More than "Country First".

Hearing from some that the Palin selection was brilliant. I thought it is the difference between a brilliant chess move and one in checkers. Of course I am the one here talking game moves, but here it is the LA times talking "political calculations"... NOT! Or rather that the McCain theme of "Country First" was not about "political calculations." That is the game.

But back to me calling it a game. It is always a case of who starts it, and who counters, but I have already hit on that "of course". Now this is more than just a bit of quipery. Life is really more than just a game and sometimes it is not much less than politics. Obama has made the just calculation, while some have said McCain made the impulsive selection. But there I go again. Who started the use of "some"? Ouch, that was a double entendre that hit on course. Of course it is the political choice. But to some, politics is not much less than war.

Two issues:

Investigations and abuse of power, ring familiar.

Or are they?

Speaking of words or letters of irony or intent: AAA spans the global issues.
A for Alaska governor Palin
A for Alabama governor Siegelmann
A for R we going to find out from Rove.
Not to mention politics* of intent on irony or interests.
But R we back to what tent?

BACK TO R.** "Risk-taker" McCain has turned the page from R we Ready?
We are ready for Obama and we are ready for a women.
The issue is, is she for we.

Speaking of I's: Intelligence and Investigations
The Georgia-Russia Issue. Alaska is no longer Russia, and Palin is no Jimmy Carter. But where in the world will we Rove?

*political calculations are no joke
neither are prayers or the whether.***

** M for Maverick or Malta or Y? Maverick was a series where I won't get into characterizations, but there was more than one and it was not all at the tables.

***[see comment below but I must note "weather" spelling was intended, not necessarily the link to the comment, but it does.]

Voting History!

Change vs. Experience [*]
More than just words,
and more than about history.
And more than just picks or contrarian.[**] (or less)

Talk about inspirational. That was the the early knock on Obama and even Clinton, both of them. The issues matter even more than ever and so will the medium.

Will the issue be about the presidential candidates? Or is this more of the same, hit and run. But it does matter who the VP is. But even more for who.

(?) in my last post I contemplated a question mark I did not use as a hint or asterisk. Here I use it in conclusion. What matters and whose issues. Not to mention change or flip-flop. This is the first test of leadership for the new Democratic ticket.

[Brilliant Timing: It seems the Palin pick is to burst a bubble that is not. It flip-flops or unvets several of McCain's attacks, not to mention highlights a bubble that can blow it for us all.]

[*] - An experience we don't need.
[**] - picks?

Raceless Attack!

A play on words similar to a "fair assumption"?
But I allude to articles of "attack" or "dreams" and an alternative to "collision" that may be baseless.

In one fell swoop I have ruffled a few feathers or reversed the spin. Key words in new context can flip-flop a lot but there is a big difference between a change, of course, and progress. Just look what two words and two commas do. Let alone will. Not to mention the differences between u and I and making it us. The difference really does hinge on "you" and what we read or read into life.

[Oh what a dream we unweave.* Oh what a web we must weave. But not the web the old addage implies, but the web that reality needs. The web that determines what we will be.]

* I was going to use "To parse or not to parse", but technically this is a step below a play on grammar and even beyond a play on words. Fittingly this revolves around what we can b and r and I swear there was no irony intended let alone planned.

Pawlenty? Pawlease.

Listening to Howard Fineman and rumors that the Republicans may need to reschedule their convention it seems that Obama has rained on their parade. "A base irony" as Olbermann put it, "and a hoot", not as I would put it. Apparently Obama has struck the cave that counts. Chris Matthews has been a hoot as well, thanks for the secret weapon or whatever the reference above. His hint that someone may be in hiding or leaking, but what I add is a reference to an adage. The land of Pawlenty? Is it any reference that leads to streets paved in gold, or is it just follow the yellow brick road?

[Rather than be too obtuse, the implication is that the tone of the Republican convention could not match that of the Democrats so their lack of spirit will be in honor of the suffering victims. Either that or their prayers backfired. I won't even joke about what to pray for, but I do hope for a parting of the ways.]

No Resemblance?

The resemblance I saw was to Keith Olbermann, in the fire that Barack Obama had in his speech. Ironically, Olbermann used those words to refer to an AP report on the speech.

In my opinion: The only thing missing was a "Bring him on!" to McCain, but he did challenge McCain to debate who has the temperment to be commander-in-chief.

I could not find the AP source, nor my own reference to temperment; no matter, but I will try to narrow the focus later.

Originally speechless or at least searching for words, "Fantastic speech" is what I should say. No resemblance to McCain, great resemlance to greatness.

[and in searching found Andrew Sullivan on Obama's Acceptance Speech.

Enough?
There is a hint here and something that might not work. But we will see if anyone bites.]

Great Segue!

After Day 3 of the Democratic National Convention,
my first comments are:
So far, so good!
"No way! No how! No McCain!" Now that is a flip-flop.

Seriously...
From "Faint Praise/Criticism" to Progressive Narratives.
Not to mention pragmatism...

but I would like to note belated congratulations
to Rachel Maddow (nfry*) on getting her new show on MSNBC. Rachel refers to herself as a liberal not a partisan. Righteously so.[*] It is really hard to criticize Rachel, but she is the perfect flip-flop of Pat Buchanan. He is sometimes valid in his criticism of Republicans and praise or suggestions for Democrats, only the better to eat you my dear. Said the wolf to Little Red Riding Hood. While Rachel may be the same for Democrats, only the better for the country.** (Embedded in these asterisks are references to their work. Earlier encounters with Howard Kurtz, long time agitation by Pat Buchanan and recent enthusiasm tempered with caution for Rachel. Let me just say that her liberal enthusiasm and hopes may be cast as negative shadows on the pragmatism needed for progress.*** But criticism of Democrats and our process, taken in the right light, can be good for all.)

*The segue is filled with the likes of Howard Kurtz, and Patrick Buchanan.
** not a perfect flip-flop, the Democrats not the country.
*** it might have helped, yet it might not have, to remember the particular comment that I had a problem with, but it was only a comment on the progress of the convention or one of the speakers that caused me to wonder about her perspective as she makes progress. Had it changed or is it what got her where she is?

[A regressive update, meaning only a thought that I had when Biden was announced: That he should well vet humor and plagiarism. Now that is a well contained line. Of attack, for us, and by us, not necessarily of us. And depending upon McCain's VP a wonder of the Republican vetting process.]
[John McCain: An Experience We Don't Need! Thanks to Thom Hartmann.]{Not to mention: Breaking the Yalta Conspiracy}

[* 9-3-08 Update link]

Faint Praise / Criticism

The Liaison Narrative.

Pragmatism?
[Playing with the Old War and Economics. ]
[8-21-08: Meanwhile..."Georgia(not just) on my mind."
And Bumper Stickers.]

Oh! Bomb a Nation?

A sense of humor?
What about the memo?

[8-18-08: No Bully Pulpit nor Teddy Roosevelt.] - [Accountability here and abroad.]

Looking Back

The Liberal Uses of Power
Editorial: The American Prospect

I stumbled across the hard copy of The American Prospect magazine above, and decided to look back at my comments around that time.

Moving Forward ?
From the same issue, to be read or reread:
Theocracy Now Juan Cole
Against the Neocons An interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski.
China No. 1Clyde Prestowitz

[ Meanwhile: further back* or forth? ]

[BTW: I contacted a congressional office today (in reference to these matters) and referred to this blog as the liaison between progressive and realism. It is also the liaison between academic and common sense. There is an interesting play on the word "academic"; quantitatively and in what matters.** A statistical relationship also plays with "common sense" and all this gets played out in the progress or reality we are responsible for. (Or the lack thereof and viscious cycle.)]

*the part that the U.S. played in the invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia must be investigated

** "academic" has an interesting flip-flop depending on its use in any field

Speculations? August Surprise?

Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?
Can we end the speculation?
Our agency?

No Surprise?

The Way of The World ?

Forged Documents?
Forcast Obsolete.
Measures Deleted?

An Economy Runs Through It.

The last thread, that is.
I don't recall seeing the movie about the river,
was it about trickle-down?

This is, though.
Why You Want a Progressive to Be Running the Economy
The trickle-down, not the river.

On the other hand.
This is about the power of planning.
Ten Things You Should Know About China

The former is a good primer on the politics of economics, while the latter may be a more advanced course on freedoms and economic powers, not to mention foreign policy.

[Update- Because I just did not want to start another post- Going after National Security(nfr* - preemptively I will say that the Republican Rove machine seems to attack on the strength of their opponents, National Security and the Economy. But the reality is that they are attacking on their own weaknesses. Remember The Twin Towers? Remember the Deficit? And Foreign Affairs? Remember Saddam Hussein, the Bin Ladens, and other royal families?) From Doom and Gloom to Fear and Smear, is that a world we can believe in? OK, this is not too tightly linked to McCain, but is he really too tightly wrapped as the Maverick? Not to mention is the word "trump" coming up too much? Have we gone from poker to pinochle? ]

PC / Hypocrisy Round Table

My main PC is down, but Politically Correct is the term I mean. Spending the last several days on a trip to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park there is a lot that has piled up or slipped off the table.* Edwards. Greens. Economics. Gregoire. FBI investigation

It is a shame that Edwards has been potentially removed from further service to the country while greater problems hamper so few Republicans. I don't doubt he will continue to work hard. As for the next four links the thread is economics which needs further hard work.

Not to mention Georgia.
e.g.? Hypocrisy runs round it.
Who is Bush to tell Russia what to expect now? I won't touch that for now.

e.g. (note the other link's letters.) Except for F for potential follow up of failures. Don't forget the AAA link above.

Economics seems to trump all sense sometimes.
By George or Georgia, I believe I did it. (see trumps)

But these links do take a careful read to catch the nuance of my thread. And money not being the only factor or party to our equations, I urge participation in the process, and if you can't pick one of the two major parties, make sure that your vote counts, and know that it will, even if you waste it. Of course that is another story and ironically links to how the buck is passed.

* now I have piled on more than enough and hope to follow-up with other matters, speaking of PC; my computer and Politically Correct. The latter always requires context and is not always a con text, let alone a pre-text. And given the runaround that words can provide it may be sensible that there is no use for protext.(without a capital P)

Broken?

Broken Record!

Economics you can believe in?

How much change does Robert Rubin believe in? Weissman Truthout

And a government you need to. Krugman New York Times

And a plan for New Energy for America.

------
Versus Over-the-Top Nuance?

Recent discussions with a Rovian drone centered around who gets the satire and where sarcasm fits and the intellectual aspects of each. He brought the "i" word in. In my view, good satire disguises the sarcasm. In his view,(I guess) missing the sarcasm made it the intellectual type of satire. It actually revolved around another piece of satire and who it was making fun of(The McCain believers, The Media, or The Obama Followers). I guess this is just cutting edge humor or is it more of the Straight Talk Express?

(OK, my tangents got a bit out of hand and loopy or criss-crossed but...)

The New Bottom Line

"comprehensive energy policy"
See the bottom line: "establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact..."

The New Trinity

Contempt of the People, by the people, for the people.

Bottomline?
The Fourth Estate is not a Liberal Media.

The Liberal-Media-Bias is Biased.

Not exactly what trinity means, but then again, it may be why there is such a viscious cycle. There is what it is, there is what you see, and there is what you do. Nothing will change without trust and verifications, at least not for the good.