Dean's first, I believe.

Yay, Austin.

SiCKO arrives in Santa Fe today!

OH YEAH!

These NeoCons are really uniting folks. They are uniting the ME and Asia against the West.

Iraqi
Jordanian
Palestinian
Indian
Saudi Arabians

...the known participants of the bomb plots.

I enjoyed the Zogby poll to which John linked, showing that most Americans were disenchanted with the two party system. By very wide majorities, respondents also thought the Founding Fathers would disapprove of laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets, requiring car passengers to wear seatbelts, restricting cell phone use while driving a car, banning the use of trans fats in restaurants, banning the use of drugs, restricting alcohol consumption, restricting cigarette smoking, and restricting speed limits.

Not restricting speed limits, speed limits.

2 I see that Tom is happy with the 2 part system, as are all too many DFA bloggers.

Let's hear it for corporate "Democracy"!

Tom, you'll love this too; David Brooks praising Bush's commuting of Libby's sentence:

President Bush entered the stage like a character from another world, a world in which things make sense.

His decision to commute Libby’s sentence but not erase his conviction was exactly right. It punishes him for his perjury, but not for the phantasmagorical political farce that grew to surround him. It takes away his career, but not his family.

Of course, the howlers howl. That is their assigned posture in this drama. They entered howling, they will leave howling and the only thing you can count on is their anger has been cynically manufactured from start to finish.

The farce is over. It has no significance. Nobody but Libby’s family will remember it in a few weeks time. Everyone else will have moved on to other fiascos, other poses, fresher manias.

I'm with Seashell on the Democratic horse-race:

• Obama and Clinton are completely unacceptable on the basis of their loyalty to the Corporate Oligarchy.
• Edwards is OK on the basis of what he now says.

My heart (and so far, my checkbook) is with Dennis Kucinich, who is not beholden to any corporate interests, and who has the issues nailed.

John wrote "I see that Tom is happy with the 2 part system, as are all too many DFA bloggers."

My support for the two party system lies in the absence of instant run off elections and coalition style government.  As a fomer member of the local Human Rights Party in Ann Arbor, I have no philosophical oppostion to third parties but, under current political conditions you're correct.  I  support the party of Howard Dean and Al Gore more than any other party. 

John wrote "Tom, you'll love this too; David Brooks praising Bush's commuting of Libby's sentence:"

Brooks is a Republican op ed columnist like William Safire.  His views don't represent the Times any more than Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Maureen O'Dowd, Nicholas Kristof or Bob Herbert's do.

John wrote "Edwards is OK on the basis of what he now says.  My heart (and so far, my checkbook) is with Dennis Kucinich, . . ."

Wouldn't this indicate some solidarity with Democrats?

Fitgerald's Statement:

  We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative.

     We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as "excessive." The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

     Although the President's decision eliminates Mr. Libby's sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.

Wouldn't this indicate some solidarity with Democrats?

Damn right! I'll continue to support progressive Democrats, and continue to point out the flaws in the establishment candidates

http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid42942.aspx

If you're a true liberal, you're for Edwards — only the first name is Elizabeth, not John. Any rational Hardball viewer who saw her confront hate-spewing 21st-century Father Coughlin–figure Ann Coulter this past week had to have been impressed. By comparison, even Chris Matthews looked bad for his failure to speak truth to bigotry. That TV tiff followed Edwards's San Francisco appearance where, conspicuously unlike her husband, she spoke out in favor of gay marriage.

I've heard a number of voters say that, of the Edwards couple, they prefer her to him. Elizabeth Edwards's struggle with cancer has already made her part of the biggest Campaign 2008 story to transcend the political pages. And her sharp intelligence and authentic caring personality embodies the kind of modern empathetic woman of accomplishment that people wish Hillary was.

Just because Elizabeth Edwards often overshadows her husband, however, doesn't mean she isn't helping him enormously. If nothing else, a candidate's choice of a spouse is a kind of character test — one that John Edwards passes with flying colors.

...

It's hard to recall an instance in post-feminist political history where an outspoken spouse was more revered by the public than was her husband.

...

As for Gore, the results of a recent WHDH/Suffolk University survey have reminded everyone of his latent political strength. If Gore were to enter the race, the poll showed, he would shoot into first place in the New Hampshire primary, passing Hillary, who otherwise has a huge lead there.

Will that convince Gore to get in? Most Gore watchers think not. Now that he's become a sort of international hero, Gore understands that a potential candidate is more popular than a real one. And he seems happier now than when he was mired in conventional politics.

Still, the former vice-president wields enormous clout. If he doesn't run, he's expected to endorse one of the current candidates. He has a following, and his seal of approval could well make the difference with voters in a tightly fought contest. Those privy to his relationship with the Clintons seem sure he won't pick Hillary. That leaves Edwards or Obama.

Gore would probably be comfortable with either. But given the chance to be a part of the historical moment of nominating the first black major-party presidential contender, the guess here is that he would endorse Obama.

And Elizabeth Edwards?

When they drop out of a race, losing candidates often endorse one of their opponents. Suppose Edwards does poorly and quits at a point when the race is undecided. Given a choice between Hillary and Obama, it's pretty clear which way the Edwards family would lean, if only because of Hillary’s lack of leadership opposing the war. And we've learned that Elizabeth, to her great credit, wouldn't be quiet about it.

...

Wouldn't this indicate some solidarity with Democrats?

  Is there a third party candidate running yet?

Being independent of the Democratic Party doesn't preclude supporting a Democrat, it just means it is not required by "loyalty."

If the right person ran as an independent or third party candidate, I would vote for him or her.  In fact, I have. 

71.
Indy Steve
Tue, 06/26/07
12:05 pm

Reply to this

68.

* rdorgan
Tue, 06/26/07
12:00 pm

You won't find me tearing down Obama in pursuit of an Edwards' candidacy. I think both are admirable but not perfect. Clinton 2.0 is another matter.

+++

Indy Steve -

Does this statement of yours on 6/26 still stand for you ?

48.
Michael Ellis
Mon, 07/02/07
8:34 pm

Reply to this

What I want to know is why most DFAers are buying into the MSM money derby and accepting the "inevitability" of a Clinton (possibly a Clinton-Obama) nomination.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John,

Stupidity, blindness, ineptitude and arrogance knows no boundaries like party, race, nationality or colour...........

+++

Mike -

In all due respect, it sounds like you responded to John's "What I want to know is why most DFAers are buying into the" with your statement  "Stupidity, blindness, ineptitude and arrogance knows no boundaries".

You can always rephrase it if you want or you can leave it as it stands, as it sounds.

Rich wrote "If the right person ran as an independent or third party candidate, I would vote for him or her.  In fact, I have."

Would this be because you felt that Democrats and Republicans were Tweedledum and Tweedledee with no discernable distinction to be made between the candidates and their platforms?

9.

Huron John
Tue, 07/03/07
9:18 am



I'm with Seashell on the Democratic horse-race:
Obama and Clinton are completely unacceptable on the basis of their loyalty to the Corporate Oligarchy.

Edwards is OK on the basis of what he now says.

------>> But I cannot get around the real Edwards. I know he is saying the right things now. It's taken him a while to come up with this candidate. But that is the rub. I find him disingenuine. He sometimes looks like he gets excited and wants to pat himself on the back when he comes up with a good response.

The things he's DONE while he was in office, even when people like his wife were against the war, he still supported....TOTALLY and his mannerisms now, don't give me much comfort with him. It feels too much like a show.

24.
seashell
Mon, 07/02/07
7:14 pm

Reply to this

Huron, agreed.  That's why I keep complaining about IA being first.  It's the conservative middle of the country and I grew up in a neighboring state and know about how midwesterners think.  They're going to go safe and they want to be told who to vote for.

...

+++

seashell -

You didn't know ?

You have the power to change that.  I don't know what state you are in but you can start a referedum, that would get elevated to the national level, to get Iowa bumped from the first place in the primary/caucus presidential nomination process.

Yeah, those "conservative middle of the country" Iowan voters, typically "how midwesterners think" are stepping on more progressive American states, how dare they !

I bet you Mexico and Costa Rica don't show such favoritism to certain states in their respective countries.

Iowa, you've had it too good for too long.  It's time for a more representative, more diversely demographic state to be number uno in the nomination process --

-- Alaska.

Brooks is a Republican op ed columnist like William Safire.  His views don't represent the Times any more than Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Maureen O'Dowd, Nicholas Kristof or Bob Herbert's do.

His views are supported and amplified in the news pages of the times. A whole raft of stories in todays NYT by the usual Bush stenographers gives Bush a pass:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/washington/03libby.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/washington/03commute.html?hp

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/sheryl_gay_stolberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per

Naderly and Perotly awards are available.

Please no rushing, there's one for everyone who wants one.

From the thread post:

"And I bet you’ll listen more closely to the presidential candidates as they talk about their health care proposals."

I doubt that the rabid Clinton and Obama supporters will...................

In the spirit of No Blogger Left Behind, I posted a note on the previous thread that there's this new thread.

13.

* rdorgan


That is funny that who ever wrote this, doesn't pay attention. He is obviously political to be trying to frame it in such limiting choices. While talking about Elizabeth Edwards support, he quickly turns to "but Gore won't run". LOL

And only choosing from the Corporate front runners playing the obama "anybody but Hillary" candidate, playbook. But Obama is everything Gore is against. Special Interests controlled, not fond of dissent, grassroots up action and that pesky thing that is his priority...GLOBAL WARMING....YOU know, the thing Obama wants to increase with his tax payer funding Coal Bill for the Coal/Oil industry.

Democrats better hope Al Gore will be president.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070629/NEWS07/70629060

June 29, 2007

BY NIRAJ WARIKOO

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama is the most popular Democratic presidential candidate among Arab-Americans, especially those who are Muslim, according to a new poll released this week.

Thirty-seven percent of the Arab-American Democrats or Independents who were polled said they would vote for Sen. Obama in a primary, while U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton got 33%. John Edwards got 12%, and Bill Richardson, 10%.

Among Arab-American Muslims, Sen. Obama’s support jumped to 50%, while Sen. Clinton got 38%.

The nationwide poll was conducted by Zogby International and was released by the Arab American Institute on Thursday.

...

The biggest issue for Arab-Americans is the Iraq war, with 61% of them saying it’s a top concern, according to the poll.

“It’s somewhat more important for them than the general public,” said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute.

The poll also shows that almost eight in 10 Arab-Americans rate President Bush’s job performance negatively.

Zogby said the poll also shows that Arab-American Republicans are turning away from their party.

Over half of the Republican Arab-Americans polled, 53%, said they would vote either Democrat, or that it would depend on the candidate.

...

13.

* rdorgan


That is funny that who ever wrote this, doesn't pay attention. He is obviously political to be trying to frame it in such limiting choices. While talking about Elizabeth Edwards support, he quickly turns to "but Gore won't run". LOL

And only choosing from the Corporate front runners playing the obama "anybody but Hillary" candidate, playbook. But Obama is everything Gore is against. Special Interests controlled, not fond of dissent, grassroots up action and that pesky thing that is his priority...GLOBAL WARMING....YOU know, the thing Obama wants to increase with his tax payer funding Coal Bill for the Coal/Oil industry.


CORRECTION; grasroots up action ...should have been,[Obama against]grassroots up action,
Democrats better hope Al Gore will be president.

Linda*in*SFNM
Tue, 07/03/07
9:46 am
__________________________________________________________________________

Stupidity has a nasty habit of getting its way in our elections..............

Linda wrote "Democrats better hope Al Gore will be president."

Rich thinks Gore's time has passed, but I think he will be president if he runs.  I just wonder why you think he said in May that he is  "not a candidate," and "[I'm] not looking for a set of circumstances that would open the door for me to get back into politics. I'm really not."

Instead, he said "Look, we're a year and half away from this election, [I] see no need to say, 'OK. I'm not ever going to even think about that in the future.'"

To be honest, I'm really just trying to listen to him.  In 2000, he said he hadn't made a decision, but would in time to make sure Lieberman and the other contenders weren't left in the dark about his intentions.  Why won't he now say he hasn't decided or it's possible but I'm not seeking the office?  Instead, he seems to only leave himself an emergency entrance, so as not to exclude the possibility that the other candates might die together in a plane crash or something.

Not 2000, 2002.  Sorry.

Tom -

That concluding sentence " ... or something" is not IMO helpful to the conversion.

If Gore announces, so be it, I will have to rethink my support for Obama if that happens. 

In the meanwhile...

In the meanwhile...

...I'm off for a walk to share the path with all those bikers, joggers and baby strollers --- mix a river and a paved sidewalk pathway skirting it's banks and you got a part of America.

accepting the "inevitability" of a Clinton

is what Mike referenced

 "Stupidity, blindness, ineptitude and arrogance knows no boundaries"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

you can believe by bringing out the big gun in Iowa in July that Hillary knows her nomination is anything but inevitable

and I take it you Obama supporteers don't think so either

what we learned from the last cycle is  that John Edwards won't quit until someone actually has a clear majority of the delegates, and even then might want to pile up more delegates for a platform fight

but if he comes up short he will back the winner and in that he shares Tom's loyalty

if Obama picks Lieberman as his running mate, I wouldn't go that far myself

Gore has to leave a decent interval between the Concerts and his announcement

do you think anyone would talk about what Obama said in the Des Moines debate in August if Gore announced he was forming a Committee that week?

remember that is the first step, it is a legal requirement

It is easier to enter with a multiple competitive field at anytime. I think he might have a window before it looks like he is lobbying the Nobel Committee  ... next chance November

29.

Tom -

That concluding sentence " ... or something" is not IMO helpful to the conversion.

...

+++

s/b -

29.

Tom -

That concluding sentence " ... or something" is not IMO helpful to the conversation.

...

Nice post by an Italian blogger....Governor Dean invited to Italy again.     Tells of a meeting with him here. 

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/demoleft/19

Demoleft's journal from Italy.  They do appreciate the good doctor there.

29.

Tom Bearse


Tom, I think you answered your own question well enough when you give the comparisons. But you're being disingenuous when you claim the entrance in the race is limited to only "emergency or plane crash", because that does not apply if you believe everything else you say about Al Gore.

Al Gore is the cream of the crop everyone acknowledges him to be, LOL, whether out loud or in private, if he enters, it is because he is willing to go through the process with the hopes the American people will see him to be the hope and best person to be in the oval office to help guide us forward and out of the terrible place we are.

bbl

floridagal

thanks for keeping us up to date on Howard

bbl

I too have considered the blowback from Obama's sponsorship of coal to liquid fuels, since Obama otherwise has a contingent of fervent supporters among environmental groups.  He's sponsroing separate legislation to cut back greenhouse gas emissions, so I have to believe, without knowing, that his support for the CTL bill would have to be in conjunction with and dependent upon removing emissions during production.  Otherwise, I'm certain he'd be forced to back away from it by public pressure, or face the consequences.

It makes sense in a way, if you consider what Gore explained was the opportunity provided by sensitivity to global climate change in An Inconvenient Truth.  His theory was that requiring environmental safeguards by law would create market incentives for research and development, and new sector technology and industries.   I think people who support greater reliance on biofuels endorse the same approach, meaning the use of new technologies to make it a worthwhile alternative although, again, I could be mistaken.

Linda wrote "But you're being disingenuous when you claim the entrance in the race is limited to only 'emergency or plane crash', because that does not apply if you believe everything else you say about Al Gore."

I don't think so, but I didn't limit it to that.  I'm trying to reasonably interpret  the statements "[I'm really] not looking for a set of circumstances that would open the door for me to get back into politics," and "[I] see no need to say, 'OK. I'm not ever going to even think about that in the future.'"  Not saying "I'm not ever going to even think about that in the future" seems qualitatively different then saying "I may run" or I haven't decided."

41. OK Tom, fine.

My thoughts. Maybe he is saying that it isn't at the forefront of his thoughts now, but he does think about it and knows he will have to decide if he will run or not sometime in the near future. That he doesn't have a set of parameters that will tell him to or not and he will have to give it serious thought after he does what he has currently on his plate.

Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) used the foiled terror attempts in London to call for greater domestic spying here in the United States. Lieberman said, “I hope these terrorist attacks in London wake us up here in America to stop the petty partisan fighting going on about…electronic surveillance,” in apparent reference to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas for documents related to Bush’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

Lieberman claimed, “We’re at a partisan gridlock over the question of whether the American government can listen into conversations or follow email trails of non-American citizens.” This is false; the NSA spying program covered the surveillance of American citizens. The “gridlock” exists over whether the administration will cooperate with Congress by explaining why it feels current law is inadequate and why President Bush decided to ignore the law in authorizing a spying program that almost led to mass resignations at the Department of Justice.

Liebermen went further in his calls for greater domestic spying. “The Brits have got something smart going. … They have have cameras all over London. … I think it’s just common sense to do that here much more widely.” Watch it:

In the same interview, Lieberman said of the situation in Iraq, “The surge is working.” He refused to say whether he would back a withdrawal if Gen. Petraeus reports in September that progress is not being made.

Also, Lieberman reaffirmed his previous statements that Democratic candidates do not have “strong and muscular” approaches to foreign policy. Today, he said, “I would say that Democratic candidates, in the larger questions of American security, have been disappointing.”

A secret U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.

"This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001," the official told ABCNews.com.

U.S. officials have kept the information secret, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said today on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that the United States did not have "have any specific credible evidence that there's an attack focused on the United States at this point."

As ABCNews.com reported, U.S. law enforcement officials received intelligence reports two weeks ago warning of terror attacks in Glasgow and Prague, the Czech Republic, against "airport infrastructure and aircraft."

The warnings apparently never reached officials in Scotland, who said this weekend they had received "no advance intelligence" that Glasgow might be a target.

Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff declined to comment specifically on on the report today, but said "everything that we get is shared virtually instantaneously with our counterparts in Britain and vice versa."

Unlike the United States, officials in Germany have publicly warned that the country could face a major attack this summer, also comparing the situation to the pre-9/11 summer of 2001.

Still Funny After All These Years

The Simpsons opens its 12th season with a plug for Al Gore and a promise of good things to come


by Joe Newman

I’ve heard the same criticism now for at least three years. They’re not as funny as they used to be. They’re not as innovative. The celebrity cameos are contrived. Phooey. It took about two seconds and a chalkboard for The Simpsons to open its 12th season with smart, relative humor.

“I will not plant subliminal messagores,” Bart writes. Regarding this blatant (and welcome) endorsement, executive producer Mike Scully told TV Guide Online, "It … has nothing to do with the fact that George Bush Sr. once blamed The Simpsons for what's wrong with America. It has absolutely nothing to do with that."

...[snip]
LOL ...Academic value aside, The Simpsons is still the best show on television, and will continue to be until Groening decides enough is enough. Plus, thanks to Bart, scores of voters will now vote for Gore. That effort alone is enough to win a season’s worth of viewer loyalty.

http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2000...

A NEW THREAD WAS PUT UP...long ago