By a vote of 68-29 tonight the Senate gave President Bush more expanded powers for his illegal spying program against innocent Americans. The measure also gives retroactive immunity to the Telecoms for being accomplices with the White House in its law breaking and Constitution shredding. Despite much public outcry against  any retroactive immunity for the phone companies in recent weeks. Many of the Senate Democrats once again stab their constituents in the back. Again, afraid of being labeled as "weak on terror." The hell with our Civil Liberties and Constitutional Rights! The hell with upholding their sworn oath to Defend The Constitution! A lot of spineless Senate Democrats sided with the Republicans again for the vote to be this lopsided. I hope the House Dems show more leadership and courage in doing the right thing than the Senate Dems did. NO RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY TO THE TELECOM GIANTS!  What ever happened to the concept that nobody is above the law in America?          Jeff Morris-Saugerties, N.Y.-  DeJaVu57

Dean is first.

Fred :)

I can't see the pic you posted but thanks for posting it!

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

Just a cute dancing mouse my daughter picked up somewhere.   It's good for a laugh.  I thought Mike had that outpatient procedure to have an arthropod removed from up his rectum, but I guess he missed his appointment.  

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23884#comment-1169907

last thread shortcut

The concept that nobody is above the law is actually rather recent. Until the passage of the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1947 and similar state laws, it was an accepted principle that office holders could not be held personally liable for ANY action they took while performing their duties. It was called "sovereign immunity" and was a hold-over from the days when the kings were the law.
There's a remnant of this principle extant in the provision that a member of Congress cannot be prosecuted for anything he/she says on the floor of the House or Senate. This is reasonable, otherwise lawmakers might be tied up in frivolous law suits and kept from performing their functions.

Cronyism wasn't considered corruption either when the prime function of public officials was to dole out various "rights" to their supporters:

fishing rights
hunting rights
mineral rights
landing rights
development rights
etc.

Indeed, the attitude of doing things for a particular class persists, perhaps unconsciously, in Bill Clinton's comment that the people selecting delegates by caucus don't "need" a President. He was obviously thinking of a Democratic President catering to the poor and down-trodden, rather than the rich as Republicans are wont to do.

The idea that public officials are supposed to do the will of the people, rather than distribute benefits or punishments, is really revolutionary. It only began to flower when the principle of equality began to be recognized.

Who gets to keep the economic advantage garnered with sweeping warrantless spying learning competitors secrets? And are the bribes, kickbacks, and corruption (disguised as legal campaign contributions) sure to follow them into the political realm the reason you voted the way you did? if no court is looking, and politicians grant the oversight to the executive branch, Congress doesn't even enforce current bright lines between government and partisan activity, there won't even be a need for the revolving door with K Street, just work in the West Wing and line your pocket? and delete the e-mails

or maybe just go on a speaking tour with big fees?

By a vote of 68-29 tonight the Senate gave President Bush more expanded powers for his illegal spying program against innocent Americans. The measure also gives retroactive immunity to the Telecoms for being accomplices with the White House in its law breaking and Constitution shredding.

Demoblicans rule. 

Very distracting.

There's a whole flock of robins passing through. They seem to be attracted by a bit of lawn that has no snow because water from the basement is being discharged there.
In addition to the robins, I've seen three different kinds of wood-peckers this morning and, of course, the blue jays that are always around.

It's a bit early in the year for robins to be this far north. Perhaps they've just been blown over from the coastal marshes that don't freeze because of the salt in the water.

and over at raising kaine people are pe-od that jim webb voted with the rethugs on the fisa bill.

said he thought the telecoms spied on us in good faith.

dissapointing.

This is a follow up to Monica's topic about the Air Force.
The Air force is afraid if Dems get the WH then funding will go to requip the Army and Marine Corps. The Air Force with it's many big-ticket projects will be cut back. The Navy has fared will thru the current and previous administrations and expects to do well.

The Air Force wants to get ready to fight China as that is the only target that guarantees them unlimited equipment funding. What isn't being said is the Air Force inventory is about worn out. Witness the grounding of F15s and A10s are almost gone because of structural fatigue. F22s are very experience and the F35 is experiencing problems.

There is no discussion about what kind of military is needed and what is it to be used for. McCain will continue Bush's path of grounding the military down to dust. Hillary isn't too far behind. Obama is committed to a strategy of talking to people first although his comments about Pakistan and Iran cause his supporters to pause a minute.

I would like to see one of the candidates discuss veteran's care and an expanded GI Bill. Make it the WWII version.
One of the candidates should walk down the street and visit the Walter Reed Outpatient facility.
All candidates should visit VA Hospitals and see how the troops are doing and the overworked staff is holding up.

Vets will probably support McCain. Repubs aren't going to attack him and any attempt at diminishing his service will be meant with rage - and rightfully so. Dems can mitigate some of the Vet vote by appealing to getting them out sooner and caring for their wounds and future.

Do you all remember when Clinton made a big deal of checking bank records in the name of catching drug lords and beefing up some capability to counter "industrial espionage"? Was it in conjunction with the Y2K problem? I can't remember the details. But, it seems that much was "accomplished" under the umbrella of preventing some gargantuan plot. I suppose that's to be filed under the 'bad things prevented" tab, next to the "good things accomplished" that he talked about down in Tyler, Texas.

any robins around here made a big mistake with another eleven inches coming down sideways on top of a half inch of ice from overnight

I've had two small deer start living in the flower bed along the house out of the wind the last couble of days, one yesterday nibbling on scrubs out the window four feet from my computer.

I'm as much in the dark about the future as everyone else. But I see more light coming through with Barack.<<<<<<<<

I like this post, Denise:) 

Maybe spring is on the way?
41 deg and raining in west Michigan. Rain turns to snow and everything iced up again by tomorrow morning. Near zero by Thursday.
I slipped on the ice and fell flat on my back in the driveway going for the paper. I was dressed pretty well so no biggee.
Now I wear my ice-traks when outside.

Fred,
Pitch the deer some corn and apples. They'll leave your flowers alone.

We have a heated birdbath right off the front porch. Deer come by and drink out of it. We have to clean and refill it daily.

The bluejays, chick-a-dees and finches in the area are getting huge from all the feed we have out.

cChal - thanks I'm glad you liked it. I"m also glad that your voice is still here.

My voice is heading up to Sonoma for the rest of the weekend. I'll raise my first glass of wine (after 5pm or I'm looped for the day) to all of us here taking our country back, no matter our beliefs.

We are one.

Sorry...meant Phil

Oh and the apricot tree outside of my window is budding :) Good sign spring is just around the corner.

By a vote of 68-29 tonight the Senate gave President Bush more expanded powers for his illegal spying program against innocent Americans. The measure also gives retroactive immunity to the Telecoms for being accomplices with the White House in its law breaking and Constitution shredding. Despite much public outcry against  any retroactive immunity for the phone companies in recent weeks. Many of the Senate Democrats once again stab their constituents in the back. Again, afraid of being labeled as "weak on terror." The hell with our Civil Liberties and Constitutional Rights! The hell with upholding their sworn oath to Defend The Constitution! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

In complete accord with your post, Jeff. 

76.

Phil Specht
Sun, 02/17/08

a President willing to put himself into the diplomatic effort directly and personally with declared enemies of Israel, including the sponsors of the terrorist organization Hezbullah, is a pretty bold step.
------------

It’s not a “step� it’s only talk, pre-election talk so far.
I wish Obama would watch the true boldness, the boldness in actions (not in words), and the one which is much more silent and much more effective, the Bush&Co.’s boldness for the last 8 years and....LEARN.

and over at raising kaine people are pe-od that jim webb voted with the rethugs on the fisa bill.

I call him, "Young McCain." 

OK, so this is from
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/...

I cite it only to suggest that Bill Clinton is not making a whole lot of sense.


Bill Clinton: Obama 'Literally Not Part of Any of the Good Things' From the 1990s

February 15, 2008 6:43 PM

ABC News' Sarah Amos reports that former President Bill Clinton -- despite myriad promises he would stop assailing his wife's opponent given how it has backfired on her -- upped his harsh attacks today in Tyler, Texas.

"There are two competing moods in America today," Clinton said. "People who want something fresh and new -- and they find it inspiring that we might elect a president who literally was not part of any of the good things that happened or any of the bad things that were stopped before. The explicit argument of the campaign against Hillary is that 'No one who was involved in the 1990s or this decade can possibly be an effective president because they had fights. We're not going to have any of those anymore.' Well, if you believe that, I got some land I wanna sell you."

ABC News' Sarah Amos is traveling with the former president and transcribed his comments.

For the record, in the 1990s, Obama was a civil rights attorney, community organizer, and was in the Illinois state senate.

Presumably, by "any of the good things that happened" in the 1990s, Clinton is referring to the things he did as president (except for the ones his wife now distances herself from, such as NAFTA).

btw, if anyone is curious as to how the fear-mongering Right plans to play against Barack Obama, look no further than Michael O'Hanlon in the WSJ:

A central element of Barack Obama's plan to change American foreign policy is his intention, upon becoming president, to meet with foreign leaders of extremist regimes -- the type of rogue-state dictators that George W. Bush has generally shunned during his time as president.

Applied categorically, this would be a bad idea. Meeting with enemy heads of state is neither as original as Mr. Obama implies, nor as promising as he claims. As a specific option for dealing with difficult regimes, it has potential merit on a case-by-case basis, and should always be considered -- but only after a careful assessment of what the United States believes it can get out of such meetings and dialogues.

By MICHAEL O'HANLON
February 14, 2008

(more at the click) 

I'll raise my first glass of wine (after 5pm or I'm looped for the day) to all of us here taking our country back, no matter our beliefs.

We are one.<<<<<<<<<<

Raising my glass to yours, Denise.

have fun! 

I'm glad a few Obama naysayers stuck around through all the barbs we tossed their way - audrey.nc comes to mind. I hope others return.

I think the turning point for Hill was that when she got into trouble, she called on Big Dog to bail her out. It wasn't that he was saying racist things - it's that it looked like the campaign was about him. And it isn't that we didn't like him as a President, it just made her look small. Also, it reminded us of the dynasty thing. ( I realize this rigor mortis I mean post mortem is decidedly premature.)

Yesterday out at my Sis's I saw a pileated woodpecker (Woody Woodpecker).

As a connoisseur of the food group known as Chef Boyardee's Spaghetti and Meatballs for nigh on to 60 years, I made a discovery today -- it's much easier to eat with a soup spoon than with a fork.

Pink azalea blossoms

Clintons Go Negative (Again), Still Refuse to Disclose Tax Returns

As the Feb. 19 caucus in Hawaii and primaries in Washington and Wisconsin approach, the good news keeps coming for Obama: This week Obama won the endorsements of two of America's largest labor unions, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The considerable likely impact of these endorsements is discussed at length in the Investor's Business Daily. Obama also picked up two important newspaper endorsements in upcoming primary states: one from the Houston Chronicle, largest in Texas; and one from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin's largest. News comes meanwhile of movement toward Obama among superdelegates, including some previously pledged to Clinton now switching to Obama; and this week even Bill Clinton's former campaign manager, David Wilhelm, endorsed Obama (Ouch!).

Hillary Clinton continues also to ignore demands to disclose her and Bill's joint income tax returns, promising to do so if and when she receives the Democratic nomination. On Friday the New York Times demanded, "Show Us the Money," arguing that "release of the tax returns should not be made conditional on winning the nomination," and observing that while Obama long ago disclosed his tax returns both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have thus far refused. "The reluctance of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain to reveal more about their finances ill-serves voters and the nominating process of both parties...," the Times further argues, "...It also sets a terrible precedent for future campaigns for important posts at the national and state level" (see also Huffington Post). Since 1984, as ABC News observed last year, only one previous major presidential candidate has likewise refused to disclose personal tax information to the public: Bill Clinton in 1992.

As long as the Clintons refuse to disclose the truth about their personal finances, we can only assume that there is something in them they don't want us to see. At the very least it would likely reveal that the Clintons are far more filthy rich than any of us might have guessed, a little detail that makes it somewhat more difficult for Hillary to campaign as a working-class hero. Meanwhile, the negative tactics upon which the Clintons seem increasingly dependent for lack of anything positive to offer appear as unlikely to help them as ever.

if anyone is curious as to how the fear-mongering Right plans to play against Barack Obama, look no further than Michael O'Hanlon in the WSJ:

That's Obama's concern, not mine. He and his campaign have done a fine job of parrying the Clintons' attacks and turning them back upon them. I expect they'll be well experienced to deal with McCain's. 

Three cheers for the DFA Asheville group -- a very potent force.

3.

and over at raising kaine people are pe-od that jim webb voted with the rethugs on the fisa bill. said he thought the telecoms spied on us in good faith.

Jim Webb is smart enough to know that the courts decide civil and criminal matters like that, not the Senate. I don't know what his game here is but I withdraw my suggestion that he run as Obama's VP. Perhaps once a Repug, always a Repug.

resurrect the old Clinton storyline that Obama is all style and no substance, despite the obvious fact that fewer and fewer people are believing it anymore.<<<<<<

This is not a hands-off topic.  Barack lacks experience.  The Repubs will bash him on that without mercy.  Hillary claims more experience, though imo, her experience isn't "that" much more than Barack's.

Gov. Dean didn't want to release certain docs either, as I recall.  Tax info can easily be distorted.

I see no issues here.

A legitimate criticism is fair.  Barack is new and untested and he'll need to convince voters that he has what it takes to step up to the highest office in the world.  I personally believe that he has it as does Hillary.  His bigger battle will be in the General where the Repubs will go at him with all  they've got and when that doesn't produce results.....they'll lie. 

From the Sunday Times

THERE is an air of desperation in Hillary Clinton’s camp. The New York senator has embarked on a door-die mission to hector and bully her way to victory, putting her on a potential collision course with Democratic party leaders.

It is a risky strategy that could leave her more isolated and unpopular as voters defect to Barack Obama, the new front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Obama, 46, is being tarred as a cultish, messianic figure who talks big but cannot deliver.

Clinton, 60, is being driven into her last redoubts as white women, blue collar workers and Hispanics – her core supporters – have begun to peel away. In public she is adopting a feistier tone and a more populist message against the Illinois senator in a bid to stem her losses.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3382295.ece

FOR BIRD LOVERS UP NORTH

If your snowbirds are coming back too early and snow and ice and covering the waterways, try to put out some fresh water for them that you can keep unfrozen by continuing to add warm water.

Birds cannot drink ice or eat snow and they die within a day or less from not having enough to drink. They need water even more than food.

24.

Joan* In*Florida
Sun, 02/17/08


... excluding Jim, i suppose.

25.

*** cChalfonte***
Sun, 02/17/08

Being pretty much on record myself as not believing each and every word out of Mr. Obama's mouth, i find that it is possible that the least experience in D.C.

... just may be a good thing.

Gotta like this guy:

In Wisconsin, Obama dismissed Clinton's arguments that she is the better candidate because of her longer tenure in Washington. "We don't need somebody to play the Washington game better — we need to end the game plan," he told about 3,500 supporters in Eau Claire on Saturday.

Go BO!

This is not a hands-off topic.  Barack lacks experience.  The Repubs will bash him on that without mercy.

The only candidate the GOP won't bash is their own nominee. Obama and his team have already shown they can counter bashing and even turn it to his advantage.

yikes

the new 10 day forecast shows a hurricane force storm hitting the northwest coast the end of the month

deepest low pressure of the season

There will be a hearing in Concord on next Tuesday.

OUR NATION IS IN CRISIS.

NORTHEAST IMPEACHMENT COALITION, WWW.NEIMPEACH.ORG HAS PREPARED CLEAR

IMPEACHMENT TALKING POINTS
TO INFORM CITIZENS ABOUT THE RUMORS AND MYTHS INVOLVING INVESTIGATIVE HEARINGS.

IMPEACHMENT HAS BEEN ON THE TABLE
SINCE NOVEMBER 6, 2007 AS HOUSE RESOLUTION 799.

H Res 799 is now in the House JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
__________________

1. There is not enough time. Impeachment will take too long.
History show we need no more than 120 days. The clock is ticking. Every second counts. Investigations, once initiated, would take no more than hours to prepare four articles of impeachment replete with on the record evidence of guilt. A school of thought from Betty Hall, NH Representative, is that impeachment could take 1 ½ - 2 weeks, if the House Judiciary put their minds to it.

2. We just don't have the votes.
There will be votes once impeachment hearings get under way and the depth of crimes is recorded. Before charges could be brought. The American people were denied the truth. Nixon resigned to avoid exposing illegal policy and corruption that still exists, today.

3. They'll be out of office in a year anyway.
If someone broke into your house and robbed you, and the police told you they weren't going to press charges because the robber was leaving the country in a year anyway, would you be satisfied? We have been robbed of our democracy, our Constitutional rights, our blood and our treasure.

4. Congress will come to a standstill & the country will be divided.
The Senate is at a standstill, unable to pass anything meaningful except bills instilling fear in the lives of the people. During the Nixon Impeachment, Vietnam War withdrawals, Voting Rights and the Endangered Species Act were passed.

5. A fear may exist that Bush would appoint another VP just as difficult as Cheney.
Unlikely, because after impeaching Cheney, another VP would have to be vetted by House and Senate with a simple majority.

6. It will be just like the Clinton impeachment.
Do not be "Outfoxed" by the media. It will not resemble the Clinton impeachment due to the serious and weighty nature of the likely charges. Also, many of the high crimes and misdemeanors are matters of public record.

7. We'll take care of it in 2009. Pelosi says impeachment could jeopardize the 2008 election.
Practically guarantees a furtherance of the imperial presidency by the next president if any of the current front runners prevail. Impeachment is about preserving and protecting the Constitution We the people must protect the Constitution first.

8. We need to secure the oil in the middle east.
The cost of the means to protect oil outstrip the benefit The oil profits are not more important than our democracy or developing alternative forms of energy. Our safety, well being, combating global warming, and preparing for our future do not coincide. If they did, they wouldn't have had to lie to us.

TASK: There is only one way to get our country back.
It requires neither the President's signature, nor is it subject to his veto. It is called IMPEACHMENT.

DUTY: Demand our Representatives follow their oath of office.
The people have the power to elect our true representatives. It is our duty to call the House Judiciary Committee.
Democrats: 202-225-3951. Republicans 202-225-6504.
Tell them: "Start the investigations, now."

OUR CHILDREN'S ANSWER:
For us, our parents were not the ones to look away, they were not part of the "Spiral of Silence". They knew, We the people of these United States have the duty to speak out, as a strong majority.

The only candidate the GOP won't bash is their own nominee. Obama and his team have already shown they can counter bashing and even turn it to his advantage.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, judging by many Obama suporters here............id sugest they start growing a think skin and now because obviously they cant take a miniscule criticism of this guy..wait till the Fall............the repubs are gonna nail him on secirity, the ME, dealing with terrorists, nevile Chamberlain, weakness, capitualtion, etc etc etc............................some of the same things that oh yes, Howard dean got nailed with by many in his own party.............................

Bill Clinton is a big liability for Hillary right now. Gore probably made the right choice in 2000 not calling on him to campaign although I didn't think so at the time.

cheeseheads are really liking the fact they will have a say this time and will turn out in very large numbers (and maybe just because it is the first day they will be able to travel after this current storm blows through) 

I agree Mike. Republicans are capable of sewage a blogger wouldn't even dream possible here.

The only candidate the GOP won't bash is their own nominee. Obama and his team have already shown they can counter bashing and even turn it to his advantage.<<<<<

Going against Hillary Clinton is barely a warm-up to what he (or she) would face against the Repubs.  It remains to be seen how either of them will hold up against the Repubs. 

I'll be fighting hard for our candidate:) 

Perhaps you'll remember that I suggested early on that many men would not vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman and many women would not vote for her just because she's a woman. There seems to be some agreement. I wouldn't say it's a sexist thing, however. More likely, men and women both recognize that the male is the more sociable member of the species and the female is more independent and inclined to get things done, regardless of how inconvenient. The human species needs both.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/...

37.

Michael Ellis
Sun, 02/17/08

Hey Mike!! You've noticed your 'fan club' is back?
Quite the spokesman for civility and kindness, at least for himself. lol

Deaniac

any rain at all your way from these winter storms?

Monica

as far as men voting for Obama

I don't think Hillary's gender is having much to do with it, a little maybe, in that men see Obama as a regular guy, sports fan, and all that kind of thing, but it is not anti-woman, just that he is more accessible

I think supporters of Obama already have a "think" skin.  It's the detractors, belittlers, the name callers that don't have a "think" skin.  Of course, I can't criticize a typo legitimately since I'm unable to post a single message without one. ; . )

I still haven't heard one word of fact that justifies the snideness, the meanness of spirit I have been reading over and over.  Give me one cogent reason to criticze Obama, and I will be glad to think about it, to weigh its merits.

A long time ago, I was teaching American  Studies and my team teacher remarked that the Brits had one of the most racist reputations in the world.  We've come a long way from that.  And, it's true to say probably that Americans are Anglophiles, but it is also true to say that both countries and Europe have a history of racism, colonialism, subjugation.

Come on, give some reasons to criticize Obama other than impressions, clairvoyance, and a connection to outer space.

And, yes, music, the arts, and according to Shelley, "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world."

I'd be interested to know, Thankful, why the remake with Glen Close was disappointing.  I found it far more real than the homogenized, almost fairy tale version with Mary Martin.  I noticed the women as nurses had realistic body types.  We know that nurses in WWII didn't all look like Paris Hilton, and it was refreshing to see heavy thighs, muscular bodies, and ordinary faces.  The choreography was superb along with the camera work, I thought, though I hated all the commercials.  How is it we allow our media companies to insult us by showing two or more minutes of commercials every ten minutes or so, thus fragmenting a program of qualiy?  How do we let them get away with it?  I think it's crass, gross, and disrespectful to the audience and the artists.. 

It's raining here now, with a chilly wind. Just 30 miles or so north inside of TN, my friend's husband is out getting crews working on downed powerlines.

Next January, this election will be over with. Obama will be sworn in as the 44th POTUS! Clinton will go home mad, saying she was somehow robbed of her inherited right to be prez. Chelsea, bless her heart, will go back to her excellent job. Bill may write another book about why Hillary should have been nominated  and for the next eight years he will downplay everything good that President Obama accomplishes.

But my question really is, what will happen to DFA and BFA?

BFA apparently is no longer of no consequences to DFA except when they want to update the email list to gather contributions. Since they already have our email addresses, maintenance of BFA is of no concern to DFA.

We could all block DFA's emails, put it on our spam lists, etc. in an attempt to get maintenance to BFA. But I suspect nothing will be done and little left of this blog after Jan. 2009 because the technical problems here will still exist and there will not be much in the way of politics to debate until 2010.

Just my thoughts.

You Yankees up in line with that horrific blizzard coming your way, take care!

chicken pox and measles at the same time

34.

Monica Smith
Sun, 02/17/08

I cite it only to suggest that Bill Clinton is not making a whole lot of sense.


Bill Clinton: Obama 'Literally Not Part of Any of the Good Things' From the 1990s
.....
"There are two competing moods in America today," Clinton said. "People who want something fresh and new -- and they find it inspiring that we might elect a president who literally was not part of any of the good things that happened or any of the bad things that were stopped before. The explicit argument of the campaign against Hillary is that 'No one who was involved in the 1990s or this decade can possibly be an effective president because they had fights. We're not going to have any of those anymore.' Well, if you believe that, I got some land I wanna sell you...."
--------------

...lol, agree with you Monica.

Not only Bill Clinton is not making a whole lot of sense but even worse, he shows that he and his&Co. DID and DOES live in an imaginary world disjoined entirely from reality. It seems the general fate of our “professional leaders�....lol, to live within Beltway imaginations..., lol.

It DOES NOT matter now EITHER OR NOT un-professional (“un-experienced�..., lol) enough Obama somehow would be able to stay in touch with the real life and the real World outside of Beltway.

This time around the game of coffer replenishment by One Party for the war of Another Party can’t be played any longer.
This time around the war both Parties fight is a truly eternal and therefore non-winnable. The big part of changing “the mindset that brought us into this war� is a realization of that fact.
Good luck Mr. Obama and welcome into the real World!
You do have all chances to succeed.

  Give me one cogent reason to criticze Obama, and I will be glad to think about it, to weigh its merits.

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

when Oprah was introducing him as brilliant and a gift from God he got caught up in that messiah cult for a couple of days (and was punished for it in New Hampshire)

I don't criticize him for it as much as his backers, and Mike is doing you all a favor to bring up the zealotry, of supporters because it would be a route of attack for rovian operators. Americans have a hard time with that attitude of holier than thou

so even though Obama himself fights it, it is a criticism of the campaign that is valid

when he brings it back to "we";  as inclusive of all Americans he can erase that, but that is why the Clinton attack on specifics because it suckers him into talking about "his" plans

you very statement is my proof that some supporters think him above criticism

On the anti-female voting

... not true, as far as i can tell, tho Nancy Pelosi may have disappointed many (especially me) with the lack of backbone and support for the will of her base.

No, it is Hillary's record AND her claimed affiliation with the good of Bill's terms (which saddle her with his failures and his compliance to Republican wishes, which hurt the poor and the working class) that hurts her badly.

All of you who wish that men are the problem, are pretty funny. But go ahead, we can take it.

Joan, things will never be the same again. I do think, (hope), that the country has awakened to the fact that tending the community, including its political class, is an on-going responsibility--sort of like housework, never done. The point we need to get to is where the normal household is--responsibilities for maintenance are passed automatically from one generation to the next.

Sometimes it's really hard to let go and trust that someone else will carry on. But, people carrying on is the true test of what one has achieved. Can you imagine what would have happened if Jesus had not left?

Mike's kind of posts are a favor to Obama. You all have a blind spot if you don't see that.

you very statement is my proof that some supporters think him above criticism<<<<<

Well said, Phil....all of it:)

Stings from a thousand bees. 

It seems to me, Phil, I invited criticism.  And yes, Obama was praised to the skies by Oprah, but what exactly does that mean?  What did he do or say that showed a flaw that made him ineligible, or illigetimate?

Furthermore, lets stop with the cult stuff.  None of us here, to my knowledge, worshipped any candidate: not Howard Dean, not Gore, well, no, not really, nor John Edwards, nor Hillary Clinton, nor Barack Obama.  

It's just that there's no substantial reasoning I'm seeing with respect to criticism.  Criticism is important, valid especially because we as activitists can bring that to the attention of the candidate and his/her staff.

No, give me one solid criticism that shows me he's not a good candidate. 

Deaniac, you got that wrong. Men are not the problem. Humans cannot exist without sociability. Perhaps it's because the Republican crooks have managed to minimize it so much, we can't take a chance that Hillary would make it even less. The country needs someone who really wants to get along.

Well, judging by many Obama suporters here............id sugest they start growing a think skin and now because obviously they cant take a miniscule criticism of this guy..wait till the Fall............the repubs are gonna nail him on secirity, the ME, dealing with terrorists, nevile Chamberlain, weakness, capitualtion, etc etc etc............................some of the same things that oh yes, Howard dean got nailed with by many in his own party..........<<<<<<<<

Loving all of your posts today, Monica.  Spot on. 

Although I volunteered for Webb's campaign back in '04, I assure you, I will never do
so again. Too many of his votes have been just plain wrong-his judgement cannot be trusted in my eyes. So much for reformed republicans...etc..etc....

Phil, the Obama of New Hampshire is not the Obama of now. Perhaps the state actually saw too much of him, all his warts. Perhaps New Hampshire was more of a psychological challenge to him than we realized. He didn't appear nearly as sure of himself as he does now.

On the other hand, somebody's put up a video from Manchester which some people think would have made a big difference, if NH had seen that instead of the tears.

I'll see if I can go fetch it.

Perhaps you'll remember that I suggested early on that many men would not vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman and many women would not vote for her just because she's a woman. There seems to be some agreement. I wouldn't say it's a sexist thing, however. More likely, men and women both recognize that the male is the more sociable member of the species and the female is more independent and inclined to get things done, regardless of how inconvenient. The human species needs both.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Again, well said....and thanks for the BG link. 

No, give me one solid criticism that shows me he's not a good candidate. 

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

maybe you weren't paying attention during the Oprah rallies Pat, but his response was a major slip that cost him New Hampshire

he does fine when it is about the country and the future and not him

arrogance is not his style, but he got caught in believing his own press once, and Clinton is baiting him to do it again, and if he falls for it she could still win Ohio and Texas

then she is the candidate; and we can argue about her faults which is a longer list, that I will grant 

52.

Monica Smith
Sun, 02/17/08

It is not any women; it is this woman that is so bad. And for those who say she can control Bill, well, once again, Bubba fell off the wagon and made a fool out of himself yet again. Everytime he does that, he reminds people of his own weaknesses and failures and takes the campaign away from Hillary. NAFTA and CAFTA did not help Ohio at all and Hillary is claiming she got a lot of experience helping Bill with his presidency. Bubba doesn't need to remind the voters that there was a lot more wrong with his tenure then an overly active zipper.

If Hillary gets the Michigan and Florida delegates and if they are the margin for her nomination, it will be very difficult for me to vote for her. I don't like McCain and his 100 year war rhetoric, but when your only choices are two stinky turds, it is hard to tell the difference between them.

Hillary is in real trouble with a lot of Dems. I talk to people every day at VA centers, outreach centers and the neighbors. They agree McCain is nuts; Obama is worthy of serious consideration, and supporting Hillary is out of the question.

The first candidate that shores up support with veterans wins big time.

OK. I don't think embed for photobucket works here:



You can see it on Hannah http://hannah.smith-family.com

What I want to see is that veterans are folded into the national health care program and get exactly the same quality care, including psychological and brain injury and damaged DNA as is available to anyone who's got enough money or the right plan.

Every red-blooded American knows that being judge, jury and executioner is wrong and the brainwashing that has made them killers is only going to last for a while. When they come out of it, they are going to need a lot of help, not because of what the enemy did to them, but what their own leaders did to them.

http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/cand...

{carpel tunnel syndrome)

Monica

just the fact that the media could manufacture a certain Hillary in New Hampshire with her tears doesn't mean they can't remake Obama (or her for that matter) up or down

If Obama makes it about the future and stays positive and keeps it about "us" and not "him" he wins going away, and the biggest impediment to that are his worshippers.

Ah! In sitka's absence Monica has taken the bottom position. . . .

3:14 pm EST

Update on Ally at baby:
http://eatapyzch.blogspot.com/

49.

Phil Specht
Sun, 02/17/08

...when Oprah was introducing him as brilliant and a gift from God he got caught up in that messiah cult for a couple of days (and was punished for it in New Hampshire)
---------------------

Don’t you think that any President rather might than might not get “caught up in that messiah cult�? Don’t you see it as a norm for this “Democracy� rather than not? Do Americans such an idol shippers?

Easy and true 21-th century mantra of either of both American Parties: Do you want messiah; we’ve got for you...lol!

Hi again,

Fair enough, Phil.  No, I didn't hear all Obama's speeches in New Hampshire, and if you say he was bragging, talking about himself as the answer, yes, that's a flaw.  I had read a year ago, that he was conceited in the opinion of a New Yorker writer.  A fault indeed, but I don't think it's significant if he realizes it and checks it.

In his book, his wife Michelle, takes him down to earth when he gets pumped up with himself.  He talked about that, and I thought that was quite mature.

He's not a messiah, and we don't need a messiah, we need a brilliant, thoughtful, mature, highly skilled human being that can help us change course.  Gore certainly had the brilliance, but as he said, he wasn't good at the politics.  I believe him.  

Howard Dean certainly had the prescience, the intellect, the charisma, and the fight, but his temper and reactivity worked against him.

I suspect that Obama's analytical mind and philsophizing could and can work against him.  We are an impatient people insisting on either/or solutions, simplistic and superficial at our worst. 

I also suspect that Obama's ability  to seek balance, to weigh everything would make him seem indecisive and vague, and that's also a problem.  A way to counteract that is in the talents and experiences he brings to the office from other people. 

So, I'll take that as the first legitimate criticism anyone gave, and I appreciate it.  I'm really sick to death of the snideness and meannes from people.  We are better than that. 

Kids and grandkids are here. Bye for now.

Furthermore, lets stop with the cult stuff.  None of us here, to my knowledge, worshipped any candidate: not Howard Dean, not Gore<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Pat, this just isn't true.  Even ardent Dean supporters have derided the cultish component.  "Superman wears Al Gore Pajamas", while kinda cute and mostly harmless was posted here as tag line by one feverish Gore supporter who truly seemed to think of him as some sort of Messiah.

There is a line between blind, cultish support and fighting hard for your candidate.  A fine line and easily crossed.

If I wake up the morning after the general election to the fact that a person of color is our president I will cry with joy and I'm not the tear up at the drop of a hat kinda gal.

I guess to some that would be cultish.

Bottom line, everyone here expresses themselves in their own way.  Seashell and Mike have questioned Obama's readiness for this office.  It's a reasonable concern.  I share that concern but I believe in playing the hand I'm dealt.  What I do know with certitude is that Barack Obama as president trumps anything the Repubs have to offer. 

Mike's kind of posts are a favor to Obama. You all have a blind spot if you don't see that.  

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

Thanks Phil,

How soon people forget I have actually said I like the guy.........I applaud seevral of his views on global diplomacy and they are long overdue..............I, like other notables like Carter, Gore, Edwards etc shant endorse Obama just yet................Hillary wil be a disaster either way........but out of protest Ill sit this election out..its time IMO...................I glad Im not on the Obama bandwagon however, this country needs more skeptics.........

The first candidate that shores up support with veterans wins big time.

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

Clinton has the best record of any of them, but most veterans vote pretty much like their neighbors although a little less often on average, since some don't want anything to do with politics. my guess would be an even split in the General during a Democratic win

A week ago, 25 young, neighborhood,umpteenth generation Republicans handed me their fresh Democratic registration cards. Two men, one, the worst Pres ever,the other, one tremendous organizer, were responsible. One deserves exile. The other earned my respect and support.




priapic, operatic, inner ear evangelists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RkTh7RwJ...

Monica,
If the WWII version of the GI Bill was good enough for my dad, it is good enough for the new vets.
The one today is watered down and does not supply nearly enough financial support.

No one knew much about PTSS after WWII. Every veteran carries around pieces of their battles forever. My dad did, I do, we all do. Most of the time it is subdued and most vets lead the same lives of quiet desperation everyone else does. There is always a trigger point. Mine is the dark eyes and skin of young children and young mothers. It is because of all the villages and families we destroyed. All my kids have dark brown eyes and holidays were rough until we worked thru the issues. We have to recognise we will be in situations where the triggers are available and plan for the flashback to occur. I talk to vets about this all of the time. They have to recognise it and learn to recognise the anxiety when it happens and learn to adjust for it.

A week ago, 25 young, neighborhood,umpteenth generation Republicans handed me their fresh Democratic registration cards.

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

we got 45 in our little precinct Steve, it turned me from an Edwards supporter into an Obama delegate before the night was through

fall is looking good if Texas and Ohio don't blow it

The only candidate the GOP won't bash is their own nominee. Obama and his team have already shown they can counter bashing and even turn it to his advantage.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, judging by many Obama suporters here............id sugest they start growing a think skin and now because obviously they cant take a miniscule criticism of this guy..wait till the Fall............the repubs are gonna nail him on secirity, the ME, dealing with terrorists, nevile Chamberlain, weakness, capitualtion, etc etc etc..............

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

I was referring to Obama and his campaign, not "Obamanables" on this blog.

And if Democrats choose their nominee based on fear of GOP attacks they will deserve to lose. The party of FDR has been ruled by fear for too long.

71.

Monica Smith
Sun, 02/17/08


... ummm, so we do agree?

3:41 PM EST

fyi - new Front thread

Yes, I'm at the bottom, perhaps because I've switched to plain text.

Anyway, as long as a person is an unknown quantity, as far as the position he's being recommended for is concerned, everything about hims is going to be imagination and speculation. Indeed, that's what we still have for Dean in his role as president, which he isn't.

Perhaps the "experience" meme would have worked if Senator Clinton were contrasted with Senators Dodd and Biden and even Rep. Kucinich in the sense that, in addition to her elected position, she also had a background that made her familiar with the executive branch. Unfortunately, it doesn't carry as much weight when contrasted with Obama for the simple reason that their experience is in totally different venues. Hillary Clinton fought for poor people from the vantage point of charitable organizations which sweeten their endeavors in an atmosphere that's just a step down from the country club. Obama worked for poor people from a base in the housing projects where the smell of garbage and roach poison and vomit are enough to turn anyone's stomach.

In a way, it's the difference between stopping by Walter Reed in a rehab ward and picking at the shrapnel in a fresh wound in a hospital in Iraq.

This blog is toooo messed up.

Hope none of the interns actually reference this as an example of their work in the web. LOL

There is a new thread and it will work about as good as this one.












rabid, flatulent cooties

I agree Mike. Republicans are capable of sewage a blogger wouldn't even dream possible here.

People on this blog have seen it all before. I've been watching the GOP slime Dems since 1968. The only time it's successful is when Dems don't answer it. What we're seeing from the Obama campaign is an awareness and ability to respond to attacks within days if not hours. That's reminiscent of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign which had a team that responded to attacks within 48 hours.

(I remember blogging here and sending emails to Dean's campaign to spend some of our millions on such a rapid response team. But that would have cut intoTrippi's bad-ad buys. )

dog soldier, yes, it seems to be human nature to argue that what was good enough for me or mine, is good enough for them. But, however horrible WWII was, the cause was just and the misbehavior was minimal. Vietnam and Iraq are different. The cause was not just (is not just) and the troops have been abused in being ordered to do terrible things. So, because they were abused, we owe them more.

Sitka...

Agreed...but even today many Deaniacs don't see an advantage to responding to disses against Howard and us. They seem to me to just accept it as a matter of course. If you don't respond it's like you don't respect what you believe in either, so why should anyone else?

86.

Monica Smith
Sun, 02/17/08

Todays vets are due the better GI Bill because the WWII vets got a better GI Bill. The VN or Korea, IRAQ 1, Kosovo vets or wherever they served in harm's way, deserve the same package. This war, and it's treatment of vets, was fought on the cheap.
God battlefield medical care means more battlefield survivors with more horrible longterm injuries. The vets with heah injuries or missing limbs would probably have died in my day. We couldn't get casualties out in time to save them. We were better then the previous wars, but not as good as this war in evacuating the wounded.
Plus, my war wasn't concrete, it was mud and mud absorbs a lot of the shock of a nearby explosion. So nearby shells or mortars that would shake the ground and throw stuff in the air were not as bad because the wet ground absorbed a lot of the kinetic energy. A lot of guuys got hit but they had to be clsoer to the blast. I never saw an air-blast round that was used in WWII.
In Iraq, the battlefield is mainly urban warfare with concrete and blocks. The ground and buildings do not absorb as much of the blast and tend to direct the energy in a certain direction. Also, we didn't have shape charges with direct the energy in one path.

What saved me when I was severly wounded was the closeness to Tan Son Nut airbase and the excellent battlefield surgeons on site.

After two months in Manilla getting primary recovery care, I spent two months at Walter Reed in Chicago; a hell hole by any other name. Limited staff, severe limb damaged and mental patients. A lot of guys with spinal injuries. There was always someone screaming, moaning and dieing. Not enough staff or medications so many vets were doped up to keep them quiet.
Many vets had mental problems and needed psychiatry care. You could argue that we all did. Rambo pronounced them fit and turned them out into the streets to fend for themselves.
I got out of there as soon as I could function.

dog, I'd say everyone that came back from VN (from wars period?) were pretty messed up. We said so - we would dismiss/excuse people - oh he was in the war.

I just got done watching Why We Fight rented from Blockbuster. I kept wanting it to end and it kept droning on with dreadful truths. Seems like it just pulls together everything we've had to try to gather in bits and pieces from 'news' reports and from the blogs. I'm glad it's over. I already put it in the mailbox.

dogwood blossoms

I think DFA would be happy -- in fact are perhaps encouraging -- bloggers to move on. It would be easy enough to go to HEP or Hannah or even my little blogspot wouldn't it. Think we could just leave behind a 'blog has moved to ...' and a link? Problem is deciding where I guess.

If I wanted to blog someplace else I'd already be long gone.

Actually, I do drop comments a other places. I just keep coming here since it reminds me of that giddy summer of 04 when I thought my disillusionment was about to end.