Disqus - Latest Comments for djchefron

Re: Obama’s backers see ‘dream ticket’ as nightmare

djchefron — Tue, 20 May 2008 12:36:00 -0000

It is time to purge the Clinton influence out of the Democratic Party.She will bring out the crazies remember 47% of the voters will not vote for her under any circumstances.The best V.P in my opinion is Sen Jim Webb of Virginia

Re: The Onion Foresaw All This Years Ago

djchefron — Wed, 21 May 2008 20:14:00 -0000

It is time to let the black superdelegates know of our displeasure.If they want to continue on supporting this women then its time we let them know they might want to find out where the unemployment office is at

Re: NY Governor Paterson Says Hillary "Tonya Harding" Clinton’s Showing ‘Desperation’

djchefron — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:59:00 -0000

Find out who her African American super delegates are.I know a few so lets organize let them know we vote them in and we will vote you out.

Re: HILLARY’S DIGGING UP GHOSTS

djchefron — Thu, 22 May 2008 21:12:00 -0000

Here are some the African American superdelegates who is supporting Hillary Clinton.Call their office organize a web roots asking do they support Clintons race tactics
Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida; Rep. Corrine Brown of Florida; Del. Donna Christensen of the Virgin Islands; Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri; Rep. Kendrick Meek of Florida; Rep. Maxine Waters of California; Rep. Diane Watson of California; Rep. Edolphus Towns of New York; Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York; Rep. Laura Richardson of California; Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York.

Re: WHERE ALL THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

djchefron — Thu, 22 May 2008 23:14:00 -0000

This was good
Hillary Clinton Stole My Bike, Insulted My Mom, and Kicked My Dog

By: John Cole May 22, 2008 at 11:55 am

No one can drive me to the brink of madness like the Clinton family. No one.

I just looked through all my posts from yesterday, and it really is funny. I woke up early, had my coffee (gourmet with cinnamon, because I am an elitist), got in a good work-out, read the morning papers and websites, made two posts unrelated to Clinton, and started to examine some new software I want to use, and then I made my mistake.

I turned on CNN. Within a few hours, I heard numerous Clinton surrogates babbling about who had worked harder most recently and the unfairness of not seating MI/FL, and on and on and on. I saw an interview of Geraldine Ferraro in full outrage mode because Obama appears to look at Clinton funny in a photograph and because he brushed dirt off his shoulders at a campaign event. And then we learned that Hillary plans to take this fight to the convention.

And then, once again, the only family who can do this to me, had managed to push me yet again into unholy madness. It is mind-numbing. This isn’t an election anymore. This is a secret bet between Bill and Hillary ala Trading Places in which they bet how much bullshit they can make the electorate swallow.

Then the Florida 2000 poison- another bucket.

And then the suffrage nonsense- yet another bucket.

And the co-option of the Civil Rights era after weeks of transparent appeals that whites won’t vote for the black guy which JUST SO COINCIDENTALLY took form during the Appalachian primaries (which conveniently occurred after North Carolina, the last state with a large black population)- buckets of bullshit over your head, in your face.

And then Zimbabwe remarks, a bucket of bullshit so stupid that her audience probably didn’t even understand it (I would kill to see video of the people in the audience during that).

It just never stops.

I know I am not a perfect person, but I like to think of myself as a good person. I am profane, I over-react, I say stupid things and sometimes mean things and then calm down and apologize, but I always try to be fair and try to do the right thing and try to give people the benefit of the doubt and I believe in forgiving people for their mistakes. I will always listen to people, even when I disagree with them.

But no one, and I mean no one, has the ability to drive me so completely into madness like Team Clinton the past few months. Their non-stop nonsense just drives me insane as it dumbs down the rest of the electorate. Listening to Clinton the past few months is for me what listening to right-wingers claim that Iraq was going to use remote-controlled flying vehicles to bomb us with chemical weapons and all the rest of the bullshit in the run up to the war was for the DFHer’s.

We are told we must count all the votes, over and over and over again, when it was the Clinton campaign who intended to lock this all up by February and didn’t care about the rest the states enough to organize there and whose campaign told us for months that certain states don’t count and whose ONLY path to victory is to pretend they have the popular vote by NOT counting the caucus state votes and not counting all the people who voted uncommitted in the unsanctioned Michigan election and by seating the Florida delegation that HER people at the DNC chose to sanction and on and on and on and the bullshit just keeps coming so thick and so fast and without pause that she has well and truly driven me to utter unholy madness.

The only consolation is that I am not alone. Steve Benen, the Carpetbagger, is done. Atrios is disgusted. Tbogg is states he has never seen such a level of “intellectual dishonesty, disregard for reality on the ground, and shamelessnes” and is comparing her to Lieberman. Even Hilzoy, one of the most decent people to ever pen a blog post, is in full-on ridicule mode. Most people are looking at this train wreck, and the collective response is “WTF?” The talking heads on all of the channels are now verging on open mockery.

Just make it stop, please.

via Salon

I am begging you. Make it stop.

I am going to do everything in my power to ignore the Clinton campaign today, for mental health reasons. Dear God, please don’t let her compare herself to Ghandi today. I need a break.

Re: Clinton Staying in Race In Case Obama is Assassinated

djchefron — Fri, 23 May 2008 17:36:00 -0000

There are some African Americans who still support her.She can play racial politics.she can hope for an assination and they still support her.

Re: Tuesday Open Thread: Hi Everybody

djchefron — Tue, 27 May 2008 18:16:00 -0000

Next time the Clintons whine about how we need to end this primary here are some quotes courtesy of The Jed Report
In April '92, Clinton camp called Brown victory "impossible"

I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running. ... I can't believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out. -- Bill Clinton, on Sunday

:: ::

Without editorial comment, here's a list of quotes and statements about the 1992 Democratic nomination battle from March and April of that year. (Links after the jump.)

"Things I see happening in the Brown campaign lead me to believe something destructive is happening. I'd say it's time for Democrats to link arms, dig in our heels, set our sights and work together to put Bill Clinton in the White House in 1992."

-- Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin (NYT, 3/27/92)

"In an interview, Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, said he wanted to maintain his neutrality but was compelled to speak out against what he described as the former California Governor's 'scorched-earth policy' of verbal assault on Mr. Clinton's record and character. "

-- NYT, 3/27/92

"It's mathematically impossible for Brown to get the nomination."

-- Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos on Clinton's last foe (NYT, 4/8/92)

"In the future, people will look back upon this week and this campaign as a turning point, not for Bill Clinton, but for the Democratic Party and for America."

-- Bill Clinton, after winning New York's primary (NYT, 4/8/92)

"People are starting to rally around the flag."

-- Dee Dee Myers, Clinton Press Sec'y (NYT, 4/10/92)

"It's time to close ranks. We cannot wait until July when we already know who has earned the right to be our nominee and who will be our nominee."

-- West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller (NYT, 4/11/92)

"Indeed, reports circulating on Capitol Hill said the Clinton campaign was mounting a strong campaign to swing uncommitted senators behind the Arkansas Governor, and that Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, was taking part in them."

-- NYT, 4/29/92

"I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that would keep Bill Clinton from having a majority of the delegates by the end of the primary season."

-- Democratic Party Chairman Ronald H. Brown (NYT, 4/29/92)

"Mr. Brown added that he had long hoped for an early nominee 'so we can focus our time and attention on George Bush.'"

-- NYT, 4/29/92

:: ::

March 20, 1992:

Mr. Clinton is already close to the halfway mark in the number of delegates needed to win the nomination and has a 7-to-1 edge over Mr. Brown, who is running a maverick, anti-establishment campaign. Many Democrats said that barring an unexpected collapse by Mr. Clinton's campaign, it is difficult to see how Mr. Brown can overtake the Governor.

"It certainly brings it much closer to a conclusion," said Ronald H. Brown, the Democratic national chairman. "You could argue that it's theoretically possible for Jerry Brown to mount a come-from-behind challenge, but the math and the reality of Bill Clinton's momentum certainly work against him."

March 27, 1992:

The chairman of the Democratic Party issued an unusual rebuke yesterday to one of his party's two remaining candidates for President, saying Edmund G. Brown Jr. has "crossed the line in terms of inappropriate attacks" against Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas.

In an interview, Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, said he wanted to maintain his neutrality but was compelled to speak out against what he described as the former California Governor's "scorched-earth policy" of verbal assault on Mr. Clinton's record and character.

The party chairman's remarks came on a day when other leading Democrats appeared to be closing ranks behind Mr. Clinton, who holds a substantial lead in the number of delegates accumulated but has encountered persistent unease over his candidacy among party regulars.

...Mr. Harkin said one reason he had decided to endorse Mr. Clinton was to try to put an end to some of the acrimony that has developed between the two remaining major Democratic candidates. He also said that Mr. Brown had not sought union support until after Mr. Harkin dropped out of the race.

"What I'm afraid now is that we may be entering a destructive phase," Mr. Harkin said in a television appearance with Mr. Clinton that was sent by satellite to a Washington meeting of Democratic fund raisers. "Things I see happening in the Brown campaign lead me to believe something destructive is happening."

Mr. Harkin said he had put aside the political differences he had with Mr. Clinton during the primary campaign and he appealed for party unity. "The differences between me and Bill are minuscule compared to our differences with George Bush," Mr. Harkin said at a news conference here.

"I'd say it's time for Democrats to link arms, dig in our heels, set our sights and work together to put Bill Clinton in the White House in 1992."

April 8, 1992:

Clinton aides breathed their first sighs of relief late last week after their own surveys of New York voters began to show that their support had solidified while Mr. Brown's had begun to soften.

"In the future, people will look back upon this week and this campaign as a turning point, not for Bill Clinton, but for the Democratic Party and for America," he told his cheering supporters.

..."It's mathematically impossible for Brown to get the nomination, and it would take Tsongas about 90 percent of the remaining delegates to win," said George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Clinton's deputy campaign manager. "So lightning would have to strike. But we're going to keep our sneakers on, just in case."

April 9, 1992:

A tally by The New York Times showed that Mr. Clinton had gained 162 delegates on Tuesday, putting his total at 1,279 of the 2,145 needed for nomination.

...Indeed, reports circulating on Capitol Hill said the Clinton campaign was mounting a strong campaign to swing uncommitted senators behind the Arkansas Governor, and that Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, was taking part in them. Mr. Brown said he had made no request of any superdelegate, although he conceded that he had talked to many "who were reassessing their positions on the day after Bill Clinton took an extraordinary leap forward."

April 10, 1992:

Dee Dee Myers, Mr. Clinton's press secretary, insisted that "people are starting to rally around the flag," and she mentioned Mr. Rockefeller [who was scheduled to endorse later in the week] as an example. She also said the Arkansas Governor plans to meet with uncommitted superdelegates on Capitol Hill on April 29, the day after the Pennsylvania primary, when Congress will return from the Easter recess.

Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, has been phoning uncommitted delegates and others, "discussing the lay of the political territory," as he described it. He denied putting pressure on anybody, but others in the party said he was sending a subtle but clear message that it was time to halt the squabbling.

April 11, 1992:

The executive board of the Service Employees International Union, which claims one million members, and Senator John D. Rockefeller 4th, Democrat of West Virginia, endorsed Mr. Clinton in separate announcements.

"It's time to close ranks," he said. "We cannot wait until July when we already know who has earned the right to be our nominee and who will be our nominee," he said.

Mr. Rockefeller, who is the party's finance chairman, considered running for President this year and has moderated three forums on health care with the Democratic candidates. His endorsement was timed in part to offset the notion that Democrats in Congress and other elected officials who will be superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention in July are reluctant to climb aboard Mr. Clinton's bandwagon.

"Our fight now is with a man named George Bush, not with other Democrats," Mr. Rockefeller said. "Our weapons are ideas. Our leader is Bill Clinton."

April 12, 1992:

In a signal that he was prepared to temper the divisive tone of his campaign for President, Edmund G. Brown Jr. said today that he would back the Democratic Party's Presidential nominee.

...Ronald H. Brown, the Democratic national chairman, paying heed to the scores of placards waving in the audience for Gov. Bill Clinton, Governor Brown or former Senator Paul E. Tsongas, acknowledged that many Democrats think the primary campaign for President is still unsettled, despite Mr. Clinton's overwhelming lead in delegates.

"I know there are some out there who are saying, 'My God, We need another candidate,' " Ronald Brown said. But he implored delegates to follow the lead of voters in the primaries so far and "keep our eye on the prize."

In a call for unity, Mr. Brown declared: "We can and we must win, but it's going to require the absolute solidarity of our party. We are a very peculiar institution -- the only institution in the world I know where we are harder on each other than on our own adversaries."

...It was clear today that former Governor Brown was intent on shedding his role as an angry critic of the Democratic Party and its leaders. Only two days ago, he wondered aloud whether Ronald Brown was "man enough" to cancel the rest of the primaries and anoint Mr. Clinton the party's Presidential nominee. But today Governor Brown passed up opportunities to criticize of the party chairman and Mr. Clinton. He saved his fire for "the citadel of governance that has failed the principles of this nation."

April 29, 1992:

Ronald H. Brown, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said tonight, "I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that would keep Bill Clinton from having a majority of the delegates by the end of the primary season, based on his performance today." Mr. Brown added that he had long hoped for an early nominee "so we can focus our time and attention on George Bush."

... The polls Tuesday showed Mr. Clinton running well across the board, even with some voting groups that had proven less supportive of him in the past, including Roman Catholics. He carried more than half of the white vote over all, 7 in 10 of the black voters and 6 in 10 of the union households.

Some analysts said his strength reflected a simple fact of life: For the first time in a very long time, Mr. Clinton was not facing a barrage of character questions. "He still has a long way to go," said Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic poll taker, "but he's got the chance to run the kind of campaign he needs to run. He got that chance in Pennsylvania; he wasn't fending off a new charge every day."

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

djchefron — Wed, 28 May 2008 09:46:00 -0000

Here is an article written for The Root
Here Comes the Hook, Hillary

By Lawrence Bobo | TheRoot.com

What the senator from New York could learn from amateur night at the Apollo.

May 27, 2008--Politics should be more like an amateur show at the Apollo Theatre in Harlem. Sometimes you need the hook to get a bad act off the stage! The Hillary Clinton campaign for the Democratic presidential campaign has clearly reached that point.

A few years ago I attended a "Top Dog" show at the Apollo, which features contestants who have won rounds of competition on two previous occasions. The opening performance involved a dance troupe of African-American girls, ages 7 to 10 or thereabouts. They were very, very good and brought all the enthusiasm and discipline in the world to their performance. They were pitted against a 14-year-old young lady who sang her heart out with a mind-blowing rendition of an Anita Baker tune.

Like most in the audience I felt awkward about having to choose between these two acts. On the one hand, there was the unbridled energy, confidence, innocence and triumphant expectations of a group of very young girls, children really. On the other hand, you had a young lady who looked like a genuine star in the making. When the cheering was done and the MC reported the results, the young star had won. (And rightfully so, I say.)

But the youngest member of the dance troupe was stunned and almost stomped off the stage in disgust, anger and tears. Her fellow troupe members stopped her. The audience started to boo—mostly because we had to crush the hopes of some very talented kids in the zero-sum, forced-choice format of the Apollo talent show, not because of anything the dancers had done.

The MC immediately began castigating the audience. "Don't you dare! Don't you dare!" he shouted. "She has to learn, they have to learn, you don't always win. The show goes on and you remain professional. Don't disrespect them or this stage by booing in disappointment. They will have other days. This was not their day." Or, words to that effect—as I remember them now. He was right.

If only Hillary Clinton had been there that night. Perhaps she would understand that sometimes the others win, even if you are talented, even if you've fought well, and even if you've won some of the rounds. The decision can still go, clearly and decisively, to your opponent. And in those times, clinging to the stage when your show is over only increases the chances that you will look bad. Last week, in Brandon, South Dakota, Hillary Clinton reached that point.

When I saw the video clip of the interview and heard her say one disingenuous thing followed by a stunningly awful thing, I thought of that Top Dog night at the Apollo. I thought of that little girl who almost stomped off in tears but regained her composure. Senator Clinton claimed to be puzzled as to why people are encouraging her to stop running, claiming such demands are "historically unprecedented." Nonsense.

Any serious observer of American politics knows a long, contentious fight to the convention can hurt the eventual nominee. Gerald Ford's effort to secure election (rather than appointment) to the White House in 1976 was mortally wounded by the fierce challenge he faced from Ronald Reagan. A challenge that went all the way to the convention. Jimmy Carter was damaged by the fierce challenge from Ted Kennedy in 1980, which also went right down to the convention.

It is a cardinal fact of national politics today that, ideally, you want the nomination wrapped up before the convention, and that a party's chance of winning the fall election is greatly diminished by a nomination fight that goes all the way to the convention. So, yes, I found Clinton's comments completely, indeed howlingly, disingenuous.

But then she uttered the unspeakable and said, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." I'm sorry. What did you just say? You need to stay in the race just in case someone gets "assassinated." Is that your point? When called on it, she apologized to the Kennedy family. But she also owes an apology to the Obama family, to the Democratic Party and to all Americans who live in a country where violence has too often taken great leaders from us.

Like so much from the Clintons nowadays, the apology rings false. This is just another in a growing string of events pointing to a thorough-going lack of personal integrity. The time for giving her the benefit of the doubt on these matters is long past. This time it felt to me as if her subconscious had let slip with what she is really thinking.

Enough already. If a 7-year-old girl at the Apollo Top Dog show can appreciate that sometimes you have to walk off the stage with pride though not necessarily a winner, then one can hope that the junior senator from New York won't force the hook to be brought out to remove her from the stage.

Lawrence Bobo is the W.E.B. Du Bois Professor of Sociology and of African and African-American studies at Harvard University.

Return to The Root Homepage

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

djchefron — Wed, 28 May 2008 10:01:00 -0000

Dem lawyers: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
55 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.

ADVERTISEMENT

Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.

The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is "as far as it legally can" go.

Saturday's meeting is expected to draw a large crowd, with Clinton supporters among those encouraging a protest outside demanding that all the states' delegates be seated. Proponents of full reseating have mailed committee members Florida oranges and pairs of shoes to get their attention.

DNC officials are concerned about a potentially large turnout at the "Count Every Vote" rally outside the event and have asked the hotel staff to increase security to keep everyone safe. The DNC says the roughly 500 seats available to the public inside were taken within three or four minutes of becoming available online Tuesday.

The DNC analysis does not make recommendations for how the Rules and Bylaws Committee should vote, but gives context from the party's charter and bylaws for the committee to consider.

The analysis said there are two options to include half the delegations — either allow half the number of delegates from each state into the convention or allow the full delegations to attend, but give them each half a vote. "The rule does not actually specify whether the reduction is to be accomplished on the basis of delegate positions or delegate votes," the analysis said, giving committee members some justification for sending the entire delegations with half-votes as some leaders in the states want.

The analysis also underscores a prickly problem: If the Rules and Bylaws Committee decides to restore any of the states' delegates, there is not a simple way to divide them between Clinton and Barack Obama.

That's especially true in Michigan, where Obama had his name pulled from the ballot. He didn't have the option of removing his name in Florida, but all the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in either state.

Clinton won the majority of the vote in Florida and Michigan and has been arguing that the delegates should be fully restored according to the results of the January primaries. But even if they were, it would not be enough for her to overtake Obama's delegate lead.

As it becomes clear that Obama likely will win the nomination, he has been working to win over voters in the two states with visits in recent days. He plans to return to Michigan on Monday.

The DNC staff analysis argues that the Rules and Bylaws Committee was fully within its rights to strip all 368 delegates from the two states when they scheduled primaries in January. Party rules said their nominating contests could be no earlier than Feb. 5. Michigan voted on Jan. 15, Florida on Jan. 29.

The analysis also said there is an option to restore 100 percent of the delegates — by a recommendation of the Credentials Committee that meets later this summer. However, that would mean a final decision would not be made until the first day of the convention in Denver since Credentials Committee decisions have to be approved by the full convention as it convenes — risking a floor fight.

Alice Huffman, a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee from California who is supporting Clinton, said she has been barraged with e-mails in the past few weeks. She said the senders include Floridians who are upset that they are being disenfranchised, and she has started printing out the messages so she'll have a record to explain her decision.

"This is a really, really significant issue to women. Obviously it's a significant item to people of color too. So I'm just preparing myself as best I can," said Huffman, president of the California NAACP.

The shoe shipments are being organized by WalkAMileInOurShoes.org and1 the orange idea was promoted by a group called Florida Demands Representation, which plans to bus Floridians to Saturday's rally outside the meeting. Blaine Whitford, a volunteer helping organize the effort, said they are unaligned with any candidate.

Susie Buell, one of Clinton's top fundraisers, has formed a political action committee encouraging women to support full seating of the delegates. The WomenCountPAC has taken out ads in USA Today and The New York Times promoting attendance at the rally.

___

Associated Press writer Juliet Williams in Sacramento, Calif., contributed to this report.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

djchefron — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:01:00 -0000

This is for the poster who thinks might equals right
"Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely. It is commercial, imperialistic, ruthless. It tolerates no opposition. It is just as arrogant, just as despotic, in London, or in Washington, as in Berlin. The American Jingo is twin to the German Junker…. If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another."

--Robert M. La Follette

Re: Phone Calls to the CBC? How about Primary Challengers

djchefron — Wed, 28 May 2008 22:29:00 -0000

Now is the time the Black superdelegates who are supporting Clinton are leading us to defeat.
Are the Clintons still telling major donors that they're taking this all the way to the convention?

by John Aravosis (DC) · 5/28/2008 06:45:00 PM ET · Link

Discuss this post here: Make a comment · reddit · FARK · Digg It!

First off, I don't recall them ever admitting (until now) that they had any intention of taking this to the convention. Secondly, they're still saying that, even now when most commentators in the media are convinced Hillary will drop out in the next week or two. That they won't drop out, that they're planning internally on taking this all the way to the convention, is what we hear the Clintons just told their major donors on a conference call in the past few days. If this is her graceful exit, why does it sound an awful lot like a detailed plan for a civil war? I'll say it again - Dean, Reid and Pelosi had better have a plan to end this thing next week, or there will be civil war in the party, and Hillary won't be the only one leading it.

Re: Thursday Open Thread: I Just Remembered Something About Hillary

djchefron — Thu, 29 May 2008 11:04:00 -0000

Foreclosure Nation: Squatters or Pioneers?
News: Take Back the Land installs homeless families in foreclosed Miami-Dade County properties. Here's what the neighbors think.

By Tristram Korten

May/June 2008 Issue

Mamyrah Prosper steps gingerly over ankle-high grass strewn with plastic bags and empty soda bottles in the yard of a vacant redbrick house in Miami's Liberty City. She peers through a gap in a boarded-up window. "It looks in good shape," she says. "I mean, the walls aren't falling down. This is definitely one of our stronger options."

Prosper means that if the place checks out, she and her colleagues from Take Back the Land, a local group that advocates for affordable housing, will break in, change the locks, paint and clean, innovate a way to connect water and electricity, and then move a homeless family into the house. The criminal laws they'll violate in the process range from trespassing to breaking and entering (even burglary, if the police get ambitious), which requires the organization to keep a pro bono lawyer on standby.

"We call it 'liberating the housing,'" says Take Back the Land's cofounder Max Rameau, a compact Haitian American who's earned a reputation in Miami for creative activism. In 2006, Take Back received widespread attention when it took over a vacant city lot and erected a shantytown for the homeless that thrived for six months—that is, until a resident's candle burned down the encampment. Rameau's latest, and even more legally dubious, campaign targets homes shuttered by foreclosure.

In Greater Miami, there's no shortage of those. Last year, Miami-Dade County recorded 26,391 foreclosures, a nearly threefold increase from 2006, and the pace has only quickened since then. Meanwhile, public housing is in crisis; at least four people are in line for each of the 10,000 available units, and the local housing agency—spectacularly corrupt, even by Miami standards—was taken over by the federal government last year.

Communities nationwide have seen a deluge of properties left vacant by foreclosures, but housing advocates say they've yet to witness anything like Rameau's coordinated squatting campaign. "That's the first I've heard of that kind of direct action," says Linda Couch, deputy director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Low Income Housing Coalition. "It's incredibly frustrating for housing advocates knowing that there are so many vacant houses amid so many people on the brink of homelessness."

Rameau says Take Back's campaign has two objectives: "One is to actually house people. The other is to bring attention to the contradictions in housing policy. The problem is that doing one precludes the other." Drawing too much attention to Take Back's efforts, he explains, would also get the attention of law enforcement. So Rameau's organization has placed only two homeless families in foreclosed homes since the campaign began in October; the first was Cassandra and Jason, a couple in their late 20s, and their two small children. They'd been living in a van before Rameau moved them into a one-story stucco home in Liberty City. When I visited them in February, Cassandra, who works as a street vendor selling jewelry and incense, ushered me into the living room, furnished with two chairs, a moving trunk, and a small television. Bedsheets covered the windows, and the walls had just been painted saffron.

As far as the neighbors are concerned, the current tenants—squatters though they are—are a vast improvement over the crack den the vacant house had become. One neighbor even loaned the family electricity via an extension cord until a mysterious man sympathetic to Take Back's cause turned on power at the house. "I didn't ask any questions," Cassandra says. The new living situation, temporary as it might be, affords her and Jason the time to save up to rent a new apartment, she said. "This just takes the stress off."

According to the Miami-Dade County Housing Agency, squatters, if discovered, will be promptly removed from the premises and potentially prosecuted. So far, though, Take Back's foreclosure-squatting pioneers have avoided detection. Despite the dicey legality, Rameau says there are 14 families like Cassandra's on his waiting list. "We counsel them that they could be arrested if caught," he says. "But things are so desperate, they are willing to risk it."

Re: Thursday Open Thread: I Just Remembered Something About Hillary

djchefron — Thu, 29 May 2008 13:02:00 -0000

Lets count the votes.
Delegates: Pledged Super Total Needed

Obama 1,660.5 320.5 1,981 44

Clinton 1,499.5 280.5 1,780 245

Remaining 86 195 281

(2,025 delegates needed for victory)

Counting all the votes, Obama still leads

by kos

Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:12:14 AM PDT

Since the Clinton campaign wants to count unsanctioned contests and include their votes into the popular vote tally ("I've gotten the most votes ever!"), here are a couple more unsanctioned contests that could be thrown into the tally:

Nebraska: Obama +2,663

Washington: Obama +36,015

Idaho: Obama +7,869

Those are all from non-binding primaries conducted in those caucus states. Combined, they'd add 46,547 votes for Obama if we were stupid enough to think that votes that don't matter actually count.

But that's not all the votes that were cast for either Obama or Clinton this year. There's the Texas caucuses, which aren't counted in any popular vote tallies. But since every vote matters to Clinton, and she's claiming that she's gotten more votes cast for her than any other Democrat in a primary, then of course we have to be intellectually consistent and, well, count every vote.

There are no official tallies of caucus turnout, but estimates range from 900,000 to 1.2 million. Let's be nice and go with the lower estimate, 900K. Obama won the caucuses 56-44. That 12-point spread is another 120,000 108,000-vote gain for Obama.

That means that tallying EVERY single contest this cycle, even the ones that didn't count (since that's the Clinton standard), gives Obama an extra 154,547 votes.

Now let's look at the popular vote tally if Michigan, Florida, and the caucus states are counted (and remember, this is with Obama getting zero votes in Michigan): Clinton has a 54,432-vote advantage.

Now let's roll in the vote totals from every other contest that didn't matter, and we now have a 100,115-vote Obama advantage.

So while Clinton may claim she's gotten more votes than Obama this year, fact is, that's not true under any scenario unless you start excluding elections.

This post is absurd, of course -- there's no reason to count the votes of non-binding contests that had no bearing on the delegate selection process, and it's sketchy at best to double count Texas voters participating in their two binding contests. Still, this post is the logical extension of the Clinton argument.

If you're going to count every vote cast this primary cycle, even those of contests that didn't count, then you count every single vote cast, including those of every contest that didn't count.

Re: DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting Open Thread

djchefron — Sat, 31 May 2008 11:40:00 -0000

Democrats are walking into a Clinton trap.If they award all the delegates then she loses her argument so her allies are conceding only awarding half delegates but if they do that thenClinton will cry foul and vow to go all the way to Denver attacking Obama along the way.

Re: DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting Open Thread

djchefron — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:06:00 -0000

They are back in session. I think Obama has came out looking good and more importantly this is no longer the clintons party

Re: Puerto Rico’s Primary Is Today

djchefron — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:37:00 -0000

In the grand scheme its a non event,they cannot even vote in the general election.

Re: Puerto Rico’s Primary Is Today

djchefron — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:15:00 -0000

For anyone who is interested the DaileyKos is running updates every 30 to 40 min.Clinton leading 62 to 38 but turnout right now is low at 30 to 35% she might not get the high turnout to fuel her fantasy about getting more popular votes

Re: Monday Open Thread - It’s a New Week!

djchefron — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:29:00 -0000

This just in from the Huffington Post

Thomas B. Edsall

The Huffington Post

Clinton Summons Top Donors, Supporters For Tuesday Speech

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust buzz up June 2, 2008 02:24 PM

Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her New York speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama.

Obama and Clinton spoke Sunday night and agreed that their staffs should begin negotiations over post-primary activities, according to reliable sources. In addition to seeking Obama's help in raising money to pay off some $20 million-plus in debts, Clinton is known to want Obama to assist black officials who endorsed her and who are now taking constituent heat, including, in some cases, primary challenges from pro-Obama politicians.

"This has never happened before," one donor said, referring to the personalized request by email to attend the event in New York Tuesday night.

Obama is expected to claim enough delegates to put him over the top that night at a separate event in Minneapolis.

Earlier in the day it was reported that Clinton staffers were being urged by the campaign's finance department "to turn in their outstanding expense receipts by the end of the week," another sign that the run at the White House was nearing an end. In addition, Politico wrote that members of Clinton's advance staff had received calls and emails Sunday night, summoning them to New York City and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending.

-----------------------------

I say help with her debts no Vice President and as far as her African American super delegates Stephanie Tubbs Jones HAS GOT TO GO.

Re: Edsall: Clinton Summoning Donors For Major Speech

djchefron — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:39:00 -0000

Damn I posted this another thread.Story of my life always to late or to early.Anyhow like I said help with the debts no vice president and someone has got to go. Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio.If we have to start a pac to make sure she is consighn to the garbage bin of history then that is what we must do

Re: Edsall: Clinton Summoning Donors For Major Speech

djchefron — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:13:00 -0000

Jim Clybourne of South Carolina just endorse Obama

Re: Edsall: Clinton Summoning Donors For Major Speech

djchefron — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:19:00 -0000

You know the net roots ended Al wynn's feeding at the buffet after this is over we will have to ask "Where were you at" We do have the power and we should use it.

Re: Now That Obama Has Closed the Deal…

djchefron — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:55:00 -0000

It is time to clean house.Maybe people who are lot more smarter than me can start a pac or a 527 among African Americans. Lets get started

Re: Obama Makes Vice-Presidential Move

djchefron — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:21:00 -0000

Caroline Kennedy.She can be groom to run in 2016 she is Kennedy and she will mollify the post menapousal wing ofthe party.Lets start talking her up

Re: Thursday Open Thread- Let it all hang out

djchefron — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:41:00 -0000

Smoothie you have a chance this year for a dem. senator Rick Noriega go out and help get him elected.Today in Salon Joan Walsh had a article what Obama has to do to win over white women.And Im still estatic and in awe in my lifetime someone that looks like me is on the verge of being the President of the United States.

Re: Thursday Open Thread- Let it all hang out

djchefron — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:10:00 -0000

Read this at the kos on Joan Walsh articleThe damage done
It ends like it begins. I just tried to read Joan Walsh's piece on Obama's need to reach out to women voters. I believe that, but not because of Hillary, just because you should treat all members that you want in coalition like customers who could easily make another choice. Anyway I was humming along in the piece I then I hit this disgusting bit:

We saw the face of the angry white female backlash against Obama over the weekend, and it was hard not to turn away. On Friday, Geraldine Ferraro complained in a Boston Globe Op-Ed that she's been demonized for saying that Obama's presidential run benefited from his being black, and called her treatment "reverse racism." On Saturday, Harriet Christian replaced Ferraro as the overwrought voice of white female resentment. There she was at the Democratic National Committee meeting, screaming at reporters that Democrats were about to nominate "an inadequate black male who would not have been running had it not been a white woman that was running for president."

Beyond Christian's deplorable reference to Obama as an "inadequate black male" was a wail worth hearing. She also said, "I'm proud to be an older American woman!" I can feel her pain. Reading the sexist attacks on Clinton and her white female supporters, as well as on female journalists and bloggers who've occasionally tried to defend her or critique Obama, has been, well, consciousness-raising. Prejudice against older women, apparently, is one of the last non-taboo biases. I've been stunned by the extent to which trashing Clinton supporters as washed up old white women is acceptable.

Once I heard Walsh invoking the words of two bigots to make her point, I checked out. Physician heal-thy-mutherfucking-self. Ferraro is the same woman who argued that "racial resentment" was OK. Walsh apparently thinks Harriet's description of Obama as an inadequate black male, "was a wail worth hearing." I'm physically sick reading that. I never much agreed with Walsh's take on the Clinton's, but for my money, she just fell into Pat Buchanan territory. Anyone who thinks there's something to take from someone who says it's fine to resent black people racially, who claims that there's something worth hearing in describing the first black man to ever win a major party's nomination as "an inadequate black male" is the moral equivalent of a racist to me.

I don't play these word games. I don't much care about what's in your heart. I don't make any distinction between people who think I'm less than, and the cowards who know the truth, but still run with bigoted fools anyway. There's nothing feminist about siding with worst impulses of white America. The fact is we're tied to each other. The same fuckers who've turned the incarceration of black men into a business, are the same fuckers who'd love nothing better than to drag women back into the dark ages.

I want to see Barack Obama out there courting the vote of all women. I want to see him talking specifically about what his plans are. But I've got no interest in seeing him court those who would use feminism, as a cover for their own blackaphoic views. Later for them. Let them vote McCain, and go join the party where bigotry is part of the platform. The rest of us have a country to save.

UPDATE: To be clear, Obama should compete for the votes of ALL women--older, younger, white, black, purple whatever. But I don't accept that people who refer to him as an "inadequate black male." or people who think "racial resentment" is acceptable, or people (read: Joan Walsh) who think there's some truth to be gleaned from those opinions are represenative of that older, white female bloc. It's not I think older white women shouldn't be courted by Obama--they most certainly should. It's that I don't accept Walsh\Ferraro\Christian as a rep for them, any more than I would want someone to accept Al Sharpton as a rep for me.

I saw that Walsh called Christian's remarks "deplorable" but she undercuts even that weak declaration by embracing the racist Ferraro as someone who has something to say to Obama. Please. Ferraro was part of the worst Democratic ticket in modern memory. She helped invent the Reagan Democrats. I didn't even know she was still involved in politics until she decided to reveal her inner James Eastland. The idea that she somehow reps for women is fucking laughable.

That said, anyone who'd be willing to put the health of women, the chance to expand childcare, the chance to revisit equal pay, on the line in the name of electing a dude who called his own wife a cunt, who laughed as one of his supporters referred to Hillary Clinton as a bitch, who would most assuredly appoint judges that would reverse Roe v Wade, is a joke. There ain't nothing feminist, or "empowering" about gambling on the future of our daughters. It's a ego and sore loser-ism writ large. If that's your angle, take a hike.

There is also an ugly subtext to that "unqualified" remark. Exactly how many terms in the Senate did John Edwards have? Was he also unqualified? Would we be hearing that label from Hillary-supporters if he'd won?

Re: Friday Open Thread…..yeah, it’s Friday

djchefron — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 07:31:00 -0000

Found this article at the New Republic
The New Republic

3 A.M. For Feminism

by Michelle Goldberg

Clinton dead-enders and the crisis in the women's movement.

Post Date Friday, June 06, 2008

DISCUSS ARTICLE [0] | PRINT | EMAIL ARTICLE

Amy Siskind, a 42-year-old mother of two from Westchester, stood in a Washington, D.C., park on the last day in May, telling a few hundred cheering people that she would not, under any circumstances, vote for Barack Obama. She was a lifelong Democrat, she said, a donor and a volunteer for the party. But, watching the race with a "mixture of shock, disgrace, and disgust," she was appalled at the leadership's failure to defend Hillary Clinton from the sexism that she believes bolstered Barack Obama's campaign. "Now I have a message for Howard Dean and the DNC," she said into a microphone, acid in her voice. "I'm not your sweetie!"

Siskind was one of the speakers at a rally that brought busloads of people, overwhelmingly women, to demonstrate near the Democratic National Committee (DNC) meeting that would decide the status of the Florida and Michigan delegations. The states had been stripped of their delegates--a decision Clinton endorsed--because they had broken party rules in holding their primaries early. But, as Clinton lost steam, seating them in full became crucial to her argument for the nomination, and thus, to her supporters, a matter of high democratic principle. Oaths to oppose Obama proliferated, often among longtime female fund-raisers. "You have betrayed us, our children, and our future," Siskind proclaimed during her speech, "and you will learn the new meaning of stay-at-home moms!"

Hillary Clinton has lost the nomination, but some of her most ardent female backers seem unwilling to accept it. A strange narrative has developed, abetted by Clinton and some of the mainstream feminist organizations. In it, the will of the voters was thwarted by chauvinistic party leaders in concert with a servile media, and Obama's victory represents a repeat of George W. Bush's in 2000. It's a story in which Obama becomes every arrogant young man who has ever edged out a more deserving middle-aged woman, and Clinton, hanging on until the bitter end, is not a spoiler but a feminist martyr.

This conviction, that sexism cost Clinton the nomination, is likely to be one of the more toxic legacies of this primary season. It is leaving her supporters feeling not just disappointed but victimized, many convinced that Obama's win is illegitimate. Taylor Marsh, a blogger and radio host whose website has become a hub for Clinton fans, says she gets hundreds of e-mails from angry Democrats pledging not to vote for Obama. She's started running posts from such readers under the headline democratic storm warnings. "I'm not saying that this is a huge voting bloc," she says. "I'm just saying that there is a huge amount of talk and I'm convinced it's a reality that needs to be addressed."

Surely some of this political nihilism will fade by November. Right now, it's hard to quantify; Internet forums and political protests exist, in part, to magnify the passions of a few into an illusory groundswell. In exit polls from Indiana and North Carolina, at least half of Clinton supporters said they wouldn't vote for Obama, but there's no way to calculate the role of gender in their disaffection.

In the months to come, feminist leaders and Clinton herself will urge women back into the Democratic fold. Still, the bitterness is intense. Kate Michelman, the Obama-supporting former head of naral, has heard enough of it to get worried. "It does feel to me, just recently, like we're on a death mission," she says. "[T]here is a danger where we set a course for failure in November."

It didn't start out this way. In February of 2007, Gloria Steinem pushed back against the mushrooming discussion of identity politics, publishing an op-ed in The New York Times titled "Right Candidates, Wrong Question." She argued that queries about whether Americans were more prepared to elect a woman or a black man were "dumb and destructive." "[M]ost Americans are smart enough to figure out that a member of a group may or may not represent its interests," she wrote. "This time, we . . . could double our chances by working for one of these candidates, not against the other." When reporters asked if she was supporting Clinton or Obama, she said, "I just say yes."

Eleven months later, her position, and that of many feminists, had grown more rigid. Taking to the Times op-ed page once again, she argued, "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House." When the time came to choose a candidate, it turned out identity politics mattered. "We have to be able to say: 'I'm supporting her,' " she concluded, " 'because she'll be a great president and because she's a woman.' "

Like Steinem, much of the second-wave women's movement would move from enthusiasm for both candidates to dismay and solidarity as Clinton was eclipsed and dismissed. They watched professional media types sing smitten fanboy hymns to Obama and, at the same time, spend hours dissecting Clinton's laugh and cleavage. The prospect of electing a black man clearly thrilled commentators, while the prospect of electing a woman elicited a derisive shrug. For some women, reaction to the coverage was radicalizing.

What's more, seeing Clinton losing to a younger, more charismatic man seemed to echo a primal experience of middle-aged female humiliation. "One can find it in any place of employment," Steinem tells me. "Women who were senior tellers in banks were performing the same work as junior vice presidents. They trained them as they came in at the entry level and then saw them pass upward."

By the spring, the Clinton campaign and the cause of women's rights were joined in the minds of many. Second-wave activists chided Obama-supporting women for not getting on board and began interpreting any attack on Clinton as a slight against their gender. The seating of delegates from Michigan and Florida started to seem like a feminist cause célèbre.

The movement coalesced in mid-May, when members of Clinton's finance committee, including Susie Tompkins Buell, sometimes described as one of Clinton's closest friends, and Allida Black, editor of the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers at George Washington University, formed WomenCount PAC. The group ran full-page advertisements in The New York Times, USA Today, and other newspapers addressing the country on behalf of "the women of this nation." The ads proclaimed, rather grandly, "Hillary's voice is OUR voice, and she's speaking for all us." Their story was featured on the "Today" show, "Good Morning America," CNN, and Fox, and they joined other volunteers in organizing the rally at the DNC.

Meanwhile, Clinton, who'd previously avoided presenting herself as the woman's candidate, brought gender to the forefront of her campaign as never before. On May 19, in a Washington Post interview, she spoke out for the first time about the sexism she's faced throughout the race, calling it "deeply offensive to millions of women." The press, she suggested, had failed to decry "incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists." She began injecting feminist and civil rights language into her arguments for seating the Michigan and Florida delegates. Piously invoking Seneca Falls and Selma in a May 21 speech, she pledged to "carry on this legacy and ensure that in our nominating process every voice is heard and every single vote is counted."

More and more, she was tying her campaign to the grand narrative of women's emancipation. "I am in this race for all the women in their nineties who've told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House," she wrote in a letter to superdelegates on May 28. "For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls--and little boys--whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, 'See, you can be anything you want to be.' "

Mainstream feminist organizations joined calls to seat the two states, with leaders of NOW and the Feminist Majority Foundation participating in the rally at the DNC. Some have suggested that the DNC's reluctance was in itself a sign of covert sexism. "There's a strong feeling that this would have been handled differently if Hillary Clinton hadn't won [those] states," says Kim Gandy, president of NOW.

Feminists who supported Obama were incredulous. Harvard Law professor and civil rights activist Lani Guinier suggests that Clinton's supporters were trying to turn her into the Al Gore of 2008. "It appears that some of Hillary's supporters want to externalize the problem, which is why the analogy to 2000 seems to work," she says. "Then they can say it wasn't anything wrong with her candidacy--instead, it was an injustice that was done to women."

The wholesale conflation of Clintonism and establishment feminism--and the merging of their grievances--has created a kind of disorienting parallel reality. But what accounts for this through-the-looking-glass split?

Partly, it's a response to simple longing. The prospect of a female president who is also a feminist would have been a shining triumph for a movement that has lately had more disappointments than successes. "At least in a certain segment of second-wave feminism, the emphasis on getting women in office was always very, very high," says Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for a Free Choice, now a fellow at Harvard's Radcliffe Institute. "In a certain sense, second-wave feminism is in its old age. . . . For many second-wave leaders who are at the peak of their professional life, or beyond the peak of their professional life, this would seem like such an enormous final victory."

Back in the pre-feminist days of 1934, Malvina Lindsay, the women's page editor of The Washington Post, argued that women wouldn't vote for one of their own for president "because they have set too high ideals for their goddesses." Indeed, she wrote, "the woman President that Miss Lillian D. Rock, secretary of the National Association of Women Lawyers, expects to see in the White House within her lifetime will have to be a super-woman to take the hurdle of female appraisal."

Second-wave feminism was supposed to prove Lindsay wrong. One of the central premises of the movement was that women had been artificially set against each other, and that, if they could unite behind their common interests, they could revolutionize their roles in the world. In the mid-'70s, elite young women were already pondering who could break the ultimate glass ceiling, and among their candidates was an impassioned young lawyer, Hillary Rodham, deemed an icon of her generation by Life magazine after her 1969 Wellesley commencement speech. In his biography of Hillary Clinton, Carl Bernstein describes Betsey Wright, later Bill Clinton's gubernatorial chief of staff, imploring Bill not to marry Hillary, take her off to Arkansas, and thus spoil her chance at becoming the first female president. "I really started in on how he couldn't do that. He shouldn't do that," Wright said. "That he could find anybody he wanted to be a political wife, but we'd . . . never find anyone like her" to run for office.

For young feminists, who have largely gone for Obama, their first encounter with Hillary came when she defended Bill from charges of philandering during the 1992 presidential campaign; for them, her case for leadership was never clear-cut. But, for many of those who remember Hillary Rodham, her reemergence as a political power in her own right seems a kind of generational redemption. "She's the candidate that I have wanted for decades," says Allida Black. "I had heard about Hillary for a good fifteen years before Bill ran in '92, and I was for Bill because of Hillary."

For these supporters, Clinton's portrayal during the campaign has been anything but inspirational. They say the press has demonized and degraded her, and almost any zealous supporter can reel off a list of journalistic insults. The media is the real target of their rage, while the anger at Obama comes from the sense that he's benefited from it and failed to denounce misogyny the way he does racism.

"We thought we'd gotten past a lot of this stuff, and it turns out that we were deluding ourselves," Black says. "When CNN calls Hillary a white bitch, when they talk about her cleavage, when the metaphor to describe her presentation is, oh, she reminds me of my wife when she's angry and tells me to take out the garbage, or when they mock that Hillary has the support of white women . . . I've been stunned by it. I've been flabbergasted by it." (CNN, of course, did not call Clinton a white bitch. The GOP consultant and McCain adviser Alex Castellanos did, or kind of did, on the network. But the way many Clinton supporters retell it is itself indicative of their distress.)

Of course, Clinton has encountered straight-up misogyny--lots of it. At the same time, anger at obvious instances of sexism has expanded to encompass every setback she's faced, every jab thrown her way--the cut and thrust of any normal campaign. Several of her feminist defenders, for example, interpreted calls for Clinton to drop out, lest she cause a party rift, as expressions of condescending gender bias. "The first woman ever to win a presidential primary is supposed to stop competing, to curtsy and exit stage right," Ellen Malcolm, founder and president of Emily's List, wrote in The Washington Post on May 10. But that wasn't anti-woman or even anti-Clinton; it was just Democratic politics. Similar worries were aired about Edward Kennedy in 1980--a Christian Science Monitor story claimed his "to-the-bitter-end candidacy already may be irreparably splitting the Democratic Party"--and about Jerry Brown in 1992, once Bill Clinton came near a mathematical lock on the nomination.

Indeed, Clinton has never been just a victim of her gender. When it came to the deeper narratives of the campaign, Clinton benefited, as do many women in politics, from her good fortune of having married a successful political man. Hillary Clinton has spent only four more years than Obama in the Senate, but she was consistently assumed to be a more plausible commander-in-chief than her rival based on her time as First Lady. At the same time, it's been widely assumed that she's been entirely vetted, leaving many parts of her life--her disastrous leadership style on health care reform, her role in trying to silence and discredit Bill's mistresses, her husband's post-White House financial dealings--unexamined. The slimy right-wing rumor mill that tormented the Clintons in the '90s has directed its venom toward Obama: He's the one who has been depicted as a Muslim Manchurian candidate in a smear campaign that has gotten a dispiriting degree of traction.

Obama was probably smart not to bring up more of his opponent's shortcomings; doing so would play into the narrative of victimization that became the dominant theme of Clinton's campaign in its final weeks. "Without question," Susan Estrich, author of The Case for Hillary Clinton, wrote in late May, "there is serious disaffection right now among many women about the sense of being shunted aside, told to pipe down and line up, the sense that the Hillary campaign, and Hillary herself, has become a mirror for the frustrations the rest of us have faced as we battle subtle and no[t]-so-subtle discrimination."

This psychic wound is not Obama's fault, but it is his problem. Establishment feminism has not done itself proud using its noble struggle for social justice as an alibi for political hardball. But it represents women whose frustration and sense of unfairness are deeply felt, and those feelings need to be addressed.

For a start, that probably means Obama shouldn't nominate a vice president like Jim Webb, who has a number of attractive attributes but a notably bad record on women's issues. He also needs to stop calling women he doesn't know "sweetie." Beyond that, both feminists who support Obama and those who support Clinton suggest he give a speech about women's issues similar to the one he made about race. One of the things Obama is best at is making people feel that he understands their grievances and anxieties, even if he disagrees with them about remedies. If he can reach out to working-class whites offended by affirmative action, surely he can do the same for the middle-aged women who feel wronged by their surrogate's defeat.

"I do think he could talk more about the contributions that feminism has made to this country, from pay equity to basic respect for women, and, in particular, he should acknowledge the legitimate frustrations of women who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s," says Guinier. "The way you speak to people who are in pain is to acknowledge their pain."

Clinton and her feminist supporters, though, also have work to do, because their rhetoric of disenfranchisement has become destructive--witness the chants, during Clinton's speech on the night Obama won the nomination, urging her to continue on to the convention. It would be the grimmest irony imaginable if feminist irredentism helped elect a candidate as anti-feminist as John McCain. In recent weeks, Clinton has fashioned herself as a standard-bearer for women's rights. Ultimately, her work on behalf of Obama will show whether she means it.

Re: Friday Open Thread…..yeah, it’s Friday

djchefron — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:27:00 -0000

Could Obama win over evangelicals, if he can then it is over Religious Right Figure Gets Chills:
Obama Could Win 40 Percent Of Evangelicals | June 6, 2008 11:56 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"With clients like Focus on the Family, Franklin Graham, and Campus Crusade for Christ, Mark DeMoss may be the most prominent public relations executive in the evangelical world. A former chief of staff to Jerry Falwell, DeMoss became then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney's chief liaison to evangelical leaders."

In a new interview with Dan Gilgoff for BeliefNet's God-o-Meter, DeMoss explains the lack of religious enthusiasm for McCain and predicts a potential major shift to Obama.

How is John McCain doing among evangelicals, a crucial Republican constituency?

The evangelical world or the conservative religious world is not his natural habitat, so he doesn't strike me as being all that comfortable with it. I think that's evidenced by the strong comments made in 2000 about Falwell and Robertson. ...

You represent some of the nation's most powerful evangelicals. What do those leaders say about McCain?

This is one guy's perspective, but I am surprised by how little I've seen or read in conservative circles about McCain since February. I don't think I've gotten one email or letter or phone call from anybody in America in the last four months saying anything about this election or urging that we unite behind John McCain and put aside whatever differences we have. Back in the fall and winter, you'd get several things a day from conservatives saying, "The future of the Supreme Court is at stake. We have to stop Hillary Clinton. Get behind so and so--or don't' go with this guy." It's just very quiet. It could meant there's a real sense of apathy or it could mean they're' waiting for the general election to begin. But it's a surprise, given the way email networks work now.

Barack Obama is trying hard to win evangelical voters. Does that effort stand a chance?

If one third of white evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton the second time, at the height of Monica Lewinsky mess--that's a statistic I didn't believe at first but I double and triple checked it--I would not be surprised if that many or more voted for Barack Obama in this election. You're seeing some movement among evangelicals as the term [evangelical] has become more pejorative. There's a reaction among some evangelicals to swing out to the left in an effort to prove that evangelicals are really not that right wing. There's some concern that maybe Republicans haven't done that well. And there's this fascination with Barack Obama. So I will not be surprised if he gets one third of the evangelical vote. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 40-percent.

Re: The Limited Empathy Of Joan Walsh

djchefron — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:42:00 -0000

Three words"The Supreme Court" If these post menapausal white women wont support the democratis nominee then they can kiss what little rights that a lot of people have fought for good bye.I am almost to the point to say F*ck em but in the end we do need each other if we are to save our country from disaster.So let them rant dont vilify them and remember Ihope I get this right you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Re: How Obama Won: 50 State Strategy

djchefron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:55:00 -0000

And this why the republicans led my out of touch geezers like pat buchanan will be defacating on themselves come Novemeber.They have no idea on what is going to hit them.Dont get complacent go after every vote and we will win.

Re: How Obama Won: 50 State Strategy

djchefron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:14:00 -0000

To Ronnie b You might not get all of them but what if you can get 20% of them,there is one poll out saying that Obama may get up to 40%of the evangelical vote.No matter how racist they are fight for every vote frame the issues towards their pocketbook,Obama shouldnt but the blogs should taalk about McCains lack of family values concerning his first wife.You may not get the white rural bible thumbers but you can prevent them from voting for McCain

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

djchefron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:56:00 -0000

Here is a article about McCain's first wife and how he treated her.
...................................

The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind

By Sharon Churcher

Last updated at 1:45 AM on 08th June 2008

Now that Hillary Clinton has at last formally withdrawn from the race for the White House, the eyes of America and the world will focus on Barack Obama and his Republican rival Senator John McCain.

While Obama will surely press his credentials as the embodiment of the American dream – a handsome, charismatic young black man who was raised on food stamps by a single mother and who represents his country’s future – McCain will present himself as a selfless, principled war hero whose campaign represents not so much a battle for the presidency of the United States, but a crusade to rescue the nation’s tarnished reputation.

Forgotten woman: But despite all her problems Carol McCain says she still adores he ex-husband

McCain likes to illustrate his moral fibre by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year-old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children.

But there is another Mrs McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator’s presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain’s three eldest children.

And yet, had events turned out differently, it would be she, rather than Cindy, who would be vying to be First Lady. She is McCain’s first wife, Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965.

She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons

had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

Today, she stands at just 5ft4in and still walks awkwardly, with a pronounced limp. Her body is held together by screws and metal plates and, at 70, her face is worn by wrinkles that speak of decades of silent suffering.

For nearly 30 years, Carol has maintained a dignified silence about the accident, McCain and their divorce. But last week at the bungalow where she now lives at Virginia Beach, a faded seaside resort 200 miles south of Washington, she told The Mail on Sunday how McCain divorced her in 1980 and married Cindy, 18 years his junior and the heir to an Arizona brewing fortune, just one month later.

Carol insists she remains on good terms with her ex-husband, who agreed as part of their divorce settlement to pay her medical costs for life. ‘I have no bitterness,’

she says. ‘My accident is well recorded. I had 23 operations, I am five inches shorter than I used to be and I was in hospital for six months. It was just awful, but it wasn’t the reason for my divorce.

‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.’

Some of McCain’s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.

McCain was then earning little more than £25,000 a year as a naval officer, while his new father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a multi-millionaire who had impeccable political connections.

He first met Carol in the Fifties while he was at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. He was a privileged, but rebellious scion of one of America’s most distinguished military dynasties – his father and grandfather were both admirals.

But setting out to have a good time, the young McCain hung out with a group of young officers who called themselves the ‘Bad Bunch’.

His primary interest was women and his conquests ranged from a knife-wielding floozy nicknamed ‘Marie, the Flame of Florida’ to a tobacco heiress.

Carol fell into his fast-living world by accident. She escaped a poor upbringing in Philadelphia to become a successful model, married an Annapolis classmate of McCain’s and had two children – Douglas and Andrew – before renewing what one acquaintance calls ‘an old flirtation’ with McCain.

It seems clear she was bowled over by McCain’s attention at a time when he was becoming bored with his playboy lifestyle.

‘He was 28 and ready to settle down and he loved Carol’s children,’ recalled another Annapolis graduate, Robert Timberg, who wrote The Nightingale’s Song, a bestselling biography of McCain and four other graduates of the academy.

The couple married and McCain adopted Carol’s sons. Their daughter, Sidney, was born a year later, but domesticity was clearly beginning

to bore McCain – the couple were regarded as ‘fixtures on the party circuit’ before McCain requested combat duty in Vietnam at the end of 1966.

He was assigned as a bomber pilot on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin.

What follows is the stuff of the McCain legend. He was shot down over Hanoi in October 1967 on his 23rd mission over North Vietnam and was badly beaten by an angry mob when he was pulled, half-drowned from a lake.

War hero: McCain with Carol as he arrives back in the US in 1973 after his five years as a PoW in North Vietnam

Over the next five-and-a-half years in the notorious Hoa Loa Prison he was regularly tortured and mistreated.

It was in 1969 that Carol went to spend the Christmas holiday – her third without McCain – at her parents’ home. After dinner, she left to drop off some presents at a friend’s house.

It wasn’t until some hours later that she was discovered, alone and in terrible pain, next to the wreckage of her car. She had been hurled through the windscreen.

After her first series of life-saving operations, Carol was told she may never walk again, but when doctors said they would try to get word to McCain about her injuries, she refused, insisting: ‘He’s got enough problems, I don’t want to tell him.’

H. Ross Perot, a billionaire Texas businessman, future presidential candidate and advocate of prisoners of war, paid for her medical care.

When McCain – his hair turned prematurely white and his body reduced to little more than a skeleton – was released in March 1973, he told reporters he was overjoyed to see Carol again.

But friends say privately he was ‘appalled’ by the change in her appearance. At first, though, he was kind, assuring her: ‘I don’t look so good myself. It’s fine.’

He bought her a bungalow near the sea in Florida and another former PoW helped him to build a railing so she could pull herself over the dunes to the water.

‘I thought, of course, we would live happily ever after,’ says Carol. But as a war hero, McCain was moving in ever-more elevated circles.

Through Ross Perot, he met Ronald Reagan, then Governor of California. A sympathetic Nancy Reagan took Carol under her wing.

But already the McCains’ marriage had begun to fray. ‘John started carousing and running around with women,’ said Robert Timberg.

McCain has acknowledged that he had girlfriends during this time, without going into details. Some friends blame his dissatisfaction with Carol, but others give some credence to her theory of a mid-life crisis.

He was also fiercely ambitious, but it was clear he would never become an admiral like his illustrious father and grandfather and his thoughts were turning to politics.

In 1979 – while still married to Carol – he met Cindy at a cocktail party in Hawaii. Over the next six months he pursued her, flying around the country to see her. Then he began to push to end his marriage.

Carol and her children were devastated. ‘It was a complete surprise,’ says Nancy Reynolds, a former Reagan aide.

‘They never displayed any difficulties between themselves. I know the Reagans were quite shocked because they loved and respected both Carol and John.’

Another friend added: ‘Carol didn’t fight him. She felt her infirmity made her an impediment to him. She justified his actions because of all he had gone through. She used to say, “He just wants to make up for lost time.”’

Indeed, to many in their circle the saddest part of the break-up was Carol’s decision to resign herself to losing a man she says she still adores.

Friends confirm she has remained friends with McCain and backed him in all his campaigns. ‘He was very generous to her in the divorce but of course he could afford to be, since he was marrying Cindy,’ one observed.

McCain transferred the Florida beach house to Carol and gave her the right to live in their jointly-owned townhouse in the Washington suburb of Alexandria. He also agreed to pay her alimony and child support.

A former neighbour says she subsequently sold up in Florida and Washington and moved in 2003 to Virginia Beach. He said: ‘My impression was that she found the new place easier to manage as she still has some difficulties walking.’

Meanwhile McCain moved to Arizona with his new bride immediately after their 1980 marriage. There, his new father-in-law gave him a job and introduced him to local businessmen and political powerbrokers who would smooth his passage to Washington via the House of Representatives and Senate.

And yet despite his popularity as a politician, there are those who won’t forget his treatment of his first wife.

Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.

‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it.

‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.

‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’

One old friend of the McCains said: ‘Carol always insists she is not bitter, but I think that’s a defence mechanism. She also feels deeply in his debt because in return for her agreement to a divorce, he promised to pay for her medical care for the rest of her life.’

Carol remained resolutely loyal as McCain’s political star rose. She says she agreed to talk to The Mail on Sunday only because she wanted to publicise her support for the man who abandoned her.

Indeed, the old Mercedes that she uses to run errands displays both a disabled badge and a sticker encouraging people to vote for her ex-husband. ‘He’s a good guy,’ she assured us. ‘We are still good friends. He is the best man for president.’

But Ross Perot, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel – even by the standards of modern politics.

‘McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory,’ he said.

‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.’

Pass it on

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

djchefron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:25:00 -0000

To S I would love to debate McCains ideas on endless war in Iraq, how our national sercurity is threaten by not talking to the players in the middle east on how McCain wants to continue the transfer of wealth to a country that produce our enemy Saudi Arabia.On how the corparations that McCain favors keep getting tax cuts while our country is falling deeper in debt to Communist China I could go on but you thugs that call yourselfs republicans has already started the dirty politics so be on notice you want to play dirty you want to go after Michelle Obama on being proud we will bring up Cindys walk on the wild side.You bring up Tony Resko where there is nothing there we will visit Charles Keating. SO GAME ON!!

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

djchefron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:08:00 -0000

S said...Limited government advocates and deficit hawks will not vote for Obama because he seeks to grow government, raise taxes, stifle our economy and limit our economic freedom and opportunity.
So a unending occupation in Iraq, the telecoms spying on Americans without a warrant the tax burdan that is shifted to the middle class the transfer of our wealth to China and Saudi Arabia that is what you are avocating.Im sorry but consevative economic policies has always screwed over the people

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

djchefron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:20:00 -0000

Okay again the NIE reported that Iran has suspended their nuclear progam.You wabt to talk about nuclear weapons then put the Isrealis 200 warheads on the table.How is Saudi Arabia our allie?Is is that we transfer our money to them so they can finance Bin Laden.The Soviet Union was hostile to us ,Red China was hostile to us but we talk and in time we became economic partners with them albeit with China its one sided.I am a Disabled vetern who served his country how much death do you want to see so we can have a credible military response,how many women and children habe to suffer so you can go along saying my balls are bigger than your balls.You remind me of the idiots who glorify war but will never go or send your babies but other peoples children

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

djchefron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:04:00 -0000

S said...Your arguments are nothing more than the same regurgitated anti-American memes spewed by those who wish to believe the worst about this country.
...................................There is nothing anti american about standing up for the constitution that I took a oath to defend.Show me where it is right to spy on citizens of my country without a warrant.I know a lot of you are scared so you abicate your rights to the government to protect you this was tried in 1930 Germany and we know how that ended.We do not have to be a imperialist country,It doesnt serve the people and it only enriches the few who can give a damn about our country.

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

djchefron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:11:00 -0000

To S Please explain to me where it benefits Americans to spend 12 billion a month on a occupation on a country that we will never pacify but it is wrong to spend that amount in our country?

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

djchefron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:58:00 -0000

d dont believe the hype.Have you ever read about the british occupation in the 1920's I guess you havent because if you did you would know we will never have "victory" as you neo cons like to say.And by the way before we went bumbling and stumbling into that helhole there was no Al quadia, Iran was contain by a hostile Iraq and more importantly over 4000 of our sons and daughters would be alive today.So you warmongers I say go sign up and go fight in Iraq if its that important to you

'

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

djchefron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:34:00 -0000

D This is the reality withyour so call ally
...................................

Shiite cleric warns of popular uprising against Iraq-U.S long term agreement

Karbala - Voices of Iraq

Monday , 09 /06 /2008 Time 10:17:06

Karbala, Jun8, (VOI)-A renowned Iraqi Shiite cleric on Sunday warned that a popular uprising may erupt if Iraq signs the long-term agreement with the U.S .

The proposed security agreement would cover the status of U.S troops in Iraq, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity for security contractors after United Nations resolution governing U.S forces in Iraq expires in December.

Speaking to reporters and clerics in Karbala, grand ayatollah Mohammed Taqqi al-Mudaressi said “the proposed security agreement between Iraq and the U.S lacks the overall and in-depth vision of Iraq’s general affairs”.

The cleric expected “the agreement would fail if the details of the deal remained as they are in the current draft”, adding “ signing the agreement came while Iraq is deprived of sovereignty under chapter seven of (the Security Council charter).

He branded the agreement as “ a sort of US blackmailimg and a sword strangling Iraqis”.

“Infringing Iraq’s sovereignty would not be in the U.S interests as a superpower because the agreement humiliates people’s dignity, pushing them to uprise and to start a new cycle of violence”, he pointed out.

Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. Iraq has been considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter.

Influential Shiite clerics in Iraq and neighbouring Iran oppose the deal and have called it a move against their religion.

They have vowed to stage protests to force the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to roll back the deal which is expected to be concluded by the end of July.

A declaration of principles was signed between U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in December 2007. The declaration was planned to be ratified on July 31, 2008 to be effective as of January 1, 2009.

The agreement governs the U.S. forces' presence in Iraq after the year 2008. This presence currently relies on a mandate by the UN, renewed annually upon the request of the Iraqi government.

The agreement will not valid unless it commands a national consensus and be approved by the Iraqi parliament and the presidency board.

Al-Mudaressi is a Karbala-based grand ayatollah and key cleric of religious Shiite authority that has a strong sway in Iraq.

Karbala, the second hold Shiite city after Najaf, lies 110 km south-west Baghdad

AM

...................................Before you start beleiving the war criminals who lied us into this debacle read what the shiites who are the majority have to say about it

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

djchefron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:46:00 -0000

McCain is in real trouble today on hardball Tony Perkins from focus on the family just said that Evangelicals are drawn to Obamas message.If McCain cannot get this vote like bush it will be a wipeout.

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

djchefron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:06:00 -0000

Right now Dennis Kucinich is reading articles of impeachment on C-Span.Nothingds going to come of it but at least its in the record for history

Re: Tim Wise Stirring the Pot

djchefron — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:00:00 -0000

Thought provoking .I shared it at Deephousepage.com and got some interesting to say the least feedback.When the talking heads on TV start blabering it would be interesting to hear this point of veiw.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

djchefron — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:32:00 -0000

From The New Rebublic
The New Republic

Mr. Right?

by Bruce Bartlett

The rise of the Obamacons.

Post Date Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The New Yorker is hardly the optimal vehicle for reaching the conservative intelligentsia. But, last year, Barack Obama cooperated with a profile for that magazine where he seemed to be speaking directly to the right. Because he paid obeisance to the virtues of stability and continuity, his interlocutor, Larissa MacFarquhar, came away with the impression that the Illinois senator was an adherent of Edmund Burke: "In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative."

As The New Yorker's assessment shot across blogs, many conservatives listened eagerly. A broad swath of the movement has been in open revolt against George W. Bush--and the Republican Party establishment--for some time. They don't much care for the Iraq war or the federal government's vast expansion over the last seven-and-a-half years. And, in the eyes of these discontents, the nomination of John McCain only confirmed the continuation of the worst of the Bush-era deviations from first principles.

But it was hardly inevitable that this revolt would translate into enthusiasm for the Democratic standard-bearer. After all, you could see similar signs of unhappiness four years ago, and none of that translated into mass defections to the John Kerry camp. And, despite Ann Coulter's vow to campaign for Hillary Clinton over John McCain, the old bête noir of the right would have never attracted many conservatives. That's what makes the rise of the Obamacons such an interesting development. Conservatives of almost all ideological flavors (even, gasp, some supply-siders) have been drawn to Obama--out of a genuine affection and a belief that he may actually better embody movement ideals than McCain.

There have been a few celebrated cases of conservatives endorsing Obama, like the blogger Andrew Sullivan and the legal scholar Douglas Kmiec. But you probably have not have heard of many of the Obamacons--and neither has the Obama campaign. When I checked with it to ask for a list of prominent conservative supporters, the campaign seemed genuinely unaware that such supporters even existed. But those of us on the right who pay attention to think tanks, blogs, and little magazines have watched Obama compile a coterie drawn from the movement's most stalwart and impressive thinkers. It's a group that will no doubt grow even larger in the coming months.

The largest group of Obamacons hail from the libertarian wing of the movement. And it's not just Andrew Sullivan. Milton and Rose Friedman's son, David, is signed up with the cause on the grounds that he sees Obama as the better vessel for his father's cause. Friedman is convinced of Obama's sympathy for school vouchers--a tendency that the Democratic primaries temporarily suppressed. Scott Flanders, the CEO of Freedom Communications--the company that owns The Orange County Register--told a company meeting that he believes Obama will accomplish the paramount libertarian goals of withdrawing from Iraq and scaling back the Patriot Act.Libertarians (and other varieties of Obamacons, for that matter) frequently find themselves attracted to Obama on stylistic grounds. That is, they believe that he has surrounded himself with pragmatists, some of whom (significantly) come from the University of Chicago. As the blogger Megan McArdle has written, "His goal is not more government so that we can all be caught up in some giant, expressive exercise of collectively enforcing our collective will on all the other people standing around us in the collective; his goal is improving transparency and minimizing government intrusion while rectifying specific outcomes."

In nearly every quarter of the movement, you can find conservatives irate over the Iraq war--a war they believe transgresses core principles. And it's this frustration with the war--and McCain's pronouncements about victory at any cost--that has led many conservatives into Obama's arms. Francis Fukuyama, the neoconservative theorist, recently told an Australian journalist that he would reluctantly vote for Obama to hold the Republican Party accountable "for a big policy failure" in Iraq. And he seems to view Obama as the best means for preserving American power, since Obama "symbolizes the ability of the United States to renew itself in a very unexpected way."

You can find similar sentiments coursing through the Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich's seminal Obamacon manifesto in The American Conservative. He believes that the war in Iraq has undermined the possibilities for conservative reform at home. The prospects for a conservative revival, therefore, depend on withdrawing from Iraq. Thus the necessity of Obama. "For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one," Bacevich concludes.

How substantial is the Obamacon phenomenon? Well, it has even penetrated National Review, the intellectual anchor of the conservative movement. There's Jeffrey Hart, who has been a senior editor at the magazine since 1968 and even wrote a history of the magazine, The Making of the American Conservative Mind; and Wick Allison, who once served as the magazine's publisher.

Neither man has renounced his conservatism. Both have come away impressed by Obama's rhetorical acumen. This is a particular compliment coming from Hart, who wrote speeches for both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. They both like that Obama couches his speeches in a language of uplift and unity. When describing his support for Obama, Allison pointed me in the direction of a column that his wife (who has never supported a Democrat) wrote in The Dallas Morning News: "He speaks with candor and elegance against the kind of politics that have become so dispiriting and for the kind of America I would like to see. As a man, I find Mr. Obama to be prudent, thoughtful, and courageous. His life story embodies the conservative values that go to the core of my beliefs."But, if you're looking for the least likely pool of Obamacons, it would be the supply-siders. And you can even find some of those. Take Larry Hunter, who helped put together the economics passages in the Contract with America and served as chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He concedes that Obama is saying the wrong things on taxes but dismisses it as electioneering. Of far greater importance, in Hunter's view, is that Obama has the potential to "scramble the political deck, break up old alliances, and bring odd bedfellows together in a new coalition." And, what's more important, he views the Republican Party as a "dead, rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of Weekend at Bernie's, handcuffed to a corpse." Unless the Republican Party is thoroughly purged of its current leadership, Hunter fears that it "will pollute the political environment to toxic levels and create an epidemic that could damage the country for generations to come."

I know what Hunter and the rest of the Obamacons are talking about. As a conservative, I share their disgust with a Republican Party that still does not see how badly George W. Bush has misgoverned this country. But, while I am sympathetic to the Obamacons and have a number of friends that are, I am not one of them. I'm not ready to join the other side.

Still, I have enjoyed watching the phenomenon, which has the potential to remake the political landscape. It will also produce some of the good comedy that inevitably accompanies strange bedfellows. The blogger Dorothy King, an archeologist and strong conservative, recently outed herself as an Obamacon. This was a culturally awkward position for her. She wondered, "Do I now, as a newly minted Obamaphile liberal elitist, have to serve my guests Chablis? Or would any old chardonnay do? ... Am I even meant to admit to going to the supermarket? Should I pretend to only go to the local Farmers' Market?" There, undoubtedly, will be much more of such dislocation in the months to come.

Bruce Bartlett is the author of Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

djchefron — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:40:00 -0000

Why idiots want to stay the course in Iraq?
...................................BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions

By Jane Corbin

BBC News

Waxman: "It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

The BBC's Panorama programme has used US and Iraqi government sources to research how much some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While Presdient George W Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The president's Democratic opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman, who chairs the House committee on oversight and government reform, said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, it's egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

In the run-up to the invasion, one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth $7bn that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

Missing billions

The search for the missing billions also led the programme to a house in Acton in west London where Hazem Shalaan lived until he was appointed to the new Iraqi government as minister of defence in 2004.

Judge Radhi al Radhi: "I believe these people are criminals."

He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2bn out of the ministry. They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top-class weapons.

Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts.

Judge Radhi al-Radhi of Iraq's Commission for Public Integrity investigated.

He said: "I believe these people are criminals.

"They failed to rebuild the Ministry of Defence, and as a result the violence and the bloodshed went on and on - the murder of Iraqis and foreigners continues and they bear responsibility."

Mr Shalaan was sentenced to two jail terms but he fled the country.

He said he was innocent and that it was all a plot against him by pro-Iranian MPs in the government.

There is an Interpol arrest warrant out for him but he is on the run - using a private jet to move around the globe.

He stills owns commercial properties in the Marble Arch area of London

...................................

Answer. They havent stolen enough from US taxpayers.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

djchefron — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:22:00 -0000

This is the reality.Get your head out of fox newa derrirre and get the facts.Who Has No Fundamental Understanding of the Surge?
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust buzz up Posted June 11, 2008 | 10:57 AM (EST)

I am catching this a little late, but this is important to correct. The McCain campaign attacked Barack Obama for saying that the surge would result in an increase in violence. Pointing to this quote from Obama:

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

McCain says that that was clearly wrong saying:

Sen. Obama said that the effect would be the reverse. So, he has no fundamental understanding of the entire situation that warranted the surge, which led to the success."

This is ridiculous. The surge DID increase violence in Iraq. Yes the last eight months violence is down - but the eight months before that were the most violent since the war began - making 2007 (the year of the surge) the deadliest year for American troops (see the chart from icasulaties below). Putting U.S. troops in the most dangerous neighborhoods of Iraq was bound to increase violence.

Violence has decreased since - and while the troop increase and the change in strategy has had an important impact, other factors (factors not a part of the original of the surge plan) explain the decline in violence much more effectively. What are these:

1. We cut deals with the enemy. The Anbar awakening and the deals struck with Sunni insurgents were the most important factor contributing to the decline and violence. But its important to note that this was NOT part of the original surge strategy but was arrived at due to the escalating violence and the failures of Iraq's political leaders to make any headway on the political benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration as part of the surge.

2. Ethnic cleansing was more or less achieved in most neighborhoods. As in other ethnic conflicts - violence usually peaks at the outset, as integrated neighborhoods are forcefully segregated. As neighborhoods become segregated they are often walled off - creating more security for neighborhood residents by preventing outsiders from entering. This has been a tactic deployed by Petraeus and is a common counter-insurgency tactic. While this is effective at preventing violence, it also has the negative side effect of freezing sectarian divisions in place creating a significant long term obstacle to reconciliation (think Belfast).

3. We had a cease-fire agreement with Sadr, which has been extremely important in lowering attacks on the U.S.

Attributing the recent decrease in violence solely to the increase in troop levels and ignoring the fact that violence significantly increased during the first eight months of the surge is indicative of someone who "lacks a fundamental understanding of the entire situation that warranted the surge."

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

djchefron — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:07:00 -0000

To S and D No the surge is not working.In effect you are bribing the people who was killing you not to kill you.How long do you think that will last when the money runs out?Right now the majority shia is organizing demostrations against the sercurity pact that bush is trying to push down there throats.How long do you think we can hold on when Sistani gives the word that it is your duty to expel the occupiers?No matter how you try to frame it Iraq is a debacle according to international law a war crime and anyone who supports it is to a degree is a war criminal

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

djchefron — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:44:00 -0000

Read the nuremberg laws.Any nation that commits a aggresive war against a soveighn nation is guilty of a war crime.You really dont think Iraq was a threat to us do you.Our own Senate concluded that the bush administration lied to the American Public to go to war.Paul Wolfowitz said in effect that they settled on WMD as the rational to go to war because it was the easiest one to sell to the simpletons that we are.We have committed war crimes in Iraq.It is against International law to steal a conquer nations resources and that is exactly what we are doing with the Carbon law that we are making them sign.I am a veteren who is disabled and I honor our troops but I do not honor this war of choice that only benefits the few while our troops cannot get healthcare and ny country goes further into debt because the main cowards who support the war do not want to pay for it or send their kids to fight it

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

djchefron — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:30:00 -0000

Well my brother D I honor you and what you beleive in but this is where we agree to disagree. I do not believe Saddam was a threat to our national sercurity and the stupidity of this admin. has made things worse.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Holla at us!!

djchefron — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:03:00 -0000

There should be a thread called Idiot Alert here is my entry
ANTI-OBAMA "MOVEMENT" SPOKESWOMAN INTERVIEWED ON FOX THINKS OBAMA IS A TERRORIST WHO PRACTICES POTENTIALLY LETHAL MIND-CONTROL HYPNOSIS

From NewsHounds:

Hannity & Colmes hosted crackpot Cristi Adkins, a die-hard Hillary Clinton fan who is now supporting John McCain. Adkins' website makes the outlandish accusation that Obama is "the home-grown terrorist sleeper cell." ...

Adkins said she was there as part of some coalition called, "Just Say No Deal." The website states: "We are a coalition of millions with one thing in common: NObama." ...

There's video at the NewsHounds link. Hannity and Colmes take this guest quite seriously.

How reliable is she? I think all you need to know is the fact that she posted this comment at a fellow Obama-basher's blog back in March:

Be Aware of the Hypnotic Power of the O'Bama Kool Aid…

Is It DANGEROUS?

Yes, Obama is a powerful speaker, make no mistake about that. As with all motivation speakers like Anthony Robbins and Marshall Sylver, he has a hypnotic quality about him. However, what's he really saying? As his voice lowers in pitch, softens a bit, you'll also notice the lights are lowered, the background music gets the audience pumped, he meets your gaze eye to eye during the rally and his voice seems to lull you into the 'feelings' of hope, inspiration and excitement. But when you leave the rally, you are left with one message. 'Change.' The amazing principle of Group Think is applicable, but there is another side to the coin.

...who is this empowering man that can inspire thousands of young, innocent, voters to go to the poles, even on blistery, dangerous highways during an ice storm..such as it was in Virginia and Maryland on February 12? ...

It is the same power that convinces thousands of unsuspecting enthusiasts to drink the red Kool Aid which leads to their ultimate destruction. It's called Mind Control, or in some circles, Hypnosis.

Mr. Obama is highly skilled at bypassing the critical thinking mind and getting straight to the subconscious mind; he knows how to hit what really makes voters tick. It is said in the world of Mind Control, when you control someones emotions, you control them. This is same tool and technique highly recognized in the speaking industry and used by the Anthony Robbins and Marshall Sylvers of the world. Unlike Bush, who used the Fear of Terrorists, O'bama's fear hits even closer to home. It is a sublimina fear of being publicly ridiculed if you say anything negative about a 'well liked' black candidate. Other emotions target the votes as they hope to stay out of a recession, fear losing their homes, desire a better life with greener pastures, excitement builds as the democratic race is the best reality TV to observe….

Keep this in mind when you place your vote. Do you want to be vote with your heart and emotions, with the facts or jump on a band wagon with a mysterious pull to drink the Obama Kook Aid? ...

Cristi Adkins, RN Cht

There's your Fox News "expert."

Of course, judging from this PDF at her workplace, perhaps Cristi is just feeling professional jealousy:

Cristi is a registered nurse who provides holistic nursing and holds a Masters Certification as a Hypnotherapist by the National Guild of Hypnotists. Originally born and raised outside of Baton Rouge, LA in a small town called Denham Springs, but has since moved on to become one of the masters in subconscious reprogramming.

As Registered Nurse she specializes in the body-mind-spirit approach. As an activist in holistic medicine, Nurse Cristi served as the state representative for the American Holistic Nurses Association for the state of Utah in 1998-1999 to bring about awareness to the field of Holistic Medicine. Holistic principles back the Fatloss Forever! weight loss program.

...Cristi offers complimentary consultations for the following services:

Hypnotherapy

Meditation

Audio Spa with the Light Sound System

Ionic Detox Foot Spa

Weight Loss

Nutrition

Holistic Health

Call today for your initial consultation....

I'm not sure why Cristi didn't try to use her skills at hypnotic mind control to persuade voters not to vote for Obama, given the fact that she's a pro, while he's just an amateur (unless there's some truth to the rumors I've heard that he has a master's from the Bin Laden School of Mind Control and Global Domination).

Then again, maybe that's exactly what she's doing -- I'm feeling very sleepy....

..................................

Kudos to No More Mr. Nice Guy Blog

Re: Friday Open Thread…..yeah, it’s Friday

djchefron — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:49:00 -0000

June 12, 2008
Tax Relief for the Middle Class

Barack Obama

Kaukauna, Wisconsin

I just had the pleasure of sitting down with Ryan and Jenny Micke, and hearing about some of the challenges that they're facing in these tough economic times. We're going to continue our dialogue in a few moments, but I want to start by talking a little bit about my plan to provide meaningful tax relief for working people.

Americans work longer and harder than the people of any other wealthy nation. We've built the largest economy that the world has ever known, and the biggest middle class in history. But for the last eight years, we've failed to keep the fundamental promise that if you work hard you can live your own version of the American dream. Instead, folks are working harder for less. The cost of everything from gas, to groceries to tuition is skyrocketing. It's harder to save, and harder to retire. At kitchen tables like Ryan and Jenny's, it's easy to feel like that dream of opportunity that should be the right of all Americans is slipping away.

This troubling story is written into communities across the country. It's the story of empty factories shut down forever because the jobs were shipped overseas and nothing took their place. It's the story of a mother who can't afford health care for her sick child; a father who lost his job and can't afford a tank of gas to look for another; a child facing a future where they'll have to pay off hundreds of billions of dollars in debt to pay for George Bush's tax cuts. And I am running for President of the United States of America because the story of this downturn starts in Washington, and Washington has to change.

These difficult times are not an accident of history - they are a consequence of a tired and misguided economic philosophy in Washington. It's a philosophy that values wealth but not the work that creates it. That's how we've ended up with tax loopholes that allow companies to stash profits and ship jobs overseas. That's why we have seen tax cut after tax cut for the wealthiest Americans who don't need them and didn't ask for them. And that's why we're burdened with a tax code that's too complicated for ordinary folks to understand, but just complicated enough for Washington lobbyists who know how to work the system.

This philosophy is supported by an old brand of politics that uses understandable anti-tax sentiment to shift the tax burden on to working people. Meanwhile, the gaps in wealth grow wider and the costs to the middle class are greater. CEOs make more in a day than their employees make in a year. Our economy suffers through cycles of bubble and bust when the pain on Main Street trickles up to Wall Street. Even before our current crisis, we went through the first sustained period of growth since World War II that saw median incomes go down.

So there will be a very clear choice in this election. John McCain will dust off the old political playbook that George Bush used in the last two elections, and the disastrous tax policies that have failed the American people. I am running to lead this country in a new direction.

We both favor tax cuts. The difference is that Senator McCain wants to continue a Bush tax code that rewards wealth; I want to reform our tax code so that it rewards work. That's why the typical middle-class family will get three times more from my tax cut than the one John McCain has proposed, while nearly a quarter of his tax cuts go to households making over $2.8 million every year. That's right - $2.8 million. That's where John McCain wants to focus his tax relief in this struggling economy.

And Senator McCain once knew better. He said that he couldn't vote for the Bush tax cuts in good conscience because they were too skewed to the wealthiest Americans, but now he wants to make those same tax cuts permanent. Later, he said it was irresponsible to cut taxes during a time of war because we couldn't afford them, but now he'd continue running up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt while spending billions of dollars a day in Iraq. There's nothing conservative about that.

You know, I often say that John McCain is running to serve out George Bush's third term, but when it comes to taxes that's not being fair to George Bush. Because the fact is, Senator McCain is now calling for a new round of tax giveaways that are twice as expensive as the original Bush plan and nearly twice as regressive, and he has no concrete plan to pay for it. He'd spend nearly $2 trillion over a decade in tax breaks for corporations, including $1.2 billion for Exxon Mobil. Think about that. While you're paying four dollars at the pump and your children's future is being mortgaged under a mountain of debt, Senator McCain wants to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to Big Oil, and opposes a windfall profits tax on oil companies like Exxon to help families struggling with high energy costs.

I think that's exactly what we need to change in Washington. We can't keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace. We can't keep pursuing policies that favor Wall Street over Main Street, because that approach ends up hurting both. It's time to turn the page. I will stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, and put a tax cut into the pockets of working people, and struggling homeowners, and seniors. And we'll simplify our tax code so that folks don't have to work the system to get a fair deal.

First, we will provide real tax relief for the middle class by cutting taxes for 150 million Americans. We'll reward work through a "Making Work Pay" tax credit of $500 for American workers - and $1,000 for working families like Ryan and Jenny's - to offset the payroll tax that you're already paying. This will give the middle class a break with rising costs while giving our economy a boost. And because this credit would be greater than their income tax bill, this would eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

The second part of my plan eases the burden on struggling homeowners through a universal homeowner's tax credit. This will immediately benefit 10 million homeowners who don't itemize - including Ryan and Jenny - who will get a break of 10 percent off their mortgage interest rate. For most middle class families, this will add about $500 each year. And this credit will extend a hand to many of the millions of families stuck in the subprime crisis by giving them some breathing room to refinance or sell their homes.

The third thing I'll do as President is keep our promise with America's seniors. Since the New Deal, we've had a basic understanding in this country. If you work hard and pay into the system, you've earned the right to a secure retirement. But even though seniors have held up their end of the bargain, many struggle to keep pace with costs, which can become a worry for an entire family. So I'll eliminate income taxes for all seniors making less than $50,000. This will eliminate income taxes for 7 million Americans, at a savings rate of roughly $1,400 each year. Seniors in this country should retire with the dignity and security they have earned.

Finally, it's time to cut through the complexity in our tax code. Deductions and exemptions are built into the system, but ordinary people don't have the time to figure them out without paying for a tax preparer. When I'm President, we'll put in place a system where 40 million Americans with a job and a bank account who take the standard deduction can do their taxes in less than five minutes. Meanwhile, under John McCain, you could have to fill out three tax forms all using different tax rules just to pay your taxes. Under my plan, there's no more worry. No more wasted time and expense. Your pre-prepared return will come to you in the mail. This will save Americans more than $2 billion in tax preparer fees and more than 200 million hours of work.

To pay for this, we'll restore a sense of fairness. That means standing up to the special interest carve outs, closing those corporate loopholes and tax breaks, and letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire. It's time for folks like me who make over $250,000 to pay our fair share. I am not afraid to have this debate about taxes and fairness - but let's be clear about what we're debating. If you are a family making less than $250,000, my plan will not raise your taxes - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. In fact chances are you will get a tax cut, and one that is larger than what Senator McCain is proposing. It's time to grow our economy by renewing our stake in our common prosperity.

It's time to end a philosophy in Washington that tells people like Ryan and Jenny that "you're on your own," because we're all in this together as Americans. Most Americans aren't asking for a lot. They don't need overseas tax shelters or a long list of loopholes. They just want a fair shake. And they could stand a break. My tax cut is guided by the simple principle that what's good for Main Street is good for our entire economy. That's how we'll get people the relief they need, while getting our economy back on the right track.

Barack Obama is a Democratic Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination

Re: Friday Open Thread…..yeah, it’s Friday

djchefron — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:30:00 -0000

For the Iraq cheerleaders
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As the Iraq war continues with no clear end in sight, the cost to taxpayers may balloon to $2.7 trillion by the time the conflict comes to an end, according to Congressional testimony.

In a hearing held by the Joint Economic Committee Thursday, members of Congress heard testimony about the current costs of the war and the future economic fallout from returning soldiers.

At the beginning of the conflict in 2003, the Bush administration gave Congress a cost estimate of $60 billion to $100 billion for the entirety of the war. But the battle has been dragging on much longer than most in the government expected, and costs have ballooned to nearly ten times the original estimate.

William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis, told members of Congress that the Iraq war has already cost taxpayers $646 billion. That's only accounting for five years, and, with the conflict expected to drag on for another five years, the figure is expected to more than quadruple. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told members of Congress that the war costs taxpayers about $430 million per day, and called out the Bush Administration.

"It is long past time for the administration to come clean and account for the real costs of the war in Iraq," said Schumer. "If they want to disagree with our estimates or with other experts ... fine - they should come and explain why."

The Bush Administration, which was invited to give testimony, declined to participate.

The Pentagon has previously said that the war costs approximately $9.5 billion a month, but some economists say the figure is closer to $25 billion a month when long-term health care for veterans and interest are factored in.

Health care: In testimony before the committee, Dr. Christine Eibner, an Associate Economist with research firm RAND, said advances in armor technology have kept alive many soldiers who would have been killed in prior wars. But that has added to post-war health care costs for veterans, especially for "unseen" wounds like post traumatic stress disorder, major depression and traumatic brain injury.

Two-year post-deployment health care costs for the 1.6 million service members currently in Iraq and Afghanistan could range from $4 billion to $6.2 billion, according to Eibner. For one year of treatment, the costs are substantially lower, ranging from $591 million to $910 million. Eibner admitted that the study did not take into account long term care, and her estimates probably underestimate the total costs.

However, Eibner noted that an increasing number of soldiers are not seeking the care that they need, which affects their ability to get and maintain jobs. And, that, she said, must change.

"Many service members are currently reluctant to seek mental health treatment due to fear of negative career repercussions," said Eibner. "Policies must be changed so that there are no perceived or real adverse career consequences for individuals who seek treatment."

Unemployment: Furthermore, many veterans who recently completed their service are coming back to a difficult job and housing market.

Among veterans who completed their service within the last 1 to 3 years, 18% were unemployed, and 25% earned less than $21,840 a year, according to a recent report commissioned by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

"Trying to convince [job interviewers] that my service will translate into skills ... at a bottling factory or a distributing company is almost like you're speaking French to someone who doesn't speak French," said Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America policy associate Tom Tarantino.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer agreed, saying the government does a poor job at readying veterans for post-Army life.

"We haven't figured out how to convert a warrior to a citizen yet," Schweitzer told the committee.

Foreclosure: Many soldiers who come home from active duty are also finding difficulty keeping their homes.

"Military families are already shouldering heavy burdens to care for and support families while their loved ones are serving abroad or recovering at home," said Schumer. "Knowing that so many more are losing their homes to foreclosure is heartbreaking -- and its just plain wrong."

The senator said that Army personnel returning from duty are at a 37% higher risk of foreclosure, because the areas populated by military families have substantially larger foreclosure rates.

"Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan deserve better," testified Tarantino.

Tarantino recommended Congress quickly sign into law an update to the World War II GI Bill, which would help ease the economic hardships returning solders are feeling.

"More than any other single piece of legislation, the GI Bill will make a difference in the economic futures of the troops returning every day from Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.

First Published: June 12, 2008: 12:07 PM EDT

...................................

We maybe bankrupt as a nation but at least we got Saddam

Re: Friday Open Thread…..yeah, it’s Friday

djchefron — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:45:00 -0000

Ronnie b sorry I couldnt answer you sooner I was making a mix for my stepson who just left the army.I got the speech from realclear politics

Re: Friday Open Thread…..yeah, it’s Friday

djchefron — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:07:00 -0000

Good morning d,maybe you can define success and how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to attain it

Re: Friday Open Thread…..yeah, it’s Friday

djchefron — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:44:00 -0000

Obama's 17 State Strategy
by: Chris Bowers

Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:39

While the Obama campaign will keep staff to all 50 states, and while it is keeping its volunteer campaign infrastructure in place in all 50 states as well, today it is sending 3,600 organizing fellows to 17 states. Unless plans have changed in the last seventeen days, the seventeen states are as follows:

In an email to people accepted into their Organizing Fellowship Program, the Obama camp listed the 17 states below as the ones where they need the most resources:

Colorado

Florida

Georgia

Iowa

Michigan

Missouri

North Carolina

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

Nevada

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

So, Obama will run a 50 state campaign, but it will be layered with a 17 state focus. This isn't a contradiction, at least not as I understand the 50-state strategy. The strategy does not dictate that resources are spent equally across the entire nation, just that some resources are spent everywhere. Certain areas are still more heavily targeted, but no area is ignored.

Overall, I would have ignored Washington, and used those resources on Alaska, Connecticut, Montana and Nebraska-02 instead. (Combined, those three states and one congressional district have roughly the same population as Washington). Given Bob Barr and the large African-American population, Georgia probably makes more sense than an alternate possibility, targeting Indiana and the Dakotas. (Combined, Indiana and the Dakotas have roughly the same population as Georgia).

I look at the list in more detail in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Obama's 17 State Strategy

Thoughts on the targeted and the targeted-nots:

Georgia, huh? This is perhaps the biggest surprise on the list, but the Obama campaign seems ready to make a play for it. One factor might be that Libertarian nominee Bob Barr is from Georgia, and he has won elections here before. As Barr drains votes from McCain, increased African-American turnout could make the state close. Still, even with Barr at 6-8%, McCain still leads here by 10%. I have to believe that Obama has already put Sam Nunn on his short list if he is targeting Georgia, and that makes me very nervous.

Not targeting Arizona. Despite implications, even from the McCain campaign, that Arizona might be in play this year, the Obama campaign isn't shooting for it. That is probably pretty smart. While nominees sometimes lose their home states (Gore, for example), when the state already leans toward that party (Bush won Arizona by 6.32% in 2000, and 10.47% in 2004), it seems highly unlikely. Good call to not heavily target the state.

No West Virginia: While it is a good move to not target West Virginia with organizers in and of itself, hopefully the Obama campaign will still run paid media there, as southeast Ohio shares media markets with West Virginia.

No Indiana: While polling in Indiana is close, apparently the Obama campaign does not think it is a top target.

No Maine, Minnesota: Over the past two cycles, Maine and Minnesota were both considered swing states, particularly Minnesota. This time around, the Obama campaign appears to believe they have Minnesota, and Maine's 1st congressional district, in the bag. Avoiding ME-01 because it already leans your way and is only worth one vote makes sense, but what about...

No Minnesota, but Oregon?: It is a bit of a surprise to Oregon on this list, but not Minnesota. Pollster.com shows Obama ahead by identical 50.8%-39.0% amounts in Minnesota and Oregon, and both states will also feature competitive Senate elections. Neither really feel like swing states this time, to tell you the truth. But it gets worse when you see...

Washington? Really? Obama is ahead by a whopping 16.2% in Washington. In fact, according to Pollster.com, my Presidential forecast, and fivethirtyeight.com, Obama's Washington lead is surpassed only by his lead in D.C., Hawaii, Illinois and Vermont. If your 5th best jurisdiction is a swing state, then I'm Elmer Fudd. This really feels unnecessary.

New Jersey and Oregon, but not Connecticut? While I am a little surprised to see New Jersey on the list, it isn't all that surprising. What does surprise me is that the Obama campaign is hitting New Jersey but not Connecticut, given that the two states are extremely similar in this election. Either way, both will probably be closer than, Oregon, a state that has the same number of electoral votes as Connecticut.

Where are the small states? A case could be made for Alaska, the Dakotas, Delaware, Montana, and Nebraska-02 as swing states. While I have no problem avoiding Delaware (it can be reached by PA media and already leans pretty blue anyway), Democrats have been on real winning streaks in the Dakotas and Montana recently, and polls show both Montana and North Dakota in single digits. The calculation must be that these states are simply too small, population wise and electoral vote wise, but with a widely distributed population, for resources to be effectively spent there. Obama avoided South Dakota in the primaries as well.

Alaska would have been great: While polling shows Obama down by 7-9% in Alaska, this year it will feature highly competitive congressional campaigns for both the House and the Senate. Also, Anchorage makes up 40% of the state's population, making the population much easier to target. Further, Bob Barr should do well in Alaska, as the state is more pro-third parties than any other in the nation (except possibly Maine), and also has a real libertarian bent. It is a big disappointment to not see more targeting in Alaska, especially given what strikes me as a waste of resources in Washington.

Lots of tricky decisions, but with the exceptions I listed above the fold I generally agree with them. Run a 50 state campaign, but layer it over the top with seventeen highly targeted states. If Obama wins the seventeen states listed above, plus the remaining Kerry states, he will win 379 electoral votes.

Re: Hell…to the Naw!

djchefron — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:04:00 -0000

What about Tavis Smiley and if they fill the position from NBC ranks David Shuster is the man

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

djchefron — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:14:00 -0000

This is what happens when you dont question and let the president do whatever he wants.Thank you Supreme Court for restoring some of our rights.
...................................By Tom Lasseter | McClatchy Newspapers

GARDEZ, Afghanistan — The militants crept up behind Mohammed Akhtiar as he squatted at the spigot to wash his hands before evening prayers at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

They shouted "Allahu Akbar" — God is great — as one of them hefted a metal mop squeezer into the air, slammed it into Akhtiar's head and sent thick streams of blood running down his face.

Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as "the worst of the worst."

But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

"He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government," a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.

This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.

The investigation also found that despite the uncertainty about whom they were holding, U.S. soldiers beat and abused many prisoners.

Prisoner mistreatment became a regular feature in cellblocks and interrogation rooms at Bagram and Kandahar air bases, the two main way stations in Afghanistan en route to Guantanamo.

While he was held at Afghanistan's Bagram Air Base, Akhtiar said, "When I had a dispute with the interrogator, when I asked, 'What is my crime?' the soldiers who took me back to my cell would throw me down the stairs."

The McClatchy reporting also documented how U.S. detention policies fueled support for extremist Islamist groups. For some detainees who went home far more militant than when they arrived, Guantanamo became a school for jihad, or Islamic holy war.

Of course, Guantanamo also houses Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, who along with four other high-profile detainees faces military commission charges. Cases also have been opened against 15 other detainees for assorted offenses, such as attending al Qaida training camps.

But because the Bush administration set up Guantanamo under special rules that allowed indefinite detention without charges or federal court challenge, it's impossible to know how many of the 770 men who've been held there were terrorists.

A series of White House directives placed "suspected enemy combatants" beyond the reach of U.S. law or the 1949 Geneva Conventions' protections for prisoners of war. President Bush and Congress then passed legislation that protected those detention rules.

However, the administration's attempts to keep the detainees beyond the law came crashing down last week.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that detainees have the right to contest their cases in federal courts, and that a 2006 act of Congress forbidding them from doing so was unconstitutional. "Some of these petitioners have been in custody for six years with no definitive judicial determination as to the legality of their detention," the court said in its 5-4 decision, overturning Bush administration policy and two acts of Congress that codified it.

One former administration official said the White House's initial policy and legal decisions "probably made instances of abuse more likely. ... My sense is that decisions taken at the top probably sent a signal that the old rules don't apply ... certainly some people read what was coming out of Washington: The gloves are off, this isn't a Geneva world anymore."

Like many others who previously worked in the White House or Defense Department, the official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the legal and political sensitivities of the issue.

McClatchy's interviews are the most ever conducted with former Guantanamo detainees by a U.S. news organization. The issue of detainee backgrounds has previously been reported on by other media outlets, but not as comprehensively.

McClatchy also in many cases did more research than either the U.S. military at Guantanamo, which often relied on secondhand accounts, or the detainees' lawyers, who relied mainly on the detainees' accounts.

The Pentagon declined to discuss the findings. It issued a statement Friday saying that military policy always has been to treat detainees humanely, to investigate credible complaints of abuse and to hold people accountable. The statement says that an al Qaida manual urges detainees to lie about prison conditions once they're released. "We typically do not respond to each and every allegation of abuse made by past and present detainees," the statement said.

LITTLE INTELLIGENCE VALUE

The McClatchy investigation found that top Bush administration officials knew within months of opening the Guantanamo detention center that many of the prisoners there weren't "the worst of the worst." From the moment that Guantanamo opened in early 2002, former Secretary of the Army Thomas White said, it was obvious that at least a third of the population didn't belong there.

Of the 66 detainees whom McClatchy interviewed, the evidence indicates that 34 of them, about 52 percent, had connections with militant groups or activities. At least 23 of those 34, however, were Taliban foot soldiers, conscripts, low-level volunteers or adventure-seekers who knew nothing about global terrorism.

Only seven of the 66 were in positions to have had any ties to al Qaida's leadership, and it isn't clear that any of them knew any terrorists of consequence.

If the former detainees whom McClatchy interviewed are any indication — and several former high-ranking U.S. administration and defense officials said in interviews that they are — most of the prisoners at Guantanamo weren't terrorist masterminds but men who were of no intelligence value in the war on terrorism.

Far from being an ally of the Taliban, Mohammed Akhtiar had fled to Pakistan shortly after the puritanical Islamist group took power in 1996, the senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. The Taliban burned down Akhtiar's house after he refused to ally his tribe with their government.

The Americans detained Akhtiar, the intelligence officer said, because they were given bad information by another Afghan who'd harbored a personal vendetta against Akhtiar going back to his time as a commander against the Soviet military during the 1980s.

"In some of these cases, tribal feuds and political feuds have played a big role" in people getting sent to Guantanamo, the intelligence officer said.

He didn't want his name used, partly because he didn't want to offend the Western officials he works with and partly because Afghan intelligence officers are assassinated regularly.

"There were Afghans being sent to Guantanamo because of bad intelligence," said Helaluddin Helal, Afghanistan's deputy interior minister for security from 2002 to early 2004. "In the beginning, everyone was trying to give intelligence to the Americans ... the Americans were taking action without checking this information."

Nusrat Khan was in his 70s when American troops shoved him into an isolation cell at Bagram in the spring of 2003. They blindfolded him, put earphones on his head and tied his hands behind his back for almost four weeks straight, Khan said.

By the time he was taken out of the cell, Khan — who'd had at least two strokes years before he was arrested and was barely able to walk — was half-mad and couldn't stand without help. Khan said that he was taken to Guantanamo on a stretcher.

Several Afghan officials, including the country's attorney general, later said that Khan, who spent more than three years at Guantanamo, wasn't a threat to anyone; he'd been turned in as an insurgent leader because of decades-old rivalries with competing Afghan militias.

Ghalib Hassan was an Interior Ministry-appointed district commander in Afghanistan's Nangarhar province, a man who'd risked his life to help the U.S.-backed government. Din Mohammed, the former governor of that province and now the governor of Kabul, said there was no question that local tribal leaders, offended by Hassan's brusque style, fed false information about him to local informants used by American troops.

The Pentagon declined requests to make top officials, including the secretary of defense, available to respond to McClatchy's findings. The defense official in charge of detainee affairs, Sandra Hodgkinson, refused to speak with McClatchy.

The Pentagon's only response to a series of written questions from McClatchy, and to a list of 63 of the 66 former detainees interviewed for this story, was a three-paragraph statement.

"These unlawful combatants have provided valuable information in the struggle to protect the U.S. public from an enemy bent on murder of innocent civilians," Col. Gary Keck said in the statement. He provided no examples.

Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby, until recently the commanding officer at Guantanamo, said that detainees had supplied crucial information about al Qaida, the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

"Included with the folks that were brought here in 2002 were, by and large, the main leadership of al Qaida and the Taliban," he said in a phone interview.

Buzby agreed, however, that some detainees were from the bottom rung.

"It's all about developing the mosaic ... there's value to both ends of the spectrum," he said.

Former senior U.S. defense and intelligence officials, however, said McClatchy's conclusions squared with their own observations.

"As far as intelligence value from those in Gitmo, I got tired of telling the people writing reports based on their interrogations that their material was essentially worthless," a U.S. intelligence officer said in an e-mail, using the military's slang for Guantanamo.

Guantanamo authorities periodically sent analysts at the U.S. Central Command "rap sheets on various prisoners and asked our assessment whether they merited continued confinement," said the analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. "Over about three years, I assessed around 40 of these individuals, mostly Afghans. ... I only can remember recommending that ONE should be kept at GITMO."

'WAR COUNCIL' REWRITES DETAINEE LAW

At a Pentagon briefing in the spring of 2002, a senior Army intelligence officer expressed doubt about the entire intelligence-gathering process.

"He said that we're not getting anything, and his thought was that we're not getting anything because there might not be anything to get," said Donald J. Guter, a retired rear admiral who was the head of the Navy's Judge Advocate General's Corps at the time.

Many detainees were "swept up in the pot" by large operations conducted by Afghan troops allied with the Americans, said former Army Secretary White, who's now a partner at DKRW Energy, an energy company in Houston.

One of the Afghan detainees at Guantanamo, White recalled, was more than 80 years old.

Army Spc. Eric Barclais, who was a military intelligence interrogator at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan from September 2002 through January 2003, told military investigators in sworn testimony that "We recommended lots of folks be released from (Bagram), but they were not. I believe some people ended up at (Guantanamo) that had no business being sent there."

"You have to understand some folks were detained because they got turned in by neighbors or family members who were feuding with them," Barclais said. "Yes, they had weapons. Everyone had weapons. Some were Soviet-era and could not even be fired."

A former Pentagon official told McClatchy that he was shocked at times by the backgrounds of men held at Guantanamo.

" 'Captured with weapon near the Pakistan border?' " the official said. "Are you kidding me?"

"The screening, the understanding of who we had was horrible," he said. "That's why we had so many useless people at Gitmo."

In 2002, a CIA analyst interviewed several dozen detainees at Guantanamo and reported to senior National Security Council officials that many of them didn't belong there, a former White House official said.

Despite the analyst's findings, the administration made no further review of the Guantanamo detainees. The White House had determined that all of them were enemy combatants, the former official said.

Rather than taking a closer look at whom they were holding, a group of five White House, Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers who called themselves the "War Council" devised a legal framework that enabled the administration to detain suspected "enemy combatants" indefinitely with few legal rights.

The threat of new terrorist attacks, the War Council argued, allowed President Bush to disregard or rewrite American law, international treaties and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to permit unlimited detentions and harsh interrogations.

The group further argued that detainees had no legal right to defend themselves, and that American soldiers — along with the War Council members, their bosses and Bush — should be shielded from prosecution for actions that many experts argue are war crimes.

With the support of Bush, Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the group shunted aside the military justice system, and in February 2002, Bush suspended the legal protection for detainees spelled out in Common Article Three of the 1949 Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, which outlaws degrading treatment and torture.

The Bush administration didn't launch a formal review of the detentions until a 2004 Supreme Court decision forced it to begin holding military tribunals at Guantanamo. The Supreme Court ruling last week said that the tribunals were deeply flawed, but it didn't close them down.

In late 2004, Pentagon officials decided to restrict further interrogations at Guantanamo to detainees who were considered "high value" for their suspected knowledge of terrorist groups or their potential of returning to the battlefield, according to Matthew Waxman, who was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, the Defense Department's head official for detainee matters, from August 2004 to December 2005.

"Maybe three-quarters of the detainees by 2005 were no longer regularly interrogated," said Waxman, who's now a law professor at Columbia University.

At that time, about 500 men were still being held at Guantanamo.

So far, the military commissions have publicly charged only six detainees — less than 1 percent of the more than 770 who've been at Guantanamo — with direct involvement in the 9-11 terrorist attacks; they dropped the charges in one case. Those few cases are now in question after the high court's ruling Thursday.

About 500 detainees — nearly two out of three — have been released.

During a military review board hearing at Guantanamo, Mohammed Akhtiar had some advice for the U.S. officers seated before him.

"I wish," he said, "that the United States would realize who the bad guys are and who the good guys are."

HOW FOOT SOLDIERS, FARMERS GOT SWEPT UP

How did the United States come to hold so many farmers and goat herders among the real terrorists at Guantanamo? Among the reasons:

After conceding control of the country to U.S.-backed Afghan forces in late 2001, top Taliban and al Qaida leaders escaped to Pakistan, leaving the battlefield filled with ragtag groups of volunteers and conscripts who knew nothing about global terrorism.

The majority of the detainees taken to Guantanamo came into U.S. custody indirectly, from Afghan troops, warlords, mercenaries and Pakistani police who often were paid cash by the number and alleged importance of the men they handed over. Foot soldiers brought in hundreds of dollars, but commanders were worth thousands. Because of the bounties — advertised in fliers that U.S. planes dropped all over Afghanistan in late 2001 — there was financial incentive for locals to lie about the detainees' backgrounds. Only 33 percent of the former detainees — 22 out of 66 — whom McClatchy interviewed were detained initially by U.S. forces. Of those 22, 17 were Afghans who'd been captured around mid-2002 or later as part of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, a fight that had more to do with counter-insurgency than terrorism.

American soldiers and interrogators were susceptible to false reports passed along by informants and officials looking to settle old grudges in Afghanistan, a nation that had experienced more than two decades of occupation and civil war before U.S. troops arrived. This meant that Americans were likely to arrest Afghans who had no significant connections to militant groups. For example, of those 17 Afghans whom the U.S. captured in mid-2002 or later, at least 12 of them were innocent of the allegations against them, according to interviews with Afghan intelligence and security officials.

Detainees at Guantanamo had no legal venue in which to challenge their detentions. The only mechanism set up to evaluate their status, an internal tribunal in the late summer of 2004, rested on the decisions of rotating panels of three U.S. military officers. The tribunals made little effort to find witnesses who weren't present at Guantanamo, and detainees were in no position to challenge the allegations against them.

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

djchefron — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:44:00 -0000

Monday, June 16, 2008
Organizer of McCain meeting to woo Clinton supporters is infamous for trying to keep blacks out of Thomas Jefferson family reunions

John Aravosis (DC) · 6/16/2008

From Ben Smith:

A key organizer of John McCain's meeting Saturday with former supporters of Hillary Clinton is best known for her role in another bitter American fight: The effort by some white descendants of Thomas Jefferson to keep his possible African-American descendants out of family gatherings....

Abeles first made the news in 2003, when she and her husband, then-Monticello Association President Nat Abeles, led the fight to keep members of the Hemings family -- descendants of Jefferson slave and, some historians believe, mistress Sally Hemmings -- out of a gathering of the Monticello Association, which is made up of lineal descendants of the third president.

Ben then quotes AP:

The wife of a Thomas Jefferson family association official said Friday that she masqueraded as a 67-year-old black woman on an Internet chat room in a bid to keep descendants of a reputed Jefferson mistress out of this weekend's family reunion.

"It might have been somewhat unethical," said Paulie Abeles of Washington, D.C., who participated for eight months in the Yahoo! message board created for relatives of Jefferson slave Sally Hemings.

"It might have been childish, but I really think I was working in the best interest of the majority of the family members to make the reunion a calm and civilized gathering," she said.

Re: Monday Open Thread - How was the weekend?

djchefron — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:00:00 -0000

Why the Christian right fears Obama
The language of faith isn’t a foreign tongue to the senator of Illinois. He talks the talk and easily engages believers. In fact, Obama has a better footing with the religious-minded than competitor John McCain.

By Daniel Gilgoff

On paper, the Democrats' nomination of Barack Obama is a gift to the Christian right.

Obama's liberal record on gay rights and abortion — he opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal "partial-birth abortion" ban and, as a state senator in Illinois, opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which attempted to protect unsuccessfully aborted fetuses — should make him easy enough for "values voters" to oppose.

(Illustration by Web Bryant, USA TODAY)

And Obama has struggled among religious voters in this year's Democratic primaries. In Ohio, his 2-to-1 loss among white Catholics and a 20-point loss among white evangelicals gave Hillary Clinton's campaign a second wind that kept her in the race these last three months.

That same faith-based divide undergirded Obama's losses in Pennsylvania — where Clinton took nearly 60% of weekly churchgoers — and Indiana. Heavily religious West Virginia and Kentucky, meanwhile, handed Obama his biggest defeats of this campaign, even though he appeared to have the nomination sealed up by the time voters in those states cast their ballots.

Yet for months, the Christian right had been more worried about the prospect of Obama's nomination than Clinton's. The evangelical Family Research Council's frequent e-mail alerts to supporters laid into Obama while largely laying off of Clinton. One of Focus on the Family Action's recent "Action Update" explained why the Illinois senator is as "extreme as they come on family issues" — using 26 footnotes to make its case — but barely mentions his Democratic opponent.

The conservative Catholic League For Religious and Civil Rights, for its part, had gone so far as to call Obama's position on abortion "Hitlerian," even though it was virtually indistinguishable from Clinton's.

Of course, part of the reason for the Christian right's focus on Obama is his emergence months ago as the Democratic front-runner. But the movement's leaders also fear him because, despite his weak showing among religious Democrats, he has shown unusual potential for appealing to the rank-and-file evangelicals and other religious voters who usually back the Christian right's Republican allies.

Openly faithful

That's largely because Obama isn't afraid to discuss faith's role in his life, including his come-to-Jesus experience. Speaking of the influence that the now well-known Rev. Jeremiah Wright had on him, Obama told a church audience last year: "He introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him."

Such talk is more reminiscent of George W. Bush than of recent Democratic presidential nominees. "To a lot of people, Sen. Obama is an unknown suit that talks the 'evangelical talk' without actually saying anything on his opinions or his track record," says Tom McClusky, the Family Research Council's chief lobbyist. "In the general election, Sen. Obama speaking 'religion' is going to sound more familiar and natural than Sen. (John) McCain."

And — to evangelicals, at least — more familiar than Hillary Clinton, whose mainline Methodist background helps explain her preference for discussing the importance of doing good works over her personal relationship with Jesus. "Clinton does not compete with the religious right because her message is one not of hope and of healing, but of meeting the pragmatic concerns of economic advantage," says Douglas Kmiec, a conservative Catholic legal scholar and former adviser to presidential candidate Mitt Romney. (Kmiec has since endorsed Obama.)

"Obama has the capacity to win the soul of the working person," Kmiec says, "whereas Mrs. Clinton speaks to the pocketbook and the here and now."

Another asset for Obama among religious conservatives is his past expressions of admiration for the Christian right and its positions, unusual for a liberal Democrat. In The Audacity of Hope — whose title, taken from one of Wright's sermons, is itself a testament to the influence of religion in his life — Obama writes of tinkering with his website's indelicate language on his pro-choice position after receiving a letter from an anti-abortion doctor.

Obama's gestures to the faithful come at a moment when evangelicals, nearly 80% of whom supported President Bush in 2004, are showing less allegiance to the GOP than perhaps at any time since Jerry Falwell launched the modern Christian right three decades ago. A report last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 40% of white evangelicals ages 18 to 29 identified themselves as Republicans. That's down from 55% two years earlier. With more evangelicals taking up traditionally progressive causes such as the environment and international human rights, challenging the hot-button agenda of the old line Christian right, Obama's pledge to work across the partisan divide might have special resonance with them.

To be sure, Obama still has his work cut out. After all, evangelicals and other religious conservatives have heavily supported Republicans for decades. Even so, Democrats need to make only small inroads among values voters to change the outcome of a close election. For instance, had John Kerry won half of Ohio's weekly churchgoers in 2004 — as current Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland managed to do in his 2006 race — he would be in the White House today. Building such inroads has been made easier by McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.

McCain's challenge

Though McCain has vowed to improve his famously strained relations with the Christian right — remember his 2006 commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University? — he still lacks a full-time religious outreach director. Obama's campaign hired such an operative well over a year ago and has expanded its faith outreach staff since then.

In the past month alone, McCain has outraged many in the Christian right by publicly rejecting Texas evangelist John Hagee and Ohio pastor Rod Parsley, two of his few major Christian right backers. He also had a relatively measured response to the California Supreme Court's legalization of gay marriage, an issue that galvanizes social conservatives.

And though his solidly anti-abortion voting record could be a big selling point to religious conservatives, McCain has done little to advertise it on the campaign trail. "A number of us have met with his people to let him know that our base is going to be dramatically lacking energy unless he really makes their hearts beat on an issue like life," says Texas-based Christian activist Kelly Shackelford, who runs an advocacy group associated with Focus on the Family. "The candidate has to speak on those issues in a way that people believe him."

So far, McCain has demurred. Obama, though not telling values voters what they want to hear on issues such as abortion, is nonetheless speaking to them. And the Christian right's heart is beating faster.

Dan Gilgoff is politics editor at Beliefnet.com and author of The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War. His God-o-Meter blog on religion in the presidential race is at www.beliefnet.com/godometer.</br>

Re: Tuesday Open Thread: Hi Everybody

djchefron — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:09:00 -0000

Is our mis adventure in Iraq about protecting our "freedoms" or is about getting paid?.
...................................

KBR Machinery Company had the Army over a barrel: if the Army refused to pay KBR's inflated bills (more than $1B in unjustified costs), KBR threatened to shut off payments to its subcontractors, which in turn would stop feeding the army in Iraq.

Of course, the fact that KBR was then a subsidiary of Halliburton didn't hurt its bargaining position either; the Halliburton board knew what it was doing when it gave Dick Cheney $80 million he wasn't contractually entitled to as he moved from its executive suite to the White House. But even a less-well-connected company would have had an intolerably powerful bargaining position vis-à-vis the army: the company could basically hold the troops hostage.

And KBR was able to squeeze more than money out of the Army; it also demanded and got high performance ratings, which helped it win a share of a contract for $150 billion just awarded for support functions in Iraq.

Hilzoy is right: time to de-privatize, or at least insist on always having a second source ready to take over, as any sane private company does when contracting out an essential function.

What a great issue for the Obama campaign!

Re: Tuesday Open Thread: Hi Everybody

djchefron — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:56:00 -0000

Monday, June 16, 2008
Keystone Kondi's Kwazy Kwestions

As the End of Bush Days draws near, the desperation and insanity of the administration and its neoconservative policies become more and more apparent. One of the most recent examples is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's address to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on June 3, where she once and for all crossed over to the dark side and swore fealty to Lord Cheney's quest to start a shooting war with Iran.

With Horse's Caboose Condi hitched onto the Cheney train, can Armageddon be far behind?

Smart Girl

Condi was never part of the administration's policy team. She was the smart professor gal from Stanford who Cheney and Don Rumsfeld brought aboard to tutor the Bush kid in things like geography and history that he should have learned before he graduated from Yale and Harvard but didn't. Making her National Security Adviser gave her an excuse to be in meetings where she could whisper answers in Bush's ear (which is how he graduated from Yale and Harvard). Sticking Condi in the job also guaranteed Dick and Don wouldn't have to put up with a pesky NSA who actually wanted to influence foreign policy. When the time came to replace Colin Powell as Secretary of State, Condi was the perfect choice. They wouldn't have to cut her out of the decision loop they way they cut Powell out. Condi was never in the loop to begin with.

The Goebbels Brigade tried to make her seem like a real player on the world stage for a time. There was talk at one point of putting Condi up for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. Rice 2008 urges John McCain to pick Condi as his running mate. At the "Run Condi Run" web site (moonfruit.com, really) you can donate to the organization and buy McCain/Rice 2008 bumper stickers and even order a Condi bobble head doll.

Rumors surfaced in summer of 2007 that suggested Condi and Cheney were locking horns over Iran policy. By October of that year though, when she told Congress that Iran was America's "single greatest challenge," it was clear that she was still Uncle Dick's good little girl.

Good Girl

In her June 3, 2008 speech to AIPAC, Condi began her verbal assault on Iran with the standard neoconservative misquote of a remark made by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Then she launched into a fabulist speculation on Iran's nuclear intentions.

Now, we hear Iran’s rulers say that they do not seek a nuclear weapon, only peaceful nuclear energy. Well, then why have they rejected the past offers from the international community for incentives, even cooperation on light water reactors? Why has Iran rejected, thus far, Russia’s offer of uranium enrichment in Russia? Why, as the IAEA’s most recent report shows, is Iran continuing to enrich uranium, in violation of UN Security Council resolutions? Why, as the IAEA also suggests, are parts of Iran’s nuclear program under the control of the Iranian military? And why is Iran continuing to deny international experts full access to its nuclear facilities? Well, ladies and gentlemen, it’s just hard to imagine that there are innocent answers to these questions. (Applause.)

It's even harder to imagine that we could have a Secretary of State who possesses the intellectual sophistication of a slow child, and yet we do. Ms. Rice seems wholly oblivious to the nature of the competition among today's political entities; the struggle for control of the kind of power it takes to run industries and to transport goods and to transform entire regions of the world.

The international maneuvering revolves around who will control how fast the last of the planet's oil gets used, and how much the rest of us have to pay for it, and who gets to direct the world's transition to alternate energy sources. Hence, the real political leverage Iran has to gain from its nuclear program will come from a viable energy industry, not nuclear weapons. Possessing nuclear weapons would amount to little more than painting a bull's eye on its back. Using one would be tantamount to self-genocide; the retaliation would be the virtual end of the Persian race.

The "past offers from the international community for incentives" regarding cooperation on light water reactors or uranium enrichment performed in another country all involve making Iran dependent on other nations—nations the U.S. can control—in order for its energy industry to function. That's like telling the Iranians they can have a farm as long as they grows their crops in Iowa and use John Deere tractors and American labor and let us keep the seeds for next year, and if they're good little sand tics we'll let them buy some of their own food from us.

We don’t need the IAEA report to "suggest" that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium. Iran isn't keeping it a secret; it has flat out told the whole world it's continuing to enrich uranium. As a party to the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an "inalienable right" to pursue production of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. For the UN Security Council to have passed a resolution denying Iran of an inalienable right makes the Security Council in violation of the NPT and the resolution itself illegal, so someone please explain to me how Iran is "in violation" of an illegal resolution.

The IAEA report does not suggest that "parts of Iran’s nuclear program [are] under the control of the Iranian military." It says that Iran needs to "clarify procurement and R&D; activities of military related institutes and companies that could be nuclear related." (Italics mine.) The distance between those two statements you could drive an armored division through. Military related industries are ideal for providing certain precision components for nuclear fuel refinery. Remember how those aluminum tubes Iraq was supposedly using for a uranium centrifuge turned out to be parts for artillery rockets?

The IAEA report states that in early April the Agency recently "requested Iran to provide, as a transparency measure, access to additional locations related, inter alia, to the manufacturing of centrifuges, R&D; on uranium enrichment, and uranium mining and milling." That's all pretty innocent stuff related to the kind of uranium enrichment we already know Iran is doing. Less than two months later, when the report was released, Iran hadn't gotten back to the Agency about taking it to those additional locations. That's not surprising; this was hardly a pressing matter.

A first semester political science student at the most obscure community college in America has sufficient imagination to arrive at these "innocent" conclusions. Why doesn’t our Secretary of State?

Doctor Ditz

Condoleezza Rice, Ph.D. is part of a diplomacy machine that's designed not to work. Demanding Iran give up its uranium enrichment program as a precondition to direct diplomatic talks was a head fake. Cheney's neocons made Iran an offer it couldn't accept; that way they could say they tried diplomacy even though they really didn't.

The goal of the Bush regime's foreign policy is to promote conflict, not avoid it. The neoconservatives desire nothing more ardently than to create a second Cold War with our old adversaries Russia and China, whose client state Iran is assuming the role of Eastern Europe. Rounding out the lineup for round two, Venezuela is stepping in for Cuba and Iraq is substituting for West Germany.

The neo-communists won't engage us in an arms race this time around. They'll let us be the ones who pour national treasure down a sand dune on fantastic weapons that can't win the kinds of wars we fight until we're bankrupt. One commonly hears these days that we're playing checkers and the Russians and Chinese are playing chess. A more ironically apt analogy is that they have graduated to duplicate bridge while we continue to play war.

Even more ironic is that we won the first Cold War because our economic model was superior, but in the second Cold War we're likely to find that the neocoms have become better capitalists than we are.

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes at Pen and Sword .

Re: Tuesday Open Thread: Hi Everybody

djchefron — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:12:00 -0000

John John John why are breaking your own laws that you helped pass?
...................................John McCain has scammed the public campaign finance system that he purports to champion. Last February, the Washington Post, first reported on McCain's scam based on a "stern warning" to McCain from the Republican Chair of the FEC -- and noted the potential for criminal, yes criminal, behavior by McCain:

Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.

The DNC filed an FEC complaint against McCain over this issue, but there's basically been no FEC because of Mitch McConnell's political games. So, having waited the requisite time, the DNC is going to court:

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Tuesday announced it would file suit in federal court next week to force the Federal Election Commission to investigate Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

The complaint alleges that McCain violated campaign finance laws by opting out of the federal matching fund program after already benefitting from it by using anticipated matching funds to secure a private loan. That assistance helped his campaign in the GOP primary.

The DNC had already filed a complaint with the FEC earlier this year when McCain withdrew from the program.

“John McCain poses as a reformer but when it comes to his own campaign, he thinks the rules apply to everyone but him,” said DNC Chairman Howard Dean. “Taxpayer dollars helped him secure a private loan to keep his campaign afloat, he got free ballot access which saved his campaign money and yet it’s clear he doesn’t think he needs to stick by the legally binding contract he signed. John McCain is breaking the law and doesn’t seem to care.”

Re: Tuesday Open Thread: Hi Everybody

djchefron — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:16:00 -0000

Since the msm follows the polls maybe they will hype this one as much as the so call white surbaran soccer moms with a plus/minus rate of 9%
...................................PPP Poll: Obama Up Big in Ohio

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds Sen. Barack Obama begins the general election in Ohio with a double digit lead over John McCain, 50% to 39%.

It's a major improvement from most recent previous Ohio poll, taken at the height of the Jeremiah Wright controversy in March, which showed Obama trailing McCain 49% to 41%.

Bottom line: "The key difference for Obama is that he's got his party behind him to a much greater extent than he did then."

Re: Tuesday Open Thread: Hi Everybody

djchefron — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:02:00 -0000

I have to share this with you Thanks To Dj Timmy Richardson AKA TOT
....................................Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Speak your mind

djchefron — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:02:00 -0000

Yesterday on race for the white house John Harwood said that McCain was leading in Mich. so I went to Pollster.com and it clearly showed that Obama was up 47 to 42 I was like WTF.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Speak your mind

djchefron — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:15:00 -0000

Dont worry I think if Ms. Hassebeck wants to verbally joust with Mrs Obama she will come off as a bigger idiot than even I give her credit for.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Speak your mind

djchefron — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:13:00 -0000

For everyone who hates the constitution.
...................................Read this incredible article by Warren Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers

'The U.S. military hid the locations of suspected terrorist detainees and concealed harsh treatment to avoid the scrutiny of the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to documents that a Senate committee released Tuesday.

"We may need to curb the harsher operations while ICRC is around. It is better not to expose them to any controversial techniques," Lt. Col. Diane Beaver, a military lawyer who's since retired, said during an October 2002 meeting at the Guantanamo Bay prison to discuss employing interrogation techniques that some have equated with torture. Her comments were recorded in minutes of the meeting that were made public Tuesday. At that same meeting, Beaver also appeared to confirm that U.S. officials at another detention facility -- Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan -- were using sleep deprivation to "break" detainees well before then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved that technique. "True, but officially it is not happening," she is quoted as having said.

A third person at the meeting, Jonathan Fredman, the chief counsel for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, disclosed that detainees were moved routinely to avoid the scrutiny of the ICRC, which keeps tabs on prisoners in conflicts around the world."

This jives with what I reported about the temporary black sites in my Poland piece:

"Former European and US intelligence officials indicate that the secret prisons across the European Union, first identified by the Washington Post, are likely not permanent locations, making them difficult to identify.

What some believe was a network of secret prisons was most probably a series of facilities used temporarily by the United States when needed, officials say. Interim "black sites" - secret facilities used for covert activities - can be as small as a room in a government building, which only becomes a black site when a prisoner is brought in for short-term detainment and interrogation.

For example, detainees could be shuffled from a temporary black site in one country to a temporary black site in another country, never staying long enough at either to attract notice. Such an arrangement, sources say, would allow plausible deniability by the host country as well as the US. Investigators looking for a permanent facility would never find one. Such a site, sources say, would have to be near an airport.

Washington-based security expert and president of Global Security John Pike says short-term detention in already existing facilities would be "sensible tradecraft" and a more likely scenario than a network of specific, long term prisons.

"A short-term operation does not develop a big signature and you don't have a continual parade of people," said Pike. "When it becomes noticeable, they move it all."

"It's a shell game," he added."

What the McClatchy article shows is that not only did the Bush administration violate Geneva Conventions, domestic and international laws, but they knew what they were doing was illegal-so much so, that they hid their crimes from human rights investigators, all the while claiming "we don't torture." They lied to us and to the world all the while moving prisoners around like pieces of garbage, so that no one would know the crimes the Bush administration and their proxies were committing

We learned from the Nuremberg trials that people are accountable for what their government does in their name.

Yes, we will be judged by history and in the harshest possible light.

Moreover, we now know that Bush administration proxies essentially held mostly innocent people, whom they tortured and who subsequently after their release became radicalized.

In other words, they built Manchurian candidates- terrorists- either knowingly or as a symptom of their illegal torture program. However you choose to view this staggering revelation it does not change the reality we are now faced with. Namely, the Bush administration has created the very monsters they claimed to be fighting against. They created an enemy, a global enemy, that did not exist in such numbers and across so many geographical boundaries. They have put us in danger and they have made this country less safe than it has ever been.

Consider this too, that if the cabal that has taken over our government did indeed knowingly create a program in which they manufactured terrorists to go along with their faux war on terror, then this would be a whole new level of evil that I have no words left through which to vent my anger. There are not enough words, not in any language, to explain or justify or likely even deal with this possibility. But it is a possibility that should nevertheless be considered, given what we now know about the people of the Bush regime.

For me, the only question left is this: now what?

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Speak your mind

djchefron — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:54:00 -0000

Another reason why we cant afford 4 more years of republican mis-rule.
....................................By JESSE J. HOLLAND, AP Labor Writer

Tue Jun 17, 2:29 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans blocked legislation Tuesday that would have given an extra three months of jobless benefits for all unemployed Americans, but congressional Democrats plan to bring the bill back by attaching it to an Iraq war funding measure.

ADVERTISEMENT

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., tried to bring the House-passed unemployment extension bill up for quick consideration in the Senate, but was stymied by an objection from Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate's No. 2 Republican. It takes unanimous agreement to fast track a bill in the Senate.

The House on Thursday passed legislation that would extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks in all 50 states and the District of Columbia for workers who exhaust their regular 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. States with an unemployment rate of 6 percent or more would get an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits.

Kyl noted that the House bill would eliminate a requirement that people work 20 weeks before receiving unemployment benefits, "something I don't think we want to change."

"So as a result, we would like to have the Senate weigh in and make sure that if this is done, it is done in the right way," he said.

The White House also has threatened to veto the House's legislation if it makes it through the Senate, preferring legislation that would only extend unemployment benefits in states with high unemployment.

House Democrats said 10 percent of the unemployed would not get unemployment benefits if the 20-week provision was not deleted.

Reid said House Democrats will resurrect the legislation by adding it to the must-pass Iraq war funding bill Congress will consider later this year. "This, I believe, will be in the package we get from the House," Reid said.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that if the House bill became law, about 3.2 million Americans would collect $11.7 billion in extended unemployment benefits over the life of the extension.

Congress has extended unemployment benefits during periods that turned out to be recessions: twice in the 1970s, again in the early 1980s and 1990s, and most recently from March 2002 through December 2003.

"It's unfortunate that the Senate was stopped from even considering a bill to give a little more help to hurting folks all across this country," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. "Unemployment numbers are at unacceptable levels, and this unemployment insurance bill is a commonsense response to the real problems that working families are facing in these tough economic times."

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Speak your mind

djchefron — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:13:00 -0000

D To answer your question YES. You republicans have no problem with enriching Halliburtin or throwing billions away in that hellhole that is Iraq but trying to help out the least among us you cry that the sky is falling we have no money.

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Speak your mind

djchefron — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:45:00 -0000

The latino vote and the (wrong) CW
by kos

Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:59:55 AM PDT

I don't mind the CW being wrong on occasion, I just hate it when it's wrong despite all evidence to the contrary.

There was a growing consensus during the Democratic primary season that Obama was going to struggle with Latino voters -- due to the exit polls, his race, and McCain’s immigration stance. In fact, in that now-famous conference call in which Hillary Clinton indicated that she would be open to serving as Obama’s running mate, that response was spurred by concern by New York Rep. Nydia Velasquez (D) that Obama was going to have trouble with Latinos. But it looks like that CW -- at least right now -- was wrong. In addition to our recent NBC/WSJ poll, which showed Hispanics breaking for Obama 62%-28%, a new survey of 800 Latino voters from 21 states finds that 60% of them plan to vote for Obama versus 23% for McCain. That is down considerably from the 40%-plus Bush received in 2004. It’s no longer fair to say that Obama has a problem with Latino voters; McCain does. This was a case of conventional wisdom that was never based on fact, just semi-informed speculation based on primary exit polling and bad stereotypes of Latinos.

You think? Really? Stereotypes like Latinos won't vote for black candidates? Claims (fed by the Clinton campaign) that people who voted for Clinton in the primary wouldn't vote for Obama in the general? All of it ratified by a clueless media who just repeated the latest bullshit talking points from Lanny Davis and Karl Rove?

That "new survey" cited above is this one, but there are plenty of state-level surveys that similarly show Obama poised to absolutely crush McCain with this demographic.

Obama's lead among Latinos is consistent among those born in the U.S. and those born abroad. Among U.S.-born Latinos, Obama leads McCain 57 percent to 26 percent, and among foreign-born Latinos, 64 percent to 21 percent.

Likewise, Obama does well among Latinos across many states. In California, he leads 66 percent to 20 percent; in New York, 65 percent to 20 percent; in Texas, 61 percent to 22 percent. Combining data in the four southwestern states expected to be key battlegrounds -- New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada -- Obama leads McCain 57 percent to 31 percent among Latino voters. In Florida, where about half of Latino voters are Cuban-American, Obama has 43 percent to McCain's 42 percent. The poll's margin of error is 3.5 percent.

Again, that CW was always hogwash, no matter how much Republicans, Clinton partisans, and the press wanted to believe otherwise. Whether the actual hard data makes a dent in the CW remains to be seen. Remember, people still claim Bush speaks fluent Spanish (when he absolutely does not).

Re: Wednesday Open Thread - Speak your mind

djchefron — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:24:00 -0000

SKA -POWWW!!!!
....................................Earlier I mentioned that Rudy Giuliani (R) has come out of hiding after his embarrassing presidential and began attacking Barack Obama (D) on terrorism:

“There are very clear, dramatic, important differences between McCain and Obama,” Giuliani said, describing those differences as “one wanting to be on offense, the other wanting to be on defense.”

Giuliani said he believed Obama’s inexperience was evident because he likened how the U.S. should handle terrorists to how those accused in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing were prosecuted.

“These are not isolated criminal acts,” Giuliani said. “They are a loosely defined conspiracy and an act of war. For Sen. Obama to suggest ’93 is the best example of how to deal with this is a good example of him wanting to go on defense.”

Apparently, Giuliani's presidential bid ended so quickly that none of his opponents got to dive into his own record and past remarks, so Obama's campaign did that today:

In an e-mail, entitled, “Giuliani v Giuliani: 1993 World Trade Center Bombing Case,” the Obama campaign points out that in 1993, Giuliani said at the time, per the New York Times, March 5, 1994: “Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict ‘demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon -- the law.’”

Also from that day’s Times: “Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said he hoped that the verdicts would lessen tensions rather than increase them. ‘It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,’ he said, ‘that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.’”

Kaboom!

Seems Giuliani still isn't ready for prime time. But it could have worse for poor ol' Rudy. He might have had to deal with this hypocrisy if he had become the nominee. Instead, he's just another second-tier surrogate for John McCain (R), who is shaping-up to be one of the worst presidential candidates in modern history.

Re: Thursday Open Thread- Let it all hang out

djchefron — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:38:00 -0000

The Price of Political Favoritism and Cronyism: Lost Lives
By murrayw Wednesday June 18, 2008 2:27pm

Filed Under: Uncategorized

In the broader scheme of things, the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is a fairly obscure agency. By law its core missions are to decrease the disproportional numbers of minority children incarcerated, prevent teenage delinquency, and act to remove children from adult jails, where they are at high risk for both sexual assault and suicide. But the agency also doles out more than a quarter of a billion dollars in federal grant money every year-with little congressional oversight or attention from the public. But instead of the money being spent for what Congress intended it, the agency’s funding more recently flowed to programs with political, social or religious connections to the White House. The agency’s new priorities include encouraging teenage abstinence and promoting golf to inner city kids.

The favoritism and politicization in the awarding of grants by OJJDP would ordinarily be unremarkable compared to such higher profile examples of cronyism by the Bush administration– except for the staggering human consequences. To fund his new priorities, J. Robert Flores, the administrator of OJJDP has cut funding for the training of corrections officers to prevent the physical and sexual abuse of incarcerated children. He has cut funds for a program to counsel rape victims that had been praised by President Bush. He has cut funds to prevent the incarceration of mentally ill or mentally retarded children. And he has cut funding for programs to prevent the suicide of gay and lesbian children.

Flores’ tenure as head of Justice’s OJJDP and the favorism and cronyism which at least a half dozen subordinates and superiors have alleged was the subject of a recent Nightline broadcast which I helped report with ABC chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross and reporters Ana Schecter and Maddy Sauer. Tomorrow morning, Flores will be questioned under oath about all of this before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

And my colleague Ana has a story out this afternoon disclosing that Flores is also the subject of an investigation by the Justice Department’s Inspector General:

The DOJ Inspector General has launched an investigation into fancy trips around the world taken by J. Robert Flores, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which always included golf and/or tennis…

“Flores would golf during the day while on official travel around the country on tax payer funds,” said Scott Peterson, a former staff member at OJJDP who traveled with Flores on various occasions.

An OIG investigator questioned one staff member about Flores’ travel and about an ex-Colonel in the Honduran army hired by Flores who at one time ran for president of Honduras.

The staffer said the Human Resources Department [of DOJ] was concerned that giving access to the DOJ computer system to a non-US citizen and a former Honduran Colonel could be dangerous for security reasons.

Fonseca, whose Honduran military career spanned three decades, was contracted to work on faith-based and gang issues…

Fonseca attended Church with Flores, according to DOJ staffers, and is married to Deborah Lynne De Moss, a major GOP contributor. Fonseca himself donated $2,000 to Bush in 2004, the same year he was hired, and reportedly raised about $50,000 more on behalf of the president…

In a farewell to his colleagues in July of 2007, Fonesca wrote in an email: “It is my hope and prayer that the joy and peace of Jesus Christ will be real to each on of you.”

Historians are already arguing whether the Bush administration has engaged in cronyism and favoritism at the expense of professionalism and competence. Presidents of both political parties are routinely accused by those in the opposition of stacking the government with their ideological or political loyalists. But the Bush administration’s handling of Katrina and the reconstruction of Iraq, the firings of nine U.S. attorneys, and the nomination of Harriett Miers to the Supreme Court raise questions as to whether during the Bush presidency, as Paul Krugman has written in the New York Times, “politicization and cronyism have become standard operating procedure throughout the federal government.”

Setting aside its traditional mission, Flores’ office awarded a $500,000 federal grant last year to the World Golf Association. In explaining why he overrode his career staff in awarding the grant, Flores explained: “We need something… to engage the gangs and the street kids. Golf is the hook.” Flores awarded the grant despite the fact that the group’s grant proposal rated 47th best out of 104 applicants. The honorary chairman the Golf Association’s First Tee program is former George Herbert Walker Bush.

In a draft of his testimony to be given to Congress tomorrow, Flores has decided to come out swinging against those who criticize the grant to the World Golf Association, claiming that they are “biased against the wealthy.” Flores wrote in the draft testimony that he believes that the grant has been “pilloried because it was tied to golf, and I assume for those who are biased against the wealthy, because it has historically been a sport of the well-to-do.”

Flores also overruled his professional staff and awarded a million dollar grant to the Best Friends Foundation, an organization that promotes sexual abstinence. Best Friends ranked 53rd out of 104 grant applicants. Additionally, the organization refused to participate in a congressionally mandated study into the effectiveness of abstinence programs for teens.

Why then did Best Friends obtain its grant? The founder and president of Best Friends is Elayne Bennett. Her husband, Bill Bennett, had been, respectively, the Secretary of Education during the Reagan administration and the drug czar for the first Bush administration. Now at days, of course, Bill Bennett spends most of his time as a cable television personality supporting the policies of the current Bush administration Moreover, funding sexual abstinence for teenagers has been a priority for the White House.

While Best Friends and the World Golf Association received their grants, more than forty other organizations that had received higher ratings from Justice Department reviewers received no federal money at all. Those denied grants included organizations that train youth corrections officers, counsel rape victims, and work to prevent suicide among gay and lesbian youth.

A program to help troubled teens in San Diego, Vista, was ranked number two by the staff out of 202 applicants in its category of prevention and intervention but was turned down for a grant to help deal with inner city teen violence in San Diego. Why was its grant turned down? Justice Department employees said Flores did not like the fact that group distributed condoms.

Often times, effective programs had their funds curtailed for ideological reasons. Even the Girl Scouts was not immune. When one of Flores’ superiors wanted to fund a Girl Scouts program to serve girls whose mothers were incarcerated, Flores objected because the group had ties to Planned Parenthood.

Another program, designed to train adult guards to deal with teens in custody, also was denied federal money even though it was ranked by the staff number 2 out of 104 in its category.

“What Flores did in this situation is he just stomped on the heads of kids who are very much at risk and in trouble in this country,” said Earl Dunlap, who runs the guard training program for the National Partnership for Juvenile Services.

Another group that was turned down for an OJJDP grant– despite the strong recommendations of career Department employees that it be awarded one was the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), a Washington D.C. based advocacy group for victims of rape and sexual assault.

Among other things, RAINN runs a telephone hotline for victims of rape and sexual assault, which has put hundreds of thousands of victims together with local rape crisis centers. RAINN ranked 14th best among 104 prospective grantees in the category in which it applied. The group directly competed against the World Golf Association, which was ranked 47th in the competition, and Best Friends, which ranked 51st.

Flores has refused to answer questions about why he turned overruled his staff in funding RAINN. One OJJDP employee said Flores expressed concerns to him that some rape victims might possibly be counseled as to how to obtain abortions by rape counseling centers which RAINN refers those who contact the organization’s telephone hot line. President Bush, however, has publicly praised the organization, as have conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill.

But most importantly, Flores’ office is by law supposed to take a leading role in removing kids from adult jails, where they are sexually assaulted and at high risk for suicide. Indeed, that policy objective was central to the OJJDP’s creation during the Carter administration.

In 1986, the Reagan administration’s Administrator of OJJDP, Al Regnery resigned after being confronted with allegations that he, like Flores, had disregarded the recommendations of his career staff and federal regulations to award grants for political or ideological reasons. Regnery awarded grant money to the dean of the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty College to devise a high-school course on the Constitution. He awarded $789,000 to a former songwriter for “Captain Kangaroo” to study pornographic cartoons.

Regnery had also been asked by then-Attorney General Edwin Meese III to informally spearhead the Regan administration’s anti-pornography campaign. Regnery provided the initial funding to the President’s Commission on Pornography with OJJDPF funds diverted from juvenile crime prevention programs.

But most of all, Regnery ignored the federal law to act to remove children from adult jails. Regnery and his boss, then-Attorney General Edwin Meese believed that jailing children with adults was a deterrent to crime. The Reagan administration purposely did little to urge state governments to comply with the law.

The consequences to children were devastating. When incarcerated with adults, children are subjected to physical and sexual assaults, raped, and even murdered. According to the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, for the year 2005, 21% of sexual assault victims in jails were juveniles even though kids only constitute less than 1% of the nation’s incarcerated population.

But even more tragic, locking up children with adults in jails and prisons often leads a significant number to commit suicide. According to one federal study, children incarcerated in adult jails and prisons commit suicide at 36 times the rate that they do when they are locked up with other juveniles.

With Regnery’s resignation, OJJDP returned to its mission of removing children from adult jails. But during Flores’ current tenure under President Bush, the removal of children from adult jails has once again become less of a priority and children are again at risk. Grant money and staff resources have instead been devoted to programs to encourage abstinence, golf and further other political priorities of the White House.

In the meantime, we have the testimony of at least one victim to the consequences. A teenager held in a county jail wrote a local district attorney saying he did not want to be exposed to adult criminals because of their bad influences:

“A wise person once told me it is not our mistakes in life that define who we are, bur rather how we recover from those mistakes. With that I would just like you to know that I’m going to use this situation to make me a stronger person and a better person.”

Two and one half months later, the boy committed suicide.

Re: Thursday Open Thread- Let it all hang out

djchefron — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:00 -0000

I will do that I am so sorry that I offended you and I wont post anything else that might get you to stop and read something other than a link or snippet but whats really annoying is people who comment under anonymous soagain thank you for your suggegtion and carry on