 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
AZBlue's Journal
Last week, after being hyped by Matt Drudge and Fox News, the Beltway press unanimously decided that Rev. Jesse Jackson's whispered comments, picked up on a live television set mic, in which he expressed anger with Sen. Barack Obama and used some crude language to convey his sentiments (i.e. he wanted to cut off Obama's "nuts"), represented a hugely important event. It was the most-covered campaign story of the week. By contrast, McCain said at a campaign appearance in Denver on July 7 that the Social Security system as structured in America, in which younger people pay taxes to support the benefits of retirees, is an "absolute disgrace" -- but his proclamation was mostly passed over as being irrelevant. The disconnect between the coverage was astounding. As of Sunday morning, only 17 major metropolitan newspapers in America had reported on McCain's "disgraceful" remark, in a total of 20 articles and columns, according to search of Nexis. By contrast, more than 50 major U.S. dailies published a total of 126 articles and columns about the Jackson story. Several influential newspapers went back to the story ad nauseam. Combined, the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times and Los Angeles Times published 39 different articles and columns that referenced the Jackson-Obama controversy. By contrast, the combined number of stories and columns those three newspapers published that made reference to the McCain "disgrace" controversy? One. On television, the disparity was even more striking. Again, as of Sunday morning there had been nearly 900 mentions of "Jesse Jackson" over the previous five days on the cable and networks news channels, according to a search of TVeyes.com. On those same news outlets there had been less than 24 references to McCain's "disgrace" comment. And not a single network newscast reported on the Social Security story. For reporters and pundits, "nuts" reigned over the "disgrace." I HIGHLY encourage everyone to read the rest of the story (http://mediamatters.org/columns/2008071500... ) - it has excellent points all the way thoroughout, all of which I won't post here because I know long posts make some DU'ers eyes glaze over and roll back in their heads. Zenbowl on Kos rocks!
How else can you explain this headline? Poll Finds Obama Candidacy Isn’t Closing Divide on Race Oh, really? You mean Barack Obama just running for President hasn't been enough to heal the wounds of slavery, of segregation, of Jim Crow? Barack Obama is running for office not already running the country. And speak of running the country... Indeed, the poll showed markedly little change in the racial components of people’s daily lives since 2000, when The Times examined race relations in an extensive series of articles called "How Race Is Lived in America." As it was eight years ago, few Americans have regular contact with people of other races, and few say their own workplaces or their own neighborhoods are integrated. In this latest poll, over 40 percent of blacks said they believed they had been stopped by the police because of their race, the same figure as eight years ago; 7 percent of whites said the same thing. (snip) But Obama is somehow responsible for this morass? Obama's campaign, the subject of smears, hate, and racism, is responsible for healing the country, before he even gets into office? I mean, New York Times, seriously, W. T. F. How is a campaign supposed to not only transcend one of (if not the) most fundamental issues that has plagued America since the first slaves were brought ashore, since the first Indians were massacred, but also fix it by virtue of simple existence? Wouldn't a "Race remains a challenge for America" or "Bush Administration has done nothing to heal racial divide" be more accurate? And are we really surprised that African Americans have come out to support the black nominee for President, particularly when he's running against a man who literally ate cake with George Bush while people were dying in New Orleans? No. So, seriously, NYT. No one expects Barack Obama to actually fix anything until he becomes President, right? Right? You don't get to pin the Bush legacy, and 400 years of American history, on one man's campaign. Sorry. One of the (thousand and one) things I like about Obama and his team most is their inability to let the B.S. fly for too long without a smack-down. Obama and the rest of us have had enough of the lies and distortions and he's showing them every day that we're DONE! Zenbowl goes on to say: Update II The Obama Camp has responded with some facts that blow up the whole premise of the article. Facts lifted from the same poll! a) More white voters say Obama cares about people like them, than say the same thing about McCain by 31 to 23 b) On the essential issue in this campaign - bringing about change in Washington - Among white voters, Obama is seen as the change agent by 52% to 30% c) Obama's 31% favorable rating among white voters is virtually identical to McCain's, which is at 34%. d) By a 2 to 1 margin over McCain, white voters are more likely to say that Obama would improve America's image in the world e) "Racial dissension" around Mrs. Obama's 24% favorable rating among whites is an extremely odd description given that Mrs. McCain's favorable rating among white voters is 20%. f) Enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy is roughly 2.5 times higher among white voters than is enthusiasm for McCain's. g) Obama is winning by 6 points against McCain and the gap among white voters is only 9 -- a margin smaller than independent expert on voting patterns, Ruy Texiera, said would give Obama a " solid win." h) though there is a six-point margin of error among black voters the NYT describes the 7-point change in black voters' views that whites had a better chance of getting ahead as slightly higher than 8 years ago. Given that the Times reports horserace questions as statistically even when the margin falls within the margin, it seems that this shift from seven years ago among black voters is well within the margin of error. Thank you for responding so quickly, Senator Obama! No smear should go unchallenged - particularly when it's on the front page of the New York Times. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/1... Let's just call it what it is: he lies.
For years now, the U.S. political press corps has traveled with John McCain on his “Straight Talk Express,” buying into his image as a paragon of truth-telling. But the real truth is that McCain routinely makes stuff up, as he did on June 11 in lying about Barack Obama’s “bitter” comment. During a political talk in Philadelphia, McCain claimed that Obama had described “bitter” small-town voters as clinging to religion or “the Constitution” – when the second item in Obama’s comment actually was “guns.” But the Arizona senator didn’t stop with a simple word substitution. He added that he will tell these voters that “they have trust and support the Constitution of the United States because they have optimism and hope. … That’s what America’s all about.” In other words, McCain didn’t just make a slip of the tongue. He willfully accused Obama of disparaging the U.S. Constitution, a very serious point that, if true, might cause millions of Americans to reject Obama’s candidacy. Still, when some of the U.S. broadcast networks – including NBC evening news – played the clip of McCain lashing out at Obama’s purported dissing of the Constitution, they didn’t correct McCain's falsehood. That fits with a long-standing pattern of the political press corps giving McCain a break when he makes statements at variance with the truth. Even in the rare moments when he is caught in an inaccuracy – such as accusing Shiite-ruled Iran of training Sunni extremists in al-Qaeda – the falsehood is minimized as an unintentional gaffe. However, McCain actually seems to be following a trail blazed by George W. Bush, saying what’s useful at the time even if it’s not true and then counting on the U.S. press corps to timidly look the other way. http://www.alternet.org/election08/88101 / I say anytime we see, read or hear the press giving him a pass, we'll write or call that media outlet to point out their ignorance of the facts and let them know we're aware of it. Call them out on it. I know it takes time to do that, but it takes all of 5 minutes maybe - and isn't that a short amount of time compared to 4 more years of Bush? Here's today's article on CNN - just another in a long line of outrages:
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- FEMA gave away about $85 million in household goods meant for Hurricane Katrina victims, a CNN investigation has found. The material -- from basic kitchen goods to sleeping necessities -- sat in warehouses for two years before the Federal Emergency Management Agency's giveaway to federal and state agencies this year. James McIntyre, FEMA's acting press secretary, told CNN that FEMA was spending more than $1 million a year to store the material and that another agency wanted the warehouses torn down, so "we needed to vacate them." "Upon review of our assets and our need to continue to store them, we determined that they were excess to FEMA's needs; therefore, they are being excessed from FEMA's inventory," McIntyre wrote in an e-mail. He declined a request for an on-camera interview, telling CNN the giveaway was "not news." (snip) "These are exactly the items that we are desperately seeking donations of right now -- basic kitchen household supplies," said Kegel, executive director of Unity of Greater New Orleans. "These are the very things that we are seeking right now. FEMA, in fact, refers homeless clients to us to house them. How can we house them if we don't have basic supplies?" (snip) Kegel said FEMA was told in regular meetings that Unity was desperate for household supplies and that the group has been forced to beg for donations. But she said FEMA never told Unity and other community groups that it had tens of millions of dollars worth of brand-new items meant for storm victims. She said she learned of it from CNN, which found that those items never made it to people such as Debra Reed. "An honest person like me didn't get nothing," said Reed, 54, who recently moved from a tent beneath a New Orleans bridge to a home with the help of Kegel's group. "I'm gonna turn, 'cause I'm gonna cry. I didn't get nothing. I fought to get my money, but they wouldn't give it to me. So I ended up going under the bridge." FEMA confirmed it had kept the merchandise in storage for the past two years -- then gave it away to cities, schools, fire departments and nonprofit agencies such as food banks. In all, General Services Administration records show FEMA gave away 121 truckloads of material. You can read the rest of it here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/11/fema.give... including McIntyre's claim that FEMA didn't know that Katrina victims needed things anymore because the state didn't tell them. BULLSHIT! Even if the state didn't tell them, how come I know yet I don't work for FEMA and am not in that region of the country?? Nothing really to add to this - it's perfect in itself.
We've just finished the most exciting primary contest in a generation, and Barack Obama is our presumptive nominee for President. Senator Clinton ran an outstanding campaign and we all should be deeply thankful for the passion, energy, and ideas that defined her from the start. Our country and our Party are better off today because the incredible amount of work she and her supporters put into her campaign. We thank Hillary for her leadership, her commitment to America and the Democratic Party. It can be tough to lose a hard-fought race -- I know, because I've been there. But no matter who you supported, you're part of a bigger family -- one that shares the same hopes, values, and dreams. This campaign is so much more than any of us or any candidate. It's about the future of our country, and our collective desire to take it back for the people who make it great. Over the next few weeks and months, our family will reunite. It starts today, and I'm asking for your help. Reach out to your friends and family, your neighbors and coworkers, and anyone else who may have fought hard for what they believed in. Bring them in and remind them that we're a family -- that together, we can bring about fundamental change and elect a Democratic president. We have to be unified if we're going to bring universal health care to America's families, to help fight global climate change, to ensure a woman's right to make her own medical decisions, and to end the war in Iraq. We have to be unified if we're going to put a Democrat back in the White House. Over the past few years, we've all been part of the work to rebuild the Democratic Party in all 50 states. When the primary came around, we found ourselves with two once-in-a-lifetime candidates. Barack and Hillary crossed the country inspiring activists, building organizations, and registering new voters. In state after state, we saw record turnout that dwarfed the Republican's; we saw hundreds of thousands of Americans become involved with a Democratic campaign for the first time; and millions of voters saw just how passionately we feel about the future of our country. After years of rebuilding and a historic primary campaign, our Democratic community is stronger than ever before. And with Barack Obama, we have a candidate who has inspired millions of people to believe again. But change doesn't come easily -- and no matter how much we've prepared, no matter how inspiring our candidate, no matter how badly we want it to happen, we have to fight for it every step of the way. Absolutely nothing will be handed to us over the next five months -- we have to do everything we can to make sure Barack Obama is our next President. We've just seen two brilliant candidates run the most exciting primary in decades. Now we need to come together and finish the job. I'm looking forward to it. Howard Dean Let's forget the Clinton/Obama arguing for a minute - Obama's the nominee, it's over, and in a few days it will be officially over. We need to focus on McCain - and this is a scary and astonishing fact:
Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure. Details here: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/20... Your Eminences, Your Excellencies, Mr. President:
On behalf of Mrs. Kennedy, her children, the parents and sisters of Robert Kennedy, I want to express what we feel to those who mourn with us today in this Cathedral and around the world. We loved him as a brother, and as a father, and as a son. From his parents, and from his older brothers and sisters -- Joe and Kathleen and Jack -- he received an inspiration which he passed on to all of us. He gave us strength in time of trouble, wisdom in time of uncertainty, and sharing in time of happiness. He will always be by our side. Love is not an easy feeling to put into words. Nor is loyalty, or trust, or joy. But he was all of these. He loved life completely and he lived it intensely. A few years back, Robert Kennedy wrote some words about his own father which expresses That is what Robert Kennedy was given. What he leaves to us is what he said, what he did, and what he stood for. A speech he made to the young people of South Africa on their Day of Affirmation in 1966 sums it up the best, and I would like to read it now: "There is discrimination in this world and slavery and slaughter and starvation. Governments repress their people; millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich and wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere. These are differing evils, but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfection of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, our lack of sensibility towards the suffering of our fellows. But we can perhaps remember -- even if only for a time -- that those who live with us are our brothers; that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek -- as we do -- nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can. Surely, this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men. And surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again. The answer is to rely on youth -- not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease. The cruelties and obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to the obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. They cannot be moved by those who cling to a present that is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger that come with even the most peaceful progress. It is a revolutionary world we live in, and this generation at home and around the world has had thrust upon it a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived. Some believe there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation; a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth; a young woman reclaimed the territory of France; and it was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and the 32 year-old Thomas Jefferson who These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe. For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged, and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that event. The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society. Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live." That is the way he lived. That is what he leaves us. My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it. Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world. As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not." I saw this on DailyKos and it just seemed so appropriate. I never want the legacy and magnificance of Robert F. Kennedy or our respect for the Kennedy family to be lost amongst the Clinton vitriol. Also at LeftyEnglish's diary is a video: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/2... When I heard of her remarks, I actually got tears in my eyes. Not tears of anger or ridicule, which can be expected from her antics lately.
No, tears of sorrow and sadness and heavy-heartedness. That anyone, anyone, would say such a thing is beyond comprehension. I don't think even Rush Limbaugh would say something like that, I really don't. She didn't say that by accident. She knew exactly what she was doing and exactly what she was saying. She can't apologize it away. Not now, not ever. She needs to get on her knees and beg forgiveness from the Obamas and the Kennedys. And then she needs to immediately retire - not just from the primary, but from political life in general. She and her husband and child need to withdraw from the limelight and go off and live their pathetic lives without having to force any of us to know anything about them ever again. Excellent advice from Arianna Huffington: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huff...
Given that it's obvious this is all about Hillary and she's deaf, dumb and blind to reality, what makes us think she'll suddenly start acting reasonably now? The dust refuses to settle on the Democratic race. Hillary Clinton wants to cloud the issue with talk of Zimbabwe, Gore 2000, slavery, the civil rights movement, and fuzzy-math-derived popular vote totals. The media steadfastly refuse to clear things up by sticking to the facts, preferring to keep the horse race going. So let's see if we can put the focus on those with the power to bring to an end this political equivalent of a 50s horror movie (The Campaign That Just Won't Die!): the superdelegates. There are currently 212 uncommitted superdelegates (not counting Michigan and Florida). What are they waiting for? I understand there are still three more primaries to go. But there is nothing that is going to happen in Puerto Rico or South Dakota or Montana that is going to convince Hillary Clinton to leave the race. Her argument isn't about pledged delegates, which is what is at stake in these remaining primaries. Her argument is about Florida and Michigan and convincing the superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate majority Obama has won. And there is also no reason for the superdelegates to wait until the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on May 31st. Not even the Clinton camp is delusional enough to think it is going to walk away from the meeting with enough additional pledged delegates from Michigan and Florida to overtake Obama. So it's time for the uncommitted superdelegates to stop their dithering, come out of hiding, hop off the fence, endorse Obama and officially bring this nominating process to an end. The Democratic leadership -- starting with Pelosi, Reid, and Dean -- should begin working behind the scenes to get all uncommitted supers to immediately commit. (snip) And let's not just wait for the party leaders to put pressure on the superdelegates. Let's start putting pressure ourselves. Below you will find a list of all the uncommitted superdelegates. And this link will lead you to profiles of them. Please call or email the elected officials and track down the DNC members who live in your state and let them know that you want them to stand up and be counted. Now. Representatives Bud Cramer (AL) Gabrielle Giffords (AZ) Nancy Pelosi (CA) Jerry McNerney (CA) Mike Honda (CA) Sam Farr (CA) Jim Costa (CA) Bob Filner (CA) Susan Davis (CA) Mark Udall (CO) John Salazar (CO) Jim Marshall (GA) Rahm Emanuel (IL) Nancy Boyda (KS) Dennis Moore (KS) William Jefferson (LA) Charlie Melancon (LA) Don Cazayoux (LA) Rep. Michael Michaud (ME) John Sarbanes (MD) Steny Hoyer (MD) Chris Van Hollen (MD) John Olver (MA) Niki Tsongas (MA) John Tierney (MA) Edward Markey (MA) Collin Peterson (MN) Gene Taylor (MS) Rep. Travis Childers (MS) Rep. Rush Holt (NJ) Rep. Bob Etheridge (NC) Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC) Rep. Tom Udall (NM) Charlie Wilson (OH) Marcia Kaptur (OH) Rep. Zack Space (OH) Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) Rep. Dan Boren (OK) Bob Brady (PA) Jason Altmire (PA) Tim Holden (PA) Rep. Mike Doyle (PA) John Spratt (SC) Rep. Jim Clyburn (SC) Lincoln Davis (TN) Bart Gordon (TN) Nick Lampson (TX) Jim Matheson (UT) Alan Mollohan (WV) Distinguished Party Leaders Jimmy Carter (GA) Al Gore (TN) Fmr. Senator and Majority Leader George Mitchell (NY) Fmr. DNC Chair Bob Strauss (TX) Senators Ken Salazar (CO) Joe Biden (DE) Tom Carper (DE) Tom Harkin (IA) Mary Landrieu (LA) Ben Cardin (MD) Carl Levin (MI) Max Baucus (MT) Jon Tester (MT) Harry Reid (NV) Frank Lautenberg (NJ) Sherrod Brown (OH) Ron Wyden (OR) Jack Reed (RI) Jim Webb (VA) Herb Kohl (WI) Governors Bill Ritter (CO) Steve Beshear (KY) Brian Schweitzer (MT) John Lynch (NH) Phil Bredeson (TN) Joe Manchin (WV) Add-Ons Terry Goddard (AZ) Jay Nixon (MO) Rusty McAllister (NV) Jerry Lee (TN) 37 Unnamed Add-Ons, including 2 from Michigan DNC Members Joe Turnham (AL) Nancy Worley (AL) Don Bivens (AZ) Lottie Shackleford (AR) Art Torres (CA) Hon. Carole Migden (CA) Bob Mulholland (CA) Christine Pelosi (CA) Robert Rankin (CA) Steve Ybarra (CA) John Perez (CA) Pat Waak (CO) Nancy DiNardo (CT) Donna Brazile (DC) Christine Warnke (DC) John Daniello (DE) Harriet Smith-Windsor (DE) Richard Ray (GA) Ben Pangelinan (GU) Chair - Vacant (HI) Vice-Chair - Vacant (HI) Edward Smith (IL) Vacant (IL) Helen Knetzer (KS) Jennifer Moore (KY) Nathan Smith (KY) Chris Whittington (LA) Claude "Buddy" Leach (LA) Elsie Burkhalter (LA) Sam Spencer (ME) Jennifer DeChant (ME) Hon. Heather Mizeur (MD) Susan Turnbull (MD) John Sweeney (MD) Belkis Leong-Hong (MD) Debra Kozikowski (MA) James Roosevelt Jr (MA) Carnelia Pettis Fondren (MS) John Temporiti (MO) Yolanda Wheat (MO) Leila Medley (MO) Hon. Robin Carnahan (MO) Hon. Maria Chappelle-Nadal (MO) Dennis McDonald (MT) Margarett Campbell (MT) Sam Lieberman (NV) Hon. Yvonne Gates (NV) Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) Philip D. Murphy (NJ) Raymond Buckley (NH) Irene Stein (NY) Ralph Dawson (NY) David Parker (NC) Muriel Offerman (NC) Carol Peterson (NC) David Strauss (ND) Hon. Chris Redfern (OH) Ronald Malone (OH) Patricia Moss (OH) Hon. Joyce Beatty (OH) Ivan Holmes (OK) Jim Frasier (OK) Jay Parmley (OK) Meredith Woods-Smith (OR) Frank Dixon (OR) Jenny Greenleaf (OR) Wayne Kinney (OR) Gail Rasmussen (OR) Hon. Bill Bradbury (OR) Eliseo Roques-Arroyo (PR) Hon. Gilda Cobb-Hunter (SC) Cheryl Chapman (SD) Gray Sasser (TN) Dr. Inez Crutchfield (TN) Boyd Richie (TX) David Hardt (TX Denise Johnson (TX) Betty Richie (TX) Linda Chavez -Thompson (TX) Helen Langan (UT) Jim Leaman (VA) C Richard Cranwell (VA) Hon. Alexis Herman (VA) Jerome Wiley Segovia (VA) Howard Dean (VT) Eileen Macoll (WA) Ed Cote (WA) Sharon Mast (WA) David McDonald (WA) Nick Casey Jr. (WV) Alice Germond (WV) Paula Zellner (WI) Nancy Drummond (WY) Cynthia Nunley (WY) Marylyn Stapleton (VI) I just want to cry.
Despite more than $22 million in repairs, a levee that broke with catastrophic effect during Hurricane Katrina is leaking again because of the mushy ground on which New Orleans was built, raising serious questions about the reliability of the city's flood defenses. Outside engineering experts who have studied the project told The Associated Press that the type of seepage spotted at the 17th Street Canal in the Lakeview neighborhood afflicts other New Orleans levees, too, and could cause some of them to collapse during a storm.  Water is seeping under the levee. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24761789 / And roaring I am this evening. I am ANGRY.
Those lyrics by Helen Reddy were an “enduring anthem for the women’s liberation movement.” They keep running through my mind this evening while I simmer over the latest propaganda from the Clinton campaign. Apparently, because Hillary Clinton and I both have XX chromosomes, I’m supposed to vote for her. Only for that reason, no other. I’m not supposed to use my intellect, my opinions, my values, or my goals in making my decision. Nope, I’m just supposed to fall in line, march-step with the other ladies of the US and vote for Clinton. So, basically, as a woman, I’m not to be trusted with making my own decision, I just have to vote by gender? It’s odd to me that this is the current line of thinking. Because I’m pretty sure that Alice Paul didn’t go on hunger strikes and sit in prison so I could place my vote without any thought put into it. And I really thought that Lucy Burns and many other women picketed the Wilson White House to prove that women were equal in intelligence to men and therefore should be given the right to vote for whomever they chose – but apparently I was mistaken. Some say my stance on this issue is against feminism. I don’t see how it is – actually, to me the process of being an independent woman who has researched and listened to each of the delegates and came to my own conclusion on who to support, a conclusion I know is right, seems to me to be the epitome of feminism. As Elizabeth Cady Stanton said, “The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow into our souls.” And I know the truth in this primary, even if Senator Clinton doesn’t. I know who this country needs and what this country can be again with the right leader. I know who to support and I didn’t need help from anyone figuring that out. I would love to see a woman in the White House – and I think I will in my lifetime. But, she will be the first woman in the White House because she is honest, intelligent, real, diplomatic, and respected, just to list a few attributes. She will not be there just because she is a woman, just to prove a point, just because “it’s time.” It’s not anyone’s time unless they are the right candidate and Senator Clinton has clearly shown time and again how wrong she is for the job. Yes, women are just as capable as men at being President – but just like not all men should hold the office (current President included), not all women should hold the office either. No man should be President just because he’s a man and no woman should be President just because she’s a woman. Now, for those of you out there who still support Clinton, fine, I’m not here to convince you otherwise (at least not in this thread, LOL). What I’m here to tell you is this: do NOT tell me I must vote for someone just because they share my gender. Because guess what – that’s sexism too. And I won’t stand for sexism, not matter what form it takes or from what direction it comes. I thank and admire Paul, Susan B. Anthony, Stanton, Burns, Mary Wollstonecraft, Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Eleanor Roosevelt, and the hundreds of thousands of other women who came before me and paved the road for me. I thank them for fighting for the right for me to learn to read so I could make my own decision. I thank them for fighting for the right for me to vote so I could express that decision in this democracy. And I thank them for believing in me and every other woman so much that they didn’t tell us how to vote or how to choose a candidate – they knew we could do that for ourselves. Not only are we able to do that for ourselves, we should be allowed to do that for ourselves. And I’m not going to allow anyone to take that away from me, not even by trying to “shame” me into a vote for their candidate. Oh, and Helen Reddy? “Apparently, she sent an e-mail to the Clinton campaign early on offering her involvement. The ‘enthusiastic’ response: ’I got a form letter back asking me for a contribution.’" Yeah, now I KNOW I made the right decision. And all on my little female own, imagine that! Seeds of Destruction
by Bob Hebert May 10, 2008 The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully. Their repertoire has always been deficient in grace and class. So there was Hillary Clinton cold-bloodedly asserting to USA Today that she was the candidate favored by “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” and that her opponent, Barack Obama, the black candidate, just can’t cut it with that crowd. “There’s a pattern emerging here,” said Mrs. Clinton. There is, indeed. There was a name for it when the Republicans were using that kind of lousy rhetoric to good effect: it was called the Southern strategy, although it was hardly limited to the South. Now the Clintons, in their desperation to find some way — any way — back to the White House, have leapt aboard that sorry train. He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black! The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years. (Representative Charles Rangel of New York, who is black and has been an absolutely unwavering supporter of Senator Clinton’s White House quest, told The Daily News: “I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.”) But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now. The last time the Clintons had to make a big exit was at the end of Bill Clinton’s second term as president — and they made a complete and utter hash of that historic moment. Having survived the Monica Lewinsky ordeal, you might have thought the Clintons would be on their best behavior. Instead, a huge scandal erupted when it became known that Mrs. Clinton’s brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, had lobbied the president on behalf of criminals who then received presidential pardons or a sentence commutation from Mr. Clinton. So class is not a Clinton forte. But it’s one thing to lack class and a sense of grace, quite another to deliberately try and wreck the presidential prospects of your party’s likely nominee — and to do it in a way that has the potential to undermine the substantial racial progress that has been made in this country over many years. The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame. Yet another reason that Clinton should be forced to drop her bid for President (or Vice President) immediately. (A long but VITAL read!)
This has to be stopped. Her presence on the Dem ticket in November will only help McCain and hurt Dems (Obama and anyone running for a Congressional seat). Friends and close associates of both Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are now convinced that, assuming she loses the race for the presidential nomination, she is probably going to fight to be the vice presidential nominee on an Obama-for-president ticket. (snip) A person close to her, with whom her campaign staff has counseled at various points, said this week, "I think the following will happen: Obama will be in a position where the party declares him the nominee by the first week in June. She'll still be fighting with everybody -- the Rules Committee, the party leaders -- and arguing, 'I'm winning these key states; I've got almost half the delegates. I have a whole constituency he hasn't reached. I've got real differences on approach to how we win this election, and I'm going to press the hell out of this guy. ... Relief for the middle class, universal health care, etc.; I'm Ms. Blue Collar, and I'm going to press my fight, because he can't win without my being on the ticket.' " She doesn't know when to stop. She will destroy everything and everyone in her way just to get what she wants. In theory, the landing of Campaign Clinton by the end of the primaries -- in early June at the latest, without the prospect of a convention struggle -- would be good news from Obama's point of view and even from the perspective of close Clinton friends and associates who revere their candidate and worry about the legacy of Hillary and Bill Clinton. However, from the perspective of both campaign camps, there is serious concern about the kind of landing she's aiming for and the precarious task of bringing her plane down, especially if she decides to seek the vice presidential nomination. There could be a number of different landings: • Smooth and skillful, doing the Obama candidacy no further damage and perhaps restoring to relative health the legacy of and regard for Bill and Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party. • Explosive, setting down after the enemy has been carpet-bombed (an "October surprise in May"), something the Obama campaign believes may be less and less likely to come from his Democratic opponent because of the dangers to the party and the Clintons' reputation. Yet the Clinton campaign's search for damaging information and its hope that such information exists continues, according to knowledgeable sources. Strategist Harold Ickes, her premier tactical counselor, warned on the eve of the North Carolina and Indiana that Obama could be vulnerable to an "October surprise" by the McCain campaign. • Missing the runway and destroying the Democratic village, as even her advocates outside her immediate campaign apparat fear could happen if the Clinton campaign continues to pursue a harshly negative course. • Just bumpy and scary enough to shake the Obama campaign one last time and get her into the hangar as the vice presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket. Increasingly, this is what people in Obama's corner and those who know her well are becoming convinced she will try to do. Part of this assumption is based on her determination to roll up the biggest numbers possible in West Virginia and Kentucky, and Bill Clinton's argument that she may still win a majority of popular votes in non-caucus states. So now the entire Democratic Party and the nation should pay for her botched campaign?? Almost no one I have spoken to who knows her well doubts that, as she reconciles to the likelihood that her presidential campaign is falling short, she will probably seek the vice presidential spot. One reason: Contrary to common belief, she doesn't look forward to going back to the Senate, they say. Many Democratic senators believe that she would not have an easy time winning an election for majority leader; the tenor and tactics of her presidential campaign have alienated some of her Democratic colleagues in the Senate. Far more than as one of 100 senators, she could accomplish much of her lifelong social and political agenda as vice president and, if Obama is not elected, could make a better argument that she should be the party's next nominee for president. One other factor now plays a bigger role in the vice presidential question than on the night of her defeat in North Carolina and her narrow win in the Indiana primary: her unequivocable assertion the following day that she has more support among white working-class voters than Obama has. In an interview with USA Today, she cited an Associated Press report that, she said, "found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." It is difficult to overstate the negative effect this remark has had on superdelegates, party leaders and her Democratic colleagues in both houses of Congress. "That's not a way to land the plane," one of her key supporters said. "If you were a superdelegate, you'd say, 'We have to shut this down right away.' " http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/10/ber... But Clinton on the ticket will be a huge boost to McCain and could possibly lead to a McCain victory. Now that it is apparent to all, except perhaps Hillary Clinton and some of her die-hard supporters, that Barack Obama will be the Democratic presidential nominee, the drumbeat for a "dream" ticket John McCain is in deep trouble, and not just because of the legacy of George Bush. He is in trouble with much of the Republican base, particularly the Religious Right, who never have trusted him. It is no accident that turnout in nearly all Republican primaries has been low, that McCain's fundraising has been dismal and that in the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, nearly 25 percent of Republican voters voted against him, despite the fact that he clearly will be the Republican nominee. While McCain was the strongest in a weak field of Republican candidates, his candidacy clearly is not galvanizing conservatives. There is only one candidate who can do that: Hillary Clinton. To the conservative base of the Republican Party, she is the Democratic demon and the candidate the Republicans' want to face. She is Rush Limbaugh's candidate of choice. She is the candidate who the Right would use to raise money and turn out volunteers. She is the only potential Democratic VP who would build Republican enthusiasm and inspire the grassroots Republican campaign. And of course there's this important little fact to consider: She also is the candidate who consistently measures the highest "unfavorable" ratings of anyone who ever has run for the presidency. In an ABC News poll, Clinton polls 54 percent unfavorable; perhaps even worse, 58 percent of voters say she is not honest and trustworthy. Both Clintons stand out for the amount of voter antipathy they attract: Thirty-nine percent of voters have a "strongly unfavorable" opinion of Hillary Clinton; only 22 percent have a "strongly favorable" view. Thirty-four percent are strongly negative on Bill Clinton and 51 percent have an "unfavorable" opinion of him. And Hillary's low-road campaign has had an impact: Forty-one percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters describe the tone of the Democratic campaign as "mostly negative," and by nearly a 4 to 1 margin, 52 percent to 14 percent, blame Clinton. Is taking baggage like this into the general election anyone's "dream" but a Republican's? And let's remember her own disastrous comments about Obama throghout this campaign? How could anyone respect her anywhere on the ticket? Every one of Clinton's interactions with the media would feature questions like, "Do you still think Barack Obama lacks experience to be commander-in-chief?" "Do you still think Obama is an elitist?" "That he doesn't understand the problems of the white working class?" "Do you still think his past association with Reverend Wright is very troublesome?" Obama would be asked, "During the primary campaign, your VP said your healthcare plan sucked. Was she right? Does it suck?" "Do you want to obliterate Iran, too, like your vice president?" And, when the press wasn't asking these questions, John McCain would ask them. Or, maybe we all could be reminded of Bill's talk of a Clinton versus McCain contest, where we would have a campaign of "two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," unlike Obama. Even worse than this scenario, Barack Obama would be cast in the position of having to defend his own VP's past attacks on himself. By doing so, he would not simply look like a hypocrite, he would, in fact, be a hypocrite -- thus putting into jeopardy his coin of the realm, his honesty and integrity. The general campaign wouldn't be about Obama versus McCain, it would be Act Two of a very bad marriage, with Obama sacrificing his integrity trying to explain away his own VP's past attacks on him. If you think her snarky, negative primary campaign was a thing of the past, think again because the Republicans and the press would offer us deja vu all over again. Lost in this dialogue of the past would be Obama's opportunity to explain how he wants to take America into a more productive future. And of course I still wonder what the GOP has on Clinton that led to Operation Chaos? Why were they so desperate for her to be the Dem candidate? What would they have revealed that would give McCain the presidency? Does anyone think that a man with a documented 30-year history of philandering with a long list of bowling alley queens has magically stopped playing the field, or that the Republicans will not exploit this? Does anyone think the Republicans will not exploit Bill's fund-raising associations with some of the questionable people who have given him millions for his library and foundation in favor of his deal-making with oil oligarchs, or exploit his 11th-hour pardons of some pretty disreputable characters, including two convicted bomb-carrying members of the Weather Underground? How much more baggage can Hillary sustain? http://www.alternet.org/election08/84955 / Encourage your superdelegates and the Democratic Party to NOT give into the latest Clinton temper tantrum and ruin this great thing we have going!  Clinton’s and McSame McCain’s energy dumb and dumber song-and-dance act about a ‘gas tax holiday’ is not getting any support from independent people who actually understand energy issues and/or economics. As per GasTaxScam DOT com, the merit of this idea is about the merit of setting out on a long voyage with an empty tank. A secret and confidential letter from energy dumb and dumber provides some details: We are top officials of the United States Senate Government who are interested in importation of oil into our country with funds that are presently trapped in the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND dedicated to improving transportation. We wish to send this money to overseas accounts in the MIDDLE EAST but cannot due to restrictions in Congress Transportation Equity Act requiring that this money must be spent to build roads, bridges and high speed trains. If you accept we will deliver to your a sum of 30 DOLLARS in the summer 2008 in form of a “GAS TAX HOLIDAY”. You will then deliver this money to accounts of our friends in Middle East by taking it to your nearby gasoline station where they have information to forward the money. Story: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/84518 / Satire: www.gastaxscam.com |
Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. Here's a poll that could use a few good respondents. By Mr_Jefferson_24 Lieberman: Barack Obama Was Prepared To Lose In Iraq By Amerigo Vespucci Parkinsons & marijuana By Ichingcarpenter Think Tank Calls For Bush to Be Dictator For Life By tannybogus Sun shines on Obama's Iraq debut By cal04 Bill Moyers on How Money is Choking Democracy to Death By Time for change I'm fighting 2 wars, don't need a 3rd' By azurnoir Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
 |
