Edwards departure has saddened me. He made a great speech in Louisana yesterday and left me with what could have been.He has been a long time in getting to that point yesterday four or five years campaigning, a long time. He has good ideas,Paul Krugman praised his national heath plan and the his way to pay for it. He forced Obama and Clinton to come up with something also. He is intelligent,has a good appearance a great smile and empathy for the poor and the working poor. Like me he worked his way through college and unlike me law school as well. No child of priviledge he knew what it was to work and work hard.He would have made a good president.
But he got the silent treatment from the media, they ignored him, gave him the cold shoulder
John who? Someone said last night he didn't have star power.
It is Obama, Hillary was bad enough a woman running for president, but a black man running
for president WOW. Obama became the darling of the media an underdog and a black one at that.
What is the bigger story for Sunday the Patriots beat the Giants or the Giants beat the Patriots.
Edwards told an aide a few days before the Florida vote that he would need to set hinself on fire to get any attention and he can only do that once.
So what am I left with? A Bush lite and an enigma, one with hugh corporate ties a war vote and the other well who is the other? Obama has yet to define himself. I do not know what to expect
from him.He has yet to explain how he is going to bring all the diverse elements in the government and the USA to this one America he talks about.
Too me he doesn't seem authentic, a dreamer unreal.
I hope that John Edwards doesn't endorse either one neither is worthy. One of them will probably lose to McCain in November who knows I might vote for him too.
_______________________________________
The Daily Strategist
January 30, 2008
Edwards Departs
by Matt Compton, January 30, 2008 04:18 PM EST
Back in March, John Edwards held a press conference with his wife, Elizabeth, to discuss the reappearance of her cancer. At the time, there was widespread speculation about what Edwards would actually say. Hours before the event, a source told The Politico that the senator would suspend his campaign, then Matt Drudge put up the sirens, and for a moment, it looked like Edwards was done. Today, Sen. John Edwards is dropping out of the race. After disappointing losses in the early caucuses and primaries, that really doesn't come as much of a surprise. But it is worth stopping to note that between March and now, Edwards has made a real, tangible impression on this campaign for president. The mere fact of Edwards' withdrawal makes the assumption that everyone has made now inevitable—the next Democratic nominee for president will either be the first woman or the first African-American. By quitting the race now, and doing so gracefully, he does his part to ease the country into this historic moment. Edwards will make his announcement today from New Orleans—the same place he kicked off his campaign for president. Through the course of this election, Edwards, more than anyone, has made poverty an important theme in the race. Following his lead, Obama and Clinton both announced elaborate plans to fight hunger and disease and raise personal income levels. It is now a central part of the agenda for the next Democratic president. In fact, Edwards is responsible for driving much of the ideas debate in this primary. Before his rivals, he released sweeping, detailed plans to achieve universal health care and to fight global warming. They had little choice but to be just as bold and meticulous in their own policy prescriptions. His health care plan was particularly good example of fundamentally solid public policy. It was innovative and smart, describing specific roles for individuals, corporations, and the government. When Clinton released her plan in the fall, it shared much of the same architecture. Five years ago, Edwards gave a speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco. It was called, "In Defense of Optimism," and its message became the theme of his first campaign for president. It was immediately hailed as a success, and many pointed to that message of hope as a reason for his surprising second-place-finish in Iowa in 2004. But that wasn't the theme that Edwards chose to campaign around in this election. He ran as a fighter, a crusader, someone who could take on the big corporations and entrenched interests. But it's hard to be an angry, hopeful populist. This combative message just did not get voters (liberal or otherwise) to show up for him at the polls. It's hard to call the Edwards failure a rejection of populism outright, but it does lend some doubt to the idea that this kind of rhetoric can be a successful platform for a president. Now, the question is what he does next. Most reports indicate that Edwards will not endorse another candidate at his rally this afternoon. We know for a fact that he met privately with Hillary Clinton after the last Democratic debate. On Saturday, Robert Novak reported that the Obama campaign had been talking up the idea of Edwards as Attorney General. There is also some question as to whether the Edwards camp harbors some residual resentment of the decision by his former strategist David Axelrod to support Obama. Personally, I think the opinion that matters most to Edwards is that of his wife, and any endorsement decision matters heavily on how she weighs in.
Edwards' effect on the candidate competition from this point on is still up in the air. But his impact on the policies for which the ultimate nominee will fight is certain, and hard to overestimate
_______________________________________
Thank you Sen. Edwards and Rep. Kucinich by Jim Dean
Promoted Wednesday, 01/30/08 @ 11:30 am. Published Wednesday, 01/30/08 @ 11:15 am
During the last week, two Democratic Presidential candidates have decided to end their campaigns. Regardless of whether you supported John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich, all of us owe them our gratitude for what they have accomplished. Sen. Edwards and Rep. Kucinich were clear on the issues, put their convictions above the spin of the Beltway pundits, and spoke truth to power. If you watched the debates, you knew where they stood on the issues. You knew what kind of people they were, and you were clear on what they would try to accomplish if their campaigns for President were successful.
We hope the remaining presidential candidates understand that they have an opportunity to demonstrate to the voters that they have the same qualities as John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. That they are committed to getting our troops home from Iraq, committed to affordable health care for every American, and committed to the sacrifice that we all must make to clean up our environment, political system, and a whole host of other challenges that our country faces.
John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich may not be running for president, but they have plenty of backbone. They have challenged the culture of incumbency and every American is better for this.
Our best wishes and support go to each of these fine candidates and their extended families. We hope the remaining candidates will carry their torch; because only the Party that Empowers will be IN power.
Finally, please remember our engagement in the remaining primaries is critical. In the case of the February 5th primaries, all of the delegates are allocated proportionally. What we do going forward will directly impact the delegate count, so, it is critical that we keep up the pressure to put forth the progressive agenda.
Our best to you all!
_______________________________________
I am taking a break until after super duper day, back at you then!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Florida
Watched the dismay on the faces of all the election commentators as Hillarys' numbers rose higher and higher.The kept pointing out that the election meant nothing as no delegates to come from it. Well if it meant nothing why did they keep saying that many voters had sent in absentee ballots long before Obama had his big SO. Carolina victory on an on with that. Excuse after excuse as to why Obama didn't get more votes. Hillary much to the chagrin of these talking heads got more votes then Obama and Edwards combined. Of course as Blitzer said this has no meaning. Well I think on super tuesday they will see in the states where the electorate for the Democrats is more diverse then it was in So. Carolina what it meant!
McCain as I said yesterday would win, and if he gets the nod which I expect he will then this November could be a very close election with Hillary as his opponent. In spite of the polls showing that Obama would do well against McCain I don't think he could win it. But let us see how he does across the country. If any Democratic primaries are meaningless as an indidcation of Obamas popularity they are those in the south where Obamas strength lies. Why meaningless, becuse the Dems never win a single southern state since Lyndon Johnson. So what if Obama wins there, it is expected that the blacks will vote for him. HIs win in So.Carolina wasn't news if he had lost there it would have been news. He has to win big in the rest of the blue states and if Edwards quits Obama may as well go home because most of those voters will switch to Hillary. I do hope Edwards sees that and does drop out to keep Obama from getting the nod as I do believe he could not win nationally against John McCain.
_______________________________________
This what the campaign has come down too, whether someone claps at Bush and for how long etc. Very Sad.
Clinton Claps, Obama Refrains, When Bush Says Al Qaeda "On The Run" In Iraq
Washington Times January 29, 2008 09:50 AM
From the Washington Times:
When Mr. Bush entered the House chamber at 9:05, Mrs. Clinton stopped clapping after a few moments. Mr. Obama, however, clapped for almost the entire four minutes that Mr. Bush took to walk down the aisle.
One of the few policy lines on which the two senators differed came when Mr. Bush said that Al Qaeda is "on the run" in Iraq. Mrs. Clinton stood and clapped, while Mr. Obama did not.
On his way out of the chamber after his speech, Mr. Bush shook Mr. Obama's hand and then Mr. Kennedy's, and made a few quick remarks to both, drawing a smile from Mr. Obama.
The Hill highlighted the same moment:
Clinton and Obama's divergent views on the troop surge in Iraq, however, were plainly visible.
When Bush proclaimed, "Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt," Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated. The president's line divided most of the Democratic audience, with nearly half standing to applaud and the other half sitting in stony silence.
In one instance Clinton appeared to gauge Obama's response before showing her own.
The politics of clapping seemed to split both ways. A CNN analyst commented last night, "I saw at one moment, it appeared that Barack Obama was peering over at one moment to see if Senator Clinton had stood to applaud for something. You know there's always this politics of who stands up."
The Hill adds this color: "After his speech, Bush sought out Kennedy, his former partner in education reform, to exchange greetings. He also shook Obama's hand and said hello in typical Bush fashion: 'Hey buddy, how's it going,' he said, according to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who also sat next to Obama for the speech."
_______________________________________
The State of the Union Bush Forgot to Talk About
Sen. Bernie Sanders,
I listened intently to President Bush's State of the Union speech. Frankly, I had a hard time understanding what country he was talking about, what reality he was talking about. Certainly, if the "state of the union" refers to what is happening to the shrinking middle class of this country, and how we as a people are doing, the president had almost nothing to say that rang true. In fact, the speech just reminds us once again how far removed from the reality of ordinary life this president is, and how little he and his administration know about what is going on with the vast majority of America.
The president said that "in the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth." I wish that was true. Unfortunately, Since President Bush has been in office it is important to understand that:
-Nearly five million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty. Amazingly, the poverty rate is higher today than it was during the last recession in 2001.
-Median household income for working-age Americans has declined by almost $2,500; and overall median household income has gone down by nearly $1,000.
-8.6 million Americans have lost their health insurance.
-Over three million manufacturing jobs have been lost, including more than 10,000 in my State of Vermont.
-Three million workers have lost their pensions, and about half of American workers in the private sector have no pension coverage whatsoever.
-The annual trade deficit has more than doubled, and the national debt has gone up by $3 trillion.
-Health care premiums have increased 78 percent; the prices of gas and heating oil have more than doubled; and college education costs have increased by over 60 percent.In addition, to those statistics, let me just mention a few more:
-Last November, the personal savings rate was below zero, something that up until 2005 hasn't happened since the Great Depression.
-According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 35.5 million Americans struggled to put food on the table last year and the number of the hungriest Americans keeps going up.
-The average college student has racked up nearly $20,000 in debt upon graduation and some 400,000 qualified high school students don't go to college in the first place because they can't afford it.
-Home foreclosures are the highest on record turning the American dream of homeownership into an American nightmare for millions of Americans.
-The number of working families paying more than half of their incomes on housing has increased by 72 percent over the past decade.
-The United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty, the highest infant mortality rate, the highest overall poverty rate, the largest gap between the rich and the poor the largest incarceration rate and is the only country not to have a national health care program of any major developed country on earth.
-And, the number of college graduates earning poverty level wages has more than doubled over the past 15 years.
In other words, not only is the middle class being squeezed by skyrocketing prices; the middle class is actually shrinking and poverty is increasing.
Meanwhile, the wealthiest people in our society have not had it so good since the 1920s.
Income inequality is on the rise. According to the latest figures from the IRS, the top 1 percent earned more income in 2005 than the bottom 50 percent, and the national share of income going to the wealthiest Americans is higher than at any time since 1929.
Perhaps even more disturbing is the unequal distribution of wealth.
According to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $290 billion last year to $1.54 trillion. In addition, the top one percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.
What are the super-wealthy doing with their money?
As Robert Frank of The Wall Street Journal has pointed out in his book Richistan, the super wealthy, those worth between $100 million to $1 billion, spent an average of $182,000 on wrist watches; $311,000 on automobiles; $397,000 on jewelry; and $169,000 on spa services last year alone.
The middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the wealthiest Americans have not had it so good since the 1920s. That is the state of our economy.
I order to protect the interests of the sinking middle class the federal government needs a change in direction in almost every area of public policy.
We must start by passing an economic stimulus package as soon as possible.
Now, I am pleased that the leadership in the House was able to negotiate an economic stimulus package with the White House. I am also pleased that the Senate Finance Committee will be marking-up a different economic stimulus bill that improves the House version by including unemployment insurance; tax rebates to senior citizens; and equal rebates for Americans paying payroll taxes.
These are all good and important steps to be taking. I commend Majority Leader Reid, Finance Chairman Baucus and Speaker Pelosi for their outstanding work on this issue.
But, this package could and should be improved even more.
In my opinion, for an economic stimulus package to be most successful, we must do three things:
1) We must provide help to those most in need, particularly senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with children and persons with disabilities;
2) We must strengthen the middle class; and
3) We must put Americans back to work at good paying jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure: our roads, bridges, schools, homes, health centers, sewers, and other important needs.
If we fail to pass an economic stimulus package that does not accomplish all three of these goals, we will have missed out on an important opportunity to strengthen our economy.
Here is what I believe we should do.
First, I would increase the economic stimulus package from $150 billion to $175 billion.
The next thing we should do is to reduce the business tax breaks on equipment purchases by 50 percent or roughly $25 billion. These tax breaks are referred to as bonus depreciation. It has been argued that businesses need these tax breaks to buy more equipment, but the experts tell us that businesses will be buying this equipment regardless of whether these tax breaks are signed into law or not. According to Mark Zandi with Moody's, for every $1 the government provides for bonus depreciation, it would only add 27 cents to GDP. In other words, it would provide very little stimulus.
If we did these two things: increase the overall economic stimulus package by $25 billion; and cut the bonus depreciation tax break by 50 percent, that would leave us with about $50 billion.
What could we do with this $50 billion? We could complete the picture. We could put Americans to work at decent paying jobs; we could help those most in need; and we could strengthen the middle class. Those are the three pillars I believe should be included in any economic stimulus package.
Specifically, I believe we should provide $5 billion for an expansion of the Food Stamp program. The Congressional Budget Office and other experts have indicated that such an increase would be one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy. For every $1.00 invested in the Food Stamp Program, we would add $1.73 to GDP. More importantly, these benefits would go to the Americans who have been hit the hardest in our economy.
What else could we do?
We could provide $3.62 billion in home heating assistance for senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with children and persons with disabilities through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The price of energy is skyrocketing. People in my State of Vermont and all over this country are paying record prices to heat their homes this winter. In the richest country on the face of the earth, we must ensure that no-one goes cold this winter.
Including Food Stamps, LIHEAP and unemployment benefits in the economic stimulus package is not only the right thing to do in terms of stimulating the economy, it is the moral thing to do. We cannot turn a blind eye to those most in need.
In addition, with unemployment rising and our infrastructure crumbling, we could address both of these concerns by providing $16 billion to repair our schools, bridges, roads, sewers, rails, ports and airports. We could also put people to work weatherizing nearly 100,000 homes; expand our health delivery system by increasing funding for Community Health Centers, and help veterans with disabilities retrofit their cars and refurbish their homes.
States, localities, economists and other experts have identified thousands of projects throughout the country that could not only use this money, but spend it quickly.
McCain as I said yesterday would win, and if he gets the nod which I expect he will then this November could be a very close election with Hillary as his opponent. In spite of the polls showing that Obama would do well against McCain I don't think he could win it. But let us see how he does across the country. If any Democratic primaries are meaningless as an indidcation of Obamas popularity they are those in the south where Obamas strength lies. Why meaningless, becuse the Dems never win a single southern state since Lyndon Johnson. So what if Obama wins there, it is expected that the blacks will vote for him. HIs win in So.Carolina wasn't news if he had lost there it would have been news. He has to win big in the rest of the blue states and if Edwards quits Obama may as well go home because most of those voters will switch to Hillary. I do hope Edwards sees that and does drop out to keep Obama from getting the nod as I do believe he could not win nationally against John McCain.
_______________________________________
This what the campaign has come down too, whether someone claps at Bush and for how long etc. Very Sad.
Clinton Claps, Obama Refrains, When Bush Says Al Qaeda "On The Run" In Iraq
Washington Times January 29, 2008 09:50 AM
From the Washington Times:
When Mr. Bush entered the House chamber at 9:05, Mrs. Clinton stopped clapping after a few moments. Mr. Obama, however, clapped for almost the entire four minutes that Mr. Bush took to walk down the aisle.
One of the few policy lines on which the two senators differed came when Mr. Bush said that Al Qaeda is "on the run" in Iraq. Mrs. Clinton stood and clapped, while Mr. Obama did not.
On his way out of the chamber after his speech, Mr. Bush shook Mr. Obama's hand and then Mr. Kennedy's, and made a few quick remarks to both, drawing a smile from Mr. Obama.
The Hill highlighted the same moment:
Clinton and Obama's divergent views on the troop surge in Iraq, however, were plainly visible.
When Bush proclaimed, "Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt," Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated. The president's line divided most of the Democratic audience, with nearly half standing to applaud and the other half sitting in stony silence.
In one instance Clinton appeared to gauge Obama's response before showing her own.
The politics of clapping seemed to split both ways. A CNN analyst commented last night, "I saw at one moment, it appeared that Barack Obama was peering over at one moment to see if Senator Clinton had stood to applaud for something. You know there's always this politics of who stands up."
The Hill adds this color: "After his speech, Bush sought out Kennedy, his former partner in education reform, to exchange greetings. He also shook Obama's hand and said hello in typical Bush fashion: 'Hey buddy, how's it going,' he said, according to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who also sat next to Obama for the speech."
_______________________________________
The State of the Union Bush Forgot to Talk About
Sen. Bernie Sanders,
I listened intently to President Bush's State of the Union speech. Frankly, I had a hard time understanding what country he was talking about, what reality he was talking about. Certainly, if the "state of the union" refers to what is happening to the shrinking middle class of this country, and how we as a people are doing, the president had almost nothing to say that rang true. In fact, the speech just reminds us once again how far removed from the reality of ordinary life this president is, and how little he and his administration know about what is going on with the vast majority of America.
The president said that "in the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth." I wish that was true. Unfortunately, Since President Bush has been in office it is important to understand that:
-Nearly five million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty. Amazingly, the poverty rate is higher today than it was during the last recession in 2001.
-Median household income for working-age Americans has declined by almost $2,500; and overall median household income has gone down by nearly $1,000.
-8.6 million Americans have lost their health insurance.
-Over three million manufacturing jobs have been lost, including more than 10,000 in my State of Vermont.
-Three million workers have lost their pensions, and about half of American workers in the private sector have no pension coverage whatsoever.
-The annual trade deficit has more than doubled, and the national debt has gone up by $3 trillion.
-Health care premiums have increased 78 percent; the prices of gas and heating oil have more than doubled; and college education costs have increased by over 60 percent.In addition, to those statistics, let me just mention a few more:
-Last November, the personal savings rate was below zero, something that up until 2005 hasn't happened since the Great Depression.
-According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 35.5 million Americans struggled to put food on the table last year and the number of the hungriest Americans keeps going up.
-The average college student has racked up nearly $20,000 in debt upon graduation and some 400,000 qualified high school students don't go to college in the first place because they can't afford it.
-Home foreclosures are the highest on record turning the American dream of homeownership into an American nightmare for millions of Americans.
-The number of working families paying more than half of their incomes on housing has increased by 72 percent over the past decade.
-The United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty, the highest infant mortality rate, the highest overall poverty rate, the largest gap between the rich and the poor the largest incarceration rate and is the only country not to have a national health care program of any major developed country on earth.
-And, the number of college graduates earning poverty level wages has more than doubled over the past 15 years.
In other words, not only is the middle class being squeezed by skyrocketing prices; the middle class is actually shrinking and poverty is increasing.
Meanwhile, the wealthiest people in our society have not had it so good since the 1920s.
Income inequality is on the rise. According to the latest figures from the IRS, the top 1 percent earned more income in 2005 than the bottom 50 percent, and the national share of income going to the wealthiest Americans is higher than at any time since 1929.
Perhaps even more disturbing is the unequal distribution of wealth.
According to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $290 billion last year to $1.54 trillion. In addition, the top one percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.
What are the super-wealthy doing with their money?
As Robert Frank of The Wall Street Journal has pointed out in his book Richistan, the super wealthy, those worth between $100 million to $1 billion, spent an average of $182,000 on wrist watches; $311,000 on automobiles; $397,000 on jewelry; and $169,000 on spa services last year alone.
The middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the wealthiest Americans have not had it so good since the 1920s. That is the state of our economy.
I order to protect the interests of the sinking middle class the federal government needs a change in direction in almost every area of public policy.
We must start by passing an economic stimulus package as soon as possible.
Now, I am pleased that the leadership in the House was able to negotiate an economic stimulus package with the White House. I am also pleased that the Senate Finance Committee will be marking-up a different economic stimulus bill that improves the House version by including unemployment insurance; tax rebates to senior citizens; and equal rebates for Americans paying payroll taxes.
These are all good and important steps to be taking. I commend Majority Leader Reid, Finance Chairman Baucus and Speaker Pelosi for their outstanding work on this issue.
But, this package could and should be improved even more.
In my opinion, for an economic stimulus package to be most successful, we must do three things:
1) We must provide help to those most in need, particularly senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with children and persons with disabilities;
2) We must strengthen the middle class; and
3) We must put Americans back to work at good paying jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure: our roads, bridges, schools, homes, health centers, sewers, and other important needs.
If we fail to pass an economic stimulus package that does not accomplish all three of these goals, we will have missed out on an important opportunity to strengthen our economy.
Here is what I believe we should do.
First, I would increase the economic stimulus package from $150 billion to $175 billion.
The next thing we should do is to reduce the business tax breaks on equipment purchases by 50 percent or roughly $25 billion. These tax breaks are referred to as bonus depreciation. It has been argued that businesses need these tax breaks to buy more equipment, but the experts tell us that businesses will be buying this equipment regardless of whether these tax breaks are signed into law or not. According to Mark Zandi with Moody's, for every $1 the government provides for bonus depreciation, it would only add 27 cents to GDP. In other words, it would provide very little stimulus.
If we did these two things: increase the overall economic stimulus package by $25 billion; and cut the bonus depreciation tax break by 50 percent, that would leave us with about $50 billion.
What could we do with this $50 billion? We could complete the picture. We could put Americans to work at decent paying jobs; we could help those most in need; and we could strengthen the middle class. Those are the three pillars I believe should be included in any economic stimulus package.
Specifically, I believe we should provide $5 billion for an expansion of the Food Stamp program. The Congressional Budget Office and other experts have indicated that such an increase would be one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy. For every $1.00 invested in the Food Stamp Program, we would add $1.73 to GDP. More importantly, these benefits would go to the Americans who have been hit the hardest in our economy.
What else could we do?
We could provide $3.62 billion in home heating assistance for senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with children and persons with disabilities through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The price of energy is skyrocketing. People in my State of Vermont and all over this country are paying record prices to heat their homes this winter. In the richest country on the face of the earth, we must ensure that no-one goes cold this winter.
Including Food Stamps, LIHEAP and unemployment benefits in the economic stimulus package is not only the right thing to do in terms of stimulating the economy, it is the moral thing to do. We cannot turn a blind eye to those most in need.
In addition, with unemployment rising and our infrastructure crumbling, we could address both of these concerns by providing $16 billion to repair our schools, bridges, roads, sewers, rails, ports and airports. We could also put people to work weatherizing nearly 100,000 homes; expand our health delivery system by increasing funding for Community Health Centers, and help veterans with disabilities retrofit their cars and refurbish their homes.
States, localities, economists and other experts have identified thousands of projects throughout the country that could not only use this money, but spend it quickly.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Kennedy's Favorite Son
JFK........RFK........BARACK OBAMA
Well let us hope he doesn't end of like they did! For my part he is defintely not one of them.
On international affairs, while in Illinois, Obama wisely opposed the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. But he has very little foreign policy experience, and rookie mistakes on the campaign trail suggest a potentially risky lack of sophistication at a time when that's indispensable. He seemed naive when he implied he'd meet with hostile foreign leaders without preconditions. He provoked needless controversy in Pakistan when he said he'd invade to chase terrorists if the Pakistanis did not. And he fumbled a question about whether it would be right to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan, suggesting he didn't understand the subtle way in which presidents have to maintain ambiguity about nuclear warfare, no matter their real intentions.
Another area of concern is executive ability, one reason that voters have historically given the White House nod to governors over senators. Obama has never run anything larger than his Senate office or his presidential campaign. His self-deprecating modesty about his management skills — "I'm not an operating officer" — raises a nagging doubt about how effectively he'd manage the executive branch of government, which has nearly 2 million employees. Presidents shouldn't be micromanagers — early in his tenure, Jimmy Carter famously monitored the schedule for the White House tennis court — but deploying the bureaucracy in support of their agenda is an essential skill for presidents.
If Obama is his party's candidate, these and other questions will be chewed over endlessly in the many months until Election Day. But Super Tuesday, which could go a long way toward determining the Democratic nomination, is just eight days away. In that time, voters would do well to look beyond the unmistakable appeal of Obama's rhetoric and examine his record for clues as to what kind of president he would be.
From U S A Today
_______________________________________
Obam had best enjoy the friendly MSM while he has it. Remember he is the choice of the republican party as the opponent, but if he gets the nomination they will eat him up as maggots on a dead body.
_______________________________________
Well today is big one for the republicans I don't know the latest from the pollsters but think MCCain will win.
In contrast to the amount of attention the Democratic candidates are getting from MSM there is not that much for the Republicans. It is either the Dems race is more interesting to them or as it is said "if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all." The republican controlled MSM wouldn't want to accidently say the wrong thing or give the wrong quote that might hurt their candidate in November.
________________________________________
Craig Crawford: "[T]he evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness"
Summary: On Morning Joe, Craig Crawford stated: "I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness." Crawford went on to assert, "I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, 'Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?' you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons." He later added: "I really think it's a problem." ______________________________________
The war in Iraq not over, 5 more service men killed yesterday
Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In U.S. War On Iraq "1,168,058"
Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In U.S. War And Occupation Of Iraq 3,940
Cost of U.S. War and Occupation of Iraq
$489,646,132,314________________________________________
Well let us hope he doesn't end of like they did! For my part he is defintely not one of them.
On international affairs, while in Illinois, Obama wisely opposed the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. But he has very little foreign policy experience, and rookie mistakes on the campaign trail suggest a potentially risky lack of sophistication at a time when that's indispensable. He seemed naive when he implied he'd meet with hostile foreign leaders without preconditions. He provoked needless controversy in Pakistan when he said he'd invade to chase terrorists if the Pakistanis did not. And he fumbled a question about whether it would be right to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan, suggesting he didn't understand the subtle way in which presidents have to maintain ambiguity about nuclear warfare, no matter their real intentions.
Another area of concern is executive ability, one reason that voters have historically given the White House nod to governors over senators. Obama has never run anything larger than his Senate office or his presidential campaign. His self-deprecating modesty about his management skills — "I'm not an operating officer" — raises a nagging doubt about how effectively he'd manage the executive branch of government, which has nearly 2 million employees. Presidents shouldn't be micromanagers — early in his tenure, Jimmy Carter famously monitored the schedule for the White House tennis court — but deploying the bureaucracy in support of their agenda is an essential skill for presidents.
If Obama is his party's candidate, these and other questions will be chewed over endlessly in the many months until Election Day. But Super Tuesday, which could go a long way toward determining the Democratic nomination, is just eight days away. In that time, voters would do well to look beyond the unmistakable appeal of Obama's rhetoric and examine his record for clues as to what kind of president he would be.
From U S A Today
_______________________________________
Obam had best enjoy the friendly MSM while he has it. Remember he is the choice of the republican party as the opponent, but if he gets the nomination they will eat him up as maggots on a dead body.
_______________________________________
Well today is big one for the republicans I don't know the latest from the pollsters but think MCCain will win.
In contrast to the amount of attention the Democratic candidates are getting from MSM there is not that much for the Republicans. It is either the Dems race is more interesting to them or as it is said "if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all." The republican controlled MSM wouldn't want to accidently say the wrong thing or give the wrong quote that might hurt their candidate in November.
________________________________________
Craig Crawford: "[T]he evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness"
Summary: On Morning Joe, Craig Crawford stated: "I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness." Crawford went on to assert, "I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, 'Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?' you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons." He later added: "I really think it's a problem." ______________________________________
The war in Iraq not over, 5 more service men killed yesterday
Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In U.S. War On Iraq "1,168,058"
Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In U.S. War And Occupation Of Iraq 3,940
Cost of U.S. War and Occupation of Iraq
$489,646,132,314________________________________________
Monday, January 28, 2008
After Thoughts
Clinton Camp Says Obama Is Now "The Black Candidate"
Well he has been from the start unless I can't see black and white. Why would all those black voters turn out in SO.Carolina if he wasn't
Would he have received all the media attention he has had if he weren't black? Ask John Edwards a better and more electable candidate about his media coverage or read yesterdays Blog. Would Oprha winfry have been out campaigning making speechs, featuring him on her show if he were white. Come on he is "the black candidate" lets stop trying to ignore the issue. Sure he makes great speechs if you can stand that voice. So did William Jennings Bryan and he didn't get elected.
I never heard of the guy until he jumped up and said he was running for president, after all he was only ONE YEAR in the senate before announcing his candidacy HUH!
I have not read about any accomplishments in that year any bills with his name on them and passed what about contacting his former co-state legislatures find out what they thought of his performance.I mean lets investigate don't give him a free pass as was given to George W. Bush. He is being treated differently and better by the media because he is black, so it is a black candidacy.
I admit that the idea of a president of the United States whose name is Barrack Hussien Obama does give me a lump in me stomach!
_______________________________________
Some interesting stuff from the voting in SO. Carolina
For all the recent speculation about race and gender, here’s a tip about the real divide: age.
Among voters between 18 and 24, Obama beat Clinton, 66% to 25% (a 41-point gap).
Among voters between 25 and 29, Obama beat Clinton, 70% to 21% (a 49-point gap).
Among voters between 30 and 39, Obama beat Clinton, 62% to 23% (a 39-point gap).
Among voters between 40 and 49, Obama beat Clinton, 61% to 25% (a 36-point gap).
Among voters between 50 and 64, Obama beat Clinton, 51% to 26% (a 25-point gap).
Among voters 65 and older, Clinton beat Obama, 40% to 32% (an 8-point gap in the other direction).
Indeed, among those over 65, Obama was almost third, with Edwards just five-points behind him with 27%.
So, what’s up with older folks? Why did Obama cruise to easy victories in every age group except seniors? Discuss.
Update: To further the point about age, Obama won broad support among African-American voters in every age group, but his smallest margin came among blacks over the age of 60. Interesting.
Well as a member of that over 65 group we do get wiser with age you know the old German thought " We get too soon old, and too late smart".
I have heard more promises made but unkept by presidential candidates then I care to remember. This is the 14th opportunity I will have to vote for, as it is said now, the Leader of The Free World! Most of whom were at best so so . With experience comes oh no I won't do that again something all these young folks haven't had they are still idealistic. That does not solve problems.
_______________________________________
SPARTANBURG, S.C.–
Bill Clinton just staged a passionate defense of his wife here, after a voter asked how Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton could unite this country when it is so split, politically and racially, and when she is such a polarizing figure.
The question unleashed an attack against the Republicans and an unusual assertion that Mr. Clinton had somehow escaped those attacks (has he forgotten so quickly?); he said he understood the right-wing bullies because he grew up with them. And he said that when they "didn’t have me to kick around anymore," they went after his wife.
The question came from Dorothy Chapman at a town-hall meeting here (held at the Chapman Cultural Center; yes, same family). We caught up with Mrs. Chapman, 54, who is a painter, afterwards, and she told us she plans to vote for Senator Barack Obama.
She told Mr. Clinton that because she lives in the reddest state in America, she had to defend the Clintons during their eight years in the White House. ("Thanks!" Mr. Clinton chimed in.) She said she didn’t want to say anything negative about Mrs. Clinton because "I’m crazy about her," but her Republican friends "just go ballistic" over her. "How is she going to heal this red-state-blue-state, black-white thing that’s going on in this country?" she asked. "The last eight years have just been horrible."____
Well what I wish is someone would please explain to me how electing black man to the presidency is going to bring anyone together. Bring blacks and whites, red and blue, Democrats and republicans together for a common purpose to do the right things for America like some utopia? The lions lie down with the lambs. I don't know what Mrs Chapman is smoking but give me some because if Obama is elected it will divide not unite America. I don't know how this idea of a black man uniting and bringing east and west. north and south under one big tent it is just a ridiculous concept. It is the old pie in the sky or the guy selling the elixer from his wagon that will cure anything and is the answer to all your hopes. A noble enterprise to be sure but without any foundation. But whatever will be will be? Gibran (sp).
Well he has been from the start unless I can't see black and white. Why would all those black voters turn out in SO.Carolina if he wasn't
Would he have received all the media attention he has had if he weren't black? Ask John Edwards a better and more electable candidate about his media coverage or read yesterdays Blog. Would Oprha winfry have been out campaigning making speechs, featuring him on her show if he were white. Come on he is "the black candidate" lets stop trying to ignore the issue. Sure he makes great speechs if you can stand that voice. So did William Jennings Bryan and he didn't get elected.
I never heard of the guy until he jumped up and said he was running for president, after all he was only ONE YEAR in the senate before announcing his candidacy HUH!
I have not read about any accomplishments in that year any bills with his name on them and passed what about contacting his former co-state legislatures find out what they thought of his performance.I mean lets investigate don't give him a free pass as was given to George W. Bush. He is being treated differently and better by the media because he is black, so it is a black candidacy.
I admit that the idea of a president of the United States whose name is Barrack Hussien Obama does give me a lump in me stomach!
_______________________________________
Some interesting stuff from the voting in SO. Carolina
For all the recent speculation about race and gender, here’s a tip about the real divide: age.
Among voters between 18 and 24, Obama beat Clinton, 66% to 25% (a 41-point gap).
Among voters between 25 and 29, Obama beat Clinton, 70% to 21% (a 49-point gap).
Among voters between 30 and 39, Obama beat Clinton, 62% to 23% (a 39-point gap).
Among voters between 40 and 49, Obama beat Clinton, 61% to 25% (a 36-point gap).
Among voters between 50 and 64, Obama beat Clinton, 51% to 26% (a 25-point gap).
Among voters 65 and older, Clinton beat Obama, 40% to 32% (an 8-point gap in the other direction).
Indeed, among those over 65, Obama was almost third, with Edwards just five-points behind him with 27%.
So, what’s up with older folks? Why did Obama cruise to easy victories in every age group except seniors? Discuss.
Update: To further the point about age, Obama won broad support among African-American voters in every age group, but his smallest margin came among blacks over the age of 60. Interesting.
Well as a member of that over 65 group we do get wiser with age you know the old German thought " We get too soon old, and too late smart".
I have heard more promises made but unkept by presidential candidates then I care to remember. This is the 14th opportunity I will have to vote for, as it is said now, the Leader of The Free World! Most of whom were at best so so . With experience comes oh no I won't do that again something all these young folks haven't had they are still idealistic. That does not solve problems.
_______________________________________
SPARTANBURG, S.C.–
Bill Clinton just staged a passionate defense of his wife here, after a voter asked how Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton could unite this country when it is so split, politically and racially, and when she is such a polarizing figure.
The question unleashed an attack against the Republicans and an unusual assertion that Mr. Clinton had somehow escaped those attacks (has he forgotten so quickly?); he said he understood the right-wing bullies because he grew up with them. And he said that when they "didn’t have me to kick around anymore," they went after his wife.
The question came from Dorothy Chapman at a town-hall meeting here (held at the Chapman Cultural Center; yes, same family). We caught up with Mrs. Chapman, 54, who is a painter, afterwards, and she told us she plans to vote for Senator Barack Obama.
She told Mr. Clinton that because she lives in the reddest state in America, she had to defend the Clintons during their eight years in the White House. ("Thanks!" Mr. Clinton chimed in.) She said she didn’t want to say anything negative about Mrs. Clinton because "I’m crazy about her," but her Republican friends "just go ballistic" over her. "How is she going to heal this red-state-blue-state, black-white thing that’s going on in this country?" she asked. "The last eight years have just been horrible."____
Well what I wish is someone would please explain to me how electing black man to the presidency is going to bring anyone together. Bring blacks and whites, red and blue, Democrats and republicans together for a common purpose to do the right things for America like some utopia? The lions lie down with the lambs. I don't know what Mrs Chapman is smoking but give me some because if Obama is elected it will divide not unite America. I don't know how this idea of a black man uniting and bringing east and west. north and south under one big tent it is just a ridiculous concept. It is the old pie in the sky or the guy selling the elixer from his wagon that will cure anything and is the answer to all your hopes. A noble enterprise to be sure but without any foundation. But whatever will be will be? Gibran (sp).
Sunday, January 27, 2008
America Racist Never
It was no surprise to me that Obama won in South Carolina after all where at least 80% of the Democratic base has a black face. One of the So. Carolina black congressman said it wasn't a racist vote some whites voted for Obama and some blacks voted for Clinton and Edwards, all three of them. Obama got 80% of the black vote but that is not racist that is just supporting a brother. When a white votes for a white now THAT"S RACIST! The Democratic party in the South has a primarily black face so Obama will win all but maybe Florida and I believe he may also win in Maryland. All of this wouldn't matter if America wasn't racist but yesterdays vote showed that it is.
John Edwards didn't do as well as I had hoped but he and Hillary have to share the white vote. More about John Edwards later.
The main stream media has given Obama unprecedented support and attentin right from the beginning of his campaign. This should come as no surprise as they want him to win for he is the easiest to beat. His support by the MSN is not unexpected because the MSM is owned by conglamorants who are in turn owned by rich white republicans and they wanted Obama to get the nod.
Now the way it looks is that McCain is going to win the republican nomination and according to polls he will beat either Obama or Clinton but is in turn beaten by Edwards and that is the fear of the MSM.
So in November 2008 what looked for the Dems as a , in the words of that famous guy from CIA, a slam dunk, becomes instead a free forall in which the Republicans win. It matters little if Hillary or Barack get the nod as both start off with a negative, which in the minds of many is enough not to vote for them, race and gender. Unfortunately it also could cost the Dems the Senate if not the house.
_______________________________________
Now about that prejudice of the Main Stream Media against John Edwards I offer to the following article from the Off The Bus piece in the Huffington Post.
Could Edwards Beat McCain? The Polls Won't Tell Us
Leslie Savan
Yesterday's Zogby poll has Edwards within Iowa-like striking distance of Hillary for second place in today's South Carolina primary. "The real movement here is by John Edwards, who is the only one who continues to gain ground in our three-day tracking poll," writes John Zogby, attributing most of the gains to previously undecided African American voters.White dude rising? We'll soon find out. But the mainstream media, long determined to ignoreEdwards and keep this a feisty, feuding two-person race http://www.johnedwards.com/media/video/where-is-john/ , is not letting him show his stuff where it currently counts--against McCain.Thursday night, Tim Russert was oohing over how close a McCain-Obama or McCain-Hillary race would be: the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal head-to-head match-up poll shows McCain beating Hillary by two points and tying with Obama; Obama and Hillary each clobbered Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee. When I saw that Edwards wasn't part of the six-pol poll, my jaded jaw almost dropped.Though I shouldn't have been surprised. CNN also disappeared the former North Carolina senator from its most recent (mid-January) head-to-head poll--even though Edwards was the only Dem to beat McCain in its previous (mid-December) match-up. At the time, CNN polling director Keating Holland wrote, "Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans, and McCain is the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats. Some might argue this shows that they are the most electable candidates in their respective parties." Why wouldn't CNN include its own previous chart-topper? Don't know. CNN wouldn't return my calls. Granted, a lot has changed in the last month, and other polls have also bumped Edwards from their January match-ups. Granted, too, Edwards is doing poorly in national polls. But so far, Edwards (unlike the shamefully treated Paul and Kucinich) is still deemed debate-worthy. Shouldn't Democrats as well as Republicans have access to information on how all their candidates stand in hypothetical general election contests?Eviction from "electability" polls is bad enough, but CNN's Bill Schneider and even the esteemed Factcheck.org have called Edwards "misleading" for citing, at the CNN debate last Saturday, his winning performance in the December CNN poll. "It's literally true [that Edwards was the one Democrat who beat McCain in the last CNN poll that included him], but still misleading," Factcheck writes, because, "there is a MORE recent CNN poll, one that shows either Clinton or Obama beating McCain and doesn't include Edwards." Talk about Chinese finger puzzles, self-fulfilling prophesies, chicken and eggs.No matter. MSM has moved on. Edwards's new designation is "kingmaker." On Friday, the Wall Street Journal, NBC's polling partner, tsked-tsked that "Mr. Edwards has all but dropped from sight. Generally ignored by the national press and with a campaign bankroll a fraction the size of his rivals," the best Edwards can hope for is to swing his accumulated delegates toward Obama's or Hillary's nomination.That's no doubt true. By February 6, Democrats are likely to be stuck with the two weakest candidates. As Marc Cooper wrote here, once Hillary locks up the nomination, the rumors about Bill will come fully unzipped, diminishing her chances in November. Meanwhile, Obama's numbers among whites are dropping, largely because of Billary's attacks, whether you consider them to be coded racist appeals or merely color-blind Rove-ian hit jobs.If I didn't know better, I'd say that by cutting off the race's possibly strongest Democrat--first from media coverage and now from polls--the corporate media could be misleading us toward another Republican administration.
_______________________________________
Bill Clinton is like a teenager who has already graduated from high school but misses it so he keeps going back and hanging out there.
_______________________________________
Frank Rich
The Billary Road to Republican Victory
"The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse," said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.
The Post and Times reporters couldn’t unlock all the secrets. The unanswered questions could keep them and their competitors busy until Nov. 4.
Mr. Clinton’s increased centrality to the campaign will also give The Wall Street Journal a greater news peg to continue its reportorial forays into the unraveling financial partnership between Mr. Clinton and the swashbuckling billionaire Ron Burkle.
At "Little Rock’s Fort Knox," as the Clinton library has been nicknamed by frustrated researchers, it’s not merely the heavy-hitting contributors who are under wraps. Even by the glacial processing standards of the National Archives, the Clintons’ White House papers have emerged slowly, in part because Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications between him and his wife be "considered for withholding" until 2012.
When Mrs. Clinton was asked by Mr. Russert at an October debate if she would lift that restriction, she again escaped by passing the buck to her husband: "Well, that’s not my decision to make." Well, if her candidacy is to be as completely vetted as she guarantees, the time for the other half of Billary to make that decision is here.
The credibility of a major Clinton campaign plank, health care, depends on it. In that same debate, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Russert that "all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care" are "already available." As Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported weeks later, this is a bit off; he found that 3,022,030 health care documents were still held hostage. Whatever the pace of the processing, the gatekeeper charged with approving each document’s release is the longtime Clinton loyalist Bruce Lindsey.
People don’t change. Bill Clinton, having always lived on the edge, is back on the precipice. When he repeatedly complains that the press has given Mr. Obama a free ride and over-investigated the Clintons, he seems to be tempting the fates, given all the reporting still to be done on his post-presidential business. When he says, as he did on Monday, that "whatever I do should be totally transparent," it’s almost as if he’s setting himself up for a fall. There’s little more transparency at "Little Rock’s Fort Knox" than there is at Giuliani Partners.
"The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking anybody anything," Mrs. Clinton lectured Mr. Obama. Maybe so, but Republicans are smart enough not to start asking until after she has secured the nomination.
Not all Republicans are smart enough, however, to recognize the value of John McCain should Mrs. Clinton emerge as the nominee. He’s a bazooka aimed at most every rationale she’s offered for her candidacy.
In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired in déjà 1990s all over again. Mrs. Clinton’s spiel about being "tested" by her "35 years of experience" won’t fly either. The moment she attempts it, Mr. McCain will run an ad about how he was being tested when those 35 years began, in 1973. It was that spring when he emerged from five-plus years of incarceration at the Hanoi Hilton while Billary was still bivouacked at Yale Law School. And can Mrs. Clinton presume to sell herself as best equipped to be commander in chief "on Day One" when opposing an actual commander and war hero? I don’t think so.
Foreign policy issue No. 1, withdrawal from Iraq, should be a slam-dunk for any Democrat. Even the audience at Thursday’s G.O.P. debate in Boca Raton cheered Ron Paul’s antiwar sentiments. But Mrs. Clinton’s case is undermined by her record. She voted for the war, just as Mr. McCain did, in 2002 and was still defending it in February 2005, when she announced from the Green Zone that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well. " Only in November 2005 did she express the serious misgivings long pervasive in her own party. When Mr. McCain accuses her of now advocating "surrender" out of political expediency, her flip-flopping will back him up.
Billary can’t even run against the vast right-wing conspiracy if Mr. McCain is the opponent. Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay hate Mr. McCain as much as they hate the Clintons. And they hate him for the same reasons Mr. McCain wins over independents and occasional Democrats: his sporadic (and often mild) departures from conservative orthodoxy on immigration and campaign finance reform, torture, tax cuts, climate change and the godliness of Pat Robertson. Since Mr. McCain doesn’t kick reporters like dogs, as the Clintons do, he will no doubt continue to enjoy an advantage, however unfair, with the press pack on the Straight Talk Express.
Even so, Mr. McCain hasn’t yet won a clear majority of Republican voters in any G.O.P. contest. He’s depended on the kindness of independent voters. Tuesday’s Florida primary, which is open exclusively to Republicans, is his crucial test. If he fails, his party remains in chaos and Mitt Romney could still inherit the earth.
That would be a miracle for the Democrats, but they can hardly count on it. If Mr. Obama has not met an unexpected Waterloo in South Carolina — this column went to press before Saturday’s vote — the party needs him to stop whining about the Clintons’ attacks, regain his wit and return to playing offense. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would unambiguously represent change in a race with any Republican. If he vanquishes Billary, he’ll have an even stronger argument to take into battle against a warrior like Mr. McCain.
If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr. Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial. Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination — let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted — is a Democrat who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales.
_____________________________________________________________
Give A Hoot Don't Pollute
John Edwards didn't do as well as I had hoped but he and Hillary have to share the white vote. More about John Edwards later.
The main stream media has given Obama unprecedented support and attentin right from the beginning of his campaign. This should come as no surprise as they want him to win for he is the easiest to beat. His support by the MSN is not unexpected because the MSM is owned by conglamorants who are in turn owned by rich white republicans and they wanted Obama to get the nod.
Now the way it looks is that McCain is going to win the republican nomination and according to polls he will beat either Obama or Clinton but is in turn beaten by Edwards and that is the fear of the MSM.
So in November 2008 what looked for the Dems as a , in the words of that famous guy from CIA, a slam dunk, becomes instead a free forall in which the Republicans win. It matters little if Hillary or Barack get the nod as both start off with a negative, which in the minds of many is enough not to vote for them, race and gender. Unfortunately it also could cost the Dems the Senate if not the house.
_______________________________________
Now about that prejudice of the Main Stream Media against John Edwards I offer to the following article from the Off The Bus piece in the Huffington Post.
Could Edwards Beat McCain? The Polls Won't Tell Us
Leslie Savan
Yesterday's Zogby poll has Edwards within Iowa-like striking distance of Hillary for second place in today's South Carolina primary. "The real movement here is by John Edwards, who is the only one who continues to gain ground in our three-day tracking poll," writes John Zogby, attributing most of the gains to previously undecided African American voters.White dude rising? We'll soon find out. But the mainstream media, long determined to ignoreEdwards and keep this a feisty, feuding two-person race http://www.johnedwards.com/media/video/where-is-john/ , is not letting him show his stuff where it currently counts--against McCain.Thursday night, Tim Russert was oohing over how close a McCain-Obama or McCain-Hillary race would be: the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal head-to-head match-up poll shows McCain beating Hillary by two points and tying with Obama; Obama and Hillary each clobbered Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee. When I saw that Edwards wasn't part of the six-pol poll, my jaded jaw almost dropped.Though I shouldn't have been surprised. CNN also disappeared the former North Carolina senator from its most recent (mid-January) head-to-head poll--even though Edwards was the only Dem to beat McCain in its previous (mid-December) match-up. At the time, CNN polling director Keating Holland wrote, "Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans, and McCain is the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats. Some might argue this shows that they are the most electable candidates in their respective parties." Why wouldn't CNN include its own previous chart-topper? Don't know. CNN wouldn't return my calls. Granted, a lot has changed in the last month, and other polls have also bumped Edwards from their January match-ups. Granted, too, Edwards is doing poorly in national polls. But so far, Edwards (unlike the shamefully treated Paul and Kucinich) is still deemed debate-worthy. Shouldn't Democrats as well as Republicans have access to information on how all their candidates stand in hypothetical general election contests?Eviction from "electability" polls is bad enough, but CNN's Bill Schneider and even the esteemed Factcheck.org have called Edwards "misleading" for citing, at the CNN debate last Saturday, his winning performance in the December CNN poll. "It's literally true [that Edwards was the one Democrat who beat McCain in the last CNN poll that included him], but still misleading," Factcheck writes, because, "there is a MORE recent CNN poll, one that shows either Clinton or Obama beating McCain and doesn't include Edwards." Talk about Chinese finger puzzles, self-fulfilling prophesies, chicken and eggs.No matter. MSM has moved on. Edwards's new designation is "kingmaker." On Friday, the Wall Street Journal, NBC's polling partner, tsked-tsked that "Mr. Edwards has all but dropped from sight. Generally ignored by the national press and with a campaign bankroll a fraction the size of his rivals," the best Edwards can hope for is to swing his accumulated delegates toward Obama's or Hillary's nomination.That's no doubt true. By February 6, Democrats are likely to be stuck with the two weakest candidates. As Marc Cooper wrote here, once Hillary locks up the nomination, the rumors about Bill will come fully unzipped, diminishing her chances in November. Meanwhile, Obama's numbers among whites are dropping, largely because of Billary's attacks, whether you consider them to be coded racist appeals or merely color-blind Rove-ian hit jobs.If I didn't know better, I'd say that by cutting off the race's possibly strongest Democrat--first from media coverage and now from polls--the corporate media could be misleading us toward another Republican administration.
_______________________________________
Bill Clinton is like a teenager who has already graduated from high school but misses it so he keeps going back and hanging out there.
_______________________________________
Frank Rich
The Billary Road to Republican Victory
"The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse," said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.
The Post and Times reporters couldn’t unlock all the secrets. The unanswered questions could keep them and their competitors busy until Nov. 4.
Mr. Clinton’s increased centrality to the campaign will also give The Wall Street Journal a greater news peg to continue its reportorial forays into the unraveling financial partnership between Mr. Clinton and the swashbuckling billionaire Ron Burkle.
At "Little Rock’s Fort Knox," as the Clinton library has been nicknamed by frustrated researchers, it’s not merely the heavy-hitting contributors who are under wraps. Even by the glacial processing standards of the National Archives, the Clintons’ White House papers have emerged slowly, in part because Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications between him and his wife be "considered for withholding" until 2012.
When Mrs. Clinton was asked by Mr. Russert at an October debate if she would lift that restriction, she again escaped by passing the buck to her husband: "Well, that’s not my decision to make." Well, if her candidacy is to be as completely vetted as she guarantees, the time for the other half of Billary to make that decision is here.
The credibility of a major Clinton campaign plank, health care, depends on it. In that same debate, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Russert that "all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care" are "already available." As Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported weeks later, this is a bit off; he found that 3,022,030 health care documents were still held hostage. Whatever the pace of the processing, the gatekeeper charged with approving each document’s release is the longtime Clinton loyalist Bruce Lindsey.
People don’t change. Bill Clinton, having always lived on the edge, is back on the precipice. When he repeatedly complains that the press has given Mr. Obama a free ride and over-investigated the Clintons, he seems to be tempting the fates, given all the reporting still to be done on his post-presidential business. When he says, as he did on Monday, that "whatever I do should be totally transparent," it’s almost as if he’s setting himself up for a fall. There’s little more transparency at "Little Rock’s Fort Knox" than there is at Giuliani Partners.
"The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking anybody anything," Mrs. Clinton lectured Mr. Obama. Maybe so, but Republicans are smart enough not to start asking until after she has secured the nomination.
Not all Republicans are smart enough, however, to recognize the value of John McCain should Mrs. Clinton emerge as the nominee. He’s a bazooka aimed at most every rationale she’s offered for her candidacy.
In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired in déjà 1990s all over again. Mrs. Clinton’s spiel about being "tested" by her "35 years of experience" won’t fly either. The moment she attempts it, Mr. McCain will run an ad about how he was being tested when those 35 years began, in 1973. It was that spring when he emerged from five-plus years of incarceration at the Hanoi Hilton while Billary was still bivouacked at Yale Law School. And can Mrs. Clinton presume to sell herself as best equipped to be commander in chief "on Day One" when opposing an actual commander and war hero? I don’t think so.
Foreign policy issue No. 1, withdrawal from Iraq, should be a slam-dunk for any Democrat. Even the audience at Thursday’s G.O.P. debate in Boca Raton cheered Ron Paul’s antiwar sentiments. But Mrs. Clinton’s case is undermined by her record. She voted for the war, just as Mr. McCain did, in 2002 and was still defending it in February 2005, when she announced from the Green Zone that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well. " Only in November 2005 did she express the serious misgivings long pervasive in her own party. When Mr. McCain accuses her of now advocating "surrender" out of political expediency, her flip-flopping will back him up.
Billary can’t even run against the vast right-wing conspiracy if Mr. McCain is the opponent. Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay hate Mr. McCain as much as they hate the Clintons. And they hate him for the same reasons Mr. McCain wins over independents and occasional Democrats: his sporadic (and often mild) departures from conservative orthodoxy on immigration and campaign finance reform, torture, tax cuts, climate change and the godliness of Pat Robertson. Since Mr. McCain doesn’t kick reporters like dogs, as the Clintons do, he will no doubt continue to enjoy an advantage, however unfair, with the press pack on the Straight Talk Express.
Even so, Mr. McCain hasn’t yet won a clear majority of Republican voters in any G.O.P. contest. He’s depended on the kindness of independent voters. Tuesday’s Florida primary, which is open exclusively to Republicans, is his crucial test. If he fails, his party remains in chaos and Mitt Romney could still inherit the earth.
That would be a miracle for the Democrats, but they can hardly count on it. If Mr. Obama has not met an unexpected Waterloo in South Carolina — this column went to press before Saturday’s vote — the party needs him to stop whining about the Clintons’ attacks, regain his wit and return to playing offense. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would unambiguously represent change in a race with any Republican. If he vanquishes Billary, he’ll have an even stronger argument to take into battle against a warrior like Mr. McCain.
If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr. Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial. Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination — let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted — is a Democrat who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales.
_____________________________________________________________
Give A Hoot Don't Pollute
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Disaster Looms
From NY Times
This year’s dissatisfaction seems to have less to do with any fundamental shift in the nation’s ideological and partisan leanings than with its broadening displeasure with the Bush administration’s handling of the war and the economy. In CBS News/New York Times polls taken in February 2000 and January this year, the percentages of respondents who aligned themselves with a given party or ideology were almost precisely the same.
It is not yet clear how the discontent may be affecting the primary races. The Republican race remains a muddle, and the one Democratic candidate who has made the most populist appeal to change the nation’s direction — former Senator John Edwards — remains a distant third. So far, at least, his message has not caught on in a race that has been marked more by the historic nature of the campaigns run by Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
________________________________________
The times has captured what the problem is with Edwards appeal , Obama and Clinton are historic, and I say hysterical. If we get Hillary we will have a slightly weaker version of Bush just look at her war votes. She is very cozy with big business and their goals of lower taxes for them and environmental deregulation. We are in serious crisis with both of these problems. We lost industries to overseas because among other reasons the tax is only 50% of what it would be here tax on profits I mean.
As for Obama certainly historic but he has yet to outline his plans for the nation. He continues to talk about drawing the nation together when his candidacy is splitting the Democratic party into black vs white vs women. Yesterday he said if Clinton gets the nomination not all who voted for him will vote for her in the general election. However he said if he gets the nomination all who voted for Clinton will vote for him. Sounded like a threat to me, my way or the highway, the blacks will be so angry by his losing they won't vote for Hillary.
All that uniting stuff and bipartasinship is bullshit, yes the Dems are bipartisan but the republicans are not. Just look at what has happened in congress since the Dems took over, they have been blocked on issue after issue by the republicans.I fear that Obama's concept of getting along with the republicans will be the same as Libermans( notice h0w Obama's pulling together stuff sounds like Liebermans) which is giving the republicans what they want! Onama is niave if he thinks otherwise. Not surprising for a Senator elected two years ago and of those 2 years the last has been running for president. It is as if the new guy in the corporate mailroom decided after one year that he should be CEO huh. Please just look hard at this guy. Sure he is very bright some say brillant but is that really enough? He hasn't been in the trenches fighting the republicans to have the experience and knowledge of how things work in Washington that is needed to get them to work for the good of the country. Just think about it one day a county legislature the next running for president. Does he really think all those white republicans in the senate will work with him? Was his statement of admiration for Reagan and that the republicans have all the ideas of how he is going to bring us together. Ronald Reagan ruined the republican party by his meaness and greedy approach to domistic issues .His concept of" starving the beast," by which he meant social progams for the poor, through reduced taxes for the republicans favorite benefactors and thereby lessing the amount for these programs. Remember not a single republican voted for social security nor medicare when the vote came up for these programs! These are the people Obama says he can unite with, what a dreamer! He needs to get his feet on the ground. Hillary too and she should know better thinks she will be able to cooperate with those skinflints to get natioal health care. HA-HA.
So I am taking back my statement that I would switch to Clinton from Edwards! John Edwards is the only one of the candidates in either party who could really heal many wounds and take the country back from the special interests and war mongers. VOTE FOR EDWARDS !!!
_______________________________________
Well the country is in serious financial trouble what a surprise. Easy credit for individuals extending the borrowing time and amounts, a government that is borrowing up to six and half percent of gross domistic product( GDP) from China, Japan and the oil barons in the desert.The feds cutting the interest rates to keep overpriced stocks overpriced, bail out the rich stockholders. As for the Bushnics stimulus package it is the same ole same ole help the rich and pee down on the poor you know Reagans old voodoo economics the trickle down theory. The republicans and many, many dems are only concerned about wall street not main street. It will be nothing more then tax cuts for the corporations and eliminate the inheritance tax hugh refunds to rich corporations and individuals. All of which of course will need to be borrowed form the afore mentioned countries who by the way are getting rich ripping us off. Oh well take me to bedlam.
_______________________________________
This year’s dissatisfaction seems to have less to do with any fundamental shift in the nation’s ideological and partisan leanings than with its broadening displeasure with the Bush administration’s handling of the war and the economy. In CBS News/New York Times polls taken in February 2000 and January this year, the percentages of respondents who aligned themselves with a given party or ideology were almost precisely the same.
It is not yet clear how the discontent may be affecting the primary races. The Republican race remains a muddle, and the one Democratic candidate who has made the most populist appeal to change the nation’s direction — former Senator John Edwards — remains a distant third. So far, at least, his message has not caught on in a race that has been marked more by the historic nature of the campaigns run by Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
________________________________________
The times has captured what the problem is with Edwards appeal , Obama and Clinton are historic, and I say hysterical. If we get Hillary we will have a slightly weaker version of Bush just look at her war votes. She is very cozy with big business and their goals of lower taxes for them and environmental deregulation. We are in serious crisis with both of these problems. We lost industries to overseas because among other reasons the tax is only 50% of what it would be here tax on profits I mean.
As for Obama certainly historic but he has yet to outline his plans for the nation. He continues to talk about drawing the nation together when his candidacy is splitting the Democratic party into black vs white vs women. Yesterday he said if Clinton gets the nomination not all who voted for him will vote for her in the general election. However he said if he gets the nomination all who voted for Clinton will vote for him. Sounded like a threat to me, my way or the highway, the blacks will be so angry by his losing they won't vote for Hillary.
All that uniting stuff and bipartasinship is bullshit, yes the Dems are bipartisan but the republicans are not. Just look at what has happened in congress since the Dems took over, they have been blocked on issue after issue by the republicans.I fear that Obama's concept of getting along with the republicans will be the same as Libermans( notice h0w Obama's pulling together stuff sounds like Liebermans) which is giving the republicans what they want! Onama is niave if he thinks otherwise. Not surprising for a Senator elected two years ago and of those 2 years the last has been running for president. It is as if the new guy in the corporate mailroom decided after one year that he should be CEO huh. Please just look hard at this guy. Sure he is very bright some say brillant but is that really enough? He hasn't been in the trenches fighting the republicans to have the experience and knowledge of how things work in Washington that is needed to get them to work for the good of the country. Just think about it one day a county legislature the next running for president. Does he really think all those white republicans in the senate will work with him? Was his statement of admiration for Reagan and that the republicans have all the ideas of how he is going to bring us together. Ronald Reagan ruined the republican party by his meaness and greedy approach to domistic issues .His concept of" starving the beast," by which he meant social progams for the poor, through reduced taxes for the republicans favorite benefactors and thereby lessing the amount for these programs. Remember not a single republican voted for social security nor medicare when the vote came up for these programs! These are the people Obama says he can unite with, what a dreamer! He needs to get his feet on the ground. Hillary too and she should know better thinks she will be able to cooperate with those skinflints to get natioal health care. HA-HA.
So I am taking back my statement that I would switch to Clinton from Edwards! John Edwards is the only one of the candidates in either party who could really heal many wounds and take the country back from the special interests and war mongers. VOTE FOR EDWARDS !!!
_______________________________________
Well the country is in serious financial trouble what a surprise. Easy credit for individuals extending the borrowing time and amounts, a government that is borrowing up to six and half percent of gross domistic product( GDP) from China, Japan and the oil barons in the desert.The feds cutting the interest rates to keep overpriced stocks overpriced, bail out the rich stockholders. As for the Bushnics stimulus package it is the same ole same ole help the rich and pee down on the poor you know Reagans old voodoo economics the trickle down theory. The republicans and many, many dems are only concerned about wall street not main street. It will be nothing more then tax cuts for the corporations and eliminate the inheritance tax hugh refunds to rich corporations and individuals. All of which of course will need to be borrowed form the afore mentioned countries who by the way are getting rich ripping us off. Oh well take me to bedlam.
_______________________________________
Here is some more good news
By Richard Cowan Wed Jan 23, 3:23 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Iraq war may not dominate U.S. news reports as the carnage drops, but a new report underscores the financial burden of persistent combat that is helping run up the government's credit card.
"Funding for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities in the war on terrorism expanded significantly in 2007," the Congressional Budget Office said in a report released on Wednesday.
War funding, which averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, rose to $120 billion in 2006 and $171 billion in 2007 and President George W. Bush has asked for $193 billion in 2008, the nonpartisan office wrote.
"It keeps going up, up and away," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said of the money spent in Iraq since U.S. troops invaded in 2003.
"We're seeing the war costs continue to spiral upward. It is the additional troops plus additional costs per troop plus the over-reliance on private contractors, which also explodes the costs," said Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who opposed the war.
Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Congress has written checks for $691 billion to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and such related activities as Iraq reconstruction, the CBO said.
There are around 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 27,000 in Afghanistan.
$11 BILLION A MONTH
Of the total, the CBO estimated that $440 billion had been spent on fighting in Iraq launched with the goal of ousting President Saddam Hussein from power and securing weapons of mass destruction that were never found.
All of the Iraq and Afghanistan war money -- about $11 billion a month -- is effectively being put on a government credit card at a time when U.S. government debt has skyrocketed to more than $9 trillion, up from around $5.6 trillion when Bush took office in January 2001.
Bush has opposed paying the cost of waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan with tax increases or other specific offsets.
That means that nearly every penny spent gets added to the U.S. debt. The CBO estimated that just the interest payments on the debt would total $234 billion this year, more than the likely $250 billion budget deficit for the year.
These annual deficits and steep interest payments on borrowing all get rolled into the running tally that is the government's debt -- the more-than-$9-trillion figure.
The debt problem snowballs long-term, especially if the escalating costs of government-run health care and retirement programs are not reined in and if the United States maintains a large long-term military presence in Iraq.
Interest payments on the debt will total an estimated $2.7 trillion over the next decade, the CBO said.
Congress is expected to pass another round of money for the war in May or June, despite repeated attempts by Democrats to bring the fighting in Iraq to an end.
Republicans have defended the costs of the Iraq war, saying it has helped to stave off new attacks on the United States.
But Conrad said the deficit spending on the war was "another negative trend among many negative trends" in the budget.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Reagan on Mt. Rushmore
Debunking the Reagan Myth
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 21, 2008
Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.
And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.
Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. "The Reagan-Bush years," he declared, "have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect."And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.
Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. "The Reagan-Bush years," he declared, "have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect."
Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?
For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.
When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.
Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about? Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.
For example, I’m not sure what "dynamism" means, but if it means productivity growth, there wasn’t any resurgence in the Reagan years. Eventually productivity did take off — but even the Bush administration’s own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of that takeoff to 1995.
Similarly, if a sense of entrepreneurship means having confidence in the talents of American business leaders, that didn’t happen in the 1980s, when all the business books seemed to have samurai warriors on their covers. Like productivity, American business prestige didn’t stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.
I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office — or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. (Does Richard Nixon get credit for "Morning in America"?)
But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?
Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich and promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed that the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.
And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in the Clinton era. Even if we don’t have a formal recession — and the odds now are that we will — the optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.
This is, in short, a time when progressives ought to be driving home the idea that the right’s ideas don’t work, and never have.
It’s not just a matter of what happens in the next election. Mr. Clinton won his elections, but — as Mr. Obama correctly pointed out — he didn’t change America’s trajectory the way Reagan did. Why?
Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan.
Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.
_______________________________________
January 18, 2008
HILL TO OBAMA: GOP IDEAS ARE BAD
Hillary Clinton just whacked Barack Obama after he had something complimentary to say about Republicans, in this case that they where the party of ideas for about 15 years.
Here’s Obama’s offending comment to the Reno Gazette a couple of days ago: "I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
And that’s along with his recent description of Ronald Reagan as a transformative figure.
Perhaps such words sway independents and moderates Obama’s way, but this is a Democratic contest, and Camp Clinton clearly decided these werer less-than-smart comments.
Said Hillary at a Las Vegas print shop just a little bit ago:
"My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years. That’s not the way I remember the last 10 to 15 years.
"I don’t think it’s a better idea to privatize Social Security. I don’t think it’s a better idea to try to eliminate the minimum wage. I don’t think it’s a better idea to undercut health benefits and to give drug companies the right to make billions of dollars by providing prescription drugs to medicare recipients. I don’t think it’s a better idea to shut down the government, to drive us into debt. I think we know what needs to be done in American and I think we’re ready to do it. And I’m ready to lead on day one, to run this government, to manage this economy."
Her team of Congressional backers are piling on now in a conference call. Barney Frank, emphasizing that many Democrats think Reagan and the GOP did awful things to middle- and working-class Americans over the last couple of decades, said it’s not just a matter of style. "This is not simply stylistic (though) I do think Sen Obama exaggerates style over substance."
_______________________________________
Coupled with his obvious admiration of Reagan and his thinking that the GOP has good ideas ( meaning programs to enrich the rich and impoverish the poor) Obama is certainly not a good choice for the Democrats. Perhaps he should go independent like Liberman about whom Obama sounds more and more like him. All Obamas talk about bringing the parties together etc. What that sort of talk means to the Republicans is we get what we want and the Dems lose.
_______________________________________
VOTE FOR THE REAL DEMOCRAT HILLARY !!
It looks like Edwards can't win though I think he is the REALLY REAL Democrat he must drop out if he doesn't do well in So. Carolina either second or very close second. Though the winner will be Obama as there are many,many more black Dems in the Carolinas then White Dems.
OH I know this sounds racist but I have cousins in the south and it is still mostly in their minds the OLd South of DIXIE!
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 21, 2008
Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.
And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.
Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. "The Reagan-Bush years," he declared, "have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect."And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.
Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. "The Reagan-Bush years," he declared, "have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect."
Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?
For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.
When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.
Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about? Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.
For example, I’m not sure what "dynamism" means, but if it means productivity growth, there wasn’t any resurgence in the Reagan years. Eventually productivity did take off — but even the Bush administration’s own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of that takeoff to 1995.
Similarly, if a sense of entrepreneurship means having confidence in the talents of American business leaders, that didn’t happen in the 1980s, when all the business books seemed to have samurai warriors on their covers. Like productivity, American business prestige didn’t stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.
I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office — or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. (Does Richard Nixon get credit for "Morning in America"?)
But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?
Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich and promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed that the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.
And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in the Clinton era. Even if we don’t have a formal recession — and the odds now are that we will — the optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.
This is, in short, a time when progressives ought to be driving home the idea that the right’s ideas don’t work, and never have.
It’s not just a matter of what happens in the next election. Mr. Clinton won his elections, but — as Mr. Obama correctly pointed out — he didn’t change America’s trajectory the way Reagan did. Why?
Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan.
Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.
_______________________________________
January 18, 2008
HILL TO OBAMA: GOP IDEAS ARE BAD
Hillary Clinton just whacked Barack Obama after he had something complimentary to say about Republicans, in this case that they where the party of ideas for about 15 years.
Here’s Obama’s offending comment to the Reno Gazette a couple of days ago: "I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
And that’s along with his recent description of Ronald Reagan as a transformative figure.
Perhaps such words sway independents and moderates Obama’s way, but this is a Democratic contest, and Camp Clinton clearly decided these werer less-than-smart comments.
Said Hillary at a Las Vegas print shop just a little bit ago:
"My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years. That’s not the way I remember the last 10 to 15 years.
"I don’t think it’s a better idea to privatize Social Security. I don’t think it’s a better idea to try to eliminate the minimum wage. I don’t think it’s a better idea to undercut health benefits and to give drug companies the right to make billions of dollars by providing prescription drugs to medicare recipients. I don’t think it’s a better idea to shut down the government, to drive us into debt. I think we know what needs to be done in American and I think we’re ready to do it. And I’m ready to lead on day one, to run this government, to manage this economy."
Her team of Congressional backers are piling on now in a conference call. Barney Frank, emphasizing that many Democrats think Reagan and the GOP did awful things to middle- and working-class Americans over the last couple of decades, said it’s not just a matter of style. "This is not simply stylistic (though) I do think Sen Obama exaggerates style over substance."
_______________________________________
Coupled with his obvious admiration of Reagan and his thinking that the GOP has good ideas ( meaning programs to enrich the rich and impoverish the poor) Obama is certainly not a good choice for the Democrats. Perhaps he should go independent like Liberman about whom Obama sounds more and more like him. All Obamas talk about bringing the parties together etc. What that sort of talk means to the Republicans is we get what we want and the Dems lose.
_______________________________________
VOTE FOR THE REAL DEMOCRAT HILLARY !!
It looks like Edwards can't win though I think he is the REALLY REAL Democrat he must drop out if he doesn't do well in So. Carolina either second or very close second. Though the winner will be Obama as there are many,many more black Dems in the Carolinas then White Dems.
OH I know this sounds racist but I have cousins in the south and it is still mostly in their minds the OLd South of DIXIE!
Friday, January 18, 2008
Miscarriage of Justice against the Tiger he had to Die!
Hey I feel for the Tiger! To be locked up jailed for life just so folks can see a Tiger or any other animal is wrong. All zoos and other abuses of animals should be closed and stopped. As for the guys who taunted that tiger they got what they deserved. One was trying to get into the pen heel and footprints found on the railing.
Dhaliwal brothers and Sousa- where did these shitheads come from anyway?
Police: Victim Drunk During Tiger Attack
All Three Had Marijuana in Their Systems
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - One of the three victims of San Francisco Zoo tiger attack was intoxicated and admitted to yelling and waving at the animal while standing atop the railing of the big cat enclosure, police said in court documents filed Thursday.
Paul Dhaliwal, 19, told the father of Carlos Sousa Jr., 17, who was killed, that the three yelled and waved at the tiger but insisted they never threw anything into its pen to provoke the cat, according to a search warrant affidavit obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle.
"As a result of this investigation, (police believe) that the tiger may have been taunted/agitated by its eventual victims," according to Inspector Valerie Matthews, who prepared the affidavit. Police believe that "this factor contributed to the tiger escaping from its enclosure and attacking its victims," she said.
Sousa's father, Carlos Sousa Sr., said Dhaliwal told him the three stood on a 3-foot-tall metal railing a few feet from the edge of the tiger moat. "When they got down they heard a noise in the bushes, and the tiger was jumping out of the bushes on him (Paul Dhaliwal)," the documents said.
Police found a partial shoe print that matched Paul Dhaliwal's on top of the railing, Matthews said in the documents.
The papers said Paul Dhaliwal told Sousa that no one was dangling his legs over the enclosure. Authorities believe the tiger leaped or climbed out of the enclosure, which had a wall 4 feet shorter than the recommended minimum.
The affidavit also cites multiple reports of a group of young men taunting animals at the zoo, the Chronicle reported.
Mark Geragos, an attorney for the Dhaliwal brothers, did not immediately return a call late Thursday by The Associated Press for comment. He has repeatedly said they did not taunt the tiger.
Calls to Sousa and Michael Cardoza, an attorney for the Sousa family, also weren't returned.
Toxicology results for Dhaliwal showed that his blood alcohol level was 0.16—twice the legal limit for driving, according to the affidavit. His 24-year-old brother, Kulbir, and Sousa also had alcohol in their blood but within the legal limit, Matthews wrote.
All three also had marijuana in their systems, Matthews said. Kulbir Dhaliwal told police that the three had smoked pot and each had "a couple shots of vodka" before leaving San Jose for the zoo on Christmas Day, the affidavit said.
Police found a small amount of marijuana in Kulbir Dhaliwal's 2002 BMW, which the victims rode to the zoo, as well as a partially filled bottle of vodka, according to court documents.
Investigators also recovered messages and images from the cell phones, but apparently nothing incriminating in connection with the tiger attack, the Chronicle reported.
Zoo spokesman Sam Singer said he had not seen the documents but believed the victims did taunt the animal, even though they claim they hadn't.
"Those brothers painted a completely different picture to the public and the press," Singer said. "Now it's starting to come out that what they said is not true."
_______________________________________
No More Mr. Nice Guy: Obama Mocks Hillary In Stand Up Routine
What nice guy? Never thought he was such a dogooder as the media has painted him. A street
Activist? Or street something else.
I hope that Edwards should he not do well in the next two primaries will drop out so we can get behind Hillary and beat the punk!
________________________________________
Obama the street activist ought to feel right at home here!!
Obama Volunteers Transform San Fran Bong Shop To New HQ
Posted January 18, 2008 08:54 AM (EST)
Barack Obama Pot Shop Headquarters, Barack Obama San Francisco, Barack Obama San Francisco Headquarters, Huffington Post Off The Bus, Obama Grow Shop Headquarters, Obama Grow Shop HQ, Offthebus, Breaking Off The Bus News
An OffTheBus tipster in San Francisco noticed that Obama volunteers have set up shop in the former home of West Coast Growers, your one-stop-shop for 'complete indoor growing'.
The campaign's northern California HQ is in Oakland, but volunteers in San Francisco raised money to rent a local space.
Overheard by our tipster:
While I was there (also took the time to finally register in California) two skateboarders came buy in classic skateboard, SF fashion: "Hey, didn't this used to be West Coast Growers?"
Response: Yes.
Skateboarders: Oh man, what happened to West Coast Growers?
Response: I don't know, they shut down.
Perhaps Team Obama should change their pre-rally cheer 'Fire it up, ready to go!' to 'Fire it up, ready to grow.'
________________________________________
Not so fast H&O
2008: 1/16-17 results.
by kos
Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:04:14 AM PST
dKos Reader Poll. 1/16/07 1:20 p.m. to 1/17/07 10:29 p.m. PT. 21,349 respondents.
2008 2007
Jan16 Jan7 Jan2 Dec19 Dec12 Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun
Obama 41 39 27 27 30 27 16 21 29 27 22
Edwards 38 43 48 41 39 33 31 39 34 36 40
H. Clinton 11 7 7 6 8 9 9 11 8 9 6
Kucinich 4 4 3 5 8 9 5 6 4 3 2
No F'ing Clue 2 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 5 7 7
Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 5 7 9
-------Out of the race--------
Dodd - - 4 11 2 7 21 7 0 1 0 Biden - - 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 Richardson - 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 5 8 Gravel* - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3
So this is interesting. Edwards loses five points, which is pretty natural as people see him as less viable. There's also Richardson single point of support. So the pot is six percent of the vote being reassigned.
Four percent of it goes to Hillary, and only two to Obama. I wouldn't have expected that. Obama now leads the field, and will likely do so from here on out. The netroots in general is more anti-establishment than anything else, so Hillary is at a gross disadvantage on that front. But Obama's lead is more a function of Edwards deflation, and a significant chunk of Edwards supporters than any real spike in his support. And Hillary was the big (percentage-wise) gainer.
Of course, this assumes a zero-sum game. It's possible that Edwards supporters did go to Obama, while Obama bled some support to Hillary. Obama had a bit of a rough patch recently, so it's not just possible, but probably likely.* Yeah, I know Gravel isn't out of the race. Or maybe he is. I don't even know anymore. And the fact that it doesn't matter means that it doesn't matter
Mona Gable
John Edwards Campaigns in LA
Posted January 18, 2008 02:23 AM (EST)
Anyone who thinks John Edwards is a loser and should take his marbles and go back to North Carolina apparently was not at the Edwards' rally in downtown Los Angeles on Thursday.
Is this why the campaign played "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet" during the pre-rally warm-up?
It seems a lot of voters here have the impression, however misguided and dumb, that the guy's a serious candidate for president. Who knew? And that the race for the Democratic nomination isn't over. Who are these starry-eyed dreamers anyway? Haven't they been following the news, with its all-Hillary, all-Barack coverage all the time?
But back to the rally, which took place downtown at the Southern California Public Service Workers' headquarters. In a parking lot. Yes, it couldn't have been less glamorous, but that was the point. As Jason Gomez, a Latino sanitation worker and former Teamsters member in his 30s said of Edwards, "So many of the candidates don't seem like they're representing the people. He's the people's guy. He's the man for me.""What I like about John Edwards is he has a union background from the womb to the tomb," Clara Brisco, a middle-aged African-American woman and longterm care worker told me. Brisco was waving an "Edwards for President" sign. And she'd driven all the way from her home in Long Beach to hear him speak. "He's all over my house," she laughed of his campaign signs.
More than 1000 supporters stood in the warm noonday sun waiting for Edwards, who arrived from a campaign event in Nevada nearly 40 minutes late. When he did breeze in, smiling his million-dollar smile, stopping to shake hands as he pushed toward the stage, they applauded and cheered. It was truly an Edwards kind of crowd: home health care workers, carpenters and electricians, working families and elderly people. Many came in jeans and T-shirts. About the only people in suits were LA City Councilman Richard Alarcon and LA City Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
For Edwards it was the perfect stage in which to deliver his hard-driving populist message. A parking lot in the shadow of some of the city's biggest corporations. Like his audience, Edwards dressed down for the occasion in dark blue shirt and jeans. If you watched the Nevada debate, he emphasized much of what he said there. His humble beginnings as the son of a mill worker. The sacrifices of his father so he could attend college. Corporate greed. The subprime mortgage crisis. The 47 million Americans without health insurance. His vow to pull the troops out of Iraq his first year as president. The little girl named Natalie who needed a liver transplant but died because her father's insurance company wouldn't cover it.
And, of course, his credentials as the "change" candidate.
Hmm. I guess we're going to be hearing that word a lot before Super Tuesday.
"There's only one candidate who's never taken a dime from a special interest lobbyist or a PAC," said Edwards to big applause.
And, really, they did seem wild about him. Even Shelli Sloan, who got so fed up with the Democrats eight years ago that she became an Independent. "He has so much more energy than Obama or Clinton," gushed the 46-year-old café owner.
So. Why, I kept thinking the whole time I was listening to Edwards, is he not winning more labor endorsements? If he's fighting for the middle-class, why aren't they fighting for him? This seems the fundamental paradox of his candidacy. He didn't get the Culinary Workers in Nevada. Then this week in Los Angeles he lost another prized endorsement: the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, a group that represents more than 800,000 workers. They also went for Obama, even though Edwards pitched in during their hotel strike a few years ago.
What gives? Is it that key labor organizations have given up on him? That they want a sure thing? That they prefer Obama's message of unity to Edwards' message of taking no prisoners? That they just really want to elect the nation's first black president?
As for Hillary, even as Edwards was speaking, she was just across the freeway. Trying to rack up another major endorsement: the Los Angeles Times.
But Edwards isn't giving up. "I am an underdog campaign, but this is where you come in," he said in closing, his voice rising. "You can help us here in California, help a grassroots movement that spreads across this state, that spreads across this country. When that tidal wave of change is finished, we will be able to look our children in eye and say, 'We did for our you what our parents did for us.'"
And with that it was over, and Edwards began signing autographs and people crowded the stage, snapping photos of him on their cell phones.
"You're going to win, John!" a man shouted out.
Dhaliwal brothers and Sousa- where did these shitheads come from anyway?
Police: Victim Drunk During Tiger Attack
All Three Had Marijuana in Their Systems
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - One of the three victims of San Francisco Zoo tiger attack was intoxicated and admitted to yelling and waving at the animal while standing atop the railing of the big cat enclosure, police said in court documents filed Thursday.
Paul Dhaliwal, 19, told the father of Carlos Sousa Jr., 17, who was killed, that the three yelled and waved at the tiger but insisted they never threw anything into its pen to provoke the cat, according to a search warrant affidavit obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle.
"As a result of this investigation, (police believe) that the tiger may have been taunted/agitated by its eventual victims," according to Inspector Valerie Matthews, who prepared the affidavit. Police believe that "this factor contributed to the tiger escaping from its enclosure and attacking its victims," she said.
Sousa's father, Carlos Sousa Sr., said Dhaliwal told him the three stood on a 3-foot-tall metal railing a few feet from the edge of the tiger moat. "When they got down they heard a noise in the bushes, and the tiger was jumping out of the bushes on him (Paul Dhaliwal)," the documents said.
Police found a partial shoe print that matched Paul Dhaliwal's on top of the railing, Matthews said in the documents.
The papers said Paul Dhaliwal told Sousa that no one was dangling his legs over the enclosure. Authorities believe the tiger leaped or climbed out of the enclosure, which had a wall 4 feet shorter than the recommended minimum.
The affidavit also cites multiple reports of a group of young men taunting animals at the zoo, the Chronicle reported.
Mark Geragos, an attorney for the Dhaliwal brothers, did not immediately return a call late Thursday by The Associated Press for comment. He has repeatedly said they did not taunt the tiger.
Calls to Sousa and Michael Cardoza, an attorney for the Sousa family, also weren't returned.
Toxicology results for Dhaliwal showed that his blood alcohol level was 0.16—twice the legal limit for driving, according to the affidavit. His 24-year-old brother, Kulbir, and Sousa also had alcohol in their blood but within the legal limit, Matthews wrote.
All three also had marijuana in their systems, Matthews said. Kulbir Dhaliwal told police that the three had smoked pot and each had "a couple shots of vodka" before leaving San Jose for the zoo on Christmas Day, the affidavit said.
Police found a small amount of marijuana in Kulbir Dhaliwal's 2002 BMW, which the victims rode to the zoo, as well as a partially filled bottle of vodka, according to court documents.
Investigators also recovered messages and images from the cell phones, but apparently nothing incriminating in connection with the tiger attack, the Chronicle reported.
Zoo spokesman Sam Singer said he had not seen the documents but believed the victims did taunt the animal, even though they claim they hadn't.
"Those brothers painted a completely different picture to the public and the press," Singer said. "Now it's starting to come out that what they said is not true."
_______________________________________
No More Mr. Nice Guy: Obama Mocks Hillary In Stand Up Routine
What nice guy? Never thought he was such a dogooder as the media has painted him. A street
Activist? Or street something else.
I hope that Edwards should he not do well in the next two primaries will drop out so we can get behind Hillary and beat the punk!
________________________________________
Obama the street activist ought to feel right at home here!!
Obama Volunteers Transform San Fran Bong Shop To New HQ
Posted January 18, 2008 08:54 AM (EST)
Barack Obama Pot Shop Headquarters, Barack Obama San Francisco, Barack Obama San Francisco Headquarters, Huffington Post Off The Bus, Obama Grow Shop Headquarters, Obama Grow Shop HQ, Offthebus, Breaking Off The Bus News
An OffTheBus tipster in San Francisco noticed that Obama volunteers have set up shop in the former home of West Coast Growers, your one-stop-shop for 'complete indoor growing'.
The campaign's northern California HQ is in Oakland, but volunteers in San Francisco raised money to rent a local space.
Overheard by our tipster:
While I was there (also took the time to finally register in California) two skateboarders came buy in classic skateboard, SF fashion: "Hey, didn't this used to be West Coast Growers?"
Response: Yes.
Skateboarders: Oh man, what happened to West Coast Growers?
Response: I don't know, they shut down.
Perhaps Team Obama should change their pre-rally cheer 'Fire it up, ready to go!' to 'Fire it up, ready to grow.'
________________________________________
Not so fast H&O
2008: 1/16-17 results.
by kos
Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:04:14 AM PST
dKos Reader Poll. 1/16/07 1:20 p.m. to 1/17/07 10:29 p.m. PT. 21,349 respondents.
2008 2007
Jan16 Jan7 Jan2 Dec19 Dec12 Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun
Obama 41 39 27 27 30 27 16 21 29 27 22
Edwards 38 43 48 41 39 33 31 39 34 36 40
H. Clinton 11 7 7 6 8 9 9 11 8 9 6
Kucinich 4 4 3 5 8 9 5 6 4 3 2
No F'ing Clue 2 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 5 7 7
Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 5 7 9
-------Out of the race--------
Dodd - - 4 11 2 7 21 7 0 1 0 Biden - - 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 Richardson - 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 5 8 Gravel* - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3
So this is interesting. Edwards loses five points, which is pretty natural as people see him as less viable. There's also Richardson single point of support. So the pot is six percent of the vote being reassigned.
Four percent of it goes to Hillary, and only two to Obama. I wouldn't have expected that. Obama now leads the field, and will likely do so from here on out. The netroots in general is more anti-establishment than anything else, so Hillary is at a gross disadvantage on that front. But Obama's lead is more a function of Edwards deflation, and a significant chunk of Edwards supporters than any real spike in his support. And Hillary was the big (percentage-wise) gainer.
Of course, this assumes a zero-sum game. It's possible that Edwards supporters did go to Obama, while Obama bled some support to Hillary. Obama had a bit of a rough patch recently, so it's not just possible, but probably likely.* Yeah, I know Gravel isn't out of the race. Or maybe he is. I don't even know anymore. And the fact that it doesn't matter means that it doesn't matter
Mona Gable
John Edwards Campaigns in LA
Posted January 18, 2008 02:23 AM (EST)
Anyone who thinks John Edwards is a loser and should take his marbles and go back to North Carolina apparently was not at the Edwards' rally in downtown Los Angeles on Thursday.
Is this why the campaign played "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet" during the pre-rally warm-up?
It seems a lot of voters here have the impression, however misguided and dumb, that the guy's a serious candidate for president. Who knew? And that the race for the Democratic nomination isn't over. Who are these starry-eyed dreamers anyway? Haven't they been following the news, with its all-Hillary, all-Barack coverage all the time?
But back to the rally, which took place downtown at the Southern California Public Service Workers' headquarters. In a parking lot. Yes, it couldn't have been less glamorous, but that was the point. As Jason Gomez, a Latino sanitation worker and former Teamsters member in his 30s said of Edwards, "So many of the candidates don't seem like they're representing the people. He's the people's guy. He's the man for me.""What I like about John Edwards is he has a union background from the womb to the tomb," Clara Brisco, a middle-aged African-American woman and longterm care worker told me. Brisco was waving an "Edwards for President" sign. And she'd driven all the way from her home in Long Beach to hear him speak. "He's all over my house," she laughed of his campaign signs.
More than 1000 supporters stood in the warm noonday sun waiting for Edwards, who arrived from a campaign event in Nevada nearly 40 minutes late. When he did breeze in, smiling his million-dollar smile, stopping to shake hands as he pushed toward the stage, they applauded and cheered. It was truly an Edwards kind of crowd: home health care workers, carpenters and electricians, working families and elderly people. Many came in jeans and T-shirts. About the only people in suits were LA City Councilman Richard Alarcon and LA City Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
For Edwards it was the perfect stage in which to deliver his hard-driving populist message. A parking lot in the shadow of some of the city's biggest corporations. Like his audience, Edwards dressed down for the occasion in dark blue shirt and jeans. If you watched the Nevada debate, he emphasized much of what he said there. His humble beginnings as the son of a mill worker. The sacrifices of his father so he could attend college. Corporate greed. The subprime mortgage crisis. The 47 million Americans without health insurance. His vow to pull the troops out of Iraq his first year as president. The little girl named Natalie who needed a liver transplant but died because her father's insurance company wouldn't cover it.
And, of course, his credentials as the "change" candidate.
Hmm. I guess we're going to be hearing that word a lot before Super Tuesday.
"There's only one candidate who's never taken a dime from a special interest lobbyist or a PAC," said Edwards to big applause.
And, really, they did seem wild about him. Even Shelli Sloan, who got so fed up with the Democrats eight years ago that she became an Independent. "He has so much more energy than Obama or Clinton," gushed the 46-year-old café owner.
So. Why, I kept thinking the whole time I was listening to Edwards, is he not winning more labor endorsements? If he's fighting for the middle-class, why aren't they fighting for him? This seems the fundamental paradox of his candidacy. He didn't get the Culinary Workers in Nevada. Then this week in Los Angeles he lost another prized endorsement: the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, a group that represents more than 800,000 workers. They also went for Obama, even though Edwards pitched in during their hotel strike a few years ago.
What gives? Is it that key labor organizations have given up on him? That they want a sure thing? That they prefer Obama's message of unity to Edwards' message of taking no prisoners? That they just really want to elect the nation's first black president?
As for Hillary, even as Edwards was speaking, she was just across the freeway. Trying to rack up another major endorsement: the Los Angeles Times.
But Edwards isn't giving up. "I am an underdog campaign, but this is where you come in," he said in closing, his voice rising. "You can help us here in California, help a grassroots movement that spreads across this state, that spreads across this country. When that tidal wave of change is finished, we will be able to look our children in eye and say, 'We did for our you what our parents did for us.'"
And with that it was over, and Edwards began signing autographs and people crowded the stage, snapping photos of him on their cell phones.
"You're going to win, John!" a man shouted out.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Nothing is Sacred to that Bastard Bush
Don't believe the country is racist?
Mark Hotel. Farr apologized for a joke he made at the event.
A Greeley businessman apologized Wednesday after a joke about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama fell flat during the National Western Stock Show's annual Citizen of the West banquet.
William R. Farr was pretending to read telegrams congratulating this year's award recipient, University of Colorado President Hank Brown, when he pulled out a piece of paper and said, "I have a telegram from the White House."
Then he added, "They're going to have to change the name of that building if Obama's elected."
____________________________________
If Edwards doesn't come in first or second in Nevada or So. Carolina he should drop out. Unless of course he prefers Obama over Clinton. He is taking votes from Clinton. I am sure if he drops out before super Tuesday Hillary would win easily. The only reason Obama is doing as well as he is, is that Edwards is pulling votes from Hillary which would be OK if he could win. We'll see.
John Edwards Not Planning to Quietly Fade Away
January 17, 2008 01:26 AM
Las Vegas, NV - As he pinballs and caroms through Nevada union halls, vet centers and community meeting rooms packed with cheering, sometimes fervent crowds vowing to stand for him in this coming Saturday's caucuses, Democratic candidate John Edwards is showing absolutely no inclination toward quietly fading from the 2008 presidential race.
Though written off by much of the media and the punditocracy as the third-running and under-financed national contender behind rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former North Carolina senator seems nevertheless buoyed by a cushion of support from organized labor, as well as from some statewide polls that put him within a few points of striking distance behind his two higher-profile opponents.
As a pulsating crowd of hundreds of union-jacketed supporters jam-packed into the local Carpenters Union hall Thursday night repeatedly stood on their feet and chanted "Go, John, Go!", a beaming Edwards, wearing jeans under his blue blazer, proclaimed himself a serious contender in the coming Democratic primaries. "The other night in the debate," he said referring to Tuesday's televised Vegas stand-off among the candidates, "a lot of caucus voters realized that contrary to what the media's been telling them for the last year there's not two, but rather three candidates in this race."
With a rocking soundtrack of Mellencamp and Springsteen blaring through the halls and meeting rooms, and with the candidate's unabashedly anti-corporate populist pitch all of a sudden deeply resonating with national hand-wringing over a possible recession, Edwards' events in this relatively union-rich state sometimes take on the tone and atmosphere of some sort of secular religious revival.
Grandmas who work in factories and who have two children deployed in Iraq are brought forward to give personal testimony on the mistreatment inflicted on them by their employers. Middle-aged working-class men in baseball caps plead with Edwards to do something, anything to stem the export of jobs. And even a 9-year old boy popped up asking the candidate if he will "save the world" by getting rid of the "smoke" caused by so many polluting factories.
"It's not everyday that a politician can understand the importance of unions," veteran carpenter Alex Gonzalez said as he introduced Edwards to the cranked-up crowd. And then with his voice cracking from emotion, he added: "And it just so happens this man is currently running for president of the United States."
Edwards appeared on the stage as a conquering hero and, brimming with confidence and determination, he immediately brought the crowd to its feet when he vowed with a rising voice and an extended right arm: "When I'm president, and when it becomes necessary... to go on strike, to be out walking that picket line - when I'm president--nobody, but nobody is gonna cross that picket line!"
While Edward's Nevada base is rock-solid organized labor, not even close to a majority of Nevada unions have lined up with him. When his campaign began to lag earlier this year, the long expected endorsements of the powerful Culinary workers and the Service Employees (SEIU) never materialized. They recently went with Obama. Meanwhile, the teachers union and the public employees in AFSCME lined up with Clinton.
But union members don't always vote with their leadership and that's one factor Edwards is counting on. Apart from the formal endorsement of the 12,000 members Carpenters Union, Edwards is hoping to siphon off rank-and-file members of other unions attracted by his increasingly fiery denunciations of what he calls the "corporate stranglehold on America." Indeed, among the audience Wednesday night were numerous supporters wearing the colors of the SEIU. "Everyone knows our union wanted Edwards from the beginning but settled for Obama when it looked like he had a better chance," said one long-time SEIU member at the Edwards rally. "A lot of us are going to caucus for John."
Even with Edwards' strong showing in the January 4 Iowa caucuses, placing second a nose ahead of Hillary Clinton, the conventional political math makes him a long-shot to win the nomination. He placed a distant third a handful of days later in the New Hampshire primary and most national soundings show Edwards lagging as much as 20 points behind the front-runners. A strong showing here on Saturday and an equal demonstration of support a week later in the South Carolina primaries seem a pre-requisite for Edwards entering the February 5 "Tsunami Tuesday --when almost two dozen states will vote--with any shred of viability.
But former Michigan congressman and Edwards' campaign manager David Bonior told The Huffington Post that "we're in this all the way, not only through February 5th, but into June and into the convention and picking up delegates all the way."
There may be more than standard campaign bravado behind Bonior's bold prediction. Edwards, in fact, doesn't have to win the nomination in order to win a similarly striking victory. If neither Obama nor Clinton can win a clean majority of nominating delegates going into the late summer Democratic convention, and if Edwards can keep scoring at least in the double-digits throughout the primaries, he could wind up with enough delegates to empower him as kingmaker, as the candidate with enough convention floor votes to sway the nomination to whom he pleases.
It's hardly a strategy that Bonior would confirm. But neither would he deny it when asked directly by the HuffPost. "I can tell you this much," Bonior said. "We're going to be marching into that convention with a whole lot of delegates."
________________________________________
Bush Exempts Navy From Environmental Law
LOS ANGELES — Conservationists on Wednesday blasted President Bush's decision to exempt the Navy from an environmental law so it can continue using high-power sonar in its training off Southern California _ a practice they say harms whales and other marine mammals.
The president's action by itself won't allow the anti-submarine warfare training to go forward because an injunction is in place, but the Navy believes it will significantly strengthen its argument in court. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco is expected to make a determination on the future of the Navy exercises on Friday.
The White House announced Bush signed the exemption Tuesday while traveling in the Middle East. In his memorandum, Bush said the Navy training exercises "are in the paramount interest of the United States" and its national security
Peter Douglas, the executive director of the California Coastal Commission, which joined in the lawsuit to provide the mammals greater protections from sonar, called the exemption unprecedented in California."I'm not surprised at all," he said. "It's typical for this Republican administration to ignore environmental protections under the banner of fear."
Attorneys for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has been fighting the Navy's sonar training, said the group would file papers with the appeals court to challenge Bush's exemption.
"The president's action is an attack on the rule of law," said Joel Reynolds, director of the Marine Mammal Protection Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Santa Monica. "By exempting the Navy from basic safeguards under both federal and state law, the president is flouting the will of Congress, the decision of the California Coastal Commission and a ruling by the federal court."
A federal judge in Los Angeles issued a preliminary injunction this month requiring the Navy to create a 12-nautical-mile, no-sonar zone along the Southern California coast and to post trained lookouts to watch for marine mammals before and during exercises. Sonar would have to be shut down when mammals were spotted within 2,200 yards, under the order.
The court found that using mid-frequency active sonar violated the Coastal Zone Management Act and Bush exempted the Navy from a section of that act. Complying with the environmental law would "undermine the Navy's ability to conduct realistic training exercises that are necessary to ensure the combat effectiveness of carrier and expeditionary strike groups," Bush said.
Scientists say loud sonar can damage marine mammal brains and ears. Sonar may also mask the echoes some whales and dolphins listen for when they use their own natural sonar to locate food.
But much is still unknown about how sonar affects whales and other marine mammals. For example, the sound can hurt some species while not affecting others, and experts don't fully understand why.
In an argument that has been going on for years, the Navy has continually said that the exercises are vital for training and that it works to minimizes the risk to marine life.
A statement from the Defense Department said that the new exemption covers the use of mid-frequency active sonar in a series of exercises scheduled to take place off California through January 2009 and that the Navy already applies 29 measures to mitigate the effects.
In a separate development, the Pentagon statement said, Navy Secretary Donald Winter signed a memo Tuesday agreeing to greater public participation and better reporting on the issue while officials complete an environmental impact study for Southern California.
Use of sonar "is part of critical, integrated training that must be done in the Navy's operating area off the coast of San Diego to take advantage" of features there related to water depth, as well as extensive ranges, airfields and other infrastructure needed for training, the Pentagon statement said.
About half the Navy's fleet will receive "its most critical, graduate level training" there before it deploys its forces around the world, it said.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead said that exercises with sonar train sailors to detect quiet submarines that might threaten its ships.
"We cannot in good conscience send American men and women into potential trouble spots without adequate training to defend themselves," said Roughead.
"The Southern California operating area provides unique training opportunities that are vital to preparing our forces, and the planned exercises cannot be postponed without impacting national security," he said in the Pentagon statement.
_______________________________________
Judge stands by ban on sonar
The Navy is expected to appeal the decision, meant to protect marine mammals, affecting upcoming training exercises.
By Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer January 15, 2008
A federal judge in Los Angeles declined Monday to set aside her order forbidding the Navy from using powerful sonar in training missions in Southern California waters unless it operates farther than 12 miles off the coast and adopts other measures to lessen the effect on whales and dolphins.The Navy is expected to appeal Judge Florence Marie Cooper's decision and ask that her injunction temporarily be removed to allow training exercises to begin later this month without the restrictions.
The recent confrontation between Navy ships and fast-moving Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf illustrates precisely why this case gives the Navy "heartburn," said Cmdr. Jeff A. Davis, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon.
The judge's order, he said, restricts sonar training in the Santa Catalina basin, a "choke point" whose similarity to the Strait of Hormuz can help sailors learn to detect submarines while defending against "swarming attacks by small boats."The Navy's integrated approach to training is designed to ensure that sailors are prepared to respond simultaneously to all potential threats, Davis said."While we respect the court's decision and appreciate the care it took in crafting it, we cannot in good conscience send American sons and daughters into potential trouble spots without adequate training to defend themselves," Davis said. "This is a national security issue, and we must use all methods available to ensure that overly broad restrictions do not hamper our ability to train."In her rulings, Cooper has said she tried to balance national security needs with environmental protections -- specifically those to prevent unnecessary harm to whales and dolphins from mid-frequency active sonar. That's the type the Navy uses to detect quiet diesel-electric submarines.She has cited scientific studies linking U.S. and NATO warships' use of sonar to the deaths and injuries of beaked whales and other marine mammals. She also has reiterated the Navy's own predictions that the upcoming exercises off Southern California "will cause widespread harm to nearly 30 species of marine mammals."She has closed some whale-rich waters to training exercises and insisted that the Navy increase its efforts to watch for whales and shut down the sonar if marine mammals come within 2,200 yards. Her ruling affects training runs off Southern California only
_______________________________________
Mark Hotel. Farr apologized for a joke he made at the event.
A Greeley businessman apologized Wednesday after a joke about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama fell flat during the National Western Stock Show's annual Citizen of the West banquet.
William R. Farr was pretending to read telegrams congratulating this year's award recipient, University of Colorado President Hank Brown, when he pulled out a piece of paper and said, "I have a telegram from the White House."
Then he added, "They're going to have to change the name of that building if Obama's elected."
____________________________________
If Edwards doesn't come in first or second in Nevada or So. Carolina he should drop out. Unless of course he prefers Obama over Clinton. He is taking votes from Clinton. I am sure if he drops out before super Tuesday Hillary would win easily. The only reason Obama is doing as well as he is, is that Edwards is pulling votes from Hillary which would be OK if he could win. We'll see.
John Edwards Not Planning to Quietly Fade Away
January 17, 2008 01:26 AM
Las Vegas, NV - As he pinballs and caroms through Nevada union halls, vet centers and community meeting rooms packed with cheering, sometimes fervent crowds vowing to stand for him in this coming Saturday's caucuses, Democratic candidate John Edwards is showing absolutely no inclination toward quietly fading from the 2008 presidential race.
Though written off by much of the media and the punditocracy as the third-running and under-financed national contender behind rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former North Carolina senator seems nevertheless buoyed by a cushion of support from organized labor, as well as from some statewide polls that put him within a few points of striking distance behind his two higher-profile opponents.
As a pulsating crowd of hundreds of union-jacketed supporters jam-packed into the local Carpenters Union hall Thursday night repeatedly stood on their feet and chanted "Go, John, Go!", a beaming Edwards, wearing jeans under his blue blazer, proclaimed himself a serious contender in the coming Democratic primaries. "The other night in the debate," he said referring to Tuesday's televised Vegas stand-off among the candidates, "a lot of caucus voters realized that contrary to what the media's been telling them for the last year there's not two, but rather three candidates in this race."
With a rocking soundtrack of Mellencamp and Springsteen blaring through the halls and meeting rooms, and with the candidate's unabashedly anti-corporate populist pitch all of a sudden deeply resonating with national hand-wringing over a possible recession, Edwards' events in this relatively union-rich state sometimes take on the tone and atmosphere of some sort of secular religious revival.
Grandmas who work in factories and who have two children deployed in Iraq are brought forward to give personal testimony on the mistreatment inflicted on them by their employers. Middle-aged working-class men in baseball caps plead with Edwards to do something, anything to stem the export of jobs. And even a 9-year old boy popped up asking the candidate if he will "save the world" by getting rid of the "smoke" caused by so many polluting factories.
"It's not everyday that a politician can understand the importance of unions," veteran carpenter Alex Gonzalez said as he introduced Edwards to the cranked-up crowd. And then with his voice cracking from emotion, he added: "And it just so happens this man is currently running for president of the United States."
Edwards appeared on the stage as a conquering hero and, brimming with confidence and determination, he immediately brought the crowd to its feet when he vowed with a rising voice and an extended right arm: "When I'm president, and when it becomes necessary... to go on strike, to be out walking that picket line - when I'm president--nobody, but nobody is gonna cross that picket line!"
While Edward's Nevada base is rock-solid organized labor, not even close to a majority of Nevada unions have lined up with him. When his campaign began to lag earlier this year, the long expected endorsements of the powerful Culinary workers and the Service Employees (SEIU) never materialized. They recently went with Obama. Meanwhile, the teachers union and the public employees in AFSCME lined up with Clinton.
But union members don't always vote with their leadership and that's one factor Edwards is counting on. Apart from the formal endorsement of the 12,000 members Carpenters Union, Edwards is hoping to siphon off rank-and-file members of other unions attracted by his increasingly fiery denunciations of what he calls the "corporate stranglehold on America." Indeed, among the audience Wednesday night were numerous supporters wearing the colors of the SEIU. "Everyone knows our union wanted Edwards from the beginning but settled for Obama when it looked like he had a better chance," said one long-time SEIU member at the Edwards rally. "A lot of us are going to caucus for John."
Even with Edwards' strong showing in the January 4 Iowa caucuses, placing second a nose ahead of Hillary Clinton, the conventional political math makes him a long-shot to win the nomination. He placed a distant third a handful of days later in the New Hampshire primary and most national soundings show Edwards lagging as much as 20 points behind the front-runners. A strong showing here on Saturday and an equal demonstration of support a week later in the South Carolina primaries seem a pre-requisite for Edwards entering the February 5 "Tsunami Tuesday --when almost two dozen states will vote--with any shred of viability.
But former Michigan congressman and Edwards' campaign manager David Bonior told The Huffington Post that "we're in this all the way, not only through February 5th, but into June and into the convention and picking up delegates all the way."
There may be more than standard campaign bravado behind Bonior's bold prediction. Edwards, in fact, doesn't have to win the nomination in order to win a similarly striking victory. If neither Obama nor Clinton can win a clean majority of nominating delegates going into the late summer Democratic convention, and if Edwards can keep scoring at least in the double-digits throughout the primaries, he could wind up with enough delegates to empower him as kingmaker, as the candidate with enough convention floor votes to sway the nomination to whom he pleases.
It's hardly a strategy that Bonior would confirm. But neither would he deny it when asked directly by the HuffPost. "I can tell you this much," Bonior said. "We're going to be marching into that convention with a whole lot of delegates."
________________________________________
Bush Exempts Navy From Environmental Law
LOS ANGELES — Conservationists on Wednesday blasted President Bush's decision to exempt the Navy from an environmental law so it can continue using high-power sonar in its training off Southern California _ a practice they say harms whales and other marine mammals.
The president's action by itself won't allow the anti-submarine warfare training to go forward because an injunction is in place, but the Navy believes it will significantly strengthen its argument in court. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco is expected to make a determination on the future of the Navy exercises on Friday.
The White House announced Bush signed the exemption Tuesday while traveling in the Middle East. In his memorandum, Bush said the Navy training exercises "are in the paramount interest of the United States" and its national security
Peter Douglas, the executive director of the California Coastal Commission, which joined in the lawsuit to provide the mammals greater protections from sonar, called the exemption unprecedented in California."I'm not surprised at all," he said. "It's typical for this Republican administration to ignore environmental protections under the banner of fear."
Attorneys for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has been fighting the Navy's sonar training, said the group would file papers with the appeals court to challenge Bush's exemption.
"The president's action is an attack on the rule of law," said Joel Reynolds, director of the Marine Mammal Protection Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Santa Monica. "By exempting the Navy from basic safeguards under both federal and state law, the president is flouting the will of Congress, the decision of the California Coastal Commission and a ruling by the federal court."
A federal judge in Los Angeles issued a preliminary injunction this month requiring the Navy to create a 12-nautical-mile, no-sonar zone along the Southern California coast and to post trained lookouts to watch for marine mammals before and during exercises. Sonar would have to be shut down when mammals were spotted within 2,200 yards, under the order.
The court found that using mid-frequency active sonar violated the Coastal Zone Management Act and Bush exempted the Navy from a section of that act. Complying with the environmental law would "undermine the Navy's ability to conduct realistic training exercises that are necessary to ensure the combat effectiveness of carrier and expeditionary strike groups," Bush said.
Scientists say loud sonar can damage marine mammal brains and ears. Sonar may also mask the echoes some whales and dolphins listen for when they use their own natural sonar to locate food.
But much is still unknown about how sonar affects whales and other marine mammals. For example, the sound can hurt some species while not affecting others, and experts don't fully understand why.
In an argument that has been going on for years, the Navy has continually said that the exercises are vital for training and that it works to minimizes the risk to marine life.
A statement from the Defense Department said that the new exemption covers the use of mid-frequency active sonar in a series of exercises scheduled to take place off California through January 2009 and that the Navy already applies 29 measures to mitigate the effects.
In a separate development, the Pentagon statement said, Navy Secretary Donald Winter signed a memo Tuesday agreeing to greater public participation and better reporting on the issue while officials complete an environmental impact study for Southern California.
Use of sonar "is part of critical, integrated training that must be done in the Navy's operating area off the coast of San Diego to take advantage" of features there related to water depth, as well as extensive ranges, airfields and other infrastructure needed for training, the Pentagon statement said.
About half the Navy's fleet will receive "its most critical, graduate level training" there before it deploys its forces around the world, it said.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead said that exercises with sonar train sailors to detect quiet submarines that might threaten its ships.
"We cannot in good conscience send American men and women into potential trouble spots without adequate training to defend themselves," said Roughead.
"The Southern California operating area provides unique training opportunities that are vital to preparing our forces, and the planned exercises cannot be postponed without impacting national security," he said in the Pentagon statement.
_______________________________________
Judge stands by ban on sonar
The Navy is expected to appeal the decision, meant to protect marine mammals, affecting upcoming training exercises.
By Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer January 15, 2008
A federal judge in Los Angeles declined Monday to set aside her order forbidding the Navy from using powerful sonar in training missions in Southern California waters unless it operates farther than 12 miles off the coast and adopts other measures to lessen the effect on whales and dolphins.The Navy is expected to appeal Judge Florence Marie Cooper's decision and ask that her injunction temporarily be removed to allow training exercises to begin later this month without the restrictions.
The recent confrontation between Navy ships and fast-moving Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf illustrates precisely why this case gives the Navy "heartburn," said Cmdr. Jeff A. Davis, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon.
The judge's order, he said, restricts sonar training in the Santa Catalina basin, a "choke point" whose similarity to the Strait of Hormuz can help sailors learn to detect submarines while defending against "swarming attacks by small boats."The Navy's integrated approach to training is designed to ensure that sailors are prepared to respond simultaneously to all potential threats, Davis said."While we respect the court's decision and appreciate the care it took in crafting it, we cannot in good conscience send American sons and daughters into potential trouble spots without adequate training to defend themselves," Davis said. "This is a national security issue, and we must use all methods available to ensure that overly broad restrictions do not hamper our ability to train."In her rulings, Cooper has said she tried to balance national security needs with environmental protections -- specifically those to prevent unnecessary harm to whales and dolphins from mid-frequency active sonar. That's the type the Navy uses to detect quiet diesel-electric submarines.She has cited scientific studies linking U.S. and NATO warships' use of sonar to the deaths and injuries of beaked whales and other marine mammals. She also has reiterated the Navy's own predictions that the upcoming exercises off Southern California "will cause widespread harm to nearly 30 species of marine mammals."She has closed some whale-rich waters to training exercises and insisted that the Navy increase its efforts to watch for whales and shut down the sonar if marine mammals come within 2,200 yards. Her ruling affects training runs off Southern California only
_______________________________________
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
OIL
The Independent
Robert Fisk: Bloody reality bears no relation to the delusions of this President
As a bomb explodes in Beirut and Israel kills 19 in Gaza raids, Bush takes his Middle East peace mission to Saudi Arabia (and signs off $20bn weapons deal with repressive regime)
Published: 16 January 2008
Twixt silken sheets – in a bedroom whose walls are also covered in silk – and in the very palace of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, President George Bush awakes this morning to confront a Middle East which bears no relation to the policies of his administration nor the warning which he has been relaying constantly to the kings and emirs and oligarchs of the Gulf: that Iran rather than Israel is their enemy.
The President sat chummily beside the all-too-friendly monarch yesterday, enthroned in what looked suspiciously like the kind of casual blue cardigan he might wear on his own Texan ranch; he had even received a jangling gold " Order of Merit" – it looked a bit like the Lord Chancellor's chain, though it was not disclosed which particular merit earned Mr Bush this kingly reward. Could it be the hypocritical merit of supplying yet more billions worth of weapons to the Kingdom, to be used against the Saudi regime's imaginary enemies.
It was illusory, of course, like all the words that the Arabs have heard from the Americans these past seven days, ever since the fading President began his tourist jaunt around the Middle East.
You wouldn't think it though, watching this preposterous man, prancing around arm-in-arm with the King, in what was presumably meant to be a dance, wielding a massive glinting curved Saudi sword, a latter-day Saladin, who would have appalled the Kurdish leader who once destroyed the Crusaders in what is now referred to by Mr Bush as "the disputed West Bank".
Is this how lame-duck American presidents are supposed to behave? Certainly, the denizens of the Middle East, watching this outrageous performance will all be asking this question. Ever since the 1979 Iranian revolution, a Muslim Cold War has been raging within the Middle East – but is this how Mr Bush thinks one should fight for the soul of Islam?
Already by dusk last night, the US President's world was exploding in Beirut when a massive car bomb blew up next to a 4x4 vehicle carrying American embassy employees, killing four Lebanese and apparently badly wounding a US embassy driver. And while Mr Bush was relaxing in the Saudi royal ranch at Al Janadriyah, Israeli forces killed 19 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, most of them members of Hamas, one of them the son of Mahmoud Zahar, a leader of the movement. He later claimed that Israel would not have staged the attack – on the day an Israeli was also killed by a Palestinian rocket – if it had not been encouraged to do so by George Bush.
The difference between reality and the dream-world of the US government could hardly have been more savagely illustrated. After promising the Palestinians a "sovereign and contiguous state" before the end of the year, and pledging "security" to Israel – though not, Arabs noted, security for "Palestine" – Mr Bush had arrived in the Gulf to terrify the kings and oligarchs of the oil-soaked kingdoms of the danger of Iranian aggression. As usual, he came armed with the usual American offers of vast weapons sales to protect these largely undemocratic and police state regimes from potentially the most powerful nation in the " axis of evil".
It was a potent – even weird – example of the US President's perambulation of the Arab Middle East, a return to the "policy by fear" which Washington has regularly visited upon Gulf leaders. He agreed to furnish the Saudis with at least £41m of arms, a figure set to rise to more than £10bn in weaponry to the Gulf potentates under a deal announced last year – all of which is supposed to shield them from the supposed territorial ambitions of Iran's crackpot President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As usual, Washington promised the Israelis that their "qualitative edge" in advanced weapons would be maintained, just in case the Saudis – who have never gone to war with anyone except Saddam Hussein after his 1990 invasion of Kuwait – decided to launch a suicidal attack on America's only real ally in the Middle East.
This, of course, was not how the whole shooting match was presented to the Arabs. Mr Bush could be seen ostentatiously kissing the cheeks of King Abdullah and holding hands with the autocratic monarch whose Wahhabi Muslim state had only recently showed its "mercy" to a Saudi woman who was charged with adultery after being raped seven times in the desert outside Riyadh. The Saudis, needless to say, are well aware that Mr Bush's reign is ending amid chaos in Pakistan, a disastrous guerrilla war against Western forces in Afghanistan, fierce fighting in Gaza, near civil war in Lebanon and the hell-disaster of Iraq.
The bomb in Beirut, just before five in the evening, must still have come as a rude shock to the luxuriating President who has such close ties with the Saudi regime – despite the fact that the majority of hijackers in the crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001 came from the kingdom – that he allowed its junior princes to fly home from the United States immediately after the attacks. Two trips to Mr Bush's Texas ranch by King Abdullah was apparently enough to earn the US President a night in the Saudi king's palace-farm, surrounded by groomed lawns and grassy hills.
Heard across many miles of the Lebanese capital, the bomb devastated buildings in a narrow street in the east of the city through which the vehicle was passing, just as the US ambassador – on a different route into the city – was travelling to a central Beirut hotel reception before leaving for Washington. A State Department spokesman, however, insisted that no US citizens had been hurt. The American SUV had taken an obscure laneway close to the Karantina bridge to travel north of Beirut along the bank of the city's only river when it was struck, leading local Lebanese military officials to ask themselves if the bomber had inside knowledge of the route they were taking.
There was talk that this was a "dummy" convoy staged to distract potential bombers from the journey which Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman was taking to a reception at a downtown hotel. A carpet manufacturer's factory was smashed by the blast which tore down roofs and smashed windows more than half a mile from the scene.
For Arab leaders, Mr Bush's message to the Gulf leaders was wearily familiar. In the 1980s, when the Reagan administration was supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran, Washington spent its time warning Gulf leaders of the danger of Iranian aggression. Once Saddam invaded Kuwait, America's emphasis changed: It was now Iraq which posed the greatest danger to their kingdoms. But once the emirate was liberated, the oil-wealthy monarchs were told that – yet again – it was Iran that was their enemy.
Arabs are no more taken in by this topsy-turvy "good-versus-evil" narrative than they are by Washington's promises to help create a Palestinian state by the end of the year, scarcely a day before Israel publicly admitted to plans for yet more houses for settlers on Arab land amid Jewish colonies illegally built on Palestinian territory.
Yet to understand the nature of this extraordinary relationship with the Gulf monarchs, it is necessary to recall that ever since the President's father promised a weapons-free "oasis of peace" in the Gulf, Washington – along with Britain, France and Russia – has been pouring arms into the region.
Over the past decade, the Gulf Arabs have squandered billions of their oil dollars on American weapons. The statistics tell their own story. In 1998 and 1999 alone, Gulf Arab military spending came to £40bn. Between 1997 and 2005, the sheikhs of the United Arab Emirates – Mr Bush's hosts before he continued to Riyadh – signed arms contracts worth £9bn with Western nations. Between 1991 and 1993 – when Iraq was the "enemy" – the US Military Training Mission was administering more than £14bn in Saudi arms procurements and £12bn in new US weapons acquisitions. By this time, the Saudis already possessed 72 American F-15 fighter-bombers and 114 British Tornados.
How little has changed in the past 17 years. On 17 May 1991, for example, George Bush Snr said there were now "real reasons to be optimistic" about a peace in the Middle East. "We are going to continue to work in the [peace] process," he said then. "We are not going to abandon it."
James Baker, who was the American Secretary of State, warned on 23 May 1991 that the continued building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land " hindered" a future Middle East peace, just as the present Secretary of State said last week. At the time, the Israelis were reassured by Dick Cheney that the US would safeguard their "security".
The West may have a short memory. The Arabs, who happen to live in the piece of real estate which we call the Middle East and who are not stupid, have not. They understand all too well what George W Bush now stands for. After advocating "democracy" in the region – a policy which gained electoral victories for Shia in Iraq, for Hamas in Gaza and a substantial gain in political power for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – it seems to have dawned on Washington that something might be slightly wrong with Bush's priorities. Instead of advocating a "New Middle East", Mr Bush, lying amid his silken sheets in the Saudi king's palace, is now pursuing a return to the "Old Middle East", a place of secret policemen, torture chambers – to which prisoners can be usefully " renditioned " – and dictatorial "moderate" presidents and monarchs. And which of the Gulf despots is going to object to that? _____________________________________
Bush oil price 'begging' is 'pathetic' : Clinton
Bush Pushes For More Oil Production
Democratic White House hopeful Hillary Clinton on Tuesday accused President George W. Bush of "begging" for cuts in oil prices in "pathetic" encounters with Gulf leaders.
The former first lady hit out at the US president as he wrapped up a tour of the Middle East, during a 2008 Democratic presidential campaign debate here.
"President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil," Clinton said. "How pathetic."
"We should have an energy policy right now, putting people to work in green collar jobs as a way to stave off the recession, moving us towards energy independence."
Bush earlier urged oil producers to take action over near record-high prices, prompting his Saudi hosts to vow to increase output when justified by the market.
Bush, facing recession fears at home after prices surged to a record 100 dollars at the start of the year, raised the sensitive issue on the second day of a visit to OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia -- the world's largest oil producer.
He said he planned to discuss with King Abdullah "the fact that oil prices are very high, which is tough on our economy."
"And that I would hope, as OPEC considers different production levels, that they understand that if their -- one of their biggest consumers' economy suffers -- it will mean less purchases, less oil and gas sold."
Robert Fisk: Bloody reality bears no relation to the delusions of this President
As a bomb explodes in Beirut and Israel kills 19 in Gaza raids, Bush takes his Middle East peace mission to Saudi Arabia (and signs off $20bn weapons deal with repressive regime)
Published: 16 January 2008
Twixt silken sheets – in a bedroom whose walls are also covered in silk – and in the very palace of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, President George Bush awakes this morning to confront a Middle East which bears no relation to the policies of his administration nor the warning which he has been relaying constantly to the kings and emirs and oligarchs of the Gulf: that Iran rather than Israel is their enemy.
The President sat chummily beside the all-too-friendly monarch yesterday, enthroned in what looked suspiciously like the kind of casual blue cardigan he might wear on his own Texan ranch; he had even received a jangling gold " Order of Merit" – it looked a bit like the Lord Chancellor's chain, though it was not disclosed which particular merit earned Mr Bush this kingly reward. Could it be the hypocritical merit of supplying yet more billions worth of weapons to the Kingdom, to be used against the Saudi regime's imaginary enemies.
It was illusory, of course, like all the words that the Arabs have heard from the Americans these past seven days, ever since the fading President began his tourist jaunt around the Middle East.
You wouldn't think it though, watching this preposterous man, prancing around arm-in-arm with the King, in what was presumably meant to be a dance, wielding a massive glinting curved Saudi sword, a latter-day Saladin, who would have appalled the Kurdish leader who once destroyed the Crusaders in what is now referred to by Mr Bush as "the disputed West Bank".
Is this how lame-duck American presidents are supposed to behave? Certainly, the denizens of the Middle East, watching this outrageous performance will all be asking this question. Ever since the 1979 Iranian revolution, a Muslim Cold War has been raging within the Middle East – but is this how Mr Bush thinks one should fight for the soul of Islam?
Already by dusk last night, the US President's world was exploding in Beirut when a massive car bomb blew up next to a 4x4 vehicle carrying American embassy employees, killing four Lebanese and apparently badly wounding a US embassy driver. And while Mr Bush was relaxing in the Saudi royal ranch at Al Janadriyah, Israeli forces killed 19 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, most of them members of Hamas, one of them the son of Mahmoud Zahar, a leader of the movement. He later claimed that Israel would not have staged the attack – on the day an Israeli was also killed by a Palestinian rocket – if it had not been encouraged to do so by George Bush.
The difference between reality and the dream-world of the US government could hardly have been more savagely illustrated. After promising the Palestinians a "sovereign and contiguous state" before the end of the year, and pledging "security" to Israel – though not, Arabs noted, security for "Palestine" – Mr Bush had arrived in the Gulf to terrify the kings and oligarchs of the oil-soaked kingdoms of the danger of Iranian aggression. As usual, he came armed with the usual American offers of vast weapons sales to protect these largely undemocratic and police state regimes from potentially the most powerful nation in the " axis of evil".
It was a potent – even weird – example of the US President's perambulation of the Arab Middle East, a return to the "policy by fear" which Washington has regularly visited upon Gulf leaders. He agreed to furnish the Saudis with at least £41m of arms, a figure set to rise to more than £10bn in weaponry to the Gulf potentates under a deal announced last year – all of which is supposed to shield them from the supposed territorial ambitions of Iran's crackpot President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As usual, Washington promised the Israelis that their "qualitative edge" in advanced weapons would be maintained, just in case the Saudis – who have never gone to war with anyone except Saddam Hussein after his 1990 invasion of Kuwait – decided to launch a suicidal attack on America's only real ally in the Middle East.
This, of course, was not how the whole shooting match was presented to the Arabs. Mr Bush could be seen ostentatiously kissing the cheeks of King Abdullah and holding hands with the autocratic monarch whose Wahhabi Muslim state had only recently showed its "mercy" to a Saudi woman who was charged with adultery after being raped seven times in the desert outside Riyadh. The Saudis, needless to say, are well aware that Mr Bush's reign is ending amid chaos in Pakistan, a disastrous guerrilla war against Western forces in Afghanistan, fierce fighting in Gaza, near civil war in Lebanon and the hell-disaster of Iraq.
The bomb in Beirut, just before five in the evening, must still have come as a rude shock to the luxuriating President who has such close ties with the Saudi regime – despite the fact that the majority of hijackers in the crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001 came from the kingdom – that he allowed its junior princes to fly home from the United States immediately after the attacks. Two trips to Mr Bush's Texas ranch by King Abdullah was apparently enough to earn the US President a night in the Saudi king's palace-farm, surrounded by groomed lawns and grassy hills.
Heard across many miles of the Lebanese capital, the bomb devastated buildings in a narrow street in the east of the city through which the vehicle was passing, just as the US ambassador – on a different route into the city – was travelling to a central Beirut hotel reception before leaving for Washington. A State Department spokesman, however, insisted that no US citizens had been hurt. The American SUV had taken an obscure laneway close to the Karantina bridge to travel north of Beirut along the bank of the city's only river when it was struck, leading local Lebanese military officials to ask themselves if the bomber had inside knowledge of the route they were taking.
There was talk that this was a "dummy" convoy staged to distract potential bombers from the journey which Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman was taking to a reception at a downtown hotel. A carpet manufacturer's factory was smashed by the blast which tore down roofs and smashed windows more than half a mile from the scene.
For Arab leaders, Mr Bush's message to the Gulf leaders was wearily familiar. In the 1980s, when the Reagan administration was supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran, Washington spent its time warning Gulf leaders of the danger of Iranian aggression. Once Saddam invaded Kuwait, America's emphasis changed: It was now Iraq which posed the greatest danger to their kingdoms. But once the emirate was liberated, the oil-wealthy monarchs were told that – yet again – it was Iran that was their enemy.
Arabs are no more taken in by this topsy-turvy "good-versus-evil" narrative than they are by Washington's promises to help create a Palestinian state by the end of the year, scarcely a day before Israel publicly admitted to plans for yet more houses for settlers on Arab land amid Jewish colonies illegally built on Palestinian territory.
Yet to understand the nature of this extraordinary relationship with the Gulf monarchs, it is necessary to recall that ever since the President's father promised a weapons-free "oasis of peace" in the Gulf, Washington – along with Britain, France and Russia – has been pouring arms into the region.
Over the past decade, the Gulf Arabs have squandered billions of their oil dollars on American weapons. The statistics tell their own story. In 1998 and 1999 alone, Gulf Arab military spending came to £40bn. Between 1997 and 2005, the sheikhs of the United Arab Emirates – Mr Bush's hosts before he continued to Riyadh – signed arms contracts worth £9bn with Western nations. Between 1991 and 1993 – when Iraq was the "enemy" – the US Military Training Mission was administering more than £14bn in Saudi arms procurements and £12bn in new US weapons acquisitions. By this time, the Saudis already possessed 72 American F-15 fighter-bombers and 114 British Tornados.
How little has changed in the past 17 years. On 17 May 1991, for example, George Bush Snr said there were now "real reasons to be optimistic" about a peace in the Middle East. "We are going to continue to work in the [peace] process," he said then. "We are not going to abandon it."
James Baker, who was the American Secretary of State, warned on 23 May 1991 that the continued building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land " hindered" a future Middle East peace, just as the present Secretary of State said last week. At the time, the Israelis were reassured by Dick Cheney that the US would safeguard their "security".
The West may have a short memory. The Arabs, who happen to live in the piece of real estate which we call the Middle East and who are not stupid, have not. They understand all too well what George W Bush now stands for. After advocating "democracy" in the region – a policy which gained electoral victories for Shia in Iraq, for Hamas in Gaza and a substantial gain in political power for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – it seems to have dawned on Washington that something might be slightly wrong with Bush's priorities. Instead of advocating a "New Middle East", Mr Bush, lying amid his silken sheets in the Saudi king's palace, is now pursuing a return to the "Old Middle East", a place of secret policemen, torture chambers – to which prisoners can be usefully " renditioned " – and dictatorial "moderate" presidents and monarchs. And which of the Gulf despots is going to object to that? _____________________________________
Bush oil price 'begging' is 'pathetic' : Clinton
Bush Pushes For More Oil Production
Democratic White House hopeful Hillary Clinton on Tuesday accused President George W. Bush of "begging" for cuts in oil prices in "pathetic" encounters with Gulf leaders.
The former first lady hit out at the US president as he wrapped up a tour of the Middle East, during a 2008 Democratic presidential campaign debate here.
"President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil," Clinton said. "How pathetic."
"We should have an energy policy right now, putting people to work in green collar jobs as a way to stave off the recession, moving us towards energy independence."
Bush earlier urged oil producers to take action over near record-high prices, prompting his Saudi hosts to vow to increase output when justified by the market.
Bush, facing recession fears at home after prices surged to a record 100 dollars at the start of the year, raised the sensitive issue on the second day of a visit to OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia -- the world's largest oil producer.
He said he planned to discuss with King Abdullah "the fact that oil prices are very high, which is tough on our economy."
"And that I would hope, as OPEC considers different production levels, that they understand that if their -- one of their biggest consumers' economy suffers -- it will mean less purchases, less oil and gas sold."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)