This HAS to have been made by a DU member!

From Buzz Feed: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-100-bes...

Someone has no doubt already asked this but it is the first time for me. When I signed on today I was greeted by not one but TWO ads for the Republican Gubernatorial candidate for my state of Pennsylvania. Why the FUCK are ads for Republicans running on DU? And Can anything be done to stop this? It find it distasteful to see an ad for a self aggrandizing Republican a-hole like Tom Corbett on this site who's mission is to support the Democratic party and its candidates at all levels of electoral politics.

Please help me understand,

DWilliamsAMH

Before I post this please understand my sister is more conservative than I am, but not nearly as conservative as she thinks she is. When we actually talk about these issues we find much more common ground on the left side of the aisle, than on the right, and very few items where we must agree to disagree. But every once in a while she will forward or post some crap she got, mostly just to needle not just me but folks who are way more "left" than I am as well. Most of the time I can just laugh it off or even think - well there are a couple good points in this one...

Then we come to the ones like the gem below. First what she posted on FB, then my response (leaving her name out because I love her and don't want her FB page flamed).


Her comment on the post
DIVORCE AGREEMENT


THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.

then the "forwarded" post

American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, marxists and Obama supporters, et al:


We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.




Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.


Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and diparate tastes.


We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.



You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.



Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.




You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).


We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.



You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens.



We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.



We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood ..

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.



When our allies or our way of life are
under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain.



You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a
right.



We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot.



Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete.



In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, &
Jane Fonda with you.

P. S. S. And we won't have to press 1 for English.


My response:


Sorry XXXXX, but I couldn't just let this one go.....


Go ahead and vote for whatever moron wrote this and you can feel "free" to keep the:

..."free market" compulsory 80 hour work week. Oh and don't expect a raise. What would you do with it anyway? Credits at the company store are all you'll really need

...Wars for profit inspired by the need to use up weapons and munitions, produced by military contracts that make up 50% or more of you national discretionary spending, against nations that those corporations sold last decades weapons to, and who your leaders now consider a "credible threat." (And don't worry about all those dead soldiers from your new nation, after all everyone there is so patriotic that they will be proud of their dead "heroes," regardless of the "reason" for their sons' and daughters' demise. The posthumous purple hearts and silver stars will comfort the parents in their old age).

...inevitable monopoly corporations that can charge you what ever they want for their product - because well who ELSE are you going to buy it from?

...the pot hole filled roads, that charge a dollar a mile in tolls roads that would be owned by private parties,

...children's toys painted with lead paint,

...industrial pollutant filled ground water,

...childhood education only for those that can afford 15-30K a year, while the rest of the kids remain ignorant and/or work the above 80 hours cleaning the vats in solvent factories or some other such future-less job.

...old people who have to choose between food shelter and medicine

...losing everything you own in a desperate attempt to pay for your cancer treatment or life time of diabetes medication that you buy from the one monopoly drug company because the insurance company you paid for twenty years, decided they'd rather just drop you because you are no longer profitable.

...be unable to declare bankruptcy, because heck, the people you owe don't have to care that you have to spend all that money of insulin, or chemo, or dialysis. Dammit, you shouldn't have accepted mortgage or car loan, or education loan when you were healthy if you were just going to go and get sick.

...government surveillance at the whim of your president, or governor, or mayor, or borough council president. After all if you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to hide? I'm sure all the books you read, the way you discipline your children, movies you watch, music you listen to etc will definitely not run afoul of the fundamentalist Christians or free market capitalists view of morality and social order..

...compulsory housing of the military in your homes

...being tortured for your confession, since the police already "know" you are guilty. And being Sentenced to 20 years in prison because the majority doesn't like the way you live you life or what you do in your bedroom, or the work of fiction you penned.

..trial by a star chamber that doesn't have to show you evidence of your guilt, and doesn't have to listen to your bullshit alibi.

Etc....

Etc....

Etc....

P.S. We'll take the aforementioned entertainers as well as Brad and Angie, as well as darn near all of the music industry including Springsteen, Dylan, Led Zeppelin, the Dead, James Taylor and Green Day.... I assume you'll want to keep Chuck Norris, Tom Selleck, John Voight and Vince McMahon, and Kid Rock

I hope she is still speaking to me next Sunday at Easter dinner.

With the widely reported death of the former Ms. Venezuela due to complications of cosmetic surgery I was reminded once again about one of the laments I have about what our society does to women in terms of media images and the pressure to be what they see in magazines and on television and movies. The only difference between this woman killing herself for "more back" and American and European women killing themselves wit anorexia, is teh pervasive images they see in their respective media.

Not being fully familiar with the fashion culture of south America I can really only speak to how OUR media sets a ridiculously unattainable ideal for the women around me.

That is the insidious nature of the images we see in media and the fact that "fame" seems to require the women who gain fame to comply with those images if they want to keep fame. Courtney Cox and Jenifer Aniston are prime examples. Most men I know love both of them (me personally Jen is a top five all timer in terms of looks and "personality." (I only use quotes because I can only judge determined on what I read - never having met the woman). Almost every man I know thinks they both looked better when they were just starting out before the pressures to look like clothes hangers made them loose weight to waifish proportions.

So the women in our lives see these images and the glorification of these already beautiful women get even MORE intense as they loose weight - and these women (our mother s sisters, wives, significant others etc) conclude that "that's what men want." So when we tell them we love their real bodies and prefer women to be soft and curvy, they all doubt our sincerity. It is a nasty thing.

At the risk of being politically incorrect here is my theory of the origin of this dynamic: The fashion world. Designers don't WANT a woman who stands out or commands attention in her own right, even as an object. They WANT women to literally function as clothes hangers with beautiful heads. After all the show is about the CLOTHES, not the models.

Add to that the FACT that men behind the scenes in the fashion and entertainment industry (the dressers and makeup artists etc) are mostly gay (let the flaming begin) and you will understand why the male influence in that world pushes women to look less and less like women and more and more like men - no boobs, no hips, no butts, and much taller than the average woman. Based purely on looks - which is what we are talking about. The REASON Jessica Simpson, and Shakira, and J-LO are the favorites of heterosexual men - is because their bodies look like WOMEN - not male bodies with the head of a woman. So be PROUD of your curves ladies. Love your softness just as much as your man does. And BTW - I KNOW I am totally generalizing about "what men want" but I am doing it from many conversations with MEN. LOL There are definitely men who want nothing more than a size zero, just as there are those who love them some SSBBWs. But the majority are in the middle - just like most women are. And the middle ain't size 0-4.

Of COURSE there is more to women than looks. Why else would all the women I just mentioned have been through divorces? Obviously daily issues of compatibility - intelligence, temperament etc is a two way street as well. It is not all on the woman. LOL I am only limiting this to looks because that happens to be the topic.

Now most of this post was made on Huffington Post in response to their report of Ashlee Simpson defending her sister Jessica's weight and looks. Fast forward to this afternoon.

So this afternoon I turned on my TV which happened to be on Bravo from the night before, and "The fashion Show" was on. This is a show I would normally turn of immediately, but in my just awake, no caffeine state I left it there and had part of my theory confirmed. Within three minutes, the finalists (it is apparently one of those illumination reality shows) where fitting their designs for the final fashion show on models. none of the clothes (which they designed and constructed in their respective studios) fit the models. One said, "this is why I like models to be proportionate. That way they don't interfere with the design." And that was a WOMAN saying that. Proportionate my ass. That dress couldn't even fit on HER body. And then a gay male designer lamented (after not being able to get his dress on ANY of the five size zero, 5'11" models available) that he would have to let out his design. The dress could NOT fit over any of these anorexic women's hips. So there you have it - the fashion world (and this show is run by Isaac Mizrahi love his personality and his clothing for men), the arbiters of what cloths should look like on women, literally make clothes that no women, not even actual fashion models, could actually wear.

Ladies, from a physical perspective, keep yourself in relatively good shape and stop trying to be a size 2. Forget and ignore what air brushed magazine models of womanhood "tell" you you should strive for. The men in the real world where you live will love you for it.

Kucinich is a treasure.

Full disclosure: I posted something to the effect of Kucinich not ever being a realistic winner of the Presidency a little while back. In that post I praised Kucinich and posited that he is absolutely essential to the political discourse because he IS the conscience of the progressive branch of congress.

The nation is not nearly as liberal as Dennis - that is a shame but it is real. Not that I think the nation is conservative, or even center-right. His role is to be the person out front dragging the more pragmatic of us (and I include Obama and MYSELF in that category) to the left. Denise reminds me, during times of despair that we will ever get to where we need to be as a nation and a citizen of the international community, that the journey is long and setbacks many - but the victories will come if we keep fighting for the ideal, because we are on the side of the better angels of humanity.

Kucinich is already one of the better angels.

Subject: Your Reprehensible Behavior

Body

Rep. Wilson,

I have to say I was shocked by your appalling lack of civility and respect for not just the President of the United States personally, but for the Office of the President. The joint session was called by President Obama in his constitutional capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the coequal Executive branch of our nation's government. This wasn't some town hall in a gym. Your interruption of his speech to the joint session was inexcusable breech of decorum between the branches of government, not to mention rude beyond anything that would EVER been tolerated by your party if aimed at the Former President, George W. Bush by a Democratic Representative.

The WORST part was that your accusation that the President was lying was absolutely and demonstrably false. According to HR 3200 Sec 246:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States

So you were not only egregiously disrespectful - in a feed broadcast around the WORLD, embarrassing not just yourself but your country, but you were completely wrong about the Bill most likely to come out of YOUR house of congress.

BTW your written non-apology is completely inadequate - since it hinges on your assertion that "I disagree with the President’s statement..." It wasn't a "statement" President Obama was stating a FACT. Facts aren't a matter of opinion. You might as well "disagree" with a statement that the earth revolves around the sun.

For the sake of the Nation and all of us interested in serious and sincere efforts to reform a health care system, that is shedding 14,000 people a month, and has led to more than 50% of the nations bankruptcies, you should resign. Leave the serious work of legislation to serious people, not immature kindergarten level dogamatists.

To help make sure that happens - regardless of whether you have enough respect for this nation to resign - I am donating money to your opponent, Rob Miller for SC-02. I hope we will be rid of you soon, one way or the other.



With Sincere Disappointment and Contempt,



Douglas S. Williams

address and phone number included in original e-mail - just in case this jerk actually has the balls to respond

 
He's a nice pie in the sky side show. Not a real option. You know why? Not because "the media won't let him win." Because America ia NOT a liberal country. It is way more liberal that the past eight years, and even more liberal than most main stream Democrats...but not truly liberal Kucinich is a dyed in the wool liberal. That ain't a terrible thing. I love that he in in congress... I love that he is the beacon of liberal thought 5 miles ahead of everyone else. We need Kucinich to show where we are going....but we won't get there in his life time - or mine.

That being said (and before someone accuses me of being a Freeper), I do NOT understand what the fuck Obama and the Democrats in congress are waiting for. Keeping their powder dry? There is tantamount to unanimous agreement (85% - it don't get any better than that) that we need a public option for insurance at the very least - even at the expense of higher taxes. There is no better time to REALLY re-regulate the banks and insurance companies to make sure they NEVER again get "too big to fail." And all these people want to do is prop up the same bullshit system that has ripped off the entire nation over the last 20 years.

This doesn't mean I want republican rule back in place - I just want the democrats to do what we the people are CLEARLY telling them we want done! They are our best hope - but they are a frustratingly timid and mincing lot.

From the New York Times ...... Terrellita Maverick

There’s that word again: maverick. In Thursday’s vice-presidential debate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the Republican candidate, used it to describe herself and her running mate, Senator John McCain, no fewer than six times, at one point calling him “the consummate maverick.”

BRAND Samuel Augustus Maverick
But to those who know the history of the word, applying it to Mr. McCain is a bit of a stretch — and to one Texas family in particular it is even a bit offensive.

“I’m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,” said Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, when an early ancestor in Boston got into trouble with the law over his agitation for the rights of indentured servants.

....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/weekinre...

The good news is this lipstick deficient pig didn't pass. The bad news is the Republicans faked the Democrats out of their collective jock straps on this thing.

Although in a LOT of ways this is a victory for the American people who it seems won't be handing over fully a trillion dollars to Wall Street bankers, ultimately this may hurt, as the Republican's now have two tools at their disposal. They are the Claw Hammer of "Democrats wanted to hand your hard earned money over to the billionaires, and didn't help you when you were losing your houses." And the Chain Saw of "see how ineffective the Democrats are in a crisis? They couldn't even pass the plan THEY negotiated with the White House.

The Republicans are the Chicago Bears, and the Democrats are The Little Sisters of the Poor, in terms of the game of politics.

The Republicans CAUSED THIS CRISIS, with 30 years of deregulatory zeal and free market fundamentalism. Now they are going to USE this crisis to point out the ineffectual nature of the Democrats. I am sore afraid.

On EDIT:

Since so many seem to be TOTALLY misinterpreting my motivation:

This is a statement of my FEAR of what will happen. My fear is based on the last 12 years of Republican's handing the Democrats their collective lunch. That's all. It isn't a "fond wish" on my part.

And just a little tip: before you decide someone is a "troll" try reading some of the other posts they have written. If you had you MIGHT have seen that I am no such thing, and may have avoided the unseemly stupidity of being a kneejerk... well, jerk.

I am TIRED of reading and hearing the following question: Why does everyone call Barack Obama black? After all he's half white...." Or some variation thereof. Here's the answer:

1) He LOOKS like what is considered black (same with Tiger) in this and every other country

2) In this country for hundreds of years the definition was if you have black in your blood line you are black as a matter of law. It is no longer a matter of law any more but it IS a matter of tradition.

I have to say I am HIGHLY offended by the question. I am angered by it as well. My anger is compounded by the fact that the only people I have ever actually met who asked the question where white. I suppose there might be some black folks out there who are asking right now, "hey how come he's considered black? He's just as white as he is black." But I doubt it.

Let me tell you something, I was born in 1966 to a black father and an unmarried teen aged white mom who gave me up for adoption because the shame of, a: being unwed and b: having a mixed race baby was too much for her and her family. Back then there was no doubt I was considered black. And it is ironic that the only way I could be adopted was to be adopted into my biological fathers family - despite the fact that my biological mother tried her BEST to make sure that didn't happen. My whole life I have been black, and I look a hell of a lot more white than either Barack or Tiger.

I think it's pretty damn "funny" that no one in society wants to know why the "light skinned black male" suspect isn't described as a "half white male suspect" on the news. But suddenly a lot of people are so interested in claiming "well Barack and Tiger are just as white as they are black.” White people set up the system and as long as the rules meant that they dominated every single aspect of society, and held all the positions of true power, the question of “why it is mixed race people are considered black” NEVER came up in the dominant culture, i.e. WHITE America. White people never wanted to assign whiteness to folks who looked black before now.

But NOW, now that there are some people, who have ALWAYS been defined as black in this society, starting to take the reins of power and dominant positions in society, all of a sudden the larger society (I.E. white folks) are suddenly wanting to "claim" their part of people who heretofore they had no problems simply calling black. This just smacks of hypocrisy and RACISM. The same racism that leads to the vast majority of all the misogynistic, violent ,niggers bitches and hoes rap being bought by white kids in the suburbs, at the same time White America asks why Black America tolerates “that music” and “those elements.” I DOUBT very seriously that when Barack Obama was growing up in Kansas and Hawaii, that when he was called racial names it was honky or cracker. When he was kicking the shit out of his classmates academically in school and killing them in debates, I am pretty damn sure no one called him an uppity white boy.

Jesus fucking Christ according to the rules of America, Barack Obama is BLACK. Now if you have to think of him as "half white" in order to be more comfortable with voting for him, fine. But according to the laws and mores of this country he is as BLACK as I am. He is as Black as Tupac or Biggie Smalls. He is a s Black as my uncle who spent his whole heroine-junkie life in and out of Graterford prison before dying alone in public senior citizen housing of AIDS. He as Black as Tiger Woods. He is as black as Malcolm X, the leader AND Malcolm Little, the criminal. He's as black as Bill Cosby and Al Sharpton. He's as black as my Uncle Brownie, who once ran the Navy Exchange, Naples IT and held the rank of Captain, and as black as my alcoholic father who spent the first forty years of his adult life so addicted to alcohol that even after he suffered brain damage and permanent disability from drinking he STILL kept drinking.

Barack Obama is black, and I am proud.

I just watched JOHN McCAIN give the opening remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting today. #1 WHY the fuck is JOHN McCAIN giving the opening remarks at the CLINTON event, at all??

#2 McCain just delivered the "five point plan" regarding the Wall Street Crisis that called for accountability, no blank check, no golden parachutes etc etc ...In other Words the EXACT Things Barack Obama said a WEEK AGO while McSame was shitting his pants and screaming "off with his head" about the head of the SEC. Or was that the FEC?? If you think the MSM (including MSNBC won't be reporting his remarks like he just discovered the key to time travel, and relegating Obama to "oh he agrees with McCain" status but the end of the day I have a bridge in Alaska I'd like you to fund.

Bill Clinton just served up control of the news cycle to John McCain. He is too good at this NOT to know that that was what he was doing. It's one thing to allow McCain to speak at the event. I would expect nothing less form Bill's DLC loving ass. But to give him first ups? Please. Bill Clinton is officially a neo-con loving piece of shit. He has allowed his bruised ego to cause him to sell his party - and MUCH more importantly - his COUNTRY down the river. And I voted for him TWICE.

I got mighty queasy about the Big Dog during the Primaries with his less than team spirited remarks when his wife was losing the nomination. It is official; I am now throwing up all over the floor.

The regulations that kept banks, insurance companies and financial markets separate, were swept away by the legislation created by Phil Graham, and endorsed by John McCain and the rest of Gingrich congress that the REPUBLICANS controlled in the mid 90's. It is a CONSERVATIVE principle that regulation of business by the government is "bad" and unfettered capitalism is "good." I am all for business being free to operate with as little interference from government as possible - but regulations to protect consumers and the nation as a whole ARE needed, always have been and always will be.

It was the lack of regulation of the three industries along with the corresponding lifting if the transparency requirements in the mortgage industry, (again conservative push to remove "bad" government regulation) that set the stage for this economic disaster.

The problem has only been made worse by the HUGE deficits (and corresponding multiplication of the national debt) that has made the dollar tank, even as those at the top of the income scale (the top 1%) saw their incomes rise by double digit percentages while the average American saw their real income shrink.

And NOW that the biggest players in the economy are having the free market come and bite them in the ass, after years of private profit, the debt is about to be socialized. Don't take my word for it:

Jim Bunning (R-KY) says Paulson is acting like a socialist - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...

And that was just after the Fannie/Freddie bailouts. NOW after the government purchase of 79+% of AIG, the latest plan by these so called conservatives to literally take ALL the bad loans off the hands of Wall Street. How is THAT the free market? How is THAT capitalism? And then what? Do we think they will be properly chastened and be good corporate citizens operating withing sane self imposed parameters designed to keep this form ever happening again? Welfare and protection for the richest among us and the LARGEST companies is now capitalism, while enacting policies that would protect, or god forbid HELP the other 95% of the country, (DIRECTLY not through trickle down bullshit) is communist or socialist. These people aren't interested in any principle beyond protecting the very narrowest sliver of the richest people and companies in the nation.

The JOKE is that ANYONE who makes less than $250,000 a year (~95% of the country) would continue to vote for people who advocate these economic policies and laissez faire anti-regulatory business environment UNTIL it looks like the rich MIGHT loose some money. Then it's all hands on deck and let's bail them out, even if it means literally nationalizing a private company. The calls for "collective sacrifice" so we can all "get through this together" through the strength of the American will are very touching. Too bad these assholes don't want to share with everyone when there is a profit to be made. And NO I don't mean there should be some kind of national dividend or the end of private enterprise. Side note: Why is it OK for the Government to get into the insurance business by BUYING The worlds largest business, property and casualty insurance company, but not the medical insurance business?

The Joke is that John McCain is acting surprised that Wall Street would be rapacious. Hell now he wants us to elect him to "fix" something he and his buddy Phil Graham, and Republicans in general, broke in the first goddamn place. If the American people fall for this bullshit we are truly the dumbest nation on the planet, which is pretty scary since we possess enough weaponry to destroy th planet - not in theory, not in an existential sense, not philosophically: literally. It's will be like realizing that the 6'4" 300 Pound retarded kid in your class actually has all those guns and knives he waxes rhapsodic about so often. Sure he's mostly sweet but what happens when he gets mad?

But if he didn't denounce it you would say he supported it at the very least... damned if he did damned if he didn't. Yeah the facts do matter. And the fact is you want that ad to be hung around his neck no matter what the truth of it's origin, even KNOWING the origin was not with him or his campaign. And your response would seem to indicate that you knew the objective reality before you made a post that didn't even hint at that reality. Glad to see you are so objective and fair. This is representative of why Senator Clinton's campaign has turned me off over the last several weeks - she and her supporters seem to have adopted the Al Davis philosophy of campaigning: "Just win baby."

Your assertion regarding the ad is kind of like the "Hillary has more experience chant." It's not true but you all keep saying it in hopes that folks will believe it is. Senator Obama has spent more time in elected office, introduced and gotten passed more significant legislation, at both the state and national level, and has more time in the trenches as an organizer and activist than Senator Clinton. That is an objective fact. But once again since these are just words I guess they don't matter.

And make no mistake: if Senator Clinton is the Democratic nominee for President, I will vote for her with nose open and breathing deeply. No holding of the nose will even be contemplated here. I think she would be a very good President. But based on experience plus the ability to inspire people to citizen action, I think Senator Obama would be a better president.

And her concrete plan to withdraw all combat troops within 6 months of inauguration day. You're right she's way better on the war than Obama.




P.S. I was an Edwards Supporter and would have liked nothing better than to be able to cast my vote for him here in PA. But that isn't the choice I have. It isn't the choice WE have. We do have a choice between someone who spent his whole life in the trenches organizing when he could have been making 6 figures to start at almost any large law firm as a former head of the Harvard Law Review. A man who fought, and WON, legislative battles at the state level only one of which resulted in the law mandating video taping of ALL police interrogations (over the objections of everyone form blood thirsty hang 'em high death penalty lovers to police, to the anti-death penalty folks on the left). Yeah he's the guy who Co-authored ethics reform while the other remaining candidate, despite being duped on the RAUF, STILL voted for Kyle-Lieberman.

And what did the other candidate do? Well she sat on corporate boards, including Wal-Mart, has 8 years of experience in elected office from a state she never lived in until she decided she wanted to run for Senate, got duped into making a vote she regretted but not enough to not make essentially the exact same vote four years later, and in her eight years in office never took a stand ever that might slow her march to the White House --- Oh yeah and through her high handed handling of the one policy initiative she actually gets to take credit for during her husband's administration, had a hand in failed health care reform. Every single one of her other "accomplishments" were actually accomplishments of her husband.

When I voted for Bill Clinton (twice) I was Voting for HIM as President, and HE accomplished a lot. She doesn't get to take credit for what he did. Don't get me wrong, when she was elected to the Senate I had high hopes for her. I knew that she had to be a person of immense personal strength and will to have weathered the storms she did. I thought that personal strength would make her a bull dog for the people. Unfortunately her better nature was subsumed by her ambition, and the bull dog was muzzled in the service of political expedience and calculation. Her experience is smoke and mirrors and coat-tail riding. And Obama's accomplishments (and mistakes) are his own. He is not the messiah and he is not perfect, but he stands on his own two feet. And YES one of the tools he no doubt used to accomplish the things he has is is power to inspire and bring people of differing points of view together long enough to see the big picture and the wisdom of making the changes he backed.

A Washington post article in todays paper and on line, confirms via his own memos, that while Donald Rumsfeld was Sec Def. he hatched talking points designed to distract, deceive and terrorize the American people into continuing Support for the Iraq War.

The Full article is HERE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...

Some excerpts:

"In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld argued that Muslims avoid "physical labor" and wrote of the need to "keep elevating the threat," "link Iraq to Iran" and develop "bumper sticker statements" to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war.

The memos, often referred to as "snowflakes," shed light on Rumsfeld's brusque management style and on his efforts to address key challenges during his tenure as Pentagon chief. Spanning from 2002 to shortly after his resignation following the 2006 congressional elections, a sampling of his trademark missives obtained yesterday reveals a defense secretary disdainful of media criticism and driven to reshape public opinion of the Iraq war.

...SNIP...

Under siege in April 2006, when a series of retired generals denounced him and called for his resignation in newspaper op-ed pieces, Rumsfeld produced a memo after a conference call with military analysts. "Talk about Somalia, the Philippines, etc. Make the American people realize they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists," he wrote.

...SNIP...

In one of his longer ruminations, in May 2004, Rumsfeld considered whether to redefine the terrorism fight as a "worldwide insurgency." The goal of the enemy, he wrote, is to "end the state system, using terrorism, to drive the non-radicals from the world." He then advised aides "to test what the results could be" if the war on terrorism were renamed. ..."

The worst part is there may be nothing that can be done to hold this son of a bitch responsible for helping to start and perpetuate the clusterF@#$ in Iraq, and terrorize the American people.