Clinton v Obama: Tied in Syracuse

I was surprised to see my fair city mentioned on the front page of the Drudge Report today. Drudge links this Syracuse.com story about a tie between votes cast for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Super Tuesday [not including outstanding ballots yet to be counted and verified; recanvassing yet to be completed].

"Good thing it wasn't a mayor's race," quipped Grant Reeher, a political science professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Mayor Matt Driscoll told Syracusans before Super Tuesday that he'd be voting for Hillary Clinton.

Driscoll on Clinton: [Syracuse.com]

"It comes down to who is best prepared, and when ever I ask that question, the answer is always Hillary Clinton. She has 35 years of experience, much of it on a world stage. Given what this country faces now, that experience can not be discounted."

On speaking to friends and aquaintances here in Syracuse who've voted Obama, I've been given several rationales, none of which would've convinced me [a strong Edwards supporter for philosophical reasons] to change my vote. One rationale is that, after the contentious (decidedly media-contrived) race-card issues that preceded and followed the South Carolina primary, some previously uncommitted Democrats were turned off by the Clintons (gee, thanks, Dick Morris and all our FoxFriends) and began to gravitate toward Obama. They are beginning to join what they see as a wave of enthusiasm for Obama, well-played-out in MSM video-snippets of Democratic-establishment party-stalwart Ted Kennedy and the major-celebrity Oprah standing by his side with throngs of young idealists wiping away tears in the background.

I have to say that, like James Wolcott, I'm a much tougher sell. James says, with keen wit at his Vanity Fair blog:

The tab I flip in the voting booth isn't intended as a dramatic gesture to pin in my lapel like a carnation and sniff during intermission, like some Clifton Webb character. I don't accept being lectured or morally browbeaten into voting for one candidate over another in order to prove my virtuous intent and appease Kurt Andersen's peculiar, posturing racial anxieties. Perhaps it's my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria.

No atheist myself, I do concur with Mr. Wolcott, purely on intellectual terms. See my own post about the Andersen blogpost mentioned by Mr. Wolcott.

Another Syracuse-based rationale given to me is based on the fear, regardless of whether it's logical or not, that Hillary Clinton is hated by so many voters that Obama would be the more electable and that Democrats would sit on their hands..perhaps pick up their marbles and go home in November if he isn't the party's nominee. The Obama campaign has capitalized on this issue with obvious success, much to the chagrin of Democrats who feel that it's antithetical to Obama's theme of "One America".

The last rationale surrounds the electability of either Democrat in the general election, whether we're talking about Clinton or Obama. While seeking "change" vis-a-vis race and gender, they fear, even in their most liberal-yet-reality-gazing hearts and minds, that some fellow [ disillusioned? ] Democrats may be surprised to learn there are some voters out in the cities as well as the countryside who will still refuse to vote for either a woman or a black candidate when given the choice in November.

A common concern is that John McCain will take many voters away from a Democratic candidate in November because they believe many still-uncommitted Independent and Republican voters will feel he is the most "experienced" candidate (and will be portrayed that way in MSM) and is moderate enough to suit their red-to-purple political voting-tendencies.

Much credit for the hard work of organizing successfully for Senator Obama here in Syracuse should be given to campaign coordinator Lisa Daly and all the voters she and her co-volunteers have inspired.

Poverty: Our Hidden Shame

Now, I've spoken to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They have both pledged to me and more importantly through me to America, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.

And more importantly, they have pledged to me that as President of the United States they will make ending poverty and economic inequality central to their Presidency. This is the cause of my life and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause.

- Senator John Edwards, from his campaign-suspension speech at New Orleans, January 30, 2008

Which Issues Sold the States on Super Tuesday?
link

Just as there was no clear winner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination on “Super Tuesday,” there was also no clear distinction between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama on the major economic issues.

Perhaps the only difference between Clinton and Obama was in states where the poverty rate exceeds that of the nation: of the nine states voting Tuesday with that distinction, Clinton carried six. (my emphasis)

____________________


Media Downplay Widespread Support for Hillary
By Peggy Simpson, Women's Media Center
link


Clinton's endorsements from three children of the late Robert Kennedy had been discounted, when noticed at all, by the East Coast media. They wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece that ran soon after Caroline Kennedy's bombshell Obama endorsement that, in essence, deeds count more than poetic words. Former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend said she had worked with Clinton for 25 years, as had her two brothers for 15 years, on issues of children and poverty. This may have had resonance with California Latinos.

POVERTY: WHERE DO THE
CANDIDATES STAND?

HILLARY CLINTON

From: Deepak Chopra [Huffington Post]
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Responds to the Open Letter

"Specifically, what is your plan of action to eliminate poverty in America?"
link

The persistence of poverty in the richest nation on earth is one of our great shames. No one should go hungry in America. No one should be without health care in America. No one should be homeless in America.

But millions of Americans are living in poverty - and they are not only struggling day to day but they have also been forgotten by their leaders. To end poverty, we must start by ending this epidemic of indifference.

When I'm President, I'll address poverty head-on.

First, we will care for the poor, the sick, the disabled, and others who cannot care for themselves. We will do this by providing health care for all, by strengthening our social safety nets, and increasing food stamps to combat hunger.

Second, we will reward work for those who are capable of working. No parent who works full-time should have to raise his or her children in poverty. I will expand child care assistance; increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has been called the greatest anti-poverty program ever created; support unions, which allow workers to bargain collectively for higher wages and better working conditions; and increase the minimum wage. And I will create new jobs by investing in old and new industries, like manufacturing as well as alternative energy.

Finally, I will work to restore opportunity in America. I will create a high-quality early childhood education system so every child starts school ready to learn. I will invest in proven K-12 reforms, reduce the dropout rate, and make college affordable for everyone who wants to go. I will also provide more opportunities for lifelong learning, so those who need to acquire additional skills later in life won't be held back.

I will also help families who are struggling in today's economy - I will help put home ownership back in reach for low-income Americans, protect families from predatory lenders, provide assistance to help families pay their skyrocketing energy bills, and help people save for their future.

Eliminating poverty won't be easy, but we can do it. One of my husband's proudest accomplishments is that during his administration, poverty dropped to its lowest level in two decades and seven million families were lifted out of poverty. We've slid dramatically backwards since then, but the right policies can make a difference.

I'll bring to this work a lifetime of fighting to increase opportunity. For 35 years, I have worked to listen to those whose voices are often unheard or ignored. From representing abused and neglected children as a young lawyer to serving on the board of the Children's Defense Fund to helping create the Early Head Start program and the Children's Health Insurance Program as First Lady, I have always fought to ensure that every American can reach his or her full potential.

BARACK OBAMA

From Deepak Chopra [Huffington Post]
Senator Barack Obama Responds to the Open Letter
link

Rising poverty is one of the most serious issues facing America today, and I believe that inserting simplistic tag lines or one-dimensional goals are unlikely to be helpful in meeting this challenge. As president, I will build off of my life experiences as a community organizer, civil rights lawyer and elected official to make poverty eradication a top goal of my administration. I have spent my career fighting poverty and hopelessness. I am especially proud of my successful efforts on the South Side of Chicago to organize residents to clean up environmental health hazards and improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods. Perhaps my most notable accomplishment to fight poverty, though, came when I was an Illinois state senator and I led efforts to create the Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which put $100 million directly in the pockets of working parents. The EITC has often been described as the most successful antipoverty effort in U.S. government history, and I am proud that I was able to bring both parties together to create the first EITC program in Illinois. As president, I will work everyday to retire the phrase "working poor" from our national vocabulary. My anti-poverty plan will significantly improve opportunities for millions of poor children and their parents by strengthening the economy for working Americans and providing additional resources to programs that have proven to be effective in reducing poverty. For example, my plan will expand the EITC, which is considered one of the most effective pro-work anti-poverty programs to date, to 5.8 million more Americans. Additionally, my EITC plan will increase EITC benefits for another 6.2 million Americans. I will also extend affordable, quality and portable health insurance coverage to every American and make significant investments in early childhood education to help low-income families.

I believe strongly in ending childhood poverty. That's why I will mandate that all children have health insurance coverage and increase funding for high-quality early childhood education programs, which are considered a vital investment in improving the lives of poor children. I will also reverse the Bush Administration's repeated cuts to health care, food and housing programs that have led to an overall increase in childhood poverty over the last several years.

I will also work to tackle concentrated poverty by building off the successful efforts of the Harlem's Children Zone in New York City, which provides comprehensive antipoverty supports to ensure that chronic poverty ends with the current generation. I will create 20 Promise Neighborhoods throughout the nation in areas that have high levels of poverty, crime and low levels of student academic achievement in cities across the nation. My Promise Neighborhoods will provide a full network of services to an entire neighborhood from birth to college. The Promise Neighborhoods will seek to engage all resident children and their parents into an achievement program based on tangible goals, including college for each and every participating student, strong physical and mental health outcomes for children as well as retention of meaningful employment and parenting schools for parents. These efforts will help finally break the cycle of poverty that has lasted for too long in America, and help the next generation of children succeed and prosper.

My anti-poverty agenda reflects my experiences working directly with low-income families, government and the private sector to provide additional opportunities to more Americans. I have learned that government alone cannot eradicate poverty in American - rather, it is our responsibility to empower individuals to make responsible decisions for their well-being and to engage the private sector which has much to gain by helping all Americans succeed. That's why I will invest $1 billion in transitional jobs and career pathways programs that engage businesses because businesses often realize that helping their low-income workers succeed means that the business itself will succeed. I will also improve supports for low-income mothers and fathers, to help empower them to take responsibility for the success for their children and families. I'll pass the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act, a bill I introduced last year that will provide more financial support to fathers who make the responsible choice to help raise their children and crack down on the fathers who don't. And I'll help new mothers with their new responsibilities by expanding a pioneering program known as the Nurse-Family Partnership that offers home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income mothers and mothers-to-be. My plan will assist approximately 570,000 first-time mothers each year.

Catholic Charities USA: President's Budget Hurts Low-Income Families
link

With its deep cuts to key health, housing, and social service programs, Catholic Charities USA today urged Congress to reject the president's 2009 budget proposal and instead craft a budget that strengthens key antipoverty programs.

The proposed $3 trillion budget released on Monday contains significant cuts and changes to a range of programs that address the health and well-being of low-income families and individuals, including Medicare, Medicaid, and LIHEAP.

"At a time of great economic uncertainty facing millions of Americans, especially for the 36.5 million already living in poverty, more must be done to help lift families out of poverty," said Rev. Larry Snyder, President of Catholic Charities USA. "Unfortunately, the president's budget hurts our nation's most vulnerable by whittling away America's safety net."

Note that the following strong ideological views are not necessarily reflective of my own, but they do mirror the general belief among many Americans that their society has left the invisible poor far behind.

Criminalizing Dumpsterdiving and Poverty in Modesto
link

In January, after urging from the Modesto Police, organizations representing rich areas of Modesto (such as the La Loma Association, etc), and several city council members, the Modesto City Council in a 5-2 vote passed a new ordinance that would according to the Modesto Bee allow the police to slap dumpster divers “with a misdemeanor, issued a citation carrying a $500 fine, or both.” (1) Dumpster divers could also face up to 6 months in a jail cell just for looking through a trash can. It seems the system again has us right where it wants us, as it forces us into poverty and then seeks to criminalize us when we try and subvert that reality by appropriating (taking without paying) food.

This reality of course, is not by accident, but by design, as the economy of the rich requires us to produce massive quantities of goods and commodities as workers, yet at the same time ends up throwing so much of them away when it can’t sell all of them. Capitalists (the people who own the means of existence and force us to work for them) need to make sure this surplus of thrown away goods is not used in any way by regular people. So, they lock these items away in the garbage, leaves them to rot, or smash them in compactors.

Capitalism needs to create scarcity; it needs to keep things that we all need to survive locked up and under guard. In this way it can control what we have access to so we will be forced to work harder to earn wages and thus have money to buy things. It needs to do this because if there’s enough for everyone, why would we ever have to work so we could get money to pay for anything? If people squat homes and take over buildings - why would anyone ever pay rent? If people appropriate and grow their own food - why would anyone ever pay for it?

We can see this reality very clearly in the steady stream of economic refugees that pour into the United States from Mexico and other Central American countries. Thanks to “free-trade” agreements like NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) big businesses and governments have forced people off of their lands or put them out of work. This pressure forces many working people to seek work in the United States.

Without being divorced from a way of making a living; divorced from a way of getting their basic needs met, why would anyone want to come to the US to work in near slave like conditions (and face a hostile journey and ongoing racism) picking and growing food or any of the other jobs many migrants are forced to take? Without taking the means of life from us, without divorcing us from the means to feed, house, and take care of ourselves, without protecting that system through violence (the police, the prisons, the legal system, etc), the rich have nothing, and they know it. Thus, the bosses of this economy try and control our access to land, to resources, to how we are able to spend our time, and even how we go about our very lives. Now in Modesto, they’re even doing it with trash.

The Edwards Democrats

I am reminded why I have so strongly supported John Edwards in the 2008 Presidential campaign by what I hear and see in this video. Even though Senator Edwards has suspended his campaign, I am so proud to have been a part of this movement, created by ordinary citizens not much different than myself, that today gives us a new name. Today we are Edwards Democrats because of the man (and his wife) who have inspired us to action. We look to this moment and the next...and not the time that is now behind us, to be the change we seek for our party and for America. Who we choose to endorse (or not) will be up to us and will depend upon who is speaking to our issues, especially ending Poverty, both in America and around the world. When John Edwards, for whatever reason, decided to step away from campaigning, he had our respect and our unspoken commitment to carry out his vision for our country and the world.

It's the vision I see Bono carrying out.
It's the vision I see former President Jimmy Carter carrying out.
It's the vision I see Oxfam carrying out.
It's the vision I see the ONE campaign carrying out.
It's the vision I see the Clinton Global Initiative carrying out.
It's the vision I see Muhammad Yunus, Trickle Up, and Kiva carrying out.

John and Elizabeth will continue to pursue the same vision because they believe not only that it's the morally correct thing to do, but that it's the only way our country will be seen as strong, just, and proud again.

When the insanity of the horse-race is over, I hope you'll join us. Poverty will still be an issue when every last vote has been (hopefully) counted this November.





See:
BuzzFlash Awards Wings of Justice to John Edwards (Benny's World)

Why Is Obama Mocking John Edwards?

I've been a long-time Edwards supporter. When John Edwards told Tim Russert during one of the Democratic debates that he sometimes has a very powerful emotional response to pain that he sees around him, I empathized with that feeling.

Now that John has suspended his campaign (and I admit that I am still smarting over it), to hear that Obama is still using Edwards' great caring about Poverty as a whipping post and the butt of a joke out on the campaign trail is repulsive to me.

It's my time to cast a vote in my New York State primary.

It won't be for Obama.

Angels Among Us

Look at what happened when a poor woman trying to make it to her son-in law's funeral in Salt Lake City was stranded in Idaho by bad weather and no economic choices...

Tanya Clark-Rekow, a stranded Greyhound passenger said, "I couldn't even imagine my daughter .. not being there with her. And not being able to say good bye."

Jack Nicholson Endorses Hillary

Actor Jack Nicholson has endorsed Senator Clinton, according to the blog 'Politics On The Hudson'.

Elizabeth Benjamin at the Daily News Blog quotes Nicholson from a Rick Dees radio show transcript:

From Dees' Web site:

"I wanted to, as a performer, see how Sen Clinton dealt with the glee that they (her opponents) exhibited in their desire to bury her candidacy," said Nicholson. “I must tell you: when I saw her sit down, and she said she ‘found her voice in New Hampshire’, that was it for me. She handled that next debate as the masterful person that she is. She's the one to get the job done that needs to be done."

White? Better Not Vote Clinton - or Else...!

Yes, the headline above looks pretty stupid to me when I look at it.
Yet, there are some bloggers who would either actually believe - or seek to have fellow Democrats believe that, if you happen to be Caucasian and choose to vote for Hillary Clinton in your Democratic primary, your vote will only be "counted as a race-based anti-black vote".

Is that how far we've sunk...to worry so much about an MSM-manufactured narrative of racism and the decidedly mentally-ill attitudes they're projecting every day....that we, as intellectual beings, would allow it to seep into our conscience at its (lowest common-denominator) fear-base?

I'm sure you can gather just how offensive this idea is to me. I'll surely be glad when this process is over and I hope it doesn't divide us Democrats to the point of doing damage. We're going to need each other in the general election.

Or we could sit on our hands and call each other racists or fools after-the-fact and let a Republican win once again.

This is a cry - - a cry for some sanity among us and respect for one another's respective choices during a very spirited contest.

Tom Watson has some thoughts about this.

Why Paul Krugman's Right About Mandates

A recommended diarist (also an actuary by profession) at the progressive blog Daily Kos explains why NYT columnist Paul Krugman is right about mandates for Universal healthcare.

Excerpt:
imagine if, as Barry Goldwater proposed in 1964, payroll taxes (Social Security contributions) were made voluntary. You could opt out of the Social Security system. If you were a young, healthy 25-year-old, why would you want to pay Social Security taxes through your nose if you see very little possibility of benefiting from your contributions? Wouldn't you rather spend your money feeding your children or saving for that new home? Doesn't seem like Social Security is a good investment, does it? So then who would be left paying into Social Security? The people closer to retirement. Because a much smaller pool of people would be there to contribute to Social Security and Medicare Part A, there would have be either a much greater contribution rate or significantly reduced benefits.

Related: Universal Health Care: Why Obama Is Wrong by Partially Impartial/Daily Kos website

Madonna Endorses Clinton

According to GaySocialites.com, superstar Madonna, who once quipped: "It takes a really big man to fill my shoes," has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.

Madonna tops Forbes' first-ever Cash Queens of Music list of the top-earning female musicians, banking $72 million between June 2006 and June 2007.

Miracles: Baby Thrown From Train Survives

“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.”

- Albert Einstein


I choose to see this as one of life's miracles:

It's the Giants!!!!

Photo credit: Reuters

Congratulations, N.Y. Giants!

Pre-"Super Tuesday" Bits & Pieces

DO YOU KNOW THE WAY, JANET GRAY OF SAN JOSE?

San Jose's first female mayor Janet Gray Hayes endorsed Senator Clinton today saying that becoming the first female president "would be a marked change, paralleling the course of India and Israel that have had strong women as leaders."

Voters should judge Hillary by her knowledge and vast experience to take on one of the most challenging jobs in the free world. Hillary is compassionate, industrious, resolute yet flexible when needed.

OBAMA NETROOTS SUPPORTERS OVERREACT TO GIUSTRA STORY FOR POLITICAL GAIN

I'd expect Republicans to be totally non-objective when it came to the story about philanthropist/businessman Frank Giustra and former President Bill Clinton, but to see fellow Democrats doing it on a prominent blog for the sake of propping up Barack Obama...well, it blew my mind.

Many of you know I've supported John Edwards for years now. That said, I've followed (and personally contributed) to the work of the Clinton Global Initiative. The issue of getting medications for HIV/AIDS to everyone, regardless of the personal wealth of their nation or the ideas of their current leaders, is a moral issue for this generation.

The Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative addresses global poverty. Mr. Giustra has committed not only $100 million, but he's also pledged half of what he makes in the resource industry for the rest of his life. Not only did Mr. Giustra influence Carlos Slim Helú, the richest person in the world, to make a matching contribution, but Mr. Giustra promises to encourage other business leaders to do the same.

Ending poverty is a moral cause for our generation, regradless of Mr. Giustra's business deals.

Obama supporters are wrong in excoriating both Giustra and our former President for doing something that goverment could never do alone.....pledging millions upon millions of business-dollars to ending poverty and early deaths from AIDS.

I've spoken very little these past ferw days since Edwards dropped out, but this was too much for me to remain silent about. Some will find any way to hit Hillary and her campaign...even if it means trashing very good people dedicated to a cause that's far bigger than themselves and their business lives.




LIVIN' IN A HOUSE DIVIDED....

Sean McManus (NYT) reports that Harlem’s leading politician Charlie Rangel visited three Manhattan churches today to stump for Senator Clinton. Mr. McManus emphasizes just how divided the Democratic party is on these two vibrant candidates:

Mr. Rangel told the congregation that Mrs. Clinton “has been a full partner for things that we wanted,” and said of Mr. Obama, “We are not going to be separated by newcomers.” But he added, “If you’re not moved by hearing Obama speak, then there’s something wrong with you.”

NEW YORK, NEW YORK...
(Not makin' a brand new start of it?)

Two more NY-based newspapers have endorsed Clinton: The Daily News and Newsday who says it was a difficult choice, but in the end it was Clinton of whom they believe would best bring her proven experience and knowledge to accomplish the goal of healing this nation.




JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM...
(Or: That Mean New Obama!)

The Fact Hub at the Clinton campaign lays out and explains four so-called "attacks" on and distortions about Hillary's policy positions that were made today at a well-attended Obama rally in Wilmington, Delaware. Each allegation is addressed one-at-a-time.I have to say that I'm sorry to see a candidate that I'm told is all for a new brand of politics, breaking fromthe past, now resorting to some of the oldest tricks in the book. For example,

Sen. Obama accuses Hillary of changing her policy on torture due to ‘the politics of the moment.’ He couldn’t be more wrong. Hillary met with retired generals, talked with experienced military officers, and read reports commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency. She concluded that 'torture cannot be part of American policy, period.'

Sen. Obama laments this kind of politics in his book, Audacity of Hope:

For that is how most of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, enter the Senate…their words distorted, and their motives questioned.. [Page 133]

WHERE'S BARACK? WHO IS BARACK?"

Paul Rosenberg writes a thoughtful piece at Open Left today, where, while addressing the contents of a George Lakoff column, says he'd be happy to support "George Lakoff's Barack Obama," but his problem is that he just can't seem to find him.




SHRIVER ENDORSES BARACK

Adam Nagourney reports that Maria Shriver, wife of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and daughter of Eunice Kennedy, appeared as a surprise guest at an Obama rally in Los Angeles with Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy... and endorsed Obama.




"SAY IT AIN'T SO, BARACK!"

At the Drum Major Institute blog, Mark Winston Griffith shares some concerns after reviewing a Nation piece. He starts with a respectful moment of silence for people like myself who are still in shock and sadness at the suspension of the John Edwards' campaign:

First, a moment of silence for the death of John Edwards' message of fighting poverty and going toe-to-toe with corporate thievery.

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

Thank you. Now back to the candidates still in the race.

Part investigative journalism, part political hit, the Nation's February 11th edition accuses candidate Barack Obama of pursuing a retrogressive subprime mortgage recovery policy. The Nation's main charge is that Obama seems to have bought into the narrative that unscrupulous borrowers, rather than lenders, are a big part of what is driving the foreclosure and subprime mortgage crises

"Obama's foreclosure plan mostly avoids direct government spending in favor of a tax credit for homeowners, which amounts to about $500 on average, beyond which only certain borrowers would be eligible for help from an additional fund...'One advantage to the tax credit is that there’s no moral hazard involved,' one of Obama's economic advisers explains. 'There's no sense in which you’re rewarding someone for taking too big a risk. If you lied about your income in order to get a bigger mortgage, then you're not qualified. Do you really want to give a subsidy to the guy who wasn't prudent?' Obama has used similar language on the campaign trail. 'Innocent homeowners,' he has promised, those 'responsible' borrowers' facing foreclosure through no fault of their own,' would get help restructuring their loans. But no such luck for those 'claiming income they didn't have' or 'lying to get mortgages.' "

Others have noted before that Obama and his fiscal policies have endeared him to the Wall Street crowd, and the Nation extends that theme: "Obama had received nearly $10 million in contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector through October, and he’s second among presidential candidates of either party in money raised from commercial banks, trailing only Clinton. Goldman Sachs, which made $6 billion from devalued mortgage securities in the first nine months of 2007, is Obama’s top contributor."

Say it ain't so, Barack!

Obama's fiscal and domestic agendas are poised to let the market "solve" economic inequalities. So this is what "change" looks like?

AN EDWARDS SUPPORTER SPEAKS

This isn't directly related to the horserace, but there's an interesting confluence of blogs and bloggers today at Edwards-supporter/blogger "Benny's World." If you'e wondering what one of the more-prominent Edwards supporters is thinking these days, I know that Benny can be relied upon to tell you exactly what she feels. Celebrating an event called Blogroll Amnesty Weekend, Benny says:

I wanted to thank Taylor Marsh and her readers for not trying to change my mind in switching candidates, but to participate in the conversation as I choose. That shows class.

Over at the Daily Kos and MyDD, it has gotten to be pathetic. The Obama supporters in particular are demanding that Edwards endorse someone, and some in both camps, but mainly Obama's, have ridiculed and tried to intimidate Edwards supporters by saying their vote for him in upcoming primaries is waste of time. I find it ironic considering how many complaints there were about candidate support diaries, especially about Edwards, and now, no one is complaining about the remaining candidates, most especially Obama.

Our democracy belongs to us, it does not belong to the media nor to the Internet, albeit I trust the Internet more because folks like Taylor, Chris Bowers (Open Left), and yes, even a little blogger like me are driving the conversation. My blog has been shown on TV and because of my blog, I was asked to participate on the BBC Radio's 'World Have Your Say.'

I've noticed that all of the remaining candidates have not endorsed anyone, although my guess is that Bill Clinton will be seeking Bill Richardson's this afternoon while they are watching the Super Bowl. I prefer none of them do. Clinton and Obama will have to earn our votes, albeit, I'm not likely to vote for either one. But I know Edwards supporters who will look at both candidates more closely at the convention.

Thanks again, Taylor, for the shoutout you gave to my blog this week. And to other bloggers, I ask that you give me and my fellow supporters time to heal before asking for our votes. Only the candidates can convince them. I drew my line in the sand a long time ago.

Benny also has a post titled "Anti-Hillary or Anti-Barack?" that shows how Edwards supporters are torn. I made the comment to Benny that I am leaning decidedly toward Hillary Clinton. A formal endorsement from me may be coming soon.

"Across The Universe" To Be Sent Out To The North Star

"The songs of the Beatles have always enjoyed a global appeal. Now one of their best-loved recordings is to be beamed into the galaxy in an attempt to introduce the Fab Four's music to alien ears.
Nasa will broadcast the song, Across the Universe, through the transmitters of its deep space communications network on Monday - the 40th anniversary of its recording at London's Abbey Road studios.

The music will be converted into digital data and sent on a 431 light year-journey towards Polaris, the North Star, in a stunt that also commemorates the space agency's 50th anniversary...."

- From The Guardian

On Facebook, Yoko Ono has invited all her friends to join her tomorrow by listening to the song:

Join us by listening to the song at the same time, wherever you are:

Feb 4th 03.00pm Anchorage
Feb 4th 04.00pm Los Angeles
Feb 4th 05.00pm Guatemala
Feb 4th 06.00pm Chicago
Feb 4th 07.00pm New York
Feb 4th 07.00pm Montreal
Feb 4th 08.00pm Rio de Janeiro
Feb 4th 11.00pm Reykjavik
Feb 5th 12.00am Liverpool & London
Feb 5th 01.00am Europe
Feb 5th 02.00am Baghdad
Feb 5th 03.00am Moscow
Feb 5th 04.00am Karachi
Feb 5th 05.00am Dhaka
Feb 5th 06.00am Bangkok
Feb 5th 07.00am Shanghai
Feb 5th 08.00am Tokyo
Feb 5th 09.00am Sydney
Feb 5th 10.00am Vladivostok
Feb 5th 11.00am Suva
Feb 5th 12.00am Auckland
Feb 5th 01.00am Kiritimati

Agonist: "The Surrender is Working"

If there's one thing you read today,allow me to suggest Stirling Newberry's The Surrender is Working.

There's a great talking point or two in this post..and the title, in and of itself, could be a King among buzz-phrases.

Obama goes negative with mailer

This recent mailer from the Obama campaign that attacks the Clinton healthcare plan, similar to the plan originally proposed by former Senator John Edwards, is not an example of playing by the rules of inspiration and the politics of hope. Fear-mongering is never about hope. Cheap attacks are hardly inspiring. See Huffington Post. According to Ben Smith at Politico, it was so bad that the Clinton campaign convened a conference call to denounce it. The Senator from Illinois didn't convince me in his talking points at last night's debate in Los Angeles that his plan was a better one than Edwards' or Clinton's. Scaring people was Plan B, I guess, since Plan A failed. The Denver Post announced an endorsement for Clinton today and said it was, in part, because of her capacity to deal with the health insurance crisis. According to the article at HuffPo, a former John Edwards adviser on health care named Peter Harbage was on the conference call about the mailer and he said that he believed the Obama campaign mailer drives the debate on the issue to "the lowest common denominator." Sounds about right. Will the Obama campaign denounce the obvious fear-mongering? If they don't, they'll likely have to answer for the route they've chosen to take.

- Steve Clemons on Universal Healthcare/Healthcare Coverage, Clinton v. Obama




UPDATE
February 3, 2008: Obama Hires 'Harry and Louise' to Attack Hillary's Plan for Health Care: Republicans Thrilled! by Irwin Redlener, M.D. (Huffington Post)

Senator Obama is a very smart guy, and I would like to think that he wouldn't mind a re-do on this issue. But, of course, that is a no-no in American presidential politics. So, Obama is left in the extraordinary position of now having to defend a position that most progressives would never embrace -- in essence leaving large numbers of people without health care. And to top it off, he's now attacking universal health care and making a reincarnated Harry and Louise to do the dirty work. I suspect that many Democrats will simply see this as a desperate "go Republican" strategy that could have the unintended consequence of setting back the cause of universal health care.

Levin Amendment - Who Voted For It?

Judge for yourself. Below (in bold) are the Democrats who voted "Yea" to the Levin amendment that former-Senator Lincoln Chafee (moderate Republican from Rhode Island who has recently written a book to be released in April) wrote about in today's NY Times, apparently to bolster his own reasoning behind his 2002 vote in light of Senator Barack Obama's heavy-handed criticism in last night's debate of those who voted "Nay" to the amendment (specifically his opponent Hillary Clinton).

Curiously, 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry had voted "Nay" and has endorsed Senator Obama in 2008 versus Edwards and Clinton, both who voted just as he did in 2002.

I wonder...if we agree with Senator Obama and former Senator Chafee on the decided lack of good judgment for those who voted against the Levin amendment, what would that say about John Kerry's judgment now? Is he...or was he naive? (using CNN's Wolf Blitzer's unfortunate characterization, made impulsively last night..the biggest BOO!-raiser of the night from the audience.)

Senator Joe Biden has certainly never spoken against multilateralism. Senator Biden hasn't endorsed Obama or Clinton, but he did vote "Nay" to the Levin amendment while speaking often about the importance of multilateralism.

Categorizing the Levin amendment as what would've been "middle ground" in the question of authorization at the time, Senator Chafee says,

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States’ international standing.

Isn't that revising history? It would not have made President Bush disappear. It may have slowed him down, but I don't believe for a minute that it would've stopped him. I certainly don't believe it wouldn't have turned him into a multilateralist in that political atmosphere. It wouldn't have caused Judith Miller to accurately report the WMD story. It wouldn't have stopped the endless on-the-hour echoes of Bush sabre-rattling on CNN and FOX. It wouldn't have caused George Tenet to be brave enough to admit he saw cherry-picking and war-marketing by the Office of Special Planning happening at the time. It wouldn't have stopped then-Secretary of State Colin Powell from giving his traveling terror show at the United Nations.

Does it make Clinton, Biden, Kerry, or Edwards right on the IWR or the Levin Amendment, now that we look back almost six years? If you always take an ahistoric view, they will always look wrong.

Still, in intellectual terms, it's always going to be debatable. Where would Saddam Hussein be today had he not been removed from power? I think it's a fair question to ask, and one that either Obama or Clinton will surely be asked in a general election debate. Perhaps the "Nay" vote on the 2002 Levin amendment wasn't the right one, but is it a lot easier to wag fingers and play superior judge when you took a risk, perhaps at the expense of National Security (knowing just how bad our intel was less than a year following 9/11) and voted against giving the President an appearance of strength-of-sovereignty.

With all due respect, where is Lincoln Chafee today? What caused voters in his state to lose faith in him? He's outside Washington, D.C.....as Barack Obama was in 2002 when he (along with every liberal blogger under the sun) was protesting the Iraq war.

Senator Obama's argument for "better judgment" and "experience" over that of Hillary Clinton by saying he was against the Iraq war while not being part of the federal government is not any different than Howard Dean's case in 2004. It didn't get Howard Dean very far, although being unfairly marked by talking heads as the most left-leaning anti-war liberal, along with one over-amplified and over-played scream didn't help matters for him.

Jonathan Alter made the prediction quoted below back in October, 2006. I've seen Obama campaign manager David Axelrod try to "cash in" (in a ghoulish way) on the point in 2007, when he tied Senator Obama's opinion on Iraq back in 2002 directly in with Clinton-blame regarding the death of Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto..quite a stretch.

Jonathan Alter quote from October, 2006:

On the Iraq war, the critical issue for Democratic primary voters, Obama is perfectly positioned. He opposed the war from the beginning, with an articulate denunciation of the Bush policy as a distraction from the war on terror. In other words, he was four years ahead of the curve. By contrast, John Edwards is in the uncomfortable position of having said he was wrong to support the war. Hillary Clinton is even worse off. She has yet to acknowledge the obvious: that if she knew then what she knows now, she would have voted against the war instead of for it. If both Obama and Clinton run, he would quickly best her on this issue, which all of her "early money" would do little to counteract. LINK

I have to say that I'm not convinced on the "judgment" issue.
See my posting from FIFTEEN MONTHS ago.

(Speaking of GOOD JUDGMENT and Obama, look at what Lambert's got at Corrente. It'll curl your hair.)



Interestingly, Hillary Clinton publically admitted she'd had regrets about her IWR vote in December, 2006.



I offered my own public advice to Senator Clinton one year ago. (Like she'd take it, already..but at least I offered....)
SEE: "Tough Love for Hillary Clinton on IWR"


Final Note: I don't claim to be an expert on Iraq and our nation's history with them, but Juan Cole certainly is a great resource for this kind of insight. See his comments (and partial transcript from the Iraq-talk at the debate last night.)




THE LIST OF DEMS & HOW THEY VOTED ON LEVIN AMENDMENT 2002:
("Yeas" are in bold font)

Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Graham (D-FL), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Cleland (D-GA), Nay Miller (D-GA), Nay
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Iowa: Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Nay Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Dayton (D-MN), Yea Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Missouri: Carnahan (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Jersey: Corzine (D-NJ), Yea Torricelli (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Edwards (D-NC), Nay
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Oregon: Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: Hollings (D-SC), Nay
South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea

Journey Towards Peace

Hillary's MLK Jr. Moment

My Question:
Should the White House Be A Test-Tube for Domestic and Foreign Policy Experiments?



A Fox News talking point from a news item related to a short interview between reporter Major Garrett and 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is absolutely wrong.

The article by Fox News' Aaron Bruns claimed that Clinton “appeared to diminish the role Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. played” in the bringing about of Civil Rights.

To myself, an unbiased viewer, it looked as though Senator Clinton was trying to shrink Senator Obama’s lofty and dramatic rhetoric down to 'actual size'.

At the end of the day (using some of Clinton's words from the interview), being “able to get it through Congress” is something she’s been doing longer. The ability to inspire by the “power of dreams” is a worthy and necessary talent for all social justice leaders. When she spoke of the dream "becoming reality..”..she seems only to be saying she thinks she can do it better than Obama can.

Perhaps she should just say, "I think I can do [these things] much better than Obama can."

But I think I understand her message, however confused some may be about it. Jesus Christ has inspired people for over 2000 years…Moses and Abraham for much longer … and they never had to pass a law in any Congress in order to keep us bathed in the light of faith and hope. Many believe Moses handed down law from a source beyond our human existence. Whenever a law that best forwards social justice is passed in the name of the people of this country, the law was one that had likely been created long ago...born in the hearts of men and women; born of inspiration and faith.

There is no doubt that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a man of God and an inspirer for the ages. I trust that Hillary Clinton was by no means discounting Rev. Dr. MLK Jr. by showing how his wonderful dream was put into action…and pointing to the Presidents who helped to facilitate the dream through signed, dealed, and delivered legislation.

Ask yourself, regardless of who you may be supporting for 2008, isn’t it just a bit of a stretch to say the newest Senator of the top-tier-three is an inspirer of the ages and a JFK and an LBJ all wrapped up in one..and more capable than Clinton (or Edwards, for that matter) to get his agenda through Congress?

How has he ever proven it?

Shouldn't we be asking those questions?

If your answer is "No", I'd ask: Why the blinders?

If Hillary’s pointing that out, more power to her for the reality check. We should be doing our own vetting of the candidates, not just for personality, but for what they know and what they've accomplished. Both Clinton and Edwards may not be perfect, and I think Hillary was reminding us what happens when imperfect, untested people suddenly find themselves in the White House.

A new generation of young, enthusiastic voters stand to be disillusioned once again when heads-in-the-sky meet the very real difficulties associated with compromise and consensus and Washington, D.C.

With a gathering storm outside our nation's borders, should the Oval Office be a test-tube, particularly for foreign-policy experiments?

Right GaGa Over Obama? Yeah, RIGHT!

First it was the line, "Either you're for the Iraq war or your un-American."

When Rich Lowry tells you you just might be
un-American if you don't go starry-eyed for the newest kid on the Democratic block or if you don't feel teary-eyed somehow that the stomping of the other top-two far more experienced candidates is some kind of a cosmic reward.. well.......come on, that's just weird.

The quote:

"You're almost not an American if you don't feel stirred by what his victory would represent symbolically. Here's a guy who 50 years ago couldn't have gone in certain restrooms and motels."

- Rich Lowry of the National Review

What's a lot more strange is the way so many right-wing nastys are singing the praises of the Dem rookie with the moth-to-flame following. Howard Kurtz's most recent WaPo column is linked to a Daily Kos-website diary asking the question: If Right Wing Media Backs Obama, Who Are They Afraid to Face?

Come on, you can't blame anyone for asking!

After having blogged the wicked cynicism, sharp partisanship, and divisive rhetoric from the Kristol/Goldberg set for the last five years straight..going on six...

call me skeptical. [wink]




Note: One theory I have is that the Right is so afraid of NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg entering the '08 race that they are praying for an emerging Obama, an accomplished political chameleon, who is basically stealing the Unity message (or at least neutralizing its impact), reducing the chance of Big Bad Mike from spoiling the GOP's already-limp chances of scoring another four years in the White House.

Combating Terrorism - Sinjar Records

Last September, 2008 Presidential candidate John Edwards gave a speech at Pace University outlining a new strategy against terrorism (called "brilliant" by TPM blogger Matthew Yglesias) in which he said:

...We need a counterterrorism policy that will actually counter terrorism.

That brings me to Juan Cole's Top Ten challenges facing the U.S. in the Middle East, 2008; number 8:

8. Congress should expand funding for, and guarantee the future of, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. Its researchers do among the very best jobs of analyzing the writings and activities of the Salafi Jihadis, and so of combatting them. Few government institutions are as effective. If the US government were serious about the threat of terrorism, I would not even have to make this plea. Of course, if Bush and Cheney had really cared about the threat of al-Qaeda, they would have gone after it and gotten Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri rather than rushing off on a fool's errand in Iraq.

A look at a recently-released Sinjar Records report at the CTC website shows a preliminary analysis of records containing background information on foreign fighters entering Iraq via Syria over the last year. The downloadable report says that:

...the Sinjar Records exemplify al‐Qa’ida’s fundamental strategic challenge in Iraq: melding the ideological demands of its global constituency with the practical concerns of relatively secular Iraqis.

One fact from the report that I found to be important to share is that:

...The vast majority of militants in Iraq have nothing to do with al‐Qa’ida, and they are focused on Iraqi problems: security, distribution of power and money, and sectarianism. Those insurgents are a mix of Sunni nationalists, Ba’thists, Shi’a militias, and Islamist organizations. Mistaking any of these groups for al‐Qa’ida is not simply wrong, it is dangerous....

I hope you'll visit the website and take a look at the report, which contains far too many eye-opening details for me to outline them here.