As always, moderation and reason are first!

Howard is first.

Should have benn Obama is First

and so is Jim first

and his nicely-worded blog thread regarding what Dennis and John brought to this presidential election cycle.

Barack Obama:

John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news.  At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington.  John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americans can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose.  So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.

It is a loss to Democrats, to the country and to progressives for him to drop out.  Sending my best thoughts to John Edwards and Elizabeth in this tough time.

BTW, it's a little odd for DFA to post this BEFORE the official announcement by John Edwards.

And don't try to court people when they are in mourning and trying to deal with this news. It is counter-productive.

t

 11:54 a.m.

thanks jim for the post. 

the Virginia primary is Feb 12, so we are in play. I will keep u updated on goings on in Va.

I am helping to set up the 3rd District Congressional Convention here in Newport News.

I will be a delegate to our state convention too. We will be having our state convention here in Hampton , Va. which is huge for our local committees.

I will also be at our annual JJ Gala on Feb 8 & 9. I am excited that the remaining candidates will be there - Barack and Hillary. Should be exciting.

I am also going to get the grassroots award for the 3rd District of Virginia, Each district gets to nominate someone who does the most work for the Democratic party. That be me from the 3rd this year.  What a surprise as I wanted to nominate someone from our committee.

Thanks John Edwards for all your hard work.

and this is gettng absolutely rediculous for the blog to be jumping. Is this intentional or what??

Hillary celebrates Florida with her buddies, Bill Nelson,  Alcee Hastings,  Mayor Diaz, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  Bill Nelson declared victory ahead for Florida.  Picture and articles.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1793

Jean wrote "first, my name is Jean'. second, I wrote: 'what he STANDS for', not what he DID stand for."

Well, you certainly know your name better than I do.  I'm really sorry and I hate when I do that. 

This is just pro forma, but why does what Edwards purportedly stands for matter more to you than what he stood for?  Of course tense makes a difference.  It makes a difference, for example, whether you take a stand in favor of a decision to invade a foreign sovereign when the decision is about to made and your opinion has some affect on the outcome, or after it has been made and your stand is, for all intents and purposes, pointless. 

In Gore, Dean and Obama's case, they were vocally against the war in spite of having no vote to cast, although Dean and Obama were potentially putting their candidacies on the line by taking such a stand.

In the case of Bob Graham and some other Senate Democrats, the decision was timely and potentially had an effect on his candidacy; it's hard to say.  But in the case of Kerry and Edwards, their stand both affected the outcome of the vote and helped, in their mind, to preserve their candidacies.  Eventually, Kerry regretted his vote in spite of Edwards' exhortations for him to remain firm.  Edwards eventually regretted his vote as well, after he lost the election and was forced to reassess his position in pursuit of a second one.

Just as a theory, I would suggest opposing the war at the time of a vote to authorize it would be preferable to favoring it, and opposing the war when you have an actual say in the decision, is preferable to opposing it after the decision is made and the deadly consequences have been unleashed.

Barack has been against the Iraq War from day 1.  It does not bother me that he voted for funding of the war.  He has stated time and again he did this to support the men and women in Iraq, it was not in support of the war.  I believe Edward Kennedy and Barbara Boxer voted against the Iraq War, but has voted to fund.

This is MHO.

And I posted at HEP about those pesky Florida delegates.  

http://howardempowered.blogspot.com/2008/01/actually-hillary.html

I am obviously stunned

- - - - - - -- - - -

Why would he stay:

- No money raising ability

- Distant third finishes

- No free media

- Ignored by the voters

- He supported the War

- Old DLC guy 

- Democrats need to pick a winner and move on to face McCain

Attorney General Mukasey, seemingly recalling that the A.G. is not the President's A.G., now asserts that the American people are his clients.  While this is consistent with many government agencies defining themselves as providing a service to customers, stating the relationship between the governed and their agents in commercial terms is inappropriate.

It's clear that lots of people consider a public corporation (town, city, state) as little more than a competitor with private corporations, whom these same people consider more qualified to deliver the requisite services.  This is a mistaken understanding.  The mission of government is quite different in that it's purpose is to deal with the major and minor disasters that mother nature and human behaviors bring us and to do so on an equitable basis.

The definition of government as a matter of consensus, rather than a coercive force, is still evolving.  We need to keep in mind that all citizens were not able to participate as consensual members until the landmark civil rights acts of the 1960s. 

Barack has been against the Iraq War from day 1.  It does not bother me that he voted for funding of the war.

It bothers me. But, as always, the manipulative primary system has eliminated my choices even before I get to cast a ballot. So between Obama and the Clintons, for me it's a no brainer -- Obama who stood against Bush when Hillary repeatedly stood with him.

The best reason to stay in was to deny Clinton 50% simply by the math of it. She is odds on favorite now and will energize the Republicans and lead to President McCain.

other than that carry on

Here's a robocall from Clinton against Edwards in S. Carolina.  She obviously thought his candidacy hurt her support. BTW, this call is not any different from some of you here and your tactics. Think about it.

Clinton robocalls hit Edwards

Guess he's still relevant enough to merit a robocall from Hillary that hits him on policy and character.

Here's the call (.mp3), and here's the transcript, from The Page:

Hello, This is the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign.

Before you vote on Saturday, you should know that John Edwards voted for permanent trade relations with China. That’s right, John Edwards voted for the bill that cost thousands of jobs. Like the ones in the textile mills he talks about so much down here.

You should also know that John Edwards made nearly a half a million dollars working for a Wall Street investment fund. A fund that’s been profiting on foreclosing on the homes of families; including 100 homes right here in South Carolina. That’s according to The State newspaper. Here in South Carolina, Edwards says he’s one of us, but up on Wall Street he was just another one of them.

Can you trust John Edwards?

* rdorgan
Wed, 01/30/08

Please stop with the false sentiments. It is insincere and manipulative. Your attacks against both are well-documented here. Now the sudden change in attitude? Please....

hilary on tv now talking about credit card companies and too high rates.

didn't she vote FOR the bankruptcy bill?

did she/

Phil...8

I agree...yes, carry on indeed, but how?

I wonder, if after Feb.5, there might appear one or more new additions to the race. I hope Howard, or if not, Gore, or?

With the tempering factor of edwards now gone, one thing is clear: it's about to get much UGLIER. You aint seen nothing yet. Much will be under the table and nuanced behind the scenes. But it Will be ugly.

The dem have gone from a decent field to a bickering, ugly campaign, and the repubs have gone from a fractured field to a feel-good race. This is not looking good.

I believe Edwards will be making his announcement at 1:00 PM.

12:37 PM EST

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8119048?source=rss

about FL and MI delegates. If Clinton comes in with a majority of delegates, they will vote to seat and include the delegates from those states. Clinton wins....

If Obama comes with a majority of delegates, they will vote to NOT seat them. Obama wins. It all depends upon who comes to the convention with the majority of delegates now.

IF edwards had stayed in, he could have been a factor in that decision as well as possibly who gets the nomination. My dream would have been a locked convention which turns to a third candidate as one of them threw their support to him/her. Could still happen.

12:43 PM EST

from a town in Tennessee:

http://www.dnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080130/NEWS01/80130021

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain have won City Cafe’s straw poll on the presidential primary.

The poll, take from customers of the popular eatery on Main Street in downtown Murfreesboro, is a 20-year tradition. The results of the poll were released today.

Obama, a senator from Illinois, was supported by 28 people, or 44 percent of those polled in the Democratic primary. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was a close second, with 23 votes. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton received eight votes.

McCain, a senator from Arizona, got support from just under 30 percent of Republicans participating in the poll with 10 votes. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson each received six votes.

...

Some on this blog have trashed Edwards repeatedley. For them to come on and try to make nice at this point is futile.

 Those who are just lurking, keep that in mind: the "kind" words come from those who yesterday were saying nasty attacks against Edwards.

Let's not play manipulative politics.

Be Truthful
Wed, 01/30/08

Please just post the votes you want to highlight, and then link. Your point is lost and it just clogs the blog.

I'm a little out of sorts today, and I can't resist saying this. Obama's stance against the war from the beginning can be put in the same category as his "present" votes.

An unknown State Senator fits into a speech inside the halls of a State Legislature that he opposes the war in Iraq. This is something that can be pulled out if needed at some future date, or if not needed, who would have a clue that he ever said anything?

Don't try to give him the foresight of Howard Dean. It would be more like laying the groundwork for his future plans.

12:48 PM EST

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080130/en_afp/golfepgauaewoodsusvote2008_080130173847

Woods impressed by Barack Obama

13 minutes ago

Tiger Woods says he has been impressed with Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama and believes he is an inspiration to many in the United States.

...

12:54 PM EST

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4215191&page=1

TechCrunch Endorses Obama, McCain

...

By ASHLEY PHILLIPS
Jan. 30, 2008

After nearly a monthlong online voting process, popular tech blog TechCrunch has endorsed Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain as its picks for the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

...

Audrey,

I share your distress today. I am very disappointed and wish Edwards had stayed in because we NEED choices in a Democracy.

But if comes down to Clinton or Obama on the war, Obama at least spoke out about it. I, too, am troubled by his constant shifting and generalities, but it is no contest between the two of them on who was against the war and who was not.

Now, both are saying they'll get out but leave combat troops to fight AQ in Iraq. Only Edwards made the actual claim to get ALL combat troops out. But Obama wins on his past statements.

A little bit about how nuts Huckabee really is..

http://www.alternet.org/story/75363/

I can't handle this blog anymore..
My post s/b 36 and it will end up in the high 20's
1:05

Be Truthful

In the future it would be better if you just posted the relevant answer or passage and provide a link to the rest. 

For the Love of God, Edwards Supporters! How can you be so spot on in your first choice for President and so blind in your second choice?

"Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month. Both Clinton and Obama would welcome Edwards' backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected, most of whom will be free to support either Obama or Clinton, though some will probably look for guidance from Edwards."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Edwards_to_quit_presidential_race_01302008.html

Tiger for Obama?  Another celeb endorsement for inspiration. Yippee. Makes me want to subtract points for each.  I want to hear about issues, not abstracts.

Because the other candidate is even less progressive. Not by much; it's a toss-up which is the lesser of two corporately sponsored candidates.

I apologize for using the word blind and painting the majority of Edwards supporters with a broad brush.  That is not my intention.  All I mean to say is that the Obama campaign (and thus the American people) need you!

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/30/10130/8675/344/446129

Go Barack!

TEST s/b 43

audrey wrote "Don't try to give him the foresight of Howard Dean. It would be more like laying the groundwork for his future plans."

If you don't mind, explain how it differs.

TEST

TEST s/b 46

Is the blog's count working better?

Progressive wrote "For the Love of God, Edwards Supporters! How can you be so spot on in your first choice for President and so blind in your second choice?"

Phil has adamantly made the point that Edwards supporters are not necessarily progressive.  It may help explain the difficulty Edwards has had gaining traction in the nomination process so far.  Supporters come to his campaign from a variety of viewpoints. 

If they post here, for example, they obviously like the message of the Edwards campaign.  If not, however, they may be confused by his past record into thinking he is a southern moderate, or they may simply have regarded a vote for Edwards as a vote for a white person not named Clinton.  She's a very polarizing figure but, in the last analysis, she basically shared a voting record with Edwards while he was in office and sprang from the same DLC roots.

1:49

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...

SF Chronicle's Matier & Ross

No teacher's pet: Clinton's big endorsement from the powerful California Teachers Association got upended over the weekend.

It all began Thursday when the dozen-member executive board of the teachers union - headed by Clinton ally and longtime Santa Maria educator David Sanchez - announced it had voted unanimously to back Clinton in Tuesday's Democratic primary.

Getting the teachers' backing would have opened up the union's substantial checkbook to Clinton. It also would have led to mass mailings to voters, including to the union's 360,000 members, plus the potential for major phone-bank help and other get-out-the-vote efforts on election day.

And a board endorsement almost always guarantees the membership endorsement.

But before teachers union leaders could get an up-or-down membership vote on Clinton over the weekend at a big confab in L.A., unrest broke out among the rank and file. They blocked any vote until the board's next meeting in April - two months after Tuesday's primary, when it really counts.

Word is, it didn't help that Clinton's union forces had blocked the affiliated United Teachers of Los Angeles from endorsing Obama a week earlier - and that many of its members were on hand for Saturday's vote.

"Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month.

Well, their records ARE the same. 

Tom a vast majority of Edwards supporters are progressives ;but If even one out of four (and it may well be one out of three ) Edwards supporters go to Clinton (perhaps because of the "historic" nature of her gender) Obama will come up one vote short. Edwards has been helping Obama indirectly keeping Clinton from gaining a majority, and listening to Edwards message and incorporating it would be a good place to start, and that would be a little more up down uniting and a little less left right.

the three out of four Edwards supporters that were progressives will go to Obama, 10-1

the other quarter will decide the nomination

Prog avenge.....

An apology is a good start. Obama needs the Edwards people. Although, at the moment, I'm waiting for someone else to ride up.

Phil wrote "Tom a vast majority of Edwards supporters are progressives;"

Then Obama wins.

I see it as a positive development...If one assumes, as polls indicate, that Hillary is the second choice of very few people who are not already voting for her, then most of Edwards' votes go to Obama. 

 With that, Hillary would definitely lead the pack.  So now we have a bone fide showdown....with the possibility of Edwards as a running mate....with either one.

Had the TV on in the background while Edwards was saying farewell. As he repeated (and repeated......and repeated) his campaign talking points I let it slip to my visiting mother (who voted for him) that I'll be so glad to never hear his voice again.

"Shame on you!" she replied. 

"Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton

Well, their records ARE the same.

most but not all Edwards supporters will go to Obama

all were not in Clinton's column with him in

just simple math

Edwards out helps Clinton. Obama need to everything possible to gain full support.

go ahead sitka, kick him when he's down, suits your disposition

most but not all Edwards supporters will go to Obama

Edwards out helps Clinton.

Ya gotta love Phillogic. 

Hey Sitka,

How are you old friend? I just stopped by to see how everyone was taking the news of Edwards' campaign suspension. As far as I'm concerned, I have no dog in this fight. Edwards, Obama, nor Clinton hold an ounce of appeal to me. Why? Well, Edwards with his manufactured Grapes Of Wrath upbringing, Obama with his parsing and constant effort to uplift me (I'm fully able to feel good about myself, thank you!), and Hillary's.....er, well no need to go on about that - leave me cold.

My only prayer is ANY candidate that can direct this Country toward economic vitality.

Now I know what everyone is referring to when talking about the blog count.

I will give my edwards support to obama. not hil.

no one asked me who my second choice was.

Prov Avenger, look at BHO's record and his position statements. He's hardly different from HRC. His campaign contributors are much the same. And his health plan leaves lots of folks out. Edwards supporters want health care for all.

Don't recruit us based on how much need your camp has. Talk specifics about issues. Those of us who picked Edwards did so because of his stand on the issues, not because of something more abstract.

What does your candidate say he'll do about corporate media, for example? Stuff like that is a good start. But leave us be for a day, at least. Thanks.

Argh! posting order ALL messed up!

From time to time, the sometimes tortuous logic exhibited here has to be examined in more detail.

For example, audrey wrote "An unknown State Senator fits into a speech inside the halls of a State Legislature that he opposes the war in Iraq. This is something that can be pulled out if needed at some future date, or if not needed, who would have a clue that he ever said anything?"

For one thing, the speech in question was made in the Federal Plaza in Chicago during an antiwar assembly, days before the authorization vote.  The statement was as public as any Gore or Dean made.

For another, the vote he was opposing passed in the Senate 77-23.  Is the implication that there were 77 patriotic profiles in courage and 23 politically expedient votes made in the chamber that day?  That Kerry, Edwards and Clinton, in other words, stood on principle while  Dean and Obama simply laid the groundwork for their campaigns with a little garden variety pandering?   If so, it casts Kucinich's role in a very bad light.  However, we both know it is not so.

Kim, where have you been?

Hey, give it a rest with the bile, it's a happy day for Sitka.

Now, all you have to do is court the Edwardians into the web of the last one standing.

Lyn Hillman
Wed, 01/30/08

Most Obama supporters on this blog are not the most sensitive lot. In fact, they lack the social skills that you don't pile on people in mourning and continue berating them and their candidate.

linda wrote "I will give my edwards support to obama. not hil."

Makes sense to me.  Edwards was my second choice if Obama left the race.

Jim Dean, like Howard, is a class act.

***********
It will take me time to support anyone, because once again I feel disenfranchised ... nothing like 2000 or 2004 ... but disenfranchised still since neither of those still standing reflects my own beliefs as well as Edwards did, despite his flaws.

Of the two, Hill reflects it less, so it looks like Barack by default. At least for now. I think that I will now sit out the primary, however. I will actively support the Dem nominee, but until then, my voice is muted, if not mooted.

I wish John & Elizabeth all the best and hope that the Dem Prez (and if not a Dem, then we really ARE lost, it's that serious) will appoint JE to an AG or Sec'y of Labor position. He would do well in either, IMHO.

No, Susan, the blog is not working any better. I saw your comment before I posted, yet my comment was upthread from yours.

Sitka's mother is my kinds of woman, LOL!

by Barbara Loe Fisher ...

By EDWARD WYATT - NY Times

Published: January 29, 2008

ABC said on Monday it would include a disclaimer about the plot line of the debut episode of the drama "Eli Stone," which links childhood vaccines to autism, and direct viewers to a government Web site that discredits such a link.

ABC’s decision follows a call by the American Academy of Pediatrics for ABC to cancel the opening episode of "Eli Stone," which is scheduled to be broadcast at 10 p.m. Thursday. ....

Just once, I'd like to see my post be in the correct order. None so far have been.

11:35 AM - PST

2:35 PM - EST

Indy wrote to Lyn that "Most Obama supporters on this blog are not the most sensitive lot. In fact, they lack the social skills that you don't pile on people in mourning and continue berating them and their candidate."

I should point out regarding your sentimental paean to sensitivity that the post to which you are responding contains a litany of Obama's policy positions that are described as similar to Clinton's and compared negatvely to Edwards'.   Your irony meter contines to be set at zero.

2:35 PM EST

DeAnn D.
Wed, 01/30/08

+++

DeAnn -

Welcome here.

There putz goes again. Still, *impeachment would be a 'distraction,'* so he'll keep right on doing it. The drafters of our Constitution are likely rolling in their graves.

What on God's green earth does it take?

=================
Bush Thumbs Nose at Congress
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, January 30, 2008; 1:02 PM

It's about as basic as it gets: Congress has the power of the purse. And Section 1222 of the massive defense appropriation bill enacted this week asserts that power. It reads, in its entirety:

"No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:

"(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

"(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

But in another of his controversial " signing statements," President Bush on Tuesday asserted that Section 1222 -- along with three other sections of the bill -- "purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief."

Therefore, he wrote: "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

The overall message to Congress was clear: I'm not bound by your laws.

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

I have generally refrained from posting items about Edwards, but this is a good comment and expresses my own disappointment quite well.

Since he is no longer in the race, I would really appreciate it if this post would not be bashed, even if you don't agree with it.

I do.

================
John Edwards's indelible mark
US elections 2008: As the candidate of big, smart ideas, he set the bar for the other Democrats, and shifted the party to the left

It took me a long time to warm to John Edwards's 2008 presidential campaign. He struck me as fake, his decision to soldier on in the face of his wife's terminal cancer seemed bizarre and his self-righteousness rankled. By the time I had come around, it was all-but-over. Having languished in the shadow of his two super-celebrity rivals, his only hope was a win in Iowa. And it seemed like a distant hope, for by December the lead he'd enjoyed for months had already vanished in the high-wattage glare of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama really focusing in on the state. Third place in Iowa was survivable for the former first lady, but second place did Edwards in. Ever since, he's been a dead candidate walking, and now he's gone.

At this point he won't be missed as much, but if he hadn't been in the race we would have missed him a great deal. Indeed, despite his consistently lagging polling and fundraising numbers, Edwards has arguably been the decisive policy influence inside the Democratic party.

It's widely noted that there's no enormous policy gap between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Less widely noted is that it didn't always have to be that way. Both Clinton and Obama are running on domestic platforms that are much, much, much more ambitious than anything Al Gore or John Kerry put on the table. And not because Kerry was a notably right-wing Democrat or Clinton a from-the-left insurgent. Rather, the centre of gravity within the party shifted several notches left between the last cycle and this one. In part, that was a response to shifting dynamics in the real world. But to a surprising extent, it was simply a response to John Edwards.

[...]
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt...

Fred,

Clinton would never pick Edwards as a running mate. He's too populist and has attacked her as being in the pockets of special interests. Obama wouldn't pick him either, since Edwards has already run as VP and Obama is about showing himself a new kind of leader.

Besides, Edwards has said he wouldn't want to run again as VP.  His dropping out speech said he got commitments from both that they would make ending poverty central to their campaigns. Edwards has had a tremendous impact on this race.

Thanks again, putzCo.

===============
US economy comes to virtual standstill

The US economy came to a virtual standstill in the final three months of 2007 as the deepest slump in the real estate market for a quarter of a century acted as a brake on expansion, according to data released in Washington today.

Official figures showed that gross domestic product increased at an annualised rate of 0.6% between October and December, only half as fast as Wall Street had been expecting.

Today's news meant that the US economy grew by 2.2% in 2007 as a whole - the weakest expansion seen since the 1.6% growth recorded in 2002, when the economy was affected by the dotcom collapse and the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/...

Judy wrote "I would really appreciate it if this post would not be bashed, even if you don't agree with it."

Yes, I would like people to stop bashing my stupid posts, too.

Bravo, bravissimo, Daniel Barenboim!

=============
Passports to progress
Israelis and Palestinians alike should join me in taking dual citizenship - for we share one destiny
Daniel Barenboim
Wednesday January 30, 2008
The Guardian

I have often said that the destinies of the Israeli and Palestinian people are inextricably linked and that there is no military solution to the conflict. My recent acceptance of Palestinian nationality has given me the opportunity to demonstrate this more tangibly.

When my family moved to Israel from Argentina in the 1950s, one of my parents' intentions was to spare me the experience of growing up as part of a minority - a Jewish minority. They wanted to me to grow up as part of a majority - a Jewish majority. The tragedy of this is that my generation, despite having been educated in a society whose positive aspects and human values have greatly enriched my thinking, ignored the existence of a minority within Israel - a non-Jewish minority - which had been the majority in the whole of Palestine until the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Part of the non-Jewish population remained in Israel, and other parts left out of fear or were forcefully displaced.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there was and still is an inability to admit the interdependence of their two voices. The creation of the state of Israel was the result of a Jewish-European idea which, if it is to extend its leitmotif into the future, must accept the Palestinian identity as an equally valid leitmotif. The demographic development is impossible to ignore; the Palestinians within Israel are a minority but a rapidly growing one, and their voice needs to be heard now more than ever. They now make up approximately 22% of the population of Israel. This is a larger percentage than was ever represented by a Jewish minority in any country in any period of history. The total number of Palestinians living within Israel and in the occupied territories (that is, greater Israel for the Israelis or greater Palestine for the Palestinians) is already larger than the Jewish population.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...

32

I'm well aware of this vote.  I see nothing wrong with it.  Barack has always stated we need to be as careful getting out, as we were careless getting in.

Fred,

Clinton would never pick Edwards as a running mate.

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

Your points are valid and well-taken, however people would probably said the same thing about Johnson and Kennedy, who had more bad blood than any of these three ever had between them. 

But many historians credit the Johnson pick with Kennedy's paper thin victory, because of his appeal to southern Democrats, as well as blue dogs, I suspect.

Edwards wants Democrats to win much more than being called on an old statement.  That carries more weight than any thing else.

I'm surprised and sad and hope that he's cut a deal with BO.  He'll never be HC's VP.  He's too progressive, perhaps for either one.

Yes, the same people who trashed him and JE supporters these last weeks, wanting him out of the race, are now saying how sorry they are.  I simply don't believe them.

I also find it in poor taste to keep throwing BO at us.  It's called kicking people when they're down and you could at the least quit for a day.

So my vote for JE won't count now after all.   So now I'm supposed to make a decision between 2 people I never supported to begin with?  Two corporate candidates?  Is is now time to talk about electability? 

We're getting closer to my original prediction:  HC/BO and I hope I'm wrong.  It's a losing ticket IMO.

It's a sad day for America and  the middle class a very good one for the corporations.

If BO wants my vote now, he and his supporters on this blog are going to have to address: restoring the Constitution, corporate control, media control, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, I/P, health care, economic crisis, defense budger, Gitmo, Sybil Edmonds, outsourcing etc.  I don't have much hope anymore and I want to hear about issues, and then I want to be able to believe he'll follow thru.

I hope Elizabeth is well and that JE cut himself a good deal, perhaps as VP or AG...assuming BO can win  the nomination and gen'l.

Comes back to bite ya in the tushy, doesn't it?  Now the BO people want us to support him, after all the trashing of him and us.

We shall see...

Reading through a BFA thread is truly an exercise in surrealism.

It shouldn't have to be so difficult.

So this one is my last for now.

*************
Well, we shouldn't have expected anything less from this putzCo minion and enabler. We asked that he not be confirmed, but they went ahead and did it anyway.

Good for Leahy though! And yes, Mukasey, by any definition, waterboarding is torture. Just tell it like it is.

===========
US attorney general again ducks questions over waterboarding
Haroon Siddique and agencies
Wednesday January 30, 2008
Guardian Unlimited

The US attorney general, Michael Mukasey, today refused to say whether waterboarding was torture - the second time he has stonewalled on the issue in the face of questions from Democratic senators.

When Mukasey took the same stance last October it briefly threatened to derail his confirmation as attorney general until he assured Democrats in the senate that he would review the legality of the controversial interrogation tactic and report back.

But before the US senate judiciary committee today, Mukasey said he would not rule on whether it was a form of illegal torture because it was not part of the current interrogation methods used by the CIA on terror suspects.

He said current interrogation methods were lawful.

"Given that waterboarding is not part of the current programme, and may never be added to the programme, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to pass definitive judgment on the technique's legality," he said.

The Democratic chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy, accused Mukasey of ducking questions.

It is not enough to say that waterboarding is not currently authorised," said Leahy. "Torture and illegality have no place in America."

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33231...

Bravo, bravissimo, Daniel Barenboim!

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

The two State solution is doomed by the settlements - the one-statement solution means "the end of the Jewish State"

Why not a "United States" of Israel - a federation where you have one nation, but  stronger local "State" levels of government - Israel herself, as we know it, may eventually need to become more than one State, as the secularists and the orthodoxy  become more estranged.

Obama had some great words for John and Elizabeth Edwards. You can see them here.

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/30/obama-on-edwards-dropping-out-of-the-race/

Clinton said this on CNN.

http://www.my58.com/politics/15173889/detail.html

There is a NEW THREAD which sports Howard Dean as being ---- first???

Comes back to bite ya in the tushy, doesn't it?  Now the BO people want us to support him, after all the trashing of him and us.

We shall see...

More bee in the bloomers posts. No one on this blog has "trashed" Edwards, if that's who you are referring to!!

Tanner update at baby.  Prayers needed, please.

3:36 pm EST

8.  Phil you are so right.  I live in a caucus state and will caucus as "undecided" now and try to get to the convention as that.  I don't like either Hillary or Obama.  Obama is an empty vessel and Hillary is a corporate whore.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23727

next thread

Oh puddle!  I'm devastated!  I so hope he is ok.  All my love and good thoughts go with him and his family.

Word is, it didn't help that Clinton's union forces had blocked the affiliated United Teachers of Los Angeles from endorsing Obama a week earlier - and that many of its members were on hand for Saturday's vote.

The old Bill machine was subtle. The new Hillary machine is ham-fisted.  

CALIFORNIA IS VOTING!!!

according to npr, young latinos in calif, like their non-latino peers nation-wide, are voting for obama.  hillary's support is drawn from the older establishment leaders, who are visible and familiar to the msm.  they're not always effective in gotv.

magic johnson, eg, cut a message for hillary, presumably to reach young african-american males.  what a joke!  he had no traction when they were targeted in an aids prevention public service message.  magic had no connection to their lives.............and this was when he was a celebrity lakers point-guard! 

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

to john and elizabeth edwards, thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the voiceless and underserved.  godspeed and good health!

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

hillaryland is making such a fuss about 'the cold shoulder.'  these are hacks at non-verbal communication--'body language' in the vernacular--and have enlisted strident feminists and tweety to make a federal case of it.  [there's a reason why ms. magazine went out of business.]  

from one photograph.........to whom are hillary's eyes directed?  how are hillary's and ted's shoulders positioned?  what about the foreshortening of ted's right arm?  are barack's hands and lips engaged in another plausible activity?