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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

"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)

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.

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 :)

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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/

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.

"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

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 they'd have to acknowledge their inhumane treatment of AAs.

Mississippi Will Be A Pyrrhic Victory For Obama

"According to the latest Rasmussen poll, Barack Obama has a 14 point lead in Mississippi, 53-39. But because of the demographic disparity, Obama leads by enormous margins among African-Americans and trails by enormous margins among white voters, Obama is likely to suffer, at best, a repeat of what happened in Alabama, a virtual tie in the delegate count.

Because Alabama voted on Super Tuesday, the strange and troubling Alabama result flew under the radar. On Tuesday, Mississippi votes alone and its results will receive full coverage. A review of the Alabama result is instructive. Obama won the state by a very comfortable 56-42 margin in the popular vote. But he barely won the delegate count, 27-25, and in fact only tied Clinton in the congressional district delegate count."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/9/925/32569

"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."

Warren,

We both support Obama and the democrat party. IMO , it's sad but I don't think either statement is true. Her winning at this point probably only nets her 5-10 dels and possibly because the delegate distribution favors BO, particularly in Philly, he could make out like TX and not lose much ground. in the del count. But in either case she's going to the convention and fight this out, win or lose PA. Barring a catastrophe (either side) this is going the distance.
Are you ready to Rumble!.

U.S. To Issue Apology For Slavery
February 28, 2008 7:23 a.m. EST

Vittorio Hernandez - AHN News Writer
Washington, DC (AHN) - While five U.S. states have issued apologies for slavery, the U.S. Congress is considering making a national apology

The House introduced last year a similar measure, with 120 representatives co-sponsoring the move. Over a decade ago, then U.S. President Bill Clinton said it was not a bad idea for Congress to issue a late apology to blacks. "Surely every American know that slavery was wrong... and surely every American knows that the separate but unequal system we had for 100 years after slavery was wrong," Clinton said.

Legislators and groups who are wary of a national apology fear it may result to financial reparations. Harkin said his proposal does not touch that issue. "We're just apologizing... You can't undo the past, but you can recognize a wrong was done," Harkin told USA Today.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010174937

I love you Alpha, but

"Why were they (Indians) given reparations

Some of it had to do with a little issue of land..:)

Sorry, not to change subject. I agree with your point about acknowledgment. just couldn't resist.

" I wasn't on the plains shooting Indians at Wounded Knee. I didn't break treaties."

Alf -- and nobody in my family trafficked in slaves or owned one. That's a bogus argument.

Stop trying to turn this into a young righteous black man versus an evil old white woman thing.

One thing I've noticed among my "latte liberal" friends who support Obama. They are thrilled to hold up Barack's race, yet not one of them has had a dime's worth of contact with blacks as long as I've known them. Those are the kinds of people who, I believe, are always afraid to even discuss race, except in a very aloof manner. And I find it phony as hell.

Bad news for BO. Seems Florida and Michigan will likely be non-caucus write-in votes. That surely favors Clinton to take both. Florida, (probably by a wide margin).

Now the last nail will be to exclude Republicans that want to influence the outcome. Watch Obama defend Republicans...LOL. This re-vote shouldn't be too hard. Seems the total cost for both will be around $12 million which both campaigns can certainly afford. Add a win in Penn for Hillary, and as I said, trouble for Obama.

Max, I wouldn' get too excited. Obama probably has this locked up for a variety of reasons.

Patsi:

"One thing I've noticed among my "latte liberal" friends who support Obama. They are thrilled to hold up Barack's race, yet not one of them has had a dime's worth of contact with blacks as long as I've known them."

You don't know me. And I always forget you have "friends"! Hah!

" And I always forget you have "friends"! Hah!

Oh, tee hee....junior high jokes always amuse me. Come on Warren, stop morphing into....well, you know...

An interesting essay on Obamas former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/an-advocate-for-an

Samantha Powers is a Liberal Interventionist.

What is the difference between a neocon and a liberal interventionist?
Only the causes that they want somebody else's son or daughter to go across the world and die for.

Jack

Resdog:

"But in either case she's going to the convention and fight this out, win or lose PA. Barring a catastrophe (either side) this is going the distance."

I think Hillary losing in PA will be a "catastrophe." It will shoot holes in her big-state argument - which is pretty much all she has left.

It will also make it near impossible for her to finish with more of the popular vote (and we all know this to be the case in terms of states and pledged delegates). It will also result in a quick move by the super-D's (I suspect).

But yes - I am ready to rumble to PA and beyond!

Max,
FL is a closed eleciton, so no repugs, MI is open, indies and repugs not previously voting welcome unless changed for redo
BTW, yesterday i wasn't refering to you, just Gordo's favor web sites.I think you're nuts, not a wingnut. ;)

Patsi,
if you're referring to "latte liberal" friends of ours and parents gen, probably right, but these kids seem a little more color blind. Hopefully.

Jack:

"What is the difference between a neocon and a liberal interventionist?"

A neocon loses the propoganda war and fails to win the hearts and minds of the people they "liberate from tyranny."

The neocons might not know what to do afterwards - but they are good at the liberating part.

"if you're referring to "latte liberal" friends of ours and parents gen, probably right, but these kids seem a little more color blind. Hopefully."

You're right, Rez...about the age of the people I was talking about and I hope the new generation is better. The last "younger" generation I had close contact with where we had those conversations was my kids' age group..and they are now in their 30s.

Alpha

" I wasn't alive when that happened. Why were they given reparations?" Many of the Japanese owned extensive farm lands, homes, stores etc particularly in Hawaii and California. They were packed up and moved to internment camps without time to sell their properly for what it was worth or had it directly stolen from them. A few with friends were able to have them hold it for them, but it was rare. One of my farming uncles attached his Japanese neighbors farm land, used it during the war and then returned it. Of course there was no money, but at least they got their land back.

The reparations didn't begin to equal the losses or the families moved to one room shacks in the middle of the desert for the duration of the war.

Good movie: Welcome to Manzanar

Russert made a great point on MTP. On the one hand - HRC is making the argument that Obama is not ready to be Commander in Chief - yet she is also pushing the idea that he would make a great VP.

Any "experienced" presidential candidate knows that the first criteria of a VP - is that they could step into the role of dealing with our Nation's Security on "day one."

Thanks Clinonites for letting what you really think leak out!! The cat was out of the bag for most of America already.

Anyways, all of this talk about MI and FL should be tabled until after PA on Mar. 22. People have heard me talk about the incredible waste of money the campaigns can be. It is terribly inefficient to pump in another $30 M for a do-over if we don't have to.

That money can be put in an esgrow account and if Obama wins PA - we can send it to charity (perhaps one of Jamie's choice - heck you can even split it 50/50 with the causes of Wendy or EuroTom or Patsi or Max, etc.).

Or maybe we should just give the money to FL to work on their voting sites so they don't f*ck it up again this year.

HALPERIN’S TAKE: What is Keeping the Clinton Team Busy Behind the Scenes?

"1. Delighting in successfully raising the volume on the Clinton-Obama Dream Ticket talk — which their research shows could give some wavering voters (and superdelegates) a reason/excuse to choose her.

4. Waiting on John Edwards.

11. Determining how to rattle Obama as much as possible (they can, they have, and they want to push him to the limit)."

http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-what-is-keeping-the-clinton-team-busy-behind-the-scenes/

So I'm still wondering which Obama endorsement Vivian has found out about....got to be Edwards or Gore. But I keep wondering why they would have waited so long. Might have helped him in Ohio.

Pats,

You'll have to explain whi, if Hillary takes Penn and Florida and even splits Michigan, Obama still wins. Not sure I see that.

Powers and Rice are both Liberal interventionists, but unrealistic and only in matters that involve outright genocide. I know the "New Democrats" want to distance themselves from Jeffersonian principles, but being liberal once meant promoting principles and actually defending human rights, let alone protecting US interests.

One reason why Powers IS intelligent, is that she sees the struggle as necessary and requiring force if necessary. My opposition is more about one actually goes about this and also the role of national interests when unilateral action threatens our very security.

The funny truth is that Obama is not a dove dear Lefties. Nor is Zbig. Wrong about strategy, but clearly not doves. There are many pathways the Jeffersonian interventionism can take. Some less dangerous than others. Hillary and Bill showed one way in Kosovo. Had Bush listened to Hillary's floor speech, Iraq might have proven more successful.

Thanks, Rez, nice to know I'm just nuts without the wings. As things play out, we'll see who was more nuttier, you or me:)

Maxtrue:

I am not looking for a "dove" and I am not a "Leftie" (except in terms of being left-handed).

I am looking for an optimistic realist. Someone who sees the world as it is - and is willing to articulate that to the American people.

Optimist - yes - I think we should appeal to people's (and nation's) better angels. Realist - yes - don't be surprised and be prepared to deal with those who do not cooperate.

I am glad to see people have at least acknowledged Samantha Power's prowess - both on this blog and on the boob-tube. And Max, I welcome debates on strategy.

"I am not looking for a "dove" and I am not a "Leftie"

ROFL! Warren, I would never take you for a leftie.

Oh, and I know Barack is no dove. Nobody in the pocket of General Dynamics is a real dove.

Brzezinski Clan

"The New Hampshire Democratic primary was no exercise in grass roots retail politics, but rather a clash between two cynical covert operations run by contending factions of intelligence community professionals. On the one side was an attempt to replicate here in the United States on behalf of Obama the sort of "color revolution" or "CIA people power coup" which the National Endowment for Democracy and the Brzezinski intelligence faction have carried out in such countries as Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine. On the other hand, an opposed intelligence faction was able to win the day by a more traditional type of Diebold voting machine pattern fraud in favor of Mrs. Clinton. The people power coup in particular was designed to abort the entire Democratic primary season, prevent further radicalization of the Democratic base on economic issues, and submerge the issues raised by John Edwards, the wild card in this race and the Democratic candidate Wall Street organized money hates for his introduction of the rhetoric of economic populism into the campaigns of both parties."

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/brzezinski_clan__color_revolutio.htm

Looks like Tucker's getting the axe at MSNBC:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/tucker_canceled_other_programming_changes_ahead_79352.asp

Guess we're gonna have to look elsewhere for an afternoon dose of asshattery...

*sniff*

Realism starts with a plan that takes into account the likely absurdity of Ahmadinejad negotiating anything to our advantage.

A realist backs the only peaceful means to thwart Iran's nuclear drive while being realistic about the holes in the NIE, holes that one candidate said were in the 2002 NIE report on Iraq.

Realism means understanding the likely effect of a one year pullout from Iraq and the unreaslitic expectation of this producing peace. Optimistic does not mean mean expections beyond realistic, yes?

Realism addresses the real causes for Afghanistan problems, the inability for a MIddle East peace;

http://stubbornfacts.us/gwot/a_reminder_of_who_we_are_fighting_in_the_war_on_terror#comment-13519

the dangers of protectionism, and real threats beyond AQ.

Since you rarely respond to specific information/claims and don't seem to have read American Thinker's posts on Obama's team, I am not sure what debate you want to have.

While I never trashed all of Powers, I pointed out from the outset, what was foolish and suspect. Huntington is no dumby, but opposition to him and Zbig is based in realism as well as track record, not me being a nut or a "righty".

Shall we debate General Odum's Grand Bargin? Sanctions on Quds? Chavez's connection to terrorists? Syria's response to the Zbig visit and the killings in Israel? Where Iran made their advanced p-2 centrifuges out of carbon materials, or does the IC know? Let's talk about Susan Rice's record, or Lake's best moments in office. How about missile defense or the use of non-lethal weapons in Iraq?

Words are fairly empty if not backed up with more than suggestions to "talk". And unlike JFK or even HIllary, Obama hasn't even met with many leaders in Europe. Perhaps he should have already talked to our friends.

I keep coming back to the fact that after Obama didn't even hold a single hearing of an important committee he wanted to head, he failed to attend the very Full Foreign Relations committee meeting that addressed this problem and part take in a discussion of NATO and Afghanistan. He was too busy out on the stump, suggestion Bush was the fault for Afghanistan. Sure, I can debate issues.

Will Obama support free trade with Columbia and keep up our military assistance in light of what we now know about Chavez and his possey of Leftists, or will he pull a Carter?

Will Obama cut missile defense?

What are the preparations for talking to Iran and would he take the offer they made in 2003 after they saw Bush invade Iraq?

How will he keep Canada from pulling out of Afghanistan if NATO doesn't send more troops?

How protectionist will Obama be?

Did Obama read the NYT article on his record in the Senate? Does he disagree?

Does Obama agree with Rice that the many global problems in the world were caused by Bush and if he goes to the WH, it will be as Janitor of the World? And that he is not ready for that 3am call?

What are his moves to find resolution between Israel and the Palestians and why does Zbig advise him? Is it because they are old Harvard buddies?

What role did Obama have in Rezko giving money to Khadili back in 2002?

Has Obama ever met the infamous Auchi whoses money to Rezko helped Obama buy his house?

What will Obama do if the "moderates" in Pakistan do not act on the militants? Will he just start bombing?

What steps will Obama take if China refuses to pressure NK to reveal their full nuclear program and Sudan stopping its genocide?

These are just a few questions I would be happy to debate. Perhaps you can formulate a cogent line and we can debate on another blog.

"Any "experienced" presidential candidate knows that the first criteria of a VP - is that they could step into the role of dealing with our Nation's Security on "day one."

Warren, Actually it is not. The VP is added to the ticket to get the most possible votes in addition to the Presidential candidate. You try to increase the geographic or philosophical range of the party.

Harding got us Coolidge
FDR got us Truman
JFK got us LBJ

None of those Veeps were selected because they could do the job on day one.

When Truman assumed the Presidency he said he felt as if the sun, the moon, and the stars had fallen on him and Eleanor Roosevelt said, "we now pray for YOU". Luckily for the nation he did a good job for a haberdasher selected because he had political connections in Missouri.

VP's can also boost the credibility of a candidate if they seem weak on defense. You are right, they are often picked to either shut up, or supply more votes. Sometimes it is to show diversity. Interesting who McCain might pick.

"Tucker's getting the axe at MSNBC"

Is that champagne corks I hear popping?

No real celebrating unless the replacement is something other than a ivy league spoiled brat relative of someone at the network.

Jamie,

I'm not arguing against Japanese Americans getting reparations. I'm wondering why if state sponsored racism is worth reparations and an apology, then why isn't state sponsored racism against African Americans worth an apology and reparations? Because the slaves aren't around? The children of slaves (including my great grandmother) are still alive. What about segregation? Will we wait until every African American who lived under Jim Crow has died to say that it's too late to apologize?

And don't put out that fake "affirmative action is the apology". One, that was a CONSERVATIVE solution for trying to equalize society. And two, that program benefited more white women than African Americans. And with Bakke, we should note that America's commitment to even this weak effort short and limited.

It's called a JOKE

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore were in an airplane that crashed. They're up in heaven, and God's sitting on the great white throne. God addresses Al first. "Al, what do you believe in?"

Al replies, "Well, I believe I won that election, but that it was your will that I did not serve. And I've come to understand that now."

God thinks for a second and says, "Okay, very good. Come and sit at my left."

God then addresses Bill. "Bill, what do you believe in?"

Bill replies, "I believe in forgiveness. I've sinned, but I've never held a grudge against my fellow man, and I hope no grudges are held against me."

God thinks for a second and says, "You are forgiven, my son. Come and sit at my right."

God then addresses Hillary. "Hillary, what do you believe in?"

"I believe you're in my chair."

MaxTrue:

Don't quite have the time to solve the world's problems tonight. I actually need to detach myself from this blog for a bit and do some work.

But I look forward to discussing some of the issues you raised - and rest assured - Obama has plenty of capable people thinking about those questions. Moreover, Obama's approach to complex issues is not to simply figure what he thinks is best - and then attempt to impose it on everyone else (taking down any who stand in his way). Instead, he seeks to get the best ideas from the best people - and articulate them in a way that people can understand.

"If the 9/11 truth movement had been able to maintain its cohesion, and resisted the temptation to divide between two candidates (Ron Paul and Kucinich) who have absolutely no interest in 9/11 truth, things might be somewhat better. If the networks of September criminals in the US government had been exposed and eradicated, we might not have the New Hampshire primary being decided as the vector sum of two contending covert operations, as has just happened. The task now falls to the people's candidates' movement, which is focusing on candidacies for House and Senate in November 2008, and beyond. No matter what the presidential contests may bring, it is these outsider candidates for federal office who will represent the leading edge of political progress over the coming months. Those who are rightly horrified by the likely presidential choices have no alternative but to support these people's candidates." From Gordo's link

You're kidding me, yes? Let me ask you something straightt out Gordo, do you support the 9/11 truthers and will I have to take Anon's award back from her?

Alf -- "And two, that program benefited more white women than African Americans. "

..... why couldn't we get the ERA passed?

is the VP isn't prepared to be president on day, what will happen if the president gets hit by a bus, or something? what then?

Take care Warren and if it means anything, I might be more comfortable knowing Obama himself, plots out his way INSTEAD of the team assembled. I have been arguing that the real Obama should state HIS ideas, instead of being a mouthpiece for the dubious positions of others. JFK had this character after the Bay of Pigs. I have a bit more faith in Obama's need to be successful in leading us than the ideas of his advisors. While I have been slamming Obama, it is his underlying policies triangulations between his advisors I worry about. As far as a charismatic talker, I have no problem. Unfortunately the policies are VERY important and Obama's political tactics aided by Axelrod are not very promising in bringing the country together.

If Obama had towed the centrist line he first advanced in 2004 and took command of the policies himself, I would probalby be behind him. As the NYT article pointed out, he just doesn't have that depth yet. Maybe in time he will, just not likely in the next two years.

Just my opinion of course.

Later.....

"In 1961 President John F. Kennedy appointed her chair of his Commission on the Status of Women, and she continued with that work until shortly before her death. She had not initially favoured the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), saying it would take from women the valuable protective legislation that they had fought to win and still needed, but she gradually embraced it."

Mrs. Roosevelt remembered when married women were just the chattel of their husbands.

Historians often debate whether or not ER should be called a feminist. Those who say she was not a feminist base their argument on ER's opposition to the National Woman's Party and the Equal Rights Amendment. (1) They, like Lois Scharf, argue that because ER did not "view social problems through the unique lens of gender, discover and define the discriminatory features of society, examine the underlying causes for female inferiority, and concentrate on their alleviation," that the answer to this question is "a qualified no." (2) Others, like Allida Black and Blanche Cook, disagree. They say her firm belief in women's equality and her forty-year campaign to advance women politically, economically, and socially is proof of ER's commitment to gender equality. While they agree that ER opposed the Equal Rights Amendment throughout the twenties, thirties, and forties, they point to ER dropping her opposition in the late fifties. To them, ER is a feminist because their definition of feminism is broader than supporting the ERA and dedication to gender-based analysis
http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/teach-er-vk/lesson-plans/notes-er-and-womens-movement.htm

Maxtrue ---------------

Yes, kidding! Just wanted to get everyone "stirred" up. A bit slow tonight. 911 - I don't know what to believe.

"is the VP isn't prepared to be president on day, what will happen if the president gets hit by a bus, or something? what then?"

When uncertain,
when in doubt
run in circles
Scream and shout.

Jack

jack, a most wonderful solution!

"why isn't state sponsored racism against African Americans worth an apology and reparations?"

Alpha, Actually I favor some form of reparations, but I just have a problem with who gets and who receives. With the Indians you had tribes to whom the land and/or compensation could be returned. With the Japanese you had still living people who had been in the camps who could directly apply. With slavery it is much more difficult.

Certainly all descendants of slaves have directly suffered from generational racism and all the evils that implies. Less direct you have those of African descent who arrived after slavery who suffered the racism but not the multi generational loss of family and freedom.

How do you compensate for a system that even in its most liberal era still restricted areas of residence, access to higher education, and exposure to the worst of violence due to poverty and ignorance?

Those are the people who should probably get some kind of extra benefit or advantage, but what and who? Couple that with who bears the burden. No one living today has ever owned slaves. Most whose ancestors did with the exception of some of the oldest Southern families lost everything they owned with the Civil War and actually sank into poverty with the former slaves.

It seems to me that if you are to come up with some form of reparations, it almost has to be in the form of educational or business grants of some sort that makes it possible to change a negative condition, but I'm open to other ideas.

I've come to belive that running for president requires the type of ego that refuses to believe in mortality. So for the candidate a VP is an unnecessary nusance and he damn well should bring a few votes to the table.

Jack

This is funny:

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/#mea=227156

"is the VP isn't prepared to be president on day, what will happen if the president gets hit by a bus, or something? what then?"

Same thing we have always done ... Pray and hope the man or advisors are good enough to get the VP to the end of the President's term at which point he can be dumped if he is a failure.

Wendy
Not for me, my computer doesn't like NBC videos
Oh well

Jack

darn Jack...think you would have liked it.

LOL

Jamie - RE: JOKE -

ROFLMAO

"Shouldn't that read "she can be dumped if she is a failure?"

I believe Jamie had it right the first time...

;-)

Marty Kaplan's blog is kind of funny today...going to make my partner give him a hard time at work tomorrow for it...LOL

The truth is...he was undecided right up to the end and we still don't know who he voted for - he said he wanted to vote for Obama but then was afraid my partner's boss (and his good friend) would be mad at him because my partner's boss is friends with the Clinton's...what a dilemma...I bet he voted for Obama...LOL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/its-all-my-fault_b_90611.html

BTW

Is it just me or does the McCain commercial echo back to the famous "daisy" spot. Those lovely little girls running safely through the flowers while john continues to slaughter children and their parents elsewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_A53PAxeR8&feature=user

jamie
I posted the ad last night but to me it is just evidence that McCain staffers are on serious drugs.

He doesn't seem to bear that much resemblance to either Churchill or Teddy Roosevelt.

He doesn't seem to bear that much resemblance to either Churchill or Teddy Roosevelt.

Posted by: Jamie | March 9, 2008 9:32 PM

thus the need for the drugs

Jamie
Did you look at the other McCain ads? I'd like to know what audience they are going for. I think they would be better off just saying - Shrub fubared eyerack and McBush would do a better job.

Jamie,

I disagree with the sense that there needs to be some type of "collective" reparation (grants, programs). One, that feeds into the notion that apologizing and compensating African American DIRECTLY is odious to Americans. I have an EASY way to identify who should be compensated.

Anyone who receives reparations would have to be deemed from that moment on an African Americans and black. Every document they fill out, every survey, every tax form, they would have to declare themselves as being black.

I can tell you right now that this would give many, many people pause. Prof. Andrew Hacker did an experiment once where he told white students that they were suddenly black. You know what they did? They demanded millions of dollars in compensation. Whiteness has value and the loss of it is not worth a nickel if they have to live their lives as blacks.

As for other blacks coming into the US, those from the Caribbean, what's the problem? They come from the same triangular slave trade. On the same boats insured by Lloyds of London.

Here's what I foresee going into Denver:

Obama with the delegate lead. Obama with the most states won. Obama with the total vote.

Chaos as the Clintons do what they do, which is to burn and pillage in order to win. Obama puts pressure on the SDs. Al Gore and John Edwards come out for Obama which starts the flood of SDs to Obama. He goes over the top. Obama offers the VP spot to Clinton. She declines.

Obama picks Clair McCaskill for VP. That brings in Missouri and angry white women.

See you in January 09 for that President Obama swearing in.

Alpha1906

I swear you have great imagination and vision. Are you sure you don't want the job?

" disagree with the sense that there needs to be some type of "collective" reparation (grants, programs"

Alpha, I wasn't thinking "Collective" so much as "targeted". I believe that an injury was done and that because of that injury a large percentage of the descendants of slaves were disadvantaged in a way that at least partially crippled the ability to change their condition through their own efforts. Those conditions are changing for the better, but you still have slums, inadequate schools, drugs, crime, and all the lifelong disadvantages that grows out of those conditions.

Most of a child's ability to learn develops before the age of five. You either get to them before that age or they will be climbing uphill most of their lives just to stay even. How would you propose to change those conditions?

Alpha:

I bet it's going to be a very close race to the end...but I bet they work it all out before they get to Denver and it'll be a week of boring speeches like it always is as they introduce the nominee.

I'm not as certain of who the nominee will be as you are...but I don't foresee the doom and gloom you foresee.

KGC

"Shrub fubared eyerack and McBush would do a better job. "

I think he is totally misreading the mood of the country. There are about 25% of the population that MIGHT think WINNING is our mission but I would bet that it is even less that that hard core group. MCain is totally out of touch with the mood and needs of the country.

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Claire_McCaskill_Immigration.htm

That would drive the latino vote right into McCain's pocket.

Interesting article in the Washington Post today as well as poll of unpledged superDs. It's clear from this that he's going to have a pretty significant lead on her for them NOT to hear her out. But like I said in my earlier post to Alpha...I believe they'll do all the negotiating between June and August before the convention.

"Many of the 80 uncommitted superdelegates who were contacted over the past several days said they are reluctant to override the clear will of voters. But if Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama (Ill.) are still seen as relatively close in the pledged, or elected, delegate count in June, many said, they will feel free to decide for themselves which of the candidates would make a stronger nominee to run against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the fall."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802664.html?hpid=topnews

McCaskill would be another reason not to vote for Obama, but I wouldn't vote for McCain.

Wendy:

"I bet they work it all out before they get to Denver and it'll be a week of boring speeches like it always is as they introduce the nominee."

Obama's 2004 speech at the Convention was far from boring (and on a much different level - Zell Miller's speech was no snoozer either). But I agree - they will work it out before they get to Denver and everybody just needs to relax.

Who do you think is best to be the keynote speaker at Obama's Convention - HRC or Edwards? (just kidding Wendy...and btw - the SNL clip you posted was lame and too long).

I did like the Weekly Update's spin on the "monster" comment though. If we are now using SNL at a litmus test - it seems there was some truth underlying Power's dumb remark.

McCaskill wouldn't be enough to win over this angry mixed race woman or my partner who is a SO NOT ANGRY (she's completely incapable of anger) white woman.

:-D

Why would you think McCaskill would get Clinton supporters after her role as Dick Cheney in this campaign

Claire McCaskill, Obama's Hachetwoman, Strikes Again With More Lies and Disrespect
News Type: Opinion — Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:02 PM ESTpolitics, democrats, barack-obama, obama, hillary-clinton, clintonCliff Potter
McCaskill listening on plane.

McCaskill listening to Obama in Missouri.
For every candidate, there is often a hatchet man or hatchet woman. Sometimes more than one. In this election year, Claire McCaskill has assumed the role of Obama's hatchet woman. It is not clear why, but one thing is certain. She is vicious, unrelenting and dishonest. Indeed, her approach is so unrelenting and unbecoming, so fervent, one might believe that Obama has promised her a lot to obtain her allegiance.
http://cliffpotter.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/18/1309530-claire-mccaskill-obamas-hachetwoman-strikes-again-with-more-lies-and-disrespect

KGC:

It is ironic you call out Claire as a "hatchet woman" by using a hatchet piece on her. Is this how the Clinton campaign thinks they can increase the number of Dems. in Congress? Kinda like Bill throwing Kennedy under the bus when he came out in support of Obama.

Be very afraid - no one is safe from the Clintonites...

Good night folks

McCaskill,

Now there is an unexpected choice for VP. I like her very much.

......but Jim Webb is growing on me.......but my first choice is still Edwards....

I bet Evan Bayh (Spelling) is first on her list. He's been faithful from the first.

Guess that spelling is correct...

Evan Bayh has never done anything for me. He seems a bit contrived and "too perfect" - I don't tend to like such people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4267884

from the Democratic underground on McCaskill's role
and this is a board of sharing opinions that's what that piece was a and clearly labeled so.

And she is clearly proud of being the attack dog.

I'm clearly proud of her being the attack dog too.

KGC:

You would be better served by addressing the "attacks" Claire is making - rather than just trying to tear her down personally. She is not running for President.

HBO's "The Wire" just finished its run. Five seasons of the most gripping television ever. Great show. Man does not live by blogging alone. Anyway, dvd sets are available if ya wanna catch up.

Found Objects

http://mydamnchannel.com/Harry_Shearer/Found_Objects/FoundObjectsCoulterOReillyCouric_437.aspx#

He then summoned up his newest surrogate, Rockefeller, as an example.

"Jay Rockefeller read it, but she didn't read it. I don't know where all that experience got her because I have enough experience to know that if you have a national intelligence estimate and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says, 'you should read this, that's why I voted against the war,' then you should probably read it."

The problem? Rockefeller voted for war.

Obama’s statement left the impression that Rockefeller was the chair of the Intelligence Committee, read the NIE report and then voted against the war. Rockefeller, who is currently the chair, was not chair at the time and cast his vote for war, not against it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/obama-campaign.html

LOL at Wendy!

Jamie, I'm African American. I don't need a "daddy" government telling me where I should use my reparations. I can make that choice myself. Perhaps I want to secure my grandmother or my mother's retirement? Both suffered under segregation in Texas. Maybe I want to use my reparations to pay for private school for my son? Maybe I want to invest it so that my wealth increases to at least half of what whites have in this country.

Again, the reason people like talking about putting the money toward indirect programs, instead of sending it to the people (by the way, no one ever notes that you CAN do both) is that by both acknowledging the wrong and then paying reparations to African Americans directly would START healing the wrongs. And that would mean white Americans would have to come to grips with the psychic notion that whiteness has value and regardless if they were here with the Pilgrims or landed on Ellis Island, they benefit from that whiteness.

McCaskill is being suggested as a candidate for vp
and I did list her position on immigration and the reason for discussing her personal style was she was suggested as a candidate who would appeal to angry white women. I suggest you read all the posts before you make comments.

For those of you in love with Claire. She can't deliver Missouri. She almost lost her senate election and I doubt if she could be reelected if the election was today. She is just not that good a campaigner. So she is not going to drag anybodys sorry butt across the line.

For you people who like election crack
The surveyusa electorial college election poll
Clinton vrs McCain
http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mccain-clinton-final.png

Obama vrs McCain
http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mccain-obama-final.png

Jack

Downside of Obama Strategy

Losses in Big States Spur General-Election Fears

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/08/ST2008030800051.html

Alpha
It ain't gonna happen.
Whats more you can't get a majority of the black community to support your position.
Further more you will never hear Obama talk about it, he is too smart a politician.

Jack

the above comment to Alpha was in reference to his reparations discussion.

Jack

Ain't misbehavin', Fats Waller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k8eLiehFzU

jack

Stormy weather, Ethel Waters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMTPhlNYf1E

Listen to this great jazz
Bird , dizzy, ella and a bunch more great music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvALY7Yx8tg

Jack -- crank up some Jimmy Witherspoon to round it all out...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/11/msnbc-tapes-pilot-for-new-showstarring-rachel-maddow

Tucker out, Rachel in, hopefully....

KGC:

I do my best - but it can get pretty hectic in here now and again... (I know people don't sift through ALL my rambling nonsense)

I have not seen any serious discussion about Claire being VP. I just think she is a nice smart lady who has supported Obama since before it was popular (especially for a woman).

She also won a tough Senate race in a state that KNOWS politics. MO IS Middle America and it is the BELLWETHER* state that Obama won (even if by a hair). I think Claire did her job as a campaigner - especially going up against the seasoned pros of the Clinton machine.

*MO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_bellwether

Don't forget HRC lost MO despite the FACT it borders the Clinton's home state.

(sorry for the clinton capitalization - it can be contagious - even if not technically proper ; )

I thought it was supposed to be over last Tuesday..oops the know it alls on this site were wrong again.

Julia said, "Looks like Tucker's getting the axe at MSNBC:"

Maybe it'll be Rachel Maddow as a replacement? She's been mentioned for a slot for a long time.

tt

KGC:

Here is a response to your hachet piece on Immigration - from Claire herself:

http://mccaskill.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=275718

And thanks for making me do the research - now I have another reason to like Claire. She is an excellent writer.

We need to keep it clean people:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/09/uselections2008.usa

Get back to the contrasts on the issues. And each one has to focus on their messages for the general election (remember LA and there was another cordial debate...).

Newsflash - the general election has started.

No need to wish and wait for the Dream Team - we need them to start running now!

Obama and Clinton can fight all the way to the convention - but they both better keep their eyes on the prize throughout. That will be the true test of who is the best candidate for the general election.

Plus, given that FL went for Bush in 2004 - and if McCain picks Crist as VP - the Dems might be better off looking to some of the other swing states. Such as VA. Obama may be able to take GA and maybe TX. Maybe Claire can help bring over MO and how bout Kansas... And we will see how PA goes.

I am not worried about McCain in NY or CA - too much distaste for Bush's policies in those states.

"Maybe Claire can help bring over MO and how bout Kansas..."

KANSAS? Warren! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard! You have NO idea. I hear the ugliest comments from my old home staters about BO that I've ever heard about anyone..even Hillary, and they don't like her either. WE can scrap Kansas as a possibility.

Sure Warren she may write well but her votes speak for her.
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Claire_McCaskill_Immigration.htm

Not a hit piece just her voting record. I rather doubt the latino community will find her ability to write comforting.
Building a border fence is a first step. (Aug 2006)
No amnesty for illegal immigrants; no guest workers. (Aug 2006)
Voted NO on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program. (May 2007)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Claire_McCaskill.htm

I am happy that there is huge change will occur in politics, I am ready to watch the changing climate again. I have not seen any serious discussion about Claire being VP. I just think she is smart lady who has supported Obama since before it was popular. I think people wants some change in the politics so as to cater the needs of people .
==============================================
steve
http://www.drugtreatments.com/wyoming