There was a lot of John Edwards talk. Too bad he was not up on stage.
My favorite line of the night goes to Wolf Blitzer.
'Were you naive about George Bush?" This was in reference to Hillary's vote to give Bush the ability to invade Iraq, and it was awesome!
To be honest both of the candidates did an admirable job, and they handled themselves with dignity and poise.
Of course Obama won. Just in case you were wondering.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
If the goal of the surge was to increase the number of suicides among the active duty military then it has indeed been working.
Suicides among active-duty soldiers in 2007 reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980, according to a draft internal study obtained by The Washington Post. Last year, 121 soldiers took their own lives, nearly 20 percent more than in 2006.
At the same time, the number of attempted suicides or self-inflicted injuries in the Army has jumped sixfold since the Iraq war began. Last year, about 2,100 soldiers injured themselves or attempted suicide, compared with about 350 in 2002, according to the U.S. Army Medical Command Suicide Prevention Action Plan.
I have said it before but it bears repeating, that it seems for all the world as if George W. Bush has been trying to destroy our American fighting force since he first came to office.
I am simply amazed that a man with John McCain's background has not slammed the policies of this administration utilizing every media outlet at his disposal until he has shamed them into bringing these brave men and women home.
I guess the siren song of a potential Presidency is too loud for him to hear his conscience.
At the same time, the number of attempted suicides or self-inflicted injuries in the Army has jumped sixfold since the Iraq war began. Last year, about 2,100 soldiers injured themselves or attempted suicide, compared with about 350 in 2002, according to the U.S. Army Medical Command Suicide Prevention Action Plan.
I have said it before but it bears repeating, that it seems for all the world as if George W. Bush has been trying to destroy our American fighting force since he first came to office.
I am simply amazed that a man with John McCain's background has not slammed the policies of this administration utilizing every media outlet at his disposal until he has shamed them into bringing these brave men and women home.
I guess the siren song of a potential Presidency is too loud for him to hear his conscience.
Poor countries + primitive superstitions = death of innocents.
A former priest began a seven-year jail term Wednesday for murdering a young nun during an exorcism ritual when she was bound, chained to a cross and denied food and water for days.
Irina Cornici, 23, died from dehydration, exhaustion and suffocation during an ordeal that stunned Romania and prompted the Orthodox Church to promise reforms and psychological tests to screen potential clergy.
The former priest, Daniel Corogeanu, and four nuns were all convicted and sentenced in September but Corogeanu was freed pending an appeal, which he lost Tuesday. He was picked up by police in the remote northeast Wednesday and sent to jail.
Cornici, who had previously been treated for schizophrenia, had believed she heard the devil talking to her. Corogeanu and the four nuns decided to try an exorcism ritual in June 2005 using techniques that the Romanian Orthodox Church condemned as "abominable".
Faith without knowledge is a dangerous combination in any country, but in a place as steeped in ancient superstitions as Romania it makes a poisonous combination.
It is almost embarrassing to share the planet with these backward thinking fools.
I feel terrible for the young woman who was victimized for having a problem that could have been easily addressed by mental health professionals.
Irina Cornici, 23, died from dehydration, exhaustion and suffocation during an ordeal that stunned Romania and prompted the Orthodox Church to promise reforms and psychological tests to screen potential clergy.
The former priest, Daniel Corogeanu, and four nuns were all convicted and sentenced in September but Corogeanu was freed pending an appeal, which he lost Tuesday. He was picked up by police in the remote northeast Wednesday and sent to jail.
Cornici, who had previously been treated for schizophrenia, had believed she heard the devil talking to her. Corogeanu and the four nuns decided to try an exorcism ritual in June 2005 using techniques that the Romanian Orthodox Church condemned as "abominable".
Faith without knowledge is a dangerous combination in any country, but in a place as steeped in ancient superstitions as Romania it makes a poisonous combination.
It is almost embarrassing to share the planet with these backward thinking fools.
I feel terrible for the young woman who was victimized for having a problem that could have been easily addressed by mental health professionals.
More then 1,000,000 Iraqis have died since the U.S. invaded in 2003.
More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.
The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes.
So our government decides to attack Iraq because of supposed WMD's (Which turns out to be false), and the fact that Saddam has killed 5,000 of his own people in 1988 (Which also is likely a false accusation). And in 2002, before the war even began, we started bombing Iraq in secret nine months before the official invasion. There is simply no telling how many inocent Iraqis died in those attacks.
And now we learn that our military has slaughtered over a million innocent Iraqis. Where is the outrage? How can there be any support for this President remaining?
And how can there be any support for a Presidential candidate who does not condemn this war? Who supports John McCain? Mitt Romney? Even Mike Huckabee? None of these men has shown the moral fiber to stand up against this illegal, unnecessary war. They simply use the Bush administration talking points to provide cover while they struggle to gain the most important political office in the world.
As a nation we should be ashamed. As a supporter of any Republican Presidential candidate you should feel so crippled by shame that you are rendered incapable of showing your face in public.
The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes.
So our government decides to attack Iraq because of supposed WMD's (Which turns out to be false), and the fact that Saddam has killed 5,000 of his own people in 1988 (Which also is likely a false accusation). And in 2002, before the war even began, we started bombing Iraq in secret nine months before the official invasion. There is simply no telling how many inocent Iraqis died in those attacks.
And now we learn that our military has slaughtered over a million innocent Iraqis. Where is the outrage? How can there be any support for this President remaining?
And how can there be any support for a Presidential candidate who does not condemn this war? Who supports John McCain? Mitt Romney? Even Mike Huckabee? None of these men has shown the moral fiber to stand up against this illegal, unnecessary war. They simply use the Bush administration talking points to provide cover while they struggle to gain the most important political office in the world.
As a nation we should be ashamed. As a supporter of any Republican Presidential candidate you should feel so crippled by shame that you are rendered incapable of showing your face in public.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Okay the Iraqi Army looks well trained, can we go now?
Don't worry, I am sure the bad guys won't even ask them to do jumping jacks.
Now this is a good idea.
I am pretty sure that getting Obama elected will help to save the environment.
Obama is taking the fight to Hillary now.
"I know it is tempting — after another presidency by a man named George Bush — to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century," the Illinois senator said in Denver.
"... It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One — you have to be right from Day One," he added in unmistakable criticisms of Clinton, who often claims she's better prepared to govern, and her husband, who pledged during his own presidency to build a bridge to the 21st century.
Barack needs to be very careful with how he confronts Hillary. The whole point of the Clinton two-pronged attack was to pull Obama away from his game and make him fight the way they want to fight.
Obama needs to raise the level of discourse back up to the talk of hope and change, and less about how bad Hillary would be for the county.
After all, I and others will be happy to do that while Barack keeps himself above the fray which is really where he is the most effective.
Attacking is not the only way to win. Inspiring is far more effective.
"... It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One — you have to be right from Day One," he added in unmistakable criticisms of Clinton, who often claims she's better prepared to govern, and her husband, who pledged during his own presidency to build a bridge to the 21st century.
Barack needs to be very careful with how he confronts Hillary. The whole point of the Clinton two-pronged attack was to pull Obama away from his game and make him fight the way they want to fight.
Obama needs to raise the level of discourse back up to the talk of hope and change, and less about how bad Hillary would be for the county.
After all, I and others will be happy to do that while Barack keeps himself above the fray which is really where he is the most effective.
Attacking is not the only way to win. Inspiring is far more effective.
Edwards drops out.
This breaks my heart a little. Edwards was my original choice for reaching the White House, and I still think of him as one half of the perfect ticket.
I hope that he and Elizabeth take some time to be alone, just the two of them with their kids, and take pride in waging an amazing campaign. If this campaign had not had such an incredible field of history making candidates John would have been the one to beat all the way to the convention. But John is at a disadvantage in this race. But that was not his fault, he is an admirable man, and worthy of leading this country.
I hope that his gifts and potential are recognized by the person who eventually does make it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Edwards is an invaluable resource and a powerful advocate for the poor. Don't let those gifts go to waste.
We may have an insight into what kind of President Obama will be by what kind of candidate he has been.
"I had just been asked a question -- I don't remember which one -- and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn't going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, 'So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?' But I wasn't paying any attention! I was about to say, 'Could you repeat the question? I wasn't listening.' But I wasn't about to say I wasn't listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, 'Katrina. Katrina.' The question was on Katrina! So I said, 'On Katrina, my policy . . .' Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, 'Obama, that was good of you to do that.'"
It is clear that as a candidate Obama has been a man of integrity and compassion.
There is also a story that MSNBC's David Shuster tells about John Edwards coming up to Barack after a rather lackluster performance in the first half of a debate and telling him to "get in the game".
Both of these individuals have shown a lot of class during this contentious primary. We would be lucky to get either one of them, and truly blessed to get them both.
It is clear that as a candidate Obama has been a man of integrity and compassion.
There is also a story that MSNBC's David Shuster tells about John Edwards coming up to Barack after a rather lackluster performance in the first half of a debate and telling him to "get in the game".
Both of these individuals have shown a lot of class during this contentious primary. We would be lucky to get either one of them, and truly blessed to get them both.
Breaking news: John Edwards may be dropping out!
I am watching "Morning Joe" and they have just received word from reporter Chuck Todd that John Edwards is giving a speech later and may be dropping out of the Presidential race.I feel very bad for John who may truly be the best qualified candidate.
However I still remain hopeful that Obama will offer Edwards the Vice Presidency and that Edwards will take it.
Update: David Shuster just brought up the fact that Edwards may be asked to be Obama's running mate. Fingers crossed people.
The talking heads on MSNBC are saying that this will benefit Hillary, but I don't see that. Edwards was a candidate for change, like Obama. If he leaves, and endorses Barack, it will dramatically help Obama.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Republicans are absolutely terrified of Obama.
Really, watch: if this man gets his party's nomination, he's going to be the next president. By a landslide. And he is going to transform this country. If I were a Republican, I'd be very, very afraid. Oh wait, I am a Republican. Dang. Lord have mercy, I wish that man were a conservative. Because there's no doubt in my mind about what he can accomplish for liberalism if he's elected. You've heard of Reagan Democrats? Barack Obama is the Democrats' Reagan.
I think most of us have already reached this conclusion ourselves.
The Republicans are comparing Obama to Reagan, and the Democrats are comparing him to Kennedy, is there really any doubt that he is the real thing?
I think most of us have already reached this conclusion ourselves.
The Republicans are comparing Obama to Reagan, and the Democrats are comparing him to Kennedy, is there really any doubt that he is the real thing?
2008 is going to suck for FOX News. Bummer.
Bottom line is that Fox News is in for a very rough 2008. And the umbrella reason for that is quite simple: Eight years ago the all-news cable channel went all-in on the presidency of George Bush and became a broadcast partner with the White House. Proof of that was on display Sunday night, January 27, during Fox News' prime-time, "Fighting to the Finish," an "historic documentary" on the final year of Bush's presidency. Filmed in HD and featuring "unprecedented access," according to the Fox News press release, the show was pure propaganda. (I must have missed Fox News' "Fighting to the Finish" special back in 2000, chronicling the conclusion of President Bill Clinton's second term and his "extraordinarily consequential tenure.")
The point is that Fox News years ago made an obvious decision to appeal almost exclusively to Republican viewers. The good news then for Fox News was that it succeeded. The bad news now for Fox News is that it succeeded.
Oh I hope that this is accurate, I would love to see FOX get its just rewards.
Of course we all know that if Hillary were to get elected that FOX's ratings would go through the roof again. There are a lot of Hillary haters out there.
Just one more reason to get Obama in the White House.
ELECT OBAMA IN 2008 AND DRIVE FOX NEWS OUT OF BUSINESS!
The point is that Fox News years ago made an obvious decision to appeal almost exclusively to Republican viewers. The good news then for Fox News was that it succeeded. The bad news now for Fox News is that it succeeded.
Oh I hope that this is accurate, I would love to see FOX get its just rewards.
Of course we all know that if Hillary were to get elected that FOX's ratings would go through the roof again. There are a lot of Hillary haters out there.
Just one more reason to get Obama in the White House.
ELECT OBAMA IN 2008 AND DRIVE FOX NEWS OUT OF BUSINESS!
Bush will just not take no for an answer on those permanent bases in Iraq.
President Bush yesterday signed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act after initially rejecting Congress’s first version because it would have allegedly opened the Iraqi government to “expensive lawsuits.”
Even though he forced Congress to change its original bill, Bush’s signature yesterday came with a little-noticed signing statement, claiming that provisions in the law “could inhibit the President’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations.” CQ reports on the provisions Bush plans to disregard:
One such provision sets up a commission to probe contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another expands protections for whistleblowers who work for government contractors. A third requires that U.S. intelligence agencies promptly respond to congressional requests for documents. And a fourth bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq and for any action that exercises U.S. control over Iraq’s oil money.
I cannot believe this asshole continues to disregard the will of the people in such a flagrant fashion and nobody does anything about it.
I need somebody to explain to me again why impeachment is "off the table".
Even though he forced Congress to change its original bill, Bush’s signature yesterday came with a little-noticed signing statement, claiming that provisions in the law “could inhibit the President’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations.” CQ reports on the provisions Bush plans to disregard:
One such provision sets up a commission to probe contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another expands protections for whistleblowers who work for government contractors. A third requires that U.S. intelligence agencies promptly respond to congressional requests for documents. And a fourth bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq and for any action that exercises U.S. control over Iraq’s oil money.
I cannot believe this asshole continues to disregard the will of the people in such a flagrant fashion and nobody does anything about it.
I need somebody to explain to me again why impeachment is "off the table".
President Bush's State of the Union speech offers insight into Democratic candidates views.
The race between Obama and Clinton has become colored with growing animosity in recent weeks as each side has leveled veiled accusations that the other has used race as a political weapon.
But Obama and Clinton seemed to see eye to eye on Bush’s domestic agenda, sitting firmly on their hands through most of the first half of his speech.
“I think there is some consensus in the Democratic Party,” Obama said in an interview with CNN immediately after the State of the Union when asked about the lack of difference between him and Clinton on economic policy.
Clinton and Obama’s divergent views on the troop surge in Iraq, however, were plainly visible.
When Bush proclaimed, “Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt,” Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated. The president’s line divided most of the Democratic audience, with nearly half standing to applaud and the other half sitting in stony silence.
In one instance Clinton appeared to gauge Obama’s response before showing her own.
When Bush warned the Iranian government that “America will confront those who threaten our troops, we will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf” Obama jumped up to applaud. Clinton leaned across Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), seated to her left, to look in Obama’s direction before slowly standing.
The Illinois senator strongly criticized the former first lady last year when she supported a resolution calling for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to be designated a terrorist organization. Obama supporters and other Democrats charged the vote would give Bush political cover to begin military operations against Iran.
I find Hillary's support of this ridiculous surge to be very telling. This is more of her pandering to the hawks while still talking troop withdrawal to the doves.
Hillary is constantly straddling that fence trying to be all things to all people.
Obama has the courage to take a position and to stand by it.
(By the way, how hard was it to sit through that horrible speech last night after having listened to Obama's oratory gifts for the last few months? It is like listening to an elementary school child try to read a book report filled with words he really doesn't understand.)
But Obama and Clinton seemed to see eye to eye on Bush’s domestic agenda, sitting firmly on their hands through most of the first half of his speech.
“I think there is some consensus in the Democratic Party,” Obama said in an interview with CNN immediately after the State of the Union when asked about the lack of difference between him and Clinton on economic policy.
Clinton and Obama’s divergent views on the troop surge in Iraq, however, were plainly visible.
When Bush proclaimed, “Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt,” Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated. The president’s line divided most of the Democratic audience, with nearly half standing to applaud and the other half sitting in stony silence.
In one instance Clinton appeared to gauge Obama’s response before showing her own.
When Bush warned the Iranian government that “America will confront those who threaten our troops, we will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf” Obama jumped up to applaud. Clinton leaned across Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), seated to her left, to look in Obama’s direction before slowly standing.
The Illinois senator strongly criticized the former first lady last year when she supported a resolution calling for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to be designated a terrorist organization. Obama supporters and other Democrats charged the vote would give Bush political cover to begin military operations against Iran.
I find Hillary's support of this ridiculous surge to be very telling. This is more of her pandering to the hawks while still talking troop withdrawal to the doves.
Hillary is constantly straddling that fence trying to be all things to all people.
Obama has the courage to take a position and to stand by it.
(By the way, how hard was it to sit through that horrible speech last night after having listened to Obama's oratory gifts for the last few months? It is like listening to an elementary school child try to read a book report filled with words he really doesn't understand.)
Monday, January 28, 2008
While no one is looking Bush decides to rape Alaska. Hey, that is where I live!
Whether it’s outsourcing a war in Iraq, or greasing the skids for industry buddies in Alaska, the Bush administration has made the backdoor fix its fundamental operating maxim.
The nation’s attention has lately been diverted to stocks’ roller-coaster ride, foreclosures and falling house prices, and self-destructive acts by 20-something showbiz folk.
What better time to sneak through something called the Chukchi Sea Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193, which happens to cover essential habitat for half the U.S. polar bear population?
What more opportune occasion to open 2.4 million acres of Alaska’s Tongass National Forest to logging and road building, on which Uncle Sam will be lucky to get back 5 cents on the dollar?
The Chukchi Sea lease is a particular example of how timing figures in a fix.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently announced a “delay” in its decision on listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.
In the meantime, the Minerals Management Service is getting set, on Feb. 6, to throw open 30 million acres of the bears’ habitat to oil and gas development.
With the skill of a World War II convoy escort, the administration has laid down a smoke screen around its actions.
I am sad to say that our very popular Governor Sarah Palin is also complicit in this pillaging of our pristine wilderness and possibly speeding up the extinction of our polar bear population. By refusing to allow the bears to be placed on the endangered species list, to facilitate this mad dash for possible oil reserves, Governor Palin is continuing the policy of giving giant oil conglomerates free reign to stomp all over our delicate tundra further damaging our eroding ecosystem.
Governor palin has promised to bring back integrity to Alaskan politics and the Republican party, but her true colors are starting to show through.
She has clearly sided with the Bush administration and the oil companies over our native population and our endangered wildlife.
The nation’s attention has lately been diverted to stocks’ roller-coaster ride, foreclosures and falling house prices, and self-destructive acts by 20-something showbiz folk.
What better time to sneak through something called the Chukchi Sea Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193, which happens to cover essential habitat for half the U.S. polar bear population?
What more opportune occasion to open 2.4 million acres of Alaska’s Tongass National Forest to logging and road building, on which Uncle Sam will be lucky to get back 5 cents on the dollar?
The Chukchi Sea lease is a particular example of how timing figures in a fix.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently announced a “delay” in its decision on listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.
In the meantime, the Minerals Management Service is getting set, on Feb. 6, to throw open 30 million acres of the bears’ habitat to oil and gas development.
With the skill of a World War II convoy escort, the administration has laid down a smoke screen around its actions.
I am sad to say that our very popular Governor Sarah Palin is also complicit in this pillaging of our pristine wilderness and possibly speeding up the extinction of our polar bear population. By refusing to allow the bears to be placed on the endangered species list, to facilitate this mad dash for possible oil reserves, Governor Palin is continuing the policy of giving giant oil conglomerates free reign to stomp all over our delicate tundra further damaging our eroding ecosystem.
Governor palin has promised to bring back integrity to Alaskan politics and the Republican party, but her true colors are starting to show through.
She has clearly sided with the Bush administration and the oil companies over our native population and our endangered wildlife.
Ted Kennedy: "It's the future of our party, and it's the future of our country."
"I feel change in the air" These are the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, brother of John and Robert Kennedy, two American icons.
Bill Clinton took for himself the mantle of John F. Kennedy, but it was not handed to him as a gift from the family of John F. Kennedy as was to Barack Obama. It is one thing to call yourself a man of greatness, but quite another when the family of a great man bestows that title upon you.
(The link above has the video. Do yourself a favor and listen to what Ted Kennedy had to say. He is not just endorsing Obama he is a true supporter.)
Bill Clinton took for himself the mantle of John F. Kennedy, but it was not handed to him as a gift from the family of John F. Kennedy as was to Barack Obama. It is one thing to call yourself a man of greatness, but quite another when the family of a great man bestows that title upon you.
(The link above has the video. Do yourself a favor and listen to what Ted Kennedy had to say. He is not just endorsing Obama he is a true supporter.)
Keith Olbermann demonstrates his integrity, morality and patriotism.
That was the correct answer, and I believe it was Keith's truthful response.
Keith demonstrates repeatedly why he is considered our generations answer to Edward R. Murrow.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Ted Kennedy endorses Obama!
Senator Edward M. Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama for president tomorrow, breaking his year-long neutrality to send a powerful signal of where the legendary Massachusetts Democrat sees the party going -- and who he thinks is best to lead it.
This is huge!
You know Ted told Bill to knock off the negative campaigning. Did he listen? Noooo!
So first Caroline and now Ted, damn it must suck to be Hillary right now.
This is huge!
You know Ted told Bill to knock off the negative campaigning. Did he listen? Noooo!
So first Caroline and now Ted, damn it must suck to be Hillary right now.
Have you heard Barack Obama's South Carolina victory speech? If you have not, do yourself a favor and listen to it here.
Part two.
In my humble opinion if this speech does not inspire you then you may have some severe damage to your central nervous system. Have it checked out immediately.
Every four years we hope for the candidate that will really make us proud to be Americans, the candidate that deserves our support above all others, the candidate that allows us to dream of a better future. Well you just listened to that candidate speak. What happens next is up to you.
Clinton compares Obama's candidacy to Jesse Jackson's failed campaigns.
Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.
Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."
Obama has done everything he can to keep his candidacy above such petty dirty tricks as race baiting, or character assassinations, or comparing his opponents to other failed Presidential wannabes.
But Bill Clinton has continued to try and define Obama's campaign in ways that make it easier to dismiss or attack. Bill wants us to think Obama is just another uppity black man who dares to want what has always been the white politicians holy grail.
Essentially Clinton is demonstrating his innate racism and his unmistakable jealousy.
Bill Clinton, the "first black President", is about to have that title and his prestige ripped from his clutching hands and he is desperate to keep that from happening. This is not about Hiallry at all. This is all about Bill and his ego.
This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.
Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."
Obama has done everything he can to keep his candidacy above such petty dirty tricks as race baiting, or character assassinations, or comparing his opponents to other failed Presidential wannabes.
But Bill Clinton has continued to try and define Obama's campaign in ways that make it easier to dismiss or attack. Bill wants us to think Obama is just another uppity black man who dares to want what has always been the white politicians holy grail.
Essentially Clinton is demonstrating his innate racism and his unmistakable jealousy.
Bill Clinton, the "first black President", is about to have that title and his prestige ripped from his clutching hands and he is desperate to keep that from happening. This is not about Hiallry at all. This is all about Bill and his ego.
Caroline Kennedy endorses Obama.
Over the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.
Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.
We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country - just as we did in 1960.
Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.
Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people - known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics - to become engaged in the political process.
I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.
Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.
I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.
I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president - not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.
I think that this is a powerful endorsement that certainly helps to make the case that Barack Obama is a transformational candidate.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Obama wins!
Sen. Barack Obama, vying to become the nation's first black president, has won the South Carolina primary today, ABC News projects, boosted by huge turnout of African-American voters in a state whose electorate appears polarized along racial lines.
This is still only one battle in a long war, but it sure does feel good!
There is early poll results that say Bill's aggressive campaigning hurt Hillary in South Carolina. I think that is a good thing and may help to keep that type of attack campaigning from continuing.
But all things considered I have to say this is a good day for democracy and for this country.
This is still only one battle in a long war, but it sure does feel good!
There is early poll results that say Bill's aggressive campaigning hurt Hillary in South Carolina. I think that is a good thing and may help to keep that type of attack campaigning from continuing.
But all things considered I have to say this is a good day for democracy and for this country.
It is South Carolina's moment in the sun.
Obama, an Illinois senator, gained two points on Clinton overnight to lead 41 percent to 26 percent just hours before voting began in Saturday's primary. John Edwards was in third place after slipping two points to 19 percent.
So here we are at the beginning. Once again the polls show Obama dramatically ahead, just like in New Hampshire. If things turn out differently then the polls predict, or Hillary somehow closes the gap to win, then we know that something stinks in South Carolina.
I did not buy the first dramatic shift in New Hampshire, I don't think even the most unaware Luddite will believe such a thing can happen twice.
If anything I predict that John Edwards will chip away at Hillary's numbers and take second place away from her. And won't that be fun?
So here we are at the beginning. Once again the polls show Obama dramatically ahead, just like in New Hampshire. If things turn out differently then the polls predict, or Hillary somehow closes the gap to win, then we know that something stinks in South Carolina.
I did not buy the first dramatic shift in New Hampshire, I don't think even the most unaware Luddite will believe such a thing can happen twice.
If anything I predict that John Edwards will chip away at Hillary's numbers and take second place away from her. And won't that be fun?
Friday, January 25, 2008
In light of recent events it is probably not all that surprising that Bill Clinton is a Karl Rove fan.
Just days after the November 2004 election, Bill Clinton pulled Rove aside at the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas. "Hey, you did a marvelous job, it was just marvelous what you did," Clinton told Rove, according to the book "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008," by John F. Harris and Mark Halperin. "I want to get you down to the library. I want to talk politics with you. You just did an incredible job, and I'd like to really get together with you and I think we could have a great conversation."
The Clinton's. much like Karl Rove, believe that all is fair in love, war, and politics.
But for those of us who are looking for an inspirational, honest, ethical leader, the Clinton's present a frightening possibility. The possibility that in their zeal to win at all cost, the cost may in fact be the very integrity of the Democratic party.
Rove famously has used every dirty trick imaginable to get his man elected, deflect criticism by the media and others, and attempt to have history destroyed or rewritten to cover his tracks. He is a man who will stop at nothing to win.
I think the very fact that Bill Clinton finds this admirable tells us much about his character.
We are disgusted and angered by Karl Rove, but Bill Clinton is inspired.
The Clinton's. much like Karl Rove, believe that all is fair in love, war, and politics.
But for those of us who are looking for an inspirational, honest, ethical leader, the Clinton's present a frightening possibility. The possibility that in their zeal to win at all cost, the cost may in fact be the very integrity of the Democratic party.
Rove famously has used every dirty trick imaginable to get his man elected, deflect criticism by the media and others, and attempt to have history destroyed or rewritten to cover his tracks. He is a man who will stop at nothing to win.
I think the very fact that Bill Clinton finds this admirable tells us much about his character.
We are disgusted and angered by Karl Rove, but Bill Clinton is inspired.
11 reasons why Hillary Clinton should drop out of the Presidential race (with a bonus reason that trumps the others at the end.)
Here are the first five:
1. Her experience argument is bogus. Even if it were true, historically, experience is a poor predictor of presidential success. Further, anyone who claims to be prepared to be president “from day one” is lying - because no experience can prepare you for the presidency.
2. Her most successful and most-used tactic against Barack Obama in the primaries and caucuses - suppressing voter turnout - will ensure her loss in the general election as it alienates many of those who she most needs to appeal to - younger voters (under 55), black voters, and swing voters. The Clintons have also introduced identity politics into the primary - and have tried to encourage racial polarization, especially between Latinos and blacks. The Clintons are running a campaign very different from most primary campaigns - they are attacking Obama with a ferocity usually reserved for attacking Republicans in the general election. In an election that splits the country roughly 50/50, Hillary can’t afford to lose anyone. At the rate she is going now, she won’t be able to put together a winning coalition.
3. Bill Clinton became an admired elder statesmen after retiring from the presidency. The fact that he was still chasing skirt became a quirk rather than a political liability and a possible threat to the Democratic Party. And things like this might be considered charming. Now, he’s become Karl Rove with Secret Service protection, a bigger media presence, and with the same lack of conscience. Even top neutral Democrats are telling Bill to shut up. I’d like the old Bill Clinton back.
4. If Hillary Clinton wins, her success will become a lesson in how women should achieve power: marry well; put up with any humiliations your husband throws at you, and then, maybe, if you fight dirty, and ask your husband to run your campaign, you might be able to ride his coattails to your “own” political success.
5. The Clintons are relying on the laziness and stupidity of the American people to attack Barack Obama unfairly: through lies, distortions (eg. regarding Reagan), and other unconscionable means. It just goes to prove the most dangerous place to be in America is between the Clintons and an elected office.
1. Her experience argument is bogus. Even if it were true, historically, experience is a poor predictor of presidential success. Further, anyone who claims to be prepared to be president “from day one” is lying - because no experience can prepare you for the presidency.
2. Her most successful and most-used tactic against Barack Obama in the primaries and caucuses - suppressing voter turnout - will ensure her loss in the general election as it alienates many of those who she most needs to appeal to - younger voters (under 55), black voters, and swing voters. The Clintons have also introduced identity politics into the primary - and have tried to encourage racial polarization, especially between Latinos and blacks. The Clintons are running a campaign very different from most primary campaigns - they are attacking Obama with a ferocity usually reserved for attacking Republicans in the general election. In an election that splits the country roughly 50/50, Hillary can’t afford to lose anyone. At the rate she is going now, she won’t be able to put together a winning coalition.
3. Bill Clinton became an admired elder statesmen after retiring from the presidency. The fact that he was still chasing skirt became a quirk rather than a political liability and a possible threat to the Democratic Party. And things like this might be considered charming. Now, he’s become Karl Rove with Secret Service protection, a bigger media presence, and with the same lack of conscience. Even top neutral Democrats are telling Bill to shut up. I’d like the old Bill Clinton back.
4. If Hillary Clinton wins, her success will become a lesson in how women should achieve power: marry well; put up with any humiliations your husband throws at you, and then, maybe, if you fight dirty, and ask your husband to run your campaign, you might be able to ride his coattails to your “own” political success.
5. The Clintons are relying on the laziness and stupidity of the American people to attack Barack Obama unfairly: through lies, distortions (eg. regarding Reagan), and other unconscionable means. It just goes to prove the most dangerous place to be in America is between the Clintons and an elected office.
Is it possible the Clinton's finally got the message?
Former President Bill Clinton said he might have gone too far in attacking Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton said on Friday, adding that both Democratic presidential campaigns should focus on issues.
"He said several times yesterday that maybe he got a little bit carried away," Hillary Clinton said on CBS' "Early Show."
"So we're all going to, on both sides I think, you know, try to bring this debate and this campaign back to the issues that are important," said the New York senator, who would be the first woman U.S. president.
It looks like after EVERYBODY suggested that the Clinton's might be losing support, they finally decided to stop acting like pseudo Republicans and start sticking to the issues.
Anybody want to bet how long this lasts?
"He said several times yesterday that maybe he got a little bit carried away," Hillary Clinton said on CBS' "Early Show."
"So we're all going to, on both sides I think, you know, try to bring this debate and this campaign back to the issues that are important," said the New York senator, who would be the first woman U.S. president.
It looks like after EVERYBODY suggested that the Clinton's might be losing support, they finally decided to stop acting like pseudo Republicans and start sticking to the issues.
Anybody want to bet how long this lasts?
John Edwards calls on Senate Democrats to filibuster revisions that protect AT&T from prosecution for spying on us.
When it comes to protecting the rule of law, words are not enough. We need action.
It's wrong for your government to spy on you. That's why I'm asking you to join me today in calling on Senate Democrats to filibuster revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would give "retroactive immunity" to the giant telecom companies for their role in aiding George W. Bush's illegal eavesdropping on American citizens.
The Senate is debating this issue right now -- which is why we must act right now. You can find your Senators' phone numbers here or call the Senate Switchboard at 1-(202)-224-3121.
Granting retroactive immunity is wrong. It will let corporate law-breakers off the hook. It will hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program. And it will flip on its head a core principle that has guided our nation since our founding: the belief that no one, no matter how well connected or what office they hold, is above the law.
But in Washington today, the telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press for retroactive immunity. George Bush and Dick Cheney are doing everything in their power to ensure it passes. And too many Senate Democrats are ready to give the lobbyists and the Bush administration exactly what they want.
Please join me in calling on every Senate Democrat to do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity and stand up for the rule of law. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price.
Thank you for taking action.
John EdwardsJanuary 24, 2008
Finally we see some real leadership from our Presidential candidates!
It's wrong for your government to spy on you. That's why I'm asking you to join me today in calling on Senate Democrats to filibuster revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would give "retroactive immunity" to the giant telecom companies for their role in aiding George W. Bush's illegal eavesdropping on American citizens.
The Senate is debating this issue right now -- which is why we must act right now. You can find your Senators' phone numbers here or call the Senate Switchboard at 1-(202)-224-3121.
Granting retroactive immunity is wrong. It will let corporate law-breakers off the hook. It will hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program. And it will flip on its head a core principle that has guided our nation since our founding: the belief that no one, no matter how well connected or what office they hold, is above the law.
But in Washington today, the telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press for retroactive immunity. George Bush and Dick Cheney are doing everything in their power to ensure it passes. And too many Senate Democrats are ready to give the lobbyists and the Bush administration exactly what they want.
Please join me in calling on every Senate Democrat to do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity and stand up for the rule of law. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price.
Thank you for taking action.
John EdwardsJanuary 24, 2008
Finally we see some real leadership from our Presidential candidates!
Barack Obama presents Letterman's Top Ten List.
I tried to stay up to watch but I just could not make it.
Thankfully we have the Internet.
Oooh Internet where would we be without you?
Thankfully we have the Internet.
Oooh Internet where would we be without you?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
My government is trying to bribe me into thinking they are doing a good job.
House leaders and the administration reached agreement today on a roughly $145 billion economic stimulus package that would quickly send payments to poor and middle-class workers while offering businesses one-time incentives to invest in new equipment and write off tax losses.
Translation: The economy is broken, so we are giving you money so that can drink yourself numb and stop being afraid.
Under the plan, as many as 117 million people would get rebate checks. Individual income tax filers would receive up to $600, working couples would get up to $1,200, and those with children would get an additional $300 per child.
$600? $600? You are going to fix the recession by giving us $600?
That will only keep me drunk for a week! If you are going to buy me off you are going to have to dig a lot deeper then that! I may be cheap and easy, but I am not that fucking cheap and easy!
Translation: The economy is broken, so we are giving you money so that can drink yourself numb and stop being afraid.
Under the plan, as many as 117 million people would get rebate checks. Individual income tax filers would receive up to $600, working couples would get up to $1,200, and those with children would get an additional $300 per child.
$600? $600? You are going to fix the recession by giving us $600?
That will only keep me drunk for a week! If you are going to buy me off you are going to have to dig a lot deeper then that! I may be cheap and easy, but I am not that fucking cheap and easy!
Jon Stewart takes on our economic crisis. Did you know that FOX News is actually blaming it on the fear of a Democratic President? Pathetic.
It starts off a little slow but then Jon hits his stride and it is all insightful comedy goodness after that.
Kucinich is out.
Democrat Dennis Kucinich is abandoning his second, long-shot bid for the White House as he faces a tough fight to hold onto his other job—U.S. congressman.What a shame.
I wonder what we are going to miss the most about his candidacy?
Ed Schultz "Bill Clinton is lying!"
This is from Hardball yesterday.
Schultz is obviously correct here. I have been saying for a while that the Clinton's risk losing all of their support and the respect of the progressives in this country with these tactics, and this is further proof of that.
Schultz is obviously correct here. I have been saying for a while that the Clinton's risk losing all of their support and the respect of the progressives in this country with these tactics, and this is further proof of that.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Hillary's political attacks on Obama are costing her support.
The former President of Now (National Organization of Women) in Chicago talks about why she shifted her support from Hillary to Obama.
China will not allow reincarnations without their permission. Can they do that?
A senior Tibetan lama and Chinese government advisers have defended contentious rules banning reincarnations of "living Buddhas" without approval.
The rules are apparently aimed at empowering China to name the next Dalai Lama when the 14th and current Dalai Lama dies.
Last July, China's State Administration of Religious Affairs issued regulations banning reincarnations of living Buddhas, or holy monks, who failed to seek government approval, ostensibly to manipulate the centuries-old practice and legitimise future appointments by the atheist Communist Party.
Damn! The Chinese government is strict!
I just have to wonder what they do if someone claims to be a reincarnated "Buddha"? Do they kill them and tell them to try again? This is just bizarre.
The rules are apparently aimed at empowering China to name the next Dalai Lama when the 14th and current Dalai Lama dies.
Last July, China's State Administration of Religious Affairs issued regulations banning reincarnations of living Buddhas, or holy monks, who failed to seek government approval, ostensibly to manipulate the centuries-old practice and legitimise future appointments by the atheist Communist Party.
Damn! The Chinese government is strict!
I just have to wonder what they do if someone claims to be a reincarnated "Buddha"? Do they kill them and tell them to try again? This is just bizarre.
John Edwards was on Letterman last night. I think that John McCain needs to hand over the title of "straight talker".
Edwards did a great job of making the case that he is the grownup in the Presidential field and even gets in a dig at O'Reilly.
I must give a hat tip to Enigma, over at Watergate Summer, who told me this was on. I had no idea.
I must give a hat tip to Enigma, over at Watergate Summer, who told me this was on. I had no idea.
I know this may seem like old news to some but I believe we should never forget just how we got into the Iraq war in the first place.
A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
And when you see the current crop of Republican candidates remember that they are continuing to support the conflict and to keep our brave soldiers in harms way for an indeterminate amount of time.
And also don't let it slip your mind that Hillary was the last of the Democratic Presidential contenders to stop supporting the invasion and has never really said her vote to go into Iraq was a mistake.
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
And when you see the current crop of Republican candidates remember that they are continuing to support the conflict and to keep our brave soldiers in harms way for an indeterminate amount of time.
And also don't let it slip your mind that Hillary was the last of the Democratic Presidential contenders to stop supporting the invasion and has never really said her vote to go into Iraq was a mistake.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Is Clinton testing John Edwards integrity?
The nasty spat between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama last night sure created fireworks, but after the debate attention turned to an offstage encounter, between Clinton and former senator John Edwards.
According to eyewitnesses, they both walked out of their green rooms after the debate and agreed to talk, then went behind closed doors in Edwards's green room.
Clinton left 20 minutes later. No word on the subject matter, but as Edwards struggles in the polls with no wins to date, his post-campaign strategy is surely in the air.
If Edwards decides to throw his lot in with Hillary then I will have been completely snookered by him. It would be the biggest political betrayal since Clinton sabotaged his Presidency for a blow job.
It would be the smart thing for Hillary to do, but it would destroy the Democratic party in my opinion and open it up to actually losing in the 2008 election.
Edwards and Obama are virtual bloodbrothers in how they see the future of this country. Together they could stroll into the White House and really make the changes that they have both been promising.
If Edwards thinks he will have any significant role as Hillary Clinton's Vice President then he must never have even heard of Bill Clinton. He will be used as window dressing and nothing more. Maybe he should have a sit down with Al Gore before he makes any decision.
I think my stomach hurts now.
According to eyewitnesses, they both walked out of their green rooms after the debate and agreed to talk, then went behind closed doors in Edwards's green room.
Clinton left 20 minutes later. No word on the subject matter, but as Edwards struggles in the polls with no wins to date, his post-campaign strategy is surely in the air.
If Edwards decides to throw his lot in with Hillary then I will have been completely snookered by him. It would be the biggest political betrayal since Clinton sabotaged his Presidency for a blow job.
It would be the smart thing for Hillary to do, but it would destroy the Democratic party in my opinion and open it up to actually losing in the 2008 election.
Edwards and Obama are virtual bloodbrothers in how they see the future of this country. Together they could stroll into the White House and really make the changes that they have both been promising.
If Edwards thinks he will have any significant role as Hillary Clinton's Vice President then he must never have even heard of Bill Clinton. He will be used as window dressing and nothing more. Maybe he should have a sit down with Al Gore before he makes any decision.
I think my stomach hurts now.
Are you a little confused about the controversy over Barack Obama's "present" votes while in the Illinois state senate? This might help.
Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. “An aspect of Obama’s State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his “present” votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down “yes” or “no” that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It’s most important use is as a signal – to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor – to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill.
I was a little disappointed that Edwards also jumped on this issue. I hold him to a higher standard and don't want to see him misrepresenting anybody's record, especially Obamas.
Maybe John Edwards really did not understand the significance of the present vote.
I was a little disappointed that Edwards also jumped on this issue. I hold him to a higher standard and don't want to see him misrepresenting anybody's record, especially Obamas.
Maybe John Edwards really did not understand the significance of the present vote.
The least surprising story of the week.
Republican Fred Thompson, the actor-politician who attracted more attention as a potential presidential candidate than as a real one, quit the race for the White House on Tuesday after a string of poor finishes in early primary and caucus states.
"Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort," the former Tennessee senator said in a brief statement.
I have absolutely no idea why the Republicans wanted him to run, nor do I have any idea why he agreed. He was never a serious contender.
"Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort," the former Tennessee senator said in a brief statement.
I have absolutely no idea why the Republicans wanted him to run, nor do I have any idea why he agreed. He was never a serious contender.
This kind of stuff just breaks my heart.
The actor Heath Ledger was found dead this afternoon in an apartment in Manhattan, according to the New York City police. Signs pointed to a suicide or an accidental overdose, police sources said. Mr. Ledger was 28.
I am posting this for the most part because my daughter really liked Heath Ledger. She had a mad crush on him after he appeared in the movie "10 Things I Hate About You".
I cannot help but be amazed and saddened that somebody with so much would feel the need to use pharmaceuticals to help him deal with his life. What is it about reality that makes it so painful for some people?
I feel especially bad for his young daughter. I cannot imagine a father who would abandon his child no matter how powerful his demons were.
This may be my favorite story of the day.
Within minutes of posting a story on CNN's homepage called "Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in South Carolina," readers reacted quickly and angrily.
Many took umbrage at the story's suggestion that black women voters face "a unique, and most unexpected dilemma" about voting their race or their gender.
CNN received dozens of e-mails shortly after posting the story, which focuses largely on conversations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that a CNN reporter observed at a hair salon in South Carolina whose customers are predominantly African-American.
The story states: "For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?"
An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: "Duh, I'm a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I'm illiterate I'll pull down the lever for someone. Hm... Well, he black so I may vote for him... oh wait she a woman I may vote for her... What Ise gon' do? Oh lordy!"
Tiffany urged CNN to "pull this racist crap off" the Web site and to stop calling Hillary the "top female candidate."
"Stop calling Barack the "Black" candidate," she wrote.
I have to give a standing ovation to these CNN viewers. Bravo, for calling CNN on their racist, prejudice, pandering crap. Good for you.
The cable news outlets are trying to put each of these candidates in a box that they can quickly slap a label on. The black guy, the chick, and the token white dude.
I personally find it insulting that voters are being identified by their ethnicity, their gender, their income level, their education, or their location. It's as if the idea that some African American woman from South Carolina might want to vote for Kucinich had never occurred to these idiots.
Speaking simply for myself the gender and race issue had absolutely NOTHING to do with how I have come to make my decisions about this Presidential race. I am choosing to support Obama, and hopefully Edwards, based solely on their ideas and capabilities.
And by the way I choose which cable news network I watch in much the same way.
Many took umbrage at the story's suggestion that black women voters face "a unique, and most unexpected dilemma" about voting their race or their gender.
CNN received dozens of e-mails shortly after posting the story, which focuses largely on conversations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that a CNN reporter observed at a hair salon in South Carolina whose customers are predominantly African-American.
The story states: "For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?"
An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: "Duh, I'm a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I'm illiterate I'll pull down the lever for someone. Hm... Well, he black so I may vote for him... oh wait she a woman I may vote for her... What Ise gon' do? Oh lordy!"
Tiffany urged CNN to "pull this racist crap off" the Web site and to stop calling Hillary the "top female candidate."
"Stop calling Barack the "Black" candidate," she wrote.
I have to give a standing ovation to these CNN viewers. Bravo, for calling CNN on their racist, prejudice, pandering crap. Good for you.
The cable news outlets are trying to put each of these candidates in a box that they can quickly slap a label on. The black guy, the chick, and the token white dude.
I personally find it insulting that voters are being identified by their ethnicity, their gender, their income level, their education, or their location. It's as if the idea that some African American woman from South Carolina might want to vote for Kucinich had never occurred to these idiots.
Speaking simply for myself the gender and race issue had absolutely NOTHING to do with how I have come to make my decisions about this Presidential race. I am choosing to support Obama, and hopefully Edwards, based solely on their ideas and capabilities.
And by the way I choose which cable news network I watch in much the same way.
Too little too late.
The Federal Reserve, confronted with a global stock sell-off fanned by increased fears of a recession, slashed a key interest rate by three-quarters of a percentage point on Tuesday and indicated further rate cuts were likely.
The surprise reduction in the federal funds rate from 4.25 down to 3.5 percent marked the biggest one-day rate move by the central bank since it cuts its discount rate by a full percentage point in December 1991, a period when the country was struggling to get out of a recession.
The recession, which the government has been denying and the financial experts have been predicting, is finally here. And we are screwed because George Bush is President and you cannot tax cut your way out of this.
The surprise reduction in the federal funds rate from 4.25 down to 3.5 percent marked the biggest one-day rate move by the central bank since it cuts its discount rate by a full percentage point in December 1991, a period when the country was struggling to get out of a recession.
The recession, which the government has been denying and the financial experts have been predicting, is finally here. And we are screwed because George Bush is President and you cannot tax cut your way out of this.
After last night's debate Hillary and Barack are licking their wounds as Edwards basks in renewed media attention.
A simmering feud between Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama erupted into charges of distortion and exaggeration in a gloves- off presidential debate Monday, with Clinton accusing him of representing a Chicago slumlord and Obama countering that she was a corporate lawyer for anti-union Wal-Mart.
Even in the superheated atmosphere of their fight for the party's nomination, the statements and exchanges between Clinton and Obama were unusually acrimonious and personal. The debate came as the two campaigns continued to complain about dirty politics and disenfranchisement of voters in last Saturday's Nevada caucuses.
As Obama tried to defend his recent comments about Republican ideas and Ronald Reagan, Clinton interrupted and said she has never criticized his remarks on Reagan.
"Your husband did," said Obama, who has accused the former president of misrepresenting his record.
"I'm here. He's not," she snapped.
Obama followed this remark by saying "I can't tell who I am running against sometimes." Which was one of my favorite quotes of the night.
You know I have a lot of experience with bullies. I have unfortunately bullied others in my life, been terrorized by bullies when I was very young, and been a "bully buster" when I was in high school.
There is a dynamic used by a bully to intimidate or control his chosen adversary. He may often feel the need to bully out of jealousy or to get back something that he, or she, think they lost to the other person.
The bully often feels inadequate compared to his, or her, target. Being unable to compete in the same arena as his target, he needs to bring that person down to his level. Where he, or she, thinks they have a better chance of inflicting damage. They may use name calling, fabricate lies, or bother those that the target cares about to get them down to their level.
We saw these same techniques used by Hillary last night to make Obama feel defensive and begin to fight the Clinton kind of fight. And that was a mistake.
Hillary was able last night to scuff up Obama's shiny shoes and damage his untouchable image. She did not make herself look any better, but she focused on making Obama look worse. And she did not do it alone.
Hillary has Bill, and that has put Obama at a disadvantage. He is running against two powerful political opponents. And he may be outmatched.
He needs help. He needs John Edwards. Edwards demonstrated last night that he can keep his head in a dogfight and he can also keep the debate focused on the issues. And he can beat Bill Clinton. If it were an Obama/Edwards vs Clinton/Clinton match, the Obama/Edwards team would wipe the floor with them. That is not just my opinion, that is fact.
I think the time is right for Obama to reach out to Edwards and strike up an alliance. Edwards is essentially out of this race if he stands alone. But if he and Obama team up he can guarantee his chance to do all of the good work that he has been talking about doing. It is clear they like each other. It is clear they both dislike Hillary. So what is the damn hold up?
I would plead with them both to get together and win this thing! The time is now!
Even in the superheated atmosphere of their fight for the party's nomination, the statements and exchanges between Clinton and Obama were unusually acrimonious and personal. The debate came as the two campaigns continued to complain about dirty politics and disenfranchisement of voters in last Saturday's Nevada caucuses.
As Obama tried to defend his recent comments about Republican ideas and Ronald Reagan, Clinton interrupted and said she has never criticized his remarks on Reagan.
"Your husband did," said Obama, who has accused the former president of misrepresenting his record.
"I'm here. He's not," she snapped.
Obama followed this remark by saying "I can't tell who I am running against sometimes." Which was one of my favorite quotes of the night.
You know I have a lot of experience with bullies. I have unfortunately bullied others in my life, been terrorized by bullies when I was very young, and been a "bully buster" when I was in high school.
There is a dynamic used by a bully to intimidate or control his chosen adversary. He may often feel the need to bully out of jealousy or to get back something that he, or she, think they lost to the other person.
The bully often feels inadequate compared to his, or her, target. Being unable to compete in the same arena as his target, he needs to bring that person down to his level. Where he, or she, thinks they have a better chance of inflicting damage. They may use name calling, fabricate lies, or bother those that the target cares about to get them down to their level.
We saw these same techniques used by Hillary last night to make Obama feel defensive and begin to fight the Clinton kind of fight. And that was a mistake.
Hillary was able last night to scuff up Obama's shiny shoes and damage his untouchable image. She did not make herself look any better, but she focused on making Obama look worse. And she did not do it alone.
Hillary has Bill, and that has put Obama at a disadvantage. He is running against two powerful political opponents. And he may be outmatched.
He needs help. He needs John Edwards. Edwards demonstrated last night that he can keep his head in a dogfight and he can also keep the debate focused on the issues. And he can beat Bill Clinton. If it were an Obama/Edwards vs Clinton/Clinton match, the Obama/Edwards team would wipe the floor with them. That is not just my opinion, that is fact.
I think the time is right for Obama to reach out to Edwards and strike up an alliance. Edwards is essentially out of this race if he stands alone. But if he and Obama team up he can guarantee his chance to do all of the good work that he has been talking about doing. It is clear they like each other. It is clear they both dislike Hillary. So what is the damn hold up?
I would plead with them both to get together and win this thing! The time is now!
Monday, January 21, 2008
We're number one! We're number one! Oh, we're number one in dog bites.
State epidemiologists say Alaska led the nation in dog bite injury deaths and hospitalizations from 1991 to 2002.During that period, nine people died and 288 were hospitalized for injuries.
Among Alaska regions, the Interior had an annual rate of 4.6 injuries per 100,000 people.
Look how cute they are! Would they bite you? Damn right they would!
Many of the dogs in rural Alaska are not truly pets. They are dogs bred for pulling sleds or doing other kinds of work and will definitely bite a strange child or even adult that wanders too close to their kennel.
This has been a problem up here for a very long time.
In Anchorage, where I live, we have leash laws and are not allowed to have large kennels of dogs within city limits. Therefore we do not have as many dog problems as they do in the smaller communities. And that is why I live here.
You want proof of Evolution? Look to the elephant.
A species’ evolution has long been thought to take thousands of years to produce seemingly minor changes.
It appears that in at least one case, however, evolution is occurring at what seems like jet speed. In the last 150 years, the world’s elephant population has evolved much smaller tusks.
The average size of an African elephant’s tusks has gone down by half in the last century and a half. Indian elephants have undergone a similar tusk size reduction.
Experts believe the rapid evolution of the massive land mammals is due to poaching. Zoologists from Oxford University suggest that ivory poachers, who go for the largest males with the largest tusks, have caused the breeding behaviors of the animals to change rapidly in a short time.
The largest male African elephants have the largest tusks. These tusks are extremely important in elephant behavior, with the largest tusks usually resulting in more successful intimidation of smaller males or winning fights for female elephants. But when the largest animals are killed, it changes the breeding patterns of the animals. In short, without the largest males for competition, the smaller males with their smaller tusks will breed more successfully, and their offspring will have smaller tusks.
I always found it richly ironic that the people who have faith in a deity for which not one shred of evidence exists, have no problem demanding impossible evidence before supporting the science of evolution.
It is well understood by most evolutionary biologists that evolution is happening around us everyday if we simply know where to look.
It appears that in at least one case, however, evolution is occurring at what seems like jet speed. In the last 150 years, the world’s elephant population has evolved much smaller tusks.
The average size of an African elephant’s tusks has gone down by half in the last century and a half. Indian elephants have undergone a similar tusk size reduction.
Experts believe the rapid evolution of the massive land mammals is due to poaching. Zoologists from Oxford University suggest that ivory poachers, who go for the largest males with the largest tusks, have caused the breeding behaviors of the animals to change rapidly in a short time.
The largest male African elephants have the largest tusks. These tusks are extremely important in elephant behavior, with the largest tusks usually resulting in more successful intimidation of smaller males or winning fights for female elephants. But when the largest animals are killed, it changes the breeding patterns of the animals. In short, without the largest males for competition, the smaller males with their smaller tusks will breed more successfully, and their offspring will have smaller tusks.
I always found it richly ironic that the people who have faith in a deity for which not one shred of evidence exists, have no problem demanding impossible evidence before supporting the science of evolution.
It is well understood by most evolutionary biologists that evolution is happening around us everyday if we simply know where to look.
Top Democrats tell Bill Clinton to "pipe down"!
Prominent Democrats are upset with the aggressive role that Bill Clinton is playing in the 2008 campaign, a role they believe is inappropriate for a former president and the titular head of the Democratic Party. In recent weeks, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, both currently neutral in the Democratic contest, have told their old friend heatedly on the phone that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Sen. Barack Obama, according to two sources familiar with the conversations who asked for anonymity because of their sensitive nature. Clinton, Kennedy and Emanuel all declined to comment.
This is some very good advice. I think that Bill is so fired up to get his wife elected that he does not realize just what he is putting at risk.
Personally I have lost tons of respect for the Clinton's in that last several months.
This is some very good advice. I think that Bill is so fired up to get his wife elected that he does not realize just what he is putting at risk.
Personally I have lost tons of respect for the Clinton's in that last several months.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Clinton did not win Nevada, Obama did.
There was a lot of confusion about this one, with Hillary even making a victory speech.
But with all of the data now collected it appears that Hillary had celebrated a little too early.
And now NBC News shows a change in delegates from our earlier count: It's Obama 13, Clinton 12.
But with all of the data now collected it appears that Hillary had celebrated a little too early.
And now NBC News shows a change in delegates from our earlier count: It's Obama 13, Clinton 12.
Obama to confront President Clinton on "troubling attacks".
Sen. Barack Obama says he's ready to confront former President Bill Clinton, calling his advocacy on behalf of his wife's presidential campaign, "troubling."
In an exclusive interview with ABC News' Robin Roberts to air Monday on "Good Morning America," Obama, D-Ill., directly engages Bill Clinton on a series of issues.
"You know the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling," Obama said. "He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts -- whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas.
"This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate," Obama said.
Well here comes the shit storm.
I really don't think Obama has any choice here. If he does not stand up for himself and point out the inaccuracies that the Clinton campaign is putting out about him his candidacy is doomed.
But in doing so he will begin the war that may tear the Democratic party apart.
This could actually become ALL about race and gender, and the issues could be pushed completely out of the media coverage and the minds of the voters.
I so wanted this to be an open exchange of political points that helped define who would be the best choice to lead this country out of the darkness. And then have candidates that would graciously acquiesce to the will of the primary voters.
I mean damn it the Republicans were supposed to turn on each other and we were supposed to offer a different way. Not the same old win at all cost approach that we have seen in the last couple of Presidential elections.
If you are still a Hillary supporter ask yourself this; Do you really want a candidate that will tear their party apart for the opportunity to run this country? And why would somebody want to be in power that much?
In an exclusive interview with ABC News' Robin Roberts to air Monday on "Good Morning America," Obama, D-Ill., directly engages Bill Clinton on a series of issues.
"You know the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling," Obama said. "He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts -- whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas.
"This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate," Obama said.
Well here comes the shit storm.
I really don't think Obama has any choice here. If he does not stand up for himself and point out the inaccuracies that the Clinton campaign is putting out about him his candidacy is doomed.
But in doing so he will begin the war that may tear the Democratic party apart.
This could actually become ALL about race and gender, and the issues could be pushed completely out of the media coverage and the minds of the voters.
I so wanted this to be an open exchange of political points that helped define who would be the best choice to lead this country out of the darkness. And then have candidates that would graciously acquiesce to the will of the primary voters.
I mean damn it the Republicans were supposed to turn on each other and we were supposed to offer a different way. Not the same old win at all cost approach that we have seen in the last couple of Presidential elections.
If you are still a Hillary supporter ask yourself this; Do you really want a candidate that will tear their party apart for the opportunity to run this country? And why would somebody want to be in power that much?
Against all odds McCain may actually become the 2008 Republican Presidential candidate.
I have said before that eight years ago John McCain would have been a formidable candidate for the Democrats to face in a Presidential race. I do not feel that is the case any longer.
That does not mean I don't think he may be the best choice for he republicans to nominate, because I do.
John McCain is not a bible thumper (Huckabee), or an empty suit (Romney), or an opportunist (Giuliani). John McCain is man of real passion about what he believes in.
Unfortunately what he believes in is the Iraq war. And that is a recipe for disaster in a national Presidential campaign in 2008. We will never elect a man who is pushing for us to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years.
Even those who were big fans of McCain are finding it much harder to like him in light of these very difficult policy beliefs. That may best illustrated by watching this conversation with Jon Stewart, who absolutely adored John McCain in 2000.
(This is in two parts, the second is directly below the first one.)
That does not mean I don't think he may be the best choice for he republicans to nominate, because I do.
John McCain is not a bible thumper (Huckabee), or an empty suit (Romney), or an opportunist (Giuliani). John McCain is man of real passion about what he believes in.
Unfortunately what he believes in is the Iraq war. And that is a recipe for disaster in a national Presidential campaign in 2008. We will never elect a man who is pushing for us to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years.
Even those who were big fans of McCain are finding it much harder to like him in light of these very difficult policy beliefs. That may best illustrated by watching this conversation with Jon Stewart, who absolutely adored John McCain in 2000.
(This is in two parts, the second is directly below the first one.)
Did the Hillary Clinton campaign organize an attack against Oprah for endorsing Obama?
America's favourite television presenter is paying a painful price for her intervention in the US presidential campaign last month. Oprah Winfrey has been dubbed a “traitor” by some of her female fans for supporting Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.Winfrey’s website, Oprah.com, has been flooded with a barrage of abuse since the queen of daytime chat shows joined Obama on a tour of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in mid-December.
It started with a message on her website entitled “Oprah is a traitor” and rapidly expanded to include several discussions that attracted hundreds of comments.
In the original post, a reader called austaz68 said she “cannot believe that women all over this country are not up in arms over Oprah’s backing of Obama. For the first time in history we actually have a shot at putting a woman in the White House and Oprah backs the black MAN. She’s choosing her race over her gender.”
I don't know about you but I find this a little suspicious.
I know that woman may be excited to have the opportunity to put a female in the White House, but do they really think that it is the obligation of all women to do so? Is this simply racism? That seems pretty ugly to consider that there are voters who simply feel they have to choose between gender or race to make the most important political decision of their lives.
Or could this be more of the nastiest political maneuvering that we have ever seen?
So hostile has the response been that some suspect dirty tricks. “All the rude and hateful messages on here can’t be from Oprah fans,” another visitor noted. “Someone’s campaign (wonder who?) is sabotaging the message boards.”
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Go see Cloverfield.
I rarely recommend movies but I highly recommend this one.It is different then probably any other movie you will see this year, and it is great!
It is not for the children, or for those who are prone to nightmares. But if you want a movie experience that will suck you in, bounce you around like a ping pong ball, and then spit you out at the end with your eyes wide and you emotions drained, then this is your movie.
Some have compared this to Blair Witch, but they are wrong.
Some have dinged it for bringing back images of 9-11, but they are idiots.
It is just a great thrill ride that allows you to forget your real life troubles for 84 spine tingling minutes. And I for one appreciated that.
Colbert and Conan in battle over Huckabee. WTF?
Okay it is Saturday and there is not much going on in the news.
So I had to make a choice. I could post this video from YouTube, or I could discuss the Republican primary in Nevada.
I am sure you support my decision.
And as a bonus it is kind of funny, not that the Republican's acting like they have a shot in 2008 is not funny. Because it is.
So I had to make a choice. I could post this video from YouTube, or I could discuss the Republican primary in Nevada.
I am sure you support my decision.
And as a bonus it is kind of funny, not that the Republican's acting like they have a shot in 2008 is not funny. Because it is.
Obama's Reagan reference draws opponents fire.
Obama told the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board Monday that "Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it," Obama said.
"I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom," Obama told the newspaper.
On Friday in Las Vegas, Clinton, responded, "That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years." She said she didn't consider it a better idea to privatize Social Security, eliminate the minimum wage, undercut health benefits, shut down the government or drive the country into debt. "I think we know what needs to be done in America. And I think we're ready to do it. I'm ready to lead on day one."
Edwards characterized Obama's statements this way:
"Ronald Reagan, the man who busted unions, the man who did everything in his power to destroy the organized labor movement, the man who created a tax structure that favored the richest Americans against middle class and working families, ... we know that Ronald Reagan is not an example of change for a presidential candidate running in the Democratic Party," Edwards said.
Now this is a political campaign and it is almost impossible for a Presidential opponent to let an opening slide without taking advantage of it, but I find this one to be a real stretch.
Obama did not say that he thought that Reagan's policies were good for the country, he simply said that the ideas that he presented changed the direction of the country. And that is irrefutable.
I certainly am not a Ronald Reagan fan but he was an important figure in Presidential history. He promoted patriotism, a military buildup, overreaching tax cuts, and a hard line toward international relations that is still the backbone of the Republican party. It is no accident that his name gets mentioned at Republican debates repeatedly and that the Republican candidates are arguing who is the most like President Reagen.
The Reagan blueprint for success is still being used twenty years later and that definitely supports Obama's statements.
The one thing that I would disagree with Obama on is whether Clinton was a change agent as well. I think he was. He may not have been as dramatic as Ronald Reagan, but he certainly had a profound and I believe positive impact on this nation.
It is just too bad that he is chipping away at that legacy by getting down in the mud to attack his wife's opponents.
"I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom," Obama told the newspaper.
On Friday in Las Vegas, Clinton, responded, "That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years." She said she didn't consider it a better idea to privatize Social Security, eliminate the minimum wage, undercut health benefits, shut down the government or drive the country into debt. "I think we know what needs to be done in America. And I think we're ready to do it. I'm ready to lead on day one."
Edwards characterized Obama's statements this way:
"Ronald Reagan, the man who busted unions, the man who did everything in his power to destroy the organized labor movement, the man who created a tax structure that favored the richest Americans against middle class and working families, ... we know that Ronald Reagan is not an example of change for a presidential candidate running in the Democratic Party," Edwards said.
Now this is a political campaign and it is almost impossible for a Presidential opponent to let an opening slide without taking advantage of it, but I find this one to be a real stretch.
Obama did not say that he thought that Reagan's policies were good for the country, he simply said that the ideas that he presented changed the direction of the country. And that is irrefutable.
I certainly am not a Ronald Reagan fan but he was an important figure in Presidential history. He promoted patriotism, a military buildup, overreaching tax cuts, and a hard line toward international relations that is still the backbone of the Republican party. It is no accident that his name gets mentioned at Republican debates repeatedly and that the Republican candidates are arguing who is the most like President Reagen.
The Reagan blueprint for success is still being used twenty years later and that definitely supports Obama's statements.
The one thing that I would disagree with Obama on is whether Clinton was a change agent as well. I think he was. He may not have been as dramatic as Ronald Reagan, but he certainly had a profound and I believe positive impact on this nation.
It is just too bad that he is chipping away at that legacy by getting down in the mud to attack his wife's opponents.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Creationist museum will have to close if they cannot find a buyer for their ancient mastodon skull. Ironic does not even begin to cover this.
A Texas museum that teaches creationism is counting on the auction of a prehistoric mastodon skull to stave off extinction. The founder and curator of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, which rejects evolution and claims that man and dinosaurs coexisted, said it will close unless the Volkswagen-sized skull finds a generous bidder.
"If it sells, well, then we can come another day," Joe Taylor said. "This is very important to our continuing."
Heritage Auction Galleries says the skull is estimated to be 40,000 years old, and projects it will fetch upward of $160,000. The artifact discovered in La Grange in 2004 is believed to be the largest of its kind, Heritage spokesman David Herskowitz said.
The auction will be held Sunday in Dallas, with bids accepted on the Internet until Saturday night.
"We're trying to reach out to someone who would buy it, then reach out to a museum in Texas," Herskowitz said.
Taylor said he would love to keep the skull of the elephant-like mammal as the centerpiece of his tiny museum just outside Lubbock, which includes creationist exhibits.
Claims on the museum's Web site include that Noah took dinosaurs aboard his ark. The prevailing scientific wisdom is that humans and dinosaurs missed each other by tens of millions of years.
It is still my contention that anybody who runs a museum like this is engaging in child abuse. Depriving a child of a real education in this country should be against the law.
I cannot help but wonder if this moron understands that if his mastodon skull was not so many thousands of years old nobody would give any money for it.
Actually I already know the answer to this question. He doesn't.
"If it sells, well, then we can come another day," Joe Taylor said. "This is very important to our continuing."
Heritage Auction Galleries says the skull is estimated to be 40,000 years old, and projects it will fetch upward of $160,000. The artifact discovered in La Grange in 2004 is believed to be the largest of its kind, Heritage spokesman David Herskowitz said.
The auction will be held Sunday in Dallas, with bids accepted on the Internet until Saturday night.
"We're trying to reach out to someone who would buy it, then reach out to a museum in Texas," Herskowitz said.
Taylor said he would love to keep the skull of the elephant-like mammal as the centerpiece of his tiny museum just outside Lubbock, which includes creationist exhibits.
Claims on the museum's Web site include that Noah took dinosaurs aboard his ark. The prevailing scientific wisdom is that humans and dinosaurs missed each other by tens of millions of years.
It is still my contention that anybody who runs a museum like this is engaging in child abuse. Depriving a child of a real education in this country should be against the law.
I cannot help but wonder if this moron understands that if his mastodon skull was not so many thousands of years old nobody would give any money for it.
Actually I already know the answer to this question. He doesn't.
10 years later Hillary talks about Monica Lewinski, to someone named Tyra Banks.
Hillary Clinton said in an soul baring interview aired Friday she never doubted her husband Bill Clinton's love for her, despite the former president's affair with a White House intern.
The former first lady, locked in a tight battle for the Democratic presidential nomination with Barack Obama, candidly revealed her inner torment after the infidelity, first reported 10 years ago.
"I really had to dig down deep and think hard about what was right for me, what was right for my family," Clinton said on the Tyra Banks talk show on Fox television.
"I never doubted Bill's love for me, ever, and I never doubted my faith and my commitment to our daughter and our extended family.
"But I had to decide what I ought to do, I think it is so important to be able to hear yourself at a moment when it is hard ... there are so many times when you really have to listen to yourself."
Asked by Banks whether she was embarrassed by Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, which eventually led to his impeachment, she said "sure, all of that."
"The momentary feelings -- you are mad, you are really upset, you are disappointed, all of that goes through your mind.
"I have found you really shouldn't make decisions in the heat of those moments.
Okay I actually know who Tyra Banks is, because she used to be a model and I saw that edition of Sports Illustrated. But I was only vaguely aware that she had a talk show.
Apparently she is a skinnier, dumbed down version of Oprah Winfrey. Of course Hillary can't go on Oprah anymore because that there is Obama territory.
Now I hate to call this a publicity stunt, but it is without a doubt a publicity stunt.
Talk shows and reporters all over this country have been trying to get Hillary to open up about her feelings during the Monica Lewinsky affair and she has remained tight lipped. But now with her in the struggle of her political life against the phenomena known as Barack Obama, she decides to tell all on the Tyra Banks Show? And we are supposed to believe that she just decided to get it off of her chest now?
Now I know that those of you who visit this site are of above average intelligence and therefore cannot be fooled by such a clumsy attempt to woo you to Hillary's camp, but I worry about those less sophisticated people who really might not be able to see through this charade.
I guess I can take solace in knowing that most of Tyra's demographic is made up of leering male prison inmates and women on public assistance.
The former first lady, locked in a tight battle for the Democratic presidential nomination with Barack Obama, candidly revealed her inner torment after the infidelity, first reported 10 years ago.
"I really had to dig down deep and think hard about what was right for me, what was right for my family," Clinton said on the Tyra Banks talk show on Fox television.
"I never doubted Bill's love for me, ever, and I never doubted my faith and my commitment to our daughter and our extended family.
"But I had to decide what I ought to do, I think it is so important to be able to hear yourself at a moment when it is hard ... there are so many times when you really have to listen to yourself."
Asked by Banks whether she was embarrassed by Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, which eventually led to his impeachment, she said "sure, all of that."
"The momentary feelings -- you are mad, you are really upset, you are disappointed, all of that goes through your mind.
"I have found you really shouldn't make decisions in the heat of those moments.
Okay I actually know who Tyra Banks is, because she used to be a model and I saw that edition of Sports Illustrated. But I was only vaguely aware that she had a talk show.
Apparently she is a skinnier, dumbed down version of Oprah Winfrey. Of course Hillary can't go on Oprah anymore because that there is Obama territory.
Now I hate to call this a publicity stunt, but it is without a doubt a publicity stunt.
Talk shows and reporters all over this country have been trying to get Hillary to open up about her feelings during the Monica Lewinsky affair and she has remained tight lipped. But now with her in the struggle of her political life against the phenomena known as Barack Obama, she decides to tell all on the Tyra Banks Show? And we are supposed to believe that she just decided to get it off of her chest now?
Now I know that those of you who visit this site are of above average intelligence and therefore cannot be fooled by such a clumsy attempt to woo you to Hillary's camp, but I worry about those less sophisticated people who really might not be able to see through this charade.
I guess I can take solace in knowing that most of Tyra's demographic is made up of leering male prison inmates and women on public assistance.
Charlie Vandergaw, the "bear man", is back in the news.
Anchorage could have a new international celebrity: a nearly 70-year-old retired teacher who has spent the past two decades hiding from the public eye in an effort to conceal his intimate love affair with a large gang of black and grizzly bears.
After the existence of Charlie Vandergaw's Susitna Valley bear farm was revealed in the Daily News last spring, the former Dimond High School wrestling coach decided to come clean with his unbelievable story.
British documentary filmmaker Jon Alwen spent 51 days with Vandergaw at the farm last summer. His hourlong documentary, which aired on television in Great Britain two weeks ago, provides an up-close view of Vandergaw's life with a collection of black and brown bears that are treated more like, and sometimes behave more like, family dogs than bears.
Except, of course, when the family dog puts its paws on you they usually aren't on your shoulders, and even if they are, they aren't tipped with four-inch-long, razor-sharp claws and the dog's head doesn't tower three feet above yours.
Alwen filmed a scene like this and others equally shocking. Vandergaw, however, said the young filmmaker "didn't even get the best stuff."
I have written about Charlie Vandergaw before and mentioned that I was student of his almost thirty years ago at Dimond High School. Charlie was my science teacher and a frequent visitor to the weight room where I often hung out after school. Charlie was the wrestling coach, and every year would try to convince me to go out for the team. I was a good athlete but disliked team sports. I did wrestle for another school when I briefly lived with my father during my sophomore year. Charlie never failed to mention that I needed to make amends since I had wrestled for an opposing team. I never did, and he never stopped making me feel guilty about it.
Charlie was a good guy and I really enjoyed his enthusiasm for science when I was in his class. He did these great experiments with electricity in his room and even made a small explosion one day, which as a teenage boy I thought was freaking awesome.
I am actually happy to be given the chance to write about this topic again because the last time I made a mistake in saying that Charlie had an identical twin brother named Glenn who had once been my math teacher. This was something that I and all of my peers thought to be true. But in the comments section of the last post Charlie and Glenn's brother wrote to say that they were not twins though many people believed that they were. He also said that Glenn also spent time at the bear farm as well.
Anyhow I apologize for providing any disinformation, I do so try to get the facts right.
If you are interested in seeing the YouTube video advertising this upcoming documentary you can find that here:
By the way as for the right and wrong of feeding these bears and acclimating them to humans I am going to have to stay agnostic. Growing up in Alaska I have been taught my whole life to keep my garbage cleaned up so that it does not attract bears, and not to feed the moose, or the geese, or any other wild animal I may encounter.
But Charlie is clearly in a different category. He offers a unique opportunity to see bears interacting with each other and him in an environment where the laws of nature seem to have been suspended, allowing the bears to be seen as complex social creatures who can learn and adapt in ways that perhaps was never fully understood before. According to Charlie these bears behave like bears when they leave his property, which seems to serve as a wilderness version of Switzerland, offering an oasis of neutrality for potential combatants and enemies.
Like I said I knew Charlie so I will take him at his word.
Good luck Mr. Vandergaw and thanks for the science lessons, which it is clear you are still providing.
After the existence of Charlie Vandergaw's Susitna Valley bear farm was revealed in the Daily News last spring, the former Dimond High School wrestling coach decided to come clean with his unbelievable story.
British documentary filmmaker Jon Alwen spent 51 days with Vandergaw at the farm last summer. His hourlong documentary, which aired on television in Great Britain two weeks ago, provides an up-close view of Vandergaw's life with a collection of black and brown bears that are treated more like, and sometimes behave more like, family dogs than bears.
Except, of course, when the family dog puts its paws on you they usually aren't on your shoulders, and even if they are, they aren't tipped with four-inch-long, razor-sharp claws and the dog's head doesn't tower three feet above yours.
Alwen filmed a scene like this and others equally shocking. Vandergaw, however, said the young filmmaker "didn't even get the best stuff."
I have written about Charlie Vandergaw before and mentioned that I was student of his almost thirty years ago at Dimond High School. Charlie was my science teacher and a frequent visitor to the weight room where I often hung out after school. Charlie was the wrestling coach, and every year would try to convince me to go out for the team. I was a good athlete but disliked team sports. I did wrestle for another school when I briefly lived with my father during my sophomore year. Charlie never failed to mention that I needed to make amends since I had wrestled for an opposing team. I never did, and he never stopped making me feel guilty about it.
Charlie was a good guy and I really enjoyed his enthusiasm for science when I was in his class. He did these great experiments with electricity in his room and even made a small explosion one day, which as a teenage boy I thought was freaking awesome.
I am actually happy to be given the chance to write about this topic again because the last time I made a mistake in saying that Charlie had an identical twin brother named Glenn who had once been my math teacher. This was something that I and all of my peers thought to be true. But in the comments section of the last post Charlie and Glenn's brother wrote to say that they were not twins though many people believed that they were. He also said that Glenn also spent time at the bear farm as well.
Anyhow I apologize for providing any disinformation, I do so try to get the facts right.
If you are interested in seeing the YouTube video advertising this upcoming documentary you can find that here:
By the way as for the right and wrong of feeding these bears and acclimating them to humans I am going to have to stay agnostic. Growing up in Alaska I have been taught my whole life to keep my garbage cleaned up so that it does not attract bears, and not to feed the moose, or the geese, or any other wild animal I may encounter.
But Charlie is clearly in a different category. He offers a unique opportunity to see bears interacting with each other and him in an environment where the laws of nature seem to have been suspended, allowing the bears to be seen as complex social creatures who can learn and adapt in ways that perhaps was never fully understood before. According to Charlie these bears behave like bears when they leave his property, which seems to serve as a wilderness version of Switzerland, offering an oasis of neutrality for potential combatants and enemies.
Like I said I knew Charlie so I will take him at his word.
Good luck Mr. Vandergaw and thanks for the science lessons, which it is clear you are still providing.
Is President Clinton gambling with his legacy in the hopes of a big win for Hillary's campaign?
After weeks of complaining publicly about Barack Obama’s record, the news media’s coverage of the Democratic presidential race, or both, Mr. Clinton on Wednesday ripped into a television reporter who had asked him about a Nevada lawsuit concerning participation in the state’s caucuses this Saturday. Mr. Clinton believed the question had seemed sympathetic to Mr. Obama’s stakes in the suit, Clinton campaign officials said.
Mr. Clinton’s temper has been an issue for him as long as he has been in public life. But it has played an unusual role during the current campaign, his face turning red in public nearly every week, often making headlines as he defends his wife and injects himself, whether or not intentionally, into her race in sometimes distracting ways.
Some Clinton advisers say the campaign is trying to rein him in somewhat, so that his outbursts become less of a factor to reporters, but his flashes of anger only seem to be growing. Last week, for instance, a clearly agitated Mr. Clinton told Dartmouth students that it was a “fairy tale” for Mr. Obama to contend that he had been consistently against the war in Iraq. And in December he said that voters supporting Mr. Obama were willing to “roll the dice” on the presidency.
President Clinton was sitting pretty before the Hillary campaign began. He headed the Clinton Foundation that was doing great humanitarian work around the world, he was clearly the most popular American politician in the eyes of the rest of the world, his peccadillo's while in office were rarely being addressed any more, and he was the star of the Democratic party.
But today the Monica Lewinsky story is all over the cable news outlets, Bill has made a number of public gaffes in defense of his wife, he has often been shown to be out of step with his wife's message, and his unwavering support for one candidate in 2008 has diminished his stature among many other Democrats who are supporting a different candidate. Bill's political opinions, once considered to carry a great deal of weight, are rendered meaningless because of his blind support for Hillary. Bill Clinton the beloved ex-President has been reduced to Bill Clinton the political hack.
It is almost painful to watch.
Mr. Clinton’s temper has been an issue for him as long as he has been in public life. But it has played an unusual role during the current campaign, his face turning red in public nearly every week, often making headlines as he defends his wife and injects himself, whether or not intentionally, into her race in sometimes distracting ways.
Some Clinton advisers say the campaign is trying to rein him in somewhat, so that his outbursts become less of a factor to reporters, but his flashes of anger only seem to be growing. Last week, for instance, a clearly agitated Mr. Clinton told Dartmouth students that it was a “fairy tale” for Mr. Obama to contend that he had been consistently against the war in Iraq. And in December he said that voters supporting Mr. Obama were willing to “roll the dice” on the presidency.
President Clinton was sitting pretty before the Hillary campaign began. He headed the Clinton Foundation that was doing great humanitarian work around the world, he was clearly the most popular American politician in the eyes of the rest of the world, his peccadillo's while in office were rarely being addressed any more, and he was the star of the Democratic party.
But today the Monica Lewinsky story is all over the cable news outlets, Bill has made a number of public gaffes in defense of his wife, he has often been shown to be out of step with his wife's message, and his unwavering support for one candidate in 2008 has diminished his stature among many other Democrats who are supporting a different candidate. Bill's political opinions, once considered to carry a great deal of weight, are rendered meaningless because of his blind support for Hillary. Bill Clinton the beloved ex-President has been reduced to Bill Clinton the political hack.
It is almost painful to watch.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
You know who has proven to be a terrible disappointment to his father? Osama Bin Ladens kid that's who.
Omar Osama bin Laden bears a striking resemblance to his notorious father — except for the dreadlocks that dangle halfway down his back. Then there's the black leather biker jacket. The 26-year-old does not renounce his father, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, but in an interview with The Associated Press, he said there is better way to defend Islam than militancy: Omar wants to be an "ambassador for peace" between Muslims and the West.
You know you love them, you protect them, you buy them just everything, but when you want them to follow you into the family business will they? Hell no.
Ungrateful little bastard.
You know you love them, you protect them, you buy them just everything, but when you want them to follow you into the family business will they? Hell no.
Ungrateful little bastard.
Mike "Let's change the Constituion to be more in line with God's will" Huckabee believes gay marriage and man/livestock unions are the same thing.
QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.
HUCKABEE: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.
When I read this I cannot help but think that forty years ago Huckabee might have been saying "I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean a white man and a black woman, or a black man and a white woman. I think a radical position is to make a change in what's been historic."
Different time, different change, but prejudice is prejudice.
HUCKABEE: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.
When I read this I cannot help but think that forty years ago Huckabee might have been saying "I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean a white man and a black woman, or a black man and a white woman. I think a radical position is to make a change in what's been historic."
Different time, different change, but prejudice is prejudice.
Tweety is falling all over himself to apologize for his Hillary comments.
I knew after the last Democratic debate that Matthews had been chewed out and was trying to save his reputation by going way too far the other way.It looks like the Clinton campaign knows how to play "Hardball" too.
The White House asked the CIA not to destroy the torture tapes. And if you believe this I have a "bridge to nowhere" to sell you.
The former Central Intelligence Agency official who authorized the destruction in 2005 of videotapes documenting harsh interrogation of detainees from Al Qaeda gave the order despite apparently being directed to preserve the tapes, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday.
Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, said Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., head of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service at the time, had not “gotten authority from anyone” to destroy the tapes.
“Matter of fact, it appears that he got direction to make sure the tapes were not destroyed,” he said.
I cannot even imagine who would be stupid enough to believe this drivel. There is no way that the CIA, on its own, destroyed those tapes. The CIA is not in the business of going against the directions of the Executive office. If they were to truly do that you can bet they would be punished aggressively.
The White House is just continuing its scapegoating of the CIA which they began after they failed to find the WMD's in Iraq. Bad intelligence my ass!
All you have to do to figure out who is responsible is to determine who has the most to lose if the tapes are made public. The CIA can take a spanking and keep right on doing their jobs. But the Administration has suffered multiple setbacks and is struggling to preserve their place in history.
Oh, you can also ask yourself who has been caught destroying other potentially damaging documents. Any questions?
Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, said Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., head of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service at the time, had not “gotten authority from anyone” to destroy the tapes.
“Matter of fact, it appears that he got direction to make sure the tapes were not destroyed,” he said.
I cannot even imagine who would be stupid enough to believe this drivel. There is no way that the CIA, on its own, destroyed those tapes. The CIA is not in the business of going against the directions of the Executive office. If they were to truly do that you can bet they would be punished aggressively.
The White House is just continuing its scapegoating of the CIA which they began after they failed to find the WMD's in Iraq. Bad intelligence my ass!
All you have to do to figure out who is responsible is to determine who has the most to lose if the tapes are made public. The CIA can take a spanking and keep right on doing their jobs. But the Administration has suffered multiple setbacks and is struggling to preserve their place in history.
Oh, you can also ask yourself who has been caught destroying other potentially damaging documents. Any questions?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Dirty tricks, voter suppression, vicious political attacks, is this the work of Karl Rove? Close, it is Hillary Clinton.
The headlines say the latest schism among the top Democratic presidential candidates is over gender and race. But on the ground in the presidential season's opening states, there is a darker narrative: that Hillary Clinton will not just fight hard, but fight dirty, to win. And her tactic of choice is attempting to suppress the votes of her rival's supporters.
The latest example is from Nevada, where the Nevada State Education Association is widely seen as filing a suit on Clinton's behalf to stop Las Vegas' most powerful union, Culinary Workers Local 226, from caucusing inside downtown casinos after the union endorsed Barack Obama. The tactic foments a split along racial and class lines in arguably the strongest union city in America.
"It's horrible," said one longtime Nevada activist, who didn't want his name used. "It will cause fights and damage that will last for years."
But the Clinton campaign has made similar moves in New Hampshire and Iowa.
Will somebody please find out where Karl Rove is?
This simply cannot just be a coincidence!
The latest example is from Nevada, where the Nevada State Education Association is widely seen as filing a suit on Clinton's behalf to stop Las Vegas' most powerful union, Culinary Workers Local 226, from caucusing inside downtown casinos after the union endorsed Barack Obama. The tactic foments a split along racial and class lines in arguably the strongest union city in America.
"It's horrible," said one longtime Nevada activist, who didn't want his name used. "It will cause fights and damage that will last for years."
But the Clinton campaign has made similar moves in New Hampshire and Iowa.
Will somebody please find out where Karl Rove is?
This simply cannot just be a coincidence!
Hillary almost loses primary in Michigan to "uncommitted". In her defense that uncommitted ran a tough campaign.
Usually, a prominent presidential contender running a primary campaign without serious opposition and with strong in-state support from party leaders can count on winning 90 percent or more of the vote. That's how it went for George Bush when he was running without serious opposition in Republican primaries in 2004, and for Bill Clinton when he was essentially unopposed in the Democratic primaries in 1996.
But Hillary Clinton got nowhere near 90 percent of the vote in Tuesday's Michigan primary.
With most of the ballots counted, the New York senator was winning uninspiring 55 percent of the Democratic primary vote.
A remarkable 40 percent of Michiganders who participated in the primary voted for nobody, marking the "Uncommitted" option on their ballots. Another 4 percent backed Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who brought his anti-war, anti-corporate campaign to Michigan and made some inroads among Muslim voters in the Detroit area and liberals in Washtenaw County -- where he was taking almost 10 percent.
But "Uncommitted" was Clinton's most serious challenger in Michigan.
Oh yeah, she's our best hope against the Republicans.
But Hillary Clinton got nowhere near 90 percent of the vote in Tuesday's Michigan primary.
With most of the ballots counted, the New York senator was winning uninspiring 55 percent of the Democratic primary vote.
A remarkable 40 percent of Michiganders who participated in the primary voted for nobody, marking the "Uncommitted" option on their ballots. Another 4 percent backed Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who brought his anti-war, anti-corporate campaign to Michigan and made some inroads among Muslim voters in the Detroit area and liberals in Washtenaw County -- where he was taking almost 10 percent.
But "Uncommitted" was Clinton's most serious challenger in Michigan.
Oh yeah, she's our best hope against the Republicans.
Rep Robert Wexler takes to the House floor. He says the case to impeach Dick Cheney is "far stronger then Watergate."
Tomorrow, I will deliver these names to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee with a letter to my friend, Chairman Conyers, calling for hearings. I will ask my colleagues to sign this letter … Continuing every day for months, I will publish in the Congressional Record several thousand names of supporters who signed up.
History demands that we take action, because the case against Vice President Cheney is far stronger than the illegality surrounding Watergate.
There are 190,000 signatures at Wexler's website supporting the impeachment of Dick Cheney. If you have missed this historic opportunity to be counted as an American who supports justice and democracy in this country then I urge you to visit this website and add your name to the list.
It is well past time for us to hold these bastards accountable for what they did to our nation.
History demands that we take action, because the case against Vice President Cheney is far stronger than the illegality surrounding Watergate.
There are 190,000 signatures at Wexler's website supporting the impeachment of Dick Cheney. If you have missed this historic opportunity to be counted as an American who supports justice and democracy in this country then I urge you to visit this website and add your name to the list.
It is well past time for us to hold these bastards accountable for what they did to our nation.
I swear I thought of this first.
I have a lot of truly inspired ideas. No really.
And I have often thought about how odd it was to have a medication that kept my legs from wanting to move. And when I read the list of possible side effects. That made it simply hysterical.
I meant to write a blog post about it, but never got around to it. And now it is too late. Because Jon Stewart read my mind, and improved on my idea, and put it on his show.
It is very funny and I cannot feel bad that I did not write it first because to be honest Jon did a better job then I would have. So here is the video from last night's show. Enjoy.
And I have often thought about how odd it was to have a medication that kept my legs from wanting to move. And when I read the list of possible side effects. That made it simply hysterical.
I meant to write a blog post about it, but never got around to it. And now it is too late. Because Jon Stewart read my mind, and improved on my idea, and put it on his show.
It is very funny and I cannot feel bad that I did not write it first because to be honest Jon did a better job then I would have. So here is the video from last night's show. Enjoy.
Take one video of a fairly common exchange between the US Navy and Iranian speedboats, add an unrelated prank phone call, and make a scare tactic.
Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the Jan. 6 U.S.-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story demonstrating Iran's military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the incident shows.
The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in charge of media operations Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the Navy itself.
Then the Navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that U.S. warships would "explode" in "a few seconds." Although it was ostensibly a Navy production, IPS has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defense Department.
The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three U.S. warships occurred very early on Saturday Jan. 6, Washington time. But no information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that it was not viewed initially as being very urgent.
I encourage you to read the entire article. It is a disturbing obvious attempt to scare Americans by our very own Pentagon.
Hopefully this further illustrates why we need to elect a President that will never allow scare tactics to be used to manipulate United States citizens again.
If you watched last nights Democratic debate you know which candidates won't, and which candidate will.
The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in charge of media operations Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the Navy itself.
Then the Navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that U.S. warships would "explode" in "a few seconds." Although it was ostensibly a Navy production, IPS has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defense Department.
The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three U.S. warships occurred very early on Saturday Jan. 6, Washington time. But no information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that it was not viewed initially as being very urgent.
I encourage you to read the entire article. It is a disturbing obvious attempt to scare Americans by our very own Pentagon.
Hopefully this further illustrates why we need to elect a President that will never allow scare tactics to be used to manipulate United States citizens again.
If you watched last nights Democratic debate you know which candidates won't, and which candidate will.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Obama all but erases Hillary's lead in national polls.
Clinton had dominated in national polls from the outset, holding a 30-point advantage as recently as a month ago, but the competitiveness of the first two contests appears to have reverberated among Democrats across the country.
In the new poll, 42 percent of likely Democratic voters support Clinton (N.Y.), and 37 percent back Obama (Ill.). Clinton's support is down 11 percentage points from a month ago, with Obama's up 14. Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) held third place with 11 percent, followed by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio) at 2 percent.
Obama has proved he is electable, which may have been the only reason that Hillary led in the polls in the first place (Well that and Bill).
I feel that the more the country is exposed to Obama the further he will move forward in the polls and that the more they see of Hillary the further her numbers will slip.
In the new poll, 42 percent of likely Democratic voters support Clinton (N.Y.), and 37 percent back Obama (Ill.). Clinton's support is down 11 percentage points from a month ago, with Obama's up 14. Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) held third place with 11 percent, followed by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio) at 2 percent.
Obama has proved he is electable, which may have been the only reason that Hillary led in the polls in the first place (Well that and Bill).
I feel that the more the country is exposed to Obama the further he will move forward in the polls and that the more they see of Hillary the further her numbers will slip.
Oh it is almost time for another Democratic debate.
What will they wear?
Will they bring up race?
Will John Edwards attack Hillary and protect Obama?
Will Dennis Kucinich's hot wife sit and glare at Hillary? (NBC got a judge to allow them to keep Kucinich out.)
Will Hillary cry?
Oooh I am so excited!
One half hour in I have to say that it is not terribly exciting. Everybody is giving careful answers and being especially careful not to make any statement which might be misconstrued.
I did have an epiphany about why this race is not going well for Edwards, and I am embarrassed that I was not thinking along these lines earlier. He is the same kind of candidate that is always available, he is the white Christian guy up against the first woman and the first African American. He was doomed from the start.
I know that may make me sound like I have been living in a hole somewhere, but I can only explain it the way that Stephen Colbert does on his show. I do not look at Obama and see his race. I also do not look at Hillary and see her gender. So those factors never had any impact on me. In some ways I am exactly what the Democratic electorate is supposed to be. We are not supposed to make our decisions based on the color of their skin or their gender, whether it makes us like them more or less.
For that reason I was not considering that the chance to vote for the first woman in history, or the first black man, would be so compelling to the American people.
I may be too stupid to have this blog.
Will they bring up race?
Will John Edwards attack Hillary and protect Obama?
Will Dennis Kucinich's hot wife sit and glare at Hillary? (NBC got a judge to allow them to keep Kucinich out.)
Will Hillary cry?
Oooh I am so excited!
One half hour in I have to say that it is not terribly exciting. Everybody is giving careful answers and being especially careful not to make any statement which might be misconstrued.
I did have an epiphany about why this race is not going well for Edwards, and I am embarrassed that I was not thinking along these lines earlier. He is the same kind of candidate that is always available, he is the white Christian guy up against the first woman and the first African American. He was doomed from the start.
I know that may make me sound like I have been living in a hole somewhere, but I can only explain it the way that Stephen Colbert does on his show. I do not look at Obama and see his race. I also do not look at Hillary and see her gender. So those factors never had any impact on me. In some ways I am exactly what the Democratic electorate is supposed to be. We are not supposed to make our decisions based on the color of their skin or their gender, whether it makes us like them more or less.
For that reason I was not considering that the chance to vote for the first woman in history, or the first black man, would be so compelling to the American people.
I may be too stupid to have this blog.
Todays prize for scariest Republican seeking the 2008 Presidential nomination goes to...Mike Huckabee!
At a Michigan campaign event last night, Mike Huckabee gave an interesting reason for why he wants to amend the Constitution to ban both abortion and gay marriage: Otherwise, the Constitution would be in conflict with God.
Huckabee first observed that some of his opponents don't want to amend the Constitution on both of these topics. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
Well you know what this means, it is going to be stoning adulterers and killing shopkeepers who dare to do business on the Sabbath. We are looking at you Wal-Mart.
You know I saw Mike Huckabee on both the Colbert Report and Real Time and he seemed....oh what is the word I am looking for......sane.
If this guy becomes President I may have to go into hiding.
Huckabee first observed that some of his opponents don't want to amend the Constitution on both of these topics. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
Well you know what this means, it is going to be stoning adulterers and killing shopkeepers who dare to do business on the Sabbath. We are looking at you Wal-Mart.
You know I saw Mike Huckabee on both the Colbert Report and Real Time and he seemed....oh what is the word I am looking for......sane.
If this guy becomes President I may have to go into hiding.
Obama seeks to elevate the level of discourse, Clinton acts conciliatory as well. It is no coincidence that MLK day is Monday.
"I've been a little concerned about the tenor of the campaign over the last few days," Obama told reporters in Reno, Nevada, after speaking to about 2,500 people at a rally. "We share the same goals, we are all Democrats, we all believe in civil rights, we all believe in equal rights."
"I think that (former President) Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues," he added. "I think they care about the African American community and they care about all Americans and they want to see equal rights and equal justice in this country."
Clinton also tried to make nice with an African American audience in New York.
"Each of us, no matter who we are or where we started from, is a beneficiary of Dr. King," she said. "Both Sen. Obama and I know that we are where we are today because of leaders like Dr. King and generations of men and women like all of you."
But did they buy it?
The audience in New York clapped but some were not convinced.
"I think she wants to get a vote," said Robin Gray, 49.
"I think it was totally hypocritical, her being here. I think it was a slap in the face to the African American community," said Jerry Mitchell, 42. "It's her trying to do cleanup work based on a statement that she made."
The Clinton's are trying to portray this as a tit for tat exchange between the two campaigns, but as Jack Cafferty pointed out on MSNBC yesterday, there was only one campaign throwing mud on the other's record. And that was the Clinton campaign.
And take my word for it, if the Clinton campaign starts to struggle again they will do ANYTHING to fight back. This is not the last of the dirty tricks we are going to see from that campaign.
"I think that (former President) Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues," he added. "I think they care about the African American community and they care about all Americans and they want to see equal rights and equal justice in this country."
Clinton also tried to make nice with an African American audience in New York.
"Each of us, no matter who we are or where we started from, is a beneficiary of Dr. King," she said. "Both Sen. Obama and I know that we are where we are today because of leaders like Dr. King and generations of men and women like all of you."
But did they buy it?
The audience in New York clapped but some were not convinced.
"I think she wants to get a vote," said Robin Gray, 49.
"I think it was totally hypocritical, her being here. I think it was a slap in the face to the African American community," said Jerry Mitchell, 42. "It's her trying to do cleanup work based on a statement that she made."
The Clinton's are trying to portray this as a tit for tat exchange between the two campaigns, but as Jack Cafferty pointed out on MSNBC yesterday, there was only one campaign throwing mud on the other's record. And that was the Clinton campaign.
And take my word for it, if the Clinton campaign starts to struggle again they will do ANYTHING to fight back. This is not the last of the dirty tricks we are going to see from that campaign.
Monday, January 14, 2008
How does the Bush family feel about the truth? Well let Jeb Bush sum it up for you.
The truth is useless. You have to understand this right now. You can't deposit the truth in a bank. You can't buy groceries with the truth. You can't pay rent with the truth. The truth is a useless commodity that will hang around your neck like an albatross all the way to the homeless shelter. And if you think that the million or so people in this country that are really interested in the truth about their government can support people who would tell them the truth, you got another thing coming. Because the million or so people in this country that are truly interested in the truth don't have any money.
Any questions?
Any questions?
Top 50 quotes on Atheism, because everybody needs a break from politics sometime.
My favorite:
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein
Crooks and Liars (a much more competent website then this one) also makes the Hillary/Karl Rove connection.
RUSSERT: Who had the better judgment at that time?
Senator Clinton briefly outlined why she voted as she did, that her vote was not one for preemptive war but for further UN weapons inspections, and that she had President Bush’s personal assurances that all avenues would be taken to prevent war, war as an option only of last resort.
Then a curious thing takes place. Rather than debate Senator Obama’s judgment with her own, there is a long, rather tortured argument over the consistency of Obama’s statements on the Iraq War, voting patterns over funding, and even questions about his political motivations. It was all rather perplexing to watch, seemingly taken from the Karl Rove playbook of attacking your opponent’s strength.
Sometimes it is a little isolating to have an epiphany that you are having all by yourself. When I started to notice that Hillary's campaign felt very much like something Karl Rove would do, and then started wondering out loud just where he was, I was the only one that I noticed doing so. Now I am not claiming that I was the first to make such a connection, I am simply saying that it is nice to see that I am not so far off of the beam.
I would love it if somebody would investigate whether or not Karl really is working for the Clinton camp. Especially since that would effectively sink her candidacy.
Senator Clinton briefly outlined why she voted as she did, that her vote was not one for preemptive war but for further UN weapons inspections, and that she had President Bush’s personal assurances that all avenues would be taken to prevent war, war as an option only of last resort.
Then a curious thing takes place. Rather than debate Senator Obama’s judgment with her own, there is a long, rather tortured argument over the consistency of Obama’s statements on the Iraq War, voting patterns over funding, and even questions about his political motivations. It was all rather perplexing to watch, seemingly taken from the Karl Rove playbook of attacking your opponent’s strength.
Sometimes it is a little isolating to have an epiphany that you are having all by yourself. When I started to notice that Hillary's campaign felt very much like something Karl Rove would do, and then started wondering out loud just where he was, I was the only one that I noticed doing so. Now I am not claiming that I was the first to make such a connection, I am simply saying that it is nice to see that I am not so far off of the beam.
I would love it if somebody would investigate whether or not Karl really is working for the Clinton camp. Especially since that would effectively sink her candidacy.
More evidence that the New Hampshire vote changed by Diebold machines.
Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%
Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%
The percentages appear to be swapped. This seems highly unusual.
There is much more data in the link above, the gist of which is that there is pretty good evidence that Diebold changed Obama votes to Hillary votes.
The website uses something called "math" to make his point. I have a long and adversarial relationship with "math" and therefore cannot account for the veracity of his claims.
However I am absolutely certain that the Republicans want Hillary in office, and will cheat to get her there. I also am convinced that these Diebold machines are fixed and have been since 2000.
But here is a rather disturbing thought. If the Clinton campaign made some deal to get help from Diebold, then that means they KNOW that they stole the election for George Bush. Or else how would they know that they can help them? And let's face it, they would HAVE to know that something was not right.
If the Clinton's knew, or suspected, that the last two Presidential elections were stolen, and do nothing to bring the people responsible to justice, they are truly screwed! Their reputation is virtually destroyed! That would place them in the same category as George W. Bush.
So much for the Clinton legacy.
Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%
The percentages appear to be swapped. This seems highly unusual.
There is much more data in the link above, the gist of which is that there is pretty good evidence that Diebold changed Obama votes to Hillary votes.
The website uses something called "math" to make his point. I have a long and adversarial relationship with "math" and therefore cannot account for the veracity of his claims.
However I am absolutely certain that the Republicans want Hillary in office, and will cheat to get her there. I also am convinced that these Diebold machines are fixed and have been since 2000.
But here is a rather disturbing thought. If the Clinton campaign made some deal to get help from Diebold, then that means they KNOW that they stole the election for George Bush. Or else how would they know that they can help them? And let's face it, they would HAVE to know that something was not right.
If the Clinton's knew, or suspected, that the last two Presidential elections were stolen, and do nothing to bring the people responsible to justice, they are truly screwed! Their reputation is virtually destroyed! That would place them in the same category as George W. Bush.
So much for the Clinton legacy.
Real Clear Politics has the 2008 Democratic nomination charts online.
South Carolina
Obama 44%
Clinton 31%
Edwards 15.3%
Florida
Obama 29%
Clinton 47.8%
Edwards 10.8%
Iowa
Obama 30.8%
Clinton 29.2%
Edwards 26%
But look at New Hampshire.
New Hampshire
Obama 38.3%
Clinton 30%
Edwards 18.3%
Interesting?
I think we all need to keep a careful eye on what happens in South Carolina. I don't think that Hillary's tears will work again, if they in fact worked the first time.
If the numbers are screwed up again we know that somebody is stealing yet another election.
Obama 44%
Clinton 31%
Edwards 15.3%
Florida
Obama 29%
Clinton 47.8%
Edwards 10.8%
Iowa
Obama 30.8%
Clinton 29.2%
Edwards 26%
But look at New Hampshire.
New Hampshire
Obama 38.3%
Clinton 30%
Edwards 18.3%
Interesting?
I think we all need to keep a careful eye on what happens in South Carolina. I don't think that Hillary's tears will work again, if they in fact worked the first time.
If the numbers are screwed up again we know that somebody is stealing yet another election.
John Edwards takes issue with Hillary's racist remarks.
Democrat John Edwards on Sunday waded into a dispute between his rivals, criticizing comments by Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband that some have considered disparaging to Barack Obama and black people generally.
"I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change that came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that," Edwards told more than 200 people gathered at a predominantly black Baptist church.
Sen. Hillary Clinton recently was quoted as saying King's dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while Bill Clinton said Obama was telling a "fairy tale" about his opposition to the Iraq war.
"Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living a fairy tale," he said.
"As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Senator Barack Obama is having in this campaign," said Edwards. He the added, with a laugh: "Some days I wish he was having a little less success."
Damn, he is going to make a great Vice President!
I don't know who is helping the Clinton's write their speeches and talking points (Rove?), but they just did the Obama campaign a huge favor.
"I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change that came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that," Edwards told more than 200 people gathered at a predominantly black Baptist church.
Sen. Hillary Clinton recently was quoted as saying King's dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while Bill Clinton said Obama was telling a "fairy tale" about his opposition to the Iraq war.
"Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living a fairy tale," he said.
"As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Senator Barack Obama is having in this campaign," said Edwards. He the added, with a laugh: "Some days I wish he was having a little less success."
Damn, he is going to make a great Vice President!
I don't know who is helping the Clinton's write their speeches and talking points (Rove?), but they just did the Obama campaign a huge favor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)