One Old Preacher Excercises His Constitutional Rights: The Flag Is Falling

I could come no where near putting it better that P.M. has in this opinion piece.

God, I don't know what's wrong with me, but I was blown back by the outrage after Obama's speech. I guess I keep hoping that the conservatives will be conservatives and not the frightened, bigoted, ideological, authoritarians that has taken over the Republican Party over the last 40 years, that seems to have reached its peak with the BuCheney administration. Why, oh why do I keep hoping? Maybe it is guys like Andrew Sullivan who is a true conservative and a very thoughtful man. I may not agree with Mr Sullivan on everything, but he does make sense and doesn't have seemingly programed, robotic, knee-jerk reactions to all things to the left of Attila the Hun. He is also not from here, but from England.

I have already expressed what I felt about Obama's speech; a speech that he shouldn't even have to have given. But he, unlike many of the rest of us, was wise enough, because of his life experience, to know that not only did the speech have to be given, but that he knew that the speech was not the end of anything, but the beginning of something new; honesty about race (and quite a few other issues, I feel sure) in this country.

The fact that the news media was in a typical feeding frenzy about the preacher thing while the anniversary of shock and awe passes, with protests blacked out, as usual, with out president and vice president sounding more sick and delusional by the day and their man for the next president having to be told that he had misspoke about al Qaeda and extremists, correcting himself and then misspeaking again just blows ones mind. I did see some discussions about the McCain thing and it looks like Dan Abrams is going to start a feature about old Teflon John. I guess it was such a gaff that ever Cabal news couldn't completely ignore it.

On Olbermann, McCain was described exactly as Bush is described, smart in his own way, but not a detail man.

Sweet Jesus, that's just all we need!

The guy doesn't know jack about economics and whomever the next president is, he or she will have to deal with some major crooks in the financial industry who have been up to serious no good and the fallout from their criminal shenanigans. My God, does any one trust McCain to do that? Only a fool!

The right's peculiar notion of proportionality lies in one of those intellectual sand traps that one can whack away at for years and yet never come close to dislodging its smug, half-buried target. The notion just sits there, grinning back, confident that logical blows will do it no harm or budge it one bit. It's one of the more stubborn obscenities known to man.

While, for instance, right-wing scribblers were succumbing to the vapors because of one over-the-top preacher's exercising of all three guarantees of the First Amendment, we were "celebrating" the fifth anniversary of an illegal, anticonstitutional, wholly unAmerican foreign war. This, however, merited no similar reactionary dread.

The disproportionality was stunningly obscene, as were its objects of timid affection.

You want obscene? Our -- their -- president offered that yesterday in spades when he insisted once again that "removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision," without noting once again its dreadfully wrongful costs in human and fiscal treasure.

Obscene? How about the vice president's considered response to ABC News' observation that two-thirds of his citizenry believe the war was never worth waging: "So?"

Obscene? How about about John McCain's latest Baghdad-Bob like pronouncement that we're on the jolly good "precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism." Why, to hear you folks whine, one would think this marvelous little war against an amorphous ideology and its centuries-old tactics is dragging on with no end in sight.

Obscene? Pshaw. That -- wretched unAmericanism, presidential recalcitrance, vice-presidential debauchery and would-be presidential imbecility -- is but the stuff of negligible nothings.

Hence it gets a pass from our right-wing scribblers. They have bigger and far more ominous fish to fry; namely, that one, aforementioned preacher who once exercised his First Amendment guarantees in warning that God may indeed "damn" this country if it didn't stop acting more like Beelzebub than Jesus.

With tin foil molded properly on pate, with incense burning and adorned by a Cross, two Stars of David and several cloves of garlic, I journeyed yesterday to the Dark Side, just to take a confirmational peek at what the 15th-century minds of right-wing hysteria were likely saying. And sure enough, there it was, splattered all over the screen, in all its eerie irrelevance and screaming disproportionality.

One of this preacher's parishioners, you see -- I know, this is shocking, but be of strong heart, hale friend -- had heard the preacher's message in his parish and now seeks to convert its hate into love, its disunity into fellowship, its hopelessness into potential.

The Republic is doomed.

One of the distaff scribblers at Townhall, for example, wrote of the parishioner's speechifying: "Deflect, deflect, deflect.... He cannot disown Wright? Really? This rationale makes no sense to me." Thank you, dear lady, for affirming the clinically manifest.

But I quickly tired of Townhall's third-rate second-rateness so I scurried over to the more sophisticated banality of National Review -- where I found our good friend, the liberal-fascist-fighting Jonah Goldberg, sputtering in apoplectic regret that "Obamaniacs think conservatives just don't get it, that we're mired in the past, that we are motivated by old passions and bigotries." Like, uh, blindingly lily-white conservatism?

And there was Byron York, who perhaps you recall has made a living out of astonishingly proving that the liberal New York Times is liberal. Byron's latest insight was this: "What was surprising, for me, was the number of Obama supporters I spoke to afterward who not only thought the speech was great but also didn't see anything particularly wrong with the 'controversial' remarks of Rev. Jeremiah Wright." In other words, and quite unsurprising, disproportionality met proportionality and was utterly dumbfounded.

Yet let me be not too harsh, for there are thinking conservatives out there. And perhaps the most thoughtful is Andrew Sullivan, who wrote on his own site: "This searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime.... I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy ... is an historic opportunity.... I love this country. I don't remember loving it or hoping more from it than today."

So see? The conservative bug isn't lethal to the conservative mind in every way and with every conservative. And given Mr. Sullivan's brand of it, I don't remember loving it or hoping more from it than yesterday.

Please respond to the commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

P.M., remember with whom we are dealing. Ain't gonna happen!

The Coming Demand for a Clinton Withdrawal

P.M. Carpenter

This morning the New York Times bellowed a headline on Obama's "Convincing Wins" yesterday. The Washington Post bannered the modifier, "Handily." The Chicago Tribune scribbled that he "Score[d] a Sweep" and the Politico, thinking ahead, remarked on Obama's "Landslides" -- which "Could Break Deadlock."

At the Virginia Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson dinner, Obama surveyed his decisive victory: "We won in Louisiana, we won in Nebraska, we won in Washington state"; to put it another way, as he did, "We won North, we won South, we won in between."

Obama's campaign did it with strategic forethought (it anticipated the criticality of post-Super Tuesday caucuses), a powerful coalition, almost unprecedented political momentum, plenty of funds and a ready organization -- all of which will be needed in November, and all of which the Clinton campaign lacks -- as well as graciousness, it would seem, considering that Mrs. Clinton failed to even congratulate Obama in her own J-J speech. As my dear old mama would say: Tacky, tacky, tacky.

But the Clinton camp had a powerful piece of logic at the ready to explain away, to dismiss, Obama's geographically rolling victories: It expected him to win, you see, so the landslides don't really count. That was the feverish word transmitted from Clinton staff to television networks last night, and crack logicians everywhere will be working on that one for some time.

Besides, the Clinton camp argued, Obama outspent its candidate. So there. Double-doesn't count.

If that's the sort of cerebral shiftiness we're to expect in the general, should it come to that, please just wake me when it's over.

Me Too

As everyone knows by now, however, what it may come to instead is a battle for superdelegates -- and not any fussy democratic vote within the Democratic Party. Again, Obama's logic is the stronger: "If we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country ... it would be problematic" -- now there's a world-class understatement -- "for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters."

Especially if most of them are DLCers

Yet it would not be unthinkable, for Clinton has already thunk the thought, as she did again yesterday aloud, that "superdelegates ... should make an independent decision based on who they thought would be the strongest candidate and president."

In other words, superdelegates -- party hacks and bosses -- should decide for you. After which, presumably, they'll change the Democratic Party's name to that of the Oligarchic.

They will have to come up with two names because there will be no Democratic Party. The first time I heard the word "Superdelegates" in this campaign my heart sunk. Is this nomination going to be a rigged as the last two elections? If so, both parties should be outlawed in order to help restore Democracy. If we cannot find a way of getting the oligarchs out of Washington in the voting booth, we will just have to start being very creative.

There is, of course, a much better idea, one that averts all that hand-wringing angst stemming from democracy-denial and name-changing. Though it's far from unthinkable, it has nonetheless remained unspoken. But no longer: Should Hillary fail to rack up 68-percent victories in Ohio and Texas early next month, as Obama just did in Nebraska and Washington, she should gracefully withdraw from the race.

Yeah, when pig fly!

You will, I think, be hearing a lot more of that sentiment in the near future, and not only from self-interested Obama supporters. You will begin to hear it, rather, from the party's vast mainstream, which, already being happy with either candidate, will conclude, simply: Let's get on with it -- we can afford a party-splitting contest no longer; certainly not through spring and summer, and certainly not one decided by a superdelegate T.K.O.

The demanded justifications behind a Clinton withdrawal would be nearly overwhelming. In the general Obama will at any rate win the Democratic states of New York, California, etc., that Clinton has bragged about; Obama decisively outpaces Clinton in a head-to-head matchup with McCain; Obama does, in fact, do well among women, having beaten Clinton on that score 35 to 30 percent in Iowa, and 49 to 48 in Missouri; Obama has none of Clinton's scandal baggage to carry into the general; Obama has consistently proven himself a better fundraiser than Clinton; Obama can far more easily carry swing states than Clinton can; Obama would be more than competitive with McCain in the independent vote, unlike Clinton; Obama undeniably has the Big Mo; and above all, Obama did not support George W. Bush's idiotic war, while Clinton will be forced to defend her idiotic counter-decision every bloody minute on the general campaign trail, and which, undoubtedly, will cost her more than a few progressive votes.

Feel free to to add to this list, which could extend for miles. In fact, it extends all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

If for some magical reason, the word"Clinton" is not mentioned again between now and the conventions, everyone would breathe such a sigh of relief, meteorologists all over the world would wonder what the hell had happened. Rover and company would be highly disappointed as would most rethug insiders.

Wonder what she'll say when asked, "whose Bill dating these days?" (I couldn't care less, but many do, for reasons I'll never understand)

We all know the Goopers have more illegal crap on her donors by now. Stands to reason. Why did Rove quit the W.H. just as primary season was heating up. (No one cares about Cheney's connection to Halliburton nor Marvin Bushes involvement with the security firm who were protecting Logan at Boston on 9/11, but if Hillary's donors haven't paid a few traffic tickets, the flag will surely fall.)

She'll be asked about her husbands business dealings, Why not.? If this guy has business dealings with shady characters, the American people should know. Geraldine Ferraro was asked, as she ran for VP in 1984. Unfortunately, he had been up to no good, it seems.

Those arguments are coming, they're coming in droves, and they're coming around the corner. So pucker up, Mrs. Clinton -- and then you had best come up with better counterarguments than ones like, Well, his landslides don't count when they're expected.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Clinton Associates Obama With McCain!

Does anyone else out there in cyberspace see any reason for this? To associate Obama with McCain is like associating a toad frog with a platypus. There just ain't no there, there.

Clinton, meanwhile, didn’t congratulate Obama in her speech to the Richmond gathering earlier in the evening. Instead, she continued to draw sharp contrasts with her rival, and associated him with the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Obama Rakes In The Cash, While Hillary Borrows From Herself

Maybe it's just that I will never see $5 mill, but there is something highly suspicious to me about someone who uses their own money to get into office (so one can well imagine how I feel about the Mittster.)

It gives me the creeps; the thought of out-right buying power with their own money. They must want it pretty bad. The question then becomes, WHY?

This is nutso. The Obama campaign's response to the news that Hillary lent her campaign $5 million last month is to highlight the fact that they raised nearly that sum in the brief period that's passed ... since the polls closed yesterday!

In that time span, the Obama camp has raised: $4, 252, 184.

This highlights, yet again, a key emerging factor in the race: The Hillary camp faces the prospect of a weeks-long contest, perhaps leading all the way to the convention, during which they could find themselves dramatically outspent by their rivals.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

CNN Updates Yesterday's Primaries

We'll be keeping our eyes on this site/page all day long.

Yesterday, Obama took Georgia and Alabama. 40 years ago, men with his skin color were being hung for daring to fight for the right to vote in those states, let alone run for the highest office in the land.

I thought about that last night, when Georgia led the way, as the first state announced for Obama. I had tears in my eyes.

I wonder if Bobby, Martin and John were somewhere, watching as some dreams were fulfilled.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Hillary Claimed It, Barak Won It: Misouri

Missouri Lead Flips After Clinton Claimed It

Updated 1:07 a.m.By Shailagh Murray

CHICAGO -- Whoops, Missouri did it again.

After the Clinton campaign sent out a press release this evening claiming a win in Missouri, under the heading "Hillary's Big Night," the lead in the Show-Me State flipped -- with Barack Obama moving ahead by a few thousand votes to claim victory. One spectator at the Obama rally who wasn't surprised: Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, whose upset in 2006 was the last Senate race called on election night, after she had trailed all evening to incumbent GOP Sen. Jim Talent.

Blame it on St. Louis, in particular the Fourth Ward, a heavily Democratic area that is a notorious reporting laggard. "Where Barack Obama is doing so well in Missouri is where the Democrats live," said McCaskill, smiling slyly. "And in St. Louis, those returns come in very late."

Posted at 1:09 AM ET on Feb 6, 2008 Category


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Caroline Kennedy Endorses Obama! This Is Huge!

If memory serves, Caroline has never endorsed any candidate for the office of president. From everything I'm hearing, she is right.

Op-Ed Contributor
A President Like My Father
By CAROLINE KENNEDY

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

Caroline Kennedy is the author of “A Patriot’s Handbook: Songs, Poems, Stories and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love.”

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

We, Indys, Don't Like Ugly.......

....while we sit here, watching as the Dem-bulbs (Obama/Clinton) do their best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, shaking our heads in wonderment and despair.

There is an obvious alternative, if the rank and file Democrats would think for themselves and ignore the efforts of corporate America's news media to shut out the one Democrat they fear the most and the one that can wipe up the floor with any Rethug the GOP chooses;
John Edwards.

Personal and political divisions add up for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama

Eric Zorn

January 24, 2008

I think it's exciting." -- Bill Clinton, Tuesday, referring to the barbed exchange between his wife and Obama in a Democratic primary debate Monday.

Yes, the slash and burn, thrust and parry of political infighting is fun and exciting.

We get to see how well candidates respond when they're knocked off script by fair shots and foul blows. We get to see real emotion rather than the canned passion of stump speeches and position papers.

It's also destructive. Negative campaigning and the obsession with candidates' inevitable flaws breeds voter cynicism, apathy and disrespect.

So far, so pat.

The above observation could apply, conservatively, to 95 percent of all races ever run: Hypocritical Bum vs. Unprincipled Rascal.

But what's going on now in the Democratic presidential primary contest feels particularly destructive and therefore less fun and exciting (if you lean Democratic) or more fun and exciting (if you lean Republican).

Just in the last couple of weeks, the campaign between front-runners Obama and Clinton has gotten ugly -- deeply personal, openly hostile and racially divisive.

Never mind who started it, whose elbows are sharper or which candidate is the most chronically, reflexively mendacious. I have my view, and I'm sure you have yours.

Either way, the poisonous rhetoric is infuriating backers of Obama and Clinton and creating a rift that may not heal by November, even though their positions on issues are substantially the same.

This observation is purely anecdotal, and I base it on the sudden, sharp increase in the number of self-identified Democrats I've communicated with recently who've said something like this:

I used to think I could support either one of them, but now I'm so disgusted I could never vote for (him/her).

It's traditional to set aside grudges formed during the primary race and support the party in the general election, holding your nose if necessary.

But it's hard to hold a voting stylus while holding your nose with one hand and sticking your finger down your throat with the other. Look for some of these fierce loyalists to sit out the election in November.

Particularly if the GOP nominee is John McCain, whom many Democrats and independents see as the LOR (least objectionable Republican). And particularly if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, whom many Republicans and independents see as the MOD (you know).

Clinton gets the edge here in what may be an early or a late round in the primaries, depending on when the nomination is decided: She's not the one who's been running on the promise of a new high-tone style of politics, after all.

The Clintons' bloody political knuckles have been obvious since the early '90s, which explains both their successes and their comparatively high disapproval ratings.

So each squabble is a little victory for her. For now, this is true even when she loses on points or is caught in a deceitful contradiction, such as when she contended the other day that Obama had said Republicans had better ideas than Democrats (he said no such thing), and she blasted Obama for praising the same political skills and vision of Ronald Reagan that she herself has publicly praised.

The Republican field is also dramatically split, but for now the divisions seem to be more ideological than personal.

It will be ironic, though somehow predictable, if it turns out to be the heavily favored Democrats who fall at the hands of the "Anybody But Coalition."

I believe the technical term for this is "losing ugly."

We call it sickening beyond belief.

Never has there been a more obvious need for a multi-party system


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

These Indys Don't Like Ugly

As we sit and watch the Dem-bulbs snatch defeat from the laws of victory.

But there is an alternative, if Americans would only think for themselves, instead of believing that the only Democrats running are Clinton and Obama, as the corporate media would have us believe.

The one candidate who can roundly beat any Rethug. in November is John Edwards

Personal and political divisions add up for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama

Eric Zorn

"I like this. I think it's exciting." -- Bill Clinton, Tuesday, referring to the barbed exchange between his wife and Obama in a Democratic primary debate Monday.

Yes, the slash and burn, thrust and parry of political infighting is fun and exciting.

We get to see how well candidates respond when they're knocked off script by fair shots and foul blows. We get to see real emotion rather than the canned passion of stump speeches and position papers.

It's also destructive. Negative campaigning and the obsession with candidates' inevitable flaws breeds voter cynicism, apathy and disrespect.

So far, so pat.

The above observation could apply, conservatively, to 95 percent of all races ever run: Hypocritical Bum vs. Unprincipled Rascal.

But what's going on now in the Democratic presidential primary contest feels particularly destructive and therefore less fun and exciting (if you lean Democratic) or more fun and exciting (if you lean Republican).

Just in the last couple of weeks, the campaign between front-runners Obama and Clinton has gotten ugly -- deeply personal, openly hostile and racially divisive.

Never mind who started it, whose elbows are sharper or which candidate is the most chronically, reflexively mendacious. I have my view, and I'm sure you have yours.

Either way, the poisonous rhetoric is infuriating backers of Obama and Clinton and creating a rift that may not heal by November, even though their positions on issues are substantially the same.

This observation is purely anecdotal, and I base it on the sudden, sharp increase in the number of self-identified Democrats I've communicated with recently who've said something like this:

I used to think I could support either one of them, but now I'm so disgusted I could never vote for (him/her).

It's traditional to set aside grudges formed during the primary race and support the party in the general election, holding your nose if necessary.

But it's hard to hold a voting stylus while holding your nose with one hand and sticking your finger down your throat with the other. Look for some of these fierce loyalists to sit out the election in November.

Particularly if the GOP nominee is John McCain, whom many Democrats and independents see as the LOR (least objectionable Republican). And particularly if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, whom many Republicans and independents see as the MOD (you know).

Clinton gets the edge here in what may be an early or a late round in the primaries, depending on when the nomination is decided: She's not the one who's been running on the promise of a new high-tone style of politics, after all.

The Clintons' bloody political knuckles have been obvious since the early '90s, which explains both their successes and their comparatively high disapproval ratings.

So each squabble is a little victory for her. For now, this is true even when she loses on points or is caught in a deceitful contradiction, such as when she contended the other day that Obama had said Republicans had better ideas than Democrats (he said no such thing), and she blasted Obama for praising the same political skills and vision of Ronald Reagan that she herself has publicly praised.

The Republican field is also dramatically split, but for now the divisions seem to be more ideological than personal.

It will be ironic, though somehow predictable, if it turns out to be the heavily favored Democrats who fall at the hands of the "Anybody But (underscore)(underscore)(underscore)(underscore)(underscore) Coalition."

I believe the technical term for this is "losing ugly."


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Bob Parry Blasts Hillary, upsetting BartCop terribly

If this campaign turns out to be about race or womens' rights instead of our dying country and the miserable murderers who have been running things for the last 7 years, I predict that the USA is over and done....and I'm probably not gonna give a damn.

Anyone who runs for president in America had damned well be ready for insults and worse, fair or unfair. People wanting Americans to give them power need to stop whining, no matter who they are. American, of all stripes, colors, socio-economic backgrounds and situations and/ or gender all have had there fair share of unfair treatment, insults and put-downs. We are just everyday people. If we can handle it, our president should be able to.

Please, No More Whining, Millionaire Presidential candidates.

Oh, by the way, Barak, Hillary, wait until the barbarians on the Right get hold of you.

Hillary Plays a Risky 'Gender Card'

By Robert Parry
January 10, 2008

Many people who know the Clintons insist that the power couple truly wants what’s best for the American people. It’s just that too often their political needs or their personal foibles overwhelm their responsibility to the public interest.

But rarely could the Clintons’ determination to get their way be more detrimental to both the Democratic Party and the United States than if Hillary Clinton continues to play the "gender card" on behalf of her presidential campaign, especially in what is shaping up as a two-person race against an African-American.

Instead of an inspiring campaign between two trail-blazing politicians, the race could degenerate into a spasm of “identity politics” in which two groups – women and blacks – compete over who has been more unfairly repressed.

To this point, Sen. Barack Obama has avoided playing the "race card," favoring uplifting rhetoric about “change” that is underscored – but not overwhelmed – by the fact that he is the first African-American to be given a serious shot at winning the White House.

By contrast, over the past few months, whenever the going has gotten tough, Sen. Clinton has responded with references to herself as an embattled woman facing unfair treatment at the hands of men.

On Nov. 1, 2007, after one bruising Democratic debate, Clinton returned to her alma mater, Wellesley College, and declared that “in so many ways, this all women’s college prepared me to compete in the all boys’ club of presidential politics.”

Clinton then urged Wellesley students to help her win the presidency. “We’re ready to shatter that highest glass ceiling,” Clinton said. [NYT, Nov. 2, 2007]

Similarly, after losing the Iowa caucuses to Obama, Clinton and her supporters appealed to women to rally behind one of their own and to take a stand against sexist oppression.

In a New York Times op-ed, feminist Gloria Steinem went so far as to argue that American women have suffered more political and economic discrimination than American black men.

“Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any woman (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter),” Steinem wrote. [NYT, Jan. 8, 2008]

Steinam is right on the mark about this, though what iit has to do with this all important election, I don't know.

A Bitter Debate

Steinem’s historical arguments threw down a gauntlet to a bitter debate over who’s the bigger victim, blacks or women.

American blacks could reasonably cite their experience with generations of slavery followed by generations of brutal segregation in making the case that giving black men the vote after the Civil War was relatively meaningless.

It was not until the 1960s, when Congress passed the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights laws, that the United States began protecting the franchise of African-Americans across the South, where Jim Crow laws and lynchings had long held blacks down.

But blacks are still disenfranchised through tactics like those used in Florida during Election 2000 when felon purges disqualified hundreds (possibly thousands) of legitimate African-American voters. To this day, Washington D.C.’s heavily black population is denied representation in Congress.

Though dubious and even offensive, Steinem's arguments about the supposed advantages of being a black man in America were embraced by many supporters of Hillary Clinton as New Hampshire voters headed to the polls. Already, Sen. Clinton had set the stage for a women’s power rebound in the first-in-the-nation primary.

In the days after her Iowa defeat, Clinton had won sympathy from some women who were upset that the male-dominated news media was dismissing her as a viable candidate, what could be called the "Chris Matthews factor."

Then, at a Jan. 5 debate moderated by ABC’s Charles Gibson, Clinton was asked why many voters found her unlikable. “Well, that hurts my feelings,” she responded. “I don’t think I’m so bad.”

Obama didn’t help himself either with what sounded like a graceless reaction to the question. “You’re likable enough, Hillary,” he said, causing even some of his supporters to wince.

Then, on Jan. 7, a day before the New Hampshire primary, Sen. Clinton’s voice cracked when responding to a question about how she managed to hold up during the grueling campaign.

“It’s not easy, it’s not easy,” Clinton responded slowly in a softer voice than she normally uses. “I couldn’t do it if I did not passionately believe it was the right thing to do. It’s very personal to me.”

As her eyes grew moist, she added, “You know, I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don’t want to see us fall backwards. It’s about our country, it’s about our kids’ future.”

Then, seamlessly, in the same soft voice, she shifted into political attack mode: “Some of us are right, some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we’ll do on day one and some of us don’t”

Her wet-eyed moment – a woman daring to show her vulnerable side – immediately became a campaign turning point.

‘Iron My Shirts’

The feminist-solidarity vote for Hillary Clinton got another boost during a final speech in Salem, New Hampshire, when two young men began heckling her with the sexist chant, “Iron my shirts!”

Upon hearing the obnoxious chant, Clinton called for the lights in the auditorium to be turned up. Then, seeing the two young men near the front of the audience, she said, “Oh, the remnants of sexism alive and well.”

As security guards escorted the pair from the auditorium, Clinton transformed the incident into a case study of how men oppress women: “As I think has just been abundantly demonstrated, I am also running to break through the highest and hardest glass ceiling.”

Clinton’s comments drew a standing ovation from the crowd and widespread media attention on New Hampshire’s news shows.

One source inside the Clinton camp said the “iron my shirts” comment angered and energized women in particular, while Clinton's tearing up played well with men who suddenly saw her as more human and more appealing.

Though her deft reaction to the “iron my shirts” taunt may have helped her politically, her depiction of it as an example of male oppression holding her down would appear to be a gross exaggeration.

The two hecklers were later identified as Nick Gemelli and Adolfo Gonzalez Jr. [See New York Daily News’ blog.] They are associated with Toucher & Rich, a white-guy-oriented talk show on Boston’s WBCN radio that prides itself in broadcasting content intended for “immature audiences.”

On Jan. 9, the day after Clinton's upset victory in the New Hampshire primary, the show’s host opened by running down the roster of participants and referred to Gonzalez as someone who “single-handedly changed the course of American politics.”

But instead of explaining how Gonzalez achieved that feat, the show veered off into a mocking discussion of “Afros” worn by black baseball players.

The show’s Web site listed a few “fun facts” about Gonzalez: “He weighs 345 lbs. … He couldn’t speak ANY language until he was five. …He has never had health insurance. … He talks to himself. … He has a very messy room.”

Rather than male oppressors protecting the presidential glass ceiling, the two hecklers came across as dumb-guy losers pulling a juvenile shock-jock stunt.

Still, the “iron my shirts” incident fueled the anger of New Hampshire’s women as they turned out in surprisingly strong numbers to give their support to Hillary Clinton.

The longer-term danger, however, is that Clinton’s reliance on the "gender card" – especially as Obama resists playing the "race card" – might ultimately pit two important Democratic constituencies against one another.

Identity politics could trump a serious debate over the candidates’ differences on the Iraq War and other pressing issues. In the end, many Americans surely would be turned off by a high-profile squabble over who has the bigger historic grievance, American women or American blacks.

Given the numerical superiority of women over blacks, that argument might help the Clintons achieve their immediate goal of again capturing the Democratic presidential nomination. But it could leave their party – and their nation – even more divided.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

News Media Misses The Story: N.H. ObEdwards Win

As media commentators proclaim Hillary Clinton's rebirth from the ashes of defeat, they miss a critical story -- Obama and Edwards won the New Hampshire primary. Add together Obama's 36 percent and Edwards's 17, and they beat Clinton's 39 percent by 14 points. And because the Democratic primaries have proportionate representation, they'll in fact come out with more combined delegates -- 13 to Clinton's 9. Though polls are elusive, I've talked or corresponded with hundreds of supporters of both of them, pored through hundreds of blog responses, and from everything I can tell, those backing Obama or Edwards solidly pick the other as their second choice. So if only one were running, they'd be opening up an unambiguous lead. But because Clinton's two main opponents have effectively split the vote, her three-point victory over Obama has revived a campaign that seemed on the verge of meltdown just a few days ago, and left her again the media favorite.

Or, more accurately, the "corporate favorite."

So what are Obama and Edwards or their supporters to do about this? First, remind those covering the race that although Clinton got a split-vote plurality, most Democrats still don't prefer her as their nominee. Some serious polling could help to verify the convergences between the Obama and Edwards supporters and their shared discontents, and maybe we could encourage that.

...."Most Democrats still do not prefer her as their candidate". What's more important, for the all-important general election is what the independents want, as it will be the independent vote that will decide which of the candidates will be our next president. According to every poll we have seen, including our own I.U. internal poll, done over the Holidays, it is Edwards who mops up the floor with every Gooper candidate consistently, head to head, including McCain, who is the most threatening to the Dems in general, as he is more popular with independents than any other Republican candidate, including Ron Paul. We found that surprising, since there are so many of our members who like Paul a lot.

Real political differences separate Clinton from both Edwards and Obama, and we need to at least try and get the media to talk about them. All of these candidates have their flaws and strengths -- on global warming, for instance, they all have excellent plans. But John Edwards wasn't just being rhetorical when he said that both he and Obama represent voices for change, versus Clinton's embodiment of a Washington status quo joining money and power -- albeit a far saner status quo than the crazed Bush version. Clinton recently held a massive fundraising dinner with homeland security lobbyists. Her chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, is CEO of a PR firm that prepped the Blackwater CEO for his recent congressional testimony, is aggressively involved in anti-union efforts, and has represented everyone from the Argentine military junta and Philip Morris to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster. Clinton supported an Iran vote so reckless that Jim Webb called it "Dick Cheney's fondest Pipe Dream," and did so, according to her campaign insiders, because she was covering herself for the general election. She's still not apologized for her Iraq vote, and her hoarding of scarce 2006 campaign dollars may well have cost the Democrats an even larger Congressional victory.

Those who make up the Obedwards constituencies recognize the problems with so many of Clinton's approaches and stands. That's part of what's driving them, along with a genuine passion for Obama and Edwards, and a sense, confirmed by the polls, that either of the two has a better shot at beating the leading Republicans than does Clinton. If we look just at delegates, both Iowa and New Hampshire advanced the Obedwards combined cause. But because the coverage has focused so exclusively on the Obama/Clinton match-up, they've missed that a solid majority of Democrats in both New Hampshire and Iowa rejected a candidate who a short while back was proclaiming her nomination as nearly inevitable.

If all those wary of Clinton coalesced around Obama, he'd become the odds-on favorite to become the Democratic standard-bearer. But at least for now, Edwards is staying in. I think he genuinely wants to keep raising fundamental issues about how divisions of wealth and power have damaged our democracy -- and the people left behind without health care, jobs, or hope. He's also hanging in there in case his message belatedly catches fire, or both Clinton and Obama unexpectedly melt down. So at least for the moment, the Obedwards constituency may keep amassing a majority of elected delegates, while making it more difficult for Obama (or a far longer-shot Edwards) to become the clear front-runner and clinch the nomination.

There are some partial solutions, though, even with both in the race. Beyond reminding the media of their convergences, Obama and Edwards could also keep using their speeches, debates, and ads to highlight the real differences they have with Clinton and her approach, while minimizing their attacks on each other. Of course their main message needs to focus on their own strengths and visions, and the issues about which they feel passionately, but they also need to draw some clear political lines.

Edwards has begun doing this. Obama needs to do it more, and respond more forcefully to the Clinton campaign's attacks and distortions, like their misstatements of his record on Iraq and abortion choice. I think he can do this while continuing to flesh out a more specific vision of what he stands for, in stories that people can understand.

It's a tricky dance, since Hillary, Bill, and their surrogates will continue to dismiss any criticisms as "the boys" ganging up on the woman. This narrative indeed seemed to work when Clinton's tears set off a wave of sympathy and female solidarity that most likely swung New Hampshire. But so long as Obama and Edwards keep talking about real issues, and do so in a civil way, I think Hillary's complaints about being picked on will yield a diminishing return, especially if they highlight the Clinton campaign's own history of attack dog politics--like their successfully killing a major negative story in the men's magazine GQ by threatening to deny the publication future access to Bill Clinton for a separate cover story they were writing.

For me, personally, it would be great if Bill Clinton had less exposure. I'm still suffering from Clinton fatigue after all these years. I know that there are those of us who suffer from Clinton nostalgia but would they, if we had not had 7 years of America's number one crime family (extended) running the country, into the ground?

But the fundamental fault lines in this campaign are about whose interests the candidates are likely to heed, and they need to be articulated. Think back to Clinton's six years on the Wal-Mart board, during which she said nothing to protest the company's relentless union-busting and destruction of small-town businesses. Obama, meanwhile, was working as a community organizer, and then at a law firm that represented local organizers. Edwards pursued and won lawsuits on corporate malfeasance. The two of them need to highlight the links between their past history and their joint refusal to take donations from lobbyists, and their strong and early stands for fundamental campaign finance reform: Obama pushed a major bill while still in the Illinois legislature -- Clinton signed on only after Common Cause ran a full-page Iowa ad. They should also challenge Clinton's argument that the way to make change is to reduce our expectations and hopes.

Obama and Edwards could also make an even more explicit alliance. Each could pledge, for instance, to nominate the other for Vice President, or publicly state that if no candidate got an absolute majority going into the Democratic convention, whichever of the two trailed would throw their support to the other. Given the rules on proportionate representation, this would allow both to keep campaigning as passionately as possible without falling into the trap of political spoiler.

This last might be particularly attractive to Edwards, since otherwise, those who feel he'd still be the best candidate really do face the choice between risking helping Clinton defeat Obama, or eroding their support for Edwards so much he'd have little choice but to leave the race. Edwards might not even have to make a formal pledge, but just to keep reminding voters -- and the media -- that if no candidate gets an absolute majority before the convention, he'd encourage his delegates and those of Obama to join together at that point. The approach is probably less likely for Obama, because he still has a major shot without it, but he might consider it if the votes continue to divide and we end up with gridlock.

Most likely, all three candidates are going to stay in the race, at least for a while. Even if Obama does not prevail outright, if he and Edwards keep gaining delegates at their current rate and can convince the uncommitted Super-Delegates to respect the will of the voters, they should go into the convention with enough combined votes for one or the other to win. The more they can keep reminding us all how much their supporters want a politics no longer ruled by money and fear, the more they'll increase their odds.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Clinton Attack On Obama may well backfire, Big Time.

This is really quite amazing. Given what the presidency means today, could anyone running for the job be accused of having no ambition?

Ambition is not the problem. All presidential candidates are ambitious people to some degree. More, our concern is where will the candidates' ambition take the nation. Who can start the long process of cleaning up the horrible mess in which we find ourselves after years of war-making and tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate types who are in least need of more money. Who can bail us out of the oncoming recession. Who can begin to reset America's reputation. Whomever we elect can only begin to turn the nation around. It may take generations to overcome what the Bushites have done to it.

This Clinton attack on Obama could boomerang

by Frank James

When a political candidate opens a line of attack against an opponent, it's usually wise to avoid the kind of criticism that will be viewed by many observers as the pot-calling-the-kettle-black, the sort of finger-pointing that can easily be turned back on the finger pointer.

That would seem to be the case with the renewed effort by Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign to dirty up Sen. Barack Obama by accusing him of wanting to be president ever since he was just out of the womb and not being honest about it. The Clinton campaign issued a press release Sunday that included this:

In third grade, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want To Be a President.' His third grade teacher: Fermina Katarina Sinaga "asked her class to write an essay titled 'My dream: What I want to be in the future.' Senator Obama wrote 'I want to be a President,' she said." [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]

In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.’ "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07 ]

Yes, you can believe your eyes. The Clinton people are citing a kindergarten essay by Obama as evidence against him in a presidential campaign. Good thing he was born before widespread pre-natal ultrasounds. Who knows how they might've used that against him?

Clinton's people have thrown similar jabs before at Obama but it hasn't fazed him. So their seems to be a little more fury behind the punches as now that Obama's may have taken the lead in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register's most recent poll.

Obama, of course, has gotten under the Clinton campaign's skin by saying that unlike some in the race (read Clinton) he hasn't been angling for the White House for decades.

Coming from the same political school as her husband, who himself appeared to be eyeing the presidency since at least toddlerhood, a school which holds as a first principle that no opponent's charge can go unanswered, the Clinton campaign decided it needed to respond in kind.

Note that It hasn't gone the route of saying the former first lady hasn't been calculating her White House bid for years. That wouldn't be credible.

So the only other attack is to try a little political jiu jitsu, to turn try and turn Obama's attack against him.

One goal is to show that the senator from Illinois is no stranger to ambition, calculation and all those other attributes often ascribed to the junior senator of New York. That might help blunt such charges against Clinton if she can make it appear that she and Obama are really very much alike in this respect.

But it's also a play at catching out Obama as not the man of integrity he portrays himself as in order to turn down the wattage on that halo voters seem to see when he walks into a room.

The problem for Clinton is that her campaign's attempt to paint Obama as a calculating type who precociously hungered for the presidency runs the risk of reminding voters of some of the very questions they have about her, that she herself has wanted the presidency for decades and has plotted her course with that in mind. There's the real possibility of blowback because of perceived hypocrisy.

But the situation in Iowa has clearly gotten so dicey from the Clinton campaign perspective, that it's clearly willing to run that risk.

Here's a press release the Clinton campaign issued Sunday:

SEN. OBAMA REWRITES HISTORY,

CLAIMS HE HASN’T BEEN PLANNING WHITE HOUSE RUN

Today in Iowa, Senator Barack Obama said: "I have not been planning to run for President for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for.”

Oh really?

“Senator Obama’s comment today is fundamentally at odds with what his teachers, family, classmates and staff have said about his plans to run for President,” Clinton spokesperson Phil Singer said. “Senator Obama’s campaign rhetoric is getting in the way of his reality.”

Immediately after joining the Senate, Senator Obama started planning run for President. "'The first order of business for Senator Obama's team was charting a course for his first two years in the Senate. The game plan was to send Senator Obama into the 2007-2008 election cycle in the strongest form possible'...The final act of the plan was turning up the talk about a potential Presidential bid, which was greatly aided by his positive press and suggestions by pundits that he run for President." [U.S. News and World Report, 6/19/07 ]

His law school classmates say that Senator Obama has been planning Presidential run for 'more than a decade.' [A]ccording to those who know him, he has been talking about the presidency for more than a decade. "It was clear to me from the day I met him that he was thinking about politics," says Harvard Law School classmate Christine Spurell. [Washington Post, 8/12/07 ]

15 years ago, Senator Obama told his brother-in-law he was planning to run for President. Craig [Robinson] pulled him aside [in 1992] and asked about his plans. "He said, 'I think I'd like to teach at some point in time, and maybe run for public office,' recalls Robinson, who assumed Senator Obama meant he'd like to run for city alderman. "He said no -- at some point he'd like to run for the U.S. Senate. And then he said, 'Possibly even run for President at some point.' And I was like, 'Okay, but don't say that to my Aunt Gracie.' I was protecting him from saying something that might embarrass him." [Washington Post, 8/12/07 ]

In third grade, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want To Be a President.' His third grade teacher: Fermina Katarina Sinaga "asked her class to write an essay titled 'My dream: What I want to be in the future.' Senator Obama wrote 'I want to be a President,' she said." [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]

In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.’ "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07 ]

Posted by Frank James on December 3

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.