Why Won't John McCain Release His Medical Records?

The above ad, which has been banned by the networks, addresses a valid question, why won't Senator John McCain release his medical records?

McCain, who chose a person widely regarded as one of the most incompetent people ever to be nominated for the Office of Vice President, has a medical history that suggests there is a significant chance he may not be able to serve out his term, if elected.

Can you imagine the potential disaster, if Sarah Palin became the President of the United States?

One would think that releasing one's health records, when running for leadership of the country for 4 years, would be a no-brainer. Unless, of course, there is something to cover up.

The public has a right to know the health of the person they are considering electing. If McCain has nothing to hide, he needs to release his complete medical records.

If he doesn't, we should assume the news contained in his records is grim. Those candidates running for the highest office in the land release their complete medical records. It is accepted practice. There is no excuse for his continuing to keep those records sealed.

At Think Progress, Dr. Clark Newhall, 1 of more than 2,700 American doctors who signed an open letter to Senator McCain, asking him to unseal his records, had this to say:

John McCain has never released his full medical records and he has severely restricted the public’s ability to judge his health. When McCain publicly “disclosed” his medical history, what he really did was provide a carefully selected set of medical records (1,173 pages in all) to 20 carefully selected reporters who were allowed three hours to review that massive pile of paper. They were not allowed to make copies and not allowed to consult with medical experts during the review.

Dr. Newhall adds:

What we do know is concerning: The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology reviewed the cancer taken off McCain’s head in 2000 and found it to be “highly suggestive of a metastasis of malignant melanoma and may represent a satellite metastasis.” Even with the most optimistic scenario, if McCain has a metastatic malignant melanoma, he has only a 38% chance of surviving past 2010.

I would like to add that there is a chorus of false indignation being chanted by the right-wing talking heads. However, if the roles were reversed and Senator Obama had given any reason for health concerns, how quick would these hypocrites be insisting that those records got released?

Consider that, the next time those pontificating pundits rant.

We need to demand that Senator McCain release his complete medical records now, and we need to keep reminding others to clamor for the same until he is prepared to answer.

Until he does, we should assume that McCain has something to hide.

Jack Cafferty Rips Palin Again On 2nd Couric Interview

This just keeps getting better.

John McCain now plays damage control and has to hold Sarah Palin's hand while she gets interviewed by Katie Couric about her disastrous first interview.

Click above to catch Jack Cafferty's priceless comment.

And, in case you missed the first Cafferty comments that sliced and diced Alaska's queen of pork, click on the following video:

Separated At Birth: Sarah Palin & Miss South Carolina

For those who watched the Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric with a dropped jaw, you will appreciate the above video, juxtaposing Sarah Palin's convoluted responses to those notoriously given by Miss South Carolina, at last year's Miss Teen USA competition.

Is it me, or do they share an identical rhetorical style?

Yes, John McCain has certainly selected the ideal representative from the religious right. And a former pageant contestant in her own right.

Perhaps in the next interview segment, Katie might ask Ms. Palin to do a bit of baton-twirling for us.

Frank Rich Exposes John McCain

It's not like he hasn't done it before, but in today's Op-Ed in the New York Times, Frank Rich gives Senator John McCain the dressing down he deserves after his disastrous campaign week. I have not seen the fraudulent machinations and manipulations of Team McCain laid out any better.

In a column titled, "McCain's Suspension Bridge to Nowhere," Rich writes:

What we learned last week is that the man who always puts his “country first” will take the country down with him if that’s what it takes to get to the White House.

For all the focus on Friday night’s deadlocked debate, it still can’t obscure what preceded it: When John McCain gratuitously parachuted into Washington on Thursday, he didn’t care if his grandstanding might precipitate an even deeper economic collapse. All he cared about was whether he might save his campaign. George Bush put more deliberation into invading Iraq than McCain did into his own reckless invasion of the delicate Congressional negotiations on the bailout plan.

By the time he arrived, there already was a bipartisan agreement in principle. It collapsed hours later at the meeting convened by the president in the Cabinet Room. Rather than help try to resuscitate Wall Street’s bloodied bulls, McCain was determined to be the bull in Washington’s legislative china shop, running around town and playing both sides of his divided party against Congress’s middle. Once others eventually forged a path out of the wreckage, he’d inflate, if not outright fictionalize, his own role in cleaning up the mess his mischief helped make. Or so he hoped, until his ignominious retreat.

Dead on.

In my last post, I wrote about the latest revelations surrounding campaign manager Rick Davis and the fact that he was still receiving lobbying money from Freddie Mac up until last month. Rich, in his column, succinctly connects all the dots and also, as I did, wrote about the GOP tactic of making a pre-emptive strike to deflect attention away from his own serious political problems. As Rich put it:

The McCain campaign tried to pre-emptively deflect such revelations by reviving the old Rove trick of accusing your opponent of your own biggest failings. It ran attack ads about Obama’s own links to the mortgage giants. But neither of the former Freddie-Fannie executives vilified in those ads, Franklin Raines and James Johnson, had worked at those companies lately or are currently associated with the Obama campaign. (Raines never worked for the campaign at all.) By contrast, Davis is the tip of the Freddie-Fannie-McCain iceberg. McCain’s senior adviser, his campaign’s vice chairman, his Congressional liaison and the reported head of his White House transition team all either made fortunes from recent Freddie-Fannie lobbying or were players in firms that did.

Rich goes on to discuss the other elements of the Team McCain meltdown...from the ludicrous Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric...to the threatened debate postponement...to the Letterman fallout. Frank Rich makes a very clear case that there was never any true campaign suspension, just an unprecedented level of political grandstanding.

McCain's increasingly bizarre campaign moves are finally starting to make a dent in polls. If the American public cannot pick Senator Obama over a candidate who has run such an amazingly shoddy, clueless campaign, then we are in far worse shape than I could ever have imagined.

To check out the entire Rich column, click here.

John McCain's Fannie Flak

On exactly what planet does Team McCain live?

I pose this question because the campaign is about to enter the realm of the surreal.

The Prelude

In the aftermath of the historic Wall Street financial collapse, the McCain campaign put out a bizarre attack on Barack Obama, with a disturbing campaign ad as the centerpiece.

The campaign commercial attempted to link Obama to former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. Observe the ad for yourself and note this...considering both Obama and Raines have claimed the story (alleging that Obama sought financial advice from Raines) is a downright lie, and there is no proof, why even put this out there, when the head of your campaign has a much bigger reason to not want to get into comparisons on this issue?

As you watch, let me give you a clue as to what McCain was doing. This was obviously a 'smear by association' ploy, made popular by Karl Rove. Check out Franklin Raines' skin tone. In one shot they make him look utterly devious. Does the term 'angry black man' come to mind? And then observe the personification of the victims, an elderly white woman. Click on the ad and witness the racism of John McCain.



The Times Article

Earlier this week, the New York Times had this to say about Rick Davis, Senator John McCain's campaign manager:

Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

For those not fond of calculators, that translates to just under 2 million dollars.

These are the people who put out the attack ad?

The Times expose seems rock solid and insinuates that anger from the Obama/Raines ads was the reason that people came forward to discuss the role of Davis. Read for yourself at the link provided above.

The Davis Rant

So, how does Mr. Davis respond to the allegations? Does he refute the charges uncategorically? Does he offer up a defense?

Well, not exactly.

He equates the New York Times with being a tool of the Democratic Party. That's right, the same Times that cozied up to George W. Bush and helped to lie us into war. I heard an audio clip of Davis, ripping into the Times earlier today. And the campaign has now taken up the mantle.

As the Gothamist reports:

Yesterday, campaign adviser Steve Schmidt said, "Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization...This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be... It is a pro-Obama organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin and excuses Sen. Obama.

I can fully understand how the base is going to get all riled up about this, but did they really think such a disgraceful attack would appeal to independents and moderates? Especially since the charges the Times made were not denied?

It gets worse for McCain

Today, the story grew substantially worse for McCain/Palin/Davis.

In reports in both the New York Times, and now, Newsweek as well, money kept being funneled into Davis' consulting firm, even though no work was being done to justify the outlay of money.

How much money?

According to Newsweek's Michaek Isikoff:

Since 2006, the federally sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac has paid at least $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement.

Freddie Mac had previously paid an advocacy group run by Davis, called the Homeownership Alliance, $30,000 a month until the end 2005, when that group was dissolved. That relationship was the subject of a New York Times story Monday, which drew angry denunciations from the McCain campaign. McCain and his aides have vehemently objected to suggestions that Davis has ties to Freddie Mac—an especially sensitive issue given that the Republican presidential candidate has blamed "the lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats" for the mortgage crisis that recently prompted the Bush administration to take over both Freddie Mac and its companion, Fannie Mae, and put them under federal conservatorship.

But neither the Times story—nor the McCain campaign—revealed that Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, based in Washington, D.C., continued to receive $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac until last month—long after the Homeownership Alliance had been terminated.

And, as the Times, correctly suggests:

The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

It would seem that way, wouldn't it?

So what's next on the agenda?

Will Mr. Davis and Team McCain now claim that Newsweek is out to get them, too?

If I were a betting man...

Palin's $26 Million Embarrassment:The ROAD To Nowhere

How does an alleged fighter against earmarks and government waste justify allowing a 26 million dollar roads project, designed to complement the proposed 'bridge to nowhere,' to go forward?

As today's Los Angeles Times documents,

The 3.2-mile-long partially paved "road to nowhere" meanders from a small international airport on Gravina Island (pictured above), home to 50 people, ending in a cul-de-sac close to a beach.

Crews are working to finish it. But no one knows when anyone will need to drive it.

...in 2006, Palin stood before residents in this region during her gubernatorial campaign and expressed support for the bridge. It became apparent after she was elected that the state's portion would be too costly, and Palin ordered transportation officials to abandon the project.

She held on to the $223 million in federally earmarked funds for other uses, such as the Gravina road, approved by her predecessor.

Check out these telling comments, from the same article:

Susan Walsh, a nurse who lives on Gravina Island, remembers attending that Chamber of Commerce meeting. When Palin withdrew her support for the bridge, Walsh figured the road project would have died with it. "It was just stupid," she said.

Jacob, the woman who has been protesting the road for two years with a letter-writing campaign on behalf of the Tongass Conservation Society in Ketchikan, says: "We begged her to stop."

An April 2007 letter to Palin read: "I am writing to encourage you to do away with the Gravina Access Highway. At about $8 million per mile of public money, this is a fiscal mistake."

How will Sarah Palin and John McCain talk their way out of this one?

You can access the full Los Angeles Times article here.

The Bush 2004 Political Ads: Sound Familiar?

In an affort to not repeat the mistakes of the past, I thought I would post a couple of the Bush '04 campaign ads. It is interesting to hear the promises that George Bush made for the 2004 election. The above ad had a whole litany of promises that sound remarkably like a 2008 McCain ad (on the rare occasion he does not attack Barack Obama's character).

The references to reducing dependency on foreign energy and strengthening social security are especially ironic. We can be equally confident that in '08, when the McCain makes the same claims, we would have the same result 4 years later. Empty words.

Below is another ad, specifically focusing on our economy. Once again, the mantra is that the Democrats want to destroy small business owners and wreck the economy. That is the excuse that the GOP always uses when choosing not to address why there are no regulations or oversight directed at big business at all. Or why some businesses just don't seem to be paying any taxes.

Watch, and see how many of these promises were kept. Job creation, anyone?

Palin Touts A 'Palin-McCain' Administration

I think Sarah Palin has been spending some quality time with Dick Cheney.

Click on the video for a good chuckle.

By the way, that sound you hear is John McCain pounding his head against the wall, whilst muttering, "I can't believe they wouldn't let me pick Joey."

Calling Out McCain/Palin On Their Lies

CNN, to their credit, have a fairly powerful piece that takes on the lies of McCain/Palin. Click above to see it.

As I posted to Crooks and Liars, where I first caught this video clip, there needs to be a strong, unified response to this GOP strategy.

When the lies are blatant, reporters and the media need to continually refer to it in their coverage, not just in special features.

What the Obama campaign needs to do

If the Dems had run a similar campaign, there would be a united chorus of ‘liar’ coming out of the GOP. Where are the Democrats on this? How about calling out the GOP on specific, deliberate lies, that keep getting repeated.

Maybe they can start a feature called, GOP lie of the day (or week).

It could be a regular ad that begins like this:

The McCain/Palin campaign, just like the Bush administration, believes that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it to be true.

We believe that candidates should be held accountable for deliberately spreading lies. And we believe if you repeat the truth often enough, lies will be exposed for what they are.

Today, we challenge the following McCain lie:

(30 seconds of the lie and the fact-based debunking of it)

(close with a Bush/McCain lie on WMD, or something similar)

Repeating a lie, one knows to be false, is not presidential. Senator McCain, if you have a record to run on, you do not need to distort the truth to win.

I am Barack Obama and I approve this message.

The nose

How about incorporating a Pinocchio nose on McCain and Palin when these spots are run? As their lies are told, we would see a graphic of a growing nose. Use the same GOP tactic of reducing things to images that voters can relate to (flip-flops, anyone?). Visually, make McCain/Palin synonomous with the lies of Pinocchio.

This might actually, at some point, cause McCain to actually run on his record.

Where art thou, Hillary?

Isn't it odd that the one time we have been hearing about Hillary Clinton engaging with Sarah Palin, it turns to be a parody on "Saturday Night Live?"

That makes me wonder, where are you Senator Clinton?

Please try speaking up a little louder against Sarah Palin, the self-professed 'barracuda,' who has unloaded, seemingly scot-free, on Senator Obama. Either the media just isn't listening to what you have to say Hillary, or else you're not doing your best to make yourself heard.

You know what's funny? Some sites are suggesting that you aren't saying much about Sarah Palin at all?

If not, I would like to know why?

You see, if you are not seen as going all out in 2008...and by going all out, I mean doing all you can to prevent Sarah Palin from using you as a tool to attract voters to McCain...than there will be nothing to worry about campaigning for in 2012.

If The Revlon Fits

Just a quick comment on the GOP Rovian tactic of taking a comment out of context and deliberately making a controversy out of an intentional distortion...

First, this should not be left to Senator Obama. It should be handled by prominent women in the Democratic party. Hillary, where art thou?

Having said that, this should be the retort:

Senator Obama never made the 'lipstick on a pig' reference, in regards to Governor Sarah Palin. But, since they brought it up, she presides over the state that receives more earmarks per capita than any other in the U.S.

Doesn't that make her the 'Queen of pork?'

As, this post is titled....if the Revlon fits.

Hmm...do you thinks the Dems may actually use the GOP's lies against them? There's a first time for everything.

(note: I will be unavailable to post until the beginning of next week, it will be interesting to see how this new distortion plays out. I think McCain has finally overdone the smear tactics. I hope this will backfire big time. If Americans have any intelligence, and the media has any dignity remaining, it will).

Republican Hypocrisy: John Stewart's Home Run

For me, this was John Stewart's finest moment.

Stewart, on the Daily Show, did exactly what the Democrats should have been doing all along, exposing Republican hypocrisy. My only quibble with the person who provided this video was the erroneously spelled 'hypocracy' on the title card, introducing this video.

Unfortunately, to this point, we are seeing a Kerry-like campaign, which is why the ridiculous ticket of McCain-Palin is currently in the lead.

With so much material to work with from the candidates themselves...with hypocrisy being the true cornerstone of this entire campaign...can the Dems grow some cojones and start playing offense?

The brilliant Mr. Stewart shows you how it is done...with a sense of humor, to boot. And everybody knows how much John McCain appreciates a sense of humor.

Debunking The Lies Of McCain-Palin: The Bridge To Nowhere

The primary narrative that the GOP laid out for Sarah Palin, as she emerged from her relative anonymity in Alaska, was that she was a fellow 'maverick' who fought against earmarks and special interests, culminating in her allegedly turning down the "bridge to nowhere," with a "thanks, but no thanks."

It's a great American story. It also happens to be a lie.

Since the mainstream media will, for the most part, not report the truth, it is something many of us on the progressive side of the blogosphere are doing to help insure we have an informed electorate come November.

As I debunk the McCain-Palin lies, I will make sure everything is fully attributed. I don't want anyone to take my word for anything. The truth is out there, all we need are the proper tools to uncover it.

The Bridge To Nowhere

The 'bridge to nowhere' was a proposed bridge that would have connected Ketchican, Alaska to the Ketchican International Airport on Gravina Island. The bridge was projected to cost $398 million (which sounds much cheaper than 400 million), and would have replaced the need for a ferry, which is currently used.

According to a story in the 5/17/05 edition of USA Today,the proposed bridge would be,

nearly as long as the Golden Gate and higher than the Brooklyn Bridge, to connect the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) to the city airport on Gravina Island (population 50).

The Metamorphosis Of Sarah Palin

When Sarah Palin was the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, getting earmarks for her city was one of her annual traditions. In fact, it is well documented that Palin hired a lobbyist that got her town $27 million in earmarked projects. The population of Wasilla at the time? 6,900.

During her run for Governor, Sarah Palin had no problem campaigning for funding for the Gravina Island Bridge. As USA Today accurately reported,

While running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make a symbol of pork barrel excess.

In an article in the 10/5/06 edition of the Anchorage Daily News, titled 'Bridges, oil and wolves drive debate: GOVERNOR'S RACE: Candidates sound off on key state issues," (fee required), the following was reported:

As for the infamous "bridges to nowhere," MacDonald asked if the candidates would forge ahead with the proposed Knik Arm crossing between Anchorage and Point MacKenzie and Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. Each has received more than $90 million in federal funding and drew nationwide attacks as being unnecessary and expensive. He also asked if they support building an access road from Juneau toward -- but not completely connecting to -- Skagway and Haines. "I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for," Palin said. She said the projects link communities and create jobs. Still, Palin warned that the flow of federal money into the state for such projects is going to slow.

Sarah Palin, shortly after she was elected, had a change of heart. As the 12/16/06 edition of the Anchorage Daily News reported, in a story titled "Budget plan calls for belt- tightening" (fee required),

Palin's budget doesn't include money for mega projects that she supported as a candidate, such as the controversial Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan.

Asked if she'd changed her mind about the project, Palin said she will hash out where the bridge fits on the state's list of priorities with the help of the Legislature and public.

"We have a limited pot of money, of course, and we need to make wise, sensible choices," she said.

The Lie

Andrew Halcro, on his blog, reported on the following exchange with Sarah Palin and Charlie Rose, from 10/12/07:

CR: What was that highway Senator Stevens wanted to build?

SP: He wanted to build a bridge.

CR: You stopped that didn't you?

SP: Stopped that because we'll make sensible decisions using other peoples money, federal money, and we'll make some wise decisions on how to build up our infrastructure.
CR: Did you get any feedback on your decision?

SP: From those in Congress?

CR: Yes

SP: Yes I did, but Alaskans are supportive, again just to make some wise decisions with other peoples money.

As Halcro writes:

The governor's decision was made just 6 weeks after U.S. Senator Ted Stevens Girdwood home was raided by the FBI and rumors were at a fever pitch that an indictment was soon to follow.

The reason for sending out the 5am press release was to hit east coast newscycles to gain maximum national attention for the move. The move garnered big news coverage nationwide.

The bottom line was that Governor-elect Sarah Palin, whose entire career had consisted of securing earmarks (there is a reason why Alaska had twice the amount of earmarks per capita than any other state), knew that her state was being belittled in the media. She knew that Stevens was being investigated. And she knew that, if Alaska was going to continue to receive money, she had to do something.

To put it simply...Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere, before she was against it.

If it was just a matter of not taking pork, Palin's story would have maybe some validity. However, Governor Palin would have committed political suicide had she generically turned down money earmarked for her state. She didn't. She merely reduced it to a couple hundred million.

As Palin herself wrote in the 3/5/08 edition of the Fairbanks News-Miner,

I am not among those who have said "earmarks are nothing more than pork projects being shoveled home by an overeager congressional delegation." I recognize that Congress, which exercises the power of the purse, has the constitutional responsibility to put its mark on the federal budget, including adding funds that the president has not proposed.

She adds,

This year, we have requested 31 earmarks, down from 54 in 2007. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new requests. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from approximately $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.

It is a lie to suggest that Palin had been against this bridge...that is was somehow offered to her...and, out of her maverick, rebellious nature, she turned it down. It is a lie to suggest she is, or ever has been, against earmarks.

She strongly advocated for earmarks as mayor. As governor, facing stiff opposition from Washington, she merely reduced what she was requesting.

Had Palin not changed her mind on the bridge, the public outcry had gotten so bad, at that point, that she would have been hard-pressed to get money for other Alaskan pet projects.

And, up to that point, those earmarks were what Sarah Palin was all about.

Alaska did not return the money

What makes this the utmost farce was that Alaska got the money anyway and just used it for other projects, as Frank Rich recently pointed out.

According to factcheck.org:

Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.

So, how come the mainstream media is letting her get away with this?

Why the kid gloves treatment on a woman we know nothing about, who is kept under wraps while we are fed carefully chosen media soundbytes?

Why, indeed?

Maverick McCain?

NOTE: POSITIONING OF THIS POST HAS BEEN IRRETRIEVABLY ALTERED, ACCESS THE REPOST OF THIS VIDEO HERE.

As evidence that the 'maverick' part of McCain is pure Hollywood fantasy, right up there with George Bush becoming a cowboy for 8 years with the purchase of his Crawford Ranch, enjoy the above clip from You Tube.

It stars McCain and Bush, with supporting 'mavericks,' Cheney and Palin. It is all set to the theme from the old TV western "Maverick," which ran from 1957-1962.

Gloria Steinem Deconstructs Sarah Palin

In an Op-Ed on Thursday, feminist leader Gloria Steinem laid bare the record on John McCain and Sarah Palin. Steinem, a former Clinton supporter who now supports Barack Obama, did not pull any punches.

In a piece in the L.A. Times, titled "Palin: wrong woman, wrong message," Steinem writes:

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton.

As far as voting for the GOP ticket in anger over Clinton's defeat for the nomination, Steinem had this to say:

To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

In case there is any doubt as to why the choice of Palin should be anathema to women, Steinem spells it all out in one stinging paragraph:

She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

These are points well remembering when we debate the merits of Palin's credentials to be president.

With the sort of record that Sarah Palin has on the issues, I think just letting her record speak for itself should cause Independents and moderate Democrats to get turned off in a hurry.

We just have to let people know what her record is, because the GOP is doing its best to keep it buried.

You can access the full article here.

When Are The Dems Going To Learn How To Fight?

I had to make a couple of brief comments, in the wake of the media genuflection over Sarah Palin's delivery of the speech written for her at the GOP convention.

Democrats need to learn how to play this game.

How is it that we are playing defense from attacks by Palin? Is this the other side of the looking glass?

Once again, Democrats are afraid to attack the GOP because we let them define the terms. We are supposed to mention John McCain/war hero, every time we have the audacity to question his foreign policy experience. And now, instead of McCain having to answer for putting an unknown, inexperienced, religious zealot within a heartbeat from the presidency, we are supposed to feel that her inexperience is somehow equivalent to Obama's? On any level?

Why, because we are afraid to attack a self-professed barracuda for alleged fear of offending Hillary supporters?

This is reading like a bad joke.

Let me make clear what the Democratic strategy has to be from this day forward.

Play offense.

Or lose.

One final thing...if you want 'community organizer' to not go the way of 'trial lawyers,' maybe the Dems could do what I saw suggested at Crooks & Liars...remind folks that Jesus was a community organizer.

Oh, by the way, so was the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And Susan B. Anthony.

Not to mention the countless people, in all the various service groups in communities all over America that exist to help people in all walks of life get empowered.

Since when do those who register voters (they're community organizers of the very best, most patriotic stripe) deserve to be tarred by a Rovian dirty trick?

Fait accomplis.

RNC Co-Chair's "Sarah Pawlenty" Gaffe

It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

This is no slouch referring to Veep nominee Sarah Palin, as Sarah Pawlenty (Tim Pawlenty, of course, being the Minnesota governor who was apparently the one passed over for the nomination). No, this is, believe it or not, the RNC Co-Chair, Jo Ann Davidson who made the goof.

It would be like introducing Biden as Joe Clinton.

Break out the popcorn, maybe I can stomach the GOP convention after all.

Like Mother Like Daughter?

John Aravosis posted some interesting information about Sarah Palin on AmericaBlog. It is the same information that Alan Colmes (who would have thought it?) posted on his blog.

If what I read is true, then Sarah Palin eloped with her husband on August 29, 1988. She gave birth to her oldest son on April 20, 1989...less than 8 months after she eloped.

Does anybody think this is coincidence?

This is especially telling, considering Palin preaches abstinence as the only form of birth control.

Palin's Lack Of Compassion Towards Labor`

In my early research on Governor Sarah Palin, I found a very revealing piece from the Denver Rocky Mountain News of 8/10/97:

WASILLA, Alaska -- Opal Toomey, Esther West and Ann Meyers don't seem like politically active types. There are no bumper stickers on their cars, no pins on their lapels.

But the three gray-haired matrons of Wasilla's city museum decided to take a stand. Faced with a $32,000 budget cut and the prospect of choosing who would lose her job, the three 15-year-plus employees decided instead to quit en masse at the end of July, leaving the museum without a staff.

``We hate to leave,'' said Meyers, who at 65 is the youngest of the three. ``We've been together a long time. But this is enough.''

If the city were broke, it would be different, she said. Instead, the city is flush with $4 million in reserves. There is no reason the museum's budget should be cut, Meyers said.

But the mayor and City Council members who supported the cut say the surplus is beside the point. They were elected to minimize government and concentrate on infrastructure - paving roads and extending sewer lines.

The museum, which had an annual budget of more than $200,000, was costing roughly $25 per visitor, said Mayor Sarah Palin. Museum supporters say losing the women will be a blow to this city north of Anchorage. The three have run the two-story building since the early 1980s.

The Palin Selection

After finding myself unexpectedly moved time-and-again, while watching the democratic love fest in Colorado, I scarcely had time to reflect, before John "Straight Talk" McCain chose the straightest of running mates, former beauty queen Sarah Palin.

Palin, formerly a mayor of a city under 6,000, and the governor, for 20 months, of Alaska, the state with the 48th lowest population.

This is experience?

But she is a darling of the religious right and, you may find this hard to believe, a woman! I cannot wait until Hillary sinks her teeth into this one. Ironically, McCain's VP choice elevates Hillary into the role of leading attack dog in this campaign. Nobody but Senator Clinton will be able to effectively rip apart Palin. That needs to be done by a woman, or it will be perceived as sexism. So why not the one who almost got the presidential nod?

Can you imagine that a woman, who wants us to be teaching creationism in the schools, is a John McCain cancer outbreak away from the presidency?

I am wondering whether Palin will be campaigning in swimsuit and sash, or if it will be evening gown and tiara? I would love to see the upcoming vice presidential debates include a talent competition. I haven't seen good baton-twirling in a long, long time.

This has to have totally blown the election for the republicans.

I mean, Americans are not that stupid.

Are we?

McCain & Lieberman Sought To Invade Iraq Just 3 Months After 9/11

Maybe Joe Lieberman is the perfect running mate for John McCain after all.

In December 2001, the Bush Administration had been trying to tie the then-recent anthrax mailings to Iraq, only to have those connections fully shot down.

So, members of Congress were enlisted by BushCo to 'get the party started,' so to speak. It seems a jointly signed letter was sent out on December 5th.

From UPI from 12/8/01:

"Two prominent American experts on Iraq cautioned the Bush administration on Friday not to go after Iraq in what is being termed as the possible "second phase" of America's new war on terrorism.

"The warnings came about as 10 key members of Congress sent a letter to President George W. Bush earlier in the week encouraging him to set his sights on Saddam Hussein's regime as the next target in the war.

"'As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaida, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq,' they noted.

"Signers of the letter included Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Jesse Helms, R-N.C., Trent Lott, R-Miss., Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and Henry Hyde, R-Ill., who is chairman of the House International Relations Committee."

The following day, States News Service (12/11/01), had the following to say:

"With possible U.S. victory nearing in the campaign to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan, a bipartisan group of lawmakers are now setting their sights on another target in the war against terrorism: Iraq.

"Claiming that Iraq continues to pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction 'intended for use against the United States,' nine leading members of Congress delivered a letter to the White House advising the administration to "directly confront" Iraqi President Saddam Hussein - "sooner rather than later."

"As part of that effort, the lawmakers advise that President Bush begin beefing up support for Iraqi opposition forces with military training, information gathering and humanitarian assistance.

"'Without allies on the ground inside Iraq, we will be handicapping our own efforts,'" reads the letter, which was spearheaded by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. 'Each day that passes costs us an opportunity to unite and professionalize the Iraqi opposition, thus ensuring it will be less capable when the conflict begins.'"

The 12/6/01 edition of the Washington Post had more details on the letter that was sent:

"The letter adds to the chorus of policymakers calling for efforts to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It follows warnings by Bush that Iraq will face serious consequences if it does not allow United Nations inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction. 'We believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later,' the letter said.

"Noting that this month marks the third anniversary of the last U.N. inspection of Iraqi weapons programs, the lawmakers said the current economic sanctions are not enough to contain Iraq. They said the administration had struggled to close "loopholes" in the sanctions but had failed to stop illicit oil sales. They also said they have no doubt Hussein has "reinvigorated" Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

"The lawmakers urged Bush to provide more assistance to the opposition Iraqi National Congress. 'Successive administrations have funded conferences, offices and other intellectual exercises that have done little more than expose the INC to accusations of being 'limousine insurgents' and 'armchair guerrillas,' the letter said."

Face The Nation
McCain was a guest on CBS' Face the Nation on 12/9/01. From that transcript comes this revealing excerpt:

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SCHIEFFER: Now, with another perspective on all of this, from Phoenix, Arizona, Senator John McCain.

Senator McCain, welcome.

U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: I want to get right to it here.

You and a number of other senators, mostly Republicans, but along with Democrat Joe Lieberman and I think Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., have sent a letter to the administration urging the next target to be Iraq. You said, and here`s a quote from the letter, "We believe we must directly confront Saddam Hussein sooner rather than later." Two questions. First, what are you talking about? Are you talking about invading Iraq, or are you talking about something else?

MCCAIN: I think we`re talking about addressing the issue.

As you know, several years ago, we passed a bill that Senator Lieberman and I and others sponsored that called for assisting the internal and external opposition to Saddam Hussein and doing everything we can to overthrow him.

I think that the strategy and the specific tactics would be left to people like your previous guest.

But what I think we`re trying to say is that Saddam Hussein presents a clear and present danger to the United States of America. We know he is acquiring weapons of mass destruction. We know he has had contact with terrorist organizations. We know he has violated the terms of his -- the cease-fire agreement of 1991. And recent defectors indicate that he has accelerated his efforts, particularly the acquisition of biological weapons. So he must be addressed.

I would suggest the first thing, as the president has already said, demand the return of the inspectors. And provide real assistance to this internal opposition.

Can they succeed? We don`t know, because we`ve never really given, neither the last administration nor sadly this administration, have given them the assistance that I think they need, to find out whether they are viable or not.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let`s say that Saddam Hussein, and there seems every indication that he`s going to, if he rejects that idea to let the inspectors come back in, then what do we do?

MCCAIN: Then I think, as I said, we continue -- or start to give real assistance to the internal opposition.

And then I think we examine our options. Whether that`s a direct military invasion, whether that`s a bombing campaign, whether that`s a number of other options, I think will be explored by the administration.

But I think it`s got to be a step-by-step kind of a scenario, because clearly we`re going to send young Americans, again, into harm`s way.

BORGER: Well, Senator, don`t you worry that, if we did get into that kind of an armed conflict against Iraq, that it could explode in the Middle East, that Iraq could attack Israel, say, for example, and then we`d have a larger problem on our hands?

MCCAIN: That`s always been, frankly, a nightmare scenario I`ve had, a biological weapon on a Scud missile aimed at Israel and Saddam Hussein making certain demands. I think that that`s a real problem.

Also maintaining the support or at least the acquiescence of other countries in the region would be difficult.

But I think the alternative is to sit by and watch Saddam Hussein cause millions of his own people to starve, which is sad in itself. But most importantly and most dramatically, is that it`s a matter of time before he acquires this capability. And the longer we delay, the more likely we`re faced with one of these nightmare scenarios which could entail casualties of enormous proportions, and, again, a direct threat to the security of the United States of America.

Time For Obama To 'Change' Course

Despite my discomfort with the way Barack Obama has been conducting his campaign, I have spent the past 6 weeks articulating a defense for him, primarily on blogs at the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. I figured that would get more play than merely just posting here, but I think it is important to keep this site up as well. For the run-up to the election, I am hoping to post regularly.

Today, Frank Rich has an op-ed piece titled, "Last Call For Change We Can Believe In." In it, Rich calls for Obama to be more aggressive in taking on John McCain. As is often the case with Rich, he hit a bulls-eye.

I posted the following in their 'comments' section:

If John McCain is going to continue touting foreign policy experience, shouldn't we demonstrate the result of his expertise?

Where are the quotes about how we would be greeted as liberators and how Iraqi money would finance the invasion?

Where are the misquotes on an alleged Iraqi-Pakistani border and his cluelessness over sunni and shia differences?

They are being obscured because Obama is falling into the Kerry trap...playing defense.

The game in politics is won on offense and it needs to be McCain who should be defending the GOP policies of the past 8 years to justify being given 4 more.

The fact that the mainstream media uses the term 'war hero' to gloss over anything that would tarnish the true McCain image, is the biggest joke of the campaign coverage thus far. As if they ever did that for John Kerry.

The very fact that McCain borrowed the Solzhenitsym cross-in-the sand story and the media has left it unexamined tells you all you need to know about the different levels of scrutiny for the 2 candidates.

The only solution is for Obama to constantly be on the attack with McCain. Not a personal attack, but an attack that reveals how wrong-headed McCain has been on policy, issues, and 'facts,' using his own statements against him.

If Obama does not force the issue and play offense, the media will not follow-up on McCain's errors and mis-statements on their own. We have seen that.

If Obama continues to merely fend off attacks, this race is over. I am hoping for a 'change' in that regard.

My Obama Dilemma

Ever since Senator Barack Obama voted 'yes' on the FISA bill, I have been in a quandary.

I initially switched my support from Senator Hillary Clinton to Obama because, shortly after the New York primary, Obama came back to initially vote against the bill, but Clinton chose not to vote. I find a 'yes' vote on this bill to be utterly unconscionable and pandering of the worst sort.

His vote has caused me to not support his campaign financially, pending what I see in future weeks from him. I had also made a vow to stop supporting him on internet blogs and forums. But honestly, I cannot just stand by and let supporters of McCain get by with some of the horrific slander that I see get posted.

So, I am back on a myriad of sites doing my best to articulate why a John McCain presidency would be a nightmare for America.

I even came up with my own pet phrase for McCain's accusing Obama of flip-flopping.

Considering McCain's pandering to the religious right and his seemingly daily changing of positions, I refer to the charges as 'the POW calling Obama black.'

I will say this, I am angry about a lot of things. I am angry that America has allowed BushCo to take this country so far backward and nearly bankrupt and destroy it. I am angry that in some polls McCain is in a dead heat with Obama. It infuriates me that in recent polling, the country apparently is actually split on Iraq? Split?
And, in these same polls, John McCain is seen as superior on foreign policy.

Yes, the same McCain who said we would be greeted as liberators, who didn't know the difference between shia and sunni, who said one could shop in Baghdad without protection, who said Iraqi oil would finance this incursion, who predicted it would be a short war, who needed Joe Lieberman to correct him about a mis-statement on al-Qaeda in Iraq....and on and on. This is the man viewed as the expert on foreign policy???

So, out of my anger, and fear that a Republican president will destroy the impartiality of the Supreme Court for decades to come, I blog to help get Obama elected.

I just hope my candidate stops being such a disappointment to me.

An 'alert' for race baiters

Here is a version for those who are using race-baiting:

***WARNING: RNC RACE CARD ALERT***

This poster has just followed RNC orders to
spread fear and racist panic about a possible Obama
presidency. No facts or persuasive arguments
were used, just a race-dividing message designed
to appeal to your emotions and scare you.

If this had been an actual posting by a person
with reason, it would have been supported by
logic and rationale behind their racist charges.

This concludes our RNC race card alert. We now return
to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Debut of the RNC Fear Alert

As I have written, I have spent most of my blog time on various boards and forums on the Internet, trying to engage in dialogue in support of Senator Barack Obama's candidacy.

One type of poster that has truly annoyed me, but is not worth the time to individually respond to, is the one who plays the old GOP fear game when they attack Obama.

I have come up with a way to respond to these trolls. Introducing my new RNC fear alert, which can now be cut and pasted to respond to that type of unsavory attack, underscore the GOP strategy involved, and cut the teeth out of any of the charges.

Feel free to come up with your own variation of the warning for yourselves, or use mine if you'd like.

Note: (made a couple of improvements suggested by 'anonymous' poster in my comments section. The additional text appears in boldface)

-----------clip here------------

***WARNING: RNC FEAR ALERT***

This poster has just followed RNC orders to
spread fear and panic about a possible Obama
presidency. No facts or persuasive arguments
were used, just a doomsday message designed
to appeal to your emotions and scare you.

If this had been an actual posting by a person
with reason, it would have been supported by
logic and rationale behind their nebulous charges,
and a response would appear here -- supported by
facts and logical analysis.

As it is, you are invited to simply ignore it and
move on, as we have done.

This concludes our RNC fear alert. We now return
to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Okay...Primary Battle Over...Game On

With all the acrimony that took place during the contest between Clinton and Obama during the end of the primary campaign, I made a vow to myself to wait until the issue was settled, before blogging again. It was very dispiriting to watch the Democratic party self-immolate.

But shortly thereafter, I decided to get involved again and chose to do it by posting on various forums throughout the net, not just progressive sites. I spent a lot of time posting on sites such as the NY Times and Washington Post. I then spread out beyond that and posted in other forums, whenever I saw a compelling reason to join the discussion.

I was finding it more compelling to speak my thoughts to those who might never consider reading a progressive blog. I liked sharing ideas with others on message boards, including both independents and conservatives. I also thought those type of posts reached many more people.

However, my blog should really include more of the source material for much of what I post elsewhere, anyway.

So today, I am making a vow to myself to re-invigorate this blog. I suspect I will be doing more, but shorter posts. The sources I reference, or comments I make on the message boards should have a central location here. So I plan on giving it a shot.

Michael Mukasey & The Manipulation of Truth

Last week, Michael Mukasey, speaking in San Francisco, made some startling comments about alleged pre-9/11 intelligence. He exploited the deaths of some 3,000 Americans to make political points in the FISA fight. Despite the fact that the media has been prepared to allow him to get away with those comments, there are those who have decided to expose what he said and actually hold the Attorney General accountable for his words.

What a concept!

I was listening to the Rachel Maddow show this evening on Air America, when she interviewed Glenn Greenwald, who has challenged Mukasey in a column at salon.com.

Greenwald writes:

"Speaking in San Francisco this week, Mukasey demanded that the President be given new warrantless eavesdropping powers and that lawbreaking telecoms be granted amnesty. To make his case, Mukasey teared up while exploiting the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 and said this:

"Officials "shouldn't need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."

"At that point in his answer, Mr. Mukasey grimaced, swallowed hard, and seemed to tear up as he reflected on the weaknesses in America's anti-terrorism strategy prior to the 2001 attacks. "We got three thousand. . . . We've got three thousand people who went to work that day and didn't come home to show for that," he said, struggling to maintain his composure.

"At the time of the attacks, Mr. Mukasey was the chief judge at the federal courthouse a few blocks away from the World Trade Center.

"These are multiple falsehoods here, and independently, this whole claim makes no sense. There is also a pretty startling new revelation here about the Bush administration's pre-9/11 failure that requires a good amount of attention."

Greenwald asks the questions and makes the points that the corporate-owned media has chosen to ignore.

Among them are the fact that warrants were not required under the old FISA law to monitor a call that originated in Afghanistan. Additionally, in a worst-case scenario, the government would have been allowed to monitor suspected terrorists for 72 hours without pursuing a warrant. So, Greenwald wonders, "why didn't they" eavesdrop on that alleged call.

If Mukasey was speaking metaphorically, he needs to come clean, and quick. Otherwise, the charge that the White House had pre-9/11 intelligence and refused to follow-up, needs to be investigated for sheer incompetence.

Greenwald also catches Mukasey in yet another lie. The Attorney General has repeated the untruth that the telecoms cannot face trial or our national secret methods of tracking down terrorists would be compromised.

Greenwald writes:

"Mike Mukasey was a long-time federal judge and so I feel perfectly comfortable calling that what it is: a brazen lie. Federal courts hear classified information with great regularity and it is not heard in "open court." There are numerous options available to any federal judge to hear classified information -- closed courtrooms, in camera review (in chambers only), ex parte communications (communications between one party and the judge only). No federal judge -- and certainly not Vaughn Walker, the Bush 41 appointee presiding over the telecom cases -- is going to allow "disclosure in open court of . . . . the means and the methods by which we collect foreign intelligence." And Mukasey knows that."

Greenwald goes farther than this and I urge you to check out the entire column here.

After familiarizing yourself with the story it would be a good idea to demand that our local politicians and media outlets actually start asking questions to get to the bottom of this.

Et Tu Carville

I have gone about 6 weeks since posting. That is how turned off I have become with Democratic politics in the run-up to the convention and election.

My last post explained why I switched from Senator Clinton(who I briefly supported after John Edwards withdrew from the race) to Senator Obama.

Events of the past month-and-a-half have confirmed to me that I made the right decision, and my mood has gone from depressed to downright angry.

In my mind, Hillary Clinton and her surrogates are demonstrating that they care more about her personal ambition than they do about winning the 2008 election. As I write, it is being gift-wrapped for Bush light, Senator McCain.

Perfectly illustrative of the type of politics the Democrats need to purge from the party is the latest salvo from Mr. Mary Matalin, James Carville.

In commenting about New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's recent endorsement of Obama, Carville called the endorsement "an act of betrayal" and then had this to add: "Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."

How pathetic that the man who is married to one of the top operatives in the GOP thinks this is all a game. How else to explain his decision to so discredit one of the top Hispanic politicians in America, because Richardson allegedly owes the Clintons loyalty for past high positions he was given in Bill Clinton's administration.

I know one thing, any person who is endorsed by cowboy Carville is somebody I will keep my distance from. I find his insider political gamesmanship more than a tad revolting, and if anybody is a traitor, it is Carville. It is comments like that that must make his home life with Mary so much more harmonious, as it plays perfectly into the GOP game plan.

And Carville damn well knows it.

Why Hillary Just Lost My Support

Call me a flip-flopper. It's been that sort of election season. In a president, I want a leader. Somebody who will go in and fight for what is right. I think I have been given definitive proof that Hillary is not that leader.

Once again, the Harry Reid-led Senate capitulated to George W. Bush in a disgraceful manner. The Senate, with substantial Democratic support, passed a bill that would give the president even more sweeping power to spy on Americans. Even worse, they have voted to grant immunity to telecom companies who obviously broke the law. Hey if they didn't, this would not be an issue.

Senator Barack Obama came back from campaigning to cast a 'no' vote. Senator Clinton, did not take the time to even vote. I guess she thought she wouldn't have to fight charges that the GOP will inevitably throw around...that anybody who voted no would be labelled soft on terror.

Give me a break.

I am so tired of the cowardice of the Democratic leadership. The continued caving in to the empty threats of the GOP instead of standing up for what is right. If the telecoms are granted retroactive immunity it will mean one thing...there is no rule of law in America if the one in power makes the claim that national security is at stake. Hey, why have laws at all? What hypocrisy!

Adding fuel to my decision to turn from Hillary was some powerful oratory I heard on my way home tonight. I was listening to the Thom Hartman show on Air America, and heard Obama speaking out strongly against both lobbyists and NAFTA.

Okay, maybe he's not all just touchy-feely as I thought. Maybe he does have the cojones to bring about a new era in government.

I just wish all of this had happened before the New York primary.

Hillary, you lost me. I will support you over any Republican candidate. But I do not think you deserve the nomination.

As for your efforts to seat the delegates in Florida and Michigan, you just can't do that. You can't change the rules midway through the game. I tend to feel the same about the superdelegate scenario as well. But I do think that after this election, the entire superdelegate concept needs to be disbanded.

It makes the Democrats look like Republicans.

Why This Edwards Supporter Voted For Hillary

Okay, I have to admit, I never thought in a million years that, when it came time for the New York primary I would cast my vote for Senator Hillary Clinton, but I did.

This isn't necessarily a good thing for Clinton. Everybody I have supported thus far has fallen by the wayside. Early on I wanted Feingold or Gore. No dice. I then rallied behind Kucinich and Dodd. See ya. Finally, right after I prepare to go gung-ho for Edwards he drops out BEFORE super Tuesday!

What's a progressive to do?

It wasn't so much that Clinton won my vote, but Senator Barack Obama lost it.

The first nail in the coffin was the Obama references to Ronald Reagan, while in the same conversation, lumping Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton together.

If you missed his comments, get them here.

After the resultant uproar, Obama disingenuously claimed that he wasn't really praising President Reagan. When one listens to that clip it is obvious that this is exactly what he was doing. And he was doing it because Obama sees himself as the great uniter.

Unfortunately, I do not feel that the GOP is going to feel like playing along.

In Senator Obama, I see a man who, if elected President, would probably not investigate the past crimes of the Bush administration, because he only seems to be thinking in a forward direction. However, if the sins of the past are not addressed and corrected, they will only be repeated.

I want somebody in the White House who realizes that we can still be unified while correcting the errors of the past 8 years. I am not so sure that Ms. Clinton would be especially good at it herself, but I think she understands better the gravity of the destruction that has been done to our government.

More than that, I cannot stand the hypocrisy of the mass media. And I need only one example to prove my point.

Michelle Obama, when asked if she would work to support Hillary Clinton, if she were the candidate, said, On the February 4th edition of Good Morning America, "I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone." Listen for yourself.

Can you imagine the media uproar that would have occurred had Hillary's spouse given such a lukewarm response about supporting Obama?? But Obama has been annointed by the mass media. He is their more compelling story. So we get treated to the daily demonizing of Hillary and the beatification of Barack.

Hey, I cannot stand the DLC, Hillary's wing of the party.

However, I do think that Clinton is vetted and tough and she probably will handle herself well against the typical vicious attacks that will most certainly come from the GOP.

The Democrats do not win elections by being nice. It didn't work for Kerry, or Gore (who won, but chose to let the steal go unchallenged), or Dukakis, or Carter (in his re-election bid). My fear is that Obama will, in his effort to project an upbeat 'unity' message, not fight back.

His inexcusable praise of Reagan signalled that for me. How he can even remotely praise a man and claim that he gave people hope, after all the people he allowed to be slaughtered in Central America, is obscene. And let's not forget the lasting damage that 'reaganomics' did to our country's fiscal health.

The media made its choice. Obama the saint, versus McCain the maverick hero.

Well, the media be damned. I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore.

Hence...my vote for Clinton. I was one person who was not especially enthusiastic about my vote. I will support whoever the nominee turns out to be, but this upcoming election hardly has me energized.

John Edwards For President

This has been brewing in me for weeks now, but in lieu of recent developments I have made the decision to support the candidacy of former Senator John Edwards for President.

Senator Edwards may not be the perfect candidate, but there is a lot to like about him. If I had my druthers I would have loved to have seen a President Russell Feingold. For that matter, Dennis Kucinich, or even Chris Dodd would have been comfortable choices for me. However, in the real world, even though the media and the DLC say otherwise, there are 3 candidates to choose from.

After initially supporting Edwards I had gotten turned off to him after his performance on the debate on glbt issues on Logo. It wasn't that Clinton or Obama were any better, but Edwards hardly inspired me. However, his anti-corporatism message resonates fully with me. Additionally, 2 recent events have made me realize how silly I was to have backed away from supporting his candidacy to begin with.

The first is the absolutely ludicrous performance of the mass media, especially since the New Hampshire primary. In the exit polling there, the economy emerged as the #1 issue for Democratic voters, so we then got bombarded with populist messages on our faltering economy by Clinton and Obama. Despite the fact that this has been Edwards' message all along, and these 2 were co-opting it for opportunistic reasons, the media acted as if this focus on the economy was somehow new and revelatory. It was, and for a long time has been, as if John Edwards was invisible.

No....it's more that the media has adopted a pack mentality and its reporting on the campaign has been stunningly inept and incomplete. They have focused on non-issues like the man's haircut and his wife's illness and have completely ignored the substance of Edwards' message.

Adding more fuel to the fire, and convincing me that I am right to support John Edwards, is the recent statements by leaders of the DLC, that this is a 2-person race. They have chosen to render John Edwards irrelevant.

All that action has done is make me realize that the DLC who are the irrelevant ones. They want the Democratic Party to be exactly like the GOP. They are in the pocket of the corporations and are trying to be bullying king (or queen)-makers.

Personally, I will never contribute money or time to a national Democratic Party organization again. I will only support individual Progressive candidates. In fact, I am so disgusted that I am considering renouncing my party membership and registering as an Independent.

The recent petty non-issue over race between Clinton and Obama is mindless. The media are not the only ones at fault here. So are the respective candidates for continuing to ratchet up the rhetoric. It makes it all the more easier to support the only candidate who seems to be speaking for me and not the corporations that control America.

That person is John Edwards.

Put that in your pipe, DLC.

What's Time's Point?

It's almost 2 weeks later, but this is the perfect companion to the preceding piece.

Again, no pic will accompany this post, because the point of the message is the remarkable lack of judgement from the press.

The last post had to do with the media giving too much coverage to a mass murderer, granting his request for fame. And now, Time Magazine, needlessly names the 2 victims of a tiger mauling despite a request for privacy.

Brothers Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, were at San Francisco General Hospital with severe bite and claw wounds. Their names were provided by hospital and law enforcement sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the family had not yet given permission to release their names.

Since it is apparent that the family did not want the names released at this time, why would Time publish their identity? To what purpose?

And how much did they pay their "anonymous sources" to give them the info?

What is wrong with the news media today?

Time should be ashamed of their coverage.

Giving Serial Killers What They Want

There is deliberately no picture accompanying this post, which will be brief.

For a change, it is not related to politics. It is an indictment of what passes for news in America.

In the aftermath of the mass murder in Omaha, I was appalled to see MSNBC endlessly stating that the killer had left behind a letter saying that he wanted to be famous. All the while, these dolts kept the man's face plastered and gave him all the publicity he ever could have wished for. How many times did we have to hear his Internet rants and read about the letters he left behind?

And don't think that similarly-inclined people did not notice.

I didn't need to switch to other news networks to know that MSNBC was not alone in their coverage. This was the way this story would be played out. They all try and out-sensationalize the other, and their judgement is pretty awful.

So, I was more than a little bit relieved to see that maybe we have reached the tipping point.

The AP has a good piece today on the sensationalization of that crime and a debate on the merits of not giving these killers the publicity they seek.

At least I know I am not alone in my disgust.

You can access the story here.

Bill O'Reilly Opera!

Dana Milbank Takes Mitt Romney To The Woodshed

In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank has a devastating column on GOP candidate Mitt Romney.

In a piece titled, "Anything Goes," Milbank writes that Romney is such a panderer that "much of what Romney says can't stand up to the light of day."

He goes on to list examples from a stump speech that Romney gave in Des Moines, Iowa on Friday. They are scathing examples.

I have written about Romney in the past, including his ever-evolving opinions on glbt-issues. You see, he had to hold a different set of beliefs when he was running for Governor of Massachusetts, than he does now that he has to capture the right-wing of the GOP in a national election.

If ever a man was all facade, hypocrisy and pandering phoniness, Mitt Romney fits the bill.

What I find most shocking, however, is that a respected reporter with national creds actually had the cajones to call him out on it.

This article will haunt Romney for the rest of his quest for the GOP nomination. No way he'll get it, however. Stick a fork in him.

The GOP Hypocrisy On Stem Cell Research

I was glad to see that the most popular article on the Time magazine website today had to do with a potential new breakthrough on stem cell research.

As somebody who has been very active in working with both Alzheimer's and Diabetes charitable organizations, I know the implications of stem cell research and the enormous upside. I understand why Nancy Reagan and most Americans are fully in favor of funding. I am also equally nauseated with the official Bush position, those of his lapdogs (like Rush Limbaugh) and the sickening religious right-wing, who still acts as if this is somehow an immoral practice.

As I have written in the past, it is hypocrisy to be against stem cell research if one is in favor of in vitro fertilization. That is because the embryos used for the research are taken from embryos harvested in fertility clinics, and which would be discarded anyway.

I am glad to see a widely read piece from Time saying the same thing.

Michael Kinsley, who suffers from Parkinson's, wrote,

"although the political dilemma that stem cells pose for politicians is real enough, the moral dilemma is not and never was. The embryos used in stem-cell research come from fertility clinics, which otherwise would discard them. This has been a powerful argument in favor of such research. Why let these embryos go to waste? But a more important point is, What about fertility clinics themselves? In vitro fertilization ("test-tube babies") involves the purposeful creation of multiple embryos, knowing and intending that most of them either will die after implantation in the womb or, if not implanted, will be discarded or frozen indefinitely. Even if all embryonic-stem-cell research stopped tomorrow, this far larger mass slaughter of embryos would continue. There is no political effort to stop it. Bush even praised in vitro fertilization in his 2001 speech about the horrors of stem-cell research. In vitro has become too popular for politicians to take on. But their failure to do so makes a mockery of their alleged agony over embryonic stem cells."

For the full text of his piece, click here.

Who Is Really Destabilizing Iraq?

In making his case against Iran, George Bush often uses the argument that it is the Iranians who are killing Americans in Iraq.

How interesting that new data from our own military, and published in today's New York Times, has revealed that 60% of the foreign fighters who are serving as suicide bombers, and engaging in other attacks in Iraq, hail from Saudi Arabia and Libya. A graphic representation of this, from the New York Times, is pictured above.

In fact, Saudi Arabia, BushCo's business partner, who provided 15 of the 19 terrorists who engineered the 9/11 attacks, provided a whopping 41% of foreign fighters. And, wouldn't you know, the impact of Iranian foreign forces is almost negligible, in comparison.

This begs the question...will Mr. Bush advocate an invasion of Saudi Arabia? Or of Libya, our newfound 'friend?'

Yeah, that will happen about as quickly as Halliburton offering their services at non-price-gouging rates.

It's all about the oil. Always is, and always was.

Bush: The Pro-Lie President

Who knew the Pillsbury Doughboy had the cajones to tell the truth about Dubya?

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, whose press briefings I used to check out more regularly than I should probably admit, was almost a sympathetic figure in that capacity. He always came across to me as somebody who was in way over his head for the task required of him...very much like Mr. Bush himself, actually.

I was not surprised when he left. However, I never expected him to be a newsmaker in retirement.

Imagine my surprise when he leaked a bombshell, from his upcoming book about his White House experience, that essentially blames Bush and Veep Cheney as being part of a cabal of 5 that deliberately misled McClellan on the Plame incident. I am referring to the infamous press briefing where McClellan told reporters he had been assured by both Rove and Libby that they had nothing to do with leaking Plame's identity as a covert agent to reporters.

From a story today in AP,

"In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.

"'There was one problem. It was not true,' McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. 'I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself.'"

Interestingly, we get no further details on what this means, as McClellan is refusing additional comment. However, if it is indeed true, the repercussions for whatever shred remains of Bush's credibility is enormous.

Forget about allegedly being pro-life, I have already discussed how ludicrous it is for folks like Bush to even use that term. This would solidify the Commander-in-Chief's standing as the first pro-lie president.

It's amazing what the lure of bucks and the marketing of a memoir will do to transform one's character, eh?

Giving Robert Novak Way Too Much Power

Columnist Robert Novak, who will always be a traitor in my eyes for leaking the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, in his role as propagandist for BushCo, is once again back in the news.

It has to do with today's Op-Ed column which starts out as follows:

"Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.

"This word-of-mouth among Democrats makes Obama look vulnerable and Clinton look prudent. It comes during a dip for the front-running Clinton after she refused to take a stand on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's now discarded plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

"Experienced Democratic political operatives believe Clinton wants to avoid a repetition of 2004, when attacks on each other by presidential candidates Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt were mutually destructive and facilitated John Kerry's nomination."

After the fiasco of the Plame leak, and the growing lack of credibility for the term 'unnamed source,' this alleged "scandalous information" is weak enough. Coming from Novak, it is downright meaningless, not to mention ludicrous.

So, how absurd is it for Sen. Barack Obama to go ballistic and immediately assume that this is a maneuver by Sen. Hillary Clinton?

According to reports today, an Obama statement released yesterday asserted that,

"her campaign appeared to be either digging for dirt on his personal life or working in conjunction with Novak to intimidate him.

"'If the purpose of this shameless item was to daunt or discourage me or supporters of our campaign from challenging and changing the politics of Washington, it will fail. In fact, it will only serve to steel our resolve,' the Illinois senator said. He urged Clinton to 'either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none.'"

I am not a supporter of either Obama or Clinton, but I think this maneuver makes Sen. Obama look extremely weak. Why on earth would he give any credence to a story like this from Novak? What, does he think that Clinton will come forth and share the alleged dirt?

We are talking Robert Novak here. Discredited Robert Novak! The man who has demonstrated that he will sell the national security of the U.S. down the tubes to further the neo-con agenda.

What Novak did with his fraudulent news tip was not just attempt to discredit Obama, but also to stir up enmity against Clinton for supposedly having an aide leak the dirt to begin with.

The Clinton camp struck back hard, but it was hardly necessary. Novak, at the behest of GOP operatives, laid out the bait, and a desparate Obama took a great big chomp.

How nice of him to give Novak the credibility he so richly does not deserve.

The Firefighters Talk About The Real 9/11 Rudy

I know that my last post covered much of the same ground, but this video from the firefighters union is a bit longer and should probably be the first video anyone watches when deciding whether or not to vote for Mr. Giuliani.

The only agenda the firefighters have is getting the truth out there.

Hopefully this video helps.