The 911 post hysteria is ................................last........and stupid.

U.S. holds 10,000 more detainees in Iraq than last year.   Impeach. Freedom isn"t free ? 

Howard Dean is TOPS, he's numero uno, Howard Dean's is number one.

Linda wrote "Howard Dean is TOPS, he's numero uno, Howard Dean's is number one."

He's the cat's pajamas.

Kudos to Sheri Divers for using this blog to hold DCDems accountable too.

Reform begins at home. 

2.  No, freedom has to be earned by obedience to the law.

It's liberty that has no strings.

That's why liberals can be accused of opposing freedom.   

Which reminds me.  Does anybody know what happened to TARA?  emails to her at DFA come back as undeliverable.

freedom has to be earned by obedience to the law.

Or disobedience to laws which are anathema to freedom. 

Tom wrote (AFTER BUMPING ME DOWN, AGAIN) He's the cats pajamas.

....oohhhhh, I haven't seen them. Do you have a picture? :)

_______________

7. Monica, OH NO!, I figured she was just working behind the scenes on I T . I can't believe she's gone and they didn't say. :(

_______________


And yes! Sheri rocks! Calling them as they are!

Found THEM!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/10/53858/932

If you need a teaser, the diary is about Hillary and health care.

11.

Jeff Jacoby is as Jeff Jacoby does --

-- but IMO Forrest Gump is much smarter.

Tom is on the other side of the NSA server, why there are two tracks into the dossier files only the Stassi know. Might just be that Michiganders are jealous as a rule and want to be first Linda. lol

Wouldn't it just bite to be the analyst assigned to monitor this address for big brother and Fred gets to bickering with someone. {{{ good vibes, whoever you are}}}

just goes to show you how ridiculous the Democrats are to go along with the domestic spying

pretty big slap in the face of the Founding Fathers too who insisted on probable cause for a warrant

Phil wrote "Tom is on the other side of the NSA server, why there are two tracks into the dossier files only the Stassi know. Might just be that Michiganders are jealous as a rule and want to be first Linda."

Don't tell Daniel Rooney. 

Hi folks,

Yeah, we at HQ feel the same way you guys do about what's going on.

By the way, Tara left DFA about 2 months ago. She's now working at the DCCC. She's having fun and we still hear from her.

Sheri

Michigan has wanted to go ahead of Iowa since 1988 by my memory so I wouldn't read too much into who stayed on the ballot.

Dodd is a second choice of many I speak to here and that is always a sign of someone who will exceed expectations, but when you are low single digits, a doubling still doesn't get it done. But like a Gore/Boxer balance, a Obama/Dodd isn't out of the question to make sure traditional blue states come along. Dodd's record is one of traditional Democratic party stands. If Dodd surprises in Iowa it would be cool for there to be a quick alternative to Clinton in another state. if I were Gravel I'd leave my name on the ballot in both states for the same reason.

Well, I've put it up as a DFA post and sent it to my group.  Did you know that plain text uses half as many bites as an html message?

Thanks Sheri.

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

off to combine down corn

lots of bushels in the tank so I'll quit complaining and get it done

17.  It would be nice if DFA updated Tara's email address in the files so communications from her "buddies" will still get through.  Either that, or remove her entirely.

Phil  lol

The Michigan state delegate selection process has been an opaque mystery for months. The party’s website still mentions the caucus, i.e., party-run election, date as February 9, 2008, or earlier, with no alternative date described.

Mark Brewer, the state party chair and historically, a staunch Dean supporter, initially indicated that the party would not change the caucus date, rejecting what he described as a Republican led manoeuver by the state legislature to force an earlier selection date.

This didn’t square with reports that senior Michigan Democrats had lobbied to move the primary date up out of resentment for the inordinate influence of the first in the nation states on the nomination process. Later, Brewer announced that the party would move up its caucus, in violation of the national party rules, because New Hampshire had violated the rules by changing its primary date from January 22, 2008 to leap ahead of the Nevada caucus. Evidently, this has infuriated Michigan party heads because sanctions were imposed on Florida and Michigan, but not on New Hampshire for violations of the same rules.

The outcome? Michigan goes from irrelevant to more irrelevant, without even nominees on its caucus ballot and without campaign visits by the candidates. I support Chairman Dean without reservation, but I’d like to know how the party’s deference to the four pre-primary states is helping to field a strong nominee in the general election.

Sheri.  Wow!  Thank you.  Does that mean Tara moved to DC?

No, Tara's still living in Vermont working from home.

 Sheri

18.

And a repeat of this yesterday's Michigan deadline (for removing name from the dem ballot) will come at the end of this month with Florida.

If politics is what they say, a sport, then all the team sports I know of have rules and referees/umpires, etc.

Dean is basically doing part of his job as a referee, enforcing the rules. Some of the fans in the bleechers might not be happy with his call but the call has been made and no amount of instant-replaying (ie. bad-mouthing Dean, threatning to sue the DNC, etc.) is going to change a thing.

It's high time IMO for Michig and Florida dem leaders to get off their soapboxes and return to the game and play ball with the rest of us.

(They, or other states, can take the off-season later to further investigate/promote rule-changes, etc. This year's season of play has already been layed out and it's not fair to all the players and all the fans, etc for there to be arbitrary, off-the-cuff rule changes.)

typo - Michig s/b - Michigan

rdorgan wrote "It's high time IMO for Michig and Florida dem leaders to get off their soapboxes and return to the game and play ball with the rest of us."

Under those circumstances, do you think New Hampshire should lose its delegates? 

28.

New Hampshire won't move unless Michigan and Florida move and still retain a majority of candidates on their ballots.

Michigan, after yesterday, is just a beauty contest now that 5 dem candidates are off the ballot and we'll see what happens with Florida by the end of this month.

It's called a domino effect and yes all the states including New Hampshire would move up to trick or treat day if the refs and umps were removed from the field and the domino effect was allowed to begin.

So far all the dominos are still standing, thanks to a certain ref.

I'm glad my own states of Massachusetts and Virginia played by the rules, and didn't try to push to the front of the line.  After all, we got Plymouth Rock and Jamestown, two good reasons to be the first in the nation primaries.

But hey, IA and NH (and NV and SC) can go first -- there's enough of people in those states that think like people in MA, that I don't have a problem with it. 

As for how people in VA feel about this ?  maybe lindab or rich could chime in on that ?

typo - I'm glad my own states of Massachusetts and Virginia   s/b - I'm glad my own state of Massachusetts and it's sister state in history Virginia

rdorgan wrote "I'm glad my own state of Massachusetts and Virginia played by the rules, and didn't try to push to the front of the line."

That’s swell. Obviously, there’s no reason why Democrats should care what voters in those states think about the candidates before powerhouses like Iowa and New Hampshire give their exalted opinions, but you’re not addressing my point. Florida will lose its delegates for violating rules, ratified by the national party, that were recommended by a DNC Commission for that purpose. New Hampshire violated those rules in the same way, by moving up its primary date. Shouldn’t New Hampshire lose its delegates?

Sheri, thank you, again. :)  That's good.

HOWDY Tara!  

Nobel win 'would boost hopes of Gore candidacy'

By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 10 October 2007

Al Gore never quite closed the door on running for president again and his many loyalists are now pinning their hopes on Norway's Nobel committee, in the belief that the prize must be his, this year of all years.

The Nobel Prize will be announced on Friday in Oslo and for many, Mr Gore is head and shoulders above the other 181 candidates. The Nobel committee also has a reputation for making political choices. A peace prize may soon be added to the Emmy he won for his Current TV channel and the Oscar that was awarded last February for his call to arms on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth.

With little debate among candidates about America's role in causing global warming, the Draft Gore movement has been growing by leaps and bounds. It boasts a website that puts most official presidential candidates to shame. It has petitions to sign, a campaign song to sing, Draft Gore buttons, DVDs and ways to contact other Gore enthusiasts. Pre-written opinion articles are on hand on the site urging Mr Gore to run which his supporters are encouraged to plagiarise and send to their local newspaper.

The supporters' group has already gathered about 127,000 signatures this year – 10,000 of them in the last week of September alone – and is planning to take out full-page advert in The New York Times as an open letter urging Mr Gore to run. "We feel that if [Mr Gore] wins the Nobel Prize ... then he can't not run for president," Roy Gayhart, the man behind California's Draft Gore group, told Newsweek.

Mr Gore has said nothing to indicate he might run, and his Nashville headquarters is silent on the question. But people close to the former vice-president are convinced that he is looking for an opportunity to jump in the race as a candidate who really is prepared to bring about urgent change in the face of the looming disaster posed by global warming.

Full article:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/amer...

Just saw this.  Ah, that wonderful right to privacy.  Comes in so handy when you want to hide the troops that are getting ill from DU contamination.  Not that the V.A. is even properly equipped to treat them.  BTW, I have tested the link and it shows an ad before the article come us.

________________________

Until recently, the nation’s cancer surveillance program was humming along. In every state, investigators were getting reports from every hospital describing every cancer patient they had seen.

The data, which include the name, address, age, race and medical history of patients, are used to compile cancer rates. They also are used to investigate survival and other issues, like unusual cancer clusters and whether patients’ experiences are different depending on their racial or economic group.

While other hospitals are required by state laws to submit data, Veterans Affairs hospitals are not. And now, for the first time, veterans hospitals have stopped providing information on their cancer patients. The concern, the Veterans Affairs Department says, is protecting patient privacy. The department has set up a new national directive setting conditions for using patients’ personal information and has said it cannot provide data unless and until states sign it.

At issue, says Dr. Joel Kupersmith, chief of the department’s research and development office, is “the dynamic tension between patient privacy and the desire to use patients’ private information to do research.”

[...] 

Shoot, I thought I'd gotten rid of that garbage.  Sorry

32.  As far as I'm concerned you can have our measly 14 delegates.  OK? 

What I'd like to suggest is that you inform yourself how your state party selects the delegates and see to it, as Phil keeps suggesting, that some grass roots progressives get selected.  It's my understanding that each candidate gets to have a slate of (14 in our state, equally divided into men and women) and individuals can also petition to be independents, perhaps so they can be used to fill out slates that aren't full.  

Since delegates have to be willing to pay their own way and accommodations in Denver, maybe there will have to be some bake sales for those who can't afford it.  I know that in Florida the county Dem group provided "scholarship" money for the unwealthy.

What New Hamsphire does is make it easy for candidates to interact with real people and for the media to have a small enough venue to cover.  Even so, the major outfits only show up for the mega bucks candidates because that's where their bread and butter advertising lies.

BTW, did you know that campaigns are expected to pay for camera set-up facilities, the laying of cable, and, probably, up-link capability?  That mean you not only have to rent venues that have enough juice, but they have to be large enough to accommodate the equipment.  The free media are not free. 

Morning Folks,

I post this with some trepidation because it's long, but I think it says it absolutely concretely. It's from the Huffington Post, published today.  

Apologies to those who may protest so much space being used, and a nodding of the head, to those who think it's so well stated that it should be posted in its entirety.

This is the print preview: Back to normal view »

Posted October 9, 2007 | 09:39 AM (EST)

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but The War With Iraq is over.

• Email
• Print
• Comment

Like everything with the Bush administration's relationship to it's gullible public, the point is never what they're doing, but what they say they're doing; it's the words, not the deeds.

So No Child Left Behind of course has nothing to do with helping challenged children in bad schools to keep up, it's about defunding and dismantling the public school system. And 'saving Social Security' has nothing to do with saving social security, its about handing over what's left of the public trough to the investment industry, etc, etc, etc---is there a single American under a rock anywhere that doesn't know this drill by heart by now?

And now the war with Iraq is no longer 'The War With Iraq'; its been successfully rebranded as 'The War with Iran'.

Try and sit through a single newscast or reading of the international page without finding a reference to how Iran is the real 'enemy' over there; whether it's the nuclear bomb there's no evidence of them developing, the IEDs there's no evidence of their government smuggling across the border to harm the agents of our benign humanitarian effort in Iraq, or how Ahmadinejad's denial of the facts of the Holocaust means he's ready to wipe out the free world---or at least America, which can't really be called the free world anymore. But I digress.

Mel Gibson denies the facts of the Holocaust, too, but unless he's planning on wiping out the free world by boring them to death with shitty movies, I don't really see him as much of a global threat. And our own leader, the intellectual from Yale who can't pronounce 'nuclear'--he routinely denies the facts of not only evolution, but global warming, contraception, carcinogens in drinking water, etc, etc, etc and you never hear a peep about him bringing on Armageddon. (Well, only in fundamentalist churches, but they're happy about it.)

But if you scan any of the news for idiots---The NY Daily News say, or CNN--- you'd think Ahmadinejad had actually flown the planes into the World Trade Center and that he literally walks around Tehran with American blood dripping off his bib. When he spoke at Columbia the other week, the conservatives who run American mainstream media spun it like Hitler had spoken at ACLU headquarters in the middle of the Blitz.

The rebranding of War With Iraq into War With Iran is only Phase I of a multi-phased rebranding strategy that will go on for years, a strategy that is in fact prepping us for the big hand-off to a Democratic White House that needs its own public spin for staying in Iraq until we've met the one and only (private) benchmark we've had all along; a permanent force in the world's largest military base securing the theft of the world's second largest deposit of oil. But don't take it from me--ask Alan Greenspan, that liberal.

If you doubt the existence of this strategy, than you must've missed the emergence of Phase II last week, when all three of the leading presidential candidates from the 'opposition party'--- the party that supposedly has a mandate from the American people to end the war---furrowed their collective brow and professed dismay that it just seemed too darn unrealistic---and no doubt unpresidential--- to get troops out of Iraq any earlier than--are you ready?--2013.

Why not just let Bush stay president? It's what he wanted all along.

Of course the troops the Dems plan to keep there won't be 'combat' troops, because the 'war' will be over---at least rhetorically. They'll be a 'stabilization force'--that's Phase III of the rebranding.

Phase III will last 50 years, and you'll never hear the word 'combat,' only 'stabilization', but on the ground, the facts will be the same they've always been; unwelcome Americans kids getting killed and maimed by a debilitated local populace who hate them. Desperate Iraqis--armed and otherwise--with no water, sanitation, electricity, protection or hope will still be slaughtered in the streets or made into internal or external refugees. And of course there'll be the big cherry on top we've wanted all along; control of the oil.

And voila--we'll basically have our new Israel; a permanently volatile and unstable place that we'll diplomatically dither with for eternity, all the while pumping tax dollars into a 'stabilizing' military infrastructure to ensure the local population will never have peace and are so distracted by survival that we'll get away with grabbing what we've decided is ours to steal.

Any questions?

The opposition party 'came back into power' and passed non-binding resolutions to chide a president who doesn't give a shit who chides him and then voted to support an ill-advised surge and increase funding for the very war they had a 'mandate' to end. These are facts, not rhetoric.

The Democrats bought Bush the time he wanted by pitching their rhetoric to their constituents, while the White House bought time pitching their rhetoric to their few remaining constituents, and now the moment to get out of the whole abhorrent mess has passed. Bush will be gone but the troops will stay and we'll have gotten the oil.

Oh sure, there's all the side 'benefits'--the American taxpayers funding the creation of a massive invasion/occupation industry--companies like KBR, Bechtel, Blackwater, you know the names--that take taxpayer dollars to at first rip a region down and then take taxpayer's money to build the region up again, albeit in accordance with their own privatized corporate needs and with inferior materials and slave labor.

(or perhaps you thought all those buildings in the Green Zone were built by well-paid union construction workers outfitted in state of the art protective gear with round-the-clock-workplace safety standards in place--you know, like in Katrina)

In short, a massive, publicly funded destruction/reconstruction industry for private profit. Call it 'socialized terror.'

They'll call it 'job creation.'

What could've stopped it all, the great rebranding, the escalation, the extra deaths and crippling debt, not to mention yet another gutting of the power of the American voter? The impeachment process. This is of course the one thing Nancy Pelosi declared was 'off the table' before she'd done a single thing as Speaker.

Say it again, to yourself: 'The one thing that truly could have derailed the longest war in US history, in the one moment where it was still possible, was declared 'off the table' by the leader of the opposition party, placed in power by a mandate from the people.'

The 'Ending The War Phase' is over and the 'How Can We Sensibly Approach A Solution Phase?' has begun. Feel any different?

It's like Karl Rove is still writing the script. Maybe he is.

Our new Democratic president will tell us the 'war is over' and it will be as hollow as 'mission accomplished'--especially to the Iraqis. But Americans will hear our 'combat troops' are coming home and sigh with relief as they nod with a feeling of democratic triumph at 'the wave of change in Washington'---and go back to American Idol and Dancing With The Stars.

Maybe we should stop parsing the spin and arguing over which lie seems closer to the truth we want to believe.

Maybe we should forget about reality TV for a sec and start thinking about reality reality.

Tom, I didn't have time  to weigh in on the colloquy betwixt you and Sitka yesterday. I certainly get Sitka's point; viz, that a person who supports a given candidate because they want to go with a winner is, by definition, a loser.

I sent tech support an email regarding resetting the lagging blog clock, but so far, no action.

I don't think that's rocket science, is it?

38. good one Pat. Those with an attention span longer than a kindergardner will not see it as excessively long.

Tom, is Levin being opposed in the primary?

If so, I might re-register for long enough to vote for his opponent!

18.

JudyforDean
Wed, 10/10/07
5:32 am

In re the Gore comments, posted and discussed ad nauseam ... originally, IMHO, in an attempt to discredit him. Fortunately, there are many here who have seen through that.

However Al's comments may be interpreted, the speech was delivered in 2000, during a VERY different Israeli government than that of today....

=======================

In the 2000 speech, Gore brags to AIPAC about opposing George H.W. Bush in 1988, when Bush tried to force the right wing Lukid to the negotiating table by witholding $10 billion in loans...

nuff said for apologisting.

nobody is discrediting Gore, just presenting facts, against the fantasy of the "draft Gore" cult.

John wrote "I certainly get Sitka's point; viz, that a person who supports a given candidate because they want to go with a winner is, by definition, a loser."

So do I.  If the subject remains of any possible interest to you, please see the complete explanaiton for the discussion provided yesterday, specifically at Sitka's suggestion. 

John wrote "is Levin being opposed in the primary?"

No.

Monica wrote "As far as I'm concerned you can have our measly 14 delegates.  OK?"

It is okay because I'm fairly entitled to them under the circumstances.

"The Boss"

44. Sorry I missed that. The last posts I saw, you 2 were still at it.

As I said yesterday, it may surprize some to hear that Yassir Arafat was actually in favor of George W. Bush winning in 2000 Presidential election.

Partly because of Arafat's cultural perceptions, he assumed that George W. Bush would be like his father, who Arafat favored over Gore, obviously for what Gore and some Democrats did to derail Bush's negotiating strategy:

FROM GORE'S SPEECH

"In 1988 I took a strong stand against a previous administration's efforts to force Israel into concessions that would have, in my view, threatened its security. And in 1991, I vividly remember standing up against a group of administration foreign policy advisers who promoted the insulting concept of linkage, which tried to use loan guarantees as a stick to bully Israel. I stood with you, and together we defeated them and we stopped that effort."

WHAT GORE IS REFERRING TO:

Bush-I forced Shamir to the negotiating table (circa 1991, Madrid conference) by withholding $10 Billion in loan guarantee.

What is interesting is that Yassir Arafat was actually glad to see George W. Bush win over Al Gore, because in his culture "the Apple never falls far from the tree."

He thought George Bush senior was more even-handed with the Palestinians and tough enough on the Israel right wing.

Avi Shlaim wrote in his book,

"Bush himself felt he owed no debt to Israel or to American Jewry. He had been vice president in the most pro-Israeli history, yet he won only 5% of the Jewish vote in the 1988 presidential election."

(The Iron Wall, p.487)

Sheri,

Does Tara moderate the blog there at DCCC, like she did here?

Well here's a real news blast.  The reason we supported Howard Dean as a presidential contender, according to John Edwards, was that he was an Inevitable candidate.  Edwards said Monday in Iowa that " I lived through the inevitability of Howard Dean."

32.

Ok, this back and forth, she said, he said moving stuff, is not that moving or riveting.

All I know is that Howard set a date of Feb 5 for no other state to cross -- Florida and Michigan dared, and Howard double-dared back.

As for New Hampshire, yeah down-under Massasuchetts has been jealous of their second in the nation status for a long time but we live with it (maybe the Old Man in the Mountain being defaced by nature was a payback, who knows).  Well, New Hampshire was already before Feb 5 and when Nevada got drafted (by going through the normal channels in advance of "may I ?" and DNC said "yes, you may") for a Jan 19 date, that prompted New Hampshire to move before it, to save it's second in the nation status.  As for them (ie, NH)  being punished by losing their delegates, that IMO can be dealt with off season (as stated upthread, when IA and NH can be called up to respond to why they have to be first) and IMO they shouldn't lose their delegates.

Michigan and Florida played the dare game. End of my input on that subject (and once again, kudos to Dean and the 5 players who complied yesterday -- Biden, Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson -- by their taking their 5 names off the Michigan ballot).  Good luck to the have your cake and eat it too candidates -- Clinton, Dodd and Gravel.

Iraq:  "With a leader who is crazy!  A threat to the United States!"

Iran: "With a leader who is crazy!  A threat to the U.S. and Isreal!"

Iraq:   "Yellow cake!   Aluminum tubes!   "MUSHROOM CLOUDS"

Iran:  "Intent on building Nuclear weapons!  A threat to U.S. and Isreal!"

Iraq:  "Working with Al Quaida!  Aiding Terrorists!"

Iran:  "They are terrorists!  Causing deaths to our soldiers in Iraq!"

Iraq:   "WMD's! "

Iran:  "Supplying WEAPONS to terrorists!"

Besides - a large proportion of US troops being killed in Iraq are being killed with bullets and weapons supplied by Washington to the Iraqi army, which are then sold by desperate or greedy Iraqi's.  juancole.com

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran’s president was misrepresented by Western media when he was quoted saying there were no gays in Iran, and actually meant there were not so many as in the United States, (not like in the United States) a presidential aide said on Wednesday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21222302/

oh - woops - sorry - we're a rather backwards country at translating --especially our media.   Hope it doesn't cause a WAR.

rdorgan wrote "All I know is that Howard set a date of Feb 5 for no other state to cross -- Florida and Michigan dared, and Howard double-dared back."

That's the problem: all you know.  Read further to learn that the Chairman didn't set any dates.  Those were ratified by the DNC membership at a meeting in Chicago, following the recommendations of a commision established for that purpose.  By the rules, none except four states could hold a selection process before Febrary 5th.  Also by the rules, New Hampshire could not hold any primaries before January 22nd.  Their primary will take place no later than January 8th.

Four years ago, we had Virginia all organized for Dean, but he was out of the contest by the time our primary came around.  Interestingly, we were short on money because Trippi told us it would be all over by the time Virginia came around...of course, he thought we'd have it WON by then.  One of my personal contributions to the Dean campaign was several hundred wooden stakes for election day signs, because we had cardboard signs, not plastic with metal frames.  I love the smell of sawdust in the morning.

I've posted my plan for primary/caucus season here several times so unless someone wants it, I'll restrain myself.  That being said, once the DNC set the rules this time around, everyone should expect to follow them or pay the consequences -- loss of delegates and hopefully loss of the money that is spent by active campaigning in that state.

By the way, Kucinich was unsuccessful in removing his name from the Michigan Demcoratic caucus ballot.

Edwards said Monday in Iowa that " I lived through the inevitability of Howard Dean."

He also lived through his own rejection but somehow didn't get the message. 

Rich wrote "once the DNC set the rules this time around, everyone should expect to follow them or pay the consequences -- loss of delegates and hopefully loss of the money that is spent by active campaigning in that state."

So are you saying New Hampshire should lose its delegates?

55.

Well, then bring that up with Howard and the DNC about NH's move.  CA and IL and other states all moved up but slammed their brakes onto Feb 5 (super, super, super Tuesday).  They could have just as easily thrown their electoral weight around and not taken the 5th.  Then all hell would have broken loss and we'd have an unmanagable situation.

Jeez, who would have thought that Viva Las Vegas would have ushered in all this ?

Also, why was Kucinich unsuccessful in removing his name from the MI ballot ?  The MSM is reporting he did so just under yesterday's deadline.

rdorgan wrote "Well, then bring that up with Howard and the DNC about NH's move."

It was brought up last August but the response was deafening silence.  According to party chairman Mark Brewer, that was the sole reason for moving the state Democratic caucus date up.

I've posted my plan for primary/caucus season here several times so unless someone wants it, I'll restrain myself.  That being said, once the DNC set the rules this time around, everyone should expect to follow them or pay the consequences -- loss of delegates and hopefully loss of the money that is spent by active campaigning in that state.

I've read several plans by various people and they're all very clever.

My conclusion is that states should be able to have their primaries and caucuses whenever they want after a start date, or that there be a national primary day where everybody chooses at once.

But either way, whomever gets the most popular votes should be the nominee since unfettered and unmanipulated democracy is what the Democratic party should be about.

rdorgan wrote "Also, why was Kucinich unsuccessful in removing his name from the MI ballot?"

According to Republican Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, his affidavit was not filed before the deadline, prompting threats of a lawsuit from the Kucinich campaign.

57.

oh, ok about Kucinich, I see that now there's a few articles that got the correct info (ie. he didn't use a No. 2 pencil ?):

http://www.woodtv.com/global/story.asp?s=7193883

LANSING, Mich. -- Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich remains on the Michigan Jan. 15 presidential primary ballot along with Hillary Rodham Clinton and two others, despite his attempts to withdraw.

...

But Kucinich twice filed incorrect paperwork with the secretary of state's office, and had not filed a notice of withdrawal with his notarized signature by Tuesday's 4 p.m. deadline, said the office's spokesman, Ken Silfven.

from the prior thread

10.

mprov
Wed, 10/10/07
1:39 am

You traveled right through our village. Next time you're in the neighborhood give me a call. Maybe I can meet up you up the road for coffee.

http://ts.realtourvision.com/tour/BU/tou...

http://www.coarsegold.com/communit.htm

http://www.coarsegold.com/nature.htm

http://www.yloa.org/home.html

29.

JudyforDean
Wed, 10/10/07
6:40 am

funny story

32.

* rdorgan
Wed, 10/10/07
7:58 am

Now we know who plays by the rules and who likes to game them.

35.

Monica Smith
Wed, 10/10/07
8:26 am

That is an technique used for campaign mailers. I took a workshop on C-SPAN a couple of years ago about fundraising and mailers. It does have some effectiveness. The workshop was taught by a female Republican hack. She was pretty good.

37.

Tom Bearse
Wed, 10/10/07
8:36 am

Cut an apple in two equal pieces. What do you see?

Susan asked "Cut an apple in two equal pieces. What do you see?"

This sounds like a trick question.  An apple core?

61.

IMO it sounds like Michigan party chairman Mark Brewer didn't get a response from the DNC regarding NH's planned move, and is saying that's his sole reason for moving before the Feb 5 date, but --

-- jeez, I'm not a party chairman, but if I did whatever I want everytime someone didn't reply to me, I wouldn't have enough time in the day to get everything done.

(IMO, Mr. Brewer had more than that reason alone to move ahead, like maybe also trying to impress voters in MI who are in a depressed auto-industrial marketplace economy, an economy worse off than most states in the country, to forget about all your worries, in the words of the signature song on the TV show the Jeffersons "we're moving on up, to the Eastside")

Fred,

I'm not sure, but I think she's dealing with sending out emails.

 Sheri

66.

Tom Bearse
Wed, 10/10/07
12:56 pm

no trick. What do you see?

rdorgan wrote "I'm not a party chairman, but if I did whatever I want everytime someone didn't reply to me, I wouldn't have enough time in the day to get everything done."

Come on rdorgan, get with the program. The reason that Michigan moved its caucus date up wasn’t out of a snit because it was ignored by the national committee. It was because the committee would not level any sanction against New Hampshire for breaking party rules regarding the delegate selection process. Why, in your opinion, do some states deserve discriminatory action in response to these violations from the national party?

Tara's still listed as Technology Director. . . .

Susan wrote "no trick. What do you see?"

The two halves of an apple.

If you haven't signed yet, please do.

America for Gore
Add Al Gore to the DFA Straw Poll!
PETITION:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/al-go...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21036143/sit...

this may be old news to some but an NBC newsweek poll done on sept 29

70.

I'm not going to rehash what I already said upthread, my recommendation is to deal with NH off season, it's a one state issue.  Whereas MI and FL had the potential for bringing in a whole slew of states into Jan if they got away with it.  NH, true, got away with a bit of it but it's a manageble offense that can be dealt with (hey, they get a yellow card; whilst MI and FL get red carded).

Life's not fair.

I'll stop talking about this subject because it, understandly so, is a sore subject for any MI and FL bloggers here.

bbl

71.

Tom Bearse
Wed, 10/10/07
1:09 pm

You should see a two dimensional star. When the apple is whole you see a three dimensional star.

Take a bite of life. Have a nice snack.

I'm not familiar with whether NH violated Party rules, but if they did, yes, they should be penalized.  Any state party which violates agreed to party rules should be penalized.  If that leaves a mostly  empty convention hall, so be it.

IMHO, the rules for this time around stink, I would have voted against them, but the DNC agreed to them and they set the rules for selection of the party nominee.  I wouldn't protect Iowa and NH specifically, but I would make the first couple of primaries small state primaries and separate them from the rest (and each other).

National or regional primaries are the wrong answer, because they play to the "name" candidates who can raise lots of money and run organizations and commercials in lots of states from day one. 

rdorgan wrote "MI and FL had the potential for bringing in a whole slew of states into Jan if they got away with it. NH, true, got away with a bit of it but it's a manageble offense that can be dealt with (hey, they get a yellow card; whilst MI and FL get red carded). Life's not fair."

Wait, wait, wait. "Not fair" is your response? Why are you castigating Michigan and Florida except for breaking the rules that were voted on and to which everyone agreed?

Fairness is a fine ideal but, of course, it has its place. New Hampshire "got away" with a "manageable offense," but what’s a harmless joke among friends? In response to my question, you appear to think that discriminatory reactions by the national party to rules violations aren’t really so bad because life isn’t fair.

In the meantime, no one gives a crap about the opinion of Massachusetts Democrats because they don’t live in Iowa or New Hampshire. Oh well, right? Michigan Democrats will have no voice in the nomination process because it broke rules. New Hampshire Democrats will have all the candidates visit, have an enormous say in the selection process, and will seat a full slate of delegates. They broke rules, too, but they’re not Michigan.

Rich wrote "I'm not familiar with whether NH violated Party rules, but if they did, yes, they should be penalized. Any state party which violates agreed to party rules should be penalized. If that leaves a mostly empty convention hall, so be it."

We’re in agreement. However, as Brewer indicated, if New Hampshire hadn’t violated any rules, neither would have Michigan.

I'm just going to toss this out. I don't know what the specific wording is on the Rules. I know New Hampshire is supposed to be first Primary. I don't know if the rules stated they weren't allowed to move their date, regardless of other states changing theirs.

Unless the rules said New Hampshire CANNOT change their date, even though they are supposed to remain first Primary, then of course, then they didn't break the rules.

Do you know what New Hampshire's DNC laws were, Tom?

I LOVE it. Four Gore diaries up on the Recommend List of Daily kos!

54. Sam Ross

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran’s president was misrepresented by Western media
================

Lots of what he says is misrepresented. If it is good, it is made bad. If it is bad, it is made worse.

The reaction to the "holocaust denial" meeting was a good example. We don't gain anything by denying that there are deniers.

It is a good idea to see who such people are, and have them reveal themselves. Was Ahmedinejad promoting the idea of holocaust denial, or was he was giving these deniers a forum to express themselves?

If he was doing the latter, he was also giving others at the meeting, a chance to tell them how wrong they are - to their faces.

Was Ahmadinejad was simply asking questions about holocaust denial? If so, is just asking this question the reason he was pummeled in the press?

His meeting was an opportunity to identify holocaust deniers, and also, to bear witness to them that the holocaust did indeed happen.

We don't gain anything by pretending holocaust deniers don't exist.

The media and politicians seized upon it as an opportunity to identify Ahmendinejad as a holocaust denier, and/or sympathetic to holocaust deniers.

Is there really compelling evidence for either of these assumptions?

If anyone on this blog knows any unbiased facts, please post a link to it. However there is so much opinionated innuendo, it is difficult to know what the truth is anymore.

Truth is the first casualty of war.

The Right wing in Israel (circa 1995) constantly havingg called Itzak Rabin a Nazi, a Hitler, and Worse-than-Hitler (for trying to make the West Bank into a homeland for Palestinians) is as bad or worse than anything Ahmedinejad ever said.

As is the right wing in Israel often comparing Arabs and Moslems in the Israeli Press, as the modern-day Nazis, who dead set reviving a new Jewish holocaust.

Unfortunately Ahmedinejad played right into their hands. It may be why he is losing support and will not be re-elected, but is he guilty as charged, in the Western media?

Linda wrote "Do you know what New Hampshire's DNC laws were, Tom?"

Yes. They are, as stated, that the date for a selection of delegates to the 2008 Democratic nominating convention shall be at a New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22, 2008.

42. Just passing through, but that was an interesting response to my comment, Fred.

I do not believe that you were the original poster and that was the post that I meant.

Please don't assume that you are always the one being addressed.

And, like Linda, I believe that Superman wears Al Gore pajamas.

You can believe whatever you want to.

54.

Sam Ross
Wed, 10/10/07
12:28 pm

....
oh - woops - sorry - we're a rather backwards country at translating --especially our media. Hope it doesn't cause a WAR.
---------

...lol, yep that's the only hope left.

Btw, Ahmadinejad's presidential media adviser said that "that because of historical, religious and cultural differences homosexuality was less common in Iran and the Islamic world than in the West".

Makes sense for those who are familiar with such a cultures..., which have very little believe that those kind of things might be caused by "genes"..., lol.

___________________________________________________________________________

Obama is finished.........something as trite as this can submarine a campaign......he forgot that the average voter out there really tales this stuff seriously, although he is correct IMO..................

Sorry rd, but the party is over.............its an American phenomenon..............

A new thread follows this one.