Gov Paterson Chooses Kirsten Gillibrand

I'm pleased to know that Gov. David Paterson has chosen Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Senator Hillary Clinton. The new Sen. Gillibrand will not have to waste a second being brought up to speed on the unique and longstanding economic troubles that have plagued Upstate NY and that predate the current economic crisis by a good number of years.

At a time when some voices are claiming that Upstate NY is being pushed to the side by
the current Governor's plan, the choice of Gillibrand as Senator may restore some confidence in Upstate citizens that their concerns and their job opportunities are important.

Gillibrand, currently serving in the House of Representatives where she serves on the serves on the House Armed Services Committee [Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities subcommittee] and the Agriculture Committee [Livestock, Dairy and Poultry subcommittee, Conservation Credit Energy and Research subcommittee and the Horticulture and Organic Agriculture subcommittee], has a website where you can see her stand on the issues. Some progressives will probably not like her stand on Gun Rights. In her district [NY-20], I doubt she ever would have stood a chance of being elected if she had not listened to the concerns of her constituents. As Senator, she will face a new and much wider group of citizens who will likely require her to think [and show that she'll listen] carefully about their views on that particular issue.

Already a member of a new Upstate Majority Caucus [made up of Upstate Democrats serving in the New York State Assembly, New York State Senate and the House of Representatives], Gillibrand will have greater influence, as Senator, in their collective unified effort to jumpstart the struggling economy of Upstate New York. [See The Albany Project]

Rep. Gillibrand founded the Congressional High Tech Caucus [along with Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX)] "with the goal of ensuring that the United States remains at the forefront of emerging technologies and high tech industries." [source: Online Office of Rep Gillibrand]

As Special Counsel to the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development [Andrew Cuomo] under President Clinton, Gillibrand worked to strengthen enforcement of the Davis-Bacon Act, which came into the public focus in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when the Bush administration attempted to indefinitely suspend Davis-Bacon and was politically unsuccessful (or, at best, unpopular) for having done so, reinstating it within a month under public scrutiny.

Any "Eli Stone" [ABC] fan can recognize Gillibrand's own dedication to service in her maintaining of an extensive pro-bono practice for clients whose voices are seldom heard and needs seldom addressed.


In other news:

This poor fellow only wishes to keep his giant hot dog.

Busted! World class musicians were arm-synching at the Inauguration ceremony. What a lovely piece it is! Here's the performance:



THIS SONG is dedicated to the world-class musicians who did a great job of arm-synching at the Inauguration.

"Worth the Fight" [Obama-Clinton 08]

The strip below was inspired by a story I'd read at Kansas City.com (Be sure to use the arrow at the right)
~ Jude

Hillary to Bloggers: Chapter Closing on Republican Misrule

Closing a long chapter of "Republican misrule"

Hillary Clinton took some time out of an extremely busy campaign season to join a number of bloggers in a discussion about the way ahead here in this final stretch of the 2008 campaign as she and other Democrats work to win the White House and to expand Democratic majorities. I was appreciative to have been a party to that blogger's call. Senator Clinton's campaigned at more than 50 stops for fellow Democrats, including Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama. She's traveled to numerous states, raising over $10 million for Democratic races. She said that she's become increasingly optimistic about Senators Obama and Biden winning on November 4th. She believes the choice for President couldn't be clearer. She suggested that last night's debate at Hofstra University
- closed the deal for Barack Obama;
- that John McCain had his last chance to make his case;
- that, in her opinion, the debates were Obama's 3-for-3 [and the Democrats 4-for-4 if you include the Biden-Palin debate];
- and that she suspects that soon we'll be seeing the closing a long chapter of "Republican misrule".

She stressed the importance of changing the direction of the nation - both in the political party of the winning candidate and in the values that the party embodies.

"Society's unfinished business..."

On Sexism and Racism in the 2008 Campaign

The blogger known as Alegre [Alegre's Corner], who'd made a bold move in the world of alternative political media when she led a mass exodus of Hillary [primary] supporters [in the form of a strike] from an increasingly partisan Obama-focused group at Daily Kos last March, asked Senator Clinton how the political playing field can be leveled for women in future campaigns. Alegre pointed out the blatant sexism that she'd seen on display in the news - not only by media pundits but even with certain fellow Democratic party members - during the 2008 primary season, much to the sadness of many women and men who could see the injustice clearly. [Note: I'd done a bit of my own artistic commentary during the primary season]. Senator Clinton graciously commented that she felt that the sexism [and racism] that were raised as concerns during the 2008 campaign were indicative of "society's unfinished business" and, after 2008, she'd like to see public statements in the media that better reflect our progressive values. She said this could be accomplished by having more citizen-watchdogs who would make an example of any perceived blatant or inappropriate sexist or racist public commentary. She mentioned this watchdog duty as a particularly positive and productive opportunity area for progressive bloggers. Senator Clinton promised to do what she could do to make our nation a more just and free place for all.

"Keep the marketplace of ideas vibrant."

Fox News and Alernative Media

Alegre's question had surrounded a form of political media that had obviously become boldly partisan and a subsequent question from a blogger from MyDD seemed to extend the topic of fairness in media. Senator Clinton was asked a question about Fox News - particularly about Matt Bai's upcoming article in this Sunday's NY Times magazine where Obama was quoted to have suggested that Fox News has cost him a few percentage points in the polls. Senator Clinton replied that Fox News is a reality that must be dealt with and that no one benefits from ignoring the reality of their reporting. She pointed out that there are, however, many alternative political news-reporting outlets available today - including the blogs. She said it was important to keep after them and that it is very important to "keep the marketplace of ideas vibrant."


Down-Ticket Races

When blogger Armando Llorens [aka Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left] asked Senator Clinton about 2008's down-ticket House and Senate races, she became especially animated in her reply. She named certain House seats that looked very hopeful for a number of Democratic candidates, including Dan Maffei in my own District 25 here in Syracuse, N.Y. Her chief goal, however, is to see that the current Senate majority is increased on November 4th. She'd like to see progressive bloggers "adopting" a Senate or House race or two of their choosing in the next few weeks - bloggers can write about the issues or sign up to get out in the field and help in local races or travel to battleground states of their choosing. HillPAC has a website called "HILLARY SENT ME" [mentioned in a recent WaPo/Dana Milbank story] where Hillary supporters can sign up and offer to help out with the work left to be done before November 4th.

Senator Clinton's October 1, 2008 remarks about the Homeowners Mortgage Enterprise [HOME] can be seen HERE.

The Home Mortgage Crisis

A question was asked [by Armando] about Senator Clinton's call for a new Home Owners' Loan Corporation [HOLC] to assist Americans. She said she was quite surprised when John McCain announced his plan because, in some ways, it sounded eerily like her original idea (with the exception that, with McCain's plan, bankers and lenders would profit from their own irresponsible actions and her plan would not have that effect. A major missing factor in the recent federal bailout is the lack of direct assistance to homeowners who've seen their home values drop and those who've been affected by unabated foreclosures. Her plan would help stabilize the home markets and modify existing mortgages by creating a federal entity whose responsibility would primarily deal with home mortgages - stopping many foreclosures and providing an atmosphere for more stable mortgages. She said she was pleased to have heard Barack Obama's call for a 90 day foreclosure moratorium for homeowners who are acting in good faith.


Related Blogposts:


- BREAKING... Hillary takes a moment from campaigning for Obama-Biden and the Democrats to talk to progressive bloggers - Taylor Marsh

- Hillary's Call with Bloggers This Evening - Alegre's Corner

- Call with Hillary Clinton: Discussing HOLC and the Campaign - Talk Left

- Quote: "She was, as ever, dazzlingly brilliant on policy—and typically generous and funny." - Shakesville

Hillary and Obama: Unity

I spoke about Hillary Clinton's rise toward unity last March. Despite the mainstream media and blogosphere's hand-wringing for the past four months, I've felt that Hillary Clinton embraced the idea of unity all that time through small signals and gestures... despite her strong will to be top of ticket.

I think the idea came through in a big way today in Unity, N.H.

It's become increasingly obvious that this team of once-rivals should go with the momentum while the mo is the mo that it is.

I've been making this case for a long time at Daily Kos and have gotten the kind of reception you'd expect from people who were hoping passionately for an Obama nomination.But that time is good and gone and now it's time to realize that these two strong candidates not only get along just fine and appeal to disparate groups of voters, but that Bill Clinton is no threat (a fear-mongering talking point of the parrots of cable news), but is rather a very good politician to have on your side.

Jiminy Pelosi Says to Superdelegates...

Clinton is ahead with just the superdelegates, but about 40% of them have yet to announce their choice. That means that the superdelegates -- office-holders and party officials -- will likely cast the deciding votes in the nominating process. - Michael Muskal, LA Times

And Another Campaigner Resigns

The AP's political quote of the day reads,

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

'"It's not going to be the Barack and Hillary people who bring the factions together. It's going to be those of us who are still seen as neutral and have some standing in the party."

— Rep. Mike Doyle, a Democrat who represents Pittsburgh and has not endorsed either of his party's presidential candidates, Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.'

As an ordinary citizen who is neutral, I feel the same kind of responsibility to guide my fellow Democrats (and the two campaigns) to come together or risk losing not only the Presidential race, but the integrity of the party. On this blog I keep telling the campaigns that, if the candidates care more for party and country than they care for their own ego and ambition, then we'll need to see two adults seeking fairness and urging supporters to stay positive and patient while they both (rightly) remain in this primary race. Heaven knows where the support they'd normally see from party luminaries to keep the party peaceful has gone! It almost seems that they've been left alone..perhaps purposely... to show their eventual capacity for unity when neither, after the voting's over and done, winds up with the number of delegates it'll take to snag the nomination.

Why does it seem that some newspaper editorials are setting wiser guidlines and promoting better ideas than some of the party elders? [See this one from today's Oakland Press].

I don't know where the party's wise elders and cooler heads are. I'm not the only one who's wondering. I think of Sen Ted Kennedy who admitted he made the endorsement that he made [for Obama] when he did because, in good part, he was angry with Bill Clinton's comments in South Carolina.

The exploitation of anger bleeds over on to almost every Democratic issue in the MSM coverage of the primary race now. I honestly think, with a woman and an African-American running so close a race, that the "party bosses" are afraid to side with either candidate for the fear of looking politically incorrect. They know they run the risk of being reviled by half the total number of Democratic voters if they make what they think might be the "wrong decision"...or ANY decision at all.

It's pitiful to even begin to suspect that should-be-leaders in the Democratic party who had a preference for one candidate or the other could've been responsible and guiding...but decided instead to hold back in a state of fear and/or muddled confusion.

The emotion and anger of yet another Democratic campaigner (this time Maxim Thorne, a well-educated and dedicated supporter of Obama) has gotten the better of him. Mr. Thorne's out of the campaign for sending out an email that looked more like something from the Ken Starr-inquisition era than a 2008 campaign commentary. I consider him, like others who've had to resign from these two campaigns recently, to be another all-too-human victim of a Democratic primary campaign with an all-too easy fallback on race/gender/personal issues; improper, slow, missing, and/or uncertain leadership from the party; unnecessary rage; and high emotion.

Until this thing works itself out [or until a Democratic Yoda appears], here's a recommendation from a fellow blogger with the screen-name wmthetriallawyer that says,

"Don't let the main stream media or the whackjobs out there distract you from certain realities. [..]..the host of people who have lined up to support or otherwise be media-defined surrogates of the Obama and Clinton campaigns. [..] People say really stupid stuff sometimes. And it is dissected ad nauseum [..] But I only really care about what the two candidates themselves say"

Olbermann Goes Too Far

I have to agree with Kate Stone's assessment of last night's dreadfully melodramatic performance by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann where he compared Hillary Clinton to David Duke. [While divisive garbage like this is being thrown at the American public by MSNBC's rival corporate MSM contender..and we Democratic chumps wind up taking all the damage from their ratings battle]. I happen to think Mr. Olbermann's trying very hard to please and promote himself with what he seems to think is an objective progressive crowd at Daily Kos, where he ran to post his comments from last night's Hillary-bashing segment. The tone of those comments rivaled a Sarah Bernhardt high-drama soliloquy. The deliverer of the bitter content of those comments stabbed wantonly at a Presidential candidate with a faux-rage that would've been laughable if It wasn't so careless. What Mr. Olbermann fails to realize is that there is virtually very little objectivity at the Daily Kos website as things stand in this primary race. I know. I've been a participant there for five years. Democrats are fighting there all the time now. He's catering to one side of a broken party. Isn't that kind of like Jerry Springer exploiting dysfunctional families for entertainment's sake?

Speaking of the drama diva herself..while performing in La Tosca in Rio de Janeiro circa 1905, Sarah Bernhardt received an injury to her right knee during the final scene that eventually, due to untreatable infection, resulted in her entire right leg being amputated. With his corny and Democrat-dividing performance, I think Keith Olbermann, by breaking trust with many progressives last night, may well have caused an infection that could wind up amputating his career as a credible political pundit.

Too bad. For a while he was hitting some home runs. He was the last talk-show host on MSNBC to whom I'd been giving an open-minded listen. He polluted my open mind last night.

________________

* This is from me... a longtime blogger...a consistently objective John Edwards supporter who's hoping for the two remaining candidates to come together for the party's sake and take on some of Sen Edwards' issues instead of making me remember that he was the only grown-up on the room most of the time. This week I saw a powerful Democrat go down for spending God-knows-how much on hookers while the candidate I supported caught shit in the idiot MSM for getting a $400 haircut. I'm no longer in the mood to tolerate anyone willing to divide our party...that includes the remaining candidates and well-paid self-promoting pundits like Mr. Olbermann.

I realize that my opinion isn't the popular one, but it comes from an unbiased heart and mind. Fairness, in this case, was not given to Sen Clinton, who was delivering a heartfelt public apology as Olbermann was impulsively skewing her.. before he gave it one news cycle to see what Clinton would do. I didn't subscribe to the notion that some other bloggers have been expressing about Olbermann being "Obama's newscaster"...until last night. My party's been voting for more than just one candidate. Neither of the campaigns' surrogates have been innocent of the charge of damaging negativity.

Speaker Pelosi Can't Say "Unity" Now, But....

Some Obama supporters in my party are hanging their proverbial hats against the idea of a party unity ticket based on what they read from Politico's Ben Smith, who, at the end of the day, is not participating in his professional endeavours in order to create arguments that will win for Democrats .. and is making a living in a business that showcases the most controversial issues of the day for an optimal amount of eyeballs looking at a money-making website. I think it's wrong to hang your hat on just one temporal quote from Speaker Pelosi bluntly dismissing a unity Democratic ticket [sparked by her current displeasure with a compliment Clinton paid to McCain at the expense of Obama].

At Real Clear Politics there's a brief analysis by Blake Dvorak that I found to be astute:

I'm going to call Pelosi on inconsistency here. She says the differences between Obama and Clinton are nothing compared to the chasm between Democrats and Republicans. But later on she dismisses a "dream ticket" as impossible because the Clinton campaign has said McCain would make a better commander in chief than Obama. Well, assuming the need to beat the Republicans in November outweighs the differences between Obama and Hillary, which is what I think Pelosi is getting at, then a dream ticket is not only possible, but preferable.

But we also know why Pelosi is being inconsistent. Endorsing in any way a joint ticket is a nod to Clinton right now, given the campaigns' difference of opinion on the idea. And Pelosi needs to appear "uncommitted."

Speaker Pelosi's playing the part she imagines she needs to play while remaining uncommitted to either candidate. Perhaps she knows what time can do, if both candidates' campaigns are listening, to erase the memory of bold albeit temporal statements like this one.

But everyone knows there's no such thing as "impossible". Using the word creates an easily-breakable frame. A worry for me, though, is created by such an unimaginative and hopeless-sounding statement from a party leader. Absent of vision at a difficult time for the party, it emits a sad signal to already-conflicted Democratic voters who, unlike some party extremists defending Obama or Clinton, genuinely like both Obama and Clinton. I can't blame Nancy Pelosi, though.I blame the lack of harmonious spirit betwen two extremely (and equally) popular party luminaries who are running for the highest office of the land.

It will soon be time for them both to grow up and start coming together for the sake of their party and for the change they both say they wish to bring to our country.

It's no wonder Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards have remained uncommitted.

Obama Slams Hillary's Cracked-Open VP Door

I don't want to see one currently-interested and enthused Democrat sitting home on their ass [or their hands] on Election Day 2008 because they're pissed off about who got top-of-the-ticket. Hillary Clinton already sees this and has acknowledged to voters that she understands how they're feeling.

It's time for Barack Obama to do the same.

When confronted about the possibility of a Clinton/Obama or an Obama/Clinton ticket, Barack Obama said:

"..what I'm really focused on right now .. is winning this nomination and changing the country. And I think that's what people here are concerned about." - ABC News

I'm here to tell Barack Obama that he's absolutely wrong if he's thinking that the entire body of Democratic voters believe it's all about him. It isn't all about him and him alone. He's not the sole Savior of the Democratic party even though he's convinced half of the Democratic electorate that he might be. He won't increase the size of the hardened hearts of Republicans as did Dr. Seuss' tiny heroine Cindy-Lou Who, who succeeded in pumping up the Grinch's ticker three sizes in one day.

George W. Bush made the fatal error, throughout much of his Presidency, of allowing his ego to convince him that he was beloved by all when at least half the nation saw that he was deluded by self-vision. I hope I'm not seeing this character trait in Obama.

In case he's missing something, let me remind Senator Obama that Democrats are looking to both him and to Senator Clinton for maturity and leadership during what we all can see is a contentious, historic, and incredibly close primary race. They need to agree to remain open to coming together on one 2008 ticket and stop pretending they don't need one another.

They need one another.

We need THEM to show us that they both get it.

Neither candidate can close this deal. We aren't stupid. We can see it. It's so obvious!

There will be anger among 50% of Democratic voters regardless of who winds up winning this hot primary contest ... the anger won't only apply if Barack loses it.

There's no reason for either contestant to drop out. Neither one has convincingly beaten the other.

Some will question Hillary's sincerity about floating the idea of Obama-as-VP and then, days later, exposing the weakness of her primary rival with an air of uncertainty about his preparedness for the task. I think it's not to say that Hillary's ruling out the possibility of Obama-as-VP. It's still a possibility and an invitation to what could be. It serves to confuse, though.

Voters have tired of confusion and uncertainty.

The outcome of the Florida and Michigan controversy could be the fork in the road that will make or break the Democrats this November, depending on the cooperation and attitude of the two candidates and their campaigns.

The voters of the two now-orphaned states of Florida and Michigan stand to be reassured that they'll be represented .. and fairly represented at the DNCC in Denver. It's going to get tougher from here. When it comes to the end results of Florida and Michigan, my forecast is calling for a certain hurricane of anger to blow away 50% of Democratic voters unless both candidates start showing that they'll respect the choice of the other half of voters by casting a welcoming eye and warm heart to their opponent for the VP slot.

Our party cannot afford (and by all means should not tolerate) the palpable negativity and division that currently hangs over both campaigns and campaigns' supporters. I'm glad to see that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has spoken out on the matter.

Cynical media pundits [who I believe have given the easy-pass treatment to Obama while perpetually crucifying Clinton] and even the media-pampered Obama himself are making it sound as if Clinton's a conniving she-devil for suggesting that she and Obama might run on the same ticket.

Wasn't it just three days ago that a valued campaign advisor had to resign for casting Hillary as a monster? When will the Obama campaign start getting the fact that the Democratic voting public is getting sick to death of their negativity after she's shown she's been capable of getting nearly the same amount of popular votes as their candidate .. and in key November states?

It seems like such a no-brainer that the two would be unbeatable if they could both show the ability to campaign together in a forward-thinking, mature, responsible, and committed fashion .. and agree to do so before August. Most cynics would (and do) say "fat chance" and perhaps they're right .. and perhaps the campaigns will listen to the cynics as usual ... and perhaps the Democrats will blow yet another great chance to win the Oval Office.

Marty Kaplan's conflicted and in turmoil over the idea of Clinton and Obama running together [and I say that jokingly .. read his hilarious and home-hitting piece today at Huffington Post].

Despite Rush Limbaugh's mocking threat about a lady and a black guy never being able to win on the same ticket, we aren't just talking about just any lady...or just any black guy. We know that these two will blow past McCain and rise and inspire progress for years to come. Rush is talking about a society in which we no longer live, and the numbers of voters coming out on the Democratic side compared to the Republicans are proving it.

We can only lose this if we destroy ourselves.

Right now I'm seeing Hillary Clinton as the wiser leader because, even while behind on delegates, she's welcomed Obama [and the voting public] to begin to consider the two candidates as part of an unstoppable team. Is she sincere? One commenter at the Chicago Tribune Swamp has said, "Good gracious, Hillary is just too much. She's losing, and yet is willing to dole out the VP award to the guy in first. How on earth does that make ANY sense?" The only way it makes sense is just the fact that the idea, to so many voters, makes sense .. plain and simple. That Hillary was first to suggest it is neither here nor there, but it does show a transcendence of ego and a positive attitude toward the Democratic party's electoral success that I haven't yet detected in Obama.

Obama doesn't help nor does he offer hope to those who'd wish they'd both cut the ego-crap and agree to run together:

"I won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So I don’t know how someone in second place can offer the vice presidency to someone in first place. If I was in second place I could understand but I am in first place right now."

Once again, [after what sounds to me like a statement from a haughty third-grader] he's denying just how close this race is and how neither candidate will meet the required delegates for securing the nomination by August. Worse, his attitude leaves this squarely in the hands of super-delegates which increases the likelihood that the election will be removed from the hands and hearts of the average voter. A very undemocratic thought .. especially after voters' still-lingering pain from Florida 2000.


If you build it, they will come. Field of Dreams. Remember that line?

I think Hillary's trying to build it. We want 'em to come out in droves to vote Democratic this November ..

..don't we??

Obama has already rejected the prospect of running as Hillary’s running mate, and has gone so far as to accuse Clinton of attempting “to deceive the American people just so that they can win this election” — not the kind of statement that a candidate makes when preparing to accept his rival’s ‘offer’ of the number two spot on the ticket. - [VisibleVote08]

Let's hope Obama joins her instead of putting out the negative vibes that damage the party's unity and serve to give animated reality to the Obama rookie-ambition narrative that has been pumped out by Hillary-supporters.

This can no longer be about ambition and ego. If it continues, there will be anger from either camp's supporters and I think we might well kiss the winds that should've been at our backs in November a fond 'Goodbye'.

And please - to Democratic voters who are whining that they'll refuse to vote for either candidate should they make top-of-ticket - try to think rationally even if your candidate may not be responsibly leading you to think outside your individual boxes at a perilous time for the party. Losing emotion can be useful in these trying times. Ask James Wolcott.

What we've lost in the course of two generations

From a post where Open Left's Chris Bowers worries because he says that the Clinton camp has "twice, in the last week, inaccurately gauged public opinion on a topic as being further to the right than it actually is":

Perhaps I would feel differently if I was from a different generation, but my formative political experiences have largely been about the failure of Democratic and progressive elites in stopping the conservative movement from continuing to rise. We never seem to win, even when we are in elected office. As such, one of the things I am looking for in the Democratic primaries is not only a candidate who can win, but who can reverse that pattern of defeat in governance.

I am from a generation that saw the rise of prominent social figures and political luminaries such as JFK, Rev.MLK Jr., and Bobby Kennedy. And I saw what happened to them and how far their idealism carried them in a hateful, divided nation. Later, I watched my mother as she exuberantly supported Hubert H. Humphrey and how she cried when he lost to Nixon. Still too young to join them, I saw the intelligence, the heart, and the nerve of the flower children in their generation's cause to end another unjust war. I saw college students at Kent State gunned down by our own countrymen for their idealism. I remember the awful images of Vietnam in black and white on my parents' television screen. I remember watching the Watergate hearings with my grandfather during the summer I was about to become a senior in high school and how he, while disgusted yet too intrigued to turn his head away, took the time to explain what was happening to me. In 1976, at the age of 18, I voted for Jimmy Carter in my first election. I saw Ronald Reagan come to power with a new Conservative movement with misled neo-idealists and their leaders who kissed, corrupted, and co-opted Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority.

Where Bobby Kennedy and MLK Jr. were remembered for their risk-filled fight for equality and civil rights of all Men and Women, Ronald Reagan is remembered for smaller government... being at the helm at the end of crumbling communism (with JFK, Carter, and others who set up the whole fall getting little to no credit). Sitting in the Oval Office on a Sunday morning, October 23, 1983 when 241 Americans, most of them U.S. Marines, were killed by a terrorist truck bomb. Still President when Pan Am flight 103 went down because of a terrorist's bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 35 Syracuse University students whose families never saw justice for the deaths of their children - and later were horrified to see George W. Bush make nice with devious Lybian leader Moammer Gahdafhi.


For all of this they wanted to put Reagan's likeness on the American dime.
Go figure.


You know the story from the post-Reagan years. Not too many brilliant profiles in courage-in-leadership, especially not from the Right. I think idealism and vision - the kind of vision that brings real, lasting, and necessary progress and not the kind lobbyists prefer to make - began to die off when they (whoever they may have been if you're a conspiracy theorist) began to literally kill off our most promising visionaries in this nation.


What passed for greatness after that was far from the vision of inspired men and women of the 60s Liberal era. What happened to the vision? Did it die with the murder-tainted innocence of a hopeful era? Do we teach our children to assimilate and not rock the boat because we're afraid for their well-being - - perhaps their very lives?

We think division in this country's something new, but it's not. I just think it's a lot more apparent today because of the expanded news media and the blogosphere.

What I think is particularly damaging is the people who complain about partisanship and label it as the disease that ails America. I believe the pattern of defeat in the Democratic party (pre 2006) was the tendency of Democrats to fall into the false framing of bipartisanship, traditional collegiality, and MSM-pleasing "centrism" (in parentheses because the media hasn't been shooting toward true American center on Iraq if you believe the polls). I use Senator Joe Lieberman's rise, thanks to being voted in by a majority of Connecticut Republicans and who now pushes the Iraq surge and gives lip service to a war in Iran that the majority of Americans say they do not want, as an example of how bipartisanship, by name alone, can be assigned a totally false value over common sense. I regret to see that our leaders (and the MSM who cover the horserace) seem to be regressing after winning a promising 2006 election. They have been far less than visionary and generally get a poor grade on action on ways they've chosen to try to end the Iraq war. "Going right", the direction that Glen Greenwald has caught Hillary Clinton's camp going (and they're not the only ones), is not going to help us bloggers, when MSM gets a hold of it, to convince anyone that our position is not heading toward the left fringe. This gives mouthpieces for the Right like Bill O'Reilly an opportunity to take so many undue potshots at us.

Hunter at Daily Kos can hardly wrap his mind around the audacity of O'Reilly and Fox News calling themselves a news network. I believe that the failure of our own Democrats to be strong in their vision these past five years have emboldened the owners of this new breed of media to think they can "destroy" real people out here on the blogs (like me):

Can you imagine any other news network mounting a multi-pundit jihad against a group of grassroots Americans, merely because they have the audacity to not support the Republicans? Can you imagine any other news network getting themselves into a bitter televised fight with a political community website?

Of course not. Because Fox News isn't "news" at all, and this is yet another example of why they should not be considered a legitimate news network, or even an "opinionated" news network. Actual news networks do not fabricate stories -- Fox News does. Actual news networks do not send pundits out in attempts to punish and/or sabotage grassroots political events of the opposing party -- it would be absurd. Only at Fox News, where a spectacular lack of ethics is after all the cornerstone of the efforts to manipulate the very news itself in order to prop up Republicans, would such things not get you immediately fired.

- Hunter

Nothing will change until our leaders change the tone and stop worrying about MSM's version of "partisanship" and "division".

In this country, it seems that we've always been divided on the things that matter. We're supposed to be a country that can withstand division and diversity of opinion and, out of it, create something that's actually healthy for our democracy. All we've seen these past twenty years are toxic results, a decided lack of vision, and unsatisfactory progress.

I came from a different generation, the one just before Chris Bowers' generation. After all I've seen, I have to ask many of our leaders: Why are we afraid of idealism and leading with bold vision these days? Why is our media money-jaded and controlled by private owners to the point where investigation is cut off in the editors' service of political bedfellows? Why are we made to see so often that they're working against us bloggers? Why do our leaders seem to be afraid? Who are they afraid of? What are they afraid of losing? An election? For all my eyes have seen, I'm afraid the country's losing its very soul.



The man in this video, John Edwards, has the kind of courage and vision I saw in JFK's time and the media is being complicit in framing him as a rich phony with only power in mind.

He says he won't let them shut him up.

I say good!

It's time for courage again.

Is this a returning breed?

Have we finally seen enough of the worthlessness from the empty promise of new conservatism from fat-faced hate-talk radio blatherers..and are we so sick of its vacuous political nature that we are returning to leaders who are looking well past the trees to see what could be possible beyond the forest?

This week at Daily Kos, my Idea Consultant colleague and fellow Spiritual Progressive David Beckwith said it well:

John Edwards is not promising you the world...he is delivering it. What needs being done...he is doing it. People in need cannot wait for him to be president, they need his help right now. And he is getting it to them.

I know of no one who is more deserving of the presidency, since we know he is not serving up empty promises. He is doing the heavy uplifting, and getting many other good and caring souls to help with this Herculean task.

We need an exemplar...especially after punishing the world with Bushworld Inc. Obama and Hillary are great and good people, but John is leading by example, and should be commended, not pejorated and smeared.

It has been said that when someone cares for another person, God cares for them too. Both of them. The caregiver and the recipient. I think most Americans realize that something of the sort is at play, and that caritas is indeed one of the sweetest and noblest acts a person can do.

There are people suffering today...this minute. We cannot wait for an election. Help us help John help people who need it.

While I'm Away.....Debates!

I'll be away for a few days.

I hope you'll take some time to read through my many posts and leave me your comments.

Don't forget to watch the South Carolina Democratic Party's debate on MSNBC Thursday night, April 26 at 7pm, moderated by NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams and coming to you from South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, S.C. The debate will feature Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

If you have a question for the debaters, go HERE to ask.

UPDATE:
Cross Country: Who Won the Democrats' First Debate? - WaPo

John Edwards: The Question I Wasn't Asked

April 28 - John Edwards discusses questions he wasn't asked in the debates

MSNBC's national affairs writer Tom Curry asks,What kind of battle will this be for Democrats in 2008? Will it be a referendum on the future of the party, or will it be a magnifying of minor differences?


Also, read about the exciting online debates to be engineered by the Huffington Post and Web magazine Slate. PBS host Charlie Rose has signed on to moderate the debates, and invitations have gone out to the announced candidates in both parties. The Democratic debate will occur after Labor Day, with the GOP edition at a later date.

In New Hampshire, the debate dates have finally been set. Democrats will take the stage at Saint Anselm College on June 3, Republicans on June 5. The debates will be televised statewide on WMUR and nationally on CNN. In a surprising turn of events, Senators Clinton and Obama have opted out of this debate. Needless to say, New Hampshire citizens aren't appreciative.

While I'm away, I'd also like you to see a post at The Executioner's Thong about the different ways the "faithful" approach their faith, the dangers of being on the extreme fringes of what some call faith, as well as the danger of mixing religion and politics in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Peace,
Jude

Clinton Global Initiative Has Mid-Year Meeting

Hillary Clinton says that her husband Bill would be a roaming ambassador to the world if she happens to be elected as President. A completely new and different First Lady role? Not really, for First Ladies have alweays been good ambassadors... but you have to admit, a former President as First Lady is something totally new and filled with unique possibilities. The public interest in having a former president in the traditional First Lady role all depends on who that former President was. I mean - consider Laura Bush running for President and her husband being a roaming ambassador to the world. Dear Lord, wouldn't that be the pits?



Bill Clinton was busy this week with his Global Initiative mid-year meeting, where some of the powerful stories from among hundreds of CGI commitments that are making a difference around the world were highlighted.



This is an underplayed story that I believe is very important because alleviating global poverty and fostering positive people-to-people relationships across religious and cultural lines is key to not only the purely humanistic benefits, but to our own national security in the age of fourth-generation warfare and genocide.

Please take a moment and read these featured stories:

Ubuntu: From Vulnerability to Commitment

Proctor and Gamble: Bringing Clean Water to Africa

Different Faiths, Common Beliefs: The InterACTION Youth Exchange - In January of this year, 15 Americans, including Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, traveled to Amman, Jordan to live and work with 17 young Jordanians for eight days. While in Amman the group fostered strong relationships and understanding while traveling, having interfaith dialogues and sharing customs.


Stay informed about the CGI and the Clinton Foundation

Clinton Global Initiative at MySapce

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.

Tough Love for Hillary Clinton on IWR

"An humble knowledge of thyself is a surer way to God than a deep search after learning."


- Thomas à Kempis, German monk, mystic



So Many Advisers -
I read the Patrick Healy article about Senator Hillary Clinton and her advisers on the front page of last Sunday’s New York Times and I’ll admit that I was a bit surprised that this article made the front page while a story about Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s visit to Baghdad, where she ludicrously compared the Iraq war to the American Revolution, was buried on page 14.

After reading the Healy article, I decided that it must be overwhelming for presidential candidates at times, realizing how many decisions faced by the candidates are made tougher by myriad campaign advisers, each with their own personal ideas about the position they believe the candidates should take on the respective issues. I believe that Senator Clinton may be getting into some trouble with her latest decisions, and I regret to see that these decisions are resulting in an appearance of her shunning the netroots, with her advisers wrongly dismissing their concerns as nothing more than anger.
That rhetoric sounds too “Joe Lieberman-ish” to me. I would not suspect that this is something she’d intend to do, as I know from my own personal experience that she and President Clinton have shown clear respect for and interest in the blogging community.




"We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done".


— Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807 - 1882)

The IWR Vote Issue - When Will It Go Away?
Some of Senator Clinton’s advisers, including former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke, believe that what she says now, in 2007, about her Iraq War vote in 2002 will be remembered as a ‘turning point’ in the 2008 presidential race. They obviously don’t think this issue is going away anytime soon. Mr. Holbrooke says that Senator Clinton believes that it should be a no-brainer for Americans – the IWR was based on false intelligence. It never should have come up for a vote at all. Mr. Holbrooke seems to think that it should logically follow that an‘I was wrong’ would not be anything the American people would expect or deserve. I have to say that, from a standpoint of moral leadership, I find that logic to be hard to follow or swallow, and I’d wager most any American you’d meet on the street in your own community would feel the way that I do.

The Niche -
It's Deliberate, Highly-emphasized and Strongly-publicized..But Is It Necessary? Helpful?
Other logic applied in the article defending Senator Clinton’s reason for denying concerned Americans an offering of a simple “I was wrong” has failed to convince me that this is any more than a deliberate, necessary, highly emphasized and strongly publicized route to create a political niche for Senator Clinton. The way I see it, her reasons for voting for the IWR were not drastically different than that of the only other top-tier candidate who also voted for authorization in 2002, Senator John Edwards. He said, in a November 2005 Washington Post op-ed, that he believed he was wrong about his vote. Her refusal to apologize seems to be divisive and alienating for Democratic primary voters and as far as the general election is concerned, I don’t see how it will win Independent voters who are extremely concerned about this war or Republicans who say they’ll never vote for her under any circumstances.

Not Sorry? My God, Why Not?
I believe that these are times when some earthy and plainspoken deference to the concerns of the people is twice as important for a candidate to offer than stressing the importance of deference to President Bush in 2002. If anything will count in 2008, it will surely be character. After six years of incompetence and misleading from the Bush administration leadership, voters will discriminate and will parse the field of candidates cautiously to find what they believe is a leader who does not need to appear strong by never admitting where they’ve been wrong, regardless of their gender. Gender should never be a reason to avoid moral honesty, and because I want to see the best for her, I wish Senator Clinton would listen to voices like mine. I would urge her to find a way to communicate to Americans that she is, indeed, sorry that her deference to President Bush in 2002 – which she felt was due at the time - contributed in any way, shape, or form, to a war that defied the will of millions of people in America and around the world, defied the moral leadership of many religious leaders, including the head of the Catholic church, and unjustly created a humanitarian crisis for the people of a nation we have now occupied longer than the duration of WWII.

Not sorry? My God, why not?

Self-Revelation as Great Power vs. Weakness
President Bush has shown us his stubborn ‘strong and wrong’ attitude for too long. If the people want ‘I was wrong,’ it seems it would show respect for a candidate to look them in the eye and level with them. The harder a candidate tries to avoid an apology, the more tangled a web can become. We all look toward a better future rather than clinging to mistakes long past. However, there is great power concealed in a leader’s self-revelation regarding regret - the kind of regret that any human being would understand and forgive. When that admission of human error in judgment is willfully denied to the people who need to hear it most, there will always be an important missing connection with the people who need – now more than ever – to trust their commander in chief.

For the Last Time, We're Not Angry. We Voted for Change. We Respect Strength When We Believe It Comes From the Heart
The advisers quoted in the article keep referring to American “anger” over the IWR vote, while the names to put on the feelings about the Democratic candidates who voted for the IWR in 2002 are much closer to worry, distrust, and skepticism. Senator Edwards offered an ‘I was wrong’ long ago when he said that his conscience directed him to do so. American voters have been impressed by what they’ve seen as his honesty, which one of the Clinton advisers have softly suggested was a gimmick. In the same article - a short few paragraphs away - Patrick Healy reports on a ‘new response’ from Senator Clinton [her advisers won’t call it a gimmick]. She’s willing to ‘lose support from voters rather than apologizing for something she did not believe in.’ That will only result in a loss of votes for her, and I have to be honest and tell you that I believe she’s making a grave error in judgment. It can’t work because it’s a combination of the RNC-style framing of Edwards as flip-flopper, the lame 2004 Kerry campaign unapologetic rhetoric, and a Joe Lieberman 2006 style of depending upon overwhelming Republican support in the general election. It won’t work if they don't believe it’s from the heart. Senator Clinton needs to show that she's not afraid to wear a bit more of that heart on her sleeve. As a woman, I can say that I wouldn't see Hillary Clinton as one bit weaker, but instead a thousand times stronger by opening up to millions of concerned and watchful Americans on this particular issue.

WSJ Poll and Al Gore Rumors

Raw Story is reporting that, in the field of 2008 POTUS candidates, Sen. Barack Obama is quickly closing the gap in a Wall Street Journal poll of a wide sampling potential voters with his fellow 'media-darling' candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Clinton 45%
Obama 37%
Edwards 28%
Gore 26%

The poll should direct us to the fact that John Edwards, although he's rarely showcased in the media compared to the "rock star" treatment received by Sens. Clinton and Obama, has snagged a greater percentage of Independent voters, out of the total percentage of poll-votes received, than either Clinton or Obama.

What this poll also shows us is that among all Democratic candidates, the Edwards campaign is making impressive strides, off the media's radar, to reach the hearts and minds of American voters. The media tends to give lip service to the candidates with the most cash. If cash were actually "speech", the mainstream media would be considered to be objective truth-tellers. Unfortunately for all of us, we know that that is not true.

The mainstream worships at the Temple of Cash, and they report accordingly. As long as campaigns are run outside the scope of public financing, we will not have an honest media. What happens over the course of this upcoming presidential campaign season will be interesting but as long as we have a campaign finance system stacked for dishonesty, funded by lavish private interests, I will place my personal trust with the everyday citizens of this nation and I will continue to listen to and trust their voices over the select interests that fuel today's mainstream media. I have supported Sen. Edwards because he is the candidate who most clearly shows and articulates that he listens - and listens well - to the everyday citizen even though he has been forced, for the sake of competitive interest, to forego public financing.

In light of what I've just said, a major surprise in this poll is the public's obvious admiration for General Colin Powell. Gen. Powell is rarely discussed by the media, yet he was chosen at the top of the list of potential Republican candidates for President 2008.

The New York Observer's Steve Kornacki is reporting that, according to the latest rumors, former VP Al Gore will consider entering the race for the Democratic nomination in September "if an opening presents itself." Kornacki writing leads us to see that Gore would wish to be a Clinton alternative. One reason Gore stated that he might not choose to enter the race was that, if Obama or Edwards make gains against Clinton, he may not want to further crowd the fray.

In a press conference this morning, President Bush forewarned the press corps that he will not become a "pundit-in-chief on the 2008 Presidential race.

Sen. Clinton: Bush's Authority Limits Congress' Ability to Block Escalation

Just back from her visit to Iraq, the New York Times is reporting that Senator Hillary Clinton is calling for capping the number of American forces in Iraq to the total number that were there on January 1 — before President Bush proposed adding forces and escalating the violence. [roughly a 140,000-troop cap] She has also said she's leaning toward threating the Iraqi government's leaders with the loss of American funds to train and equip Iraqi forces, the loss of funds to rebuild the economy, and perhaps even a loss of funds to provide security for the leaders themselves. Although the Senator hasn't talked about timelines or benchmarks just yet,

she indicated that the Shiite-led government would be expected to crack down on sectarian militias in Baghdad and elsewhere and to find new ways to work with Sunni political groups. [NYT 1-17-07]

Senator Clinton said this on today's CBS "Early Show" -

"I’m for redeploying our troops out of Baghdad and eventually out of Iraq so we can make sure that they’re not in the midst of a civil war."

More from the NY Times article:

She insisted that sectarian violence would continue in Iraq regardless of whether there were more or fewer troops, because the Iraqi government was not committed to the mission.

“They’re waiting us out,” she said on NBC’s “Today” show. “They intend to do everything they can to impose a particular brand of dominance over the Sunnis, and there’s no reason for the Sunni insurgency therefore to stop.”

Senator Clinton also said on NBC that Congress had limited ability to block the president’s troop plan outright.

“The president has enormous authority under our constitutional system to do exactly what he’s doing,” Mrs. Clinton said. “He already has the money appropriated in the budget.”

She said she was troubled that the Bush administration seemed willing to shift troops from Afghanistan to take part in a “losing strategy” in Iraq; a moment later, she expressed concern about sending more troops “to Iraq on this very bad mission.”

From the CBS report:

"Unless there is a total partnership with the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Army, this can't work," [Senator] Clinton said. "And I didn't see the signs of that partnership."

Instead of adding more U.S. troops in Iraq, [Senator] Clinton said she wanted troops to be redeployed from Baghdad to Afghanistan.

____________________________

Just How Enormous Is Bush's Authority, Anyhow?

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has drawn a check and balance-line in the Constituational sand proclaiming,

"This is not a monarchy."

Bush is not a King and he's not a dictator (even though he's "joked" that he'd like to be one). He can pose and growl with as much power as he can summon up, but it won't take away the fact that there are solid-as-rock Constitutional checks and balances and solid efforts Congress can make to see that he is reined in on this escalation of violence in Iraq.

At The BradBlog, Brad displays a copy of an Edwards campaign e-mail where campaign manager and former Congressman David Bonior (D-MI) holds little back in his sharp criticism of both George W. Bush and Democratic members of Congress for their Iraq War policies and politics. Mr. Bonoir says in the Edwards campaign e-mail:

This weekend, President Bush claimed on national TV that Congress does not have the power to stop his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq.

That's bull. I served in Congress for 26 years, and I can assure you that Congress does have the power to stop this escalation -- and it has used that power many times before, including in Vietnam, Lebanon, Nicaragua and Colombia.

In essence, Bonoir is saying that Bush's authority is not so enormous that Congress is incapable of - or powerless to - stop the president from escalating the war in Iraq.

See the post by Mathew Gross referring to the same Edwards campaign e-mail. The title of the post is Total Bull. Total bull refers to those elected represebtatives who calling for symbolic statements that do nothing to stop the escalation. The experirnced former Congressman Boinoir warns:

If you hear a member of Congress say "non-binding resolution," then you're really hearing them say "pass the buck."

John Edwards On Iraq and Barack Obama

"..when I had the chance to vote years ago on the funding of the war in Iraq, $87 billion at the time -- and I thought the president was headed on the wrong course. It turns out, unfortunately for our country, that I was right -- I voted no."

Senator John Edwards

2008 presidential candidate John Edwards was interviewed on CNN's Situation Room by Wolf Blitzer today.



On the entry of Senator Barack Obama into the 2008 presidential race:

"I think we want good people in the race, because we desperately need new leadership in 2009."

Regarding Senator Edwards' comments about the Iraq war during his speech at Riverside Church in Harlem last Sunday, Wolf Blitzer asks Senator Edwards:
"Did you see that as a direct attack against [Senator Hillary Clinton]?

"I wasn't thinking about anybody in particular. It was directed at members of Congress who, I believe, as a matter of conscience, should stop this president from escalating this war and from continuing in a long series of really tragic mistakes that -- that he's made in Iraq. And, as I said in the clip you just ran, Congress has the power to stop this escalation. [...]

[...]I didn't speak about anybody by name. I talked about members of Congress. By the way, I also spoke to the American people, who need to step up and be heard on this escalation of the war.

And I was specifically referencing Dr. Martin Luther King's speech 40 years ago, a year to the day before he died, in Riverside -- at Riverside Church, where he spoke out against the war in Vietnam, and talked about silence being a betrayal. And that was the theme of what I was talking about.

I believe I was right. I stand behind it. We should not be escalating this war. And I hope that members of -- of Congress will have the good conscience and the good sense to show some strength about this, and stand up to the president, and stop him."

* Thanks to NC Dem for the YouTube video.

2008: Obama to Make Declaration Feb 10

According to the NY Times, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois will make a formal declaration Feb. 10 in Illinois about his decision to run for President 2008.

Although there are downsides to Obama's potential for success that cannot be dismissed, SF Gate political blogger Mark Sandalow believes that Senator Obama has a strong shot at winning in 2008:

It would be irresponsible to dismiss the chances of Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, along with a cavalry of dark horses who make the 2008 election among the most interesting in memory. Yet Obama is clearly in the top tier for his party's nomination, and given the standing of the GOP and the situation in Iraq, the Democratic nominee selected in Denver in August 2008 has a strong shot at winning the White House.

NRO's Jim Geraghty blogs about the report that Senator Obama will announce important news on Oprah January 17th, and Jim repeats the words he heard from a GOP consultant:

"Announcing on Oprah could be potentially very smart... I'm glad she's also from Illinois, because that means she can’t be his running mate... Christopher Dodd goes on Imus and announces his candidacy, Obama goes on Oprah. I know which show I'd rather have my candidate make his announcement."

I can't argue with them there. Oprah's show is certainly a sensational venue for this type of announcement.

In news I find to be rather sad and definitely divisive, the right wing Christian group known as the National Clergy Council, along with the help of another right wing organization called Faith and Action, [a Washington, DC-based Christian outreach to policy-makers on Capitol Hill who always hopes that the GOP will co-opt their narrowest views on religion - anti-gay, anti-choice] is raising what I consider to be a defamatory stink about Senator Obama.

Edwards Chapel Hill Rally Draws Thousands

Photo from One America Committee




Photos by "saltman" at One America Committee blog

Bora was at the John Edwards Chapel Hill rally yesterday, as was Kirk and Exile on Jones Street. Kirk provides a clip. [mov version]

Live blogging toook place here.

At the One America Committee blog, Thread Opener writes about the dynamics of a central campaign theme that focuses on the People:

Joe Trippi: It's About Us
True transformational leadership can only come from a candidate who fundmentally gets that it isn't about him/her -- its about us.

Over the Christmas Weekend Matt Stoller started a conversation about John Edwards that got me thinking again about the difference between transactional politics and transformational politics.

I had an epiphany one day in the middle of the Dean campaign about what made us so different...

Its incredibly simple and defines what I now believe is the essential ingredient in any campaign or candidacy that hopes to be transformational.

All modern campaigns and transactional campaogns are built around a candidate who proclaims to the nation "Look at me -- aren't I amazing?".

The Dean campaign (and any transformational campaign successful or not) was built around a candidate who proclaimed "Look at you -- aren't you amazing?"

This strikes me as essential. More than ideology, or any other factor -- true transformational leadership can only come from a candidate who fundmentally gets that it isn't about him/her -- its about us.

So in terms of 2008 is Hillary capable or realizing that she is not the center of the universe -- that the political world and even her own campaign does not revolve around her? Obama? Edwards? Who? Anyone?

The Dean campaign was different not because of ideology or because of opposition to the war -- but because it revolved around its supporters and empowered them. It was the only campaign in a long time that realized that the people were more important than the candidate.

James MacGregor Burns wrote "A transformational leader stands on the shoulders of his followers, expressing coherently those ideas which lie inchoate in the hearts of the followers -- and in the process makes his followers into new leaders."

Al Gore is doing this right now around the issue of Global Warming. Dean did it in 2004 for President. Who in 2008?

As A Dean supporter in 2003/2004, I had similar feelings and comments.
December 21, 2003: How the name of Howard Dean has become synonymous with the investment of our very selves

Along came Howard Dean, promoting joyous citizen participation as avidly as Bush was oppressing it.....

When I hear people attacking Howard Dean (as I have heard so often lately), I am beginning to take each word in each attack in a deeply personal way. I am not saying this because I am partial to Howard Dean (although I admit to being so). I am telling you this because, most simply, it is true.

The name of Howard Dean has become synonymous with the investment of our very selves in the betterment of our nation, our love for healthy and strong American democracy,and our individual interests in preserving our American rights and performing our American duties. This man, Howard Dean, has caused us to believe in ourselves and all we can be for our vision of America. Most important is his reminder of the fact that America is ours...and we need to take her back. The Bush Administration is beginning to see the danger to Dean's candidacy and I don't think they ever really saw it coming. Every attack they will make on Howard Dean will be felt (quite deeply) as an attack on every American who feels they have the right to participate in American government. What a paradox! With every attack on Howard Dean, he is further empowered. ...

Governor Dean became our DNC chair because the people who came politically alive because of his inspiration wouldn't have it any other way.

RFK JR on MySpace Not At All Welcoming

I had the strangest "conversation" with a MySpace friend called "RFK Jr. 2008" today. Here's how it went.

I got a bulletin from RFK Jr 2008 saying

RFK Jr. ---

A potential CANDIDATE with INTERNATIONAL support.

The Volunteer Staff of RFK Jr. says Hello to Ireland today.

Other than Barack Obama, is there ANY OTHER POTENTIAL CANDIDATE who could TRAVEL ABROAD to any COUNTRY IN THE WORLD and be greeted with an outpouring of affection and goodwill like RFK Jr. could drum up, especially in Ireland, which is of course where Irish-Americans come from ? No, there isn't. So again, Hello to Ireland, even though you can't vote here.

Seeing what I thought was a question to which they'd expect an answer, I wrote back:

Dec 28 2006 1:29 PM

Subject: RE: RFK JR:A CANDIDATE with INTERNATIONAL
support.Hello Ireland.
Body:

"...Other than Barack Obama.."

Seriously??????

I can think of others, but I agree the Kennedys will
also be great ambassadors for the U.S. when it comes
to Ireland.

Jude

I was actually thinking, the time I wrote the reply, of how Ireland would embrace Hillary Clinton, especially at the side of her husband Bill who had done so much to support Ireland's peace process. I wondered why only Barack Obama showed on the list of possibilities.

Look at the doozy of a reply I got:

Dec 28 2006 1:33 PM

Subject: RE: RE: RFK JR:A CANDIDATE with INTERNATIONAL
support.Hello Ireland.

Perhaps Al Gore.
Nobody else.
Don't argue with us about it.
John Edwards campaign slogan is
stupid by the way.

"Today is Tomorrow"
"Tomorrow is Today"

whatever...

The ad agency who came up with that should be fired
TODAY. No wait until tomorrow actually.

I got this kind of unwarranted attack simply because I had a photo of myself with Senator Edwards on my MySpace page. God forbid I'd had this one...



or this one.....



On top of that, whoever this MySpace caretaker is removed me from their "Friends" list so I could not even reply.

"Don't argue with us about it"?!?!

What a jerk! And I had just written about how John Edwards reminded me very much of Robert Kennedy Sr and how much I'd admired RFK Sr...and I got an unsolicited attack.

Needless to say, if the Draft RFK Jr 2008 movement continues with this kind of vicious attitude toward people showing the slightest bit of moral support, they aren't going to get very far. If anyone should be fired, it would be grassroots activist who represents their candidate by acting like a dictator, an aggressor, and a censor.