Obama Explains Wright, Will McCain Explain the Far Right?

I have only heard snippets of the speech but I can already hear where others could mishear snippets of it.* I look forward to reading the whole thing, and then wonder, if as much attention will be placed on McCain and his allies. While the connections are not on the same level, neither are the understandings.

So In his own words.

[3-19-08: The above link was distributed by the campaign and includes the written text, the link at bottom has a few more words of introduction and better segue.
For more later: see Pew wars(which lists for now - The Pew Forum; Odd pews?); and earlier Politics of the Past was here --
I think I will reserve my time to review some files and reorg work or 4:
Hillary ? McCain ? Obama! RESORT/CYCLE! ]

* [3-20-08: finally heard ]

- - - - -
[3-22-08 Media Moment: Billed as a "BC Moment", there seems nothing wrong with the quote. The follow-up seems lame, but standing alone it is a plug for his wife as opposed to McCain. "Wouldn't it be nice..." another Beach Boy song comes to mind,(mine not Bill's): "...and people could actually ask themselves who is right on the issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." This seems a swipe at the media and the reaction by McPeak, while harsh, should allow us to be reminded of Joe McCarthy and in further comment from the Clinton Camp: "...the need to keep the race focused on issues, 'rather than falsely questioning any candidate's patriotism'." Remember that the media was in the middle of this; "patriotism" was their word, and in McPeak's defense, if he had not over reacted it may not have brought as much attention to it.]

The GOP and who started it?

Belay me timbers. Oh...
A belated hint for the No ageism intended. of The New Wave. (Old Irony Clad)
And then there was the subtle caution under the Ferraro Flap of the Bottom Line Updated: "But then should we be careful of ageism here?"

Not exactly! The GOP is "The Grand Old Party"! And a bit redux, or is that old school?

Is this not the ultimate innoculation? Could we call him a limey? Now is that a bit off target or a coolname?

[Speaking of old links or loose lips or lime in your coconut: Not to mention Rachel Maddow / DeFazio was the link un-noted: a one: ... and uh two or rather flip-flop that in time.]

[3-18-08: Does it get better with age? "You know it." "Never mind" ]

Evangelical Pap?

The Pap Attack
The Roots of the Sermon

The Daily Left March 13th 2008
TruthOut Olbermann on Ferraro Clinton Flap Right On!

And Rachel Maddow
[ & 3EB I don't know where I am going here. But I will update Olbermann (3-13-08) as he covers a bit of what I delved into here or skipped off the surface.

But for now here: Read and filed/posted 3-13-08 McClatchyStrange Ticket
Nobel Estimates
and Pre-followed up post: Will Durst on McVeepStakes not to mention RalphMcSpoiler ]

Bottom Line Update

[Caution: There are a few tangents here
but the shorter course is in
Rising above the Math below]

On GoLeft.TV the crawler below RFK Jr. on The Morning Joecried for the impeachment of Gov. Spitzer, just after the line that he would resign. [Broken News! S...F]

On Democracy Now the resignation of Admiral Fallon is noted in context. Could it be that distraction is the case for both? * [Ferraro Flap]

The governor resigns so that there hopefully will be less distraction from the job of governing, while the admiral resigns so there will be less distraction from the game of war. Unfortunately investigations are needed into the procedures of both, the selective prosecutions and use of intelligence. Could it be that Fallon wanted to play the hand that is dealt instead of the game of bluff with the wrong cards? My point to the last two posts [Oh what a weave...*** ]are that there be more focus on the differences between Democrats and Republicans in governing and war.

* [Ferraro Flap: in response to question: "why do you think Barack Obama is where he is today" she replied "in large measure because he is black". It could just as well be because there was a large field of too much of the same old politics. But then should we be careful of ageism here?

[Speaking of bottom lines: I don't know why I wanted to embed the link below and say "from here to" infinity,(or "to infinity and beyond") but the cost of war is a big bottom line, and the courage to do something is fraught with calculations. (and fright)** While the administration is light on the math (search fuzzy)and deeply in fear: how much more fear can one have than the fear of nothing. Maybe because reality is somewhere between nothing and the ridiculous.

[ ** The Real Bottom Line? [Source: ThinkProgress Rising above the math:

The White House doesn't care for the estimates by Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank who's now a professor at Columbia University.

"People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can't even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, conceding that the costs of the war on terrorism are high while questioning the premise of Stiglitz's research.

Fratto Fraught with Naught and Fear of Failure. Here's to the sinking of the makers of the boogeyman.
final note: there may be a lot to quibble with in the math but the logic is infallonable. hmmm? and based on the premise of uncertainty, can we fathom the course? aka Going deep but not even scratching the surface. ]

[***] I had to unweave the points, posts or links here.

Ferraro Flap

A ridiculous comment.

Ferraro said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Standing alone * it seems to make sense but it does not stand alone.
And then followed up:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, 'Let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world,' you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," she told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, California. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Her opinion is only her opinion and a very weak one at that; to take any factor out of context and point to it is bad enough but to call it lucky and call the country on it, is a worse concept. Is this another form of vetting or vaccination? It seems to make Hillary the "kinder, gentler" liberal, and that puts "liberal" in the wrong crowd of words here.

[Hearing this topic covered on Randi Rhodes this evening, I am reminded that Obama is where he is and maybe Ferraro is where she is by their choice of words, more than their race or gender. Just because Ferraro acknowledges affirmative action in her case, does not mean she recognizes progress in our case.]

* His background is part of him and he has made much of his circumstances, but Randi points out that if some vote for him for his race, it has not always been the case and they often in the past voted against a candidate for their race.

[Update 3-13-08: Bottom Line more "same old" ? ]

Broken News! Spitzer - Fallon

Determined Resignation. Governor Spitzer resigns over private matters?Admiral Fallon Resigns Pentagon Post over general principles?

Broken Justice! Mukasey refusal to enforce contempt and how "we do law" and "what the Justice Department says it is"

[While I have yet to review all of the above, I have read The Mukasey Ultimatum and ask just: Who is savvy now? ]

[Update: 3-13-08 Fallon - Profile]

Oh what a web...

Thanks to TruthOut and Center for American Progress:

In-Terror-gate Radio
Chats? Hindering the war on terror.
U.S. Attorney-gate?
Hindering the pursuit of justice.
Terrorist Regime Change? Hindering the use of intelligence.
Course Corrections?Hindering the collection of intelligence.

Following the logic or more comments later.

Update

More Vetting and More Investigations? Monster?Gate?
...when first we practice... The Real Scoop?
NOT UPDATED but...
Still needs revisiting.
Flip-Flopping of McCain
Krafting
Hit and Runor the run around?

[Update: 3-11-08 GRAVEL KUCINICH PAUL NADER Is it worse than who thought? + Found Embedded in links somewhere above: CIA & UN Security Council Terrorist Groups? Or Market of Intelligence Forces ]

...when first we practice...

Oh what a web?
...we weave ?
to peeve?
...when first we practice... The Real Scoop?

NAFTAgate

It was with no subliminal intention (that I know of) that I dotted my "i" and did not have a "t" to cross in what could have been called Monstergate with its succeeding chapter. But we can only hope that its forward will be post-haste.
[At this point I have no updates, but the links here only need scrolled over.]

More Vetting or More Investigations?

Comparing the urging by the Obama camp that Clinton release tax returns to Ken Starr? Vetting investigations or begging the question? If only we had a "Ken Starr" to investigate the current administration. But then only a "Ken Starr" that could stay on track. But his name should be mud and guess who just slung it. Hopefully investigations can recoop their name. A "Ken Starr" is one who gets sidetrack, from a criminal investigation, while the request for tax returns is not a crime nor accusations of one. [link found after posting, but possibly filtered to me by The Stephanie Miller Show]

[and breaking news from The Stephanie Miller Show: Obama foreign policy advisor resigns over monster comment . Samantha Power resigns? ]

[ 3-9-08: UPDATE Wolfson: Obama a Starr Monstergate a Flip-Flop.]

The Real Scoop?

The Whichgate?
The Yellow Leaks from Canada?
["NAFTAgate" Began With Remark From Harper's Chief of Staff]

It reminds me of the "yellow cake" from Africa
but they are on the trail,
and ready to send in the Mounties.

It was a very difficult read, [added 3-7-08]

["He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected. But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate - either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama.

CTV News President Robert Hurst said he would not discuss his journalists' sources.

But others said the content of Mr. Brodie's remarks was passed on to CTV's Washington bureau and their White House correspondent set out the next day to pursue the story on Ms. Clinton's apparent hypocrisy on the North American Free Trade Agreement.]

but will it soon drop from the radar?

If this does not shine some light on the candidates,
maybe Canada can shine some light on the journalism. [the story continued]

[Although CTV correspondent Tom Clark mentioned Ms. Clinton in passing, the focus of his story was on assurances from the Obama camp.

He went to air on Feb. 27 with a report that the Democratic front-runner had given advance notice to Canadian diplomats that he was about to engage in some anti-NAFTA rhetoric, but not to take it too seriously.

The report wound up on YouTube and caused an uproar in the U.S. race - influencing the final days of the critical Ohio primary, with every indication it will also play a role in the upcoming Pennsylvania vote.]

Is this part of someones campaign or strategy?
Maybe the best we can hope is that it vets us,
even if they do not get to the bottom of it.
Of course they could sound sincere now,
but still leave someone at the bottom of it.

Canada could be shining a light on our own congress
to have the backbone to investigate our own media
and the madness of our own accountability. [more * YouTube 3-7-08 Barack Obama NAFTA Scandal: A Smear Says Canada PM 3/3]

*[3-7-08] I did not post an original YouTube that depicted CBC in this or others that ran on from it.

[3-6-08: see bottom link and is someone vetting us? and should the FEC or the FCC or both investigate YouTube? For it can spread without linking or correcting, oh what a web they weave and just who do they really peeve?]

[3-8-08 Label: NAFTAgate added]
[3-9-08: UPDATE see bottom link there ]

McCain Offensive!

One must read this
and laugh.
I must reread it
and comment
later...
logically and rhetorically
But I may have hit the nail on the head already.
And I may not need to update.

Update: Math...

and Super Delegates

It is interesting that one of the super delegates for Hillary feels that it should be up to the will of the people. He had endorsed her, because she called her and Barack did not. The point I make, I just made to a friend. (And not that this person is new to the process, but there was that 20 year old super delegate. But the super delegates are a representation of the party as much as the voters that have been newly inspired or cross-over. They are representations of people in general. And if I might add the media and politicians are often misrepresentations of people.) But the point I made is that even those that have been inspired by whatever is driving the large turn out, and many of course possess a feeling of scepticism of the process, often take to the process such as it is "like ducks to water" and others do their best to "work" the rules.

The super delegates were designed to make a "close race a landslide"? That seems as strange as criticizing them for taking a close race and being "the decider". Many fear the decision going to the convention. Hmmm. I would not fear that, for the sake of the process. So it is tough to get along. The Republicans apparently get along and look where it gets us.

BTW: if Bush can endorse McCain, and McCain can accept that, then whatever goes on between Hillary and Barack can be made nice for the fall, of McCain that is.

QCON: TruthOut

Quick Comment On the News or Question Context:

The following pieces deserve a more careful read, but for me, not yet.[*] TruthOut does a filtering of sorts, and I notice rather heavy reliance on the NY Times. Not that that is a bad thing, just not necessarily a liberal thing. The left, right and the middle can characterize a source as from a different perspective, but that should be the mark of good journalism. Again, not that they have hit the right mark, from our own perspectives.

While Super Delegates are an example of a problem that voters wish they could fix without being a part of the process, so are the choices of primary, or caucus, and financing and electoral college procedures. These are all complicated by the nature of our goverment, its three branches, a bi-cameral legislature, and the individual composition of state governments and their rights in relation to the federal government. And have I thrown in partisanship? This is not a civics lesson, but it would be nice if it were in schools.

For me this is the first time in 24 years I have not come out of my precinct caucus a delegate for some candidate. This year it was by design or rather lack of design. I was for Edwards. I ran the caucus as a PCO and was a decimal point or voter or two shy of ending up an uncommitted delegate. This is more than I intended to say today, but I guess it ties in. Because even if civics were in schools, the media and the voters would still have a very big job to understand what mechanisms are operating in each state. Did I mention partisanship? Not to mention the constitution? I won't go there, but too many feel that there is a conspiracy, and there is, only if you are not part of it.

What is represented in the following articles may very well be best efforts to represent reliable pictures, but that is not to say that other perspectives and sources do so well. [*] While some of the tactics candidates use are not appreciated by many, they are apparently working on some. And it must be remembered that we filter as well or poorly as the media or format we use.

I would like to close this comment with the feeling that it is hard to unite when the leader is still unknown, but it is better than being party to having a leader who will unite without knowing who the enemy is. If there is any obtuseness in this, maybe it is a riddle to solve.

In Two Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet
By Patrick Healy
The New York Times

Ballot Shortages Plague Ohio Election Amid Unusually Heavy Primary Turnout By Ian Urbina
The New York Times
A Clean, Fair Fight
The New York Times | Editorial

McCain Clinches GOP Presidential Nomination By Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin
The Washington Post

[Update: Just as I put the finishing links on this post, breaking news on Thom Hartmann Show, about the Texas crossovers that Rush Limbaugh encouraged. (Guest David Sirota) Where in the primary, voters got their ballots, and if they were Republican and wanted to vote for Hillary, found that there were no Rebulicans on their ballot. Hmm. Who needs a civics lesson? Well, of course it seems wrong, but parties should be able to decide their candidate not a talk show host who wants a circus. Republicans were disenfranchised, by trying to vote for Hillary while not intending to support her in the general election. They could not vote for Hillary, and hope to influence their own party on local elections too. This "monkey business" is why the parties and the process is so complicated. It is further complicated by the electoral college process not to mention the winner take all nature of that delivery system. Independents and third parties are so hard to fit into this picture without major changes that themselves are so hard to bring about, but I really don't want to go there.(the link not the idea). Oh and that ploy by Rush Limbaugh may have hurt some local candidates and I won't hurt our heads by figuring that out, but it is a way to sort out some math.]

[*] I have yet to fully digest the four links above, but apparently the press have nibbled on some ribs. (Links, sausage, democracy: get it?) But I did scarf this down and indeed have had my own beach party.

Math and the Super Delegate

Let me preface this first by saying that
Fuzzy Math + Fuzzy English = 1 heckuva Reality (By George)

Second, I won't do any more math here, let others do it. (But Newsweek?)
And Third, Super Delegates are not super mathematicians either, but that does not mean they don't have a job to do, and should have someone else do the math.
And I may be counting, but certainly don't just go by Slate of the Washington Post as a calculator.

BTW: GWB recently noted two uncertainties to fear, higher taxes and higher gas prices and then went on to say we will get through these just like we've made it through other uncertainties. Off course.

BTW Jr. or 2.0: the inverse of the above equation may have been proven. (By Godel.)

"the lesser of two evils" In Perspective.

It is disturbing, the exchange that is going on within the Democratic race. It is good that there is still a choice. And it is good that they are being testy in preparation for the general. But it must be remembered that the choice that is important will be in November. Of course the choice now is still important and it's a shame that there is still not more choice. But no matter the choice now, the November choice is the one that is really "the lesser of two evils".

I say this from an independent perspective in NOT that I call them both evil, but from a Democratic and American perspective, they are less good and more evil.[*] The Democrats get diluted by the independent vote, and the Republicans get deluded by their departure. While the Democrats have lost some of their good by the wayside, and it is now the lesser of two goods, the Republicans have lost the lesser of their evils if it remains McCain.

Now Huckabee may be the compassionate conservative that has no chance, but his rhetoric and revelations may be relevant. Unless a viable alternative is in the race, it is a choice between the major parties. Even an un-viable candidate, Nader, will be a vote that is not against the greater evil and for a lesser good. But a more balanced un-viable ticket, Nader / Paul might be the too good and the least evil, but at least represent the "hard work" of dialogue needed, and if these efforts are not attempts to broker the issues, would still be likely spoilers for the balance of good and evil.

It would be an interesting independent ticket if Bloomberg/Nader or Bloomberg/Paul or even Bloomberg/Huckabee could work on their issues. But that is a dream and what needs to be worked on is preventing the nightmare, and in that case a dangerous Republican ticket might be McCain/Huckabee.

[*] 6-3-08 UPDATE inserted NOT and it must be further clarified I am talking about the November choice.

The Magic of Ground Hog Day?

Put this in your MP3 and play it over and over.
Indexing later.
Sen. Bernie Sanders etc.
Author of answer to above question;
Heck, just remove the mark.
Question that is, & by George too.

Update:Hightower puts it better.

This was quite an embedded ramble which needed the summary and update on the charge to keep for comparison.

Is it just too much?

Maybe it is just me, but sometimes the stridency and wry humor of some are just too much. But it is not just me, it is not just Bush. Or rather unjust Bush
and those who have not stood in his way.

This rhetoric just flashed through my mind, just before and after I watched Mike Papantonio’s GoLeft.Tv titled R.I.P -- G.O.P. Or rather it started before and fell onto my keyboard after having viewed it and finding it not so harsh but true.

An apropos link in this manner is to even wryer and wrier takes:
Headzup: John McCain's Oscar Speech

Diebold Leak

[More subtle approaches: Thomas Friedman was on the Late Show the other night. I have yet to find a link to it, but have yet to read what I did find. But they seem to fit into my world view that everything is round. From Third World Traveler - - Norman Solomon - - Brewer/Lakoff not that they need to be right or come from my perspective. The hinge point is communicating over disciplines, disciplines over just discipline, and maybe WholeEness in conjunction with "the devil in the details".]

[even later with sadness: William F. Buckley - - may he truly R.I.P. I could not concur more with 7 of the first 8 sentences of Rick Perlstein's piece. I did not know him, nor follow him that closely. But the title does not apply, that I know of and I did not see it, until I clicked on the link to read later. So I may comment more later.]

Update and Kudos

To Rachel Maddow, who somewhere between this update (2-18-08 QCON) and this post (after Go Filter!) I filed a mental note or actually ran past my screen what now needs updating. DNC to File Complaint Against McCain Campaign for Ignoring FEC Law / The Complaint

My follow up filtering was forwarded to the DNC but they really deserve the kudos with Rachel's for the filtering.

Hard Work? Sludge this!

Was it Buzzflash?
Was it a Bush speech?
Or this sludge* from The Drudge Report? Of course, it may not link, but it got the ball rolling. And Obama's reaction. Lost or not found yet, in this is where the story came from or rather how it came to the Drudge Report, apparently a Clinton volunteer.
The "volunteer":

"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

The "manager":

Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams responds: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."

All I can say is, "Lame!" to both of them.

AND RESORTING TO THIS:
[moments after the "moments later": Is this better context "Obamba in Muslim Garb" or is this a redress "The Meaning of Obama's Robes.", as in the real addressing of the issue?. And to "the volunteer" from me: Apparently your question is as hard to address as the Health care issue, since it would be in so many places if HRC were to dress as a nomadic man, but not so many apparently as a "Muslim" woman? Again more hard work may be needed to flesh this out, but that is a horrid choice of words, yet not intended to be indelicate on my part. In this case more research as to whether there are apples and oranges being compared and whether reliable sources can tell a Muslim from a nomad.]
[moments later: Not read yet! Is Nader any better at the hard work that should be sorting the issues out? I will tackle Nader after the issues are settle about the Democratic candidate, I have before.]

* It just rhymes, but the muck is in the follow through, which if you look at the images which along with the difficulty in finding the Drudge that started this, were apparently added later, may have put better original context to the irony, and which I did not sort out in an even manner either.

Cherry Picking The Raw Story.

Skip over The Raw Story about the Obama Healthcare Flyer. Obama accused of demagoguing for anti-Clinton mailer

The cherry is Paul Krugman's Obama does Harry and Louise, again which seems sour till you get to the bitter pit which is Ezra Klein's DO INDIVIDUAL MANDATES MATTER?. For the whole tree: OBAMA'S "HARRY AND LOUISE" AD. leaves exposed the roots of the Obama Healthcare plan.

[I am ambarassed to note that the above links are all over 3 weeks old, what's Hillary's excuse? Maybe there is substance to her lack of substance charge, but there seems a lack of substance in her defense. Meaning there are detailed arguments above for her Healthcare over Obama's, it is just difficult to boil down.]

And yet they vote!

Ring of Fire host Mike Papantonio interviews Susan Jacoby on her book "The Age of American Unreason"(excerpt below: I will read later.) It comments on the laziness of many in the area of reading, but then it is video. What I would like to point out is that while many have lowered expectations of others on being informed, they do expect them to know their job. While it would be wonderful if some were smart enough to know that they should not vote, unfortunately it might be the ones that are smart enough that don't. How about it folks?

Convoluting, but Bush

Keith Olbermann has a very convoluted analysis of the Bush argument, which is right on target for fighting terrorism.

It reminds me of a dance.

Swiftboating of McCain?

As I pointed out the term needs adjustment.
And I "really" dislike the headline US News and World Report uses:
New York Times Drops Bomb On McCain and forgotten?
MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY by The Drudge Report.
Not that I have fully read these, but this:
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk is worth the read and fits in with the image management that needs exposure.
Hence the term Swiftboating should not be used as that was a campaign of misinformation, while FlipFlopperKrafting provides double exposure.

[O'Reilly "Lynching Party" is really a Fox Hunt. Media Matters is Hard Work]

[2-22-08 Flip-Flopper-Crafting? I still like the "K". But I will amend the comment to note that often headlines are sensational, yet The New York Times understated the issues "For McCain..."

“Unless he gives you special treatment or takes legislative action against his own views, I don’t think his personal and social relationships matter," said Charles Black, a friend and campaign adviser who has previously lobbied the senator for aviation, broadcasting and tobacco concerns.

and a more direct headline "No Public Funds for McCain" from Politico has an interesting bottom line that is well summarized in the last few paragraphs.

But even if the commission were meeting, one must wonder if the panel -- an organization that decided the cost of field organizers doesn’t need to be added to the overall cost of winning a state primary -- would tell the Republican Party that its nominee can’t slip through a newly carved loophole and arm himself for battle against a significantly better funded and unrestricted Democratic nominee.]

Speaking of tuning...

The Ed Schultz Show and the Rachel Maddow Show seemed to be operating on the same wave length, but with a bit of a backwash on the issue of who the Democratic candidate will be.[*] I will try to bracket the Fine Tuning with the tangents it led to, but here are some other points: The Process? [**] and A Source
And the guest on The Ed Schultz Show: Jonathan Alter
Scoping Out Obama vs. McCain
To be bracketed...
maybe but my point is: Go filter!
Ed and Rachel have valid assessments and processing of information which the campaigns could aspire to and hopefully run with. If only I could pull more from them.

[*] is it over or is there hope?
[**] It is a valid point that primaries reflect more "moderates and independents" than caucuses, but that is by intention that parties should have a right to pick their own candidates, of course with due consideration of other issues, but as for Washington, there is an added question of whether those that showed up for caucuses bothered to also vote in the primary which for Democrats, will not count in the process.

Fine Tuning.

THE GAME (Slightly updated: bold Stay the Course - job->search) The topic is our job which is to help navigate embedded with a link to help you navigate. Not to mention bottom links that brings some news to light if you go there, or sometimes just a previous connection as below.

In this case, The New Wave is a switch in focus from the battle for the Democratic Candidate to the Republican potential candidate and the media who is filtering it all. The issue of negative campaigning and super delegates are an example of what may make for a rocky boat. They are not easy to explain away, but there are so many perspectives that it is not just a matter of declaring what is the will of the people. There is a process that people are a part of and parties are a part of. It is unfortunate there are not alternatives in some cases, but playing like they are part of the process is no better. What I am alluding to is that without something such as Instant Run-off Voting any wish that things should go smoothly is a pipe dream. Not that things won't turn out to be much smoother than anticipated, but each voter must accept that they have a part that is no bigger than the next voter, but that involvement does matter. Finally, (obtuse as I am) 1. charges of lack of substance must have substance themselves 2. charges with substance are not negative campaigning, but the voter is the decider 3. super delegates are not super nor necessarily committed.

President's Day!

What better way to honor the presidents than to go out and do our duty and shop?
I am not being serious, but I am not in the business of honor, unless it is the hard work of people. Past presidents deserve their honors, but here is a way to honor the hard working and take a holiday as well.

Full Disclosure: I have never Ebayed!
But apparently there is a strike against them.

This just seems apropos in this consumer culture, the timing anyway.

I will state the irony that this president wished to fight terrorism by suggesting we go shopping, and to be honest, I did. But it was just the timing thing.

The New Wave

Having survived the tide of the caucuses I turn to the next matters.
For now I simply post two links, only the latter has been fully read.
X*Y ... *
and John McCain's qualifications to be President?
here are some I hope to follow up on:
Let the Swiftboating Begin.
and Deadly Invitation
They look forward to the next opponent
and the magic * of the media.

Meanwhile to keep that top burner: I will note that my precinct with 86 voters elected 6 Obama and 3 Clinton delegates. And I may provide further comment in that regard.

* note: there are two *'s beyond the one in the X*Y context and note the watery links as well. They say "a rising tide lifts all boats" unless there is a hole in it or others trickle down in yours, but "hope floats" someone said I think and the tide still runs from the man with hope and the woman from hope or back again. I just tide that in with what I hope to get back to here. (spelling hopefully intentional, but I'll check later, I ran it by spell check [Y] )

[2-18-08: QCON: The term "Swiftboating" does not do justice to the task, given its history. It would seem to imply a campaign of disinformation, rather than some clarity. Maybe Clearwater would work, in retribution for Whitewater, Blackwater, and Swiftboating. Maybe Ironycladding would work? And one more for me to read. If McCain's a Moderate, I'm the Easter Bunny*. seems that some doth protest too much. Yet he is the best they can come up with. Oh, unless the original was a flip-flop? Meaning I have to reread the earlier to see if a skilled editor is implying that the swiftboating will be coming from the right. Duh! i.e. sacrificial goat. Bingo. No ageism intended. Meaning who better to swiftboat than a veteran of swiftboating. But I think that the editor was not as swift as I imply, and the writer implies what I wish to flip-flop.**
* No holiday connection, but this article (I did read) is a twofer on the McCain and the Media front. ** Howbout: FlipFlopperKrafting.]

[3-24-08: Wave LABEL added ]

Yesterday was a nice round number: 02-04-08

Today is the day for the tide to turn.
For Change!
The day before was a Super Bowl,
today is a Super Tuesday!
The Giants beat the Patriots. Hmmm.
Post Prophetic? Or just luck?
It was "hard work", but they play by rules,
a season ends and another begins.

But today we can take this ground swell for change,
for the underdog, and for hard work
and work the force for change.
Freedom is not a force.
History does not blaze a trail.
People and leaders do,
by passing laws and making sure they are followed.
I knew I was going somewhere, I hope you can see now.

Let impeachment process begin
RICHARD W. BEHAN GUEST COLUMNIST
Seattle PI

The above link supports much of what I have noted in this blog in the last 7 years, and a few I missed. It follows a pattern of preemption that if leaked, actually caused a preemption cycle of its own. An important question is, how long has this been the policy of this ship of state, and how long has it been leaking. These are not mountains out of mole hills, but trickle down by passing the buck. Investigations must begin, while shoring up the process of accountability. It is not too early to begin the work of transition. But never too late to join a tide of change. And if this metophor seems to imply a washing away, or just another cycle... true. Things will wash a away, but people will still be the point, not the boats and the driftwood.

See link below, in particular.

Can we change?

Yes We Can!
Will they? Leaders need followers,
but we all need follow up.

"inevitably" ?

It needs more than just a tune and inspiring words.
[Is this so far afield? Academically?.]

"if I were dictator"

Blair loses job. But as far as President of Europe, Blair
"...is increasingly willing to put himself forward for the job if it comes with real powers to intervene in defence and trade affairs."

As far as U.S. and a third party?
"The lesser of two evils...is still evil."

Yeah but, if the lesser is the loser, the greater evil wins. Therefore does it make sense that with Edwards out, and Nader supported Edwards, and with McCain in(?) and Ron Paul is against the war, that there be a Paul/Nader ticket?

Is there another kind of politics or reality?

I'll have to check and get back to you.

[Let me just say that having read 3 of the links here and part of the fourth, I am back to you. My reliance was mostly on the gist I presumed from a quick glance at the articles and maybe where I already wanted to go. I'm not disappointed in where it took me but the pieces are a bit heavy for my fare. In fact the last is a little bit romantic in a horror sort of way, which draws me back to another intersecting thought. The roots of Romanticism in literature being the French Revolution and its libertarianism and egalitarianism. I must also note the hope for goodness in humanity and the scepticism of rationality. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, comes to mind. A more balanced approach is what I would suggest. Meanwhile I finished another loose end or article not even in this loop. "We are the World" in The Nation takes a look at two books on our place in the world. How ironic that realism was offered as an opposite to the Zeitgist of ideas.]
[2-4-08: undated brackets are same day updates, here I footnote the two books that "We are the World" reviews. A Case for Goliath and A New Deal for the World. What a deal! And harkening back to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. A word comes to mind: academic. Some are less than academic, but all can become academic, if we don't make the connections of the varied fields.]

Edwards Endorsement!

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.]

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 ]

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.]

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.

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

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

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.

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]

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 ]

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.

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"

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 ]

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.

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

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.]

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:

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said he has no reason to believe any e-mails were deliberately destroyed.

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.

(my bold added)
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.]

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)]

"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]

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.

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]

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.]

She's a person!

"much to some people's surprise"

Sawyer behind the scenes with Clinton.
in context? Yahoo News

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

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 ]