The Mad Rants of an Unconventional Soccer Mom

Through the primary season there have been local stories reported about robo-calls that were giving voters misinformation. This is unfortunately nothing new. We have seen it in past elections with the Swift-Boaters spreading lies about Kerry. What is absolutely disturbing to me is that this time the source has been identified as Women's Voices Women Vote, which is a non-profit group whose aim is supposed to be to boost voting among "unmarried women voters."

In North Carolina (May 6th primary), N.C. residents have reported receiving peculiar automated calls from someone claiming to be "Lamont Williams." The caller says that a "voter registration packet" is coming in the mail, and the recipient must sign it and mail it back in order to vote. The calls suggestion that they're not registered has caused widespread confusion and drawn hundreds of complaints, mostly from African-American voters who received the calls.

The calls have been denounced by the N.C. State Board of Elections which called them "another in a long line of deceptive practices used in North Carolina and elsewhere during this primary season that particularly target African-American voters."

Since the start of the primary season, in at least 11 other states, Women's Voices has developed a bad reputation. It has been drawing rebukes from leading election officials and complaints from thousands of voters as a result of their deceptive mailings and calls, and penchant for skirting or violating the law. Here are a few other examples of what this group has done to suppress voters:

In Arizona last November, election officials were "inundated with complaints" after women's Voices sent a mailing erroneously claiming that recipients were "required" to mail back an enclosed voter registration form. Many who received the mailing were already registered; the mailing also gave the wrong registration date. Secretary of State Jan Brewer denounced the group's tactics as "misleading and deceptive."

A similar mailing in Colorado that month "[drew] fire and caused confusion," according to a state press release.

A 1.5 million-piece Women's Voices mailing in Florida falsely stated: "To comply with state voting requirements, please return the enclosed application." Pasco County's elections supervisor called it disingenuous"; another said it created "a lot of unnecessary panic on behalf of the voters," reported local newspapers.

When I first heard that a progressive group was responsible for these tactics, I was floored. I had heard of the group before and they seemed to have done some good work in the past. So why did this group whose aim was to promote voting stoop to these Rovian tactics and break the laws of many states? What is their true agenda? Take a look at their Board of Directors. I personally think it says a lot:

- John Podesta -- Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton.
- Mimi Mager -- Member Clinton-Gore Transition team.
- Michael Lux -- Clinton Alumni Association
- Joe Goode -- Clinton President Campaign Manager, 1992.

This story is being picked up all over progressive blogs, but nothing in the traditional media yet. And I guess it could be just coincidence that most of WVWV's board either worked for the Clinton's and/or have currently maxed out contributions to Hillary's campaign. And it's just speculation on my part that they are putting out all this false information to help Hillary. What I do know is if this story was somehow be tied to Obama's campaign it would be splashed everywhere and Obama would be held responsible based on guilt by association.

I hope I'm wrong, but I have lost all faith that the media will do its job. It will either not get play or will be kept at arm's length from being associated directly with Clinton's campaign. I mean, there is a complete chain of events in at least 11 primary states connecting this sleazy outfit to voter suppression, with a tight connection between the group and Clinton. But it has nothing to do with flag pins, so I won't hold my breath waiting to hear hear about it on CNN.

What I do know first hand from working with the Obama campaign that one of his main goals is to build up the party by bringing in new voters. In fact, earlier this week he announced a massive 50 state voter registration drive (which sad, was largely ignored by the media):

"Vote for Change" will summon the volunteer army that Obama has amassed in the 47 states and territories that have already held primaries or caucuses this year, along with the nine yet to come. Deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand described the effort as a "sustained six-month campaign" aimed at driving up turnout for all Democratic candidates in November.

This is what it should all be about. It's about the grass roots effort, not high and mighty party big-wigs deciding that they know what is best and finding anyway to make it happen. It's about getting people interested and excited about being part of the political process. It's about building the party so that we can get majority in Congress so that legislation can passed that will truly benefit the working class.

You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Those words were spoken long ago during the McCarthy hearings by attorney Joseph Welsh to the Senator from Wisconsin who destructive politics had torn the country apart. Today I feel those same words could be applied to what Senator Clinton has done to the democratic party through the continuation of her campaign.

Knowing that she has no legitimate path left to the nomination, she should have bowed out gracefully. Right now she could be working to heal a very badly divided party, like Dr. Dean did in 2004. That's what one does when you care about the party and believe that it is in the best interest of the country to promote its ideals. Instead what she has chosen to do is continue on with her very divisive campaign. Even though she has already lost, even though her campaign is in debt and in shambles, she would rather be dragged out of the convention kicking and screaming then do the right thing.

For months I have theorized about what her intentions were for staying in when she had to have realize that she couldn't catch up to Obama. I'm sure when I vocalize my thoughts everyone thought it was just another one of my hair-brained-tin-foil-hat-wearing-paranoid ideas. But guess what? I'm not the only who is thinking it. Check this out:

House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, of South Carolina and the highest ranking black in Congress, also said he has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.

“I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win” in November, Clyburn told Reuters in an interview.

Clinton has lost the nomination. She is 61 years old. She knows that if she has to wait eight years to run again, she will be too old. She need McCain to get the nomination thinking that he is a one term president because of his age. The only way that is going to happen is if she kneecaps Obama so badly that he loses the general.

Take a minute & think about this. Hillary is knowingly trying to harm a fellow Democrat, to preserve her plan to take the presidency. It's sinister, frightening, and Machiavellian. I continue to be amazed at the lengths she will go to attain power, and how legions of voters continue to stand behind her. It boggles the mind.

In my next post I'll explain what exactly I mean by the lengths she has gone to and who she has partnered with to achieve her goal of destroying Obama.

Bayh must not feel very confident about Hillary's chances in the Hoosier state:

With his state's critical primary in two short weeks, Democratic Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh -- a strong supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- has been leaning on the Hoosier State's freshman House members to stay on the sidelines rather than endorse Sen. Barack Obama.

He's got some balls suggesting that nobody else should endorse before the May 6th primary is over. He didn't care about the voters will in his state when he endorsed her months ago.

So Evan, since it so important to hold of and not have any "marginal" influence on the vote by endorsing, are you going to un-endorse Hillary and get your head out of her ass?

There are essentially three “givens” in the General Election:

1. Democrats vote for Democrats
2. Republicans vote for Republicans
3. Independents decide the Election
   

Electability starts and ends with these often educated, often affluent voters who are allergic to Hillary's Brand. In states that Independents were allowed to vote in the democratic primaries Obama won them over by large margins. Here are some examples:

In Missouri Obama won Independents 67%-30%
In Wisconsin Obama won Independents 64%-33%
In Virginia Obama won Independents 69%-30%

Of the two remaining candidates, only Obama has a shot at besting McCain in the race to win over Independents, the holy grail of the voting demographic. Right now Obama is leading McCain:

McCain's shift to the right to all but lock up the nomination has had mixed success. Nearly half of conservative Republicans say his positions on the issues are not conservative enough. And his support with independent voters is slipping. Currently, Obama edges McCain by 49% to 43% among independents in a general election match up.

And let's face it, right now McCain is out there getting a free pass doing his "look at me" tour while Hillary is trying to kneecap Obama. He seems to be a somewhat likeable, principled war hero whom they trust on national security. Very few realize that he supports privatizing Social Security, that he opposes universal health insurance, that he supports free trade without qualification, and so on. Once the voters learn these things, many are likely to abandon him.

The pattern is clear... Independents + the core Democratic group + all of the new votes he has energized and brought into the party + the overwhelming support of the African American population creates the victory for Obama in November.

And that, my friends, is another reason why Obama is the better candidate to go up against McCain and how we will take back the Whitehouse.

The latest claim from Clinton, that she is winning the "popular vote" is a complete farce for many reasons.

First of all, Michigan and Florida DO NOT COUNT and the only way she can come close to him is to pretend that they do. They did not hold valid contest. The DNC and all the candidates signed an agreement that because these states had violated the by laws, any contest that they held would not be legitimate. Candidates were not allowed to campaign in these two states. Voters were told that their votes would not count and the state delegation would not be seated at the convention. Obama, in accordance to the rules, took his name off of the ballot (as was agreed to by all candidates) in Michigan. Clinton violated the rules by keeping her name on. Here is Clinton in her own words talking about the Michigan ballot:

Second, caucuses DO NOT REPORT numbers of voters, only primaries do.

And third, popular vote IS NOT a measure in which the democratic nomination is determined. It is determined solely by delegates. But you see that's the only argument left for the Clinton crowd as they seek to spark civil war by having the super delegates overturn the will of the primary voter.


And yes, in today's world, the ability to raise money is part of "electability". Obama has a ton of it. Tens of millions sitting in the bank and the ability to raise tens of millions more at will. The Clinton campaign, despite boasts of having raised a few million (btw, Obama raised over 5 million last night) since last night, is deeply in debt.

So which campaign looks more electable on this front? The campaign that is flush with cash and can easily raise more or the campaign that is scrambling to get out of debt?

So as far as I'm concerned, they can keep whining like they did today about how much money Obama spent and keep reminding the supers of that little relevant fact. Yes, Obama has more money. He's spent more money. And he has plenty more where that came from to take on John McCain and Republicans up and down the ballot across all 50 states. That's what makes him the much more desirable candidate. He not only has money to compete with McCain, he has money to help candidates at all levels. He has money to ensure that when he takes office he will have helped the Democratic Party gain a greater majority in both the House and the Senate to help pass the legislation need to reverse the damage of the Bush years.

Here is also a good read on how Clinton's latest claim is completely bogus.

Fence-sitter raised some question that I’m sure is on the minds of many undecided voters:

"Does it concern you that Barack can't put her away? How will he be able to put up a fight against McCain? Will the Clinton voters fall in line and vote the party or go to McCain?"

To be honest, my only concern is the media narrative. Listening to the pundits yesterday, before the PA votes even started to trickle in, was truly painful. Suddenly this one state was the only state that mattered. All those other states were merely a prelude: if Clinton could eke out a victory in this state, trailing in the delegate count would no longer be significant, and it would be a brand new race, and Obama would be the one on the ropes. To them it is not enough for Obama to simply be winning the nomination according to the rules laid out in advance: no, he must win the "right" way, according to the Clinton campaign narrative, or it doesn't count. He has to win the "right" states. And he has to win primaries, not caucuses. And he has to "close the deal", shutting Clinton out of remaining wins entirely, or it proves something ominous. And he not only has to win the "popular vote", but he has to win that, too, the right way, which is to say by counting only certain states and not counting others. And he has to win small towns, not just big population centers, because winning big population centers is elitist. Except that if he wins small towns in the West and Midwest, that doesn't count, because although those are white voters (like in Iowa and Wisconsin) they…I don’t know…eat too much dairy!?! It’s ridiculous! And they spin it that this somehow proves that Clinton is a better candidate against McCain than Obama is, even though the polls to date have consistently shown Obama is a better candidate against McCain than Clinton is.

The fact that Clinton has not been able to "close the deal" against him, and is instead trailing him badly and irreparably, barring a super delegate coupe, somehow does not count against her own merits. And do you know why that is? It’s because this primary race is a cash cow for the media. They want this horse race to drag on as long as it possibly can. They’re making big bucks off of it, so why would they want it to end. Do you really believe that any other candidate could be trailing so far behind in delegate count, states won, popular vote, and money raised and still be found relevant?

Remember, Clinton was the “inevitable” candidate that was so sure that this thing would be over by Super Tuesday. She was the one with the backing of the establishment, the machine. She was the one that started out this race with $171 million in the bank.

So while the media will keep up the narrative that Clinton is the “comeback kid”, for probably at least another day, once the confetti has been swept away the truth will break through. Clinton now needs 71% of all remaining delegates. That’s 5% more then she needed yesterday morning. She did not make up any ground. She needs 71% of the delegates in Guam. In Indiana. In North Carolina. In Kentucky. In Oregon. In Puerto Rico. In Montana. In South Dakota.

That’s the real story; not that Obama can’t “close the deal”. He was behind by 25% in PA just a couple of weeks ago. He made some real cuts into her base. And I have no doubt that Pennsylvania will go to whoever the nominee is, just like they rallied and went for Kerry in 2004. Rendell and his machine will vigorously back Obama when he is the nominee. I have no doubts about that.

Once the nomination is wrapped up and Clinton democrats start comparing Obama to McCain the majority will come back into the fold - McCain is very weak on the domestic policy fornt and has tied hisself to a failed adminstration and a failed war. I know from exit polling that there are some that will never vote for a black. Sadly, that’s the reality and there is nothing anyone can do about those voters. But the majority will base their decision on what is best for the party and the country.

The thing is Clinton, could have bowed out gracefully, knowing that she can’t win without overturning the will of the people, but she has decided to ratchet up the rhetoric and push on. And in doing so the only group that is benefiting from it is the media that will gladly push her narrative as long they are making money hand over fist on her.

Oh…and here is a perfect example of the media issue that I’m talking about. The only official numbers are those from the PA Secretary of State. Since very late last night when Chester County started rolling in the official site has show that the race was actually closer than being reported all over the news. Clinton won the State by only 8%, but you see 10% (DOUBLE DIGITS!) is a sexier win than the truth. He did better than I even thought he would.

I’ll be happy when tonight is over. These past six weeks since the last primary have been too long. Hillary will win Pennsylvania. My guess is by about 9 points. She may end up with 7 extra delegates out of the contest, but big deal; she was always going to win PA. Just two weeks ago she was up by over twenty points. Today the final polls shows her anywhere from 15 points ahead to 3 points behind. Even if she beats him by 20 points she will still need a complete blow-out in every single contest left to even catch up to him on the delegate count and that is not going to happen. On May 6th he'll have made up what he lost with his win in North Carolina.

So it's a lost cause for her. But if she wins by even one vote in PA, she will declare that Barack is unelectable and that will mean a continuation of the status quo -- Clinton hopelessly behind, and yet no particular reason (except the good of the party) for her not to stay in the race and hope Obama dies in a freak accident or something.

So all eyes will be on Indiana starting tomorrow until our primary on May 6th. But what kind of fight does she really have left in her? Her campaign is in the red. In March she reported raising $20 million. Only $9 million was eligible for primary use and she had $10.5 million in debt going into April. Barack raised $41 million in March and had $42 million available to spend in April, having paid all of his bills.

The bottom line is that Hillary will not be the nominee for these reasons:

1. She is out of money and her funding has dried up.
2. She can't catch up in the delegate race.
3. Supers know that there will be a civil war should they hand the nomination to her.
4. She has very high negatives. Latest polling show that 60% of America find her untrust-worthy.

So barring any disaster, Barack will be the nominee. And while we benefit from her helping Barack organize all 50 states, her political tactics leaves me aching for her to leave. The “kitchen sink strategy” has really hurt Barack. Her negative campaigning is helping McCain and tearing apart the Democratic Party. I really dread what would happen if Hillary were to somehow get the nomination, especially because Barack has not done the job of vetting her that she has done of vetting him. The Republicans would have a field day!

But I also understand why he hasn't. It's because he's going to be coming back to states like Pennsylvania and ask those Hillary supports for their vote in November. Hillary isn't going to get that chance. So he is being the bigger person. He has chosen to take the high road even with legitimate issues like “sniper fire”, Mark Penn and Columbia Free Trade and NAFTA. The reason is not only because he believes in a new kind of politics but because he's the one who will need party unity this fall.

During the debate last week, Clinton said something that was very out there with regards to middle-east policy and I was disappoint that the press didn't pick up on it. She said we

"should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region."

To me this is dangerous and wrong on so many different levels that my head is spinning. First - our army is so weak that this will not be a deterrent. Second - if war erupts almost anywhere in the middle-east US involvement would become automatic. Third - offering to lend America’s military to a friendly nation reduces the latter’s need to develop its own defense and we get stuck footing the bill to protect that country. This is certainly not the ideology of a progressive candidate.

At first I though maybe she misspoke, but she when was on with Keith Olbermann last night she reiterated what she said and took an even stronger stand:

Then today she repeated it and went even further and stated that we would obliterate Iran:

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on Good Morning America Tuesday, ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

To me this is absolutely astonishing that a DEMOCRAT would say this. She is suggesting that we would sign treaties that would bind us to the use of our nuclear arsenal for just about any skirmish in an already volatile region(isn't that how WWI started!!). Our nukes are, in my view, a shield. I know that complete disarmament at this point is not unfeasible. The deterrence that it does provide is the only reason we should keep them around. But I cannot fathom a situation where the use of nuclear arms, which would take out entire cities when they detonate, would be useful. I see no purpose in the murder of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocent civilians to retaliate against a military. We have several more effective, small scale weapons that can destroy military installations without batting an eye.

I am just horrified that she is actually proposing using nuclear weapons to "obliterate" a country of 70 million people! This is why she had no problem voting for the dangerous Kyl/Lieberman bill calling Iran's National Guard "terrorists" - it's the next country to attack on the Neo-Con's list.

After all of the losses caused by the war in Iraq do we really want another president that would pick war over diplomacy again?

I was supposed to have some minor surgery earlier this week. It was something that I had put off for a while, but had finally decided that it was best to get it over with. So I scheduled the surgery, did my pre-op interview, and waited for the day to come. A couple of weeks went past and it was getting closer to the day. I went in to complete my final lab work and was informed by the hospital that my insurance company had decided to reject the surgery pre-certification based on location.

That sucked. I had finally mentally prepared myself and resolved to get this over with and the insurance company smacked me down. I have since rescheduled the procedure and now get to play the waiting game for another two weeks.

I guess I shouldn’t complain too much. Over 47 million Americans right now don’t have any insurance; over nine million of them are children. That’s a staggering number. And even many of us that do have insurance are underinsurance. Most families that are insured have employer-sponsored coverage. Unfortunately, due to raising healthcare cost employers are now passing more of the burden on to families who are experiencing increases in the costs of health insurance, more out-of-pocket costs for doctor visits and skyrocketing prices for prescriptions.

I read these stories in the news how senior citizens in this country, who could once rely on coverage through Medicare, are now faced with paying for their prescriptions or paying their rent thanks to the Bush Administration. In 2003 they began an effort to push Medicare towards privatization and a bill was passed in the Republican controlled Congress that:

• Forced 32.5 million seniors and people with disabilities to pay higher
  premiums and other Medicare costs.
• Dropped coverage for out-of-pocket expenses between $2,250 and $5,100.
• Prevented the federal government from negotiating lower drug costs and does
  nothing to rein in soaring prescription drug prices.
• Threatened the employer-provided drug benefits of millions of
  retirees.

With the presidential elections coming up, I decided to take a look at the “universal” health care plans that Clinton and Obama are proposing…

The Clinton plan would give Americans several options for health insurance. They could keep their current coverage or purchase other coverage through a new Health Choices Menu within the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. The uninsured, other individuals and businesses could buy coverage through the menu, which also would offer a public plan option. The Obama plan would create a National Health Insurance Exchange for individuals and businesses that want to purchase a private insurance plan or enroll in a new public plan that would be similar to the plan that members of Congress receive.

Both plans would require businesses to provide health insurance to their workers or contribute to the cost of coverage. The Clinton plan would offer tax incentives to small businesses to begin or to continue to offer health insurance. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of their catastrophic costs if they guarantee the savings are used to reduce the costs of workers' premiums.

Both plans would also prohibit insurers from denying coverage based on applicants' pre-existing health problems; expand the Medicaid program and the children's health insurance program known as SCHIP; give flexibility to states or regions in offering coverage; allow the Medicare program to negotiate on prescription drug prices; and reduce payments to Medicare health maintenance organizations, which some have criticized as excessive.

To improve quality and cut costs, both plans also call for investment in electronic health records, disease prevention strategies, improved management of chronic health problems and independent efforts to guide health care decision-making.

So yes, both plans contain a long list of measures aimed at reducing the cost of health care, improving quality and expanding the availability of affordable coverage. What sets the plans apart is that Clinton would require that everyone obtain coverage through forced “mandates” that they would have pay or be penalized. Obama’s plan would require mandates on the coverage of children and would provide subsidies to those who don’t receive insurance through work and can’t afford it. In other words, even though both plans are very similar and would be a welcome and vast improvement to the current healthcare structure in place in this country now neither is truly “universal”.

I would have liked to see something much more progressive: A single payer healthcare system. Every citizen would be automatically covered, you could seek care from any doctor you prefer, and there would be no fighting with insurance companies. People would be freer to change jobs, and we wouldn’t have so many hard working people bankrupt because of medical bills. Payment for doctors, hospitals and other providers of health care would come from a single fund that would be administered by the government. My choice would be that each state would play a role in overseeing it.

And by the way, McCain does also have a healthcare proposal. In it he proposes eliminating the tax preference employees receive for employer-sponsored coverage, replacing it with a tax credit for health insurance of $2,500 per individual or $5,000 per family. Oh, and his plan will not guarantee coverage. Cancer survivors (like McCain) could not be sure of getting coverage.

To read more on each healthcare proposal you can go to their campaign site:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/

“Screw who?” you might ask. White. Working. Middle class people. You know, like you and me. And who is it that dared to utter such a disparaging statement? Hillary. Yes, that same person who has for the last week cried about how elitist and indignant Senator Obama is for daring to speak the truth about how many people in this country are bitter that their jobs have been shipped overseas and that the government has turned it's back on them. Hillary. The same person that has presented herself as a working class populist, the politician in touch with small town sentiments. Bullshit!

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the
administration make overtures to working class whites who had all but forsaken
the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.
"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're
doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

Hillary Clinton was among the most cold-blooded analysts in attendance. She spoke of ordinary voters as if they were a species apart, and showed interest only in the political usefulness of their choices -- usefulness to the Clinton administration, that is.

Screw ‘Em”. That’s how she really feels about anyone that is not fawning over her and her campaign. In fact, I'm really on her shit list. An audio of Hillary at a recent fundraiser has turned up. On it she trashes the grassroots voter groups and netroot groups that have energized the Democratic Party:

At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.

"Moveon.org endorsed Senator Obama -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

How dare we come out and support our candidate. Who do we think we are! Don't we realize she is entitled to the presidency? What the hell are we thinking by actively participating in the democratic process? Poor Hillary.

By the way, if you are not familiar with MoveON.org, it is a netroots organization (which I am part of) that was formed in 1998 out of "deep frustration with the partisan warfare in Washington D.C. and the ridiculous waste of our nation's focus at the time of the impeachment mess." They launched an online petition to "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Today the organization has over 3 million members. It's the largest Democratic PAC.

Oh...and another thing. Hillary lied about MoveOn being against action in Afghanistan.

In a statement to The Huffington Post, MoveOn's Executive Director Eli Pariser
reacted strongly to Clinton's remarks: "Senator Clinton has her facts wrong
again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record
straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack
on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to
beat Senator McCain.

So here she is trying to win the nomination of the Democratic party and she is doing it by bitching about citizens getting involved in the democratic process and by using Rovian / Republican talking points to not only destroy the other candidate of her own party, but also the organization that was formed to defend her husband against such attacks. Boy she is classy, isn't she?

I honestly don't even consider her a Democrat anymore. She needs to be thrown out of the party.

One of the most ludicrous questions asked of Senator Obama was about his former Pastor, Reverend Wright and whether he loved this country. In fact, it was an issue that was brought up during the "debate" on more than one occasion. I thought that this would be a good time to address some of the talking points that are out there about Reverend Wright.

I guess I can understand someone questioning Dr. Wright’s patriotism if all that is known of the man is the thirty-second loop that has been saturated in the news for the past several weeks. But don’t you find it a little suspicious that over the span of his 36 years as a preacher only thirty seconds of his career have been found to be that objectionable?

So let’s take a closer look at the man and what he has done in his life to show his patriotism to his country. In 1961 during the Vietnam War Jeremiah Wright, inspired by President Kennedy’s challenge to "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," left college to become part of 2nd Marine Division with the rank of private first class. He could have taken the easy road and use his student deferment like Dick Cheney did FIVE times, but instead he decided to serve his country.

After he served a couple of year in the Marines he transferred to the Navy where he graduated as valedictorian of his class at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. Having excelled and been such an exemplary corpsman, Jeremiah Wright was then accepted into the National Naval Medical Center where he graduated as salutatorian. After graduation Jeremiah was assigned to the medical team in charge of treating President Johnson. He was the cardiopulmonary technician that tended to him. During his time of service he awarded three letters of commendations from the White House.

So is this a man that hates America? A man who served his country proudly for six years while Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton, and George Bush used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968 and then avoided going on active duty through family connections. What makes them more “patriotic”? Their lapel pins?

And the statement "God bless America... No!... God Damn America," that was said after 9/11. Is it possible that the 5 seconds of the hour long sermon were taken out of context? Do yourself a favor and watch what he really said:

Is he over-the-top from what we see in most white churches? Yes. But is he factually wrong in what he actually says? NO.

A true patriot, like I believe Reverend Wright is, should speak harsh words of a government whoo abuses power, not out of a place of hatred, but from an impassioned place of profound love and the highest of expectations. There are deep echo of my own feelings about this country in Reverend Wrights words. I love America, but I vehemently oppose what we pass off for some of our policies.

Remember, the genocide of Native Americans was committed by our government. A whole race of people were legally enslaved by the this nation and sold as property. And for no other reason then being Japanese, our government put our own citizens in concentration camps. Do you really think that God would look favorably upon these acts or would he see them for what they are - sins against humanity. So, yes: God Damn America.

The Tribune also has an enlightening article here about his military service if you would like to read more about it.

That's the only way I can describe what I just witnessed on ABC. It was the most abysmal "debate" I have ever seen. They have insulted my intelligence and that of the American people.

For those of you who did not watch the "debate", the first 53 minutes of the 90 minute "debate" was focused trying to trip Obama up with Republican (aka, Clinton) talking point: Bittergate. Reverend Wright; is he as patriotic as you? and Why don't you love the flag? Not a single question on things like Iraq, torture, FISA, health care, the mortgage crisis, gasoline prices, the environment.

No. It was all about proving that Senator Obama is not electable.

I've just sent a quick complaint off to the ABC sounding board:

I am absolutely appalled at the so called "debate" that a just watched. You have done a great disservice to the people of this country that are suffering through hard times. The questions asked were asinine. Do you really believe that the American people care more about if Barack Obama wears a flag pin than they do the price of gas or the environment or healthcare or education? What kind of fools do you take the American public to be? Those fifty freaking minutes your moderators spent trying to play “gotcha” instead of addressing the serious issues that face our country have proved in my mind that it is ABC’s patriotism that should be questioned and not Sentor Obama’s. SHAME YOU YOU!

My dear friend Lynda teaches Pre-K At-Risk at a school in Lansing,IL. We talked on the phone last night and she was having trouble shopping for things for her class. You see, Lynda is a very conscientious person and was worried about how to spend the money the best way to get the most for her class. Don't you wish our government thought the same way?

Here's a fun little activity: How about going on a $3 Trillion dollar shopping spree! It's lots of fun and a great way to relax on tax day!



I think I am going to buy a pony and pay for all of the court cost to impeach Bush!

When I woke up yesterday morning it felt like any other day. The alarm clock went off and I hit the snooze button. I laid there dreading the thought of getting up and walking across the cold tile floor. I forced myself out of bed, got ready for work and started off on my long commute to work. I worked my eight hours. Then I started the long commute back home. It was just a typical day, nothing out of the ordinary. And then at 7:00 last night everything changed. I became part of something big; something history making. I became part of the Obama campaign.

Sunday morning I had gotten a call from the local campaign office inviting me to a campaign organization meeting. I thought it would be interesting to attend, but didn’t really think that I would have much that I could lend. So I went with very little expectations. I was more interested in seeing who and how many would actually bother to attend. When I walked into the conference room I was shocked. It was not what I expected. I figured there would be a few college students sitting around. I thought I would be the oldest person there. But the people who were actually sitting in that packed conference room were as diverse as America. There were Caucasian, African Americans, Hispanics, and Indians. There were senior citizens, middle aged people, and people in their early twenties. In fact, to my surprise, there were probably more seniors present than any other demographic.

The energy in the room was palpable. You could feel to excitement. More importantly, I felt like this is where I belonged. I was surrounded by these wonderful people that shared my beliefs and my hopes for a better America. The meeting lasted for close to two hours. There were lots of questions asked and answered. It was very positive and inspirational. Some of the people in the room had participated in previous campaigns; some had been very active getting people registered to vote in the primaries; all were interested in helping Senator Obama become the next president.

Towards the end of the meeting, volunteer sign-up sheets were hung on the walls. EVERYBODY in the room got up and stood in lines to put their name on the sheets. In fact, I waited over ten minutes to get a pen to volunteer. At first I placed my name on the sheets for the “Comfort Corps” – the group of volunteers that would help to make sure the campaign office had pens, drinking water, toilet paper…basics so that the staff could have a good working environment. Then I signed up for the “Administrative Corp” – the group that would help organize the office and keep it running smoothly so the field people could be out working. And then I stood next to the “Precinct Caption” sheet.

I admired the people on that sheet. It was something that I felt I couldn’t do. I’m not a “people person” I told myself. I've always had a problem with being shy and introverted. But as I stood there I thought about my kids. I want a better life for them. I want them to know that you can make a difference. I want them to realize that you have to step out of your comfort zone sometimes in order to fight for what you believe in. So as I was standing there trying to convince myself that I could do this, a man from the campaign came and stood next to me. He must have been reading my mind. He said “You can do this”. I said “I’m not sure I can”. And then he said “It’s easy, you just have to believe in the message.” So I did it becasue I do believe in the message and the messenger. I became an Obama Campaign Precinct Caption in my town of Dyer, Indiana. I will show my kids that you can make a difference.

ABC is reporting what I have been saying was really happening inside the white house for years:

I’m listening to C-Span right now. They are showing the Senate hearing on Iraq. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crooker are addressing the senate right now and guess what? The surge is working!!! Oh and of course: “al Qaeda, al Qaeda, al Qaeda, al Qaeda.”

Are the American people still buying this crap?

First of all: AL QAEDA IS NOT IN IRAQ!!!! And the only reason that there has been any abatement in violence is because of Al-Sadr’s cease-fire. Oh and the fact that the ethnic cleansing that has taken place over the last four years is almost complete.

So the real facts on the ground are:

• US spending an estimated $3.5 billion a week ... and counting or a total of $4 trillion thus far
  
• 4,023 US troops have been killed
  
• 29,628 US troops have been wounded
  
• Over 1,000,000 Iraqis have been killed
  
• Over 4,000,000 Iraqis are refugees
  

If this is success, what would failure look like? And what does McBush have to say about all of this?

“We’re paying a huge penalty for four years of a failed strategy that I fought hard against, and I believe this [new] strategy has succeeded and will succeed and can succeed,” McCain said. “But it’s long and hard and tough.”

WTF? If “this strategy has succeeded,” what does it mean to say that it “will succeed and can succeed”? Either it has succeeded or it hasn’t. And in what way did he fight against it?

This man visibly has no idea what he is talking about. He should shut the #%!@ up.

Ok…I need a break from listening to this. I’m getting heart burn.

Update: corrected the number of Iraqis that have been killed and displaced - got a little carried away hitting the zero key. Thanks Jelly!

History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure".

“Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

So I have decided to revive my blog. I'm hoping to reconnect & re-engage with some long, lost friends and also meet some new ones.

I do realize it will be a small miracle if anyone actually reads this, but just maybe I can come up with something witty & interesting that will suck someone in. Then again, maybe not. I'm not known for my sense of humor. Another thing you will quickly notice about me is that I have the same affliction that plagues most Liberals: I don’t do sound bites. I’m maybe too “wordy”. It’s a problem, I know. I’ll never be able to get elected and no one will ever want to “have a beer” with me at a barbeque.

I will of course be blogging mostly about current events and politics (shocking, I know); and more than likely my posts will annoy and offend you. That's ok. If you don't agree with what I write argue your position. I really want to be able to engage my peers in thoughtful, intelligent conversations.

So anyway - I don't really have any rules other then I really don't want to see any "you suck" post. You can certainly think that, but if that's how you really feel then back it up. Let me know your position and give me something of substance to debate.

Cheers!