we voted for john edwards because we would like to see a brokered convention...the leading candidates are fixing it so there will be no way they can win the general election...all this nastiness going on is being taped by the opposition and will be used in commercials...are the democrats taping all the republicans blaming the democrats for the largest deficit in our history...blaming it on welfare, social security, medicare, instead of the war in iraq...we need to get that across...

Here are some activities in the Pinellas area:

Dean is first.

OK, so I should probably link to the Nation article that explains more about the caucus in Nevada and makes the point that the delegated chosen to the county and state conventions are not bound.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=272940 

Thanks for doing this, Monica, I had to do something else for awhile.

So, if I understand the process, one can go to the general threads, pick one, recommend it, and then go back and tell the previous thread about it?

I was under the impression that I had to write one myself. LOL

************
Again, everyone, my BIG news is that I get to meet Howard in person this week. And yes, Phil, I will ask him why he doesn't stop by and blog here a bit ... how we would all love that.

And that is nothing against Jim, btw. As Monica so accurately says *Dean is first* and here that Dean also includes Jim.

So, Judy, are you telling us that the Doc is a gad-about?  Flying off to Europe when there's so much to do here?

One wonders which heads of state he will meet with this time. 

Yes, Judy, there are usually lots of posts in the browse cache.  I think anything that's posted to a DFALink blog shows up.  That's how we sometimes get those purely local schedules which some people seem to object to, but which I find quite inspiring. It's nice to know what's happening in other parts of the country.

Wow, Monica, you anticipated my post. Or was that a response from the LONG old thread?

*********
If the Doc is truly a gad-about, then he is an effective energizing one. I think that this tour is in advance of the global Dems Abroad primary. He's meeting with local Dem chairs and our chair here and I are BIG fans of his from way back when. She was one of the Dean delegates to the 2004 convention and is quite an energizing force herself. I admire her a lot.

The fact that Dean is stopping here is largely due to her efforts, I believe.

7. I totally agree that it is inspiring to see what is happening in other parts of the country. These Howard-inspired people are awesome ... and they do help to keep me grounded over here when some of the other news is so bleak.

Thanks for all that YOU do, btw.

New from Florida is particularly timely.  I had forgotten all about them.  Like Michigan they won't be able to send delegates to Denver--at least not the ones that get elected.  Presumably, the super delegates will still count.  Which strikes me as a bit undemocratic.

8.  Responding to old thread.  LOL

So why is it that Israel continues to act as if no international law should ever apply to its actions?

I think that most of us know the answer to that one, so the question is purely a rhetorical one.

There are big differences between the actions of individuals who are fanatics (and yes, undeniably criminal) and actions of a State. So many of these actions are no less than State-sponsored terrorism and, until they are dealt with, the US will continue to be a target for its hypocrisy and double standards.

The truly ironic thing is that the *Palestinian militants* referred to are generally from radical Fatah sects, not Hamas. And Fatah is our *friend* under the *control* of the hapless Abbas.

Thanks a lot putzCo, neoncons, and the fanatic-dominated AIPAC.

====================
Gaza power plant begins shutting down
Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:15am EST
By Nidal al-Mughrabi

GAZA, Jan 20 (Reuters) - Gaza's main power plant began shutting down on Sunday due to a fuel shortage caused by Israel's closure of the Hamas-controlled territory's borders in response to Palestinian rocket attacks.

The impact could be seen in many of Gaza's buildings, where lights were out and elevators stopped working.

Stores in the impoverished territory, home to 1.5 million people, were running out of candles and other goods because of a surge in demand and lack of supply. Gas stations have been shuttered because of Israeli cuts in petrol and diesel delivery.

Kanaan Abeid, deputy chairman of the Palestinian Energy Authority in the Gaza Strip, said one of the plant's two turbines ceased operation in the morning and the second would do so in the evening.

"There is no fuel coming in and we have no reserves," Abeid said, estimating as many as one million Gaza residents would be affected by the full shutdown.

[...]
According to Israeli and Palestinian officials, Gaza's population ordinarily consumes 200 megawatts of electricity, of which 65 are produced by the local power plant. The rest comes from Israel and Egypt.

Critics say the fuel reductions amount to illegal "collective punishment" against largely aid-dependent Gaza.

"It is going to have a significant impact on the daily lives of hundreds of thousands of people in Gaza," said Christopher Gunness, spokesman for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), whose aid shipments have been turned back.

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredC...

I wonder if we couldn't substitute "egalitarian" for "progressive"

In a sense, if history is considered a linear process, then moving forward is, like change, inevitable and "progressive" is sort of meaningless.

I can see why "equalize" is not a preferred word because it implies a effort to make something that isn't.  "egalitarian" would merely imply recognition of an existing condition.

To be an egalitarian doesn't imply doing anything to anyone else.  It's a subjective posture, not unlike "being right."

I am an egalitarian.

Wonder if Republicans would be prompted to visualize an eagle? 

Somehow we have to promote the realization that terrorism isn't defined by "who" does it, but by what's involved.  At the core, terrorism is a strategy that attacks or abuses innocents for the purpose of influencing the behavior of someone else.  On an individual level, we would identify it as kidnapping.  If the number of innocents is somewhat larger, we call it hostage taking.  When a whole nation is involved, we call it warfare and occupation.

Who does it should not be defining.

Ethics should be situational--i.e. behavior should be characterized by its effect; not the perpetrator's intent.

The problem with using intent as a criterion of moral value isn't just that intent is almost impossible to prove, but that under that standard even benign behavior can be criminalized. 

14. The problem is that we (and yes, we are at least latently *encouraging* and patently enabling our client-state Israel to respond to terrorist actions by a few with wholesale collective punishment.

When other occupying forces did it, i.e., as in the Nazi-occupied countries during WWII, we called it what it was. Now we seem to have selective memory.

Preliminary results from NH recount of Democratic ballots:

The recount of the New Hampshire primary is well underway. 79,344 ballots - some 27% of the statewide Democratic total - have been recounted in public view. That total now includes 14 towns using hand counts, where 5,661 votes were cast.

Key results so far:
1. The raw miscount rate - that is, changes between the election night total and the recount total - is 857 votes.
2. There are an additional hand-counted 70 write-in votes originally lumped together as 'scatter' that were reallocated to obscure candidates, accounting for another 140 changes in total.
3. The raw miscount rate was 1.08%.
4. The miscount rate in scanner precincts was 1%.
5. The miscount rate in hand count towns was 2.6%.
6. Of the 857 miscounts, 401 from both scanner and hand count precincts are known to be or clearly appear to be simple human error.*
7. Subtracting the human errors, the maximum error attributable to the scanners is 0.57%.

 

Conclusions:There is a bill in the legislature to have New Hampshire pay for and conduct a hand recount of a few precincts - randomly chosen after the election is over - following every state election. I strongly support that as an obvious, necessary quality control measure. We inspect every Nth radial tire and every Nth can of soup. We should also inspect every Nth scanner result. (Hand counts should be included)

'Cain and Hillary top today's headlines. Those who are interested can find them easily.

While I do not approve of radical reactions from any group, I wonder just why this man is allowed to do the equivalent of shouting *fire* in a crowded theater.

The right of *free speech* is not unlimited, especially when such is calculated to provoke and inflame.

The question here should be whether the facts stated in the film are true, not whether anyone can say anything that one wants to.

If the facts are true, fine, even if they are uncomfortable ones. If they are not, then the filmmaker should be sued for defamation and libel.

=====================
Violence fear over Islam film
Counter-terrorism alert as a Dutch right-winger launches a movie that will denounce the Koran
Jason Burke, Europe editor
Sunday January 20, 2008
Observer

The Dutch government is bracing itself for violent protests following the scheduled broadcast this week of a provocative anti-Muslim film by a radical right-wing politician who has threatened to broadcast images of the Koran being torn up and otherwise desecrated.

Cabinet ministers and officials, fearing a repetition of the crisis sparked by the publication of cartoons of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper two years ago, have held a series of crisis meetings and ordered counter-terrorist services to draw up security plans. Dutch nationals overseas have been asked to register with their embassies and local mayors in the Netherlands have been put on standby.

Geert Wilders, one of nine members of the extremist VVD (Freedom) party in the 150-seat Dutch lower house, has promised that his film will be broadcast - on television or on the internet - whatever the pressure may be. It will, he claims, reveal the Koran as 'source of inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror'.

Dutch diplomats are already trying to pre-empt international reaction. 'It is difficult to anticipate the content of the film, but freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend,' said Maxime Verhagen, the Foreign Minister, who was in Madrid to attend the Alliance of Civilisations, an international forum aimed at reducing tensions between the Islamic world and the West. In Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other towns with large Muslim populations, imams say they have needed to 'calm down' growing anger in their communities.

Government officials hope that no mainstream media organisation will agree to show the film, although one publicly funded channel, Nova, initially agreed before pulling out. 'A broadcast on a public channel could imply that the government supported the project,' said an Interior Ministry spokesman.

Demonstrations are also expected from those opposed to Wilders beyond Holland's Muslim community - a number of left-wing activists have already been arrested - and from his supporters. Members of a group calling itself Stop Islamisation of Europe are planning to travel to Amsterdam. 'Geert Wilders is an elected politician who has made a film, and that he is under armed guard as a result is absolutely outrageous,' said Stephen Gash, a UK-based member, yesterday. 'It is all about free speech.'

[...]
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,...

An indicator of environmental doom?

================
Ocean floor sensors will warn of failing Gulf Stream
UK will be in a deep freeze if the current strays
Robin McKie, science editor The Observer
Sunday January 20 2008

An armada of robot submarines and marine sensors are to be deployed across the Atlantic, from Florida to the Canary Islands, to provide early warning that the Gulf Stream might be failing, an event that would trigger cataclysmic freezing in Britain for decades.

The £16m system, called Rapid Watch, will use the latest underwater monitoring techniques to check whether cold water pouring south from melting Arctic ice sheets is diverting the current's warm waters away from Britain.

Without the Gulf Stream, the UK would be as cold as Canada in winter. Ports could freeze over and snowstorms and blizzards would paralyse the country. An extreme version of this meteorological mayhem provided the film The Day After Tomorrow with its plotline.

'The Day After Tomorrow suggested the Gulf Stream could fail within a couple of days,' said Rapid Watch's co-ordinator, Meric Srokosz of the Southampton Oceanographic Centre. 'In reality, a collapse will take a lot longer, but could still occur in about 10 years.' Rapid Watch has been designed to discover if such weakening is already occurring or is about to begin.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...

I'm not sure why I feel the need to share this.  There is obviously some terrible madness wafting through the land.

BELLINGHAM - Moments after picking up her young niece and nephew at their southern New Hampshire home the evening of Jan. 11, Marcelle "Marci" Thibault pulled to the side of Interstate 495 in Lowell, stripped herself and the children naked, then deliberately carried them into the middle of the road where they were killed by oncoming traffic, authorities said yesterday.

The news came as a shock to their family and communities already reeling from the deaths.

Thibealt was to bring the children to her Bellingham home for a weekend sleepover and a tea party the night they all died.

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

She killed the children of her twin.  But I guess what gets me is that the people she made her unwitting accomplices are going to be haunted by this night for the rest of their lives.

How does it happen that people have so little thought of others?   

Unquestionably. The. Worst. IMHO

===================
Just one more year! Good riddance to George W Bush
But what kind of mess will the next president inherit, exactly 12 months from today? By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 20 January 2008

Arabia is the land of illusion and desert mirages. And as he jetted last week from kingdom to sheikdom, to be regaled with feasts and falcons, jewels and ornamental swords, George Bush might have imagined that all was well with his presidency. But this, his longest and most ambitious trip to the Middle East, will surely be remembered – if it is remembered at all – as a gaudy, irrelevant footnote to a presidency that has long since failed.

Today is a sombre milestone, marking the start of the last of Mr Bush's eight years in the White House. This being a leap year, exactly 366 days remain until 20 January 2009, when his successor will be sworn into office. It is a time when incumbents look to their legacies. And for this President the view could scarcely be bleaker.

Is he the worst President in US history? Mr Bush faces stiff competition from the likes of James Buchanan, who watched as America slipped towards civil war, or Warren Harding with his corrupt administration, or Herbert Hoover, who failed to halt the slide into the Great Depression, or, more recently, Richard Nixon, the only President to be forced to resign. But in terms of dogmatism, incompetence, ignorance and divisiveness, Mr Bush surely compares with any of the above.

[...]
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/amer...

I will again propose that the Democratic Party switch to a simultaneous nationwide six week long absentee ballot only election for the allocation of delegates to a national nominating convention. The ballots to be counted publically and the results announced weekly by the District Central Committees and the actual delegates elected proportionally at the District Convention to follow from candidates running on slates that are pre-approved by the candidates (as now).

we need a process that adds to and complements our Party's ability to organize and win general elections and a candidate with an organization that can do that everywhere in the nation

my proposal gives every single Democratic Party member exactly the same weight in the process in every single state

19. To do something like that, she would have to be out of her mind ... or sincerely believe that she was taking them and herself to be *Raptured,* which is almost the same thing, IMO.

In such a case, the impact of of her act on unwitting, and unwilling, accomplices would not have been on her mind at all.

Yes, *terrible madness* indeed.

21. I concur with your proposal, Phil, and really hope that the Dems listen to it.

Packer pre-game show on TV and with my trip to the barn at 20 below I can't imagine playing football tonight.

I'm not going to even travel to the big screen.

yikes

Go Pack!

bbl

Even if the election monitoring people have been a little off base, they've at least forced us to pay attention to the process and recognize that it's a mess.  State parties doing their own thing is great, but even a crazy quilt has to be conformed to a unified whole if it's purpose is to be served.

By the way, the article that I posted at 20 is an excellent read, although long. Every Dem campaign should read it thoroughly and every Dem candidate should take it to heart, to see if they REALLY do want the job.

Even attempting to clean up the mess left by putzCo home and abroad makes cleaning the Augean stables look like a daily task.

************
The idea of the US becoming a wholly-owned foreign subsidiary rather than remaining a country ... is not such a fantasy as it may seem.

Thanks again, putzCo.

===================
January 20, 2008
Overseas Investors Buy U.S. Holdings at a Record Pace
By PETER S. GOODMAN and LOUISE STORY

Last May, a Saudi Arabian conglomerate bought a Massachusetts plastics maker. In November, a French company established a new factory in Adrian, Mich., adding 189 automotive jobs to an area accustomed to layoffs. In December, a British company bought a New Jersey maker of cough syrup.

For much of the world, the United States is now on sale at discount prices. With credit tight, unemployment growing and worries mounting about a potential recession, American business and government leaders are courting foreign money to keep the economy growing. Foreign investors are buying aggressively, taking advantage of American duress and a weak dollar to snap up what many see as bargains, while making inroads to the world’s largest market.

Last year, foreign investors poured a record $414 billion into securing stakes in American companies, factories and other properties through private deals and purchases of publicly traded stock, according to Thomson Financial, a research firm. That was up 90 percent from the previous year and more than double the average for the last decade. It amounted to more than one-fourth of all announced deals for the year, Thomson said.

During the first two weeks of this year, foreign businesses agreed to invest another $22.6 billion for stakes in American companies — more than half the value of all announced deals. If a recession now unfolds and the dollar drops further, the pace could accelerate, economists say.

The surge of foreign money has injected fresh tension into a running debate about America’s place in the global economy. It has supplied state governors with a new development strategy — attracting foreign money. And it has reinvigorated sometimes jingoistic worries about foreigners securing control of America’s fortunes, a narrative last heard in the 1980s as Americans bought up Hondas and Rockefeller Center landed in Japanese hands.

[...]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/busine...

BTW, I read the Goodman interview with Unger and continue to be amazed that Bush One continues to be able to project his inoffensive image.

Besides, when you come right down to it, there's not much difference in the 'Bridge to the Twenty-first Century" and the "Project for a New American Century."  The millenialist aspirations are the same. 

And thank God that he is.

Here's Frank Rich's latest.

===================
January 20, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Ronald Reagan Is Still Dead
By FRANK RICH

CONTEMPLATING the Clinton-Obama racial war, some Republicans were so excited you’d have thought Ronald Reagan had risen from the dead to slap around a welfare deadbeat.

Never mind that the G.O.P. is running on empty, with no ideas beyond the incessant repetition of Reagan’s name. A battle over race-and-gender identity politics among the Democrats, with its acrid scent from the 1960s, might be just the spark for a Republican comeback. (As long as the G.O.P.’s own identity politics, over religion, don’t flare up.)

Alas, these hopes faded on Tuesday night. First, the debating Democrats declared a truce, however fragile, in their racial brawl. Then Republicans in Michigan reconstituted their party’s election-year chaos by temporarily revivifying yet another candidate, Mitt Romney, who had been left for dead.

The playing of the race card by Hillary Clinton’s surrogates to diminish Barack Obama was sinister. But the Clintons are hardly bigots, and the Democratic candidates all have a history of fighting strenuously for inclusiveness. By contrast, the Romney victory in Michigan is another reminder of how Republicans aren’t even playing in the same multiracial American sandbox.

The conservatives who hyperventilated about the Democrats’ explosion of identity politics seemed to forget that Mr. Romney also dragged Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. into this campaign — claiming that he “saw” his father, a civil-rights minded governor of Michigan, march with King in the 1960s. The point of Mitt Romney’s invocation of the race card was to inoculate himself against legitimate charges of racial insensitivity; he had never spoken out about his own church’s discrimination against blacks, which didn’t end until 1978. Instead, the tactic ended up backfiring. Late last month The Boston Phoenix exposed this touching anecdote as a fraud. George Romney and King never marched together.

[...]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/opinio...

I am not a big MoDo fan, but this one is good.

=================
January 20, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Red, White and Blue Tag Sale
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

When President Bush finished doing his sword dances and Arabian stallion inspections, when he finished making a speech in Abu Dhabi on the importance of freedom that fell flat, when he finished lounging in his fur-lined George of Arabia robe in the Saudi king’s tent, he came home.

Or he came to what was left of home.

A Washington Post cartoon by Tom Toles summed it up best: “Great to be home,” W. enthuses on Air Force One, heading toward the East Coast. “Anything interesting happen while I was gone?” Hanging on the skyline of New York is a sign reading: “U.S.A. Now a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Foreign Investors.”

Wherever he went, W. seemed dazzled by the can-do spirit of the J. Pierrepont Finches of the new Middle East. “It’s important for the president to hear thoughts, hopes, dreams, aspirations, concerns from folks that are out making a living,” he told Saudi entrepreneurs.

In Dubai, he commended young Arab leaders, saying, “The entrepreneurial spirit is strong.”

In Abu Dhabi, he marveled at the royal family’s plans to build a city based entirely upon renewable energy. “Amazing, isn’t it?” W. said.

You know you’re in trouble when your Middle East oil pump is greener than you are.

Even as W. played cheerleader for Arab business, the Arabs were cleaning our clocks — then buying them. Our addiction to oil has allowed our pushers in the Persian Gulf to go on a shopping spree to snap us up.

Hillary Clinton was right when she said it was “pathetic” that President Bush had to beg the Saudis to drop the price of oil.

One cascading rationale he offered for invading Iraq was the benign domino theory, that bringing democracy to Iraq would sway the autocrats in the region to be less repressive.

[...]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/opinio...

Linda in NM
Sun, 01/20/08
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Linda,

Dont listen to sitka, hes just one of the "Obama gang" here that comprising about 4 or 5 people that love victory but are pretty sore losers as of late................ignore them.....stick to your values.....and dont let them intimidate you..................

Lets not forget his history on th blog either...............he either left for quite some time, couldnt hack it here ..or was booted off.........

26.  All I hope is that the new owners are better businessmen than the home-grown ones.  Perhaps the problem is one of denial.  American enterprise has convinced itself that success is a consequence of independence and self-reliance when, in fact, it's been dependent on government supports all along.  And, as might be predicted, being propped up by the government has made them lazy entrepreneurs.  The American entrepreneurial class has become like pampered princelings for whom the royal treasury is never generous enough.

What else are current calls for yet more tax relief?  Those who benefit most from the adventure in Iraq don't want to pay the cost.   

Pampered princelings.  That's what Republican'ts are. 

Sorry to hear about this. Suzanne was a good one. May she RIP.

===============
'Newhart' Actress Pleshette Dies
By BOB THOMAS
The Associated Press
Sunday, January 20, 2008; 2:17 AM

LOS ANGELES -- Suzanne Pleshette, the beautiful, husky-voiced film and theater star best known for her role as Bob Newhart's sardonic wife on television's long-running "The Bob Newhart Show," has died, said her attorney Robert Finkelstein. She was 70.

Pleshette, who underwent chemotherapy for lung cancer in 2006, died of respiratory failure Saturday evening at her Los Angeles home, said Finkelstein, who is also a family friend.

"The Bob Newhart Show, a hit throughout its six-year run, starred comedian Newhart as a Chicago psychiatrist surrounded by eccentric patients. Pleshette provided the voice of reason.

Four years after the show ended in 1978, Newhart went on to the equally successful "Newhart" series in which he was the proprietor of a New England inn populated by more eccentrics. When that show ended in 1990, Pleshette reprised her role _ from the first show _ in one of the most clever final episodes in TV history.

It had Newhart waking up in the bedroom of his "The Bob Newhart Show" home with Pleshette at his side. He went on to tell her of the crazy dream he'd just had of running an inn filled with eccentrics.

"If I'm in Timbuktu, I'll fly home to do that," Pleshette said of her reaction when Newhart told her how he was thinking of ending the show.

[...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

33. It strikes me that they well could be better. After all, if they want their businesses to run at a profit, they need healthy, educated, relaxed and motivated employees, not virtual slave laborers, as US corporations managed by CEOs with obscene compensation packages have become 20th and 21st century plantations.

So if foreign ownership actually advances the causes of universal access to health care, increased educational opportunities, and decent vacation time, as well as decent pay for decent work, I say more power to them.

29.  Don't be silly, Mike.  Sitka isn't an Obama fan.  If he favors anyone it's Kucinich, who's taken all the right positions but absolutely refuses to organize the electorate. 

He doesn't like that Edwards' performance in office is being discounted and considers him an opportunist.  The latter is an opinion I shared when he put himself forward as presidential malterial in 2003.  Being generous, one assumes that he's gained wisdom in the intervening years, but it may just be that what makes him an effective litigator, makes him an ineffective chief executive.

One of the peculiarities of the court room we often overlook is that the information flow is severely restricted so the contest between the plaintiff and the defendant isn't muddied by reality poking up its head at inconvenient moments.  It may well be that, in addition to media laziness and preference for a contest over a competition, the electoral process has been influenced negatively by this juridical preference for clear-cut positions.  Edwards railing against the corporations doesn't look a whole lot more promising to the casual citizen observer than does ragging on the opposition candidates.

One other thing that Edwards may be overlooking is that politically active people are also people who actually serve on juries on a pretty regular basis or know others who do and people who have served on juries are not likely to have a high estimation for lawyers.  Indeed, most probably come away thinking that the last thing they want to do is put themselves in the hands of a lawyer--not because lawyers won't win for them, but because lawyers distort reality and confound common sense and the right often turns out to be morally suspect, if not wrong. 

Winners, Losers from SaturdayCurry: Wins for McCain & Clinton

Jim Hoagland is one WaPo Op-Eder that I like, although there are still too darn many neocon or discredited conservatives writing Op Eds there. I have not believed anything that George Will has written for year, after he revealed how he sat in on Reagan debate practice sessions conducted with Carter's stolen briefing book. What I think about the *tool* Novak is unprintable.

And then there are the neocons writing today about how we should have more *patience* over Iraq. If they think so, then they or their families should be over there ... and not IN the Green Zone only ... which is patently NOT the case.

Anyway, here's Jim's take on something that I too worry about. A lot.

====================
An Establishment Teeters, in Kenya and Beyond
By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, January 20, 2008; B07

Other people's violence is not a deep concern for most of us, particularly if it occurs in remote Africa or overpopulated Asia. But the outbreak of tribal killings and widespread rioting in Kenya hits me where I live.

Rather, it hits me where I lived. The upheaval threatens to put Nairobi on a list of foreign capitals where I once resided or visited regularly but which have become dangerous ground for foreign tourists or business people, journalists and, in many cases, the local population. A curtain of violence and of hostility toward outsiders has fallen over many parts of my journalistic history.

So when Kenya seems to be collapsing, I take it personally. It revives memories of seeing Lebanon tear itself apart around me, or watching from a distance as Algiers, Tehran, Baghdad, Mogadishu, Khartoum, Harare and a few of the other places I traveled to as a young foreign correspondent have been enveloped by long nights of horrific destruction, xenophobic revolution or both.

The list is not exhaustive, nor, as you may have suspected, is it truly just about my own experiences living or working in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. I cite it to make the point that the world increasingly needs to take the number of failing capitals personally -- and to commit more international resources and energy to helping struggling nations right themselves.

The forces of globalization and of immediate, intrusive electronic communication have connected the lives of Americans and Europeans much more closely to the people of the developing world -- on the surface. But the increase in communication has not been matched by an increase in understanding of the Third World's dilemmas or a commitment to help resolve them.

As my own accounting of "lost" places suggests, the march toward stability and prosperity that the end of the colonial era seemed to promise has lagged or disappeared in many areas. Colleagues would add Kabul and Rangoon to the inventory of turmoil in parts previously known. Islamabad is racing toward making the roll call of dysfunction and despair.

It is premature to compare Nairobi at this point to those other, more tumultuous capitals. But most of them -- as Nairobi certainly did -- originally had serious chances to succeed as workable or even important regional or international centers of governance, and they failed. Nairobi must now avoid their mistakes if it is to avoid their fate.

[...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

The blog is jumping again.  I should get my a** in gear and go sew those dresses for missy granddaughter.

One of our DFALink group members put this together.  There are so many people plugging away for little or no reward.

29.
Michael Ellis
Sun, 01/20/08

Reply to this

374.

Linda in NM
Sun, 01/20/08
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Linda,

Dont listen to sitka, hes just one of the "Obama gang" here that comprising about 4 or 5 people that love victory but are pretty sore losers as of late................ignore them.....stick to your values.....and dont let them intimidate you..................

Lets not forget his history on th blog either...............he either left for quite some time, couldnt hack it here ..or was booted off.........

+++

Michael -

In all due respect, of the three R's, your problem is not with Reading but with aRithmetic.

In your lofty, comfortable outsider role of not getting involved in any prez campaign (at least Linda NM is involved with the Edwards campaign), you seemed to have forgotten how to count.

If you want to believe your statement -- the "Obama gang" here that comprising about 4 or 5 people -- well, IMO that can be easily explained because you don't seem to see straight, and in the words I lift from Sitka, because you're "blind in one eye".

Oh btw, Monica is right, Sitka is not an Obama supporter. 

Sorry, didn't intend to post so much of that. Will try to be more careful.

************
Sheesh, Monica, are you fighting Stika's battles for him? LOL

He's shown that he can take good care of himself. :)

************
You are afraid that impeachment will be too *divisive,* Nancy?

Sorry, impeachment is the ONLY right thing to do at this time, to these monsters.

This is hardly about a stained blue dress. People are dying. Daily. People all over the world are astonished at this attitude from the country that tells them ALL what THEY should be doing.

Let us put our own House in order.

=====================
Pelosi greeted with “Impeach” Bush and Cheney buttons
January 18th, 2008, filed by Thomas Ferraro

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she’s drawing heat from fellow Democratic lawmakers as well as people across the nation for refusing to move to impeach President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

“I go through airports, and people have buttons as if they knew I was coming,” Pelosi said with a smile, mimicking a protester pointing to an “Impeach” button on their chest.

But the California Democrat said she is sticking to her position that trying to remove Bush or Cheney would be divisive, and she added, most likely unsuccessful. If the House voted to impeach Bush and Cheney, a two-thirds vote would be needed in the closely divided Senate to oust them.

Many Democrats and civil liberties groups have accused the Bush administration of misleading the United States into the Iraq war and violating the rights of U.S. citizens with its warrantless surveillance program. The White House denies the charges.

[...]
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/01...

DU's Nance Greggs has a *Nance Rant* that is right on target.

I will not post all of it, but it is definitely worth a read.

And worth some thought ...

=====================
Sound Familiar?

Anyone who supports Hillary also supports the interests of corporations, wants a Republican-lite in the White House, and is too dumb to recognize that she will ruin the country. It is not possible that they see in her a savvy, sophisticated fighter who is ready, willing and able to do the right thing by all Americans – and if they do, they just don’t see the big picture. Besides, she is NOT electable, because she’s a woman.

Anyone who supports Obama is easily swayed by a no-substance double-talker who lacks the experience and gravitas to lead a nation. It is not possible that they see in him a true visionary who sees what the nation could be, and is eloquent enough to inspire the many to move towards meaningful change – and if they do, they just don’t get it. Besides, he is NOT electable, because he’s black.

Anyone who supports Edwards is totally blind to his hypocrisy, and willfully ignorant of the fact that he’s wealthy and therefore doesn’t care about the plight of the poor or the working-class. It is not possible that they see in him a man who is on the side of the American citizen when it comes to taking on the greed of corporations, and their undue influence on our government – and if they do, they just don’t understand what’s at stake here. Besides, he’s NOT electable, because he’s rich.

Sound familiar? It should – because this kind of meaningful discussion is posted here every day, day-in/day-out, 24/7, without fail.

Please excuse me for not seeing things your way – I had this crazy idea that I was allowed to decide things for myself.

Please forgive me for not being swayed by your rhetoric – I stupidly believed that I was entitled to my own opinion, and didn’t realize I had to defer to yours, because you obviously know everything.

[...]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...

Whoops, sorry Sitka (my 40). I do know how to spell your name. BAD fingers.

*************
Here's a very interesting read in today's NYT: an interview with Barack Obama's half sister.

=============
January 20, 2008
Questions for Maya Soetoro-Ng
All in the Family
Interview by DEBORAH SOLOMON

[...]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazi...

Josh Marshall at TPM has posted what Bill Moyers, who was there at the time in question, had to say about the recent so-called *race* flap and the resulting *rhetorical inferno,* shamefully due in large part to the NYT's reporting of it.

From his mouth and historical perspective on *the convergence of race and politics* to your ears and eyes.

===============
Bill Moyers on the Background to the Hillary Quote

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/06...

The rebuttal to *the 'surge' is working* and we need more *patience.*

And this is my last for now. Have good ones.

==================
Surge to Nowhere
Don't buy the hawks' hype. The war may be off the front pages, but Iraq is broken beyond repair, and we still own it.
By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, January 20, 2008; B01

As the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom nears, the fabulists are again trying to weave their own version of the war. The latest myth is that the "surge" is working.

In President Bush's pithy formulation, the United States is now "kicking ass" in Iraq. The gallant Gen. David Petraeus, having been given the right tools, has performed miracles, redeeming a situation that once appeared hopeless. Sen. John McCain has gone so far as to declare that "we are winning in Iraq." While few others express themselves quite so categorically, McCain's remark captures the essence of the emerging story line: Events have (yet again) reached a turning point. There, at the far end of the tunnel, light flickers. Despite the hand-wringing of the defeatists and naysayers, victory beckons.

From the hallowed halls of the American Enterprise Institute waft facile assurances that all will come out well. AEI's Reuel Marc Gerecht assures us that the moment to acknowledge "democracy's success in Iraq" has arrived. To his colleague Michael Ledeen, the explanation for the turnaround couldn't be clearer: "We were the stronger horse, and the Iraqis recognized it." In an essay entitled "Mission Accomplished" that is being touted by the AEI crowd, Bartle Bull, the foreign editor of the British magazine Prospect, instructs us that "Iraq's biggest questions have been resolved." Violence there "has ceased being political." As a result, whatever mayhem still lingers is "no longer nearly as important as it was." Meanwhile, Frederick W. Kagan, an AEI resident scholar and the arch-advocate of the surge, announces that the "credibility of the prophets of doom" has reached "a low ebb."

Presumably Kagan and his comrades would have us believe that recent events vindicate the prophets who in 2002-03 were promoting preventive war as a key instrument of U.S. policy. By shifting the conversation to tactics, they seek to divert attention from flagrant failures of basic strategy. Yet what exactly has the surge wrought? In substantive terms, the answer is: not much.

[...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

So where are we in terms of delegates counts? Here's the current breakdown among Dems, according to CNN:

Hillary 210

Obama 123

Edwards 52

By Greg Sargent - January 20, 2008, 8:50AM

TPM Cafe 

 

And among Repubicans:

Romney 72

McCain 38

Huckabee 29

Thompson 8

Paul 6

Rudy 2

(from same TPM Cafe link, Greg Sargent) 

These are a breakdown of "pledged delegates and superdelegates," according to CNN, with the magic number being 2,025. Meanwhile, via The Page, there are different counts at ABC and CBS.

The candidates schedules: Hillary is in New York today, while Obama hits Georgia and South Carolina, and Edwards does two Sunday shows, Face the Nation and Late Edition.

On the GOP side Rudy and McCain are headed for Florida, where the next showdown is expected to be brutal, while Huck heads for Texas.

(again, same Greg Sargent post at TPM Cafe) 

Sitka, didn't know you wanted me to provide links. I thought you were up on all this.

Thanks for the story. But no thanks for another of your mean little swipes.

What's happened to you?

___________________________

I don't see where you get what you claim.



Sitka wrote: Having spouses serve as attack dogs, as in this campaign, is a new low for either party.

And a former prez lowering himself to it, as Bill is doing, makes Elizabeth Edwards' sniping pale in comparison


Linda: Gee, you forgot to mention Mrs. Obama's active role on this campaign.

If I knew or remembered her attacking anyone i would have included her.

If you say she did, then you should have cited it instead of talking a gratuitous swipe at me.

---->>

Quite the contrary as your posts indicate. I don't know what you're looking at to accuse me, but maybe it's you doing what you accuse.

When the old Sitka returns from his constant attacking of EVERYONE, let us know.

JudyforDean, thanks so much for the NanceGregg link at DU.  She speaks for me:)  I read the responses to her thread as well.  Some comfort in knowing that others feel what I'm feeling these days.

Also, many thanks for that link to Bill Moyers on Hillary's remark. The most clarifying post on that incident to come to this blog yet. 

Thanks again for blogging here.  Your edifying posts elevate the dialogue here.  Since you post during the night it makes for great reading with the morning coffee.

Well, heading out.  Many things to do today.  Among others, deciding who I'm supporting for president.  Edwards is toast, I'm afraid. 

 Peace out, folks.

6:13 PST. 

I'm reproducing more of the delightful Nance Greggs column cited by Judy because it trained a white hot spot light on the discourse here, at dKos, myDD, and a whole host of bickering stations that have developed on the internet.

"[T]his kind of meaningful discussion is posted here every day, day-in/day-out, 24/7, without fail.

" . . . .

"Please ignore my obvious political ignorance – I foolishly thought that I was supposed to look behind the soundbyte quotes and judge them in the context in which they were proferred. I completely forgot that I should shun any investigation into the latest 'news' stories in order to determine if they were fact, semi-fact, or out-and-out fiction. I admit that, like the idiot you seem to think I am, I should just accept your version of events – in the same way I should accept the MSM’s version of what just happened, what it means, and why I should base my support on what everyone else thinks instead of what I think.

" . . .

"No matter who I support, I will be told by many of you here that I am an idiot who doesn’t see the big picture, doesn’t get it, doesn’t understand what’s at stake here.

"The minute I see a thread that says (outrightly or in more couched, subtle tones) 'Do what I do, believe what I say, vote as I will vote because I know better than you do', all I hear is the arrogance of someone saying, 'If you don’t agree with me, you are an idiot!'

"And guess what? In my world, I care about what I think – and what you think matters not at all.

"Again, I express my sincere mea culpa for having the audacity to think for myself, to support the candidate of my choice rather than the candidate you've TOLD me I should support - and for having the unmitigated gall to say so.

"I guess that makes me an idiot to some. But better an idiot with her own opinion than the kind of sheeple we've all been ranting against for years now -- you know, the ones who just believe what they're told by those who 'know what's best', instead of thinking for themselves."

Scroll alert for unintended

oops, sorry, repost, piece got left off.


Sitka, didn't know you wanted me to provide links. I thought you were up on all this.

Thanks for the story. But no thanks for another of your mean little swipes.

What's happened to you?

___________________________

I don't see where you get what you claim.

Sitka wrote: Having spouses serve as attack dogs, as in this campaign, is a new low for either party.

And a former prez lowering himself to it, as Bill is doing, makes Elizabeth Edwards' sniping pale in comparison

Linda: Gee, you forgot to mention Mrs. Obama's active role on this campaign.

Sitka: If I knew or remembered her attacking anyone i would have included her.

If you say she did, then you should have cited it instead of talking a gratuitous swipe at me.

Linda:Sitka, didn't know you wanted me to provide links. I thought you were up on all this.

Sitka: Thanks for the story. But no thanks for another of your mean little swipes.

What's happened to you?


--->>Quite the contrary as your posts indicate. I don't know what you're looking at to accuse me, but maybe it's you doing what you accuse.

When the old Sitka returns from his constant attacking of EVERYONE, let us know.

Forever Peace
Susan Pleshette, you've given so much laughter and smiles.

Linda wrote "I don't see where you get what you claim."

There was this great Peanuts comic once.  Charlie Brown had been flying the kite he flew that always got stuck in a tree, and got tangled up in the kite string, so he was hanging upside down from the tree in a nest of tangled string.  Lucy is standing by the tree but isn't aware of him hanging above her head.  She stands on one side of the tree looking out and says "he's not here."  She moves to the other side and says "he's not here either."  Then she walks away saying "he must not be anywhere."

410

I'm not a loser.  As far as I am concerned Obama won yesterday.  He did get more delegates and that is what counts.

+++

Michael -

Any words you have to say to rae hart ?

McCain wins S.C.; Romney wins Nevada; Clinton, Obama share in Nevada

Obama, Clinton share NV!

http://www.ksl.com/

now that I have had a chance to look over the final numbers it is clear that Obama's delegate win came from grassroots support married with a statewide organization using the Iowa model, Clinton had the better election day GOTV with delivering maybes

pretty hard to spin fewer delegates as a big win for Clinton but George S. sure was

I'm looking for an Obama win in South Carolina with another attempt to paint Obama as the black candidate rather than the front runner in delegate count

notice how Clinton's MSM totals suddenly include MI 

all the Feb 5th states are proportional and it will still be Edwards that keeps Clinton from taking a majority of delegates

don't worry about stopping Clinton by attacking Edwards and think you are helping Obama

the Clintons will be doing plenty of that

Russia 'Might' Use Pre-Emptive NukesDiscontent Surges in Iraq  Mosque Raid 'Ends Southern Iraq Bloodshed' During Religious Festival Violence Increases and Tensions Rise Among Iraqi Shi'ites Injured Troops Sent Back to Iraq Amid Soldier Shortage Iraq Vet Says War Crimes Are Unofficially Encouraged Saturday: 29 Iraqis Killed, 65 WoundedUS Plays Down Chance of Iran Resolution SoonAl-Qaeda Sent Me to Kill Bhutto, Says TeenagerMontana Governor Foments Real ID RebellionHeadlines @ AntiWar.com

53, OK

54.

oh, oh....

I know, I know...dos that mean now that everyone is claiming 

"it's the delegates" stupid, we should see how the race turns out and who collects

the most....instead of making such outrageous demand tha if one doesn't have t

the same or more than another, they should LEAVE THE RACE? 

I know, I know...dos that mean now that everyone is claiming "it's the delegates" stupid, we should see how the race turns out and who collectsthe most....instead of making such outrageous demand tha if one doesn't have the same or more than another, they should LEAVE THE RACE?

Phil, I don't know if ou've seen, but Edwards has been drawing huge crowds from LAX, OK, MO, and arriving back in SC.

Remeber, John Edwards is on Face the Nation today.

ciao!

Edwards will determine the nominee if he stays in through 50 contests, because the economy matters and he speaks to the reason.

well, I'm off to church --

for a little prayer and some faith

ciao

Todays predictions...............

Chargers and Giants.

Richard Codey: Why I'm supporting John Edwards
Sunday, January 20, 2008
BY RICHARD J. CODEY


Richard J. Codey is New Jersey's state Senate president.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/national...

A GENUINE "ABB"

http://www.americablog.com/2008/01/anybody-but-blair-spreads-across-europe.html

Anybody But Blair spreads across Europe

Outside of Sarkozy, Blair doesn't appear to be very popular. The Bush boot-licking and pro-war position isn't helping his ascension to EU president.

Hence the alarmed reaction of M. Giscard and M. Balladur. M. Giscard, 81, told a committee of the French National Assembly he would not be a candidate but added that the job must go only to a politician from a country which "respected all Europe's commitments" and whose public opinion was whole-heartedly European. In other words, no Tony Blair and no Brits.

M. Balladur, who was prime minister from 2003 to 2005, said in the newspaper Le Monde: "To be accepted by all, the president of the Union must come from a country... determined to build European independence, especially in defence and foreign affairs.

"How could Mr Blair embody this ambition when, in the disastrous episode in Iraq, he always clung zealously to the views of the US or even incited them? Mr Blair is, for sure, a remarkable person but he cannot be the symbol of a Europe which wants to exist."

AND SPEAKING OF BUSH'S NEW POODLE

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2008-01-19T184434Z_01_L19560853_RTRUKOC_0_US-FRANCE-SARKOZY.xml

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's popularity fell sharply in the past month, especially among core conservative voters, following criticism of his economic record and private life, a poll released on Saturday showed.

Good Morning!

I'm in Lake Tahoe, NV. There is a lots snow for all the skiing folks to enjoy. The local folks I spoke with at last night party we're not aware they needed to attend their caucus yesterday to vote. Some of them wanted to know why I did go and vote myself. I thought that was an interesting comment. Folks just don't know much about the election process in this country.
But they sure do know the schedule and process for winning the super bowl. Very sad, very sorry state indeed.

I would amend the thread title to "Florida Primaries are Creepy"

Judy for Dean, #42, thanks for all the posts and I especially enjoyed reading the interview with Obama's half sister.  The same honesty he exudes seems to come from her as well.  Their mother must have been an amazing person, way ahead of her times and culture.

And so it goes:  Here's Willliam Butler Yeats' take on the times, though written probably 50 years ago.

THE SECOND COMING

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywehre

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely  the Second Coming is at hand.

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

Whan a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

Reel shadows of the indignant desrt birds.

The darkness drops again; but now I know

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Souches towards Bethlehem to be born? 

urgh, desert birds.

Yesterday's delegates won in Nevada - Obama 13, Clinton 12

Text of a statement released Saturday by Democrat Barack Obama after the Nevada caucuses:

"We're proud of the campaign we ran in Nevada. We came from over 25 points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled.

"The reason is because tens of thousands of Nevadans came out to say that they're tired of business-as-usual in Washington and ready for a president who can bring this country together, take on the lobbyists and special interests, and end the politics of saying and doing whatever it takes to win an election. It is the kind of politics that feeds our cynicism and distracts us from taking on the real challenges facing America: an economy that's left working families struggling, a broken health care system, and a war in Iraq that must end.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080120/ap_on_el_pr/obama_text_1&printer=1;_ylt=A0WTcV0mbpNHedcArBZh24cA

Edwards on FTN this morning still up to his tricky rhetoric:

Edwards says that he has accepted no lobbyist money, yet he accepted big bucks from the lawyers who do lobby.

Then he points out the lobbyist support of Clinton BUT says that he is the candidate who is not in the claws of lobbyists like the other two candidates, thereby insinuating that Obama accepts lobbyist money, which he does not.

Thumbs down on that Mr. Edwards. Boo.

hey all, have you seen "3:10 to Yuma"???

What a good movie. Watched it again last nite. Great acting. Good story.

Be safe. Got some snow here in Virginia.

Getting ready for our JJ Gala weekend Feb 9 and then our primary on Feb 12. Should be fun.

Our Women's Caucus is having our second annual fund raising breakfast on Saturday , Feb 9 at the Richmond Marriot. come on down.

Some good women speakers including Va Beach mayor, Meyera Obendorf, and First Lady of Va., Ann Holton.

New thread.

Georgia's largest paper endorses Obama

Sat Jan 19, 5:38 PM ET

ATLANTA - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Georgia's largest newspaper, is endorsing Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic race for the White House.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20080119/ap_ca/on_the2008_trail_2

There is no new thread.  Forget I said that.

Mike, say it aint so,  go Brett Favre.

Did you see "something about mary" when at the end, Brett shows up and they call him 'brett fav-re"?

Go Brett. Yea.

It was referred to up thread that someones didn't like Edwards record while in the Senate. My guess is that they must have actually meant some of his votes, not all or even a majority.

Reposting this from DU for clarification purposes.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?...:SN03180:@@ ...

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

Here’s a guy who constantly brought up the issue of “predatory lending” even though he hailed from a state with a huge banking and financial services industry. If you listen to or read his stump speeches from late ’02 and early ’03, you’ll wonder what the hell his detractors are talking about when they say that his populism is a new tack; his platform was economic and worker-oriented from the beginning, telling of how the Bush Administration was systematically shifting the burden of taxation from wealth to wages.

So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least skim through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency.

Details can be found here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&... ... (FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...

Hey Linda in NM.

thanks for the pertinent info.

You go girl.

I need to give u a call!!

A quick observation:   Hillary's shout of victory, "That's how the West was won!" made me cringe.  Yes, the West was won by killing off the bison, the Navajo Long Walk, The Cherokee Trail of Tears", near genicide, evacuating tribes from their land and confiscating it, The Utes removed from the Rocky Mountains: their hunting grounds, the Arapahoe sent to Wyoming, etc. 

See what I mean about the old ways?  Didn't she have any sense of the renewed consciousness of the injustice done in "winning the West"?! 

73.

Joan* In*Florida
Sun, 01/20/08


Edwards on FTN this morning still up to his tricky rhetoric:

Edwards says that he has accepted no lobbyist money, yet he accepted big bucks from the lawyers who do lobby.

Then he points out the lobbyist support of Clinton BUT says that he is the candidate who is not in the claws of lobbyists like the other two candidates, thereby insinuating that Obama accepts lobbyist money, which he does not.

Thumbs down on that Mr. Edwards. Boo.

______________________________________

Obama has been accepting Lobbyist money. Axelrod admitted on camera after the recent debate he only stopped collecting money from Lobbyist groups for the Presidential election. And according to many sourcess, that is incorrect. If he accepts it from them individually, it's legally not considered a Lobbyist, as you pointed out with your accusation for Edwards for Lawyers who may lobby.

Lobbyists

Hillary Clinton (D)
$567,950

John McCain (R)
$340,365

Christopher J. Dodd (D)
$233,875

Mitt Romney (R)
$229,475

Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)
$212,100

Bill Richardson (D)
$134,950

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)
$114,460

Fred Thompson (R)
$90,000

Barack Obama (D)
$76,859

Duncan Hunter (R)
$30,900

John Edwards (D)
$18,900

Sam Brownback (R)
$17,225

Mike Huckabee (R)
$6,964

Tom Tancredo (R)
$250

sorry, genocide

333.

audrey.nc
Sat, 01/19/08

Reply to this

Annilow......

Linda has support for what she said. It was reported repeatedly on cable. That's why caucuses should be outlawed. I always thought the vote had to be private where your boss especcially couldn't be checking up on you.

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

Flogging an overbeaten horse here, but 'it was reported repeatedly on cable' is not what I'd call evidence. That Obama was a Muslim, swore on a Koran, and went to a Muslim Madrassa was reportedly repeatedly on cable too.

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

Susanne Pleshette - RIP

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

JudyforD thanks for Obama sister article. What it brought to mind for me was that in addition to his multicultural background, growing up in HI itself is a multicultural experience-lived there briefly in the 70's - first experience w/ being discriminated against for being white.

Judy at 40. about Pelosi being greeted w/ impeachment buttons -- I want to start a 'meme' about Pelosi being just another old white guy. That's certainly how she is coming across.

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

Chris Matthews this morning and the scoops and predictions. One guy-don't know name-said 1/5 of vets are returning w/ brain injuries. Another said if Edwards drops out in coming weeks (Fineman) he would support Obama -- that no way would he support Hillary. AJC lady reported that ACJ endorsed Obama (as Joan reports) but her announcement sounded a little tepid-maybe in light of NV). Blond right wing nut Kathleen predicted Huckabee will trot out a bunch of foreign policy wonks from Reagan era and we will be surprised.

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

Stuff picked up on CSPAN - Watch out for Freedom's Watch - an right wing version of moveon.org. Check out http://publicknowledge.org - woman on 'communicators' saying brainy things about net neutrality - said Europe and UK and maybe Japan or China can't remember have much faster I-net than we do.

Obama's oppo folks should start pushing how Hill had to trot out Bill to do her fighting since Iowa -- the 'little woman' needed the 'big man' to help her w/ her battles. Also America is very wary of THE DYNASTY. They should push against THE DYNASTY.


I think that is a total brain dump dear Borgie.

See y'all in a bit.

11:39 AM ET

If you support the Edwards campaign, there is a perfectly good reason to switch support to another, specifically, because he won’t be the nominee. Certainly, however, he’s a current candidate and there’s hardly a reason to abandon the campaign as a cause, if that’s what it represents to you. It’s important to appreciate, however, the possibility of a looming Nader effect in the offing.

The convention nomination will go either to the Clinton or non-Clinton candidate. Other prospective options that may have once existed have dried up. Unless there is some circumstance under which it can be argued that Edwards’ campaign relates to or resembles the Clinton candidacy, Edwards will deprive Obama of votes in the manner Nader deprived Gore of them. By his own statements, Edwards himself is keenly aware of this.

In 2000, this was a minor concern that unexpectedly blew up in the face of Democrats. The evidence reflects increasingly that there will be a relatively even split of supporters for Clinton and Obama, quite possibly through Super Tuesday. Supporting Edwards into the convention will help to insure that both of the other two candidates remain potentially nominees, whereas a shift from Edwards will decidedly move the nomination more towards one or the other.

Nader ran as a third party spoiler in 2000 on the premise that there was no legitimate differences between the major party nominees. A voter, therefore, who refused to accept the lesser of two evils under this analysis chose neither but, ultimately, assisted in the selection of the greater evil of the two. By analogy, under this analytical framework, the persevering Edwards supporter will need to both 1) find no substantive distinction between Clinton and Obama as possible Democratic nominees, and 2) Regard Edwards as a sufficiently distinguishable alternative to the two to justify a Clinton nomination as the product of failing to affirmatively act to prevent it.

Oh, and in winning the West, the mining with the tailings and arsenic left in the water, the clear cutting of forests, the killing off of the wolves, the war with Mexico, an ethos that will kill the planet and all of us.

Enjoyed your comments, Annilow. 

Thanks, Tom Bearse.  I've appreciated your clear posts, good reasoning and you argument should definitely be conisdered.

your argument should be considered.

Tom Bearse
Sun, 01/20/08
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Youve got bigger problems than nader................at least peole got and voted........now alot will just stay home............or, get this now, maybe even vote republican...hey, if Obameagan can even hint at collaboration..........why not? 

Linda wrote "Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?"

Co-sponsoring Sense of the Senate bills to preserve six day mail delivery, and designating biotechnology week and Children’s Internet Safety Month, is not going to be determinative in forming my opinion on the candidate.

Mike wrote "Youve got bigger problems than nader................at least peole got and voted........now alot will just stay home............or, get this now, maybe even vote republican."

Intriguing theories as always, but caucus and primary turnout so far completely undermines your premise. 

Annilow.......

I think the horse died, but in Memorium, let me say that using one's judgement, occasionally there might be some truth being told on Cable Tv. that one can accept through one's own filter.
There is also the etched stone.

Re: Florida Primary delegates:

I found this in the Tampa paper. It's still not conclusive as to what the outcome would be because of the process.

Is it possible that Florida's delegates will ultimately be counted when Democrats hold their national convention, Aug. 25-28 in Denver?

Yes, it's possible. But the process is complicated. The person who wins the nomination can't simply decide unilaterally to recognize Florida's delegates. Technically, that decision will be made by the Credentialing Committee of the convention, and that group is made up of 186 members from each state. If Florida wants to send its delegates to the convention, it will have to petition that committee.

Are the candidates campaigning in Florida?

Among Democrats, no. After Florida lost its delegates, the major Democratic candidates signed a pledge to boycott campaigning here for the primary.

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/19/State/Parties__penalties_cu.shtml

Tom wrote: If you support the Edwards campaign, there is a perfectly good reason to switch support to another, specifically, because he won’t be the nominee. Certainly, however, he’s a current candidate and there’s hardly a reason to abandon the campaign as a cause, if that’s what it represents to you. It’s important to appreciate, however, the possibility of a looming Nader effect in the offing.

________

There is a perfectly good reason if some support Obama campaign to switch support to another. If you really would like a Progressive/Populist candidate that would put the people's interest ahead of the Corporate, and you don't want to support a very divisive campaign between the Two Corporate Front Runners, not to mention, actually having Health Care for ALL, to remove all our combat troops out of Iraq within 10 months of the new Presidency, to not allow Nuclear Plants be built and a moratorium on Coal Power Plants.

As the New Jersey Senate President said:

If we really want to put an end to the powerful special interests that continue to corrupt our country and choose a new path that will deliver the promise of America, then our only choice is John Edwards.

90. LOL!

Wishing everybody a good day. I especially liked Pat's comment about Hillary's *Winning the West* comments. No, Hillary just wouldn't get that.

--------
Wishing you all a good day. Packers will win tonight. Frigid temps at Lambeau Field.

From MoveOn:

For the first time in years, voters of all ages and backgrounds are inspired by what the future might hold. If we can sustain this excitement—and make sure it translates into progressive votes in November—we'll be inaugurating a progressive president exactly one year from today.

MoveOn wants me to sign on to give $15 a month for this. Trouble is, we may not in inaugurating a "progressive president" if the nominee is Clinton.

No Sale at this time.

Great speech the other day in LA, by Edwards


http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5574

frigid is a very mild term for the numbing cold we have here

Linda wrote "There is a perfectly good reason if some support Obama campaign to switch support to another."

If a 4% showing for Edwards isn't adequately convincing that your argument completely lacks evidentiary support, you can safely assume I'm addressing a different audience on this subject. 

Tom you are hilarious.

advocating for Kucinich when he was in single digits, and BTW over 10% went to the Nevada caucus for Edwards but it was reduced to 4% of the delegates by viability rules

Tom Bearse
Sun, 01/20/08
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, id have a laugh along with you..od thing thiough, these things do have a habit of unfolding. recent xample.....John Mccain.....dead in the water 8 months ago..writen off by most if not all..and lo and behold here he is................

This guy wil gain further traction and win the nomination and Presidency because the republicans, as opposed to the Democrats, in theor own way will mobilize behond Mcain and his VP which wil blend in a majority of the military vote and religious right vote.............aleady he is invoking Ronald Reagan and will simply mirror his campaign..the people will not take  a chance on a Hillary or Obama....too risky for turbuent times and we still have yet to exprience another major event like a 911................

The only ticket to maybe negate Mcain wiuld be JE or BO (kind of unflattering abbreviation dont you think?) with a strong expreicned military VP or at least advisors............

Edwards at 10% is plenty to decide the nominee at the convention.

With the Edwards campaign running on fumes, posts of strung together Edwards campaign rhetoric at this juncture provides proof that a potential Nader effect, described above, poses a real danger of bringing about an eventual Clinton nomination.

MoveOn......

No, thank you. The progressive candidates have already been carefully weeded out for us by the Media.

Phil wrote "over 10% went to the Nevada caucus for Edwards but it was reduced to 4% of the delegates by viability rules."

In other words, his showing is 4%.

100.

Tom Bearse
Sun, 01/20/08



Linda wrote "There is a perfectly good reason if some support Obama campaign to switch support to another."

If a 4% showing for Edwards isn't adequately convincing that your argument completely lacks evidentiary support, you can safely assume I'm addressing a different audience on this subject.

______________________

Surely you're not trying to infer that because one race of 50, only the 3rd down, TRYING TO OVERLOOK his 2nd place showing with 30 pct in the first in Iowa, and receiving 17 pct as 3rd in New Hampshire. With that argument, you would want to say that because Obama won the first, but has lost all others since, that would give great concern moving on to Primaries where he has worse chance of gaining momentum, would be a good reason to through his support to a candidate that shows he stands the best chance at winning the General.

In other words, his showing is 4%.

~~~~~~~~~~

but in any Feb5th state will accrue 10% of the delegates

fyi - new Front thread

Mike wrote "John Mccain.....dead in the water 8 months ago..writen off by most if not all..and lo and behold here he is."

I'm glad you brought up this is an excellent illustration of what I'm discussing.  McCain poses a genuine threat to the Democratic nominee in November, but it's not because he's the most conservative of the remaining viable Republicans or that conservatives think well of his policies.  It's because he has a media driven reputation of the straight-talking maverick, which will make him less objectionable (than he should be) to independents and moderate Democrats in a general election.

His victory in South Carolina is not because of conservative support.  It's a function of conservatives, evangelical Christians, and provincial southerners splitting there votes between Huckabee and Thompson, unwittingly helping to deliver a plurality decision to McCain. 

The rich irony is that Republicans don't realize the threat McCain poses as a candidate in the general, but would feel too ambivalent towards a McCain victory even if they did. 

There are two candidates who voted for the war and one that did not, and like some here that is a deciding factor so Edwards votes are a subtraction from Clinton with that fairly large group that aren't buying what Obama is selling but don't like a pro-corporate War Party candidate

every single Edwards vote is one less potential Clinton voter

New FRONT thread!!

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23575...

12:38 pm EST

Tom Bearse
Sun, 01/20/08
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Good post and I concur......there IS one random element with Mccain and this is a big one......perpetual war like he has elaborated...........are Amerians sick of this war stuff already? do they want more of it perhaps on a grander scale?  This, even I cant answer right now and my only Presidential election i have ever gotten wrong was in 92 and Bush because I thought thats the way the people would go........now that being said there is another catch and the same scenario does not exist for that ths time.....the armed forces are stil in the ME, entrenched and with a diferant enemy this time as opposed to 92....................thats where I went wrong, but not this time..............i still say , with the way things are right now, the slim majority wil vote to keep it going.............remember, their sfety will be hammered at them time and again by maccain.....

a study of the Nevada caucus results will show a mini "fifty state" plan for Obama and a "targeted battleground" one for Clinton and I think you could take a bet to the bank that Clinton would employ that as a general election strategy 

Obama/Edwards combination beats McCain/Huckabee because with 7% unemployment Democrats will have the trump card if they don't allow Republicans to have the only populist in the race.

don't under-estimate the synergy of somebody on the ticket that understands the kitchen table issues of the under-dogs of the economy

returning productivity gains to workers instead of CEO's and policies that return jobs to america lost through thoughtless ideological devotion to globalism

McCain/Huckabee wipes the floor with Clinton/Bayh

After yesterday, have a better understanding of how caucuses work and have to say that I believe they disfranchise more voters than primaries.

In Nevada it almost all boiled down to one county (Clark) for Hillary though Obama won most all of the state. I guess that's how she got more votes and he more delegates.

That winter blast is headed our way...those up north take care with -30 windchills by morning.

Going to miss the Pats/Chargers game for a meeting with a gubernatorial hopeful (Anthony Pollina)...maybe can be back to catch the second of the Patriot's win. Will be back in time to see the Pack smack the Giants.

bbl

we voted for john edwards because we would like to see a brokered convention..

Hopefully, the voters will decide it and not the deal makers. 

102.

Michael

McCain is who I predicted would win the Republican nomination because he is the ONLY viable candidate.

However, that has nothing to do with the Dem primaries. We started out with ALL viable candidates (if you include Kucinich and Gravel). We had the pick of the litter.

Another drawback of caucuses (even if absentee balloting is allowed on the first round, as it is here in ME) is that if a town/city doesn't have a convenor?

Can't caucus in towns where 'ya don't reside.

A few counties here are sorely lacking--i.e., recruiting convenors.

http://mainedems.org/caucus08.aspx

Party's f^cked up as hell, that's why. Lost 10K members since '04.

People are pissed at Pelosi, Reed, our Gov., and the DINOs in the state legislature. Smarten the hell up.

...and it's up to state legislatures to fund primaries via appropriations (ours won't).

Too cheap. Maybe piss-poor attendance on Feb. 10th will turn things around.

We also have an inclement weather date for Feb. 17th (it happens)!


But at least we do have some semblance of absentee voting (weeks in advance); and 17 yr. olds can caucus (provided they reach majority by the Nov. general).

Burnrate might be a "decider."

http://tinyurl.com/2x2mdc

Insane waste of perfectly good money.

Mike, I forgot to say thank you. :)