Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

Good For Dean.

Thanks Craig and good Morning!

This IS a good thing that we are witnessing. The democratic process while fair is not instantaneous.

We are too used to instant everything and Cable has made it so much harder than it should be.

Posted by: Sheila Hussein the Chef Nun | March 9, 2008 10:39 AM

I passed the Scrabble on , Jamie. We'll see what happens.

From last thread..

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/03/saturday-at-the-ballot-box.html#comment-49241

Also from last thread.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/03/saturday-at-the-ballot-box.html#comment-49244

Have to go now. Take care and ...

God Bless.

This time change is messing with me.
My wife just pointed out the time and reminded me I have to cook a meat loaf to take over for dinner with my father-in-law

See you all later.

Jack

Yum...Meatloaf with Mashed Potatoes, Peas or corn....LOL An all American treat!

have a great Jack.

We haven't had the daylight's saving time here yet. I think we are a week later!

Both Trippi and Rollins were great. Actually Ed Rollins was more even handed with his asessement of Brokered Convention. He said it could be a possitive experience for the DEMS. Trippi not so possitive...maybe because of the fear factor.

I think we are all hypersensitive to dividing the Dem Party. I just don't think it will happen. BUT, I understand the fear factor. We just HAVE to win in November. No doubt about it.

All in all Jamie, Face the Nation was well worth the watch. Then flipping it to ABC for the round table very beneficial. I won't go into all of it. Let you watch ABC

I may hate Sam Donaldson within a inch of his life for the mean nasty jerk that he is to work with, But he is right. Obama has to show another aspect of why he is better than Clinton. Its time to roll out more meat.

In watching his campaign roll out over this year, each time I thought he was threw, he rolled out something brilliant....lets watch and see.

You know what is wrong with political discussions? The masses do not take the time to watch and learn about politics! We are indeed a minority of informed individuals who see the direct connection between politics and our daily lives.

From the 1960's women's movement: The Personal is Political !! Everyone should understand that.

I became fascinated with the social change movement of the 1960s and specifically read some books, specifically: The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (1987) ISBN 0-553-37212-2 by Todd Gitlin and some others which now escape me.

I was looking at the history of Students for a Democratic Society and what I found most interesting is that their founding document "The Port Huron Statement" is as relevant today as it was in 1962. One of the most famous participants in the Port Huron Conference was Tom Hayden, California Senator and an ex-husband of Jane Fonda. For those who haven't read it, here is the link:

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html

Social activism leads to social change. For me, this is why the symbolism of our Democratic nominees as "firsts", allows women and african americans to open the doors that have been closed all this time and locked them out. I am increasingly convinced that the "dream team" is not just a phrase but a new social movement that will redirect politics in our country. This cannot be accomplished by Hillary alone or Barack alone, but together they will be dynamite.

To be sure structural changes must be instituted in order for change to take hold... power structures, political structures, money structures, corporate structures, et al... (I posted something on this once in my blog).

Here are the points:

*Publicly funded elections with strict $$$ limits
*End of corporate political parties holding a structural monopoly
*Requirement that the candidates discuss issues with REAL debates on VISION and ideas -- sans personal attacks
*An end to lobbyists
*An end to the "professional" political handlers who pocket millions for themselves whether their candidates win or lose.
*Require voting as a duty of citizenship -- If you love America, you must understand that this is but a small obligation. Oh and it ends all the fighting of each side trying to stop the other side's voters from casting ballots.
*End the Electoral College - make it a Democracy where the TOTAL votes decide an election.

At this moment in time, I still believe that women need to break through that locked door first, meaning I support Hillary as the nominee and Barack as her running mate. In the end though, I think they must work together to start the change by bringing all the constituency creative energies and enthusiasm together!

Clinton/Obama 2008
Obama/Ciinton 2008

Well said and well thought out Eurotom.

thanks for a great post! We'll see in June for sure. But now that I have had a degree of catching my breath, I am ready to watch the changing climate again.

What a Horse Race!

*stretches and yawns*
morning peeps.

March 9

Here's one more great parade
Of all the alternative parade events this one is the best
http://www.pasadenadoodahparade.info/

EuroTom

This is in response to this post from last night (or should I say very early this morning LOL)

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/03/saturday-at-the-ballot-box.html#comment-49182

When it comes to the Senate endorsements. Hillary and Obama have pretty much split them (I don't count their own votes in this tally)

She has 14 he has 15

She has 7 men and 7 women

He has 14 men and 1 woman

recognize a pattern?

Most of the men...white and old (not all)

Mo Dowd on the Monster Mash

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09dowd.html?em&ex=1205208000&en=314452b2cd986f7f&ei=5087

Sheila,
I have found Rollins to give honest accessment ever since he has been shut out of the Republican establishment.
As I remember he gave a bit too honest a statement during a drinking bout with reporters that caused him to be on the outside.
I like his tough as nails approach to politics

Jack

Me Too jack.

I was in the White House during his time with B-41.....before you guys shout, remember, my position was apolitica and I voted for Dukakis....OK?! lol

Anyway, I had a lot of impressive dealings with him and I grew to really respect his judgement.

He, Scowcroft, Baker, and others were scorched during the Iraq debackle for their views. before, during, and after.

They are Americans first. The new generations of Repugs in office seem to be the poison here.

I voted for Kitty Dukakis as a write in, I figured with all her experience as first lady of Mass she was qualified to be POTUS.

I voted for Kitty Dukakis as a write in, I figured with all her experience as first lady of Mass she was qualified to be POTUS.

Posted by: Brian Hussein In NYC

More likely because she was a drug addict

LOL
Second comment, right on schedule
Then next comment someone just can't resist the bait
LOL

Jack

More likely because she was a drug addict

Posted by: The real reason | March 9, 2008 12:08 PM

Rude Troll....your not welcome here unless you can come up with possitive posting on politics.

Doodah Parade Highlights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX-s4ifd15w&feature=related

My favorites were always the briefcase drill team.

Someone linked this last night and is worth another link. Has great quotes like:

“He folded like a cheap suit,”

"...there were few examples of the kind of bipartisan work he advocates in his current campaign."

and

"He was running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

EuroTom's remarks about the SDS, etc.:
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/03/obama-wins-wyoming-democrat-cl.html#comment-49259

Good God, you want to go back to the strife of that period? With fire bombs, formations of armed guards in front of public buildings, bombings of campus facilities, and the total breakdown of civil public discourse?

And using the word, the masses; straight out of the better red than dead days.

For goodness sake, develop your own arguments, don't dredge up bits and pieces from a time that tore our country asunder.

11th Commandment:

Thou shalt not feed the trolls.

AMEN JAMIE.....JUST SAY NO

Jamie
I wondered if you were a doodah parade fan.
I like the briefcase drill team but also the folding lawn chairs and the chain saw team.

But why do people throw tortillas?

Nah if I was going to cast the drug addict vote I'd be writing in Cindi McCain.

The doodah parade was started as a resistance movement against all the hype of the Rose Parade. If you are going to camp out on the streets the night before the Rose Parade there are a whole list of foods you can't bring because of the mess they might cause or possible hazards to the animals or marchers.

For no discernable reason that anyone has ever been able to figure out tortillas are on that list. Maybe they are worried about people starting fires to cook them. :)

Anyway, tortillas are thrown at the doodah as a sign of rebellion to rules.

I know we all hate MoDowd but this is funny:

"Ma Clinton knows where Obambi’s soft spots are; she knows he likes being petted on his pedestal..."

I suppose a flour tortilla could be like a banana peel.

Out of fairness...this is funny too:

"Hillary successfully recast herself in Ohio as a beer-drinking former waitress."

"beer-drinking former waitress.""

In the interests of accuracy

"beer drinking fish slimer who likes really, really spicy food."

That could describe 70-pct of women college grads!

Jamie

Thanks. It is such a wonderful parade and people just having fun.

What exactly is a fish slimer? And where does it fit in this description? My inquiring mind wants to know.

Can't say I've ever done any mass production fish sliming.

Jamie...ROFL

Oh That's right....the Katrina factor is coming up again because of Mississippi.

Well she described it. The fishermen would bring in the salmon. The valuable caviar sac from the females was removed and saved and then the fish slimers wearing hip boots and rubber aprons would clean out the rest of the guts and pass the fish down the assembly line for processing.

She worked herself across the country and up into Canada and Alaska and that was a job she held in Alaska.

Because of the PGA Tournament, I won't get "This Week" until 5:00 p.m.

Did anything wonderful happen?

Yes Jamie,

The Round Table is actually worth watching. Cokie and Sam actually pull on their considerable experience to make some sense of what is going on. It was actually very helpful to me.

ABC as always in my mind, scored a touchdown of substance again.

"Rude Troll....your not welcome here unless you can come up with possitive posting on politics."

Come on, Sheila....was Brian's original utterly sexist comment referring to First Lady status not rude? Be fair, and slap his hands as well.

Or is Brian exempt?

By the way, "rude troll/real reason" -- I didn't know Kitty Dukasis WAS a drug addict? Is that a guess or founded in fact?

Patsi,

Kitty was treated for depression, alcoholism and the use of amphetamenes. She has recovered and founded an east coast clinic similar to the one Betty Ford founded on the west coast.

Brian didn't say anything except his write in vote.....I think think its a slapping offense. His line on Cindy McCain although snarky wasn't harsh in my opinion.

Patis, again, your perception off in my opinion.

Yes, unfortuately Nrs Dukakis was rather delicate, but it was prescription durgs she found herself addicted too because of a mental health issue. Depression.

There you go again Patsi.

Thanks Jamie -- I Googled her and found this:

During the 1988 presidential election, a number of false rumors were reported in the media about the Dukakises, including the claim by Idaho Republican Senator Steve Symms that Katherine Dukakis had burned an American flag to protest the Vietnam War. Republican strategist Lee Atwater was accused of having initiated these rumors.

In 1989, Dukakis was briefly hospitalized after drinking rubbing alcohol. In 1991, Dukakis published her memoir, Now You Know, in which she candidly discussed her ongoing battle with alcoholism. The book also discussed the pressures of being a political wife, and her disappointment over her husband's defeat in the 1988 election.

In 2006, she revealed having undergone electroconvulsive therapy treatment beginning in 2001 in order to treat major depression, publishing her experiences in the book Shock.

Typeo, I DON'T think its a slapping offense.

Okay, Sheila...forgot it is Brian's Blog. Stay down in the dirt.

Patsi,

We did sort of agree yesterday that in the interest of some semblance of harmony we would dispense with the artificial one comment only aliases. If you have to guess who you are speaking to, it can cause misunderstandings. As to Brian. ... you know what happens if you even say one word.

A rabbi, a priest, and a nun go into a bar....

Sorry EuroTom,

If you go to African Americans, and you've decided to declare whose "turn" it is, you'll never convince them that a white women had it worse than African Americans. As bad as freedom may have been for white women, they were still free for all of American history. None, and I do mean NONE, of that history compares to being declared a non human and condemned to a lifetime of chattel slavery where you are equated to being a pig or chicken. So that locked door you're talking about? It was literally (Washington DC) on the hands of my ancestors. White women? Well, like Hillary says, she has "experience" because she's been in the White House. No African American has had the privilege. That's whose turn it is and that's why you'll never see the African American voting bloc accepting an African American who leads in delegates, states won and votes, getting second banana. It would be an insult, no matter the politics.

Walking into the bar, Mike said to Charlie the bartender, "Pour me a stiff one - just had another fight with the little woman."
"Oh yeah?" said Charlie, "And how did this one end?"
"When it was over," Mike replied, "She came to me on her hands and knees.
"Really," said Charles, "Now that's a switch! What did she say?"
She said, "Come out from under the bed, you little chicken."

Hi Flatus,

I think you misunderstand the violence of the later radical movements with the founding principles of social change that the Port Huron Statement articulated.

Alpha, I disagree... but I understand where you stand. I see it differently. I see male-dom as a major problem in our country's history and that is not going to change regardless of the race of The Man. The Man has run things forever and, IMO, it is the time for women to lead the country.

And there's where race and sex diverge. It's been a shutout for all African American men and women for any place in the White House. It's been 100% of white men and women, especially if we are to believe that the First Lady's office is that powerful.

Alpha

I will grant you that in terms of cruelty, injury and death etc. that AA have suffered more than women, but politically. There have been free black MEN voting since the founding of the nation. There were free black men sitting in Congress from after the Civil War on and yes I know Andrew Johnson and the Southern states put an end to that, but they were there and their descendants still honor them. There were black MEN serving in the military and there has been a good sized middle class and even wealth.

Unless she was a widow or inherited directly from a father, a woman could often not even own property in their own right until the 1900s and then only if she didn't marry. She could not divorce even if brutalized. She lost custody of her children because the only grounds for divorce was often infidelity on her part making her an unfit mother. She had no right to birth control. Education was limited ...

We could go on comparing notes all day long. You are right that the AA community suffered longer in harsher circumstances particularly in the destruction of families while in slavery and then from segregation following, but women were chattal as well, and except in the far west had little access to political power.

So I don't believe in "turns", but rather what would be the best for the party and the nation. I honestly believe that a Clinton/Obama ticket would serve several purposes: It would unite the party. It would be an unbeatable team. It would give Obama four to eight years to solidify his national and international reputation as a leader and put him on firm ground for the presidency in either 2012 or 2016.

Interesting SurveyUSA poll

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=ebf5f50f-4dfd-4bc4-b001-588c5ec796cc&q=46299

"There have been free black MEN voting since the founding of the nation. "

Well all I can say in response to that, is OH BROTHER! When was it ever legal to sell white woman in this country. When was it over ok to lynch a white woman for being a white woman? How many white woman were hunted down like animals, chained, forced in a slaver and transported thousands of miles to be treated like beasts of burden. Jamie your argument just doesn't hold muster. Really Jamie!

The cross tabs on that survey are really interesting

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=ebf5f50f-4dfd-4bc4-b001-588c5ec796cc

"You are right that the AA community suffered longer in harsher circumstances particularly in the destruction of families while in slavery and then from segregation following, "

Sheila, gedpik@hotmail.com is an email address for me. Shoot me a message and I will reply from an address I use more frequently.

Euro, to expand Alpha's point, remember how many of our founding fathers were slave owners. Remember that it was codified in the Constitution. There were white male and female slave owners. It is obvious that black men and white women will never agree on who had it worse so I don't know why the discussion continues. You would have an easier time getting Ronald Reagan to burn draft cards in 1968 than it would be to move the other side in this discussion.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html

Craig, I know you have taken to ignoring my posts but I wonder why you haven't written about when the Clinton campaign will talk about the writer's strike as a reason that Obama did well in the early campaign season. Since Saturday Night Live has been back on the air, they have taken to portraying as a cowardly fool, while Hillary has come of at the female Dick Cheney, the person with the real clue about how everything actually works in the world and in Washington. If you look to when the media finally turned on Obama, it was only after SNL gave them license to do so. If this line of attack on behalf of Clinton was there in the start, I wonder if Edwards would have emerged as the anti Hillary choice.

If Craig doesn't respond directly, could someone he actually reads, ask the question again. I am curious as to his opinion on this.

Excellent article on the mathmatic of delegates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s.html

Also how about a discussion on why and will BO disenfranchise the Florida voters.. McCaskill this morning - is against letting Florida revote. And Donna Brazille wants to let Florida seat but only AFTER POTUS is decided..

Jamie - interesting that it was a tie among 18-34 on the ticket.

Also a Clinton/Obama ticket wins every group except for AA and Independents (which is only a 1% point difference).

Interesting SurveyUSA pollhttp://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/03/obama-wins-wyoming-democrat-cl.html#comment-49320

Wendy,

Fair or unfairly I think that survey could be used in support of the notion that if HRC get the nom than she won't get the BO supporters and vice versa. i.e. BO is favorable to Clinton people, but not the other way. It's still early ;)

Just as a side note...on the AA v. Women issue. I don't think who had it harder in American history should be a criteria for who should be the nominee. Some may choose that criteria and I believe that is a perfectly acceptable position to take. However, I think the best person should be put forward and there is a lot of criteria we can use to determine who the best candidate would be rather than a contest between who had it worse in American history.

Just my two cents.

Sheila:

"Obama has to show another aspect of why he is better than Clinton."

I don't really agree. I do agree he needs to come up with some fresh material - but he just needs to stick to his message.

The true challenge will be staying on message - avoiding the celebrity death match that Clinton is proposing - and show that a new kind of politics can defeat a campaign using all of the go-to tricks.

He has been winning so far - more than anyone could have imagined when this thing started. We all know the record numbers in turn-out and money. What everyone has worried about - is can Obama survive the Republican Attack Machine in the general.

He does not need to deliver a knock-out blow to Hillary Clinton. He needs to stand toe-to-toe with her - as he has done since Super Tuesday - and prove that his message can't get knocked off the tracks by the more-than-capable Clinton Attack Machine.

He has proved his substance on the issues. The way Obama performed in the debates on Iraq and National Security make me confident about a debate btw him and McCain.

Hillary has thrown the kitchen sink at Obama - and was only able to hold on to her base. She didn't shake any voters off the Change Express - and that is a good sign.

Hillary's loyal base is not going to stop voting for her - so the primary will be close in PA (where she also has the establishment on her side). But she is not taking any of his voters - and through some retail politics in PA - I think he can make some inroads into her base (and maybe even win).

He will continue to crush her and rack up delegates and votes in the states that favor him.

Obama just needs to keep doing what he is doing and not get thrown off his game. He does not need to take down or attack HRC to win. He can keep raising legitimate questions - such as the tax returns - which everyone has been calling out for...for months now (the Clintons are busy trying to scrub their W-2 and get their spin ready for the good and bad info contained therein).

And he can keep arguing that America wants to move past the politics of fear, distraction and personal destruction. Obama can keep arguing that with the critical challenges this Country faces - we need to face them together. And Change is exactly what this Country is looking for after Bush and the Congress have royally f*cked things up here and all around the world.

If Obama beats HRC fair and square - most of her supporters will support him and the Clinton Attack Machine will train its fire on McCain and the Republicans. This will be an unstoppable force for the general election.

In an election year where the voters want change and an end to the Iraq war - the Democrats could not ask for a better match up than Obama vs. McCain.

Obama has the winning message - and he just needs to stay on it.

Si Se Puede!

Well warren,

We are on the same page, just speaking the same language.

Obama knows he was burnt out and not reaching people this last week. he and Axelrod are taking the time to reformulate the message.

Because NOW he has to weigh in. in some detail on NAFTA and he has to snwer in more DETAIL about the 3am Call message.

The simple working public just want to understand and they don't have time to sit down and really take a good look. They're trying to put food on the table.

Clinton managed to cast doubt and so he has to come up with a well tweaked message.

Believe me, I have Full Faith the he will. I'm feeling it in my gut.

Just NOT speaking the same language....

Geez....not as tired as yesterday though

So glad and SO relieved to see you here in the BLOG.

Cheers!

My thoughts are is that Obama won't be attacking her on a personal level as Hillary feels compelled to. But instead will be going after her methods.

"Just NOT speaking the same language...."

Good thing Sheila. The more dialects for Obama's message - the better.

I think Obama has a great talent at being able to speak like a wonk (in paragraphs) - while also being able to keep it real and speak to the common voter (in sound bytes).

Both of you, Agreed. ;0)

Did Hillary say in Miss. that she supports more drilling in the gulf?

BTW Craig haven't to repeatedly sign in is getting extremely tedious.

Warren - Actually...Hillary pulled in more Indie voters than she had been...he'd been winning those voters...so she did shake some voters off the change express

chipping away...chipping away....

Hey Rezdog - I'm glad you're here. Last night while I was sleeping you said: "Delegates, both pledged and Super will determine our nominee. That's it."

I actually agree with you 100% on this. What I was responding to about the popular vote was to those that say the superDs should just ratify the "will of the people" meaning they should go with the pledged delegates. My point is that if she wins the popular vote...what is the "will of the people". What criteria will those "will of the people" folks use to pick a nominee?

I don't like the delegate, superD, caucus system but as you said...those are the rules and the Obama supporters that want to change the rules only want to change them if it benefits him.

Let the superDs vote for the person they think is the best candidate. Both will have strong arguments to make to those superDs...if Hillary continues to win through the summer...she'll have a VERY GOOD argument to make to the superDs.

That should read "having to repeatedly sign in is getting extremely tedious." Also this business of having to refresh to see your posts isn't helpful either.

That should read "having to repeatedly sign in is getting extremely tedious." Also this business of having to refresh to see your posts isn't helpful either.

Posted by: Brian Hussein In NYC Author Profile Page | March 9, 2008 2:12 PM

I completely agree with Brian on both accounts.

Wendy:

"When it comes to the Senate endorsements....

She has 14 he has 15

She has 7 men and 7 women

He has 14 men and 1 woman

recognize a pattern?"

Yes. Men are voting for Obama 2-1 and women are voting for Clinton 7-1. Are these women sexist or do women favor "experience"?

As I have said - I think the "experience" argument is commonly used against women (and others) to keep glass ceilings in place. So I find it ironic that HRC - the establishment canidate with all the experience - is running as a feminist candidate.

And I don't hate MoDowd - I like smart and successful women.

Clearly, based on the two candidates, Warren, women favor experience. I believe they're also tired of men telling them what to do and messing the country and the world up...time for

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T00spd-nRzc

"Let the superDs vote for the person they think is the best candidate."

Agreed Wendy.

I made the point here the other day that the presumption is that Hillary is favored by most of the SDs. I'm not so sure. And I think things keep trending in his favor. He is proving to be a great down ticket headliner and that helps all incumbents (SDs) at all levels. Just ask the new SD he probably won yesterday in IL (Foster). Plus I think there's more pressure on SDs to back him at keep the party together. We'll see. some BO probably disagree with my reasoning but not a first :)

Wendy do woman favor experience or is that just a rational to vote for this woman? In all candor I don't there is anything wrong with preferring Hillary because you feel it's time for a female to be in the white house, I just wish people would be upfront with their motives.

Hi Bear,

I agree with you about slave owners. We had a radical professor at Evergreen State College... He wrote a book called:

"Toward an American Revolution: Exposing the Constitution
and other Illusions"

Jerry Fresia

South End Press
Boston, MA

As I recall Professor Fresia argues that the U.S. Constitution was not a revolutionary act, but simply a statuo quo instrument used to avoid a real revolution. Remember the Constitution came as a result of the Virginia Plan where delegates to the Confederacy were meeting to deal with agrarian uprisings. The Virginia representatives were quite clever... they brought a document to give to each other delegate which became the debate point for the whole process. Why? Well apparently people like to have something in front of them to react to, so it became the de facto starting point of discussion.
The U.S. Constitution was founded to allow formation of a national army instead of militias, and it was written to protect minority interests from majority demands. It sounds good, but the minorities at this time were the rich, white, land owners who were at threat of losing their holdings via a real revolution...

Actually, I just found the book online where you can read it for free: http://cyberjournal.org/authors/fresia/

As I recall, the original document referred to each slave as 3/5th of a person, for the purpose of declaring taxes. It is a shameful fact that the founding of the Constitution was to institute the status quo monied/propertied interests against the poor, at this time the farmers etc. The property holders relied on slaves to keep their properties running so that was codified in the Constitution as well. Thanks for the link... I am saving it and will read it diligently.

Meanwhile, since Shirley Chisholm, Barbara Jordan or Carole Mosley-Braun are not on the ticket, I still give my support to the "estrogen mafia" because I believe women are generally better equipped to give thoughtful reasoning to the most pressing problems in our country today: economy, health care, security, military.

Having said all of this, I will personally accept either Hillary or Barack at the top of the ticket, as long as the "dream team" is in place. I don't think we are at the point yet where the order is to be decided. Also, I think if either Hillary or Barack do not choose the other as their running mate, we run a very high risk of losing. Many will disagree with me, but that's how I see it. To heal the rift, the two need to come together as a unity ticket.

Best,

Tom

"He is proving to be a great down ticket headliner and that helps all incumbents (SDs) at all levels"

particularly in the Red states to whom her camp/supporters have been dismissive.

Rez, if you want, send me an email at eurotomm at yahoo dot com ... I'd like to hear more about your Olympia connections...

Tom

will do ET, tonite or manana

Here's another piece about black support for Obama and what effect it is having on HRC...

Just for discussion:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_blacks

I am off to watch more HEROES... dayum, I am HOOKED!

See ya...

be nice, especially to me :-D

Bear, what gave you the idea that I ignore your comments? Not true.anyway the impact of writers strike flew past me until SNL and tina fey entered the fray. It is interesting. And guess you could say the same about Daily Show.but think it's more a matter of those writers seeing an opening to ridicule the official media, more than any bias for HRC. Altho not so with Fey, who basically endorsed her.

Brian

I have stated here on multiple occasions in multiple e-mails ALL the reasons I voted for and continue to support Hillary Clinton. I'm not going to rehash them today...there is evidence on this very blog that my support for her is more diverse than whether she is a woman. Many other women I know support her and have diverse and multiple reasons for supporting her.

It appears that you have waited a very long time for me to have a discussion about her gender so that you can make the accusation that I support Hillary simply because she is a woman. Unfortunately...it's simply not going to work because I've listed many many things I believe gives Hillary the edge over Obama and that play a factor for me. Again...as I've said before...there are other women candidates I have not or would not support...so...try as you might...not going to work.

No matter how some Obama supporters try...it is simply not possible to minimize her decades of public service work and experience that goes deeper than just "first lady". Links to all the fact checks were posted yesterday. The experience is there, the intelligence is there, the fact that she is a woman is a definite asset. Well rounded candidate.

Bear, what gave you the idea that I ignore your comments? Not true.anyway the impact of writers strike flew past me until SNL and tina fey entered the fray. It is interesting. And guess you could say the same about Daily Show.but think it's more a matter of those writers seeing an opening to ridicule the official media, more than any bias for HRC. Altho not so with Fey, who basically endorsed her.

I have to tell you Wendy as a fellow gay person I find your support of the Clintons troubling to say the least considering how Bill bragged signing DOMA into law when he ran for reelection.

Brian

I understand where you're coming from with DOMA and I'm sure it is further troubling that she has a more sold LGBT support base than he does.

I'm not a single issue voter. That's the best I can tell you. We have far worse things to worry about in this country than whether gay folks can get married.

And we had a brief discussion about this a week or so back. I believe Hillary sees the compromises Bill made on this issue and that some were mistakes. I do believe she'll attempt to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell and I also believe that she will not support any kind of Constitutional Amendment that would prevent the inevitable from happening - which is that gay folks will be able to get married.

My concerns are far broader than gay issues and I believe Hillary is the right person to dig us out and move us forward.

Obama has promised to aggressively work for the repeal of DOMA, she has not. She's doing exactly the same thing on DOMA that she's doing on NAFTA, the Clinton two step. You might want to trust her with your civil rights, I don't. Bill threw you and I under a moving bus when it suited his political purposes and based on the campaign Hillary is running I have no reason to believe she won't do exactly the same thing.

This is what I read too Brian and Wendy!

Obama is going to work to repeal DOMA and that is very consistant with Obama's overall Mantra and campaign.

Brian

Let me say that Clinton also said he'd allow gays to serve opening in the military when he became President...that didn't happen because he couldn't get the support for such a thing.

Gay issues are not going to be at the top of EITHER of their agendas when they become President. Obama is telling the gay community that he will "aggressively work to repeal DOMA" because he is doing poorly with that group of voters and wants/needs there support.

If repealing DOMA was something he was going to spend a lot of time and energy on when he became President considering the problems with our economy and the 2 wars we're fighting...I'd be worried about that and take issue with that.

And, yes, I do trust Hillary with my civil rights...she has spent her entire career fighting for women's rights and I don't believe she'll do anything as President to harm gay rights.

I also don't begrudge you your strong feelings on this issue.

I meant "openly"

Here's an Obama Quote.

For my entire career in public life, I have brought the message of GLBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones. No other leading candidate in the race for the Presidency has demonstrated the same commitment to the principle of full equality.

I support the full and unqualified repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples.

Sheila:

That's what he's said since he's been running for President...can you give me examples of his "message" from his days as a community organizer...days in the Illinois Senate?

Again...I believe he's pandering...as they all do...I doubt it will be a priority for him and frankly...I hope it's not.

http://www.outfordemocracy.org/hillary.htm

And yet Barney Frank and most other leaders of GLTB
community support Senator Clinton.
BLOG | Posted 11/14/2007 @ 12:49am
Barney Frank: Clinton "Best Equipped" to Advance Gay Rights
John Nichols

Both openly-gay members of Congress have now endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=251576

Nope My dear,

I can't. But I can look at the conten of his charactor and make a decision that he has been consistant in that.

So I tend to believe that he will.

"I also don't begrudge you your strong feelings on this issue."

How generous of you! If you feel comfortable returning the Clintons to the White House after he bragged about spitting in your face I won't begrudge you because of it.

Sheila - I support your right to do that.

For me, Hillary has a track record of fighting for human rights of all kinds - especially for women and children. I am confident she will continue to fight for all human rights.

Brian:

I wasn't being generous...I was being supportive of your point of view.

I am confident in Hillary.

And now I'm going out for awhile so the conversation can cool down.

Wendy and I support yours too. Afterall, we can't burn our bridges. In the long run both have the same candidate.

Brian,

Ive read over yours and Wendy's comments a couple three of four times.

I think Wendy was stating her position and then conceding your right to believe what you want to?

She made a very civil responce.

AND BTW,

I thought I was the only one to have to refresh a couple of times after posting. I thought I had a problem with my comouter. Good thing its trail Mix and not me. I was getting tired of repair bills

Later ;0)

Brian

Go to http://www.typekey.com

Log In

Check the "keep me logged in for two weeks"

Come back here.

If you don't do any name changes on anonymous, it will keep you logged in on "Post a Comment"

No Sheila, it's the newest update the CQ IT people installed.

I just listened to George Carlin on XM 202 "Unmasked", an interview show, then I read Michelle Obama's comments.
Damn...she ought to collaborate with Carlin and provide him new material. Her observations of humans-in-general mirror Carlin's views.

The Rats are feeding on each other, one of Cheney's boys, Douglas Feith, is busy blaming the world for his screwups.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802724.html?hpid=topnews

Jack

I think the DOMA issue is just one example why I don't like how the Clinton's govern. They are the ultimate compromisers of principle:

1. DOMA
2. Don't Ask
3. Mend it, Don't End It.
4. Welfare "Reform"
5. No repeal of crack/cocaine equity laws
6. Expansion of prison system
7, "Apology" for slavery, not to African Americans, but to Africans in Africa. A way to say you did something, but no do it.

And there are probably one hundred more things. They don't have core principles except the ambition to get the office.

Wow Alpha,

thanks for the list. I've never seen it so succinct before.

Well said Alpha.

And that's only what I could think of right now. Give me an hour and I bet I could double the list.

8. No action on Rwanda.

Hillary Clinton on GLBT Issues

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=16508

And in all honesty, I've never understood how a man who treats his wife so badly, and how you treat your wife is a good indication on how you treat women in general, could STILL garner support from women.

I still don't support the impeachment of Bill, however, it doesn't change the fact that he cheats on Hillary on a regular basis. It is a private matter in a public forum, but to see women support him is weird.

Clinton

Crack Vs. Cocaine

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Hillary_Clinton_Drugs.htm

Wendy:

No one needs to find you a "quote" from Obama's past that supposedly demonstrates that he means it when he states:

"I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples."

We can point to the 11 years Obama spent teaching Con Law at the Univ. of Chi Law School to demonstrate that he understands the Constitution - and he would reject any GOP attempt to write discrimination into a document that is based on the mutually exclusive principle of equality.

(I don't think Clinton dealt with too many constitutional issues at Wal-Mart)

Alpha

"to see women support him is weird."

We aren't supporting him. He isn't running. She is. As long as he supports her, he's on my good guy list. If women gave up on every man who cheated there would be darn few married people.

Maybe it shows the anxiety level in this country?

However, I don't understand it either.

Not retroactively? So young black men in jail because of an unjust law are shit out of luck? "Sorry, we acknowledge that we prosecuted under unjust laws, but we don't find it politically expedient to adjust your sentences." This proves my point of compromising principles. It's safe for her to be against the crack/cocaine disparity, but not enough to go for true justice.

I also find it hard to believe that Hillary is so pro children yet did nothing to speak out against Bill's welfare "reform". Clever how the reform was crafted so none of it's ill effects would become apparent till after Bill left office.

Opening a Conversation on Race
E-MAIL
Print
Save
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink
Published: June 16, 1997
In proposing a year-long national ''conversation'' about race, President Clinton put the nation's most important social problem where it belongs, at the top of the national agenda. His speech on Saturday at commencement exercises of the University of California at San Diego was a sermon with little sanctimonious preaching. He went beyond the obvious need for racial justice to the practical and even economic reasons why the United States must nurture its increasingly diverse society
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9103FF935A25755C0A961958260

Talk is cheap KC, I'll go by his record!

Right up there with that claim that Hillary urged him to take action on Rwanda. Talk about fairy tales!

I think you should spend more time looking at Obama's record beofre throwing out accusataions about welfare reform

In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd - New York TimesJul 30, 2007 ... Barack Obama as a state senator in Illinois in the late 1990s. ... played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and ...
www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html

There you go telling half truths again KC

"He was a chief sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care subsidies."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Here is Obama's Poverty Plan.

In PDF BTW,

Fighting Poverty and Creating a Bridge to the Middle Class

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/PovertyFactSheet.pdf

Here's another one on media bias. It's by Bill Maxwell, one of the good guys at the St. Pete Times:
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/09/Opinion/Media_tainted_by_anti.shtml

Jamie, alpha, Eurotom, Bear, etc.

I don't have standing to start arguing about who has had it worse between women and blacks - except to say that black women probably "win."

But I did want to weigh in on what I see now. It is not the discrimination of previous generations - it is the Two Americas that J. Edwards speaks about.

I went to a law firm event recently. They had all us associates (more than 60) gathered together in a big room talking about how we can best sacrifice the next 10 years of our life to become a successful partner...

Anyways, the point is - that I looked around that room at the people in my position and the many partners and GCs that spoke to us - and there were plenty more females than there were brown people (black, latino, indian, take your pick...).

And I think that is because many glass ceilings are based on wealth and social connections - more so than they are based on gender or race. And frankly - old rich white people have more daughters than say Mexicans (one of my best friends is Mexican ; )

A woman, a black, or a Muslim - who succeeds in the right schools can go far in today's society. But not every child has the education or the resources to get into the "right schools." (and plenty need to start making money ASAP rather than going to school - because they need to support families)

Because Obama is more of an outsider - and he does not have the resume and predigree of Mrs. Clinton - a powerhouse of the Dem. party and the most famous woman on the planet - I think it makes a powerful statement to our children (and the rest of the world) - that ANY American - no matter how much the cards are stacked against you and regardless of who your parents (husband, brother, great aunt, etc.) are - can be elected President if they can earn the support of the American people.

Not really. More like your representations of various Clinton programs.

have to tell you Wendy as a fellow gay person I find your support of the Clintons troubling to say the least considering how Bill bragged signing DOMA into law when he ran for reelection.

Posted by: Brian Hussein In NYC | March 9, 2008 2:52 PM

Wait, are you saying that all of us who are Gay should rally around Barack Obama because President Clinton signed DOMA into law? DOMA was signed to stop the U.S. Constitution from being altered to require marriage to only be between a man and a woman.

And sorry, but you criticise the women for supporting a woman candidate implying that they are just voting for Hillary because she is a woman, and now you say we should vote against Hillary because her husband signed DOMA into law. I may be dense, but I don't see the difference here between the two examples.

Well I certainly agree with one part of your post ET.

After helping a friend de-clutter his house some, we went out to a Chinese restaurant. I saw Beggar's Chicken for the first time. Funny stuff. It looks like a rock.

I'm always behind the curve. I just learned about a mimosa 2 years ago.

tt

I suppose you thought the Welfare system in the US was working to actually help people.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/22/welfare.sign/

*hands KC a shovel*

Go on dig yourself in a little deeper.

I do not support any criticism of voting for Hillary because she is a woman. I think that is a valid reason - and one of the best ones.

But I think the feminist movement would be better served if people started saying it. Instead - the Clinton campaign has pointed to her resume, her website, and her fights with the GOP. And now is attempting to draw attention to Rezko, MI & FL and "media bias."

(guess what - the media has been and always will be biased - that's what we pay them for - there are plenty of sheep working for the campaigns).

I think the DOMA issue is just one example why I don't like how the Clinton's govern. They are the ultimate compromisers of principle:

1. DOMA - It was disturbing, but it was a tactical step to stop the politicians from pushing a constitutional amendment. As I recall, back when DOMA was introduced, a large number of Democratic Senators were afraid of how the issue would play and home and could be persuaded to go for an Amendment. DOMA gave them cover making it easier to dismantle later than a constitutional amendment would give.

2. Don't Ask -- Don't Ask, Don't Tell, DON'T PURSUE - President Clinton promised to end the ban on Gays in the military but the fuss this caused with the Joint Chiefs led him to ask then Defense Secretary Aspin to talk to the various stakeholders to determine if a compromise to resolve the issue. His whole administration was being paralyzed by this issue and the fact he was not himself a military man weakened him, not to mention his inexperience in Washington. After it was initiated, somehow DON'T PURSUE was forgotten. Times are changing and I think that whoever is the next President needs to end the ban totally, without discussion or fanfare, just sign it on the first day and be done with it.

3. Mend it, Don't End It. - Affirmative Action! I have personal views on this which I will not share.

4. Welfare "Reform" - Welfare reform was a demand by the American people over what they viewed as abuse of the taxpayers money. As I recall the Republicans wanted a total repeal, but President Clinton opted for reform. Living in a country with strong social security and public welfare, I agree this one was not so great. Investing in welfare programs is a step in the road to societal cohesion, public safety and healthy people.

5. No repeal of crack/cocaine equity laws - explain please.

6. Expansion of prison system - Too many criminals are on the street now. Too many are released early and do even more criminal activities. There is a system of laws in the USA, a justice system and a road to rehabilitation and re-integration into society. My complaints on prison system rests on the fact that punishment is not used in tandem with education, counseling, skills building, values training, what have you... My bottom line though is: you do the crime, you do the time.

7, "Apology" for slavery, not to African Americans, but to Africans in Africa. A way to say you did something, but no do it. - It isn't the fault of the current generations that slavery existed. That the US Government issued an apology to Africans is a good thing. If African-Americans feel that the apology doesn't go far enough, ok. I admit that I do not fully understand this. I don't mind if an apology is given, but I do mind if there is an attempt to make everyone who is not African-American be labeled as "guilty" for actions of the forefathers.

We are not on the same wavelength here Alpha, but I am willing to listen and consider what you say.

Thank you...

ROFLMAO!!

I was just on Kevin Drums blog "Political Animal"
while talking about the bickering between Obama fans and those of HRC he quoted a commenter that had me laughing, Because of the number and type bad words I can only quote the below boring section click the link and read the whole thing.

"Most industry watchers agree that the increasing emotional stakes in the primary season are the main variable driving the expletives and ad hominem markets at the moment"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013288.php

Jack

Warren,

You are absolutely right that the real glass ceiling is the one that exists between the haves and the have nots. Civil Rights legislation should probably be based on need not race or gender. This would still favor minorities, but would open up doors for all in poverty. The sad state of our school system is depriving virtually everyone who can't afford private schools for their children.

Progress is slow, but it is happening. When I worked for Dole 40 years ago it was about as stratified as you could get at a time when the first equal opportunity laws were coming in ... Management had the problem of how to solve the issue of reporting compliance without actually mixing anyone in with anyone else (rueful grin).

Blacks downstair in Printing (good paying jobs, but white male manager)
Hispanics (Cannery and then most were actually legal)
Gays (Don't talk about it, but they run sales)
Women ... Rename management secretaries as Administration. No raise, but nice title thank you.
All Management (except for the renamed secretaries - white male).

After that job I refused to ever work at a company where I didn't immediately notice that it was technicolor when being interviewed.

Well I certainly agree with one part of your post ET.

Posted by: Brian Hussein In NYC | March 9, 2008 5:03 PM

There you go again Brian... ok in the interest of civility I will not respond in kind. I go back to Jamie's suggestion, thanks anyway.

"In Pennsylvania, 52 percent of Pennsylvania voters now support Clinton compared with 37 percent for Obama, a Rasmussen poll found. American Research had Clinton with 52 percent and Obama with 41 percent in Pennsylvania."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080309/pl_bloomberg/auop9yumwfyq

6 weeks in one state to close 13 points...bring it on Clintonites!!

If HRC wins in PA - she goes onto the convention (and I will see you in PR in June!!).

But if she loses in PA - she is toast. The ground game and the air game will both be in effect. And I can just imagine the tension on this blog in the days leading up to Apr. 22.

Anyways, it should be fun - and there is plenty of time for it to be fair. And it will be nice to get another victory for Obama next week to kick this thing off.

Time to walk Lucy.

I've been on here too long... I'm following Wendy's lead. Goodnight folks.

Jack,

ROFLMAO - He needs to stop by here and pick up a few more in case the old ones get overused.

1/28/2000
RANGEL: Yes. You know, Bob Novak has never been richer in his life, and this has been on the Clinton watch. So he can't hate him. He has to smile and love him. What Clinton -- You know that, Bob.

What Clinton has done is to give everybody in this great country, and indeed the world, some hope. And how did he do it? By just talking about being liberal and starting welfare programs? To talk about having a school system with class sizes and qualified teachers
to allow a kid to be able to dream, I mean, I'm the beneficiary of the G.I. Bill. God knows where I would have been without it. There are millions of Americans out there that want their kids to get a college education, don't know how they can do it. That's what he's talking about, to be old and live older and not be able to afford the prescription drugs. He has a dream, President Clinton, for all of us.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/28/lkl.01.html

I'm hungry, I think I'll order mexican.

Sheila...

Did you see my last two comments on the bottom of the last thread?

Well I almost got everything reloaded with only a few items left, mostly software.

I am having a problem with the Nero software that came with my DVD\CD burner. The TV portion will not work. It does not give me a choice to chose the country or the signal type.

There is only one country in the country dropdown and it only gives antenna for the signal. When I try to configure it it does pull some channels, however the audio is echoy and I have to shut the computer down and reboot.

I have to do some Nero googling and see if anyone else has this problem. I also should go to Nero's web site and drop them a support question.

Anyway I have to get back off line so see if you can all remain civil for just a few months more and afterwards you can all give a big group hug and shake hands.

Take care and ...

God Bless.

Just took a nap and got back up. EuroTom, I will answer #7 first. We just apologized to Native Americans for our historic treatment of them. I wasn't on the plains shooting Indians at Wounded Knee. I didn't break treaties. And yet, we apologized. We apologized for the internment of Japanese Americans. I wasn't alive when that happened. Why were they given reparations?

Apologies are about acknowledgment of humanity. The reason why America doesn't apologize to African Americans is because th