John Edwards Denies Fox News Opportunity to Be Unfair

John Edwards made the bold move of pulling out of the proposed Sept. 23 CBC/FOX Debate.

The Edwards campaign makes following statement:

"We just called the CBC to let them know that we're looking forward to their January debate with CNN but we're not going to participate in the proposed debate with Fox. The CBC champions critical issues that matter enormously to the future of our country, and we look forward to discussing them throughout this campaign and at their debate in January. But we believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective. If there was any uncertainty as to Fox's objectivity, it was put to rest when they attacked Democratic candidates, Democratic constituency groups, and the Nevada Democratic party when their last proposed debate was cancelled for lack of support."

In November 2003, I recall General Wesley Clark ripping Fox News' David Asman apart - taking Fox to task for their shoddy journalism. I recall feeling vindicated in some way, although I knew it wouldn't change Fox News a damned bit.

That's why I'm so glad that John Edwards is telling Fox News to take a hike on these debates. The only thing that his involvement would lead to, from what we already know about Fox News, is more of the same tilted treatment.

I recently heard comedian Bill Maher say that he thinks it would be a lot more courageous to see Democrats "taking on" Fox News (as Bill Clinton and Wesley Clark have done). The problem is, everything President Clinton and General Clark have said - and have said so well - has had absolutely no effect on the right-wing news organization's programming or propaganda-style. After being taken to task, they've lead viewers to believe President Clinton is "angry"...and that anyone who confronts them is a wacko.

I don't care to see a debate that takes away from the real issues at hand and becomes a sporting event for people whose blood gets pumped up by seeing a Democrat wasting his or her time jumping through the "fight Fox" hoops and having to call them on their obvious bias again and again. We have somuch creativity and vision to offer. If you're a candidate, why purposely stifle and darken your vision by allowing it to be ridiculed with an unbalanced set of questions? Why offer Fox News yet another opportunity to be unfair?

It's high time to start writing Fox News off as a fair news organization - and as a worthy or credible player.

They're NEVER going to be.

O'Reilly-Rivera Explosion: They're Melting Down

Here's what I've been thinking, after watching Bill O'Reilly's display of quivering-lip anger and loudness this week when he argued with Geraldo Rivera about O'Reilly's absurd blurring of the issues regarding drunk driving and immigration.

It's so bizarre for me to see a man behave like this! I grew up in a home with a gentle and wise father who never needed to raise his voice with his wife, with his children, or with his friends. I went through school, then college without ever having to experience a teacher, clergyman, or professor who taught me that anger and loudness is acceptable in civil discourse. I worked in a fast-paced and rather high-pressure career for almost twenty years and never once raised my voice to the seven people who worked for me. I distinctly recall a line from Max Ehrmann's Desiderata. My mother used to remind me of it every time she'd see that an angry or difficult person would throw me off-kilter.

... avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.

How does one retreat from that which is allowed to permeate the airwaves? When did it become acceptable and entertaining for so many people in our society to watch a buffoon of a man go ballistic while spouting out ugly racist logic about a problem that is not at all acquainted with race? When did it become interesting to see a loon talking over another person - louder - louder - louder - until the other person is drowned out in his maelstrom of spitting dissonance?

It doesn't take a cave man or an animal to intelligently lead a debate - or a nation. We've seen some talking cave men tear down our nation's strength, reputation, and good standing in the world over the past six years. The rhetoric they have chosen has had an effect on the cheap, loud commercial-filled entertainment that passes as political talk on television and radio shows today. It makes us all worse for having to see it.

We're all the worse for it.

If we are decent people and a moral society, how can this unmistakable brand of madness be acceptable to any one of us?

Passion borne of wisdom and experience is one thing. Sometimes we can come across more effectively than we ever thought possible when we allow that passion to ride along with our speech. Anger is another thing altogether. It invites violence.

The right wing has run out of ideas and have nothing left but their anger.

Edward Keating said that we'll never destroy an idea by killing others. You replace it with a better idea. We will never have to 'kill off' the anger we see today - those who are bankrupt of ideas are destroying themselves with their anger.

We need to believe in and reinforce the fact that we will not accept a language and behavior that is incompatible with our better ideas. Let's show our children that the world they'll inherit doesn't have to be remotely like the angry one they see today. Let's leave them with an understanding of the importance of gentle association and cooperation instead of bitter vexation.

NH Voters Call For Audacity of Action on Healthcare

Dr. Alfred Adler said:

"Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events, not of words. Trust movement."

Big words from our Presidential candidates must accompany a map to certify, for the sake of our trust, the promise of creative action that is meant NOT to fix, but to destroy the current healthcare system that is so badly broken. No more filling pot holes that multiply and become deeper by the day.

nyceve at Daily Kos writes about New Hampshire voters. They're demanding 'audacity of action' on healthcare.


Note: The Photo above, translated, says: Actions Speak Louder Than Words.

NY25: Dan Maffei Announces 2008 Run

According to Cuse Dem at Daily Kos:

Dan Maffei, who last November came within 3,000 votes of upsetting 18-year incumbent James Walsh in NY-25, announced his candidacy for the Syracuse-area Congressional seat today in a letter to supporters and friends.

Dan did a great job with little DCCC support for most of the campaign, surprising all prognosticators who saw Walsh, who ran unopposed in '04, as unbeatable. Maffei is a great, energetic guy who is a strong progressive, and with our help can pick off another Northeast swing seat.

Check out his website at http://www.DanMaffei.com , read his blog and get involved with the campaign. He's got the experience (staffer for Senators Bill Bradley and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, House Appropriations Committee) and the fresh, new ideas that the people of Central New York are craving after over nine terms of Rep. Walsh.

Friends,


I want to first thank you for all the support and well wishes you have offered me both before last year's election and over the last few months. Our collective efforts certainly changed the political landscape here in New York's 25th Congressional District! Upstate New York is ready for a new direction. That's why I have decided to finish our hard work and am seeking to be our next Congressman in 2008!


To begin the process, I have filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission so that we can start to gather the support and resources necessary to run and win. While this filing is but the very first small step toward victory, it follows the huge leap that we made in 2006 thanks to your help. Thanks to generous contributions and efforts from so many of you, we were able to come out of political nowhere, and, with a message of change and new leadership, to nearly unseat an entrenched 18-year incumbent who had no major party opposition in 2004!


Together, we shook the political establishment by coming within 1½ percent of defeating Congressman Walsh. That's an impressive accomplishment, but there is still much to do. This area of Upstate New York is still exporting too many jobs and young people and not enough goods and services. Congressman Walsh wants to start his third decade in Congress without offering any new ideas or leadership to help change the direction of this area for the better. Furthermore, in an attempt to keep what was once an unchallenged stranglehold on what he sees as "his seat" in Congress, he has played both sides of many issues.


For example, he voted FOR and than AGAINST limits on U.S. military involvement in Iraq, AGAINST and than FOR new rights for workers, and FOR and then AGAINST raising the minimum wage. Flip-flopping is not the same thing as being more moderate. And changing one's image to match public opinion polls is not real leadership.


It's clear we still need change, and the opportunity for change couldn't be better in the presidential election year of 2008 in a district where the Democratic candidate for president won in both 2000 and 2004. After long discussions with Abby and my family and close advisors, I am committed to working hard to earn your support and the support of the voters for 2008.


I will need your help again. Please consider contributing early. I learned in the last campaign that every dollar contributed early (and the earlier the better) helps bring about many more dollars later on. Your generosity helped make my candidacy so competitive in 2006 and I thank you. I hope I can count on you once again.


Thank you very much!


Sincerely,
Dan Maffei


DanMaffei.com

Related Posts:




From Dan Maffei's Community Blog:

Questioning the Proposed Jamesville Coal Plant - March 5, 2007

Senator Clinton pointed this out last week in Volney where the old Miller Brewery is being turned into an ethanol facility starting by converting corn kernels but reportedly with the capacity to develop into the more energy efficient cellulosic ethanol manufacturing. In addition, we have Auburn Biofuels developing a biodiesel plant in Cayuga County, Siemens developing a willow gasification plan in Onondaga County, and we have windmill farms in Madison County and on the Tug Hill plateau with perhaps more on the way.

However, not every new high-tech energy project is necessarily a good thing for our environment or our economy. All of the above projects will be subject to public scrutiny and their developers need to be prepared to answer questions. But the most troubling questions involve a proposal by Empire Synfuel (not to be confused with Empire Biofuels) to build a “coal gasification” facility in Jamesville - literally a stone’s throw from the grounds of Jamesville Elementary School.

Time for a ‘Binding’ Debate on Iraq - Feb 9, 2007

In a world where the tragic death of a model gets more news coverage than a debate over war and America’s place in the world, we are in danger of allowing the debate on the troop surge to eclipse the real issue about when to bring home our 130,000 plus troops in Iraq. We citizens have to keep the pressure on. If we let our elected representatives claim they agree with us and then do not look at their actions, our representatives – Republican and Democrat – might try to avoid taking any true action to bring our brave soldiers home.

Closing Canandaigua VA is Disservice to Veterans - Feb 28, 2007

..as the new Congress started, my opponent, re-elected by just about a 1½ percent margin, chose to leave the VA subcommittee for a different subcommittee (and the change in congressional leadership means he is no longer chairman of anything). So much for his commitment to Upstate New York Vets or our VA facilities. And now, despite his indications during the 2006 campaign that his supposed clout would help, the Bush Administration is shutting down the acute psychiatric unit at the Canandaigua Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Veterans in Central and Western New York are upset and with good reason.

Good Friday Meme Floating 'Round Blogosphere

Check out this Google Blog Search

The Wrong U.S. Course Leads to British Hostage Crisis

The Independent is reporting that the surprise US-led raid on an Iranian post in Arbil, Iraq last January (stemming from underreported inter-Kurd territory tensions and the U.S. need to quell and control those tensions in fragile Northern Iraq) is ultimately responsible for the taking of those British hostages. It could have easily led to military hostilities in Iran. This whole story - honestly told - shows you how fine a line we are treading in order to keep this Iraq war from becoming a much wider regional conflict. Unless the course is finally changed, the brawn of escalation with no diplomatic brain engaged is going to take us to a regional conflict that never should have been allowed to fester and explode.

UPDATE: Envoy to Meet Detained Iranians, WaPo 4-4-07

From the pages of "Yeah, right!"...

Zebari insisted the case of the five detained Iranians had no connection to the 15 British sailors and marines detained by the Iranian navy in the Gulf last month.

"I'd like to make absolutely clear the two cases have no linkage or connection," he said, reacting to media reports that moves to release the one group of detainees could be reciprocated with the other.

Even though it's obvious I don't believe there's no link, I do see that some back-channel diplomacy must be effective when I read this:

"The new American political and military appointments in Iraq have been effective in the breakthrough," the Iranian agency said, referring to the new U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who took office this week, and the new overall U.S. military commander, who took over in February.

Patrick Cockburn has more on the Arbil link.

A Reuters article that, in my opinion, conveys an overly sunny tone becuae it covers the political rhetoric of outgoing U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, offers prime minister of the Kurdistan region Nechirvan Barzani's summary of what he says are the Kurds' concerns:

..four key concerns: a fair share of Iraq's revenues; resolving the status of disputed areas, particularly the city of Kirkuk which lies outside of Kurdistan; freedom to direct its own economic development; and a fair share of reconstruction funds from abroad.

The status of Kirkuk -- a mixed city where Kurds, Shi'ites, Turkmen and Sunni Arabs live together -- is a delicate subject, not least because it sits on some of Iraq's richest oil fields.

There are voices not represented in decidedly sunnier mainstream articles that are no less real. There is passion in the voice of one exiled Kurd who wants to return to a land far more just and fair to his ethnic sensibilities than what is being negotiated away by those he sees as "occupiers:"

To approach the issue of Kirkuk in such a feeble way weakens the energy and power of Kirkuk’s Kurdistanism. Will the enemies not ask: what is the point that the Kurds once made revolution and sacrifices for the sake of this city? Why today we accept any price and surrender? Kurds once used to fight thunderstorms. Now they feebly mention what is their own right. Is it that the secret of Kurdish courage faded away with the death of Barzani?

"While the Kurds refer to Kirkuk as the "Kurdish Jerusalem," control of the oil resources and the city's likely attachment to the Kurdish semiautonomous region just to the north was believed the driving motivation for the threat to bring down the government. - Bassem Mroue, AP

It is impossible to establish a strategic partnership between Turkey and the Kurds without basing the relations on mutual benefit and a common future, not on reciprocal nationalist slogans that poison relations. When considered from this angle, oil becomes a crucial ingredient." - Turkish Daily News

The dust-ups between Arbil and Baghdad over oil are just beginning.

If Turkey wants to utilize and exploit the oil resources of northern Iraq, it needs to approach Arbil, not Baghdad, says Kurdistan Regional Government Natural Resources (or oil) Minister Dr. Ashti Hawrami. He believes it would be in Turkey's interest to deal with the regional government, arguing that Baghdad can only be an intermediary but not an interlocutor concerning the exploration and exploitation of the oil in northern Iraq.

The oil relations between the new Iraqi government and Turkey may not be easy to establish while there are existing Kurdish tensions, regardless of the recent oil [profit-sharing] law that has been agreed upon. By U.S. unilateral involvement, America is now beholden to the corrupt politics of oil. The Bush administration has created a monster that has magnified their actual reason for misleading U.S. citizens and the world about WMD in 2002. No lofty goals, although we were fed so many lofty goals.

The regional oil minister said oil could either be a factor that causes problems between the two sides, or a link that binds the two together. The Kurdistan Regional Government controls three of the 18 provinces of the country, Dohuk, Arbil and Sulaimania. When asked how much oil was in the region, Hawrami said: “Between 20 to 25 billion barrels. We believe we can produce a million barrels a day.” He says they didn't need every drop of the oil extracted, noting, “You have a population of 70 million. This is an opportunity god provided for you right next door. Come here and exploit it.” When asked if this meant the argument that Kurds wanted Kirkuk for independence, he said: “I am not a politician. Let's leave Kirkuk to them. With or without Kirkuk, we have plenty of oil.” While two known oil reserves of Kirkuk is 12 billion barrels, Dr. Hawrawi believes there is an additional 10 billion there. Naturally, having plenty of oil reserves does not mean much alone. On the road to Arbil from Kirkuk, people were selling gasoline in barrels on the side of the road.

War of words over Kirkuk intensifies, Azzaman.com

Sens Clinton & Dole Reintroduce 211 Bill

There is no '2-1-1' service available in New York State today. Non-profit community agencies have taken up a good part of the responsibility in providing a service and a telephone number that is crucial to fellow members of our society, but there is no one central number for people to easily remember and to call at a desperate time. Senators Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole have reintroduced legislation that would bring "2-1-1" service nationwide. I am in favor of such legislation because I volunteer for a non-profit that now provides such a service, providing individuals and families who need non-emergency assistance with a link to appropriate non-profit and government agencies to find and give help without disrupting emergency phone lines.

Key Iraq Advisor Leaving

In December of 2005, Daniel Drezner wrote about the poli-sci implications of the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."

With the 2005 "Victory" plan, was the Bush administration "more concerned with the domestic politics of the Iraq war than with actually winning on the ground in Baghdad," as Laura Rozen had suggested at the time?

Mr. Drezner had written about a NYT article that had indicated that many federal departments had contributed to the document and that a political scientist had joined the N.S.C. staff as a special adviser in June of 2005 and had closely studied public opinion on the war. Dr. Peter D. Feaver had been "recruited after he and Duke colleagues presented the administration with an analysis of polls about the Iraq war in 2003 and 2004. They concluded that Americans would support a war with mounting casualties on one condition: that they believed it would ultimately succeed."

The assumption underlying Feaver and Gelpi's hypothesis is so simple that it's never stated in the article -- if a sufficiently large majority opposes an ongoing military intervention, any administration will have to withdraw regardless of the strategic wisdom of such a move. This is why, I suspect, the administration reacts so badly whenever it deals with domestic criticism about the war -- it recognizes that flagging domestic support will translate into a strategic straitjacket.

Today we learn that the deputy national security adviser for Iraq Meghan L. O'Sullivan will be departing.

O'Sullivan, 37, known for her 100-hour work weeks and steady optimism over the eventual outcome in Iraq, said in an interview that with the completion of months-long reviews of policy in Iraq and Afghanistan - which she also oversees - she felt it was the right time for a change.

"There's never a good time to leave this kind of job. ... But (I decided) this would be as good a time as any," she said..

O'Sullivan allegedly, per anonymous sources, had helped conceive and draft the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" that was designed to convince you and me that this war needed to be "won" - which, as I stated back then, was not addressing the realistic potential of the brand of victory, based on the cost in blood and treasure, for which the American public would stand.

Edwards: "Send It Back" If Bush Vetoes Iraq Bill

"If President Bush vetoes funding for the troops, he will be the one who is blocking funding for the troops. Nobody else. Now is not a time to back down; it is a time for strength and conviction. The President's veto threat should only strengthen our resolve to stand by our troops and end this conflict. The Congress should make absolutely clear that they are going to stand their ground, supporting the troops and reflecting the will of the American people to end this war. If the President vetoes a funding bill, Congress should send him another bill that funds the troops, brings them home, and ends the war. And if he vetoes that one, they should send him another that does the same thing."

- Senator John Edwards, 4-3-07




The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls..and tenement halls...and on the blogs. The grande escalation of this failed war in Iraq is over. It's only the members of George W. Bush's administration and the tilted media that love this war because it's embraced by "their side" - the ones who verbally flail about and threaten others with empty admonishments and accusations; the ones who ignore those who deliver the People's message - who stand to go down in history as the numbskulls who nearly destroyed America's reputation and good standing in the world.

Yesterday in New Hampshire, Senator John Edwards criticized President Bush's threat to veto a House-passed bill to set a timeline for withdrawing from Iraq.

"If the president chooses to veto it, it's the president of the United States who's decided 'I'm not going to provide the funding to the troops leaving Iraq," he said. "If he vetoes it they ought to send it back to him."

William Rivers Pitt cleverly tells a story about what appears to be the tipping point for Congress in the most recent political struggle against the White House on the Iraq war. For me, it turned what was ambivalence about the recent developments into hope that our representatives will hang strong and force Bush to end the mess that his administrration has created.

Larry C. Johnson, ex-CIA who now works with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises and briefs foreign governments on a regular basis on terrorist trends, writes a diary with a catchy title: McCain, Crazy Bastard. For those who faint at the sight of strongly worded opinions, get out your smelling salts. Johnson thinks McCain's all wet on Iraq.

McCain's fantasy world is rich but has no grounding in reality. We already have one President barely in touch with reality. The last thing we need is another ideological nut job incapable of recognizing reality while it is kicking him in the balls.

Marshall Adame was a US Coalition Airport Director for Basrah International Airport, VP for Aviation Development with an American Int'l Corporation in Iraq, and Department of State US Advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and with the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) where he was on the staff of the National Coordination Team (NCT) in Baghdad. He writes about some of his own experiences and the failure of leadership in Iraq.

The Most Touching YouTube Video

I want to see the same scene in every classroom of every little boy or girl who has a Mom or Dad serving in Iraq.

Elizabeth Edwards Says "Thank You"

Lovely and Amazing

Elizabeth Edwards says "Thank You."
Click photo for link

Dear Elizabeth,


Writer Bernard Malamud said that life is a tragedy full of joy. In so many ways, he is right. You have to have determination and optimism - to see life, with all of its tragedy, as a joy in order to accomplish your goals in life. Mr. Malamud, in all his wisdom, also said that, without heroes, we're all plain people and don't know how far we can go.

You're showing us just how far, Mrs. Edwards.

The poet May Sarton said that one must think like a hero to behave like a merely decent human being. Your decency is a shining example of heroic thinking.

You are leading us to think optimistically - to think more like heroes - and as a result we'll not only behave as more decent human beings, but we'll know exactly how far we can go.

I consider you to be a symbol of real leadership and courage. You are such a caring person - a good and devoted guardian in every sense of the word - to your husband, to your children, to your country, and to each of us.

I send you my prayers.
You are my hero.


Jude

Knut - My New Love!

John Nichols Really Knows Elizabeth Edwards!

I could tell that Madison Capital Times editor John Nichols has really gotten to know Elizabeth Edwards when I read this:

There is no question that John Edwards has become a stronger candidate as he has listened more to the advice of his wife than the consultants who, in 2004, prodded him to be too cautious and controlled. I am convinced that John Edwards now relies on Elizabeth Edwards as his essential adviser.

That's good for him politically, and, frankly, it's good for progressives who want the Democratic presidential contest to feature a top-tier contender who speaks seriously about the need to advance economic and social justice at home and abroad.

If Elizabeth Edwards wanted John Edwards out of the presidential race, he would be out.

Mr. Nichols already knows what Katie Couric didn't - or had hard time accepting as truth even as it came out of Mrs. Edwards' own lips on 60 Minutes last Sunday. I think that so many of our television journalists are caught up in the horse race that they forget that the candidates and their wives are refreshingly real people who often actually mean what they say in front of the TV camera.

Flat World or Flat-line for Social Justice?

I'm not sure which falls more flat - the "flat world" talked about by so many of todays political leaders or the level of inspiration generated by the knowledge, provided by David Sirota, that those leaders have so little to offer us toward a realistic vision of a just and fair future for all of us.

Olmert less popular w/own people than Bush!

Juan Cole has a good compilation of new information coming from the Middle East. One of Professor Cole's postings caught my eye.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert put his foot in his mouth by saying that US troops should stay in Iraq, otherwise the resulting chaos might cause the Hashemite monarchy of Jordan to fall. Jordan has a peace treaty with Israel and puts up with Israeli colonization of the West Bank even while condemning it-- i.e. Jordan functions as a de facto ally of Israel. Olmert sees its potential loss as a threat to Israeli security. The Jordanians are hopping mad about Olmert's comments. They see their regime as perfectly stable, whereas they wonder how long Olmert's government can last, with only 2% of Israelis expressing trust in him in polls. And, the Jordanians believe that the real threat to regional security is Israel's steadfast refusal to grant the Palestinians their own state within recognized and viable borders.

What the Jordanians are not saying, but is worth saying, is that if chaos in Iraq was a threat to the stability of Israel's neighbors and therefore to Israel itself, it was foolish for Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert to act as cheerleaders for an Iraq War back in 2002 and early 2003. War has unpredictable consequences. Olmert is wrong about the fragility of the Hashemite monarchy, but is right-- too late!-- that the violence in Iraq may well rebound against Israel.

What Professor Cole is saying is that Israel is using Jordan as its proxy-target for fear-mongering - about what seems to be a genuine fear about their own security. Jordanians don't appreciate it. I don't blame them. Would you like it? In my book, you just don't treat an ally fairly when you generate a false threat that involves them unreasonably.

The only leader who seems to be less popular with his own people than George W. Bush seems to be Ehud Olmert. Tony Blair's not too popular these days, either.

Speaking of Blair, can you imagine, with our already-stretched military, getting embroiled in a larger war with Iran over an ally-nation's investigation of automobile smuggling in the Persian Gulf? Give me a break!

MSM - Be Careful of What You Sensationalize

At TPM Muckraker, Paul Kiel points to a New York Times column by Michael R. Gordon and Scott Shane, leading us to understand that there were tactical rather than practical reasons for having called the infamous press briefing (about Iranian made explosives, also known as EFPs) in mid-February 2007. [See Spencer Ackerman's blogpost]. The NYT column takes us back to July 2005, when the U.S. sent a diplomatic complaint to Iran over the use of allegedly Iranian-made explosives being used against coalition troops in Iraq by Shiite groups. Kiel says that the Bush administration clearly made a choice to focus on the evidence that Iranian manufactured weapons were being used in Iraq - but they stayed silent on the crucial detail of who they were being used by. The vast majority of U.S. casualties come at the hands of Sunni insurgents, not Shiite.

The NYT article mentions that this particular kind of press briefing [in Feb 2007] was something new for then-top commander Gen. George W. Casey Jr., since military officials have historically been reluctant to highlight the effectiveness of the weapons for fear of encouraging their use. Kiel reminds us that the claim that Iran is the only possible supplier for EFPs in Iraq has been debunked.

Notwithstanding the fact that EFPs are dangerous and the complaint was warranted, this knowledge certainly rips every bit of sensationalism from the original media storyline. My mind goes back to the unwarranted sensationalism in the media headlines in 2002 about the late (not great) Saddam Hussein and his connections to 9/11...his possession of WMD. It makes you wonder what the mainstream will buy into next.....

Will Katie Ever Ask Gingrich About His Choices?

Suzie Madrak has a great column at Huffington Post about those who choose to either judge the Edwards or put them in a position, a la Katie Couric where they were made to feel as if they are in need of defending themselves against a barrage of ignorance. What could have been a shining moment for Ms. Couric was dulled by undue cynicism.

I left a comment at the New York Daily News today, only to be dismayed to see it had been scrubbed from the website for unknown reasons. No one wrote to me to tell me why they erased or lost the comment that had taken me so much time and thought to post. I was responding to a person who was passing shame-judgment upon the Edwards' personal choices and decision:

To the 'retired teacher' - your judgment of "shame" upon the Edwards is totally off-base and I'll tell you why. Mrs. Edwards means what she says when she says she wants her husband to be in the White House where he belongs. What good is a life not lived to the fullest? This is what she wants! We are gifted with one life, and Elizabeth's life is shining and full. She is not enamoured with the thought of languishing. You say "some people don't have a choice at a time like this"....and that makes no sense. Of course they have a choice - and they have made it with love and devotion to one another, with their eye on the fulfillment of their vision and their hearts filled with commitment to our nation. In the novel "Death Be Not Proud" by John Gunther, there is a line that says, "I have so much to do! And there's so little time!" We can all relate to this, but there's no one who can relate better than a person who knows their time is precious. Elizabeth's time is precious and she's determined to do what she wants with the rest of her beautiful life. Who are any of you to place your own assumptions and values onto her choices? You can either respect her choice or not..but you have no right to shame the husband who adores her and shares a vision with his beloved partner.

Lydia Cornell causes me to wonder if Newt Gingrich will ever be asked about his personal and conscious choice to abandon his wife when she was faced with a battle against cancer. Now there's question I'll bet Katie won't be asking anytime soon! The corporate taskmasters likely wouldn't allow it. Jerry Falwell praises the character of the louse. Don't you just love double standards?


Benny is reporting about South Carolina leaders who are getting on the Edwards train.

UPDATE: Sen. and Mrs. Edwards Say Couric "Tough But Fair"

John Edwards for President Statement on the Edwardses' Interview with Katie Couric:

Chapel Hill, North Carolina - John Edwards for President Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince released the following statement today following criticism of Katie Couric for her interview with Senator and Mrs. Edwards. The interview, which took place on Saturday and lasted 90 minutes, aired last night on 60 Minutes.

"The Edwardses appreciated the opportunity 60 Minutes afforded them to respond to tough questions which have been raised in response to last week's diagnosis that Mrs. Edwards' cancer had returned. Mrs. Edwards also called Ms. Couric today to thank her for the interview and to say that she and Senator Edwards thought theinterview was both thorough and fair."

During a roundtable today in San Francisco to discuss his plan to halt global warming, Senator Edwards was asked about the matter and said: "My reaction was that Katie Couric asked questions that the American people are asking themselves, and I think they were completely legitimate questions. And I think the American people deserve answers from me and from Elizabeth to those questions. I mean, I'm asking America to support me and vote for me as their next president, and I think part of the evaluation of a candidate for president is a personal evaluation of the character and integrity and honesty of a candidate. So, no, I thought the questions were fair. Tough. I thought they were tough, but they were fair."

I had a very different view from "out here," but the Edwardses have responded with grace, as always. Ms. Couric was markedly "kinder" on the CBS News this evening, [someone at Daily Kos referred to it as "pooper scooper" coverage indicating the need for salvage]. Couric devoted much more careful coverage to the Edwards campaign, although today's Cleveland stop by Elizabeth was still not handled with a fair journalistic hand in my opinion. According to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, CBS has received at least 12,000 e-mails complaining about Sunday night's Couric interview.

Bolton Lies - Thinks We Won't Notice

"The president never made the argument that [Sadam Hussein] constituted an imminent threat."

John Bolton [Raw Story]

Oh my God.
Talk about revisionism as bold as brass!
This guy's got to be kidding.

Bush may not have said the word (likely because he couldn't have pronounced it), but the defintion of imminent is: hanging threateningly over one's head.

On a related note, speaking about the war on terror, Zbigniew Brzezinski spoke just yesterday in the WaPo about the pre-Iraq war stimulation by the Bush adminstration of the emergence of a culture of fear:

The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

But, of course, if you ask the ex-UN ambassador with the big white moustache, he'll tell you that no such fear was ever stimulated by the man in the big white house who can't say 'nuclear.'

On Elizabeth Edwards and the Campaign

We're Committed

Our campaign goes on and it goes on strongly. We are so proud of the campaign we are running—a campaign based on ideas and reaching out to people. This campaign is not about me or Elizabeth—it's about all the people we have met these past few years and people like them all across America and the world—people worried about feeding and clothing their kids; people without health care; people facing hardships overseas.

Both of us are committed to this campaign. We're committed to this cause and we're committed to changing this country we love so much.

Thank you again for your support and for standing with us.

- Senator John Edwards, from a campaign email today

As I'm sure my readers will already know, I am deeply saddened by the news that Elizabeth Edwards will have to face yet another trying time as she fights this cancer. How I wish Elizabeth did not have to go through this. The wonderful part of the news is that she will not have to face it alone. She'll have her beloved husband and family by her - always. I've come to care very much about the Edwards - I feel, in many ways, that they are family - and my first reaction to the news that Senator Edwards will continue this campaign is that I think it's the right thing for him to have done because it was his decision and Elizabeth's decision. Family is the Edwards' first priority. They support one another and stand strong through the hardest of times - and that, to me, is setting a great example to anyone seeking personal victory and happiness in their own life.

Whatever John Edwards and his wife and family decide to do has my blessing. The Edwards have my prayers and support, as always.

I'm not sure why Politico.com had spread inaccurate news about the Edwards' intent before they really knew what was happening. It caused CNN to repeat the inaccuracies in a rush to report. It's no wonder we get so many false and misleading stories in the news. Saddest of all, this was the highest level of attention that CNN has paid to John Edwards' campaign since he announced he'd run for President. I think that fact is a damned shame. Worst of all, I heard the Fox News Live host Jon Scott cynically questioning Senator Edwards' statement of optimism immediately after the press conference. Dr. Robert Ashton, who was being interviewed, put the news host in his place, saying that he believed that optimism was the best thing for the Edwards to have.

Fools like Kathleen Parker write about trivial nonsense while a family faces the trial of a lifetime amidst a Presidential campaign. How I wish people could get real.

I wonder how Ann Coulter's feeling right now?

In the absence of eloquent words to say right now, I am going to repeat what David (Anonymoses) said just this morning. I think it ties in beautifully with the Edwards' statement about their optimism, tenacity, love, and vision:

Fyodor Dostoyevsky is reputed to have said: "Suffering is the sole origin of consciousness", which, among other things, conjures images from the life of the young buddha. Gurdjieff talks about how we evolve our being through what he called "conscious suffering".

Thinking about such things has given me courage during trying times, which is why I wanted to share it.

In many ways, Life is a steady stream of bad news. And sometimes, bad news is just well-disguised good news.

The stress of having one's current reality be so far from ideal, provides the fuel and energy that will propel one toward one's vision.

May the Edwards family be filled with light, love, peace, good health and repose.

- David

Elizabeth, you'll never be alone in this battle. May God comfort you and may you know how many of us love you and care about you. May you have the spiritual strength to bear any physical discomfort that you may have to endure from day to day, and may you find healing, spiritual fortitude, and peace from God's guiding hands.

Don Rose Bangs on Wrong Door for Iraq War

To commemorate the ghastly 4th anniversary of the Iraq War, Chicago-based political consultant Don Rose would rather have us look back at Democrats who voted for the Iraq War Resolution rather than to review the horrendous errors and lies of the Bush administration and every rubber-stamping Republican that has willingly prolonged the disaster since the war began. I wonder why? Could it be because Chicago's own Barack Obama can't be blamed for his vote because he wasn't in a position to have to have voted at the time because he wasn't yet a Senator? How politically convenient. What about things as they stand here and now?

Shouldn't we be opening our eyes and ears (widely) to what the Democratic leaders are saying and doing today about Iraq rather than hyperfocusing on political atmosphere four years ago? Notice that Mr. Rose says absolutely nothing about what the Democratic candidates are doing/saying today. Why isn't that more important?

With a clear eye, I don't trust Mr. Rose's judgment. He isn't a forgiving sort on this matter, and I realize his heart may be in the right place since he is a founding member of Chicagoans Against the War in Iraq. I went through similar feelings myself a couple years ago, but I realized that if we cannot learn to forgive when our leaders tell us they regret having trusted Bush with any authority, we will only have more cynicism and doubt - - and more leaders like George W. Bush.

I think a much better reminder of how we must change, as a nation on the fourth anniversary of this mess, is well-witnessed and written by Juan Cole, who points out the true source of the tragic war mistakes.

Bush's Top Ten Mistakes in Iraq during the Past 4 Years

10. Refusing to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when his incompetence and maliciousness became apparent in the growing guerrilla war and the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

9. Declining to intervene in the collapsed economy or help put Iraqi state industries back on a good footing, on the grounds that the "market" would magically produce prosperity effortlessly.

8. Invading and destroying the Sunni Arab city of Fallujah in November, 2004, thus pushing the Sunni Arabs into the arms of the insurgency in protest and ensuring that they would boycott the January, 2005, parliamentary elections, a boycott that excluded them from power and from a significant voice in crafting the new constitution, which they then rejected.

7. Suddenly announcing that the US would "kill or capture" young nationalist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in spring, 2004, throwing the country into massive turmoil for months.

6. Replying to Baathist guerrilla provocations with harsh search and destroy missions that humiliated and angered ever more Sunni Arab clans, driving them to support or join the budding guerrilla movement.

5. Putting vengeful Shiites in charge of a Debaathification Commission that fired tens of thousands of mostly Sunni Arab state employees simply for having belonged to the Baath Party, leaving large numbers of Sunnis penniless and without hope of employment.

4. Dissolving the Iraqi Army in May, 2003, and sending 400,000 men home, unemployed, resentful and heavily armed.

3. Allowing widespread looting after the fall of Saddam Hussein on April 9, 2003, on the grounds that "stuff happens," "democracy is messy," and "how many vases can they have?"-- and thus signalling that there would be no serious attempt to provide law and order in American Iraq.

2. Plotting to install corrupt financier, notorious liar, and shady operator Ahmad Chalabi as the soft dictator of Iraq, and refusing to plan for a post-war administration of the country because that might forestall Chalabi's coronation.

1. Invading Iraq.