All of this happened within inches of McCain's right foot. Mind you, Jon Stewart was making the point that, in comparison to Obama's recent press, McCain's has been nothing but boring and under whelming. But, I saw something else. I saw proof of John McCain's compassion for the working people - the proof was in the details.
Did McCain attempt to help the clerk by picking up some of the cans? Hell no! But, what a photo op that would have been! Would Obama have assisted the unlucky clerk? Maybe. As a matter of fact, yes, I believe he would have.
Excuse me? Let me remind them of President George W. Bush.
That guy has made just about every mistake possible, but the media has never given him the kind of scrutiny they are aiming at Obama. And, don't even get me started on McCain's f*ck-ups!
I'm so glad the media has raised the bar for presidential hopefuls. It's too bad they didn't do it 7-8 years ago.
I'm not the kind of supporter who lets my adoration of the man overpower reality, and I'm not going to trust that Obama, with his "divine" wisdom, knows what's best for us normal people. He says the new FISA bill is good because it puts an end to Bush's illegal spying on Americans.
Well, he's right, in a way. The bill puts an end to illegal spying because it will make it legal! I want Obama to explain it to us, in detail, why it's a good idea to give all Presidents the freedom to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant. If we don't have all the facts, he needs to let explain it to us. Why is it a good idea to give what the ACLU says is "an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans." We cannot afford to just take it on his word or anyone else's that this is a good idea. I don't accept the excuse that withholding the facts supporting the need for warrantless surveilllance makes our country more secure. Trust no one. That includes those that want us to trust unconditionally.
If he doesn't share his divine wisdom, I can only come to one conclusion: He and the Democrats in Congress have betrayed us on this matter.
"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay."
If you guessed Bush, you'd be partially wrong. Those particular words were spoken last Friday by Barack Obama. Sounds a lot like George Bush. Don't believe me, read on.
On the same day, Bush said the bill "allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home." It's uncanny.
Obama and the Democratic leadership want us to believe that this bill protects our liberties by providing judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance. In reality, according to the ACLU, the bill "permits only minimal court oversight. The FISA Court only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what, or where will actually be tapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment."
In the incredibly rare instances where the FISA Court denies a warrant to the President, under the new bill, the President can go ahead and do the wiretapping anyway while the appeals process continues. That process can take months. In other words, there will be no effective judicial oversight with this bill.
Russ Feingold calls the idea that this is a good compromise "a farce" and "political cover." In my opinion, it's specifically designed to provide political cover for Obama. Feingold says "Anybody who claims this is an OK bill, I really question if they've even read it."
All Democrats, all Americans should question any politician who claims the latest FISA bill is good for America. Don't let your adoration blind you from the facts. We are being betrayed. Call your Congressional representatives and let them know, in no uncertain terms, you will not be betrayed on this issue.
Last night, I watched Comedy Central's Daily Show. I just love that show. Mr. Stewart pointed out that, three months ago, during one of his rare press conferences, Bush II feigned surprised at a reporter's assertion that $4 a gallon gasoline was on the horizon. Bush II said that he hadn't heard that and even treated the reporter's comments with contempt. Later, in that same press conference, McCain's mentor said that, if Congress would just defeat any attempt to end corporate welfare to oil companies, it would prevent $4 a gallon gasoline.
Fast forward to today. Congress didn't pass any measure to end welfare to big oil, and we have $4 a gallon gasoline! It seems Bush III (aka McCain aka McBush) doesn't have to try very hard to look exactly like Bush II. They share fundamental ideas and beliefs, especially when it comes to doling out welfare to big oil. I wonder if McBush knows about $4 a gallon gasoline? As I'm sure it's occurred to everyone else, unless McCain denounces everything about Bush, I mean every single thing, there's no way in hell he can get elected President! The beauty of it is, if he does denounce Bush, he still doesn't have a chance!
How is this democratic? How is this even legal?
Of course this made a lot of people angry. It's the sort of thing that goes on in corrupt governments and dictatorships. It should never happen in the United States... but it has.
Washington, DC - U.S. Representative Alcee L. Hastings (D-Miramar) issued the following statement today in response to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Rules and Bylaws Committee's ruling to seat Florida's delegates to the Democratic National Convention with only 1/2 of a vote per person."It is with reluctance and disappointment that I accept the DNC's decision today. I do so not because I agree with the decision but because it is time for us to move on and focus on winning in November.
"I applaud Karen Thurman and the Florida Democratic Party, Robert Wexler, Bill Nelson and others who represented our state and the candidates for doing the best they could with a bad situation.
"Florida Democrats have been serially abused and the DNC is the latest of offenders. How the DNC has the authority to ignore the votes of `Jack and Jane Lunch Bucket' is beyond my understanding. The insiders who actively sought to disillusion and disenfranchise the more than 1.75 million Florida Democrats who voted on January 29 give new meaning to collective arrogance.
"The DNC's decision today ignores the core principle of our great democracy: the right to vote. I know that the 1.75 million Democrats who voted on January 29 count and don't give a damn what the DNC rules pronounce.
"Going to a party's convention is a privilege. Courts have said that political parties have a right to make their rules. In this case, the DNC has chosen to take away that privilege from people who I believe have earned the right to participate in the National Convention in Denver with a full vote. As Americans, we should never insinuate or give vent to taking away the constitutional, time honored, died for, and cherished rights of voters from any state. Yet that is what today's decision has done to the people of Florida and Michigan.
"I suppose the DNC has the right to block Democrats in Florida from attending the National Convention. They also have the right to be stupid, and stupid they are.
"At the beginning of our great country's history my ancestors were counted as only 2/3 of a person. Until passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870, they weren't allowed to vote. During that same time and until 1920, women could not vote. White men who did not own property could not vote at one point in our history as well.
"Now, on May 31, 2008, a group of elitist insiders of the DNC have effectively said that some of my ancestors' progeny equal only 1/2 and that men and women in Florida who voted on January 29th are 1/2 also. For a Party which will crown its historic nominee on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's `I Have a Dream' speech, the DNC's decision today is tragically ironic.
"As a matter of protest, I do not intend to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
"Despite all of this, too much is at stake this November. I refuse to allow those who have done me and my constituents wrong to stop us from taking back our country. Together, we will do whatever it takes to increase our majority in the House and Senate and win the Presidency.
"While I cannot speak for others, I do not intend to take any further legal action against the DNC. If I believed that we could win, believe me, I would act and so would others. But based on case history, it is an uphill battle screaming for a change in federal law.
"I will, however, spend enormous energy on convincing my colleagues in Congress that we must create a rotating regional Presidential primary system. 30 political insiders - nearly all of whom ain't ever been elected to a damn thing in their lives- must never again have the ability to reject the will of and unilaterally disenfranchise 1.75 million voters.
"This election is bigger than Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is certainly bigger than the DNC. There are over 46 million Americans who are uninsured, gas and energy costs are spiraling out of control, America's economy is faltering, and U.S. troops are dying nearly every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will take the energy and resources of all of us to fix these problems and the others facing our nation.
"As Florida voters have demonstrated time and time again, we will rise above those who have sought to silence our voices and vote big and win in November."
Representative Hastings joined Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Representative Corrine Brown (D-Jacksonville) in suing the DNC in December 2007 on the grounds that the DNC's decision to strip Florida Democrats of their votes at the DNC National Convention in Denver is a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For the last six months, Representative Hastings has led efforts calling on the DNC to reinstate Florida's 211 delegates to the National Convention. A leader in Congressional election reform efforts, Representative Hastings was the former Vice Chair of the Democratic Special Committee on Election Reform following the 2000 election debacle and recently authored bi-partisan, bi-cameral legislation establishing a rotating regional Presidential primary system.
The problems with the Florida primary were entirely caused by Republicans. Everything else about their primary was legitimate. The only fair thing to do was to have re-instated Florida's delegates fully as if the primary had happened in March. The Democratic Party did not do this.
The problems with Michigan were caused by the Democrats themselves. They should not have given Iowa and New Hampshire any more preference over any other states in scheduling their primaries. Additionally, all of the candidates besides Clinton chose to have their names removed from the ballots, and they paid for lawyers to have this done. The only fair thing to do is to give Clinton all the delegates she earned, and allow the remaining delegates to go to the convention as "uncommitted", exactly as the ballot showed. This was, after all, the intent of the remaining candidates. The Democratic Party did not do this.
When the Constitution was adopted, it treated black people as 3/5 of a person--not a whole person--just 60 of a person. This, of course, was wrong and took nearly 100 years, a Constitutional Amendment, and the costliest war in American history to remedy. What kind of message does it say to voters when the Democratic Party says "Your vote is worth only half on account of where you live, but everyone else gets a full vote"? How is this different than saying "You're only counted as 3/5 of a person due to your skin color, but everyone else gets counted as a whole person"? What part of fair and democratic voting does the party not understand?
One of the things they did was take four delegates away from Clinton (that she earned) and awarded them to Obama (he did not earn them). This had the effect of changing the votes of 600,000 people in Michigan. How is this democratic? How is this even legal? Of course this made a lot of people angry. It's the sort of thing that goes on in corrupt governments and dictatorships. It should never happen in the United States... but it has.
I can tell you now that there will be TV and radio advertisements in both states that say "The Democratic Party took your vote away. They don't want you to vote, and they don't care about you. Vote for McCain, instead. We care about you! We counted all of our votes. Paid for by the Republican Party." How is that going to help defeat the Republicans in November? It won't.
Here are some things that people at the meeting yesterday had to say about it:
"I am astonished that we have the gall and the chutzpah to substitute our judgment for 600,000 voters. Hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path of party unity. Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her right to take this to the credentials committee." -- Harold Ickes, committee member
"Denver! Denver! Denver!" --Hecklers, booing the committee and the Obama supporters, suggesting the fight be taken to the National Convention
"The Democrats are throwing the election away. For what? An inadequate black male." -- Harriet Christian (New York)
(True, it had never occurred to me that he was "inadequate", but that is the best adjective to describe his experience and credentials.)
"This is outrageous to have four delegates just taken away. I don't feel like we have any voice in this party." -- Joan Lipkin (Missouri)
"The committee sold out to Obama. Obama gamed the system. That's the Obama game. He talks about new politics, but he plays dishonest politics." -- Lyn Forester de Rothschild (New York)
Yep. I've always been saying "Change? What change? Obama has never said what he plans to change to. He's doing the same thing as everyone else, but alienating those who would play the game on his side." People believe he's playing a new type of political game (and therefore a clean game), but it's just a different kind of dirty. At least with Clinton we know exactly what kind of mud there is and that we can fling it and win.
I believe that the Democratic Party chose (long ago) to have Obama as the candidate. Unfortunately, his chances of winning against McCain were slim before the RBC decision, and now they're slimmer. That McCain is the next president means that there will be no restoration of civil rights, no restoration of environmental policies, no attempt at universal health care. Rather, the opposite: health care will get more expensive, the government will break more laws, the environment will continue to be raped for a profit until it dies (taking us with it), and a nuclear war with Iran is statistical likelihood.
I've seen these kinds of political fraud happening on the news in communist countries, dictatorships, third-world countries where democracy is a joke and everyone knows that they don't have any real power there, but I never thought I would see these kinds of things in the United States. Then it happened in 2000 with the Republican Party... now it's happening in 2008 with the Democratic Party. Haven't we been habitually chastising those countries for the undemocratic elections? Nevertheless, we've turned into them. You know, for the first time ever, I truly feel doomed."
A funny thing happened on the way to the Democratic presidential nomination: I developed a bit of a crush on Hillary Clinton. Not a full-on, lovey-dovey crush, but an admiration for Clinton that I never thought was possible.My conservative friends will want to wash my mouth out with whatever swill Hillary was tossing back at that working-class Pennsylvania bar a few weeks ago, but it's true. She's really grown on me. It's not the pantsuits. It certainly not her monotone speech pattern or her long, wonkish policy talks.
It's the spunk. It's the fact she actually campaigned, hard, in Puerto Rico of all places. It's the never- say-die attitude. I like that no one questions her toughness, the perennial knock on female candidates. And just when you think she's John Wayne incarnate, ready to take a poke at someone, she gets all emotional and sob-sister on us.
Maybe she planned it as strategy, or maybe it just emanated from the strain of a long campaign, but she finally let us see her softer, more human side. Heck, I even like the fact that I can't figure out why she's still running. Is it to weaken Barack Obama to the point he loses to John McCain and she can run in four years as the "I-told-you-so" candidate? Does she really think she has a chance? Or does she just have too much pride to pull out now after being dismissed by the punditry, her opponent and half of her party?
With all of this intrigue, the woman we thought we knew all too well is suddenly mysterious. Be still my heart. Of course, she frequently gives me reasons to end my silly crush, such as the Clintonesque way she counts votes, saying she's ahead in the popular vote. I suppose it depends on what your definition of "popular vote" is, eh, Hillary?
And then there's the whole Bobby Kennedy didn't get assassinated until June theory and the obligatory, almost forced looks of adoration she shoots at her husband on the stump. Ugh. Any reminder of the Clinton family megalomania of the 1990s is a real turn-off.
Yet, as the campaign wore on, I found myself drawn to Hillary if for no other reason than the fact she can't see anyone besides herself being president. There's a certain amount of comfort in that confidence, after nearly eight years of an administration seemingly adrift.
The duties of the Oval Office won't chew her up and spit her out like some Jimmy Carter retread.
Truth be told, I also think part of my newfound affection stems from the estrogen level in my household. I'm outnumbered by females, three to one. I often tell my 6-year-old how blessed she is to live in a country where she can be anything she wants to be. I truly want her to believe it, because most days I believe it, too. Not too long ago, she was singing along to a "Hannah Montana" song in the car: "Who says? Who says I can't be president?" I turned to my wife and, only half-jokingly, said, "Well, she can run for president anyway . . . ."
Assuming Hillary's campaign will come to an end soon -- and yes, I realize that's quite an assumption -- I hope history remembers it for how she obliterated the traditional barriers that have stood in the way of other women becoming president. No one should question whether a woman is tough enough or competent enough to be president.
Hillary weathered enough sexism on the campaign trail that it should empower an entire generation of young women to someday sing with some certainty, "Who says I can't be president?" Even if Hillary Clinton never makes it to the White House, I'll tell my daughters about how she blazed the trail.
· MO-09: Democrat Baker Leads in New Poll (HellofaSandwich)
· MN-03: First debate today (MN Campaign Report)
· NV-2: Exclusive Q&A with Jill Derby on Iraq, FISA, Net Neutrality and more (Sven at My Silver State)
· NC-Sen: Hagan and Dole Tied in New Poll (HellofaSandwich)
· MN-03: Blog Day for Ashwin Madia (MN Campaign Report)
· Blogger Running for CA Dem Party Vice-Chair (Bob Brigham)
· Does McCain Want to Reenact the Draft? (fbihop)
· SD: New Poll Shows Tim Johnson Romping (lowkell)
· Iowa commission takes one small step against CAFOs (desmoinesdem)
· LA-06: Cazayoux's Gittin' It Done! (DailyKingFish)
· Secrets of the American Future Fund (chase martyn)
· Happy Birthday Jerome! (Jonathan Singer)
