Suspension?
John Edwards: "we will take back the White House."
Will you stand up for John Edwards?
Still voting Edwards on Feb. 5th! And Feb. 9th.
No Edwards Endorsement! But will he?
On the timing thing, and the media.
The Dream is Justice! Ever moot?
Hillary makes moot point.
Obama, a liberal cause?
Belated Calls and Commemoration?
"I have a dream"
We have a nightmare! Let us work for change by continuing support, and vote your conscience, if not for Edwards, how about Uncommitteds for Commiting?
Commiting for change, if not committing Bush. OK, so I have wrapped up here a bit harsh. Maybe that is what Edwards needed, a bit of an edge to cut through the media. It may be a double-edge sword, but we still need to wield it. Wield what you will, but it still needs to cut through some where.
[A counter point or flip-flop: the above may have its own timetable, in that after Super Tuesday, the Republicans may know their candidate and what would happen if the Democrats are still fighting for theirs? Well... Just because the candidate is still up in the air, does not mean that we have to follow the lead of Republicans and uniting for unity sake. Will they really unite? Will they really be able to focus on a Democratic candidate? Well our focus may shift, but that does not mean we not fight. In fact, it could be managed to get more media, and it (the media) could be a focus as well. If it is McCain, the focus should be on whether he is running as a Bush Republican or running from or for the Bush legacy? This update was inspired by a comment by Thom Hartmann, almost to the point of flip-flop, but then I put my usual spin on it, for what it is worth.]
{Maybe this is just my own problem with commitment or needing to have a commitment from our candidates, but having just reread Edwards' speech in New Orleans, I am inspired to encourage that commitment and have some leverage as a group. And part of that is having something to say, and getting it out.]
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Death of a Journalist?
His career that is.
Compassionate to the end.
Michael Gerson that is.
Actually I wonder about his journalism creds
past or present, that is.
Here is a little ramble on that note.
Sort of a talking points memo or
just rambling notes:
Death of a Journalist [*]
AUC!
Besides...
Overshadowed not eliminated?
Pie or Cake? [**]
It is the size that matters.
Balanced understanding or fuzzy math and English.
Summary: Bush is not all bad, and not all conservative, but on balance?
Math and English and logic for that matter, don't matter much.
Or better, things could be worse, he could have been like Cheney.
[UPDATE: WHERE THE BUTTONS?]
[Even later but earlier comparisons: Bush is no Lincoln but good points to watch out for in the could do worse category: "600,000 dead. The country essentially hated him when he was leaving office." and speaking of competition or legacies, "a charge to keep" accurate or not. And dyslexia of mythical proportions.
* I'm not exactly happy with where ever this term came from as it popped into my head, but maybe the concept that journalism is so dead. So far from fair and balanced. So far from a job being done, which means including who, what, when, where, why, and how, or at least getting some facts right, not that I ever include everthing.
** reference is to pie charts and growing it, and having your piece and eating it too.
[The State of the Union and
Further numbers? 1-31-08 ]
Compassionate to the end.
Michael Gerson that is.
Actually I wonder about his journalism creds
past or present, that is.
Here is a little ramble on that note.
Sort of a talking points memo or
just rambling notes:
Death of a Journalist [*]
AUC!
Besides...
Overshadowed not eliminated?
Pie or Cake? [**]
It is the size that matters.
Balanced understanding or fuzzy math and English.
Summary: Bush is not all bad, and not all conservative, but on balance?
Math and English and logic for that matter, don't matter much.
Or better, things could be worse, he could have been like Cheney.
[UPDATE: WHERE THE BUTTONS?]
[Even later but earlier comparisons: Bush is no Lincoln but good points to watch out for in the could do worse category: "600,000 dead. The country essentially hated him when he was leaving office." and speaking of competition or legacies, "a charge to keep" accurate or not. And dyslexia of mythical proportions.
* I'm not exactly happy with where ever this term came from as it popped into my head, but maybe the concept that journalism is so dead. So far from fair and balanced. So far from a job being done, which means including who, what, when, where, why, and how, or at least getting some facts right, not that I ever include everthing.
** reference is to pie charts and growing it, and having your piece and eating it too.
[The State of the Union and
Further numbers? 1-31-08 ]
No Edwards Endorsement!
Having read only a few lines (2 posts) and heard only a few minutes of the reporting, I want to jump out here [*] and suggest that Senator Edwards not endorse another candidate. That is unless he can determine that that candidate will really work for the causes that have been the core of his campaign. Of course he could determine that, but it just might be the death nell to announce it.
[*] this post was submitted at 1:11 PM EST just before Edwards began his suspension speech. I thought it was a diary as well, but here goes.
[UPDATE: my suggestion is that anyone who intended to vote for Edwards and has the opportunity to, whether primary or caucus, still do so. If that will not reach the level that warrants a delegate in a caucus process, sway or sway to the uncommitteds. It that is not the opposite of Bush, I don't know what is. Uncommitted against the committed or should have been.]
[*] this post was submitted at 1:11 PM EST just before Edwards began his suspension speech. I thought it was a diary as well, but here goes.
[UPDATE: my suggestion is that anyone who intended to vote for Edwards and has the opportunity to, whether primary or caucus, still do so. If that will not reach the level that warrants a delegate in a caucus process, sway or sway to the uncommitteds. It that is not the opposite of Bush, I don't know what is. Uncommitted against the committed or should have been.]
Saturday, January 26, 2008
South Carolina Results
From the debate and the controversy.
(I will upgrade this post with more later: maybe )
But
Where are the Candidates on the Constitution?
Here is John Edwards. Where are Clinton and Obama?
(an untold story)
[ Update 1-28-08: Going back some background on losing ground*.]
* note to self, something about what they did not say about polls; re; Edwards run-up to S.C.
(I will upgrade this post with more later: maybe )
But
Where are the Candidates on the Constitution?
Here is John Edwards. Where are Clinton and Obama?
(an untold story)
[ Update 1-28-08: Going back some background on losing ground*.]
* note to self, something about what they did not say about polls; re; Edwards run-up to S.C.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Speaking of...
Democrats Attack Iraq Security Proposal
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 24, 2008; Page A09
Not what I was heading for but this:
Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks
Anti-Obama Ad Heightens Unity Fears
By Alec MacGillis and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 24, 2008; Page A01
[1-25-08: UPDATE AND FOLLOW THROUGH -- Speaking of... "unity fears" (Sometimes even professionals (WaPo) can misslink their lines) But I was speaking of unity fears in my post "Clinton in South Carolina" part of which I will bring up here:
(*) "people will follow" was the needed search for meaning applied to Bush.]
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 24, 2008; Page A09
Not what I was heading for but this:
Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks
Anti-Obama Ad Heightens Unity Fears
By Alec MacGillis and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 24, 2008; Page A01
The Clinton campaign argued that it was simply quoting Obama. But in the original context, Obama was describing the dominance of Republican ideas in the 1980s and 1990s, without saying he supported them, and asserting that those ideas are of no use today.Con Text?Link?
[1-25-08: UPDATE AND FOLLOW THROUGH -- Speaking of... "unity fears" (Sometimes even professionals (WaPo) can misslink their lines) But I was speaking of unity fears in my post "Clinton in South Carolina" part of which I will bring up here:
The Democrats can be united. If they are not, they are not really Democrats. Putting a Democrat in the White House is the important thing. But putting the best Democrat in the White House is the most important thing. To do that, we need the votes of not just Democrats. But that does not mean that the candidate cannot be the best Democrat as well.To make a finer point fuzzy -- No matter what a candidate says, does not mean the voter will follow. -- Either with their vote to another candidate, or in their understanding of why they follow anything. In this last link, I was searching in the way back machine in the upper left corner for meaning (*)... or some such word I had used in the past, but I must paraphrase myself, "People may follow whether they know what you mean or not." and there are results whether we know what they will be or like them or not.
(*) "people will follow" was the needed search for meaning applied to Bush.]
It's the Economy Stupid!
It's Stupid's Economy!
And stupid is as stupid does.
And in most cases it is stall.
Life is like a box of cherries.
And Bush is the pit picker.
OK! Now that that rant has rambled.
Democratic Leaders Delay Contempt Again
By Matt Renner t r u t h o u t | Report
So as long as there is room for failure there is room for delay, as a bargaining chip for unaccountability. Democrats and the people will have a long haul. I hope that it works out for us. The administration and its supporters, meaning those that will not be bipartisan to help the economy without giving Bush a free pass have the constitution and the economy over a barrel. And the people are taking it in the shorts which is a barrel and keep getting kicked and rolled.
No wonder they can't see the spin.
Speaking of spin, here is an interesting turn:
Bush budget won't fully fund Iraq war
And stupid is as stupid does.
And in most cases it is stall.
Life is like a box of cherries.
And Bush is the pit picker.
OK! Now that that rant has rambled.
Democratic Leaders Delay Contempt Again
By Matt Renner t r u t h o u t | Report
So as long as there is room for failure there is room for delay, as a bargaining chip for unaccountability. Democrats and the people will have a long haul. I hope that it works out for us. The administration and its supporters, meaning those that will not be bipartisan to help the economy without giving Bush a free pass have the constitution and the economy over a barrel. And the people are taking it in the shorts which is a barrel and keep getting kicked and rolled.
No wonder they can't see the spin.
Speaking of spin, here is an interesting turn:
Bush budget won't fully fund Iraq war
Looking back, the great irony of this administration will be that the only time Bush asked for a full year’s funding for Iraq was in his 2008 request -- in the first months of a new Democratic Congress. He succeeded in getting what he needed but also used the war expenditures as a hammer of sorts to squelch other spending demands. Yet again Wednesday, the House failed to override Bush’s veto of a bill adding $35 billion over five years to expand health insurance for children of low-income families.Speaking of interesting and speaking of irony.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Clinton In South Carolina
Rachel Maddow on her show:
Rachel, Rachel, Rachel...
You suggest that Obama must go on the offensive? Maybe. But not in the way that you suggest. Not by making things up. Maybe by staging events or confrontations, but not by doing exactly what the opposition is doing. Maybe that is too much faith in the American people. Hillary and Bill, clearly are taking things out of context which display there intention to confuse or inability to understand. And when they are not, the media is. I may be unfair and unbalanced but to me, Obama is more careful in his context and less offensive in his connections. The Clinton campaign should cool it, and so should the media. Even Michelle Obama's comments could not clear the filters and it is not their fault that voters and the media add their own context, just like Hillary and Bill tend to do. Correcting any misinformation and exposing any misunderstanding is one thing but more of the same is counterproductive.
Ed Schultz on Hardball:
And I just turned on MSNBC to find Ed Schultz and Pat Buchanan and a third character on Chris Mathews, and the latter two fall into just these categories and Ed Schultz sure has his hands full cutting through what Edwards would call crap. [Meanwhile Clinton (Bill) takes a swing at the press and strikes at Obama again. It is like shadow jujitsu. Only good for the dark side.]
Dana Milbank on Countdown: On Obama not being uniter.
(OK, I don't have the exact quote. I am doing the press thing.)
Never has a candidate said they will not support the other candidate. (Although Kucinich missed a chance to be clear.) But to assume that they can bring their supporters is another thing.
[Live with Dan Abrams: now -> What some call politics: "I call lawyering". ]
The Democrats can be united. If they are not they are not really Democrats. Putting a Democrat in the White House is the important thing. But putting the best Democrat in the White House is the most important thing. To do that we need the votes of not just Democrats. But that does not mean that the candidate cannot be the best Democrat as well.
Finalizing in what Rachel Maddow also noted about lies.
[Speaking of from September 2002:
A for
Cowboy]
Rachel, Rachel, Rachel...
You suggest that Obama must go on the offensive? Maybe. But not in the way that you suggest. Not by making things up. Maybe by staging events or confrontations, but not by doing exactly what the opposition is doing. Maybe that is too much faith in the American people. Hillary and Bill, clearly are taking things out of context which display there intention to confuse or inability to understand. And when they are not, the media is. I may be unfair and unbalanced but to me, Obama is more careful in his context and less offensive in his connections. The Clinton campaign should cool it, and so should the media. Even Michelle Obama's comments could not clear the filters and it is not their fault that voters and the media add their own context, just like Hillary and Bill tend to do. Correcting any misinformation and exposing any misunderstanding is one thing but more of the same is counterproductive.
Ed Schultz on Hardball:
And I just turned on MSNBC to find Ed Schultz and Pat Buchanan and a third character on Chris Mathews, and the latter two fall into just these categories and Ed Schultz sure has his hands full cutting through what Edwards would call crap. [Meanwhile Clinton (Bill) takes a swing at the press and strikes at Obama again. It is like shadow jujitsu. Only good for the dark side.]
Dana Milbank on Countdown: On Obama not being uniter.
(OK, I don't have the exact quote. I am doing the press thing.)
Never has a candidate said they will not support the other candidate. (Although Kucinich missed a chance to be clear.) But to assume that they can bring their supporters is another thing.
[Live with Dan Abrams: now -> What some call politics: "I call lawyering". ]
The Democrats can be united. If they are not they are not really Democrats. Putting a Democrat in the White House is the important thing. But putting the best Democrat in the White House is the most important thing. To do that we need the votes of not just Democrats. But that does not mean that the candidate cannot be the best Democrat as well.
Finalizing in what Rachel Maddow also noted about lies.
[Speaking of from September 2002:
A for
Cowboy]
Inciteful?
Insightful, not incitable.
It occurred to me that Letterman maybe threw out a pun in this exchange.
In that the heat of the recent debate had some value. It was maybe insightful.
It is my take that some are more insightful, and some are more incitable than others.
Edwards - didn't bite.
Obama - inciting and incitable.
Clinton - inciteful. [*]
Yes, it is not a word.
[Scroll over candidate names above for my blogs. Unfortunately or fortunately, Edwards is more filtered: I was trying not to be self-serving, but finally hit on a tangent that came back to the point. (Filtering, input and output) A vote for my post is not a vote for Edwards, but like regular voting sometimes there are hurdles.]
[ * note scroll over of cursor to save you the trip to the link, and a hint at the gist and the jest ]
It occurred to me that Letterman maybe threw out a pun in this exchange.
In that the heat of the recent debate had some value. It was maybe insightful.
It is my take that some are more insightful, and some are more incitable than others.
Edwards - didn't bite.
Obama - inciting and incitable.
Clinton - inciteful. [*]
Yes, it is not a word.
[Scroll over candidate names above for my blogs. Unfortunately or fortunately, Edwards is more filtered: I was trying not to be self-serving, but finally hit on a tangent that came back to the point. (Filtering, input and output) A vote for my post is not a vote for Edwards, but like regular voting sometimes there are hurdles.]
[ * note scroll over of cursor to save you the trip to the link, and a hint at the gist and the jest ]
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
South Carolina Debate Winner!
The Tie goes to Edwards.
Actually it was not a tie,
but I thought I might tie them together.
Yeah! That's what I meant.
Clinton-Obama barbs dominate debate
Early on, but Edwards closed in.
The exchange between Clinton and Obama seemed to go to Obama depending upon whether one can follow the flip-flop and nuance. Clinton attacked Obama for some "present" votes in the state legislature, although they were about 100 out of 4000, and he explained them as technical tactics that seem valid. Edwards brought up the issue again in a fairer way, and it all depends on whether he was giving him a second shot or another shot at explaining, and Obama did. So it depends on who was listening and who was following, but Edwards was not about the barbs, but hopefully tried to sort them a bit. So in my view he deflected them to Clinton, in a way that hopefully enough people caught, while using the issues well.
It is not necessarily that Clinton is a flip-flopper, but that she tries to paint Obama as one, and misses the nuance, either by choice or by filter. (Not only that but she has her own nuance to explain). She could also have a little more patience, in not trying to reply when it is being explained to her.
Actually it was not a tie,
but I thought I might tie them together.
Yeah! That's what I meant.
Clinton-Obama barbs dominate debate
Early on, but Edwards closed in.
The exchange between Clinton and Obama seemed to go to Obama depending upon whether one can follow the flip-flop and nuance. Clinton attacked Obama for some "present" votes in the state legislature, although they were about 100 out of 4000, and he explained them as technical tactics that seem valid. Edwards brought up the issue again in a fairer way, and it all depends on whether he was giving him a second shot or another shot at explaining, and Obama did. So it depends on who was listening and who was following, but Edwards was not about the barbs, but hopefully tried to sort them a bit. So in my view he deflected them to Clinton, in a way that hopefully enough people caught, while using the issues well.
It is not necessarily that Clinton is a flip-flopper, but that she tries to paint Obama as one, and misses the nuance, either by choice or by filter. (Not only that but she has her own nuance to explain). She could also have a little more patience, in not trying to reply when it is being explained to her.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Tributes to MLK...
tend to ignore his complexity:
Historians say King was far from revered as he pushed activism beyond race
"At the time of his death, King was working on anti-poverty and anti-war issues."
"Obama has invoked King, and Sen. John Kerry endorsed Obama by saying 'Martin Luther King said that the time is always right to do what is right.'"
Clinton on hearing King:
"It was a transforming experience for me," she said. "He made it very clear that the Civil Rights movement was about economic justice."
Edwards on King comments: "Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living a fairy tale."
"What the election is about is about building one America."
Of course this is cherry picking here. Maybe the simplicity of the media and the subtitled words "beyond race" is merited. But how can we not feel that the simplicity of the media and the current leadership is not ignored as well. Now is that not a double-edged sword that makes so much harder?
Complexity or simplicity or just untimely? "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"
[updated: link added ]
Historians say King was far from revered as he pushed activism beyond race
"At the time of his death, King was working on anti-poverty and anti-war issues."
"Obama has invoked King, and Sen. John Kerry endorsed Obama by saying 'Martin Luther King said that the time is always right to do what is right.'"
Clinton on hearing King:
"It was a transforming experience for me," she said. "He made it very clear that the Civil Rights movement was about economic justice."
Edwards on King comments: "Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living a fairy tale."
"What the election is about is about building one America."
Of course this is cherry picking here. Maybe the simplicity of the media and the subtitled words "beyond race" is merited. But how can we not feel that the simplicity of the media and the current leadership is not ignored as well. Now is that not a double-edged sword that makes so much harder?
Complexity or simplicity or just untimely? "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"
We must use time creatively, and forever realize that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy, and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
[updated: link added ]
Friday, January 18, 2008
The Dream is Justice! Ever moot?
[Update: Belated Calls and Commemorations? ]
Another preamble:
Please consider the impact of doing nothing or just doing what is more immediate.
Please consider the meaning of words and the spirit of so many that have fought for so much that so many still do not have. Yes your focus is on your local constituents, and they are struggling in so many ways, and fighting in so many causes. Well, some of us are really doing just fine and dandy, but please...
It is really ironic that so much of our current difficulty is caused by some who believe in another timeliness. Not only in the hereafter, but somehow in the preemptive. Well they both may have a reality, but that does not mean which our actions will feed.
Ever Moot?
The Dream is Justice! Sent by author, To Whom It May Concern. Checks and Balances. Civil Disobedience. Letting our representatives know...
I humbly suggest that anyone with doubts about starting a process that is about justice, read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and wonder what is the alternative?
All people must not only know that there is a line which they should not cross, but know where it is, to know if they have. Not to mention needing to know where the line is, to be able to cross it, as sometimes that is the only way justice reaches the table. The administration knows this, and the legislature and the media should hear it from the people.
As it usually is with my presentations, they evolve, and I hope that this is as clear as I feel. The point which I am making is that there are consequences, whether there is truth, and there is preemption, but results have accountability, whether we look for them or like them or not.
Another preamble:
Please consider the impact of doing nothing or just doing what is more immediate.
Please consider the meaning of words and the spirit of so many that have fought for so much that so many still do not have. Yes your focus is on your local constituents, and they are struggling in so many ways, and fighting in so many causes. Well, some of us are really doing just fine and dandy, but please...
It is really ironic that so much of our current difficulty is caused by some who believe in another timeliness. Not only in the hereafter, but somehow in the preemptive. Well they both may have a reality, but that does not mean which our actions will feed.
Ever Moot?
The Dream is Justice! Sent by author, To Whom It May Concern. Checks and Balances. Civil Disobedience. Letting our representatives know...
I humbly suggest that anyone with doubts about starting a process that is about justice, read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and wonder what is the alternative?
All people must not only know that there is a line which they should not cross, but know where it is, to know if they have. Not to mention needing to know where the line is, to be able to cross it, as sometimes that is the only way justice reaches the table. The administration knows this, and the legislature and the media should hear it from the people.
As it usually is with my presentations, they evolve, and I hope that this is as clear as I feel. The point which I am making is that there are consequences, whether there is truth, and there is preemption, but results have accountability, whether we look for them or like them or not.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Hillary makes moot point.
The Guardian pointed out on November 26th, 2007: US pledges long-term presence in Iraq
MSNBC announces the same day: Bush signs 'principles' for long-term Iraq role
Deal sets foundation for negotiations on troop size, U.S. investments which is a little clearer.
On one hand, it seems it is only a, "declaration of principles, which is not binding," according to General Douglas Luke, in The Guardian. On the other hand, "He noted that the agreement, because it was not a treaty, would not be subject to oversight by Congress."
This is not the only moot part, where there is some worry that Bush will tie the hands of future administrations.
Here is the mooter part.
Hillary does deserves points for bringing it up. But it has been out there for some time.
But more to the point is why are Bush's hands not tied already. But not to worry, nothing that Bush does should tie any one's hands in the future. But Republicans will still try to tie things up, until they can be back in the untied crowd.
Seriously, just because there is no clear line, and precedence and laws are quaint and old fashioned, does not mean that the vicious cycle will stop, but freedom from such is a double-edged sword which the people need to wield.
This was my flash analysis before finding the above two links, the first of which I had probably run by and filed before. Here are two more detailed links I will review later, for possible update.
US, Iraq set stage for long US presence Brisbane Times
Bush, Maliki pave way for permanent U.S. presence www.back-to-iraq.com *
* a sharp comment
[post dated: see update
MSNBC announces the same day: Bush signs 'principles' for long-term Iraq role
Deal sets foundation for negotiations on troop size, U.S. investments which is a little clearer.
On one hand, it seems it is only a, "declaration of principles, which is not binding," according to General Douglas Luke, in The Guardian. On the other hand, "He noted that the agreement, because it was not a treaty, would not be subject to oversight by Congress."
This is not the only moot part, where there is some worry that Bush will tie the hands of future administrations.
Here is the mooter part.
Hillary does deserves points for bringing it up. But it has been out there for some time.
But more to the point is why are Bush's hands not tied already. But not to worry, nothing that Bush does should tie any one's hands in the future. But Republicans will still try to tie things up, until they can be back in the untied crowd.
Seriously, just because there is no clear line, and precedence and laws are quaint and old fashioned, does not mean that the vicious cycle will stop, but freedom from such is a double-edged sword which the people need to wield.
This was my flash analysis before finding the above two links, the first of which I had probably run by and filed before. Here are two more detailed links I will review later, for possible update.
US, Iraq set stage for long US presence Brisbane Times
Bush, Maliki pave way for permanent U.S. presence www.back-to-iraq.com *
* a sharp comment
[post dated: see update
Obama, a liberal cause?
Is that an attempt to slur the candidate? By posting this myself, I fall into some reinforcement of the frame that either are bad. They are not. But I will concur with some of the kudos that Chris Cillizza in Fix Pick: Obama, the New Gary Hart? gives to Matt Bai in A Candidate Not a Cause. Of the two articles the latter's comment "For Obama, this might argue, going forward, for replacing some of the rallies and rhetoric with more substantive speeches and interactive town halls." is on the mark. The former's title like my title reinforces a link to pieces of "liberal" history, Gary Hart, and in the article Bill Bradley. I was a supporter of both, as well as Howard Dean, another name thrown in.
Barack Obama is the only candidate I have seen in person, so I can relate to the experience of hearing his inspiration, and seeing it in others. But it probably is the demographics that those who have had experience with these earlier campaigns and may be more active in the process, do have more questions and expect more.
Meanwhile those independents and the media who may have been expecting more all along without having or appreciating the work it takes, see something new. As for Hillary, it has been noted elsewhere that she did change her tune and began taking more questions, while Edwards has been all along. As they point out Obama did in Iowa, but less so in New Hampshire.
I might also note that I have seen Joe Lieberman give a mildly rousing speech and look how he turned out. There could be a more experienced and jaded demographics than in the past.
[Speaking of the past and raising questions, my email OpEdNews brought me a piece I relate to this demographic remark. Andrew Bard Schmookler's "No Man is an Island" not to mention other voices from the past: The Politics of MLK in the Democratic Primary by David Domke and Kevin Coe.] [Also Early research, early comment.]
Barack Obama is the only candidate I have seen in person, so I can relate to the experience of hearing his inspiration, and seeing it in others. But it probably is the demographics that those who have had experience with these earlier campaigns and may be more active in the process, do have more questions and expect more.
Meanwhile those independents and the media who may have been expecting more all along without having or appreciating the work it takes, see something new. As for Hillary, it has been noted elsewhere that she did change her tune and began taking more questions, while Edwards has been all along. As they point out Obama did in Iowa, but less so in New Hampshire.
I might also note that I have seen Joe Lieberman give a mildly rousing speech and look how he turned out. There could be a more experienced and jaded demographics than in the past.
[Speaking of the past and raising questions, my email OpEdNews brought me a piece I relate to this demographic remark. Andrew Bard Schmookler's "No Man is an Island" not to mention other voices from the past: The Politics of MLK in the Democratic Primary by David Domke and Kevin Coe.] [Also Early research, early comment.]
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Belated Calls and Commemoration?
NEVER!
HJM 8016
SJM 4027
Wexler wants hearings.
"Letter from a Birmingham Jail"
What brings these links together? The first three are about investigations into recent history, while the last, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" is timely. I say this, no tongue-in-cheek, in that it is the subject (timing) that links these pursuits of justice.
Is there a better time to stand for justice or is there ever a time it is too late?
And if we are not standing for justice, just where will we sit? This may be rhetorical, but what is the alternative? At a recent progressive event, with a progressive crowd and a progressive speaker, the speaker replied to some issue, "The people will not stand for that." Does that mean the time for not standing has come? I humbly suggest that anyone with doubts about starting a process that is about justice, read "Letters from a Birmingham Jail" and wonder what is the alternative?
I am not comparing the courage of those that wish to begin this process with those of the past, but the lack of courage to proceed to bring light to the process is as harmful to justice and is a neglect of each branch of government's job and their oaths for which they stand. And the press is doing a 'heckuva job" as well.
Even Martin Luther King Jr. comments on the time he takes from his reader with his letter, but he says earlier: "We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability." He says a lot more if you have the time, but it is never too late, or is it? Apparently some argue so, but we must not just move on.
For those who miss the point, violations of law must face consequences and too few have even the courage to shine a light. [In describing this article, if it reaches that level, I point out: The Dream is Justice! Sent by author, To Whom It May Concern. Checks and Balances. Civil Disobedience. Letting our representatives know that the law must be enforced so that it can not be preempted at will, let alone enforced preemptively. Breaking a bad law is the only way to place it before the process of enforcement and review, but it might even be understood by this administration that it is just a matter of time.] [Updated with slight corrections 1-18-09]
[footnote: Inspiration for the timing thing? Postman on Politics and my belated links following 1-15-08 a day which I missed commemorating but was reminded of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday and a day on which I missed another good speech (text of above video) which was not too noted, nor connected. But speaking of timing. ]
[1-17-08: Yikes! Deleted Whitehouse E-Mails; Another Bush Criminal; Another Reason To Impeach by Rob Kall That is not the "Yikes!" part. But this:
It is the gap in the logic here that points to the disconnect between intention and cause and effect. Yet these guys had the intelligence to decide to review a National Intelligence Estimate? One thing they are expert on is gaps, and I guess they are good at filling them or leaping them.]
HJM 8016
SJM 4027
Wexler wants hearings.
"Letter from a Birmingham Jail"
What brings these links together? The first three are about investigations into recent history, while the last, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" is timely. I say this, no tongue-in-cheek, in that it is the subject (timing) that links these pursuits of justice.
Is there a better time to stand for justice or is there ever a time it is too late?
And if we are not standing for justice, just where will we sit? This may be rhetorical, but what is the alternative? At a recent progressive event, with a progressive crowd and a progressive speaker, the speaker replied to some issue, "The people will not stand for that." Does that mean the time for not standing has come? I humbly suggest that anyone with doubts about starting a process that is about justice, read "Letters from a Birmingham Jail" and wonder what is the alternative?
I am not comparing the courage of those that wish to begin this process with those of the past, but the lack of courage to proceed to bring light to the process is as harmful to justice and is a neglect of each branch of government's job and their oaths for which they stand. And the press is doing a 'heckuva job" as well.
Even Martin Luther King Jr. comments on the time he takes from his reader with his letter, but he says earlier: "We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability." He says a lot more if you have the time, but it is never too late, or is it? Apparently some argue so, but we must not just move on.
For those who miss the point, violations of law must face consequences and too few have even the courage to shine a light. [In describing this article, if it reaches that level, I point out: The Dream is Justice! Sent by author, To Whom It May Concern. Checks and Balances. Civil Disobedience. Letting our representatives know that the law must be enforced so that it can not be preempted at will, let alone enforced preemptively. Breaking a bad law is the only way to place it before the process of enforcement and review, but it might even be understood by this administration that it is just a matter of time.] [Updated with slight corrections 1-18-09]
[footnote: Inspiration for the timing thing? Postman on Politics and my belated links following 1-15-08 a day which I missed commemorating but was reminded of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday and a day on which I missed another good speech (text of above video) which was not too noted, nor connected. But speaking of timing. ]
[1-17-08: Yikes! Deleted Whitehouse E-Mails; Another Bush Criminal; Another Reason To Impeach by Rob Kall That is not the "Yikes!" part. But this:
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said he has no reason to believe any e-mails were deliberately destroyed.(my bold added)
From 2001 to October 2003, the White House's practice was to use the same backup tape each day to copy new as well as old e-mails, he said, making it possible that some of those e-mails could still be recovered even from a tape that was repeatedly overwritten. "We are continuing to analyze our systems," Fratto said last night.
It is the gap in the logic here that points to the disconnect between intention and cause and effect. Yet these guys had the intelligence to decide to review a National Intelligence Estimate? One thing they are expert on is gaps, and I guess they are good at filling them or leaping them.]
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Speaking of Strategy
and this time I was.
Often times my colloquial tangents are "out of the Blue" so to speak.
But Daily KOS suggests a strategy that demonstrates to me the pitfalls of primaries if not the complexity of correcting the political process. Well not the strategy per se, but the fact that there is one and it can happen regardless of other circumstances. Meaning I do not know if the history noted involves the same problem that Michigan has created for itself in trying to be an earlier primary, resulting in the dropping out of several Democrats. I think not.
I would not like to see Democrats participate in the same underhanded tactics that Republicans use, but if independents wish to play that game I would hope that they would pick the candidate that they would prefer to actually vote for in the General Election. Not that it is a game and not that it has not been complicated by problems Democrats initiated. Having said that as a Democrat who believes in pushing and pulling to the left, I would respect voters who would push and pull to the right, and that should mean Ron Paul, rather than play the game that Unity '08 tried.
[1-16-08: belated labels and link (below)]
Often times my colloquial tangents are "out of the Blue" so to speak.
But Daily KOS suggests a strategy that demonstrates to me the pitfalls of primaries if not the complexity of correcting the political process. Well not the strategy per se, but the fact that there is one and it can happen regardless of other circumstances. Meaning I do not know if the history noted involves the same problem that Michigan has created for itself in trying to be an earlier primary, resulting in the dropping out of several Democrats. I think not.
I would not like to see Democrats participate in the same underhanded tactics that Republicans use, but if independents wish to play that game I would hope that they would pick the candidate that they would prefer to actually vote for in the General Election. Not that it is a game and not that it has not been complicated by problems Democrats initiated. Having said that as a Democrat who believes in pushing and pulling to the left, I would respect voters who would push and pull to the right, and that should mean Ron Paul, rather than play the game that Unity '08 tried.
[1-16-08: belated labels and link (below)]
Monday, January 14, 2008
"I have a dream"
No, actually. I have a theory.
Or two or a million of them, but compared to a thousand points of light...
well. Point one. Sometimes the media takes things out of context and sometimes the candidates say things just to get coverage. Duh. Point two. Republicans are a nightmare. They talk about the American Dream, but they are only good at keeping it a dream. Recent exchanges between two of the top three candidates for the Democrats have been fueled by the media, and even progressive hosts seemed to blow on the flames of what is really a battle between flip-flop and nuance. Not that either are not explainable, but neither the media nor candidates sometimes meet the test. Now Edwards is not really part of this, and it should not be a strategy to be, but if were not for this waste of air time and campaign time, maybe they'd be focusing on the issues that he is actually fighting for.
[below link added 1-21-08]
Or two or a million of them, but compared to a thousand points of light...
well. Point one. Sometimes the media takes things out of context and sometimes the candidates say things just to get coverage. Duh. Point two. Republicans are a nightmare. They talk about the American Dream, but they are only good at keeping it a dream. Recent exchanges between two of the top three candidates for the Democrats have been fueled by the media, and even progressive hosts seemed to blow on the flames of what is really a battle between flip-flop and nuance. Not that either are not explainable, but neither the media nor candidates sometimes meet the test. Now Edwards is not really part of this, and it should not be a strategy to be, but if were not for this waste of air time and campaign time, maybe they'd be focusing on the issues that he is actually fighting for.
[below link added 1-21-08]
Friday, January 11, 2008
Unity Hits Reality
As a person who participated just to be in the loop of the Unity '08 process I received the following news. Unity '08 scales back due to successes and lack of funds. Hmmm? Well the link just attached will presumably not remain, as part of the scale back includes the lack of interactive capabilities on their website due to staff cuts, and any later ramping back up will not necessarily keep that link to the letter from which I pull the following.
In Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid by David S. Broder Washington Post:
And former presidential candidate and Senator Gary Hart in Huffington Post:
I will note that while the issues noted are important, more important is the job that is being done now and their not focusing on current accountability, of the administration, the congress, and the media, not to mention corporations and the actual vote. Partisanship may seem the roadblock, but it is just more blame and game. In my view it is not just a linear spectrum of what is left and what is right or we only leave and end up wrong. What is right is not necessarily in either camp, so how would aiming at the middle help. We do have to work together, but ignoring those that are against that is not going to generate progress. I will not say that hope is a fantasy, but their is the word and the spirit... of the law. Too much emphasis on hope and spirited emotional appeal without doing what is needed, draws me back to the lawyer, and in the case of the leading three(each lawyers), the one who has success in convincing a jury (Edwards). If this is called a vested or interest group, it is at least of and for the people, and if the law is the problem, that too has its work to do on the same plane, not just as a balance between poles.
Two of our core ideas - the importance of a centrist, bi-partisan approach to the solving of our nation's problems and the possibility of an independent, unity ticket for the presidency have already gone from far-out to mainstream.Noting Barack and Bloomberg in these references.
In Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid by David S. Broder Washington Post:
At the session, Boren said, participants will try to draft a statement on such issues as the need to "rebuild and reconfigure our military forces," nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and restoring U.S. credibility in the world.
And former presidential candidate and Senator Gary Hart in Huffington Post:
This is a time when America must leave old politics behind. This election is about transition not power. We will either move forward or we will go back.
I will note that while the issues noted are important, more important is the job that is being done now and their not focusing on current accountability, of the administration, the congress, and the media, not to mention corporations and the actual vote. Partisanship may seem the roadblock, but it is just more blame and game. In my view it is not just a linear spectrum of what is left and what is right or we only leave and end up wrong. What is right is not necessarily in either camp, so how would aiming at the middle help. We do have to work together, but ignoring those that are against that is not going to generate progress. I will not say that hope is a fantasy, but their is the word and the spirit... of the law. Too much emphasis on hope and spirited emotional appeal without doing what is needed, draws me back to the lawyer, and in the case of the leading three(each lawyers), the one who has success in convincing a jury (Edwards). If this is called a vested or interest group, it is at least of and for the people, and if the law is the problem, that too has its work to do on the same plane, not just as a balance between poles.
Not Running With It?
On two recent events, I did not bite, but I was going to take the bits in my mouth and run with them. The Iranian Swift Boat attack in the strait’s of Hormuz
and [Bush in the Middle East]
On the former I would have commented on the several statements of wonder from administration sort of "What the heck are they thinking or saying or meaning?" But in reality Defense Secretary Gates: "I can't imagine what was on their minds." There were other comments of wonder, but now we should wonder on whose minds the wonder lies.
On the latter it was hopes of success, but you know . . .
[Post-dated: 1-17-08 www.back-to-iraq.com 1-7-08
The Confrontation That Wasn't. 1-8-08]
and [Bush in the Middle East]
On the former I would have commented on the several statements of wonder from administration sort of "What the heck are they thinking or saying or meaning?" But in reality Defense Secretary Gates: "I can't imagine what was on their minds." There were other comments of wonder, but now we should wonder on whose minds the wonder lies.
On the latter it was hopes of success, but you know . . .
[Post-dated: 1-17-08 www.back-to-iraq.com 1-7-08
The Confrontation That Wasn't. 1-8-08]
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
New Hampshire Defeat?
Or Win for progressives?[or change *]
This is my flash analysis prefaced by the note that I have only had a quick glance to go on. I have not even opened the link but looking at only the top three in each race. Literally:
Results at a glance The Seattle Times
Hillary Clinton (D)39%
Barack Obama (D)36%
John Edwards (D)17%
96% reporting
John McCain (R)37%
Mitt Romney (R)32%
Mike Huckabee (R)11%
96% reporting
My point is that without getting into the technicality that New Hampshire is a primary compared to the Iowa caucuses and the game metaphor that this is like a World Series, not like the NFL championships where they play "loser out"; for a second there I thought I almost lost it in paraphrasing, in that neither of these cases are one on one, (dot, dot, dot... pause) anyway -- the point: I guess I got to the point in my second line, and you can do the math.
And if you can't I will be glad to continue in that, I am presuming that it is not winner take all in New Hampshire and that Obama and Edwards voters add up to 53% of the assigned delegates. If I am wrong, well you know what they say about what happens if you presume. Just like assume, you make a pres out of u and me. OK that goes over better on the screen than it does aloud, but you get the gist. Or Rather, we get to be the butt of the joke.
[Updated References:
a.) the data which I removed from an OpEdNews posting was in the teaser portion of the Seattle Times which I did not grab a hotlink from, because I felt it would continue to be updated.
b.) the following morning I did open the link I provided and found the entire results and followed up on my punditry but doing a Google on [New Hampshire delegates determined] and found
The New York Times Election Guide "Delegates determined after all votes are in."
c.) my intention for those that need hints, was to make a pun on the process not the candidates or the parties, given that it is more of a horse race. *
d.) not that metaphors or data are copyrighted, but I did want a shot at following OpEdNews.com
guidelines, so dropping the actual data and links was convenient. Although the bottom link is now added, but as yet unread.
e.)finally The Stephanie Miller Show played Barack using a basketball metaphor but I do not know if an earlier article had made it to my filter or head space, I do recall using "post-up" in my stand-up work...out. ]
[ * 1-10-08: two changes - - "progressives" to "change" meaning Obama appears to be progressive, but Edwards seems to be the leader in that area and "horse race" to NASCAR "Title Chase Challenge" as it has more contests than the Triple Crown.]
This is my flash analysis prefaced by the note that I have only had a quick glance to go on. I have not even opened the link but looking at only the top three in each race. Literally:
Results at a glance The Seattle Times
Hillary Clinton (D)39%
Barack Obama (D)36%
John Edwards (D)17%
96% reporting
John McCain (R)37%
Mitt Romney (R)32%
Mike Huckabee (R)11%
96% reporting
My point is that without getting into the technicality that New Hampshire is a primary compared to the Iowa caucuses and the game metaphor that this is like a World Series, not like the NFL championships where they play "loser out"; for a second there I thought I almost lost it in paraphrasing, in that neither of these cases are one on one, (dot, dot, dot... pause) anyway -- the point: I guess I got to the point in my second line, and you can do the math.
And if you can't I will be glad to continue in that, I am presuming that it is not winner take all in New Hampshire and that Obama and Edwards voters add up to 53% of the assigned delegates. If I am wrong, well you know what they say about what happens if you presume. Just like assume, you make a pres out of u and me. OK that goes over better on the screen than it does aloud, but you get the gist. Or Rather, we get to be the butt of the joke.
[Updated References:
a.) the data which I removed from an OpEdNews posting was in the teaser portion of the Seattle Times which I did not grab a hotlink from, because I felt it would continue to be updated.
b.) the following morning I did open the link I provided and found the entire results and followed up on my punditry but doing a Google on [New Hampshire delegates determined] and found
The New York Times Election Guide "Delegates determined after all votes are in."
c.) my intention for those that need hints, was to make a pun on the process not the candidates or the parties, given that it is more of a horse race. *
d.) not that metaphors or data are copyrighted, but I did want a shot at following OpEdNews.com
guidelines, so dropping the actual data and links was convenient. Although the bottom link is now added, but as yet unread.
e.)finally The Stephanie Miller Show played Barack using a basketball metaphor but I do not know if an earlier article had made it to my filter or head space, I do recall using "post-up" in my stand-up work...out. ]
[ * 1-10-08: two changes - - "progressives" to "change" meaning Obama appears to be progressive, but Edwards seems to be the leader in that area and "horse race" to NASCAR "Title Chase Challenge" as it has more contests than the Triple Crown.]
Monday, January 07, 2008
Progressive Caucus Semantics II
UPDATE * : "strategy aside"
Here are some thoughts that I will put down. Both Edwards and Obama are very spirited speakers. While Edwards is not now in the senate, and Obama is, the negative rap that Edwards gets for being a trial lawyer is undeserved and indeed a Republican strategy, to paint lawyers as bad, while forgeting that corporations hire them too. My point is that Edwards has been rewarded for his emotional skills (not to mention handling of evidence)for the sake of his clients, while Obama has not so displayed them in work on the issues.
* NW Progressive Institute: "Some thoughts on the Iowa caucus": is the update (the link) which is also inserted the in previous post under "strategy aside" at the time the above comments were posted.
ALSO: going back to 12-26-07 saved in a file was my quiz results (unweighted)as follows:
Kucinich 11
Dodd 10
In alphabetical order:
Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Gravel, Obama, Richardson 8
Giuliani 6
Ron Paul 5
Romney 2
McCain 1
Note that by this time Dodd and Biden have dropped from the race.
[1-8-08: How Green Is Your Candidate? Grist
Here are some thoughts that I will put down. Both Edwards and Obama are very spirited speakers. While Edwards is not now in the senate, and Obama is, the negative rap that Edwards gets for being a trial lawyer is undeserved and indeed a Republican strategy, to paint lawyers as bad, while forgeting that corporations hire them too. My point is that Edwards has been rewarded for his emotional skills (not to mention handling of evidence)for the sake of his clients, while Obama has not so displayed them in work on the issues.
* NW Progressive Institute: "Some thoughts on the Iowa caucus": is the update (the link) which is also inserted the in previous post under "strategy aside" at the time the above comments were posted.
ALSO: going back to 12-26-07 saved in a file was my quiz results (unweighted)as follows:
Kucinich 11
Dodd 10
In alphabetical order:
Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Gravel, Obama, Richardson 8
Giuliani 6
Ron Paul 5
Romney 2
McCain 1
Note that by this time Dodd and Biden have dropped from the race.
[1-8-08: How Green Is Your Candidate? Grist
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Progressive Caucus Semantics
The political calculus:
Dennis Kucinich or Obama
or
Ralph Nader or Edwards
Nader / Bloomberg?
[Update or more of a sort: see comments in bottom brackets 1-3-07]
I was originally going to spin off on the first three words, but breaking commentary and news tweaked these lines.
More later. Maybe.
But these tangents are not really so wild, they revolve around the council one takes and that [**] one gives. Kucinich "the principled" or "the calculator". Nader "the idealist" or "the realist".
Standing up or compromising.
All are more than semantics.
Thanks to Brie Walker* and Thom Hartmann.
*Sitting in for Stephanie Miller.
[**] or which
[1-3-07: a straw poll was just distributed by the Democratic Party of Washington State so I will now add LOCAL to the LABELS for this post. I was going to make a comment but unfortunately I am making progress and asked a few preemptive questions which fine-tuned my course. They will do that. Questions that is. My original thought had to do with who the poll was distributed to, but it was broadly distributed and the best comment is on that site. "Congratulations to Kucinich supporters on their great organizing efforts." Not to take anything away from this comment, but Kucinich's comments in Iowa were the kernel of my original post and its Ramble and subsequent flip-flop. But strategy aside(or maybe I just can't or will not articulate it) I may stick my neck out for Edwards. I have too many theories but I will refrain from rationalizing this as one. But my alternate perspective given the latest input, is that Senators Dodd and Biden are pretty good guys or as the latter would say, "I really like" them, but the political calculus is not just from the base.
[UPDATE: 1-7-08 "strategy aside" link added ]
Dennis Kucinich or Obama
or
Ralph Nader or Edwards
Nader / Bloomberg?
[Update or more of a sort: see comments in bottom brackets 1-3-07]
I was originally going to spin off on the first three words, but breaking commentary and news tweaked these lines.
More later. Maybe.
But these tangents are not really so wild, they revolve around the council one takes and that [**] one gives. Kucinich "the principled" or "the calculator". Nader "the idealist" or "the realist".
Standing up or compromising.
All are more than semantics.
Thanks to Brie Walker* and Thom Hartmann.
*Sitting in for Stephanie Miller.
[**] or which
[1-3-07: a straw poll was just distributed by the Democratic Party of Washington State so I will now add LOCAL to the LABELS for this post. I was going to make a comment but unfortunately I am making progress and asked a few preemptive questions which fine-tuned my course. They will do that. Questions that is. My original thought had to do with who the poll was distributed to, but it was broadly distributed and the best comment is on that site. "Congratulations to Kucinich supporters on their great organizing efforts." Not to take anything away from this comment, but Kucinich's comments in Iowa were the kernel of my original post and its Ramble and subsequent flip-flop. But strategy aside(or maybe I just can't or will not articulate it) I may stick my neck out for Edwards. I have too many theories but I will refrain from rationalizing this as one. But my alternate perspective given the latest input, is that Senators Dodd and Biden are pretty good guys or as the latter would say, "I really like" them, but the political calculus is not just from the base.
[UPDATE: 1-7-08 "strategy aside" link added ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)