About last nite...

I made a simple (and admittedly easy) prediction last nite: cranky Obama supporters will continue to be cranky Obama supporters when he wins the nomination. And I was right, of course.

Anyone who's followed blogs like Daily Kos Obama the past few months has seen a level of ugly vitriol and kool-aid drunkenness that they ironically used to blast in neocons, their supporters, freepers, and wingnuts. Mass hysteria is not party-specific.

And then there are the cable news show talking heads egos who have been whining for Hillary to shut up and get out, as if they're covering their ears so they don't have to put up with the stereotypical nagging wife while they and the mainstream, so-called progressive bloggers have been screaming "Sexism?? What sexism??" And some people wonder why Hillary supporters are angry.

When I watched MSNBC's Tuesday nite coverage of the candidates' speeches, I couldn't help but notice the absolutely ridiculous "Waah! Hillary's making us talk about her again!! Tell her to STOP it!" whining. And then, right on cue, they'd go on talking about her anyway as if they had no control whatsoever. And the same thing is going on throughout the blogosphere today. It all reminds me of a teevee commercial I saw during the 60s. A guy walks into his workplace and complains about his lunch, "Chicken sandwiches, chicken sandwiches. Every day it's chicken sandwiches." Then one of his co-workers says, "Why don't you ask your wife to make something else?" to which the guy responds, "I'm not married."

[insert "d'oh" here]

You would think last nite and today would have been a cause for major celebrations among Obama supporters (and let's not pretend that the MSNBC crew hasn't been in the tank for months on end so that they would have to pretend to be unbiased at this point). But, no. That bad Hillary woman is still making them talk about her and they just can't seen to make her automagically disappear.

Call the wahmbulance.

Sore winners. That's what they are. And it's quite the pathetic display. It's as if they have no idea how to be happy - if even for a moment. (I'll give Chris Matthews props for admitting last night that he had "the giggles" and that, for him, it felt like New Year's Eve. At least he didn't admit to his leg "tingling" again, which was just creepy.)

As for me, I don't support the status quo Democratic party anyway so it really didn't matter to me who won and it won't make much difference whether a Democrat or Republican wins the WH in November. Surely I jest, you insist. Well, no. Especially after knowing full well that Obama's foreign policy is just a stone's throw away from McSurge's. Just read the transcript of Obama's speech to AIPAC on Wednesday. If you still think I'm wrong, go ahead and point out where the differences lie. I'll wait.

Imperialist America. Rah rah rah.

Let's not forget that Obama's all for "remaking the world" in America's image. Save the rest of us from that, please.

Clinton wanted to "obliterate" Iran. Obama wants to "eliminate" the "grave" threat. Does that sound familiar?

Maybe that's why some Obama supporters aren't celebrating today. Even antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo, who admitted earlier this year that he had a crush on Obama, has suddenly changed his tune. But why now? Surely he read last year's speech that Obama gave to AIPAC? Or the recent yay, Zionism! speech he gave in a Jewish synagogue in Florida? And he must know that Obama is only opposed to "dumb" wars - not all wars. If someone like Raimondo, who has been writing about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the military-industrial complex for years was fooled, is there hope for other Obama supporters? Or more, importantly, do they even care?

I don't think so. So, where are the party hats and noisemakers, you cranky Obama supporters?

As for all of the speculation about whether she'll be chosen as his VP
(which mean Hillary forced everybody to talk about by apparently casting some sort of witch's spell on all of you poor, helpless people) - get real. It's not going to happen. So quit the bedwetting and get on with the general election race - which promises to be about as exciting as watching paint dry.

Is November here yet? Let's get on with it already. The American Empire awaits.

(h/t about Raimondo's buyer's remorse to marisacat)

Related:

If Obama thought he was having problems wooing pro-Zionist Jewish voters before, surely Jimmy Carter's endorsement of him on Tuesday won't help matters. And Carter was quite blunt on Wednesday about what bad news it would be if Obama chose Hillary as his VP, stating that it would bring out the negative vulnerabilities in both of them. I've thought all along that if Obama won, he would choose a VP running mate who would basically be invisibly compliant - someone who won't make waves or steal the spotlight. Milquetoast, here we come. Sebelius fits that bill. She's like the anti-Hillary in many respects - although some female Hillary supporters have already said that she'd just be a female-faced spokesmodel for the ticket, so they'd cry foul.

I should add that I congratulate the Democratic party on its first African-American nominee but, on the other hand, what took you so bloody long?

Oh - that reminds me of something Tweety has been saying the past couple of days - that you wouldn't see an African-American being nominated in Europe or some South American countries. Gee, Matthews - do you think maybe the "American" part of that is a clue??
 

A Special Comment of My Own to Keith Olbermann

No doubt, following his Friday Special Comment Completely Unhinged Pundit for Obama performance of the year, (transcript), Keith Olbermann spent the entire long weekend sprawled out on his fainting couch while minions dabbed his forehead with a cold cloth and fed him seedless grapes while fanning the man down from the hysterical fever he wound himself into in reaction to Hillary Clinton's mention of the timing of RFK's assassination last week.

Keith Olbermann, the man who signs off his shows with Edward R Murrow's signature line, "goodnight and good luck", is no Edward R Murrow.

I can't ever imagine that Murrow, who used his journalistic power to rail against Joe McCarthy's communist witch hunt, would ever have said to Hillary Clinton at the mere mention of the word "assassination", "You cannot say this!" as you chose to, Mr Olbermann. Murrow did not stand for censorship. He stood for truth. What an insult that the Obamakin Bloviator-in-chief, Keith Olbermann, would pretend to be the reincarnation of a journalist like Murrow who fought for freedom of speech and thought.

And it's quite obvious that though Olbermann yelled his way through his laundry list of things that Clinton has supposedly been "forgiven" for, he has not forgiven her for any of them. Not with that tone. Not with that rage. Not with that ego. And not with that continual level of vitriol towards her as he twists her words to make her even more of an enemy to the people than George W Bush - as if that's even possible.

While he tried to couch his bombastic outrage against the mention of the dreaded "a" word by saying that it might invoke who knows what against all of the presidential candidates, we all know better. This was not about concern for the safety of McCain or Clinton, this was solely about Obama - the man to whom the Kennedys "passed the torch" and who has repeatedly been compared to the Kennedy brothers - cast as the new Democratic saviour who can do no wrong.

Your entire viewing public is not that naive, Mr Olbermann.

You saw an opportunity for a self-gratifying ego and ratings boost. Why else would you publish a preview of your comment on Daily Kos Obama before you went on the air? You know who's paying your bills now - all of the hyperbolic Obama supporters who are willing to drool over the mention of your name since you've become their MSM pied piper. All of those hysterical Obama supporters who went on throughout the weekend about how "Hillary wants Obama dead" and/or that her reference to the Kennedy assassination was a coded "dog whistle" with the hopes that "someone" would kill him so she could win the nomination.

Those are the sentiments you're helping to fuel.

It's insanity and you know it. And, if you don't, Obama certainly does:

"I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. Clinton and I have been campaigning," he told the Puerto Rico radio station Isla, "sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make. And I think that is what happened here.

"Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it," he added, "and I would take her at her word on that."

You see, Mr Olbermann, that's the difference between the type of mass delusions you choose to peddle and reality. Then again, General Electric doesn't collect the massive ad money from Senator Obama that your wild rantings need to bring in to sustain your show, does it? Obama can afford to tell the truth. It seems you can't afford to actually be rational when it comes to Clinton anymore since it's so fashionable and profitable to grossly exaggerate practically anything she says for your benefit and for the benefit of your corporate overlords.

You see, Mr Olbermann, that's yet another reason why your bloviations so insult the memory of Murrow. While he implored the corporate television owners to do what he felt was their duty to inform instead of focusing on the almighty advertizing dollar as their main motivator, you continually brag about your ratings and too often, during this Democratic race, have only offered half-truths that favour your chosen candidate, Barack Obama, because you know that preaching to the angry anti-Clinton mob is what keeps many of your viewers tuned in.

Murrow must be rolling over in his grave.

You're effective when you rant against the war crimes of the Bush administration; when you expose their crimes and endless human and civil rights violations; when you actually stand on rational principles of justice and fairness that they have so abused. But to use the same amount of outrage you employ about those human tragedies and the death of democracy - assassinated bit by bit by the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney - against a candidate you simply don't like and do not support is the worst kind of political theatre and sensationalism.

I certainly won't tell you what you cannot say, Mr Olbermann. I feel no need to censor you. But it seems that you would do yourself, your viewers, and your corporation a favour if you took a deep breath once in a while to actually process those feelings of outrage that you have before you turn them into yet another Special Comment that embarrasses all involved - including the memory of your idol, Mr Edward R Murrow.

Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.

- Edward R. Murrow

Obama, Wright & Racism

I've taken my time since last Tuesday's Obama press conference in which he disowned his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to stand back and gather my thoughts about the entire episode because the issues involved are more complex than they've been presented in the media (and because I've had a tough week health-wise - which makes it that much harder to think).

The conclusion I've reached is that no one is blameless in this affair: not Obama, not Wright, and not the media. Further, none of those involved has completely accepted responsibility for their part in what happened. And that guarantees that the situation is not over.

Let me start off by saying that I agree with much of what Glen Ford wrote at Black Agenda Report and some of what Bill Moyers had to say after Obama's latest proclamation.

Here are my thoughts on the situation:

Barack Obama knew some of Wright's rhetoric would be a problem if presented to the greater public back when he did not invite Wright to appear at his campaign kick-off. He then apparently thought that out of sight meant out of mind, even though he appointed Wright to his African American Religious Leadership Committee. Obama cut his teeth in the Chicago political scene but, perhaps since he didn't have to fight his way up the ladder, he naively thought he could get away with stuffing Wright into a position that he thought nobody would pay attention to. Wrong. Obviously. Anyone running for president ought to know that absolutely everything about their life is on the table the minute they announce their intentions.

Where the media failed (or perhaps succeeded, depending on which political faction of the media you refer to) was in playing the endless loops of the most damning Wright soundbites but you'll note that when that same media endlessly looped Wright's damning statements about Obama last week after his press club appearance, you didn't hear one peep from Obama about the fact that they had just done exactly the same thing to Wright. Of course not. Because, this time, Obama was "the victim".

The victim of what, though? What most "outraged" Obama was that Wright had said he was merely acting like a politician - saying things politicians need to say to get elected. Now, unless you are one of the many Obama kool-aid drinkers who inhabit the media and the so-called progressive blogs, how can Wright's opinion be denied? Obama is a politician. Of course he'll say what he needs to to get elected.

Obama claimed that perhaps didn't know him as well as he thought. I wonder aloud if perhaps Wright knows Obama better than he knows himself because what those of us without blinders on know is that although Obama's Philadelphia speech was all about supposedly beginning a dialogue on race in America, he did absolutely nothing after that to actually facilitate one. No town halls. No media appearances about race or racism. No mailings. No promise to focus on issues of importance to the African-American community. No. And the AA community can't count on that kind of leadership coming from Obama since he's neutralized their issues (see Glen Ford's piece linked above).

Obama is what Shelby Steele calls a "bargainer". Wright, on the other hand, is a "challenger". He's the kind of black person who is not afraid to place AA issues on the table - right in your face - in the style of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. And that makes people feel uncomfortable. Dog forbid that anyone be made to feel uncomfortable about the continued oppression of blacks and other minorities in the Good Ole US of A. That's why, after Obama's Philly speech, I knew that this 'dialogue on race' wouldn't be happening - and it isn't.

Instead, what's been going on is the misuse of the racism issue by so-called progressives to attack Hillary Clinton and anyone who dares to support her (or McCain, for that matter). As I was telling a friend today, when I wrote about the Israel/Lebanon war daily on my blog, I knew that telling the truth about the IDF's actions would see me tarred as being "anti-semitic" - a ridiculous charge - and what some of Obama's most radical supporters have now managed to achieve is to propagate the same kind of extreme reaction ie. "you're a racist" if you write or say anything critical of him or his campaign. Keep in mind, these are the very same people who've decried the right-wing kool-aid drinkers - those Bush 28 percenters - as being out of touch with reality. They've now become what they loathed the most. Neitzche was right: "If you stare into the Abyss long enough the Abyss stares back at you." And for some, it consumes them. Here's yet another example of what happens when you cross Obama supporters. Is that the "new" politics of changeyhopeiness that he speaks of? No. But some of his supporters are so afraid that he'll be "denied" the nomination that they're willing to stoop to what are commonly Rove-approved political tactics.

There's no doubt that there are radical Hillary supporters as well but what's different is this need some people have to protect Obama at all costs. That weakens him. They just don't see it. And they obviously don't have enough faith to believe that his message is what the voters will buy. Instead they seem to think they have to force feed it by stuffing it down peoples' throats. It's a very strange dichotomy - the antithesis of his rhetoric.

Now, getting back to Jeremiah Wright. I really don't have a problem with much of what he's preached, although his stance on the US gov't planting the AIDS virus is not something I agree with. I have to say though that Wright was wrong when he proclaimed that an attack on him was an attack on "the black church". There's no such entity as "the black church" just as there's no such thing as the "white" or "Asian" or "Latino" church. Has there been an attack on Black Liberation Theology as it's been presented in the media? Yes. Have Wright's preaching style and mannerisms been attacked? Absolutely. Is he getting more attention just because, as Moyers said, he's a black preacher? I'd say not necessarily.

The public is quite familiar with the extremist evangelical white male preachers and while they make outrageous, jaw-dropping, hateful statements, that fact just isn't "news". We're used to it. But Wright, in his black evangelical style which many find just as extremist, became a novelty to many who had never witnessed that type of preaching before. It didn't shock me, however, as someone who worked in the past for a Jamaican reggae magazine in Jamaica and who had studied Rastafarianism (beyond just smoking the ganja) - a faith that is all about black repatriation to African roots. Anyone familiar with the roots reggae scene has had a glimpse into those beliefs. So, "black liberation" beliefs ought not be news either. But, because, there still is so much racism and intolerance in America, ideas like those expressed by Wright were seen as threatening and unpatriotic. Why? Because America still won't have that "dialogue on race".

Around and around it goes.

Anyone clinging to the idea that Obama is the new mix of MLK and Malcolm X is just fooling themselves and the fact that Obama has been quite comfortable to be that "blank screen" on which everybody can project whatever they want him to be on his vague persona (while at the same time complaining that people don't really know him) while he talks about coalition building with anybody who's willing to join up (Republicans included) shows that his idea of getting rid of "divisiveness" is just to congeal everybody's needs into one big unity ball. Life doesn't work that way. Neither does politics. It's messy and trying to be all things to all people ensures one thing: failure.

I've wondered what bloggers and the media would say if Hillary Clinton consistently received 80-90% of the female vote. I have no doubt that women would be painted as unthinking automatons if that was the case. Yet, the fact that Obama receives such massive support from the African-American community is justified as just being expected. After all, blacks have waited centuries to have one of their own as president. I don't doubt that's true for many but I would hope that that's not the only explanation. I haven't seen anyone in the media attempt to address that reality but there have certainly been strong opinions expressed along the lines of Hillary not being able to win over that voting bloc. That's just one of the many reasons America needs that "dialogue on race". And maybe while they're at it (tilting at windmills here, I know), they could actually talk about the rampant sexism that's been directed towards Clinton. It's been absolutely vicious online but apparently that's okay because Hillary deserves it - or some such nonsense.

I'll tell you one thing: this race has brought to light the ugliest side of so-called Democrats and progressives online and off. Some Obama supporters now want to talk about "healing" the party. There's been a plethora of those diaries over at Daily Kos since they crowned Obama king after Tuesday's results. The response? Overwhelmingly negative and juvenile. There will be no "healing" until Hillary disappears, as far as they're concerned. But don't let that fool you either. There are still numerous people over there still obsessed with the Lewinsky scandal. These are people (Democrats, supposedly) who will hold grudges for decades. Healing? Not bloody likely. Meanwhile, McCain maintains decent poll numbers and could actually win in November. What's wrong with that picture?

I don't know if the party is hopelessly divided, as some seem to think. What I do know, however, is that Democrats have a helluva lot of growing up to do. That is glaringly obvious. And those who call themselves "progressives" (a term which no one has ever been able to define for me as it relates to the Democratic party - that mainly centrist entity that panders to the military-industrial complex, big corporations, big money, and lobbyists) ought to be thinking damn hard about their behaviour if they want to win this election in November. As it stands right now, I sure don't think they deserve to. And, when the only other viable alternative is yet another Republican, I can't even begin to conceive of what America will look like the next 4 years. It will be only slightly different, I'm convinced, but how that manifests itself is an open question.
 

Worst.Dem.Debate.Ever.

While there's no doubt that ABC's Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos seemed to be auditioning for jobs as TMZ-like Spanish inquisitors, spending almost the entire first hour of the Dem debate tag-teaming questions about almost all of the scandals du jour (Wright, Ayers, Bosnia, Bittergate, the flag pin flap etc.) instead of focusing on policy issues, there's no denying that Barack Obama lost tonite.

His "hope" and "change" message seemed to have been left in his wallet in another pair of pants. Under fire from all three fronts, he struggled to fight back and did so at times using the same kind of "old politics" that he so decries ie. attack with nasty talking points when you're attacked. That style of campaigning has increased during this Pennsylvania stint of his run as he tries to look like the counter to Clinton's Rocky.

During the debate, he simply look befuddled, washed out, defeated, frustrated, and flustered while Clinton's message was that she was the one capable of standing up to the viciousness coming down the pike from the Republicans. And, like her or not, (and I don't like either of them), she does have a point.

I suspect Obama will get some sympathy votes from people who thought the moderators gave him too hard a time. On the other hand, to voters who've only heard his "hope" blurbs and haven't really taken the time to follow the campaign yet (yes, those people do exist), I can imagine some confusion after tonite's performance because he came across as an almost entirely different person.

Although Obama has become a Teflon™-Man of sorts and has been the media's darling, when huge fans of his like Andrew Sullivan write that "He failed tonight in a big way", you know this was a really bad showing.

I'll have more on the actual substance, such as it was, tomorrow...
 

Bittergate

Friday nite's cocky Obama has morphed into today's semi-apologetic Obama:

"I didn't say it as well as I should have," he said.

That's an interesting comment coming from a man who, as everyone knows by now, has a penchant for writing and delivering well-crafted speeches. And that's where his comments originated: from a speech he delivered last week to the upper-classes on San Francisco's 'billionaire's row'.

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
(Full context in the "speech" link above - catnip)

Obama defends his remarks by stating that they're true (as do his supporters). But, what I found interesting, was was his reference to those people being "anti-trade". I thought he was anti-trade - at least as far as NAFTA goes, which is generally what trade grievances have been aimed at since its impact has washed destructively through small town America. So, beyond today's revised explanation, I think that's a point Obama will have to address more fully.

It's too early to know what the fallout will be for Obama but I think this political mistake will come back to haunt him. The right-wing has already pounced on it, as have Hillary and McCain. You don't go after the G*d, guns, and gays beliefs (and he did add gays into the mix on Friday nite) without offending some fence-sitting independents and possible "Obamacans" (Obama Republicans). Beyond that, to say that rural people only 'cling' to guns and religion because they are economically depressed flies in the face of reality.

Obama, who has refused to call himself a "liberal" because he claims that labels don't serve anybody (hiding from his own voting record in order to take away a right-wing talking point), has now been pegged as an "elitist" - the next worst word to "liberal", as far as conservatives are concerned. That attack stuck against John Kerry in 2004 and it will similarly stick to Obama, who has already had a hard time appealing to "working class" (blue collar) voters. Whether Hillary gains ground as a result has yet to be seen. One thing's certain though - Obama isn't done explaining his remarks. His damage control machine is in overdrive.

In the meantime, this latest gaffe has already taken away the spotlight (such as it is) that ought to be shining full tilt on the Bush administration's torture policies. No doubt, the Republicans are happy about that.
 

Stop the US Election Coverage and Let Me Off

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.
-Mark Twain

I don't blog about the daily goings on in the US election race here although I do follow the coverage almost religiously - taking time out when my head feels like it's going to explode or when the spinning gets to the point that I envision Linda Blair's head in The Exorcist. Yes, it is that bad.

Ironically, the great promise of the mainstream "progressive" blogs was to act as a counter to the half-truths and outright lies perpetrated by the MSM. However, this year, with the Democratic race narrowed down to a fierce contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, those blogs (like Daily Kos and others) have shown that their so-called factual standards are no better than the mainstream journalists they've railed against for years. They have become exactly what they claimed to abhor.

It's tiring enough to have to chase down the veracity of MSM stories through trusted venues like FactCheck.org, SourceWatch, Judicial Watch, and CorpWatch. I think we're on the verge of needing a BlogWatch site for some sort of objective analysis of what's being peddled on those sites as truth when what we're really getting is Colbertesque "truthiness" instead.

Additionally, when it comes to judging what the traditional, corporatist American media is trying to sell us, there are handy sites like FAIR, Editor & Publisher, and the Columbia Journalism Review along with several other sites. But when it comes to sorting through what's being peddled about the election on the blogs, once again we're stuck with sorting out the often hyperventilated hyberole for ourselves.

Throw in the cable news opinion shows, and yes - that even applies to the darling of the progressives, Keith Olbermann, who now regularly posts his Obama-biased rants at Daily Kos because he knows where his bread is buttered (there's also a "watch" site dedicated to him and he does need to be watched considering that his "reporting" has become sloppy lately) and those of us who are a) interested in facts and b) have had more than our fill of the spin appear to live in some sort of No Man's land vacated by people whom we thought (at least I did at one time) sought to fight for rationality and common sense. That's been tossed overboard by people who are so incredibly emotionally-invested in their candidate of choice (even though both Dem candidates' platforms are nearly identical) that the "progressive" zone - full of racism, sexism and intolerance in general - has become nothing more than the equivalent of some of the worst right-wing blogs.

We know that the Democratic party will survive this election. The question is, with all of the inter and intra-blog fighting going on, will the so-called "progressive" community make it through this election to go on to focus on who the real enemy is: the right-wingers who may be poised to again run the US government? There are wounds out there in "netroots" land that I don't think will ever be healed.

When I step back from observing all of this though, I have to say that it's useful that these battles have exposed some extremely nasty things about some people who deem to call themselves "progressive". There's a horribly abusive underbelly in the Democratic party, witnessed through reading some of the posts and comments on the various blogs, that reveals just how hypocritical some Democrats who claim the moral high-ground really are. While some people claim to support their candidate's message of unity and all things noble about what the Democratic party supposedly stands for, they clearly show that their personal take is so incredibly far removed from ideals like equality, justice and human/civil rights for all that I don't even know if they are Democrats.

The bigger question in this reality is, however, whether the party itself even stands for those principles it proudly displays on its mantle. In many ways I don't think it does, which is why I'm under no illusions that a Democratic president will truly come through for the millions who are placing their hopes in a party that's promising major societal changes that will make a big difference in America's current cultural climate. This is, after all, a party that won't even attempt to prosecute Bush for his war crimes. For me, that says it all.

Instead, what we have now are daily pathetic displays of who said what where and when and what did they really mean? As if that ought to pass for an acceptable substitute for what really ails America. It's SpinTainment and there's no doubt that it's a huge industry, just as US elections, with donations to candidates in the hundreds of millions of dollars, are their own industry as well. While Democratic candidates talk about how much money has been stolen from US taxpayers in the name of the illegal occupation in Iraq - money they say could have gone towards education, infrastructure and so many other American needs - they're raking in huge amounts of money for what, exactly? To buy the presidency. A pursuit that goes on, not just for months, but for years. You cannot honestly rail against obscenity if you play a part in purveying it.

This race has shown just how undemocratic and vicious Democrats can be and it has also shown just how little truth is valued on the so-called "left" which, in many too instances is just centrism dressed up in liberal clothing anyway. I'm all for a long Democratic battle. Let the knives continue to come out. Maybe then, after all of the blood has been drawn and the negativity has exhausted Dem party supporters, there will be a long, hard look at exactly what the party has become. In the end, if they're truly willing to admit it, I think they'll find that their ideals have taken a back seat to exactly the kind of divisiveness they accuse the right-wingers of spreading. And they'll also find that their methods - excusing blatant spin as being prized above reality - are just as useless and damaging as those of their political opponents. That's if they're even willing to take that desperately needed long, hard look.

In the meantime, I'll stick to looking for my facts in places that have no axes to grind, no candidate to support and no piper to pay. One head-spinning Linda Blair was enough.
 

Iraq: The US Politics

Via Think Progress:

This morning, on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, ABC’s Good Morning America aired an interview with Vice President Cheney on the war. During the segment, Cheney flatly told White House correspondent Martha Raddatz that he doesn’t care about the American public’s views on the war:

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

And the boy king speaks as well:

"The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around; it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror," Bush said.

"We have learned through hard experience what happens when we pull our forces back too fast — the terrorists and extremists step in, fill the vacuum, establish safe havens and use them to spread chaos and carnage," Bush said.

(Was that an admission that the Iraq invasion was a mistake because it took troops out of Afghanistan?)

And, not to be outdone by Cheney, who again linked Iraq to 9/11 yesterday, Bush added this:

"Our enemies would see an American failure in Iraq as evidence of weakness and a lack of resolve. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of Sept. 11 and make it more likely that America would suffer another attack like the one we experienced that day."

Now you might be thinking something along the lines of "Thank [insert deity here] these two clowns and the other neocon circus performers will be out of office in a just a few months. Then, if Americans can just elect a Democrat, everything will be much better".

Except that it won't.

Anyone paying attention to the positions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the illegal occupation of Iraq (which neither of them will actually call it), has to admit that the fate of the approximately 160,000 private contractors has been avoided by both of them.

Here's part of what Obama had to say in his speech on the 5th anniversary of the occupation:

In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy. What I propose is not – and never has been – a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started.

Just how Obama plans to "end" Iraq's civil war, as he promises, remains to be seen. Redeploying troops (and it is a redeployment as he plans to send a contingency to Afghanistan) will not "end" the "war".

And note the absence, as I pointed out, of any mention of the paid mercenaries who are there under contract - contracts that were secured through the Pentagon and which could be threatened by endless, tangled litigation if Obama or Clinton plans to pull them out.

So, no, there will not be an end to this "war" for a very long time and Obama's quite committed to boosting force numbers by recruiting more troops to deal with the GWOT as he plans to "finish the fight against al Qaeda". "Finish" it? Good luck with that.

And while Clinton and Obama present their lofty policies for dealing with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan (while protecting Israel), there is one major force that has and will continue to frame the futures of those countries: government corruption - not only "over there", but in the United States. Spending billions more dollars overseas without dealing with that reality is a zero sum game. The US can try to threaten and bribe those governments to comply, as Obama stated when he said aid to Pakistani aid would come with conditions, but defying the culture of corruption is a massive undertaking in and of itself.

There is one stark reality that all of the remaining commander-in-chief contestants share: a belief in the American empire. You might get the kindler, gentler version from the Democrats, but it's there nonetheless cloaked in terms like "protecting America's interests" around the world which is just code for making sure America gains or retains supremacy over other countries' resources that America needs to survive. Hegemony.

And, with the US economy tanking, that search for power overseas will only broaden as the global economic shift favours Europe, Saudi Arabia, and China. Dealing with that reality will involve balancing on a diplomatic tightrope in a much more urgent fashion while the US has lost its moral authority to demand or expect much of anything from enemies or allies - no matter who leads the country in 2009.

It all makes for nice speeches though, doesn't it?

Three cheers for US power!
 

The Delusion Revolution

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

-Barack Obama, 'The Audacity of Hope'

Following on the heels of Obama's Pastor Jeremiah Wright "problem", the junior senator has decided to give a speech about race issues on Tuesday while fending off questions from the media today about his views. Interesting, since he appeared on CNN, MSNBC and FOX on Friday nite to do some major damage control. Then again, who watches political talk shows on Friday nites except for political junkies like me? Apparently, he thought prior to that that writing an entry on the Huffington Post would be enough. Obviously, it wasn't and the latest Rasmussen poll exemplifies that reality.

Via HuffPo:

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

And that might be sufficient to placate people who felt he had to take such a firm stand if he hadn't written these words in his Audacity of Hope book which show that he certainly did know about Wright's leanings and didn't dismiss them then:

“The painting depicts a harpist,” Reverend Wright explained, “a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountain. Until you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation.

“It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That’s the world! On which hope sits!”

And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpsville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House. As the sermon unfolded, though, the stories of strife became more prosaic, the pain more immediate. The reverend spoke of the hardship that the congregation would face tomorrow, the pain of those far from the mountaintop, worrying about paying the light bill…

And while he (or anybody, for that matter) claims to follow the teachings of Jesus, I'd like to know why he's only opposed to "dumb wars", as he stated in his now infamous 2002 speech, instead of all wars. The audacity of that is that antiwar libertarian Justin Raimondo (who openly admits to being an Obama "cultist" and who was previously a Ron Paul supporter), now calls Obama the "antiwar candidate". No need to wonder why I call this the "delusion revolution". That's Obama's "blank screen" in full throttle.

Obama, as we've seen, seems to need to be prodded to not only denounce and reject controversial supporters and his run up to dealing with his pastor problem was no different. He knew that his 20 year relationship with Wright was potentially going to be an issue when he kicked off his presidential campaign and, as much as his supporters would like to believe that this exposé of Wright was Clinton-made, it actually gained media prominence in early 2007:

Obama's connection to Wright first drew attention in a February 2007 Rolling Stone article that described a speech in which Wright forcefully spoke about racism against blacks.[8] Citing the article, and fears that any further controversy would harm the church, Obama scrapped plans for having Wright introduce him at his presidential announcement speech in February 2007. Obama subsequently received criticism from some black supporters for disinviting Wright, with Al Sharpton stating that "the issue is standing by your own pastor".[9]

But he still decided to keep Wright on his African American Religious Leadership Committee - a position Wright was forced to resign from last week (which we can only assume because the Obama campaign won't say if he was fired or left voluntarily) when the Wright videos emerged in the MSM via FOX News, resulting in Obama's sense of judgment being questioned - the very quality he's been running on since day one.

And now, when the major issues of the day include the US economy being in tatters and the 5 year anniversary of the illegal occupation of Iraq, Obama has finally decided to talk about race - a subject he stayed away from by simply writing it off as being too "divisive" - when the fact is that he wanted to maintain his aura of being that "blank screen" on which voters could project whatever their concerns were on him as he speechified his way to the White House.

That "blank screen" has deluded some of his supporters into believing that he's some sort of "movement" leader. The reality is that the only movement he's leading is the one whereby voters move to the polls to vote for him. He's not calling for his supporters to affect any societal change when he cites MLK's "fierce urgency of now". Instead, he's promising hope and change if he gets into the WH in 2009. Just wait and he'll make things all better - the standard by which almost every presidential candidate runs on. And we all know how that turns out.

In fact, Democrats and Republicans are not dissimilar in how much weight they place on how much difference a president can make and both parties' supporters are just as fiercely dedicated to their version of who can be their hero. This year's Obama supporters are as starry-eyed and defensive as Bush's radical evangelical base has been.

If you take a trip around the big American "progressive" blogs, you'll see no shortage of Hillary Clinton being referred to repeatedly as a "bitch", a "racist", a "traitor" or as someone who is out to "destroy the Democratic party" because she refuses to pull out of the democratic process (such as it is) to hand the crown to Obama. Oh, and apparently the Clintons are the "worst narcissists our country [America] has ever seen" - in a post written by one the worst narcissists Daily Kos has ever seen and who seems to be unaware of George W Bush. Obama supporters claim that Hillary's not "progressive" enough, even though her policy stances and record are nearly identical to Obama's. And, because there's so little distinction to be made issue-wise between them, all that's left to talk about is their personalities. Somehow, that's what "democracy" is about in America - uncivil war. That and spending tens of millions of dollars to win your way to the White House. It's all one long obscenity from all sides.

And Obama is certainly right when he says that he's bound to disappoint not only some of his supporters, but all of them at one point or another. He's already done that by not dealing with issues forcefully and immediately. That doesn't bode well when you realize that his modus operandi for handling Republicans is based on consensus-building - a strategy that could cause a myriad of problems on major issues going forward when timely decisions are necessary. That road could be fraught with political land mines if he's unable or unwilling to make firm decisions based on his principles instead of trying to find lukewarm compromises. And, just as his Tuesday speech will no doubt be crafted to be all things to all people, in the end it may not serve anybody - including himself - well at all.

Meanwhile, he and his advisors have pledged a "full frontal assualt". On the economy? On the Iraq war? On the lack of health care? No. On the fact that Hillary has yet to publicly disclose all of her tax returns while, quite tellingly, Obama hasn't done so either.

Last week, Obama supporters were just giddy that their guy had released his list of earmarks (after major pressure from the Chicago newspapers). They willingly overlooked the fact that $1 million went to the hospital that employs his wife or that another $8 million went to a defence contractor, General Dynamics. No big deal, Obama has a New Way of doing politics, after all. Right? And, forget about the fact that he still hasn't released other information that the press has been after him to disclose. He's Obama. He's above contempt.

And, let me make this clear, as far as both of the leading Democrats go, they're both the same in my book: corporatist militarists. I have no use for either of them or John McCain. The only candidates who came close to espousing the political ideology I believe in as a small "L" liberal were Gravel and Kucinich (too threatening for prime time in today's America) and even they don't match my left-wing beliefs 100%. (You have to add disclaimers like that these days when you criticize Obama because, if you don't, you will immediately be attacked as being a shill for Hillary and I've had enough of that - thank you very much.)

Pundits have called this stretch of the campaigns the "silly season". Let's face it, the whole US election race is just one protracted "silly season", especially when candidates are attacking each other on trivialities, not issues. Add to that reality caucuses, primaries, primacaucuses, delegates, superdelegates, the electoral college and the lawyers and you have a recipe for disaster every single election. And let's not even get into Diebold and the Supreme Court and the role they play in deciding who will lead America.

I cringed when I saw some Iraqis interviewed this past weekend who were asked if they were following the US election. They were, they said, hoping to learn what "democracy" was all about. That's just scary. They'd do well to look elsewhere because the idea that what we're currently witnessing in America reflects anything like "democracy" is the biggest delusion of all.

Related:

The Clinton Rules and The Obama Rules

Barack Obama is Your New Bicycle
 

NAFTAgate: Harper Clears Clinton

Via the CBC:

Hillary Clinton's campaign team has never told any Canadian officials that their candidate's anti-NAFTA statements are just political posturing, the Prime Minister's Office said Friday.

In the midst of the so-called NAFTA-gate affair, the PMO clarified — two days after it was first asked a question about the matter — that Canadian officials never requested, nor received, a private briefing from Clinton's aides on her position on the continental trade treaty.

"The answer is no, they did not," Sandra Buckler, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said Friday.

So, can we get past this assumption that's making the rounds on the American blogosphere now that Clinton's staff talked to them? The cognitive dissonance about this story has been unbelievable, especially over at sites like Daily Kos that favour Obama, where the truth (on many fronts) has taken a back seat to known facts. So much for the "reality-based" community.
 

Olbermann on NAFTAgate: Innuendo and Truth

On Thursday nite, Keith Olbermann had this to say about NAFTAgate:

Olbermann: For a week now, Senator Clinton has bashed Senator Obama and even possibly won votes based on the story that Obama had publicly railed against NAFTA while a memo by a Canadian diplomat claimed Obama's campaign secretly assured them his stand "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans"

First of all, the memo Olbermann refers to was only brought to the public's attention on March 3, 2008 by the AP's Nedra Pickler - the day before Tuesday's primaries. Therefore, it isn't possible for Clinton to have been railing against Obama based on that memo before that time. (As an aside, Macleans' Luiza Ch. Savage published a copy of that memo on Thursday.)

Back to Olbermann:

Olbermann: In our fourth story in the countdown, Obama's adviser denied speaking those words and now we learn that a much higher source from Canada revealed late last month that the NAFTA promises came from a very different source, the Clinton campaign. According to an unnamed source speaking to that nation's equivalent of the Associated Press, the Canadian Press, it was Clinton's campaign that contacted the Canadian government to reassure them about Clinton's anti-NAFTA rhetoric. The Canadian Press reporting that the source heard the chief of staff to Canada's prime minister say in a room full of television journalists "someone from Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . someone called us and told us not to worry."

Olbermann then introduced his guest, Howard Fineman, and asked, "am I oversimplifying this or is this story now basically the opposite of what it seemed to be a week ago?" to which Fineman responds, "Yeah, it is 180 degrees different".

Except that it's not.

Take a look at the original CTV story:

Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.

That was in the same story that alleged that Obama's campaign "told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously".

That's not "180 degrees different". It's exactly the same.

Fineman then said he "think(s) it was the Clinton camp that started the conversation with the Canadians about don't worry about NAFTA".

Except that no one has proven anything like that, Fineman.

Even after Olbermann pointed out that there was, as he put it, an "obscure reference" to the Clinton side in this, Fineman stated that he thought the Obama campaign didn't know about it until Thursday. Fineman then said the Obama campaign hadn't issued a "flat denial saying the story wasn't true". That's not true. The Obama campaign definitely fumbled its reaction to this story but it has issued denials since the story broke. Here's just one of them from this week:

When Mr. Obama's campaign and the Canadian government denied the allegation, a leaked document was obtained by The Associated Press written by a Canadian diplomat. It chronicled a conversation between Obama economic adviser Austan Goulsbee and diplomats at Canada's Chicago consulate.

The Obama aide has challenged the wording of the memo and says it characterized the conversation unfairly.

Meanwhile, as soon as CTV news broke the story last Wednesday, their television reporter Tom Clark said the Clinton campaign was giving the Canadian government "blanket immunity" to release the name of anyone on her staff who may have been in touch with them. That's why the allegations against her were dropped so quickly. The Canadian sources haven't released anything to back up that claim. Apparently, someone must have thought the release of the memo later that week could be used against Obama and that's why the story, as it related to him, continued to have legs.

Fineman then went on to say that he thought the Obama campaign believed it "has the upper hand in the NAFTA debate" as an excuse for not responding more forcefully. In other words, never mind that a foreign government might be creating the impression that his NAFTA promises aren't true, they'll just ignore it and hope it goes away. Does Fineman really believe that's what happened or could it be that their economic adviser Goolsbee, who wasn't straight with the media as soon as his meeting with Canadian officials was revealed, has created a PR nightmare for the campaign?

Olbermann then cited the NAFTA story as another one of the Clinton campaign's recent screw ups. The fact is that there's no "there" there - not with this story. Olbermann and Fineman should have done more research before they went on the air with this in the fashion that they did. If you watch the video, you'll see a shocked and surprised Olbermann acting is if what he's reporting is proof that the Clinton campaign reassured the Canadian government on NAFTA despite the fact that his very words belie that incredulity.

Keith Olbermann has a lot of pull with Democratic and so-called "progressive" viewers, many of whom, at places like Daily Kos, (nicknamed Daily Obama because of the overwhelming support for that candidate there) now believe that he has nailed Clinton to the wall on NAFTAgate when no such thing has happened.

Olbermann is not responsible for how his viewers react to what he says, but he owes them the truth, not innuendo backed up with an overly-emotional response along with a guest who doesn't even know what he's talking about. For Olbermann to act as if he believed the unnamed source who fingered Ian Brodie (an allegation that has yet to be investigated) is either lazy journalism or biased reporting against Clinton.

I don't support either candidate and I'm no Clinton apologist. I just expect responsible journalism - not hyperbole that can be interpreted as facts. Sometimes actions speak louder than words and I believe they have in this case.

Watch the video:



Related:

Here's the latest news from Canada on this story - Government will probe 'entire' NAFTA leak: PM.

US ambassador Wilkins has since backed off from his claims of "interference" as reported in the CBC story linked to above.

"I do think the term 'interference' is a little strong. It implies some intentional act. And I've got no way of knowing whether it was unintentional or intentional, or anything of that nature. But my statement of interference was not meant to mean intentional interference by the Canadian government, and unfortunately that's the way it got played."

How lawyerly of him.
 

NAFTA: What the Obama Campaign Secretly Told Canada's Government

CTV News reveals that an Obama staffer was secretly in touch with Canada's ambassador to the US with a heads up about Obama's public stance on the NAFTA agreement, stating it was just "campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value".

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

What Obama's staffer told Wilson flies in the face of what Obama said during Tuesday nite's Democratic debate in Ohio, where NAFTA fallout has seriously affected the economy.

During Tuesday nite's Democratic debate, Barack Obama said this about NAFTA:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, you did in 2004 talk to farmers and suggest that NAFTA had been helpful. The Associated Press today ran a story about NAFTA, saying that you have been consistently ambivalent towards the issue. Simple question: Will you, as president, say to Canada and Mexico, "This has not worked for us; we are out"?

SEN. OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.

That statement prompted Canada-wide concern with the trade minister even warning that our energy deals with the US might be on the table as a result.

The reaction from the Obama campaign that someone on its staff had been in touch with Ambassador Wilson?

Via CTV - a non-denial denial:

Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

The Clinton campaign was also accused of contacting Wilson to reassure him. That charge that has been staunchly denied by going further than the Obama campaign did and granting the Canadian government "immunity" to release any information it might have of any actual contact from its staff that may have been made.

So, the obvious question is whether Obama's opposition to NAFTA is genuine or is it just a ploy to get votes from people who oppose it?

Stay tuned.

Update:

See my update here.
 

Video: The SC Democratic Debate - Obama vs Clinton

If you missed the debate in South Carolina on Monday nite, here's a clip of one of the feisty exchanges between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It seemed like at any moment the tension would bring on, 'Jane, you ignorant slut' and 'Dan, you pompous ass'. Popcorn Moments™ abounded and a rough time was had by all.



You can read the transcript here (but watching it was much more fun.)
 

Tabloid Politics

You didn't have to hang around supermarket checkout lines this past week to get your fill of hyperventilated, manufactured claims. The various so-called legitimate pages of the MSM were dishing out sensationalism left and right. No, not about Batboy. But, unless you live in a cave or just haven't been paying attention, the guano being flung around between various surrogates (and people labeled 'surrogates' who were no such thing) of the Obama and Clinton campaigns made people like me don full-sized body condoms for protection. It's been nasty.

The issue, of course, has been racism. No small topic. But the way it has all been handled has been despicable and that has diminished both campaigns. No matter who you think is to blame for what may or may not have been a coordinated effort to smear one or the other candidate, the fact is that neither Obama nor Clinton ordered an official ceasefire to this war (for those insurgents they actually could control) until late Monday. Neither completely rose above the fray to display what they have been assuring Democrats and other Americans will be their style of governance: change, unity, hope. As a result, they have both let the issue steamroll into an ugly example of tabloid politics ie. any publicity is good publicity. Who's running their campaigns? Paris Hilton?

There can be no doubt that there is a hunger to have a national dialogue about racism and the current status of the civil rights movement in America. No one, it seems, has quite yet figured out how to do that without inflicting casualties - real or metaphorical. It's a hypersensitive reality. Had both candidates grasped this opportunity to come together, despite the fact that they are currently political opponents in the race for president, they could have shown their country what they claim Democrats are capable of doing: ending division, working in partnership for the common good and taking on the tough challenges that face America. On that front, they failed miserably. But, for that to have happened, I suppose you'd have to hang your hat on the belief that Democrats really do stand for such ideals and, considering the extremely low approval ratings of the Democratic congress, it seems much of America hasn't bought the idea that they actually do and the politicians sure haven't acted like it.

What's happened this past week seems to be a reflection of the Democratic party itself: it talks the talk but just doesn't walk the walk when it really matters. And neither do Obama and Hillary. That, in the end, may be the final result of this chapter of this very public family feud. When you strip away the racism issue this has all been lurking behind, you find two people - the Democratic party's most recent stars - who have managed to garner a lot of attention and headlines but who, in the end, have shown very little talent for actually following through on whatever promise their portfolios advertized.

So, what's it going to be, you two (and the MSM that has played right along)? Coverage worthy of the Weekly World News or something a tad more substantial? Reading and encouraging sensationalist Batboy-style diversions might be entertaining but they don't do much to advance world peace, heal racial divides or to put food on the table, now do they?
 

Hostage Situation at Clinton NH Campaign Office

Brrreaking - WaPo reports:

A man claiming to have a bomb strapped to his body burst into Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign office in Rochester, N.H., today and took at least two volunteers hostage, New Hampshire television stations reported.

"There is an ongoing situation in our Rochester, NH office. We are in close contact with state and local authorities and are acting at their direction," the Clinton campaign said in a statement.

The campaign confirmed to Manchester's WMUR that two workers were taken hostage. The report quotes a witness who said a woman and her baby were released by the hostage-taker.

Via WMUR:

An armed man took hostages at the office on 28 North Main St. Friday afternoon, and officials with the campaign said that there were two workers taken hostage in the office, but police have not confirmed that those were the only two hostages in the building.

The two hostages were released at about 3 p.m.

Clinton, who is not in New Hampshire, canceled a National Democratic Committee meeting in Virginia.

Definitely a very tense situation.

More as updates come in...

Update:

MSNBC reports:

- the suspect is a white male in his 40s. (No doubt, the radical right is wishing he's Muslim because, according to them, only Muslims are terrorists.)
- the suspect wants to talk to Hillary.
- local law enforcement is familiar with the suspect who reportedly has a history of "erratic behaviour".
- negotiations continue.

4:08 ET: A police press conference is scheduled to occur within the next half hour.

Update::

The officer in charged said that they're still dealing with a "hostage situation" but wouldn't say how many hostages are still being held. Beyond that, he wouldn't release more information since the situation is ongoing.

MSNBC's coverage has been horrible. They've reported that a relative of the hostage taker who had said that the man was armed with road flares was his son, son-in-law and stepson without confirming his actual relationship. They also showed an interview with a local guy who claimed he knew the identity of the person, only to report at the top of this hour that his name is Leeland Eisenberg (sp?) (unconfirmed by authorities) - not the same name that was earlier broadcast as being Troy (?). They also said, after the police press conference in which it was announced that secret service members were on the scene, that the secret service wasn't involved. They really need to get their stories straight.

What seems to be the consensus between CNN and MSNBC is that this man has mental health issues and wanted to bring attention to the lack of services available but that's still a point of speculation as is what he's actually armed with.

For more local coverage, visit WDHD TV.

Update:

5:34 pm ET - Another female hostage has been released.

Update: 6:15 pm ET - The hostage situation is over. The last hostage, a male, was released and the suspect has been arrested
 

Who's the scariest?

According to a new poll, 37% of respondents think Hillary is the scariest presidential candidate - as far as Halloween costumes go.

Okay, I can see that.

But if they'd had Guiliani in drag as one of the choices, I'm pretty sure he would have won hands down.

Exhibit A:



Imagine opening your front door to that! AHHHHHH!!!
 

Obama: The Audacity of Hope?

That's what Barack Obama said he was running on. He even wrote a book about it.

But this is not what "hope" looks like:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

Obama's stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

I thought (naively, I suppose) that America would be done with infringing on other countries' sovereignty once dubya was gone. Instead, Obama supports the Bush Doctrine:

According to the Bush Doctrine, grave threats require a military response regardless of other countries' views. The Bush doctrine includes making reasonable efforts to include other nations in military or diplomatic actions, however in the absence of coalition partners, unilateral military action is taken against perceived threats. The policy document states that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strength beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower.

And then there's Hillary the Hawk, who still hasn't apologized for her support of the AUMF against Iraq:

Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country."

But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.

And how did that work out for him, Hillary?

John Edwards has the right idea, sort of:

Another Democratic candidate, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, said he would not hesitate to use force against extremists but said, "I believe we must first use maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to take all necessary actions to stop al Qaeda."

(But they won't, of course, since Pakistan and SA are their allies - no matter what those countries do.)

And that doesn't make up for the fact that he's in there like a dirty shirt warmongering against Iran to show his support for Israel.

Hawks - all of them. Don't expect US foreign policy to change any time soon, no matter who's elected president in '08. The wars must go on.
 

Video: Go to Iraq and fight, Mr President

transcript

Excerpt:

Sen. Clinton has been sent — and someone has leaked to The Associated Press — a letter, sent in reply to hers asking if there exists an actual plan for evacuating U.S. troops from Iraq.

This extraordinary document was written by an undersecretary of defense named Eric Edelman.

“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq,” Edelman writes, “reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.”

Edelman adds: “Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.”

A spokesman for the senator says Mr. Edelman’s remarks are “at once both outrageous and dangerous.” Those terms are entirely appropriate and may, in fact, understate the risk the Edelman letter poses to our way of life and all that our fighting men and women are risking, have risked, and have lost, in Iraq.
[...]
This, sir, is your war.

Sen. Clinton has reinforced enemy propaganda? Made it impossible for you to get your ego-driven, blood-steeped win in Iraq?

Then take it into your own hands, Mr. Bush.

Go to Baghdad now and fulfill, finally, your military service obligations.

Go there and fight, your war. Yourself.

Amen to that.
 

Kucinich: 'Attempt made to rig presidential elections'

Hillary and Edwards busted - caught on tape talking about narrowing the field of candidates during the debates:

According to the Associated Press, Fox News Channel microphones picked up Clinton and Edwards on stage discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some rivals lower in the crowded field. "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said into Clinton's ear following a Presidential Forum in Detroit hosted by the NAACP on Thursday.

Clinton agreed with Edwards, according to print reports and video footage of the exchange. "We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious," she said. Clinton added that she thought representatives of her campaign and Edwards' had already tried to limit the debates, and "we've gotta get back to it," according to the AP.

"Candidates, no matter how important or influential they perceive themselves to be, do not have and should not have the power to determine who is allowed to speak to the American public and who is not," said Kucinich.

"Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our Democracy as an imperial President."

Why do Canadians prefer Hillary Clinton?

That was (basically) the query Reilly over at Best Guess blog sent to me after he'd seen this poll:

Hillary is Canada's Choice for US President

TORONTO, June 25 /CNW/ - If Canadians could choose the next US President, it would be Hillary Clinton by a landslide, according to a new poll released today.

Almost four in ten Canadians want Senator Clinton as the next US president. A new poll conducted by The Strategic Counsel on behalf of The Globe and Mail and CTV News shows Hillary Clinton is the strong favorite among Canadians who give the New York senator a three-to-one lead over Rudy Giuliani (12%), the next most popular candidate among respondents. 11% would vote for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton's closest rival for the Democratic nomination.
[...]
Canadian support for Hillary Clinton cuts across age,education level,and even political affiliation. "She's as popular among Canadian Conservatives as she is among Canadian Liberals," says Woolstencroft, "and I think that says something about the kind of broad, personal appeal that the Clintons have managed to secure here in Canada."

Hillary Clinton enjoys strongest support among Quebeckers (51%), Francophone Canadians (52%) and, overwhelmingly, Bloc Quebecois voters (67%)

I gave Reilly my best guesses by e-mail about these poll results, but I'd like to know what my fellow canucks have to say about them too.
 

The next time you eat onion rings...

...or carrots...you may (or may not) want to remember this bit of Freudian Vegetable Analysis brought to you by law professor Ann Althouse (who also stunned the blogosphere with "Let's take a closer look at those breasts" - not to mention this little meltdown caught on video.)

So, tell us all about those onion rings in the new Hillary Clinton ad, Ann.

4. Bill says "No onion rings?" and Hillary responds "I'm looking out for ya." Now, the script says onion rings, because that's what the Sopranos were eating in that final scene, but I doubt if any blogger will disagree with my assertion that, coming from Bill Clinton, the "O" of an onion ring is a vagina symbol. Hillary says no to that, driving the symbolism home. She's "looking out" all right, vigilant over her husband, denying him the sustenance he craves. What does she have for him? Carrot sticks! The one closest to the camera has a rather disgusting greasy sheen to it. Here, Bill, in retaliation for all of your excessive "O" consumption, you may have a large bowl of phallic symbols! When we hear him say "No onion rings?," the camera is on her, and Bill is off-screen, but at the bottom of the screen we see the carrot/phallus he's holding toward her. Oh, yes, I know that Hillary supplying carrots is supposed to remind that Hillary will provide us with health care, that she's "looking out for" us, but come on, they're carrots! Everyone knows carrots are phallic symbols. But they're cut up into little carrot sticks, you say? Just listen to yourself! I'm not going to point out everything.

On c'mon Ann. Knock yourself out. We'll wait.

Don't forget to order some vaginas and penises the next time you're in your favourite restaurant. Tell them Ann Althouse sent you.