Dean's strategy of 50 state campaigning is bringing real democracy back to America.  IMO he's the best DNC Chairman that ever filled that role.

Awesome firsties, rdorgan. I agree!!!

I've been kind of following the Scooter trial.  I'm having dreams of Cheney's perp walk.

Go Fitz!!

This may sound kind of harsh but five will get you ten that you are going to have to either choose between Obama and Clinton, or opt out entirely.  

++++

Tom -

Time will tell.  But for one voter here's what she has decided:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/richards/246490,CST-EDT-CINDY07.article

The awesome power of the Obama-for-president machine will kick into high gear Saturday when the man meets the masses at an event to be held in the shadow of the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln.

The Springfield setting is fitting. Sans Lincoln, who knows whether we would have become a country where it would be possible for an interracial union to spawn Barack Obama, let alone one in which a biracial man could be considered a serious contender for the presidency. And Lincoln's image as a uniter in a divided country is one that Obama hopes to carry into this race.

Coming as it does during the same election cycle that also includes the first woman to be considered a serious contender for the presidency, Obama's campaign leaves those of us who consider ourselves feminists with a quandary: Do we stick with the woman who talks tough and has the moxie to win but is saddled with naggingly high disapproval ratings? Or, are we more likely to serve the best interests of women by going with the guy who is a moral leader with a fabulous wife who would never let him support a policy without first considering how it would affect women?

It's been a tough internal battle for me. But I'm going with Obama. Here are my Top 10 reasons why:

1. He can get the cash.

...

2. His relative inexperience is a red herring.

...

3. He's got the brains.

...

4. He has the audacity to hope. ... It's something this country sorely needs.

5. He's got the presence. ... Unlike many of his political contemporaries -- failed Democratic contender John Kerry comes to mind -- Obama is just as comfortable in a room full of steelworkers.

6. He's not tainted by that pesky war.

...

7. His heart is where America needs it. He's on the right side of solutions for America's problems with education, urban decay, health care, poverty, tax policy and so many others that have been all but ignored for the last six years.

8. He's got religion and isn't afraid to admit it.

...

9. He's got religion and doesn't feel the need to impose it on the rest of us. 'Nuff said.

10. He can win. His message of one America, not a black America and a white America living in blue states and red states, is one that ought to resonate with good people of all colors and in both kinds of states.

mary vb -

Indeed, Howard in his role now is like a worker bee, the main cog in the wheel that is changing the dynamism, getting the job done, etc.

So he didn't get to be president but in the role he's serving now, IMO he is accomplishing so much more.

One day ALL Americans, including repubs, will realize the good that Howard has brought about to making a healthier two-party system in America.

Competition is good and healthy.

rdorgan - Ya know - the Republicans do know - which is why you see and hear them talk so viciously about him. He's such a threat which means he's doing his job. They've tried to paint him as a looney (a la Rich Lowrey at The National Review) but that's okay - people are finding out the truth. Sadly, they're about four years behind us. LOL!

ps - my husband is now leaning Obama.

mary vb -

Indeed during the reign so far of  Howard Dean (as DNC Chairman) and Mike Duncan and his predecessor Ken Mehlman (RNC Chairman), could be thought of like cars as Toyota in competition with GM and Ford, you get to see the point about how competition, especially on the basis of quality, improves all cars for all Americans.

As for the election, I'm glad there's so many choices of candidates running.  It's good to hear about your husband's leaning.  Thanks for sharing that.

I enjoyed hearing all the candidates have to swollow their tongues and recognize Governor Dean and his accomplishments, after many of then talked bad about him and his strategy, alligning themselves with the DLC crowd.

When people are strong and smart and follow their convictions, don't become timid and fall for talking points, they succeed, as Governor Dean clearly demonstrates.

Feingold: On Iraq, it's us vs. the Washington consultant class
By David Sirota

Created Feb 5 2007 - 9:40pm

Following Republican shenanigans on the floor of the Senate tonight [1] whereby the GOP filibustered Sen. John Warner's (R-VA) non-binding Iraq resolution, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) held a conference call to discuss exactly what the hell is going on. You can listen to a three-minute audio excerpt in Windows Media format here [2] and MP3 format here [3] - it is an exchange I had with Feingold about the power equation at work behind all the rhetoric coming out Washington.

After the election we had on November 7th and after polls have registered the public's deep anger at the President for trying to escalate the war, you would think Democrats would be pushing legislation with real teeth and not just non-binding nothingness, especially if the GOP was going to filibuster anyway. Well, you'd be wrong. In the audio excerpt [4], I asked Feingold if this is because of Ben Nelson-ism [5] - that is, because of conservative Democrats who are willing to use a brinkmanship progressive senators rarely use. As you can hear, Feingold says it's even deeper - he says this is a battle between Democrats' Washington consultant class and the rest of the country - and he specifically targets the D.C. elites from the Clinton administration, who he accurately notes largely supported the war from the get-go.

Full article
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/5285/p...

Senator Barak Obama is going to make time in his busy Senate schedule to visit the University of New Hampshire next Monday and share his wisdom with us. So much for the five day schedule that the Democrats announced when they took over the management of the House and Senate.

Some people, like Edwards and Vilsack have cleared their calendars of other obligations while they offer their services to the nation. That counts for much in my book. I do not think the holders of one office should be seeking another at the same time.

Cheney's Fund Manager Attacks ... Cheney


By Brett Arends
Mutual Funds Columnist
2/5/2007 7:57 AM EST
Click here for more stories by Brett Arends


The oil-based energy policies usually associated with Vice President Dick Cheney have just come under scathing attack. There's nothing remarkable about that, of course -- except the person doing the attacking.




1. Google's Wild Ride Is Over
2. Cisco Hits the Spot
3. Stockpickr: Four Ways to Win Like Buffett
4. Cisco Ready to Roll
5. Google Retools for the Battle With Microsoft





Fisher Investments
CyberTrader

TD AMERITRADE
Scottrade

Fidelity Investments
E*TRADE Financial



Step forward, Jeremy Grantham -- Cheney's own investment manager. "What were we thinking?' Grantham demands in a four-page assault on U.S. energy policy mailed last week to all his clients, including the vice president.

Titled "While America Slept, 1982-2006: A Rant on Oil Dependency, Global Warming, and a Love of Feel-Good Data," Grantham's philippic adds up to an extraordinary critique of U.S. energy policy over the past two decades.

What Cheney makes of it can only be imagined.

"Successive U.S. administrations have taken little interest in either oil substitution or climate change," he writes, "and the current one has even seemed to have a vested interest in the idea that the science of climate change is uncertain."

Yet "there is now nearly universal scientific agreement that fossil fuel use is causing a rise in global temperatures," he writes. "The U.S. is the only country in which environmental data is steadily attacked in a well-funded campaign of disinformation (funded mainly by one large oil company)."

Full article
http://www.thestreet.com/funds/fundmorni...

oops, sorry, that was off to the side and I didn't notice it.

Act I, Scene II ? 

Bombs away ?

Are we about to witness the return of the use of cluster bombs by the Israelies dropped on Lebanon ?

Didn't the Lebanese people suffer enough last July '07 under Israeli bombardment ?:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_lebanon

Israel weighing force against Hezbollah

By LAURIE COPANS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 54 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - Israel's defense minister on Wednesday accused Syria of allowing the rearmament of Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and said Israel has the right to act "forcefully" against the Shiite militia to counter the threat.

...

U.S. military says copter down in Iraq By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 42 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A Sea Knight helicopter went down northwest of Baghdad on Wednesday, the military said, the fifth helicopter lost in Iraq in just over two weeks.

The CH-46 helicopter went down about 20 miles northwest of the capital, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said, but he declined to comment on casualties.

-----

It was LOST before the first boot hit the ground.

What a foreign policy disaster...

Remember, if you make it to Las Vegas for this weekends training, you can catch a show.

Prince is still playing!   

My mother was talking about being scared, because Bushie is saying Iran is giving Iraq weapons.

And I asked, what about the US giving all these bombs to Israel to attack Lebanon?

Morning Folks,

I'm still of the opinion that all this running for president circus is inappropriate at this time and a diversion from what our senators were elected to do.  It's like a huge Miss America popularity contest and reflects a national obsession with adolescent popularity.  Harumph!

Here's something that may interest you.  Twenty states have introduced resolutions opposing the escalation in Iraq.

For more information on the Progressive States campaign, the individual bills in specific states, President Bush's  proposed escalation, or state resolution language, please visit 

www.progressivestates.org/iraq

The Progressive States Network was founded in 2005 to drive public  policy debates and change the political landscape in the United States by focusing on attainable and progressive state level actions.

States with Resolutions

1.    Arizona

2.    California

3.    Colorado

4.    Connecticut

5.    Georgia

6.    Iowa

7.    Kansas

8.    Maine

9.    Massachusetts

10. Minnesota

11. Missouri

12. Montana

13. New Jersey

14. New York

15. North Dakota

16. Oklahoma

17. Oregon

18. Rhode Island

19. Texas

20. Vermont

21. Washington

oops, I must have had a Back To The Future moment --

typo - Didn't the Lebanese people suffer enough last July '07

s/b - Didn't the Lebanese people suffer enough last July '06

GOP Views Clinton as Virtually Unbeatable...

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?...

Jeez Louise - these pundits just don't get it. It's like opposite day. They said they really wanted Howard Dean to be the nominee because they'd cream him. Now they're saying Hillary is unbeatable so they're guaranteed a landslide.

Wake up, people!

February 7th, 2007 1:37 am
House Panel Questions Monitoring of Cash Shipped to Iraq

By Philip Shenon / New York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 — A House committee report on Tuesday questioned whether some of the billions of dollars in cash shipped to Iraq after the American invasion — mostly in huge, shrink-wrapped stacks of $100 bills — might have ended up with the insurgent groups now battling American troops.

---------

This missing Iraq QUAGMIRE bread could be used to pay for these childrens' healthcare programs that states are unable to finance.....like Georgia's PeachCare program.

How 'bout a little nation-buildin' at home?

Breaking on CNN that seven died in the helo crash today.

Sitting ducks.

btw,

Senate Rules Committee will be having their hearing on the Impeachement of Bush/Cheney this Friday at the State House.

Pat

IMHO the fact that a number of Senators have Presidential ambitions has moved the debate forward.

they have listened enough to out here in the country to recognize thay can no longer go along with Bush

it may mean gridlock, but there is now a solid 40 on our side

Iraqis trying to flee the chaos of Iraq and those just rying to return to school here in America, on 1/08/07 U.S. immigration just made it tougher for Iraqis to come to America -- they now must first travel internally to Baghdad:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/07/passport_rule_change_in_us_keeps_iraqis_out/

By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff  |  February 7, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The US government last month stopped accepting all but the latest version of Iraqi passports, effectively barring hundreds -- potentially thousands -- of Iraqis with valid US visas from entering the United States, including some students at Boston-area universities.

The move has stranded Iraqi families around the world and made it more difficult for countless others to flee the chaos-ridden country, according to Iraqi officials.

In January, the United States said it would no longer accept most previously issued Iraqi passports because they were too easily forged. Instead, Iraqis entering the United States have to have newly issued, electronically readable passports. But none of Iraq's 50 embassies around the world has the machines required to produce the new passports, Samir Sumaida'ie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States, said in an interview yesterday.

Sumaida'ie said the State Department gave the Iraqi government no time to prepare for the change, announcing on Jan. 8 that, effective immediately, the new passports would be required. He said it would be months before the embassies receive the new machines and training needed to produce the new kind of passport

Now Iraqi citizens are being told that the only way to get a valid passport is to travel to Baghdad. But Sumaida'ie acknowledged that it would be an extreme hardship for most Iraqis abroad to make such a trip.

time to play a game of chicken on the supplemental

the nation expects Democrats to cut off funding, there will be no penalty at the polls 

the good news from the Libby trial is that we can start the impeachment at the right place and work up

20.
Actually, the money being referenced was Iraqi money that had been deposited in U.S. banks. The rationale for sending it all over was that the new government might not know how to access money in U.S. bank accounts. Why it was handed out on street corners instead of stored in the vault of the Bank of Iraq was not asked or answered. Bremer gave the impression that since it was Iraqi money, he was not much concerned about its disposition. Iraq's assets were never a high priority, except for the oil installations and even those haven't been brought to working properly.

It's clear that all of these people have embraced failure. I don't know if you'd call it magical thinking, but they seem convinced that if they fail often enough, success has to eventually follow.

and some Iraqis are being asked to travel from external to Iraq back to Baghdad:

(continued)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/07/passport_rule_change_in_us_keeps_iraqis_out/

... 

"It is a bit unfair to demand that people go to Baghdad," he said. "There is the expense, the risk, the security situation. It is difficult for people, so they are left with very hard choices. . . . Many people who want to travel are inconvenienced, or indeed stranded."

Omar Dewachi , a doctoral student in anthropology at Harvard, has been trying since October to get back to Cambridge from Montreal, where he has been writing his dissertation. Traveling to and from the United States has never been easy because the US government requires him to reapply for his student visa each time he leaves the country. This week, US officials called Dewachi to say that he had finally gotten the visa, three months after he applied, but that his passport was now invalid.

Dewachi thought it would be a simple matter of getting a new passport from the consulate in Ottawa. But he says that when he called, officials there told him that he would have to go to Baghdad.

"It's a bureaucratic nightmare," Dewachi said in a telephone interview from Montreal.

Dewachi said he has no intention of going to Baghdad, a city he hasn't visited since 1998 and where he has no remaining family members.

"If you read the reports from Iraq, they are killing guys named Omar," he said, referring to the sectarian strife between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims.

...

rdorgan

I'll give you my first hand impressions of Obama this weekend.

He made a credible proposal for a  resolution near a national consensus position. (not out front, but in the crowd)

enough to keep people from jumping on him as he campaigns

check out Vilsacks position if you want leadership (rib, rib)

Great coordination !

We got a rolling U.S. military surge in street-fighting in Baghdad at the same time the U.S. government is requiring that Iraqis travel to Baghdad to arrange to get a new passport in order to attempt to come to America. 

Phil -

I'm glad you're able to see Obama this weekend, not in Springfield, IL but when he travels to Waterloo and Cedar Rapids Iowa, correct ?

As for Vilsack, yes I like what he is saying. 

Hi Folks,

 You have a point, Phil.  I guess I'm not sure whether it's a diversion or a reaching out.  I want this administration marginalized, stopped, impeached, actually they should be punished with imprisonment, though Americans mostly don't want their presidents to go to jail.  Maybe, had Nixon gone to jail, it would have been a deterrent to this latest crop of malefactors. 

But, thanks for the input.  It helps ameliorate my disgust and anger at the impotence of Congress.

I am impressed with Vilsack, also, and appreciate your input.  I'm glad also to hear good things of other candidates.

Rdorgan, your analysis of Howard Dean's effect I think is right on.  He's done so much more good as chair of the DNC than he could have done with a republican Congress.  He has been a mover and shaker, and I expect he will continue to be.  He's just so smart and honest. 

I hope u all got to see the daily show from last  nite. It had the candidates from the dnc meeting and it is hilarious. you can probably see it on comedy central or at 2pm today or 8pm tonite.

funny.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=81857&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2Findex.jhtml%3Fml_video%3D81857%26ml_collection%3D%26ml_gateway%3D%26ml_comedian%3Dnone%26ml_context%3Dshow&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

it's called "run dnc"

... Howard Dean's effect I think is right on.  He's done so much more good as chair of the DNC than he could have done with a republican Congress. ...

+++

Pat -

Indeed, in the great tapestry (cloth) of life, it's amazing where some of the most vibrant fibers (those with the most fiber) end up.

If you are watching cpan u see that our democracy has come to an end.

you have the likes of sen. mcconnell with a smirk on his face stopping the debate about iraq.

and they will fillibuster? we , the dems were warned about that last session and now the rethugs are using it.

while are kids are being killed to the tune of almost 400 in the last couple months. they have smirks on their faces.

this is just plain awful.

7 killed in the helicopter crash in iraq.

7 more killed for bush's war.

This is a response to 61. Phil Specht :

"There are equal numbers of splinter parties in all directions, but a true reform party could expect 15% of the vote or more. In the actual election they tend to tilt the winner in the opposite direction of the intended one.

John Anderson and Ross Perot both."

Again the arrogance shines through. What makes you think that these and other independents "intend" to tilt the election towards any of the two big fat cats ? If they really intended that, would they not be merely supporting the fat cat of their choice and not running themselves. Time to get over the hubris ?

The mind boggles. 

GOP Views Clinton as Virtually Unbeatable...

Wake up, people!

------------------

All it  says is that they love to hate her, and the Democrats will be unbeatable and there is a fait accompli disposition that she is already ordained.

Dream on, people.

I for one, am sick of pre-ordained establishment leaders.  This party needs new faces and new directions.  Let the process play out and let's hear them debate - and may the best Democrat win - not necessarily the richest and slickest.

Ok. The Senate is toothless and spineless. What is the House doing ?

Over the last few weeks, the Senate has made a spectacle of itself in trying to decide which kind of hot air it wants to send forth (when voters asked for an actual end to the madness, and not just sending a signal about talking about an end to that madness), finally ending up not sending even any hot air over.

Too many Democrats in Senate are running for the White House and most of them still labor under the mythical need to burnish their "national security" credentials (ahem, its more like a cowardly bully trying to punch a wall to appear tough to the in-crowd, but never mind). There are too few Russ Feingolds and too many Hillary Clintons to do anything decisive.

I have a simple question - if the Senate is a write-off, why can't the House do the needful ? Bush is going to beg for money for his misbegotten Iraq disaster, and if the House says no, there is nothing in the world that Cheney or his pal Hillary Clinton or any other wussycrat in the Senate can do about it. End of the story, or am I missing something ? The House does not have a filibuster. 

40.

FRED from OR

The "best" Democrat in the context of getting the nomination is usually the richest and / or the slickest.

Oh, joys of the two party system. 

41.

Robert Singh
Wed, 02/07/07
1:02 pm

...am I missing something?
---------
I don't think so.., all money Bush projected in his budget will be assign accordingly almost unaltere..., though some hot air will be, of course released, for...public consumption.
We've seen it many times before..., lol.
Long live Hollywood Republic!

Iraqi  students can't come here to go to school, yet last year I believe it was 5000 (500?)Saudi MEN that were allowed to come here to *study.*  Hello, anyone home?

*********************************

I see the *surge* is moving right along, killing more and more of ours.  Cut off the f**cking funding NOW.

***********************************

"JERUSALEM - Israel's defense minister on Wednesday accused Syria of allowing the rearmament of Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and said Israel has the right to act "forcefully" against the Shiite militia to counter the threat."

It appears that Israel thinks it also has the right to "forcefully" act against Iran.  We may be able to stop putz and prick from attacking directly from the air, since even repugs are saying that bushco can't start another war w/o congressional approval. So Israel will do it and we can then justify retaliating any way we please - and I don't see any way to stop Olmert save one.  Congress could immediately cut off arms shipment to Israel.  NOW.  It's bad enuf to have to deal with insane fanatics here, but we also have them in Israel.

My question for the day is this:  Why did the move to pass a non-binding resolution start in the divided Senate where it was likely to fail,  and not the House, where it could pass quickly?  Reid and Pelosi don't seem to be thinking straight, unless they were wanting to waste time to allow putz to start the escalation so that they wouldn't have to cut off funds for it.  I just don't trust these 2 people at all.    Reid isn't very bright IMO, but a pleasant man.  Pelosi is bright, but not necessarily on our side when it comes to the ME.   IMO

Obama to quit.........smoking

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2855994&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

 I hope he's successful. In today's world, smokers are by definition, not Presidential material.

Smokers are either stupid, or have an addictive personality.  Either trait is unacceptable IMO.

I was mindlessly watching a Wash Journal rerun when I saw the crawl say something about Libby said he, Cheney, Bush plotted to leak... so I ran to the capitalnews.org and here is the headline and link to LA Times

Lewis Libby Told Grand Jury of Plot to Leak Intel

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...


Why is this not more explosive than the astronaut in the diaper I ask you??

Robert Singh
Wed, 02/07/07
1:03 pm

----------------

I would fully support third party liberals running, but we need a runoff law first, and I would assume that would require a Constitutional Amendment. - or else it is indirect 1/2 vote for the opposition.  What part of this do you not understand?

 Does anybody know more about whether it would require an amendment?

sorry

"historically they have tended" might have been clearer

and absolutely true

Sorry, can't climb on the Obama train, except as VP.  JFK was a superstar for sure, but he wasn't slick.  Obama is both IMO.

If and when he quits smoking, he's going to get in touch with anger big time.  Never fails.  Smoking, like drugs and booze, mask unexpressed anger.  It's stuffed.  Trust me.  I quit booze and my rage  came out. (and most of it not even justified)  Years later I quit smoking and even more anger came up.  It was a mind-opener to be sure.  Take peoples' TVs away from them and see what happens.  The whole purpose of addiction is to surpress rage that's never been dealt with or that's been misconstrued or  misdirected or even misunderstood.  Try denying sex addicts sex and then duck! 

Not that Obama is a loose cannon or that I wouldn't vote for a smoker, but I watch candidates carefully for addictive behavior.  HC is addicted to power and loves to control.  Guiliani may have an addiction to sex and/or relationships.  Relationship addiction is a serious problem that goes mostly unnoticed.  JFK also had problems but it didn't seem to interfer with ability to be prez.  However, a candidate addicted to booze or drugs, or never treated (putz) is not a good person to elect. 

On the fence about Vilsack.  He's doesn't seem strong enuf to go up against the viciousness of the powers that be.   

Ah, pontificating again.  LOL

Applying the Nuremberg Standard to Iraq

http://www.counterpunch.org/swindell02072007.html

Crimes Listed by the Nuremberg Standard of 1947: a war of aggression, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for its accomplishment; murder or ill-treatment of civilian populations in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war; plunder of public or private property; wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; crimes against humanity such as murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war.

Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Fallujah, the rape of Lebanon, the concentration camps in the West Bank and Gaza, clandestine prisons, the Iraq embargo of the 1990s, Halliburton, and Black Water. There are more, but these will suffice to compare against the Nuremberg Standard. It will not be a difficult task.

There is no way to effectively "confront" Iran except with tactical nuclear weapons. Tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children will die outright or suffer lingering deaths from horrible radiation sicknesses. It will be murder, pure and simple. Look at the suffering around you and multiply it by hundreds.

No doubt you know that back home, 80 per cent of the American people voted in the last election to end the Iraq debacle, but no one in Washington listened. Our two-faced media watchdogs are a gaggle of neocon propaganda peddlers, corporate whores and New World Order shills who helped orchestrate and cheerlead the slaughter, and they sneer at your patriotism behind your backs.

Everything you've been told about Iraq is a pack of lies, and the powers that be seem to think we're all stupid enough to be conned again. We can't trust our elected representatives to carry out the will of the people. They're been bought and sold, and have just proven it. For all practical purposes, a coup d'etat has taken place.

(repost from an earlier thread yesterday)

107.

jc - 

He's already addressing that:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0702060167feb06,1,1003440.story?track=rss

Obama launches an '07 campaign --to quit smoking

By Christi Parsons and Manya A. Brachear, Tribune staff reporters; Christi Parsons reported from Washington and Manya A. Brachear from Chicago
Published February 6, 2007

After struggling to quit smoking in the past, Sen. Barack Obama is trying a cessation aid not available over the counter: public attention.

Obama (D-Ill.) resolved to quit his cigarette habit over the winter holidays, just weeks before his expected presidential campaign would make photographers and reporters an even more regular part of his life.
 

He said in a Monday interview that, although he has never been a heavy smoker, he has quit for periods over the last several years but then slipped back into the habit. On the cusp of a potential presidential bid seemed the right time to quit for good, he said.

"I've never been a heavy smoker," Obama said. "I've quit periodically over the last several years. I've got an ironclad demand from my wife that in the stresses of the campaign I don't succumb. I've been chewing Nicorette strenuously."

The incentive to quit is great for any office seeker, as increasingly negative attitudes about smoking translate into political pressure not to do it--or at least not to be caught doing it. At a time when most willing public figures also are expected to serve as role models, those with unhealthy habits face intense pressure to leave them behind.

Americans haven't elected an open and unabashed cigarette-smoking president since Franklin Roosevelt, though others such as Lyndon Johnson smoked on occasion. The rules seem also to extend to political spouses such as First Lady Laura Bush, who found it necessary to quash her habit, or at least take it underground.

Pressure on the home front

In Obama's case, the pressure isn't just political. His wife has always been concerned about his smoking and, over the holidays, according to family friend Valerie Jarrett, the two of them agreed that he "should stop now."

"He began the process of quitting over Christmas," Jarrett said. "I have not heard of him smoking over the last several weeks."

...

While quitting during such a stressful period as a presidential campaign may be difficult, public health advocates count it as a victory for them.

"I hope he makes it a public fight," said Mark Peysakhovich of the American Heart Association, who used to lobby Obama on anti-smoking policies and other public health issues when Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate. "If he's got a nic fit and he's in a bad mood, I hope some of that comes out. Maybe it will encourage other people to be brave enough to try."

It might even score political points for Obama, he said.

"It could make him more human to people," said Peysakhovich, "if he's got the same kind of struggles the rest of us have."

..from annilow's link

Why the Democrats Won't Save Us

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank02072007.html

Over the past weekend Hillary Clinton pledged to end the war in Iraq if she is elected. "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will," she told a large crowd at the Democratic National Committee's winter convention in Washington. Also in attendance at the DNC meeting were other presidential hopefuls, including John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama, who both attempted to paint themselves as the best antiwar candidate in the hunt for the White House.

The top candidates' tepid words on Iraq were a sign of what's to come over the next year and a half as their rhetorical talents are turned on high. Despite Obama's reassurance that he did not support the war from the beginning, along with Edwards' claims that he's had a change of heart on his past pro-war votes -- neither candidate distinguished their position from the Bush administration when it came to the looming Iran confrontation.

In fact two weeks earlier, while visiting Israel, Edwards laid out his position on Iran quite succinctly:

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."

Hillary Clinton pushed virtually the same bitter line while addressing the annual AIPAC convention held in New York City last week.

Barack Obama has also been upfront about how he would deal with Iran, arguing that he would not rule out the use of force and supports surgical strikes of alleged nuclear sites in the country if diplomacy (read: coercion) fails. To put it bluntly, none of the front running Democrats are opposed to Bush's dubious "war on terror" or his bullying of Iran. They support his aggression in principle but simply believe a Democratic presidency could handle the job more astutely. All put Israel first and none are going to fundamentally alter U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Times like these require bravery. They require a fight. A fight against immoral and illegal policies. A fight against tyranny. A fight for freedom. Freedom from hatred. Freedom from occupation. Americans and the people of the Middle East deserve better than Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. They deserve to live their lives without the threat of warfare and bloodshed. They deserve to live without fear.

45.

Huron John
Wed, 02/07/07
1:22 pm

,,,In today's world, smokers are by definition, not Presidential material.

Smokers are either stupid, or have an addictive personality. Either trait is unacceptable IMO.
----------
???
Doesn't match to the current office occupier:
not stupid (billions of $$ ARE stolen with no consequences);
non-smoker;
but addictive to his democracy spreading fantasies..., lol.

I know a lot of people that smoke.  I don't consider myself any more smart than them.

Many of them are in various stages of trying to quit.  I don't find them anymore irritable than non-smokers around me who have quit or who have never picked up a cigarette.

Here's the full paragraph

WASHINGTON — Former White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury in 2004 that Vice President Dick Cheney was upset by an ambassador's public questioning of the Iraq war and that President Bush, Cheney and Libby were involved in a plan — kept secret from other senior White House officials — to leak previously classified intelligence to reporters to counter the criticism.

2004????  And these criminals are still in office?  Just how slowly do those wheels of justice grind?

Will all the smokers please take this discussion (and your cigarettes) outside.

53.

Huron John
Wed, 02/07/07
1:37 pm

Why the Democrats Won't Save Us
...
--------
right..., nobody will, but people themselves...
Even Bin-Laden said to Americans long ago..., don't remember he ever lied...

49.

Seashell

It depends on your physical makeup I guess. When I quit smoking tons of years ago, I felt completely better, started jogging again and lot a few pounds I didn't want. My asthma got better, I met a man I fell in love with and married (my spouse), and I certainly didn't have any anger about anything.

Still on the fence about Obama though, If Gore doesn't run (I'm still feeling he will), then Obama is the only one on the horizon that looks acceptable simply because I don't believe a word the others are saying.

Good post about Giuliani running for prez and how that would help  Dems win, not that we will need much help if the Rethugs keep shooting themselves in the foot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/how-giuliani-will-help-el_b_40558.html?p=2#comments

57. LOL, cough, choke!

I'm not altogether comforted that NV may be choosing our next prez as was suggested above.  And it's a caucus besides.  Yikes.

I NEVER get a chance to help choose and I hate that unfairness. 

Gore Gore Gore and others no more!!! 

Joan, I think I had more problems than most becuz of also being an alcoholic.  I'm glad your experience was good and mine was also after I processed the anger.  :-) Plus I had so much more money.....but I didn't sleep well for months....

47.

FRED from OR

I am no expert but I do not think a constitutional amendment is needed. Each state gets to decide how its electors are selected and counted. For instance, Nebraska apportions its electors according to the vote share they got. As does Maine (unless I am much mistaken).

States set their voting laws. This is why a national third party run is needed along with local and state level. The two party lockout is even worse at the state level due to the bigger relative mountain that a non fat cat candidate would have to climb. And that would not be enough either.

Consider the Libertarian Party - they have been at it (running across the board for decades). Yet, they have no national level elected office holders (none in Congress, no President). They have pockets of strength out here in the West, but that is it.

No monopoly will ever sign its own death warrant and expecting the two fat cat parties to pass any legislation to open up the system to more competitors is futile. They have just too much invested in this zero sum game that leads nowhere.

The solution lies with people like you and me and others. For starters, you have to stop thinking of third party candidates at any level as "spoilers" and completely ban the phrase "lesser of the two evils" (if for no other reason - the lesser of the two evils is still an evil even if it be lesser).

If you vote your convictions and convince 3 of your friends to do the same, in 10-15 years, we might actually get real democratic choice. Until then, this two fat cat sham will continue, and a long line of Liebermans, Kerrys, Clintons, etc. will keep pretending to fight Doles, Bushs, McCains, etc. and vice versa. And the longer you keep telling yourself, "Ok. I agree, but this election is the most important election in history and I will be principled next time.", the longer these two coporatist corrupt machines will keep stringing you along. Remember, tomorrow never comes - it always becomes today.

There is no magic solution that will suddenly will third parties into contention. The two party monopoly will not brook any interference that will ruin their decades long shell game. Its pure madness to expect otherwise. It will have to happen painstakingly, one voter at a time, happening all over the country. There is simply no other way.

Ultimately, people get the government they deserve. 

I had an easy time quitting smoking each of the six times.

the seventh(and final) time was a bitch

65.

Phil Specht
Wed, 02/07/07
2:01 pm
-----
...lol, I've heard something similar from...Mark Twain?

Robert Singh
Wed, 02/07/07
1:54 pm

...
Ultimately, people get the government they deserve.
--------
Tough statement..., justifiable though!

Sopmething I've suspected all along was pointed out on Countdown last night -- that a real prosecutor would have indicted the whole cabal for criminal conspiracy and named Cheney as an unindicted co-conspiritor. 

Fitz is doing just was he was appointed to do --  find a patsy to take the fall.

had an easy time quitting smoking each of the six times. the seventh(and final) time was a bitch

Hearing my doctor say, "You're about to have a heart attack," did the trick for me. Smoke free for 2 1/2 years now. It feels like I escaped from a sentence of life in prison -- or a cell on death row.

Cheney probably is in the sealed envelope.

Conyers is waiting.

they drug it out to avoid the election but that failed

I'm not a smoker, although I played around with it a little in college.  A few years ago I bought a Meerschaum pipe because I loved the art in the carving.  A friend came over with some tobacco and we decided we should light it.  I took a few puffs and was shocked at how such a little bit made me feel totally light-headed and high.  Nicotine is like any addictive drug.  Your resistance to it may vary to where you don't notice the effect without using more of it.  I can understand why people NEED that next cigarette. Nearly all my bosses have been heavy smokers, my brother smoked a few packs a day until he quit cold turkey a couple of years ago, and I could always tell a difference in their demeanor just before and just after that cigarette. Just like when you drink more alcohol, you can hold more alcohol before getting noticeable effects.  When I was drinking more in my younger days, I could drink several and still function about the same.  Now that I don't drink so often or so much, I notice the effects of even a single drink, which is usually about all I ever have any more.

Whether a candidate smokes probably wouldn't affect my vote, and I'd vote for a candidate who drinks alcohol or smokes pot.  But, it would make a difference to a lot of voters. For me, I'd rather have someone who has experimented with life rather than someone who has always rigidly been a teetotaler.

Well then, if there's no time like the present, why not Gore/?? running on the Green party?  Or at least some third party?  Independent?  Grass Roots Party? HBP party (honesty is the best policy party)?  Peoples' Party? No Time to Party party?  LOL

The voters are very disenchanted with both parties who have morphed into one corporate party.  I think now is a great time for a third party IF the candidate is Gore.  If it's Nader, forget it!

I think I'll suggest that to Keith and see if he does anything with it.  Perhaps now is the time to call/write critters and tell them we're voting third party.  They'll laugh at us of course, but.................hm...............

Word has it that the House is going to spend 3 days on the war next week - something that could be done in minutes with an up or down vote.  Jeez.  Reid was emasculated; let's see what stuff Pelosi's really made of. 

Gore as third party would guarantee a Republican win.

I agree with Phil.  If Gore runs, it must be as a Democrat.

64.

Robert Singh

No monopoly will ever sign its own death warrant and expecting the two fat cat parties to pass any legislation to open up the system to more competitors is futile.....

If you vote your convictions and convince 3 of your friends to do the same, in 10-15 years, we might actually get real democratic choice. Until then, this two fat cat sham will continue, and a long line of Liebermans, Kerrys, Clintons, etc. will keep pretending to fight Doles, Bushs, McCains, etc. and vice versa. 

.... There is simply no other way.

-------------------

Yours is a far-fetched pipe  dream - to put it mildly.  You and I do not have 50 million friends.  I don't believe the two parties are that philosophiclaly close - not by a long shot.  What makes you think any third or fourth party would be that much different.  They would need campaign funds too.

  If we had a runoff Amendment, a multi-party system would be vialble, and acceptable to both parties, and the public.  People would be more inclined to vote third party, without fear of helping an undesirable [to them] party win.

  The monopoly has nothing to lose with a runoff amendment.  You have not explained how it would hurt either Democrat or Republican.  They have no reason not to have such an Amendment. - Infinitely more feasible than your "end run" pipe dream.

My guess is that the popular demand is just not there.  If you want a multi-party system, get your friends to demand a runoff law.  That's a feasible step in that direction.

3111

Alright, then how about Gore running as a Green Democrat?  That might ease us into accepting a third party .

We really need to start showing the public how there is not much difference anymore between the two parties.

I'd vote for Gore on the Silly Putty party; the point is that we have to start educating the public.  

Do I see a bumper sticker here?  LOL

Gore - the Green Democratic Party 

75.

FRED from OR
Wed, 02/07/07
2:29 pm

..I don't believe the two parties are that philosophiclaly close - not by a long shot.
------
Sure, they are not...close, they are..."philosophiclaly" the same.

Sea, I would be very surprised if Gore leaves the Democratic Party.  If he runs, it will be as a Democrat.  No one knows better than he what happens when a third party splits the vote.

78.

seashell
Wed, 02/07/07
2:38 pm


We really need to start showing the public how there is not much difference anymore between the two parties.
----------
people already know it..., that's one of the reason why less then 50% of eligibles are voting.

Menendez from NJ is speaking well on CSPAN.

former has a point.  How often do we hear ,"Oh, they're all crooks." 

Sure, they are not...close, they are..."philosophiclaly" the same

---------------

As my good friend and colleague Sen. Daffy Duck once remarked,  "Watch it, Buthster."

Darn, I wasn't listening closely, but ads are starting up in the four states where repug senators are up for reelection.  CSPAN mentioned moveon and politico something. Anybody know anything?  I've gotta run soon.

I heard that Smith will be targeted and that caught my attention. 

New thread

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/19669#comments 

78.

I believe the world is seeing the differences in the parties right now. Minimum wages -- fought by the Republicans every inch of the way; end the war -- fought being by the same Rethugs every inch of the way only this one may string out much long, yet the world is seeing which party wants to end this mess NOW; hide the evidence for over a year of a possible predator in your own ranks and do nothing about it to boot;

Ethics reform -- no ethics when the  R's were the majority or in the WH. At least Congress has some basically better ethics rules than for the last 20 years. The WH == liars, thieves, morally corrupt, steal from the poor - give to the rich, rich all the programs for the least advantages - give more tax breaks to the top 1%,

Look at who is leading in the R polls -- Giuliani, an adulterer amonst many other moral issues he has. This is who they want as their leader??? And they had the gull to impeach Clinton???

NO, no, no there is so much difference between the parties themselves. As for some individuals, the R's have a few, a repeat a few, good men/women, but  D's have a few bad guy/gals but that does not affect the platforms and deliverery of the parties.

One other great difference is that the  D's have DEAN leading the party. All the candidates should look to him as a model of goodness and greatness if they want to win contests.

BTW, if you watched the DNC meeting last Satyourday, Obama was the one who got a big hug from Dean. Many other ignored Dean althgether, like they didn't need him. Don't they wish.

 Warning! Ignore all error in my above comment. Just got back from a job and brain short of oxygen.

job = jog   Jeesh

FRED from OR

What I presented was not a dream, just a harsh statement of reality facing any third party / independent political choice these days.

You and I do not have 50 million friends, but each of us have at least 3 friends whom we can convince into doing the right thing. From those 3, come 9, then 27, well, you get the picture.

As to what the two party oligarchy has to lose from a third or fourth party, its obvious - the political consultants can then no longer demonize the other party and expect that to be enough. Right now, if you suppress the other party's turnout, it is enough to win. But a funny thing happens when more than two choices exist. What you kill off can go to the third and still lead to your defeat. The political math becomes way to complicated for these consultants (who IMO have ruined both the parties) and puts them and their corporate masters out of the political power - there are way too many choices and combinations possible.

As to the market demand, let me give you an example. Do you think that there is a market for a secure, malware free, easy to use, low cost operating system ? Common sense would indicate so, but the most insecure and fairly unintuitive operating system made by Microsoft (does not matter if it is XP or Vista - the basic design flaws keep coming forth) controls about 90-95% of market share. Monopolies always find ways to extend and entrench themselves, whether it is through anti-competitive behavior, or it is through standard non-compliance, or whatever. Yet, some visitor from another planet might think that earthlings do not care to have a secure, malware free and low cost operating system on their machines, when the reality is just the opposite.

Desperate to save their hides, the two sets of political consultants have come up with terms like "spoilers", "lesser of two evils", "a vote for Mr. 3rd way is a vote for someone you hate", "corruption is a fact of life", etc. Each of these locks good but gullible people into permanent patterns of politically self-destructive behavior.

The choice is "Matrix" like. Do you want to remain cocooned in the familiar virtual reality or do you want to deal with reality itself ?

Don't expect the machines to tell you that you can wake up. 

What is the big deal about qitting smoking? I smoked when it was fashionable, and quit when I was pregnant. When it became known that it was so harmful to your health, I took a month to gradually every day cut down. It was not that hard to give up by then.
Any smoker who is intelligent enough to know it is a killer, and still can't control his arm from reaching for a cigarette and putting it in his mouth does not have the discipline or strength of character to be in control of a government. Raises a lot of questions IMO.