is a judge of his success in the marketplace.

The real issue to my mind is that Mrs. Clinton's power is not merely transitory, but illusory, and that I suspect the real issue is not campaign debt, but an Obama Justice Department turning a blind eye on some of Bill's and certainly Terry McAuliffe, questionable business dealings. I suggest, that Mr. Nagourney and some of his colleagues do a little digging--it's likely that McAuliffe's fortune, which began with a rather well-timed selling of his shares of Global Crossing Stock, which also enabled him to co-sign the mortgage of the Clinton's Chappaqua house, didn't stop with that bit of financial razzmatazz.

My Comment to NYT Caucus Blog "Marketing Obama"

Your Neighbor — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:51:39 EDT

I am an Obama supporter. The last time I actually worked on a campaign I was too young to vote. As of now I have voted for 9 presidents. After learning extensively about Sen. Obama, I am once again excited enough about a candidate to work on the campaign. I have a page on his website which allows me to communicate with other supporters, discuss issues, examine Sen. Obama's choices and organize.

I think that "marketing" is an interesting word in this post. I have watched with sadness as elections have become more and more about marketing. Republicans have become very adept at creating the psuedo-reality that works best for their candidates. They redefine words, manufacture "issues" and plant fear in the minds of voters to get their candidates elected.

I am elated that Sen. Obama has the intellegence and the savy to compete in this toxic arena and still keep an eye on his integrity. The world, like politics, is a dangerous place full of unscrupulous people. I want a president who is a practical idealist. From what I have learned about Sen. Obama, he will combine a commitment to creating a more open, fair system with the understanding of how to play and win the current game.

Those who criticize Sen. Obama for these traits are being disingenuous at best. They want him to stand mute as a boy scout in the face of being savaged like other Democrats have. If he did that, he would lose.

Profile of Michelle in Today's New York Times

Andrew — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:25:55 EDT

There's a great profile of Michelle Obama in today's New York Times.

In yesterday's post on my blog I talked about the smear campaign from the right... Another reason I think it's been pretty easy (so far) for the right to smear Michelle (the so-called 'whitey' tape scandal, the so-called 'separatist' thesis) is because she's not really familiar to voters yet. People have slowly become more familiar with Obama, his story and what he stands for. But Michelle has her own story, and it's one which may not be known to potential voters yet.

She sounds totally cool... so hopefully voters will use her speeches, profiles like this, TV appearances like on today's View, to fill in the gaps... and NOT hateful rumors or Fox News-style smears!

Obama Influencing French Rap (NYTimes)

Lauren — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:28:46 EDT

“A new black consciousness is emerging in France, lately hastened by, of all things, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States.”

Read the article here.

Can we get Joss Whedon?

allison — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:48:51 EDT

I don't know who Joss Whedon supports in the race for the President, but I sure do think he would be a big asset right now. Why? Because of his feminism.

When Obama gave his speech on race relations it started to push the national dialog in a different direction. From the "is he black enough" conversation to the "is he just the Black Candidate" conversation to the "does his reigiious affiliation make him too black" conversation, it was a transcendent moment to have him put all that into a broader socio-historical context and shine a light on a new path for race relations. As a mixed race man, more people were willing to listen to him on this subject. (His eloquence doesn't hurt, either.)

But gender relations are a little different.

NYT Op-Ed lays it out straight

Rex Austin Barrow — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:01:54 EDT

There is a great article this morning in the New York Times that lays it out straight why Obama is the only choice in the upcoming election. From the article:

Remarkably, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. McCain had the grace to offer a salute to Mr. Obama’s epochal political breakthrough, which reverberated so powerfully across the country and throughout the world. By being so small and ungenerous, they made him look taller. Their inability to pivot even briefly from partisan self-interest could not be a more telling symptom of the dysfunctional Washington culture Mr. Obama aspires to mend.

This is why he inspires me.

Obama "Better with Working Class" Than Gore & Kerry

Deborah Simmel — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:59:15 EDT

Don't let the pundits get you down. Mark Mellman, in the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times, reports today that Obama is doing better with the "working class" electorate than either Al Gore or John Kerry was at this same point in those elections.

Read this, and take it to the superdelegates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/opinion/29mellman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

New York Times Condemns Bush Diplomacy

Carole@www.Americans-Away-From-Home.com — Fri, 23 May 2008 09:40:20 EDT

"Mr. Bush’s approach is increasingly undermining American interests and causing Washington to be sidelined."

That's what the New York Times said today in an editorial about Bush aiding, and not helping, efforts to make peace in the Middle East.

The editorial applauds efforts by Israel itself to talk with neighbors some might perceive to be Israel's enemies, while Bush appears to be unsuccessful in diplomatic efforts. It goes on to say,

"If Mr. Bush cannot use his remaining months in office to do the same, he can at least get out of the way."
(New York Times editorial here).

That's a pretty serious charge against a sitting President. Does it presage a continuation of Bush diplomatic efforts under McCain?

Carole

Appalachia's problem

Steven — Sat, 17 May 2008 10:38:36 EDT

There is a really interesting op-ed by Charles Blow in today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/opinion/17blow.html?ref=opinion

What it suggests to me is that Obama does not have that much of a problem with "white blue-collar workers" as such--he actually did fairly well even in Indiana, and very well in Wisconsin and, of course, Illinois. In the general he will also do well, I suspect, in Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania (where he leads McCain handily in current polls). But there is a problem for him in appealing to "white blue-collar workers", or "poor, uneducated whites" more generally, in Appalachia. This raises two questions:

1) Given Blow's point that Obama only has to win the states at the fringes of Appalachia in the general (Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, perhaps Virginia and North Carolina), without the votes of Appalachia, and can discount states such as West Virginia and Kentucky, how much effort should the Obama campaign put into such states and regions of states, compared, for instance, to the Midwest states where he does fairly well among "white blue-collar workers"?

2) Is Obama's apparent problem with "white blue-collar workers" more a problem with Appalachia and its particular political culture (see Karl Rove's recent--outrageously Know-Nothingist--remarks about what are and are not "American" values--completely identifying "Appalachian" guns'n'religion/us v. them values with "America"). And if so, given 1), is it not then more a problem, a tragically ever-recurring problem, for Appalachia than for Obama?

Alert on a malicious op-ed

Steven — Mon, 12 May 2008 09:41:14 EDT

There is a malcious op-ed by Edward Luttwak about Obama and Muslim states:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?ref=opinion

Luttwak claims that Obama, because he is viewed as originally a Muslim by Islam, will be regarded as an apostate for his "conversion" to Christianity, and hence will be regarded as anathema by the Muslim world. My sense is that this is an outrageous--and malicious--misinterpretation both of Obama's religious background and of the Muslim world's perception of him and his status vis. a vis. Islam. However, I am not well enough versed in Obama's religious background or in Islam's rules concerning individuals with Muslim heritage such as Obama to comment definitively on Luttwak's piece (which is clearly intended to cause mischief).

I therefore urge all supporters of Obama who read this piece, and know what I do not know about Obama's religious background and Islam's approach to someone with his heritage, to tell me what the true answers are, and/or to engage in a conversation, and/or answer Luttwak's argument by writing to the New York Times. The "Letters to the Times" e-mail address is: letters@nytimes.com

It would be especially helpful if a prominent Muslim supporter of Obama were to step forward and refute Luttwak's claims.

I agree with McCain about Obama and Hamas

Wayne — Sat, 10 May 2008 10:18:02 EDT

Are you going to let a terrorist tell you how to vote?

John McCain thinks you should.

Supporting Obama - Enough validation for Media voices?

Chinni — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:37:50 EDT

With the rise of Barack Obama, I've gotten used to seeing a lot of intelligent sounding voices in the mainstream media who support him... I've enjoyed reading them for that reason. Then, a couple of days back it dawned on me to get a better understanding of my newly found sources before trusting their judgment and came up with this..

Find out what they were saying around Jan-Feb 2003 - in the wake of the start of Iraq war.
If they supported it, did they later realize and apologize for their mistake or are now against it purely based on "mishandled war" logic?
I'm going to start with New York Times Columnists Thomas L. Friedman, David Brooks, Frank Rich first as they're my favorites these days.
Any suggestions/additions to these are welcome.

Thomas L. Friedman

He was insightful enough to agree that the war is at least partly for oil but trusts American Government's intentions ignoring the history of American foreign policy. I think he still stands by the same ideas declaring Bush as an anomaly - not as an extreme of the same old. He continues to commend what we're doing in Iraq - to date(A War for Oil? 1/5/03, Making peace with pieces 12/9/07)
.. I was skeptical reading "The World is Flat" - now I'm sacred of him because his ignorance looks intentional. I'm willing to go with him on Green technology but probably nothing more.

David Brooks

He was "offline" during the critical time period but continued to beat the drums for continuing Iraq war though the 2004 elections(A Burden Too Heavy to Put Down 11/4/03, A More Humble Hawk 4/17/2004).. until today.

Frank Rich

I couldn't find him ever supporting the Iraq war effort. He did not write from 1/18 to 3/23 and he was critical of the Bush government and Media coverage of the war from the beginning(Joe Millionaire for President 1/18/03, Iraq Around The Clock 3/30/03).

That might explain why Frank Rich seems to embrace Obama more whole heartedly than the others - Good for him.

Disclaimer : Amy Goodman, Bill Moyers etc. are still the voices I really trust but Obama makes me care about what the mainstream media is saying because.. "it matters".

Dumb as We Wanna Be

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:12:13 EDT

Famous New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman disses the McCain-Clinton "holiday gas tax policy" and gives credit to Obama for soaring higher on the issue...

Changing Times

Triscuit — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:58:57 EDT

Here's a clever article written by the New York Times' John Harwood about the epic length of this democratic primary contest. It was just published today as an advancer for the resurgence of primaries over the next couple weeks. I'm going to coopt it a bit just to remind everyone to register to vote if their primary is coming up. That's less than a month away Oregonians! Get out the vote!

For perspective, consider America as it was when the battle effectively began — Oct. 22, 2006, when Mr. Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he had changed his mind and was considering a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The average price of gas then stood at $2.20 a gallon.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld directed war strategy in Iraq.
J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, as speaker of the House, and Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Senate majority leader, called the signals in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Eliot Spitzer, poised to win the governorship of New York, was a rising star in national Democratic politics.
Katie Couric was just seven weeks into her new job as anchor of the “CBS Evening News.”
Neither Peyton nor Eli Manning had won a Super Bowl

Link via New York Times

Are You a Mac Person?

Triscuit — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:23:40 EDT

A recent New York Times article compares Obama and Clinton to a Mac and a PC. It specifically looks at this website, my.barackobama.com, and compares the ways social networking has been used by the campaigns.

While Mr. Santa Maria praised barackobama.com for having “this welcoming quality,” he added that it was “ethereal, vaporous and someone could construe it as nebulous.” He said there was a bit of the “Lifetime channel effect, you know, vasoline on the lens” to create a softer effect on the viewer. The “hectic” site that the Clinton campaign is offering could actually be quite strategic, exactly in step with her branding. After all, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly emphasizes how hard she will work for the average American “starting on Day 1.” If she comes across as energetic online, that may simply be her intention. If she shouts a bit more, typographically speaking, that may be the better to be heard.

This is a must read for any technophilic member of this site.

Link via New York Times

New York Times Pulls support of Clinton.Supports Sen, Obama

John From Cape Cod. Ma — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:24:02 EDT

NEW YORK TIMES

The Low Road to Victory

Published: April 23, 2008

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on
Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with
pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that
preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it
does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge
that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm
to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton
did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the
calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent
her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves,
because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended
up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic
candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad -- torn
right from Karl Rove's playbook -- evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl
Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete
with video of Osama bin Laden. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the
kitchen," the narrator intoned.

If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton's argument that she is the better
prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on
Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked
Israel while she were president: "We would be able to totally obliterate them."

By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues
like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs.
Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don't like negative campaigning.
She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to
support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr.
Obama.

Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of
this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton's bait, undercutting
his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics.
When she criticized his comments about "bitter" voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as
an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence
about his relative youth and inexperience.

No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think,
it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same
essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and
they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only
Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they're wrong.

After seven years of George W. Bush's failed with-us-or-against-us presidency,
all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate -- right now and through
the general campaign -- about how each candidate will combat terrorism, protect
civil liberties, address the housing crisis and end the war in Iraq.

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in
mind with they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won
at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but
has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If
she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come
back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call
off the dogs

The Low Road to Victory

Mikeystyle — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:28:35 EDT

April 23, 2008
The New York Times
(which endorsed Hillary, by the way)
Editorial

The Low Road to Victory

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race.

Election Geek: The Money Race

Jasmine D — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:00:57 EDT

Election Geek tipped me to this piece in the Times -- looks like while the Obama campaign has been spending $0.75 for every dollar brought in, the Clinton campaign's been spending $1.10. Interesting stuff, people!

The Money Race [Election Geek]

Step it up, people!

DaveNY1979 — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:41:32 EDT

Come on, we're the most internet-driven campaign out there, and yet, when I look at the article comments for an Obama piece in the Paper of Record, the top-rated ones are vitriolic, denigrating, anti-Obama comments? What gives?

Get over to the New York Times (everyone should have a free registration there, anyways), and don't just write new comments... Click the "RECOMMEND" button to bump up posts that are positive, intelligent, and support our campaign!

It's not hard -- just take one minute by going to, for instance, this comment thread on an article about Kids encouraging their parents to vote Obama:

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/04/08/us/politics/08kids.html?s=3

As you can see, the top two comments far and away are ones that insult both kids who are passionate about Obama, and parents who listen to their arguments! C'mon, this takes a SECOND of your time. Let's fix this!!!

The Audacity of Hopelessness

Chip Roberson in Sonoma, CA — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:37:40 EDT

"The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near."

David Brooks, in his article in the New York Times titled "The Long Defeat", starts off his column "Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she's just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign." He then "take[s] a look at what she's going to put her party through for the sake of [a] 5 percent chance" of winning the Democratic nomination. His analysis should be required reading for all Superdelegates.

DAVID BROOKS: The Long Defeat

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:01:37 EDT

Another excellent op-ed piece by David Brooks says Hillary Clinton will do anything to prolong her run, though she knows she has less than 5% chance of winning the nomination, even though she is obviously hurting the Democratic Party...

Going Old South on Obama - Counterpunch

Mary from Vermont — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:18:44 EDT

A long but very good article....

January 14, 2008

Going Old South on ObamaMa and Pa Clinton Flog Uppity Black Man

By ISHMAEL REED

During Bill Clinton's first run for President, I appeared on a New York radio panel with some of his black supporters, including Paul Robeson, Jr., son of the actor and singer. I said that Clinton had character problems. They dismissed my comments and said that I didn't know anything about politics and should stick to writing novels. (Clarence Page, who has monopoly on the few column inches and airtime made available to black columnists by the corporate media, said the same thing about me. I should stick to creative writing and leave politics alone.)

These criticisms didn't deter me. Writing in The Baltimore Sun, I was the first to identify Clinton as a black president as a result of his mimicking a black style. (I said he was the second, since Warren G. Harding never denied the rumors about his black ancestry.) As a result of his ability to imitate the black preaching style, Clinton was able to seduce black audiences, who ignored some of his actions that were unfriendly, even hostile to blacks. His interrupting his campaign to get a mentally disabled black man, Ricky Ray Rector executed. (Did Mrs. Clinton tear up about this act?) His humiliation of Jesse Jackson. His humiliation of Jocelyn Elders and Lani Gunier. The welfare reform bill that has left thousands of women black, white, yellow and brown destitute, prompting Robert Scheer to write in the San Francisco Chronicle, "To his everlasting shame as president, Clinton supported and signed welfare legislation that shredded the federal safety net for the poor from which he personally had benefited." (Has Ms. Clinton shed a tear for these women, or did she oppose her husband's endorsement of this legislation?) His administration saw a high rate of black incarceration as a result of Draconian drug laws that occurred during his regime. He advocated trade agreements that sent thousands of jobs overseas. (Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black, white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; did Ms. Gloria Steinem, whose word is so influential among millions of white women that she can be credited by some for changing the outcome of a primary, and maybe an election, marshal these forces to place pressure upon Congress to rescue these black women and girls?)

Carl Bernstein, appearing on "Air America Radio," January 9th, described Clinton's New Hampshire attacks on Obama as "petulant." His behavior demonstrated that regardless of Bill Clinton's admiration for Jazz, and black preaching, he and his spouse will go south on a black man whom they perceive as being audacious enough to sass Mrs. Clinton. In this respect, he falls in the tradition of the southern demagogue: grinning with and sharing pot liker and cornbread with black folks, while signifying about them before whites. Though his role models are Martin Luther King, Jr. and John F. Kennedy, he has more in common with Georgia's Eugene Talmadge ("The Wild Man From Sugar Creek,"), Louisiana's Huey Long, and his brother, Earl, Edwin Edwards, who even hinted that he had black ancestry to gain black votes, Alabama's George Wallace, Texas's Pa Ferguson, and "Kissing Jim" Folsom, who wrote, "You Are My Sunshine." He employs the colorful rhetoric of the southern demagogue, the rustic homilies ("till the last dog dies), the whiff of corruption.

Having been educated at elite schools where studying The War of the Roses was more important than studying Reconstruction, the under educated white male punditry and their token white women, failed to detect the racial code phrases that both Clintons and their surrogates sent out- codes that, judging from their responses, infuriated blacks caught immediately. Blacks have been deciphering these hidden messages for four hundred years. They had to, in order to survive.

Gloria Steinem perhaps attended the same schools. Her remark that black men received the vote "fifty years before women," in a Times Op-Ed (Jan.8) which some say contributed to Obama's defeat in New Hampshire, ignores the fact that black men were met by white terrorism, including massacres, and economic retaliation when attempting to exercise the franchise. She and her followers, who've spent thousands of hours in graduate school, must have gotten all of their information about Reconstruction from Gone With The Wind, where moviegoers are asked to sympathize with a proto-feminist, Scarlett O'Hara, who finally has to fend for herself after years of being doted upon by the unpaid household help. Booker T. Washington, an educator born into slavery, said that young white people had been waited on so that after the war they didn't know how to take care of themselves and Mary Chesnutt, author of The Civil War Diaries, and a friend of Confederate president Jefferson Davis's family, said that upper class southern white women were so slave dependent that they were "indolent." Steinem and her followers should read, Redemption, The Last Battle Of The Civil War," by Nicholas Lemann, which tells the story about how "in 1875, an army of white terrorists in Mississippi led a campaign to 'redeem' their state--to abolish with violence and murder if need be, the newly won civil rights of freed slaves and blacks." Such violence and intimidation was practiced all over the south sometimes resulting in massacres. One of worst massacres of black men occurred at Colfax, Louisiana, in 1873. Their crime? Attempting to exercise the voting rights awarded to them "fifty years," before white women received theirs. Lemann writes, "Burning Negroes" met "savage and hellish butchery.

"They were all killed, unarmed, at close range, while begging for mercy. Those who tried to escape, were overtaken, mustered in crowds, made to stand around, and, while in every attitude of humiliation and supplication, were shot down and their bodies mangled and hacked to hasten their death or to satiate the hellish malice of their heartless murderers, even after they were dead.
"White posses on horseback rode away from the town, looking for Negroes who had fled, so they could kill them."

Elsewhere in the south, during the Confederate Restoration, black politicians, who were given the right to vote," fifty years before white women" were removed from office by force, many through violence. In Wilmington, North Carolina, black men, who "received the vote fifty years before white women," the subject of Charles Chesnutt's great novel, The Marrow of Tradition:

"On Thursday, November 10, 1898, Colonel Alfred Moore Waddell, a Democratic leader in Wilmington, North Carolina mustered a white mob to retaliate for a controversial editorial written by Alexander Manly, editor of the city's black newspaper, the Daily Record. The mob burned the newspaper's office and incited a bloody race riot in the city. By the end of the week, at least fourteen black citizens were dead, and much of the city's black leadership had been banished. This massacre further fueled an ongoing statewide disfranchisement campaign designed to crush black political power. Contemporary white chronicles of the event, such as those printed in the Raleigh News and Observer and Wilmington's The Morning Star, either blamed the African American community for the violence or justified white actions as necessary to keep the peace. African American writers produced their own accounts-including fictional examinations-that countered these white supremacist claims and highlighted the heroic struggles of the black community against racist injustice."

Black congressmen, who, as a rule, were better educated than their white colleagues were expelled from Congress.

Either Gloria Steinem hasn't done her homework, or as an ideologue rejects evidence that's a Google away, and the patriarchal corporate old media, which has appointed her the spokesperson for feminism, permits her ignorance to run rampant over the emails and blogs of the nation and though this white
Oprah might have inspired her followers to march lockstep behind
her, a progressive like Cindy Sheehan wasn't convinced. She called Mrs. Clinton's crying act," phony."

Moreover, some of the suffragettes that she and her followers hail as feminist pioneers were racists. Some even endorsed the lynching of black men. In an early clash between a black and white feminist, anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells opposed the views of Frances Willard, a suffragette pioneer, who advocated lynching.

"As the president of one of America's foremost social reform organizations, Frances Willard called for the protection of the purity of white womanhood from threats to morality and safety. In her attempts to bring Southern women into the W.C.T.U., Frances Willard accepted the rape myth and publicly condoned lynching and the color line in the South. Wells argued that as a Christian reformer, Willard should be speaking out against lynching, but instead seemed to support the position of Southerners."

Ms. Willard's point of view is echoed by Susan Brownmiller's implying that Emmett Till got what he deserved, and the rush to judgment on the part of New York feminists whose pressure helped to convict the black and Hispanic kids accused of raping a stockbroker in Central Park. After DNA proved their innocence (the police promised them if they confessed, they could go home), a Village Voice reporter asked the response of these feminists to this news; only Susan Brownmiller responded. She said that regardless of the scientific evidence, she still believed that the children, who spent their youth in jail, on the basis of the hysteria generated by Donald Trump, the press, and leading New York feminists, were guilty.

Feminist hero, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, offended Frederick Douglass--an abolitionist woman attempted to prevent his daughter from gaining entrance to a girls' school--when she referred to black men as "sambos." She was an unabashed white supremacist. She said in 1867," [w]ith the black man we have no new element in government, but with the education and elevation of women, we have a power that is to develop the Saxon race into a higher and nobler life."

Steinem should read. Race, Rape, and Lynching by Sandra Gunning, and Angela Davis's excellent Women, Culture, & Politics," which includes a probing examination of racism in the suffragette movement. The Times allowed only one black feminist to weigh in on Ms. Steinem's comments about Barack Obama, and how he appealed to white men because they perceive black males as more "masculine" than they, an offensive stereotype, and one that insults the intelligence of white men, and a comment which, with hope, doesn't reflect the depth of "progressive" women's thought.

Do you think that the Times would offer Steinem critics like Toni Morrison Op-ed space to rebut her? Don't count on it. The criticism of white feminism by black women has been repressed for over one hundred years (Black Women Abolitionists, A Study In Activism,1828-1860,by Shirley J.Yee).

I asked Jill Nelson, author of Finding Martha's Vineyard, Volunteer Slavery and Sexual Healing, how she felt about Gloria Steinem's use of a hypothetical black woman to make a point against Obama. She wrote:

"I was offended and frankly, surprised, by Gloria Steinem's use of a hypothetical Black woman in her essay supporting Hillary Clinton. I would have liked to think that after all these years struggling in the feminist vineyards, Black women have become more than a hypothetical to be used when white women want to make a point, and a weak one at that, on our backs. It's a device, a distraction, and disingenuous, and fails to hold Hillary Clinton - or for that matter, Barack Obama and the rest of the (male) candidates - responsible for their politics."

On the second day of a convention held at Seneca Falls, 1848, white suffragettes sought to prevent black abolitionist Sojourner Truth from speaking. The scene was described by Frances Dana Gage in Ms. Davis's book:

"Don't let her speak!" gasped half a dozen in my ear. She moved slowly and solemnly to the front, laid her old bonnet at her feet, and turned her great speaking eyes to me. There was a hissing sound of disapprobation above and below. I rose and announce 'Sojourner Truth,' and begged the audience to keep silence for a few moments."

Many minority feminists, Asian-American, Hispanic, Native-American and African-American, contend that white middle and upper class feminists' insensitivity to the views and issues deemed important to them persists to this day.

Their proof might be Ms. Steinem's lack of concern about how Ms. Clinton's war votes affect the lives of thousands of women and girls--her brown sisters--in Iraq and Iran. One hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi people have been killed since the American occupation was ordered by patriarchs in Washington D.C., patriarchs who were responsible for the welfare reform act.

With this in mind, I recently asked Robin Morgan, who was editor of Ms. magazine, when I was called the worst misogynist in America, whether she still held those views. I replied to this accusation that I should be accorded the same respect given to the men who ran the magazine at the time, Lang Communications. It was made by Barbara Smith, a black feminist whom I debated on television and whose bitter comments about the white feminist movement make mine seem timid. She also criticizes the white Gay and Lesbian movements. She said that when she tried to join the Gay and Lesbian March on Washington, the leaders told her to get lost. That they weren't interested in black issues. That they wanted to mainstream. About me, she wrote in The New Republic magazine, edited by a Marty Peretz, a man who once said that black women were "culturally deficient," that my black women characters weren't positive enough. For running afoul of this feminist "blueprint" for writing that she tried to lay on me, her views and those like hers were repudiated by Joyce Joyce, a black critic who deviates from the party line.

I also reminded Ms. Morgan that the Ms. editorial staff reflected the old plantation model, even though its founder, Gloria Steinem, said that she's concerned about the progress of black women. White feminists had the juicy editorial Big House positions, while women of color were the editorial kitchen help as contributing editors. A few months later, Ms. Morgan resigned as editor and was replaced by a black woman, but not before taking some potshots, not at misogynists belonging to her ethnic group, whose abuse of women has been a guarded secret, according to feminists belonging to that group, but at Mike Tyson and Clarence Thomas (incidentally, when the white women who ran for office as a result of Ms. Anita Hill's testimony against Clarence Thomas arrived in Congress, they voted with the men).

Robin Morgan had her secretary respond to my recent letter and from the letter I gather that Ms. Morgan hasn't changed her mind. I'm a worse misogynist than the men in the Pentagon, and those who passed Clinton's Welfare Reform bill. I guess that bell hooks, another black feminist, who won't be invited by the men who run the Times to respond to Ms. Steinem, was right when she wrote in her book, Outlaw Culture, that white feminists are harder on black men than white men, but like other black feminists, from the 19th century to the present day, her point has been ignored by the mainstream media, who, when they view feminism, and just about every other subject, all they can see is white! (Except when
it's crime, athletics, and having babies out of wedlock!)

Feminists are harder on Ishmael Reed, Ralph Ellison (yes, him too), and even James Baldwin, that gentle soul, than on Phillip Roth and Saul Bellow. Harder on Barack Obama than on Bill Clinton, to whom Gloria Steinem, a harsh critic of Clarence Thomas, gave a free pass when he was charged with sexual indiscretions by various women. She said that Bubba was O.K. because when he placed Kathleen Wiley's hand on his penis and she said no, he withdrew it. That when other women said no, he also halted his sexual advances. A letter writer to the Times challenged Ms. Steinem's double standard for white and black-men:

"Bob Herbert (column, Jan. 29) writes that Gloria Steinem said that even though Paula Jones has filed a sexual harassment suit against President Clinton, Ms. Jones has not claimed that the President had forced himself on her. ''He takes no for an answer,'' Ms. Steinem intones.
Lest we forget, Anita Hill said no to Clarence Thomas. And her accusations nearly derailed his appointment to the Supreme Court.
Patricia Schroeder, the former Congresswoman, did not claim that ''somebody may be overstating the case'' when Ms. Hill accused Judge Thomas of sexual misconduct, but Ms. Schroeder claims that now in Mr. Herbert's column. Again the left inadvertently exposes its sliding scale of moral indignation."
RAYMOND BATZ
San Rafael, Calif., Jan. 29, 1998

Black feminists also charge that white feminists deserted them during the fight against Proposition 209, which ended racial and gender hiring in the state of California, even though Affirmative Action has benefited white women the most!

They charge that white women were missing in action during the fight against the welfare reform bill. It seems that the cheapest form of solidarity with which they can express toward their minority sisters is to join in on the attack on Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant, and Clarence Thomas and Mr., a character in The Color Purple, who, for them, represents all black men.

Though Steinem accuses men of being mean to Mrs. Clinton, she expressed no outrage about surrogate Bill Shaheen painting Obama as drug dealer, or the innuendo promoted by Senator Bob Kerrey. Senator Bob Kerrey, who, apparently having made up with the Clintons, was recruited to associate Obama with what the
Right refers to as "Islamo fascists."

He said, "His name is Barack Hussein Obama, and his father was a Muslim and his paternal grandmother is a Muslim." He added that Obama "spent a little bit of time in a secular madressa."

You'd think that the New School of Social Research would have fired Kerrey when he admitted to committing atrocities in Vietnam. Now this.

All of these attacks must be what Hillary Clinton meant when she warned her opponents," now the fun begins."

One of the charges made by some black feminists is that white women middle class movement figures embezzle their oppression.

In the New York Times, Gloria Steinem's using a hypothetical black woman to do a house cleaning on Obama was what these women must have had in mind. (Phillip Roth does the same thing; uses his black maid characters to denounce black history and black studies: "Missa Roth, dese Black Studies ain't doin' nothin' but worrying folks. Whew!) Her using a black woman as a prop must have annoyed Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison who made blistering comments about Ms.Steinem during an interview conducted by novelist Cecil Brown and carried in the University of Massachusetts' Review, where Ms. Morrison made the harshest comments about Alice Walker's novel, The Color Purple, to date, even harsher than those made by black feminist Prof. Trudier Harris, who, as a result of her essay, published in African American Review, faced such a hostile backlash from white feminist scholars that she stopped commenting about the novel, which has become a sacred text among white feminists, who are silent about how women are treated among their ethnic groups. Steinem said that had Obama been a black woman, he would not have made as much progress as a presidential candidate and added that white men would prefer voting for a black man over a white woman because they perceived black men as being more masculine than they.

I wrote a response to the Times:

Jan.8, 2008
Dear Times,
Even Dr. Phil would probably snicker at the level of pop psychology employed by Gloria Steinem to explain the attraction of many voters to Senator Barack Obama. For example, she believes that the preference for a black male candidate over a white woman by some white males is based upon their admiration for the black male's "masculine" superiority. "Masculine superiority?" All four of the current heavyweight champions are white as well as last year's MVPs of the NBA were white men.
Moreover, Ms. Steinem is a long time critic of black men as a group. She said that the book, The Color Purple, in which one black man commits incest, told "the truth" about black men, the kind of collective blame that's been used against her ethnic group since the time of the Romans."
I also made a reference to her abandonment of a tearful Shirley Chisholm's presidential candidacy after supporting it. If she's so concerned about the political fate of a black woman's presidential bid, why did she desert Ms. Chisholm in favor of the man?
She also said that "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life." The fact that when white women received the vote, they experienced little of the violence that accompanied black men being awarded the right to vote, fifty years earlier, suggests that some groups, black men, black women, Hispanics, Asian-Americans and American Indians face more restrictions than white women, whose college enrollment is far higher even than that of white men. ( Steinem said that women are never "Front Runners. How many white women senators are there? How many black?)

Cecil Brown, author of the bestselling Hey, Dude Where's My Black Studies Department, wrote:

"I grew up in North Carolina, where I often heard my mother and my aunts speak of the racism of white women against them. Their experience is that of millions of black women who were and are discriminated by white women.
In the Bay Area, where I now live, a professor friend told me, recently, that a white female student told him that she found the use of the expression, "white woman" in his lectures offensive, and asked that he not use it.
"Like this student, Ms Steinem avoids the phrase "white woman," because it historicizes their gender. While she lectures to us about black men, white men, and black women, she can only think of her white women as women.
"It's time to take pride in breaking all the barriers," Ms. Steinem ends her remarks. We have to be able to say: "I'm supporting [Hillary] because she'll be a great president and because she is a woman. But do we dare say that we should support her because she is a white woman?"

Our letters were not published, but one written by a black feminist exposed the divide between black and white feminists, one that is rarely aired since white feminists have more access to the media than black ones and in their books report, falsely, a solidarity between them and black women.

Among letter writer Karin Kimbrough's comments:

"As a black woman and a feminist, I find it depressing to see Gloria Steinem set up this tired, false debate as to whether a black man or a white woman is more disadvantaged in national politics.
She cites as evidence that 'black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot.' So what?
My parents (who are Ms. Steinem's age) vividly recall racism in the Deep South, including barriers to voting as well as the barriers to many other supposedly granted rights like eating in restaurants, staying in hotels and using public facilities. These were all rights white women actively enjoyed."

Camille Paglia also weighed in:

"Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip. Steinem's fawning, gaseous New York Times op-ed about her pal Hillary this week speaks volumes about the snobby clubbiness and reactionary sentimentality of the fossilized feminist establishment, which has blessedly fallen off the cultural map in the 21st century. History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary."

An example of the problems that Barack faces as a result of there being few blacks having jobs in the old media occurred during an appearance by a white woman reporter on "Washington Journal,"Jan.14. So pro-Hillary was this reporter, Beth Fouhy, that one woman called and said that she thought that this woman was a Hillary spokesperson, before noticing that she was from the
Associated Press. Obviously the media have been infiltrated by Steinem's legions.

Scathing comments about the white feminist movement by black feminists are included in The Feminist Memoir Project, edited by Rachel Blau DuPlessis and Ann Snitow. Timesperson,Maureen Dowd also challenged Steinem, who is hard on black guys, but once confessed in the Times that she becomes embarrassed when a male of her ethnic group becomes involved in a scandal. Challenging Steinem's argument that "she is supporting Hillary [because] she had no 'masculinity to prove.'" Dowd wrote, "Empirically speaking, her masculinity is precisely what Hillary
has been out to prove in her bid for the White House. What else was voting to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backing the White House's bellicosity on Iran but proving her masculinity."

Desperate, when the campaign moved into New Hampshire, the Clintons launched the brass knuckles attack on Obama that commentator William Bennett predicted would happen after Mrs. Clinton was upset in Iowa.

His voice shaking with rage, a livid Bill Clinton said that Obama's positions on the war in Iraq was a "a fairy tale," and that nominating Obama was "a roll of the dice."

Writing in The Washington Post, Jan.13, Marjorie Valbrun, voiced the reaction of many blacks to Clinton's performance:

"If anyone needed any proof that the mean Clinton machine is alive and well in this campaign, all they had to do was watch Bill Clinton deliver his angry diatribe against Obama in New Hampshire last week just before the primary. His red-faced anger was clear and a little scary, too. It wasn't what he said but how he said it. His tone was contemptuous of his wife's main challenger, whom he described as a political neophyte who for some reason was being granted a honeymoon with the national media.
This is the same Bill Clinton who took on Sister Souljah, a young and, at the time, controversial black rapper who made incendiary racial remarks after the Los Angeles race riots. Many people accused Clinton of using the rapper, and an appearance before Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, as an opportunity to distance himself from Jackson, the ultimate race man. The move helped reinforce his white moderate bona fides."

On Jan.13th, when Tim Russert interrogated Mrs. Clinton whether the attacks on Obama by her, her husband, and her surrogates were racist, she filibustered and dismissed such concerns as the one made by Ms. Valbrum and other blacks in a patronizing manner. She falsely accused Obama of comparing himself with JFK and MLK. He didn't. He invoked their names to make a point about hope. How some hopes, considered false by cynics, can be fulfilled.

So offended by what he considered a black man getting "cocky" with his wife, Clinton blew his top. "Cocky" was the word that nuns educated Bob Herbert used to admonish Obama. Herbert, one of three blacks whom the Times views as unlikely to alienate their readership, pointed to an exchange between Obama and Mrs. Clinton. When Mrs. Clinton, during a debate, commented that voters found Obama more "likeable" than Mrs. Clinton, Obama said that Mrs. Clinton was "likeable enough." Obama's reply prompted an Ante Bellum white man, Karl Rove, to refer to Obama as "a smarmy, prissy little guy taking a slap at her." He said that this exchange threw the primary victory to Mrs. Clinton. Notwithstanding the irony of Karl Rove referring to someone as "smarmy," if a reply as mild and innocuous as Obama's leads to his being flogged by Clinton and reprimanded by one of the Establishment's Black tokens, Obama is going to be restricted in his ability to take on the political brawlers and hit persons aligned with Clinton like Don Imus's buddy, James Carville, a man who sneers at people who live in trailer parks, and who practices a no-holds-barred political strategy.

Both CNN and Carl Bernstein said that Clinton, in the midst of giving this uppity black the required flogging (Clinton's a Jeffersonian. Flogging blacks was Jefferson's idea of recreation), had misrepresented Barack's record. Also, those who commented about Hillary Clinton's tearful breakdown missed the commentary that accompanied this calculated attempt at seeming human and personal, which occurred, as Jesse Jackson, Jr. noted, in The Daily News, when her advisors told her that she appear to be more human. "Why didn't she cry for the victims of Katrina?" he added.

She said that she didn't want to see the country "go backwards," or "spin out of control," the kind of vision of black rule promoted by D.W.Griffith's Birth of a Nation, and Neo-Confederate novelist Tom Wolfe's "A Man In Full." (Unfortunately for Obama, this was during a week that saw post election violence in Kenya where Barack's father was born.) Hers was the kind of rhetoric that was used by the Confederates whose rule was restored by Andrew Johnson. Give the black man governing powers and no white woman will be safe. This was Mrs. Clinton's Willie Horton moment.

Bill Clinton's orchestrating his wife's being more personal, was a brilliant stroke. One that might doom Obama's candidacy, but will doom the Democrats' chances to win the 2008 election as well. As a southern demagogue, Bill Clinton calculated that no black man can compete with a white woman's tears, a left over from Old South thinking. Black men have been lynched as a result of the tears of white women. While Jesse Helms, another southern demagogue, used a black man's hand in an ad that criticized Affirmative Action, Feminist Bill Clinton, who exploited a young woman, who held him in awe, and cost Al Gore an election, used his wife's tears, so desperate was he to achieve a third term and redeem his being impeached. But judging from angry black callers into C-Span's "The Washington Journal," the day after the New Hampshire primary, and the following day, and my own non-scientific survey, many blacks finally get it. That they have been snookered by the Clintons. One angry man said that blacks supported Clinton during his marital problems and this is what they get for it. Another man said that he was going to vote for McCain as a way of protesting the Clinton's treatment of Obama. On Jan.11, an irate black woman called in and said that she had been devoted to the Clinton's since the 1990s, but after his attack on Obama, which she likened to " a knife in my chest," and which she described as "low down" she said that if Hillary were nominated, she'd either "vote Republican, or stay home." Calling into the Journal on Jan.13, a black woman from Ohio said that many of her friends were upset with the "subliminally racist" campaign against Obama that the Clinton's were conducting. These callers expressed the disgust that thousands of blacks feel about the Clintons dirty tricks campaign against Obama, which included sending out mailers making false statements about his view about abortion, and deceptively attributing another mailer, critical of Obama, to John Edwards. This black backlash against the Clintons provides the Republican Party with a golden opportunity to recruit black voters for McCain, but I doubt whether they will seize upon it. After all, while Clinton might have an office in Harlem, McCain has a black daughter!

A black Ph.D. caller said that he found blacks in a barbershop to be more prescient than he. They said that once whites entered the voting booth, they'd vote for the white candidate no matter what they said to the pollster. Some commentators recalled treatment that Howard Gant and Tom Bradley received. Both were considered shoo-ins by pollsters for Senator from North Carolina and Governor of California because whites misled pollsters about how they really intended to vote.

Later in the day of Jan.8, Larry Sabato of The University of Virginia , appearing on The Chris Matthews Show, commented about a previous segment during which Dee Dee Meyers and Pat Buchanan opposed Michael Eric Dyson's argument that white racism was a factor in Obama's New Hampshire defeat. He said, "I think its very naïve, given American history, to automatically dismiss the racial voting theory before it's investigated. There is some evidence that race is one of several factors involved in this upset." Chris Matthews, who, apparently, has taken a new look at racism in the United States, after the Imus debacle, and a couple of other white commentators, including NBC News Political Director, Chuck Todd, agreed with this sentiment that race was a factor. But most white commentators agreed with Pat Buchanan, and Dee Dee Meyers, former Clinton press secretary, who said that the difference between the polling that showed Obama with a double digit lead and the actual outcome had nothing to with white voters telling pollsters one thing and voting the opposite. For people like Pat Buchanan, nothing has to do with race, unless he can use race to stir up votes in one of his campaigns.

Predictably, The New York Times also followed the line that the racial attitudes of whites had nothing to do with Obama's narrow defeat in New Hampshire, not surprising since the line of The New York Times, on the opinion page and elsewhere, is that we have entered a "post race" period.

Such is the rage of blacks against the Clintons after Iowa and New Hampshire that If Hillary Clinton is nominated, she will not be elected president. Obama and his "Joshua" generation will inherit a party that has lost its way. This would be a new development for the progressive movement since, from the abolitionists to the progressive movements of the 20th century, black progressives were the followers and not the leaders. When Frederick Douglass, Richard Wright and Ralph Ellison got out of line, the progressives replaced them with another more obedient black spokesperson. After he broke with his progressive sponsors, Richard Wright was assaulted (The God That Failed by Koestler, Silone, Wright).

An uninformed Times Op-Ed writer, a CMD, said that Obama had gotten farther toward the nomination than any other black. Not true. When Jesse Jackson won the Michigan primary, there was an eruption of panic among the party elite. Ben Wattenberg and others were brought in to smear Jackson with the charge of Anti-Semitism and out of this emergency arose the white conservative wing of the party, The Democratic Leadership Council, whose founder, Al From, still brags about how he put black people in their place. Clinton was the DLC's candidate for president.

The reason for the 1960s rift between the Black Power people and the New Left was because when the black nationalists arrived at Freedom Summer, the northeastern liberals were giving orders, while the blacks were taking the risks. The black nationalists took control of the movement and dragged Stokely Carmichael, who was devoted to non-violence, kicking and screaming into their ranks, and into their philosophy of armed self-defense, according to Askia Toure, whom Mary Snow in her book, Freedom Summer, accuses of purging the Northern Liberals from SNCC. The progressive white women left SNCC, but not before borrowing the SNCC manifesto and using it as it their own, according to Snow. They changed the pronouns and this became the beginning of the modern feminist movement. The reason that much of the feminist movement's fire is aimed at the brothers is because some of these women went away mad (Going South by Debra L.Schultz). Based upon Stokely Carmichael's remark that the position of women in SNCC was "prone," they accused the black men in SNCC of misogyny. According to black women, who were members of SNCC, the white feminists, led by Casey Hayden, took Carmichael's comments out of context. Their views about their clashes with white feminism are printed in The Trouble Between Us by Winifred Breines, a book ignored by Mark Leibovich,writing in The New York Times,Jan.13. He repeated the charge about Carmichael made by white feminists without asking black feminists what they thought. Typical of a member of the Old Media, which takes its cues from those whom the patriarchy has appointed to lead the movement.

If Cynthia McKinney is nominated for president by the Green Party, a test for corporate feminists like Gloria Steinem, so concerned about the lack of opportunities for their black sisters, black voters will flock to McKinney by the thousands, which might tip the balance if the contest is close between Ms. Clinton and her Republican opponent. Others will leave the line for president on the ballot, blank. This rage against the Clintons will go unnoticed by the segregated old corporate media, which has more information about the landscape of Mars than trends in the Black, Asian-American and Hispanic communities. They rely upon their hand full of colored mind doubles, who tell them what they want to hear.

Modern day Indian scouts. When they're not available, all white panels instruct each other about who is a racist and who is not, how black people feel, how they are going to vote, continuing what some blacks regard as the white intellectual occupation of the black experience, an attitude that dates all the way back to a letter written by Martin Delaney to Frederick Douglass, 1863, in which he complained about the favorable treatment Douglass gave to Harriet Beecher Stowe's book, Uncle Tom's Cabin, while ignoring his Blake, or the Huts of America, 1859. "She can not speak for us," he wrote.

Clinton will still receive some support from some black democratic loyalists, and celebrities although some of them are beginning to distance themselves from the couple after Iowa and New Hampshire smears against Obama, but a large number of black people, who helped elect Clinton, twice, will defect.

Representative James E. Clyburn, a black Congressman from South Carolina, told the New York Times (Jan.11, 2008) that "he may abandon his neutral stance in his state's primary, based in part on comments by Senator Hillary Rodman Clinton about President Lyndon B.Johnson and the Rev. Dr, Martin Luther King, Jr." He
and other blacks interpreted Hillary Clinton's remark about the two as implying that Johnson did more for the cause of Civil Rights than King, who, like Obama, made great speeches.

Also one wonders whether Henry Louis Gate's Jr., media appointed leader of the Talented Tenth (a phrase that W.E.B DuBois used to appoint the black elite as the true leaders of the Negro masses, an insult to grassroots leaders like Fannie Lou Hammer), will follow suit. While smearing a number of black male writers as misogynists, in the Times and elsewhere, when Bill Clinton was caught with his pants down, Gates, Jr. said. We will "go to the wall for this president."

Are the Clintons new in a south where husbands like George Wallace extended their power by getting their wives elected? Hardly. Take the Fergusons.

In Texas there was a couple called the Fergusons, affectionately called "Ma and Pa Ferguson."
Miriam Ferguson was a quiet, private person who preferred to stay home in her big house in Temple, Texas, and take care of her husband, raise her two daughters, and tend to her flower garden.
But in 1923 she was elected governor of Texas, the first woman governor elected in the United States.
Her husband, Jim Ferguson, served two terms as governor, but during his second term he was impeached, which meant he could not run again for public office. So Miriam agreed to run to clear his name and restore the family's honor.
She served two terms as governor: from 1925 to 1927 and from 1933 to 1935. She and her husband became known as 'Ma' and 'Pa' Ferguson. Her campaign slogan was, 'Two Governors for the Price of One'.

Remind you of anyone?

Ishmael Reed is a poet, novelist and essayist who lives in Oakland. His widely-accalimed novels include, Mumbo Jumbo, the Freelance Pallbearers and the Last Days of Louisiana Red. He has recently published a fantastic book on Oakland: Blues City: a Walk in Oakland and Carroll and Graf has recently published a thick volume of his poems: New and Collected Poems: 1964-2006.

http://counterpunch.com/reed01142008.html

Email and volunteer to call in Penn

RD Larson — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:58:30 EDT

All of this flap about Reverend Wright and Obama's new pastor is immaterial to his platform and issues. I think if we could call and write the different news medias we could get them off of the focus on this. Older people do remember the old days more clearly and some have a harder time changing than others. What OTHER people say is not what OBAMA himself says. With all the money and hoop-te-do in the news media for the might advertising dollar they often lose sight of the reality of things. I have been in many churches and temples where the minister got all revved up over getting his "word of God " crossed to his flock. A sermon and a speech are two different things. I disagree with a lot of people about a lot of things. I do think we should speak up when people are rude but I don't think ripping them apart will help to keep them from saying it if they think it. Those people who are negative and wrathful are difficult to deal with. Just look at celebrities and their struggles with the press. Think how this is for the candidates. What a bunch of bull. I knew a man once who had a wall of inappropriate pictures in his OWN house and I didn't say anything because I was a guest. He later became a minister and my very up-tight friend attained his church. I was dying to tell her about his wall of porn but I didn't because what good would it do? Or maybe he'd changed. Obama is right; we all have off-duty relatives and friends; we can tell them that it's not right about what they say or do but it IS a free country still. Some people go off kilter in their views. If Obama can unite this country he will have to get past this and tell the voters that he supports Asians, blacks, Latinos, Native Americans and whites. I have been to Churches that had ministers that preached hell, fire and brimstone on all kinds of stuff. No one is infallible. Not even the Dalai Llama. Life goes on so lets help get Barack Obama elected so we start to fix the problems we're having in this wonderul nation. I think he is our best hope for the future.

Trying to change the game...again

Chip Roberson in Sonoma, CA — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:56:28 EDT

I heard one commentator today describe this proposal makes the Clinton campaign look a little desperate but I think it deserves a little examination. The gist of the proposal, floated by Clinton supporter Evan Bayh, is this: “So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” Interesting but perhaps specious.

Sen. Obama Voiced His Opinion on Mich. & Fl. in Aug. 2007, Not Sen. Clinton

David Waddle — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:50:27 EDT

The New York Times

Democrats Take a Tough Line on Florida Primary
Published online August 26, 2007
by ADAM NAGOURNEY

In that article in which the DNC takes all delegates away from Florida if Florida goes ahead and holds
Their primary early as they state they will. In that same article from August 2007, I found the following quote of interest.
"There are 30 days for this to get worked out, and our hope is it gets settled in a way that Florida is contributing delegates to the nominating process," said David Plouffe, the campaign manager for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. "If they don't come into compliance, that means they won't be contributing any delegates to the contest and this will be nothing more than a straw poll."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can find no early position taken by Sen. Clinton. Maybe because she was leaving open the possibility of exactly what has happened? Then why didn't she take that position last August? Could it be that Sen. Obama could have just as easily found himself in Clinton's shoes? Therefore, by taking no position she could take the position that fit her situation when the time came.
Once again, Sen. Obama proves himself a leader, not afraid to take a stand and end up with the correct decision. Whether it was correct by party leaders at the time it was made is irrelevant; Sen. Clinton made no vocal complaints, at the time, only Florida and Michigan were upset. Now they have Sen. Clinton on their side, upset will not be heard. I have one question: where was Sen. Clinton's opinion last August when Sen. Obama agreed with the DNC ruling.