SUNRISE

Free at last, Free at last... Lord Almighty, we are free at last!

House of Representatives: Check

Senate: Check

Presidency: Check

/

(Told ya so moment: 2005 thoughts on the 2008 elections )

.

Not a moment too soon. It does not speak highly of my fellow Americans that we came close to electing another carbon copy of that madman Bush.

.

Racism, narcissism and ignorance still fuel a large segment of the American population. I am surrounded my those who are voting for McCain here in West Texas. I have yet to find even ONE of these folks who actually believe in McCain. They fear and hate Obama, though. They send text messages in the millions daily - racist jokes and lynching fantasies. I knew most people in this area were racist. This list includes my co-workers, my family, and even some people I considered friends. But the level that this group of people has outed themselves at shocks even this Redneck. I guess all it takes is one uppity nigger-and the very real fear that the White man's thumb on everything is being removed.

.

Change. That's what they fear.

.

They can't stop it. But thank Crom we've stopped them, at least for the moment. Every day more of these McCarthyist dinosaurs breathe their last, cancerous breath and new Americans are born to breathe fresh new life into this country.

/

Change is coming.

..
It's not gloating, it is tears of joy and relief...

In case you've forgotten - some memories of the Republican Reign of Terror:

TraitorGate

Treason for Dummies

Palin-publicans

Media Apologists for Bush

Rummy

Crimelords in Office

Conspiracy to Terrorize

Olbermann: We will not fear George Bush

Bush vetoes bill banning Waterboarding

The Bailout before the Bailout

and for shits and giggles:
Images from the House of the Rising Sons from the past 4 years

Off the Fence

First things First: Freida Bee and Liberality: I'm working on my tag post... (busy weekend)

Now, on to business-

Like me, A lot of Democrats have been sitting on the fence. Obama or Clinton wasn't our first choice, so we didn't really care which one of them won the nomination. And then, I made a distinction based on the recent actions of the two candidates. I went with Obama.

Michael Moore has finally jumped off the fence and onto Obama's side. His reasoning is much like mine. This is from his newsletter:

My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore
April 21st, 2008

Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.
How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good
question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,Michael Moore

If you can read all that, AND STILL Support Clinton, well, I'd love to know why. If not, start emailing your Dem reps, your Dem Senators, your delegates and everybody else- that Clinton needs to bow out. It's time to move forward.

Long term Goals

Just some thoughts on the current Primary situation-

I talked at length with one of my closest friends last night. Now, Greg is as Republican as I am liberal. I don't mean he is conservative, because his thoughts just don't run that deep. He's a good friend, but the guys a straight-up freeper and proud dittohead. Politics means more to him than policies. He is convinced that Liberals are the devil, he reads Coulter, and couldn't create an original thought if an attack on Iran depended on it. He's mainly just a computer geek and scion to a small fortune, so he's never really had to think much, anyway.

He chuckled as we discussed politics. "Don't you get what Rush is doing?" he asked.

"Well, yes," I replied, "he's playing the dems against each other to weaken Obama. But doesn't he realize that if Hillary gets the nomination, he might be facing his worst enemy?"

"Oh please!" I was told. "Obama is the threat, not Hillary. She's just doing our work for us right now and pissing off the undecideds at all Democrats."

"McCain?" I laughed- I know what the true Repubs think about McCain. "But he doesn't have a chance in hell against either of them!" I insisted.

"Sure, that's what you said about Bush in '04."

"But what do you Really think about McCain?"

"Oh" -long pause -"he sucks, but it doesn't matter. Every single Republican out there will vote for McCain, regardless, no matter what we say now. The "Terror" and the "liberal threat" talking point is going to get real big. You guys can't do anything in Congress that involves the war or terror, can you?"

But looking around, the divide and conquer strategy is working. The momentum is slowing, and the focus is being shattered. Meanwhile, supposedly Coulter is gearing up to release a movie about Hillary in spite of her loud claims of supporting Hillary over McCain.

Coulter (and Rush and the rest)would never give an ounce of support to Hillary if they believed it would actually result in her becoming President. When they recently threw their support behind Hillary in the primaries and in the media, it was just to keep the Dem race going closely.

As Greg brags, they are gaming America again. And, some progressives are helping them. The 2008 election isn’t the be all, end all for Hillary. In fact, it is my belief, that by standing down now and throwing her full support towards Obama and whoever he chooses as VP- it will yield PRICELESS results as far as 2012. Face it- in 2012 there will be MORE dems in Congress, and there will be a lot less of a burden to deal with as President.

Let Obama have ‘08. Bow out gracefully, and without expecting to be appointed as VP. Let Progressives come together to fight against our true enemy, as one, without any more of this divisive race. My candidate, Edwards, didn’t get there, and I’m sad, because I think he would have been the strongest candidate. But I’m not that worked up over it- there will be more chances for our candidates to have the presidency. Right now, Obama has the momentum, and for better or for worse- the high ground.

Let’s join, fight and Hillary can have her day in years to come, when the anti-Hillary fervor has abated a bit more. As someone mired in a red-state, I can tell you, Anti-Hillary bias is still at a fever pitch and will make the 08 race closer than it needs to be.

That's my long-er term plan. The bitch of it is, whoever ends up in the white house in 2008 has a HUGE row to hoe. I simply hope that whoever it is can end the farce of an occupation in Iraq and remove the radicalism of the Bush agenda from U.S. policy once and for all.

Obama and Clinton and Republicans, oh my

I am endorsing Barack Obama.

I still don't feel that there is much difference betweeen the two as far as what their actions will be as future President of the United States. But, that said, several of the actions of Hillary Clinton have struck a wrong chord with me, and I feel will lead to a loss in votes for the Democratic candidate in the election, whoever it is.

And keep in mind, I'm not addressing anything her campaign has done, or what her supporters have said, etc. I base my opinion solely on the actions of the candidates.

Action 1: Hillary didn't vote on FISA.
Action 2: Hillary dragging down the discourse. Every time I look up, she seems to be running on negativity. We need to maintain the high ground, Dem to Dem. Hell, we've EARNED it. Positive will win over negative with the undecideds, not mudslinging.
Action 3: Hillary framing the Republican candidate as a better choice than her Democratic rival.

So, admittedly, no huge differences between the two of them.

The repubs don’t have much to talk about. They don’t have anything to talk about when they hate their front runner. But they are talking a lot right now. And it's all aimed at keeping the Obama/Clinton primary bs going as long as they can.

Neither Clinton nor Obama may be exactly what some of us wanted, but either way- Believe it- THEY AREN’T NUTS LIKE ANY REPUBLICAN. M’kay? So, let’s stop saying we won’t vote for the winner of the primary if it isn’t our favorite right now. And the media? The media just knows people are glued to their tvs when its Obama vs. Clinton. When it's just McCain up there, it will be back to crickets chirping and the Dems building a landslide. Stay focused, and let’s try to keep people from getting off track.

My person of choice was Edwards, or Richardson or Kuc or Gravel. Last on my list were Obama and Clinton. But I’ll be damned if I DON’T vote for either of them versus 4 more years of fascist mindfuckery ala McCain. To hell with that noise. And Nader? He's a Fred Thompson candidate. He'll take the money from his Republican donors, and jetset around, saying whatever he feels like and milking it for all it's worth. Nader is a worthless bottomfeeder who sponges off the process.

I didn’t get the candidate that I wanted, so I will have to trust in the will of my fellow Democrats to choose between Obama/Clinton and go with whoever it is. The alternative is more Rove, More Limbaugh, More Coulter, More Bush.

We need to come together behind whichever candidate it is, for the greater good of the country. The Republican party is done, if we can just stand together.

Bits and Pieces

Play Me


Lubbock Left

"Wow!
I never thought I would live to see the day when more Lubbockites participated in the Democratic Primary than in the Republican Primary in the second most conservative city in the USA. Let’s hope the trend continues through election day (where, for once, the Democratic precinct conventions will get the nice big rooms in the voting locations!).
This is an exciting time to be a Democrat!"

Tom Hayden returns to Vietnam

As I walked through the busy Christmas streets, however, I was gripped by the question of why the Vietnam War was necessary in the first place. Why kill, maim and uproot millions of Vietnamese if the outcome was a consumer wonderland approved by the country's still-undefeated Communist Party? The whole wretched American rationale for the war, that Vietnam was a dangerous domino, a pawn in the cold war, seemed so painfully wrong. Was there any connection between destroying so much life and causing the Vietnamese to go Christmas shopping? Would the same outcome--a one-party socialist government leading a market economy--have occurred in any event, without the destruction? Now that US naval ships were paying peaceful visits to Da Nang, this question nagged at me: is it possible that Marxism and nationalism won the war but capitalism and nationalism have won the peace?

Just Another day in Iraq

5 US Troops Killed;
25 Dead, 70 Wounded in Violence;
Turkey Bombs Iraq

Friends, Liberals, Countrymen

Followers of both sides of the the Democratic Civil War:

Whether you like Clinton or Obama- (or Kucinich, Edwards, Richardson, Gravel for that matter)

This is a public service reminder -

This IS our REAL (the really real) Enemy: REPUBLICANS

Try to keep this in mind, while you pimp (oops did I say pimp?) your favorite candidate

This is how Republican minds work:



This is their idea of a great leader:





They support these troops:



Not These troops...



They believe that Sept.11 is an accessory, not an atrocity



Their idea of "fair and balanced" is waaaayyyy off




Even their women don't want women to be able to vote



And here's the Republican platform. They support a whole lot of this:
Racism
Sexism
Hate
Torture
Republican fascism
Never Ending War
Xenophobia
Class War
Ancient Fundamentalist Dogma
Hypocritical Sex criminals
Ignorance

So whoever you vote for in 2008, just make sure it's not THIS Guy:


And things will be okay. Or at least you won't be entertaining hopes for the Rapture or fears of the Apocalypse on a daily basis...

Remember, back in 2000, some liberals were saying that Gore was as bad as Bush. I think, well I certainly HOPE, that we have learned our lesson. They may not be Progressive messiahs, but Obama or Clinton are light years ahead of the competition.

UPDATE: Dcup gave me some link love at American Street - Give the site a visit-
UPDATE2: Hi to all my friends visiting from C&L and Mike's Blog Round up!

Okay - The time of mourning is over

Well, now that Rush and the rest are going to be amping up to Re-label McCain a true conservative to the Republican base, I guess I'm going to have to take off my shroud of mourning for John Edwards and get on the Democratic bus. There will be no more bitching about Hillary or Obama, unless they really do something stupid. My vote will go to whichever is the nominee for the Democratic party, because there really is no alternative.

I will still be pimping Ron Paul for the "I ain't voting for no women, no minorities, and no damn liberals!" crowd. Because like it or not, he's a thousand miles ahead of the Bush crony alternatives. And a vote for Ron Paul is, effectively, a vote for the Democratic party in the end.

So all of you undecided Republicans- Vote your conservative conscience! Vote Paul. Or just don't vote at all, that will show America!

Paul does have his strong points- he's one of the few who understand monetary policy among the candidates. And here was his view on Iraq, stated in the House of Representatives in 2002

I sure like the way he talks about ending the war in Iraq, not because it is a failure, but because it is and has been a farce, from the get-go. Hillary can't do that, because she can't admit she was wrong to vote for the war. I don't mind a little flip-flop, if its under the impression that she was fooled by the corrupt Republicans who wanted this war so bad they broke several laws and traitorously exposed our own anti-terror personnel to our enemies...

Whoever speaks out the strongest against the occupation and getting us out of Iraq will get the nomination. I understand that they are worried about how to frame the withdrawal. For that, they could definitely take a page or two or three from Ron Paul's playbook-

I understand the need to play it safe, but with 70% of Americans wanting our troops home, and most of the remaining 30% being die hard Republican hawks, I think You are safe to say "Support the Troops. Bring them home" And by the way, when we bring them home, we will be saving the American taxpayer a Billion a month (a week?) ...

John Edwards 2008

No other candidate even comes close. It's Edwards or Corporate Cronyism.

Edwards articles at C&L - Vids, Political news concerning Edwards

Four Trials: Edwards Memoir, very well received - A different kind of political memoir, from a different kind of politician

.

John Edwards.com - His official site

.

John Edwards : The Plan to build one America - Pdf format, 80 pages

.

Edwards Twitter Updates - brief updates tell you what Edwards is up to, day to day

.

Edwards on Foreign Policy "Re-engaging with the World" from Foreign Affairs.org -Very good article written by Edwards that addresses his format for changing current foreign policy.

.

On The Issues: Edwards and other candidates as well. Basically just a list of various soundbites on each of the biggest issues.

From House of the Rising Sons- previous Edwards posts:

Edwards Firing Up - Dec 2006

Edwards First - May 2007

Kwisatz Haderach - Sep.2007

Who should be leading the Country? - Oct. 2007

Why Edwards is Right - Dec.2007

Edwards better than Obama or Hillary - Dec. 2007

Michael Moore on the Candidates - Jan. 2008

Ending the Occupation - Jan. 2008

.

Other blogposts about Edwards:

John Edwards and the End of Political Cronyism

Taylor Marsh on Edwards

Montana Maven

Frederick on JRE

The Pragmatic Progressive notes Edwards has the most detailed plan

.

And to all my fellow bloggers, who are still fence-sitting, or who don't want to seem biased to any one candidate yet- Please show some support for Edwards. This election is too important to give it to anyone but the absolute BEST Candidate for President. And Edwards is that person. And if you have a favorite post about Edwards leave the link in the comments and I'll add it to this post!

Texas Politikin - No one likes a Populist

except those damn dirty masses...

And you thought all we had to worry about here in Texas wuz the Republicans.

Yeehaw! Circle the wagons and set em on fire~

from Brains and Eggs The whole article is a good read...

EXCERPTS
"Thanks to a state party establishment rented out to the Texas Trust, Rahm EMANUEL is effectively Speaker of the House and Joe LIEBERMAN is actually the Senate Majority Leader. Matt ANGLE is effectively State Chair(man) and Martin FROST is Cardinal-Protector of the PACs. Super-rich donors -- out of state or, in the case of property-managers and concession-tenders, foreign -- have now created a Congressional majority that mimics the SDEC: it is less popular than even George W. BUSH and a drag on all Democratic campaigns. But the TDP is going all out (a) to maintain that death grip on this party and (b) to tie up and deliver a delegation of mind hostages -- drones, if you prefer -- to the national convention.
.
In 2008 the party elite are, again, protecting Craddick Democrats, leaving key GOP seats uncontested and remaining indifferent to, if not scared of, the populist uprising evident all across the country. They are using “McGovern Rules” (hard quotas) and sheer deception -- “rulesmanship” -- to hide control of the party by a handful of white male lawyers operating behind a velvet curtain of “inclusiveness”.
.
The simple fact of the matter is that both the Democratic and GOP party establishments would rather lose elections than lose control of their respective parties."

Ah, nothing like the absence of Progress in the leaders of the progressive party. Parliamentary procedural bullshit, what a fucking joke. All is not yet lost, though Texas is the poster child for the sad shape that many states Democratic party leaderships are in...

"The latent majority of Democrats -- a huge majority in Texas –- are in fact intensely patriotic, more frustrated than angry, filled with hope and not hate, and constructive, patient, and considerate; not destructive, desperate, or violent. Yes, we are confused by and annoyed with our party establishment. Yes, we need to get smart, replace them quickly, and move on to competitive rather than collaborative politics. That takes a real party; not plush offices in Austin, not an official entourage of young, pretty personal assistants, not kickbacks of free hospitality suites and limousines at state and national conventions run as over-priced “beauty pageants”, not a two-bit “likely-voter” campaign tool, scaled for individual House races, where a statewide get-out-the-vote program should be.
.
Once again the state party establishment is spending capital and mortgaging the future in a bid to boost its individual members up the patronage chain into state and federal appointed positions. They talk about winning elections, but all they are doing is currying favor with lobbies and aggrandizing themselves personally. Theirs is an exit strategy from politics that is, simply, more competitive than collaborative. The state party establishment is not really prepared or fit for competition.
.
What this calls for is a progressive populist caucus that has a plan and resources to take over the state convention, to inform delegates, to manage their time competently, to exercise plenary power of the state party, to exploit historic developments well underway, and to restore republican democracy to a fine party.
.
Our party is the first republican party in North America, the oldest democratic party in the world, but a decrepit and nearly inconsequential shell of its former self in Austin.
.
Sad as that is, parties are very lightweight institutions. All the Presidential candidates are talking change -- the easiest change of all being the discarding of a state party establishment of sycophants, toads, and fools. Actually, it is a good thing to be on the fringe of a party so badly run as ours in this state.
.
It makes the housecleaning more obvious and vital, for one thing."

Hillary - Why

A post at Hullabaloo was addressing those who cannot understand why Hillary is ahead. People have been blaming the win in NH on the women, on sympathy for the crying vote, and whatever other fancy takes them. Far from being enraged by these people I find myself wondering WHY also...

Watching the election run-up is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. The good news is that votes for Democrats are coming in twice as much as the votes for Republicans. It's a lot harder to steal an election when a big majority is there for the good guys. It was great news when Edwards jumped up a bit this past month. But still, Hillary Clinton maintains a large part of the progressive vote. And there isn't a damn reason why she should.

Some at Hullaballoo would tell you that it's because "she's willing to listen to voters. Or that she knows what she's talking about on a myriad of issues" - Okay, not exactly something Clinton monopolizes, but I'll concur with that...

.

then they go on to say that: "Or that voters actually do care about these issues and care that someone has thought them through and can be articulate and organized in discussing them" - and "Or that voters weighed what Clinton proposed and concluded they were pretty good ideas, and that she made a better case than her rivals."

That's where I've got to say : BULLSHIT.

Clinton on healthcare? Maybe. Clinton on Iraq, war with Iran, wiretapping, constitutional rights, Gitmo and the Economy? Bullshit, bullshit,bullshit, bullshit, and a steaming pile of ... more bullshit. Edwards has her beaten, hands down, on all of these issues.

Hillary hasn't done much as a "liberal" Senator. She hasn't taken a stand on Bush and Cheney, she hasn't stood against the war, and she is way too much of a insider for me to want her to have anything to do with a role as a President that will actually CHANGE ANYTHING.

Obama, even less, the Rock Star of Pandering and posing.

The biggest factor in the voters reasoning, that these same liberals (and me) bitched about in 2004- that they seem to have forgotten in this election - is that A LOT OF AMERICANS ARE IN FACT POPULARITY WORSHIPPING FOOLS.

.

After EVERYTHING that we've witnessed the past seven years, I see my fellow progressives propping up these two hollow candidates as our candidate for President and I wonder WHY?WHY?WHY?

.

The facts bear this out - Hillary is not the most Progressive candidate out there. She is pro-status quo and pro-establishment. She, (or Obama) will gladly take your vote to the whitehouse and then do nothing with it, except start appointing cronies, which, admittedly will be better than those bottom of the barrel bush cronies.

.

Even Republicans don't get it. They hate Hillary, but understand she's the closest thing to a neocon we've got. If Liberals are so pissed, why are they appointing someone who's been so lackluster on the issues while a Senator? They don't mind, though, even though they hate the Clintons, they recognize one of their own on the real issues, wink,wink, nudge nudge.
.

So maybe people ARE grasping for straws at why anyone is supporting her for President.

Because for the life of me, I cannot figure it out.

Games Parties Play

Drinking Liberally - Superdelegates

From JobsAnger
"The Texas Democratic Party says Dennis Kucinich will not be on the party's primary ballot in March. Kucinich did file the necessary paperwork, but would not sign a loyalty oath to support the party's nominee in November."

Careful where you point that thing, from MCCS

Throwing support, away from Morning Martini
Kucinich backs Obama in Iowa...

No Quarter shoots, dissects, and mounts the head of Obama's campaign on the wall of the den
Larry Johnson explains about Obama's lobbyist ties and his ability to say anything that will get him on the road to , eventually, not being elected.

Because some days are brighter than others

Sun, Rise

The two worst contenders for President go down in flames in Iowa.

Edwards Shines

Moore's final words say it all. I hate to post him twice in one week, but he's right on target with this :

"Bottom line: People have had it. Iowa will go blue (Happy Blue Year, Hawkeyes!). Whomever your candidate is on the Dem side, this was a good night. Get some sleep. The Republicans won't go down without a fight. Look what happened when Kerry tried to play nice. So Barack, you can talk all you want about "let's put the partisanship aside, let's all get along," but the other side has no intention of being anything but the bullies they are. Get your game face on now. And, if you can, tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates.

Despite what your answer may be, I was proud to sit in my living room tonight and see you and your family up on that stage. We became a bit better tonight, and on that I will close by saying, sweet dreams -- and on to that other totally white state of New Hampshire!"

And it couldn't have all happened on a better week for me, personally.

Sitting in the new house, with all four of my children together and the love of my life filling up the empty space that I didn't even believe I needed to fill at one time- life has just been really damn good... It's been just a brilliant, beautiful holiday for my family and as of yesterday night- for the rest of the country too. Hope may spring eternal from the hearts of fools- but it sure is nice being a fool this morning!

The boys head back to Arizona tomorrow, and I wish the time hadn't gone so fast, but really I couldn't have asked for a better time this year. I hope your holidays have been equally joyous.

And, as always: GO EDWARDS!

Progress = Ending the Occupation

Only One Top Dem will End Iraq Occupation

Guess Who that is ?

(from Alternet)
EXCERPT
"According to the National Journal, the Democratic candidates' "disputes over issues have almost completely evaporated in the campaign's final days." The leading Dems, according to the Journal, are beating each other up over who has the most effective "leadership style" or similar abstractions. The notion that the top candidates are virtually identical on the issues and vary only in "tone" -- with Clinton the voice of experience and pragmatism, Obama the feel-good "uniter" who can heal a divided country and John Edwards the aggressive economic populist -- has become, to some degree, the conventional wisdom of campaign 2008.

But, as is often the case, it's also simply wrong."

"While it's true that the big three have similar stances on a number of issues, on Iraq -- the one that Democrats and swing voters say is either their top concern, or No. 2 after the economy -- the top candidates' differences couldn't be more significant. In fact, only John Edwards among the top three Dems would effectively end the occupation of Iraq within a year of taking office."

Stopping the Occupation/"war" is the first step for any real progress in this country. And John Edwards is the only one who I believe will actually attempt to bring our troops home from Iraq as soon as he can.

Anyone who is fed up with the insanity of the neocons has only one real choice to stop more of our soldiers for dying in Iraq for the sake Billionaire War profiteers and neocon chickenhawks.

If you AREN'T Enraged at 4 years of our soldiers dying for lies by rich, fat fucking lowlife corporate slime powermongers like Dick Cheney and George Dubya, then you ARE the traitor to our country.

And waving your fucking little flags is a piss poor excuse for really supporting the troops as Dubya and his Saudi backroom oil buddies send our military into a meatgrinder, then take away their goddamn healthcare, pensions, and futures once they return crippled.

Shame on every one of you who has supported the anti-American policies of war, torture, and the murder of civilians that George Bush has brought us.

Shame.

This is a very important juncture in our nation's future - Don't Fuck It UP by voting for some corporate sycophant or some ineffective, insincere "Rock Star" who hasn't even done a good job as a Senator.

Michael Moore on who to vote for

Michael Moore sent out his thoughts on Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

It's a good read. I didn't want to cut and clip anything less I be accused of pimping Edwards over Hillary and Barack...

January 2, 2008

Friends,

A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,

Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Moore always has an interesting take....

oh yeah- and EDWARDS 2008!

UPDATE: NY Times Interview with Edwards (hat tip Americablog)

2007 Dems Vs. Contract with America

Think Progress has my comments banned, has had for awhile- not sure exactly why. I go there almost every day regardless of their distaste for my perspective (heh), they have a lot of good stuff...

Today they had this graph - which shows how much more effective the Democratic Congress has been than Newt's "firebrands" of 1995, even considering the record-breaking filibustering of the Republican defeatists.



It's a little slow today, waiting on the traditional "Christmas Surge" of the stock market at the end of options expiration. Looks like it may not materialize. Et, tu , Santa?

But anyway, give me some cool links to waste time if you run across anything. Email em or leave them in the comments...

Why Edwards is better than Hillary or Obama, part 256

(okay, maybe one more Edwards post...)

Why Edwards is the Best

As Atrios puts it:

Shorter Candidates:
Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.

Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.

Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.

.

It's just a no-brainer to someone who still believes we CAN Fight the Republicans ON OUR OWN GROUND and Win...

.

And Win BIG.

.

Obama and Clinton as President just remind me of Pelosi and Reid.

The Men who SHOULD be leading the Country

Watching the Democratic debate versus the Republican
debate, one thing is glaringly obvious: ANY of the Democrats would be a major improvement over these sock puppet corporate clowns on the Republican side.

Edwards is my choice, but props to Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson for simply appearing sane compared to the monkeyfucking shit-for-brains like Guliani, Thompson, McCain,etc..

Kucinich - very well laid out plans

More Kucinich at C&L

Gravel missing, of course, because he's too honest

Oh, and LMFAO AGAIN- ANOTHER anti-gay Republican is busted, this one dressed up Like Guliani (women's lingerie) having sex with a man in a nudie booth...

Republican Richard Curtis hastens to say : "I'm not Gay". I just like having gay sex while wearing women's clothes in public places.

Oh, Well THAT makes it okay then. Carry on. How can we win the war in Terror if our Republican war mongers can't dress up like chicks and blow men in public restrooms?

The Presidential Rat Race

The Leading Candidates...



Guliani - This is the face of Conservatism?


This is the face of Liberalism?




True Centrism- He'll say anything to get your vote, then do whatever he wants to. Too bad no one knows what the hell that is.

Keep your religion out of government.

This guy is the biggest joke on the campaign trail. But, he's laughing all the way to the bank. And with Republicans throwing away their money on him, I AM TOO.




Lone "Wolf" McCain - a cur that not only sits around licking his own balls, but also licking those of the rest of his pack...





Edwards - the only person who should AND Can be elected. I like Ron Paul's foreign policy. I'd love to see him run as Edwards' running mate once the Republican party kicks him to the curb and goes with Guliani or Romney. But Paul's economic policies don't make much sense and he doesn't have the desire to help save middle America. Kucinich would be great as a running mate for Edwards as well. But as for electability, we are talking Mondale here.

Make your own mind up. I've made up mine watching Edwards beat all the Progressive candidates on the issues time and again. And while Obama and Clinton beat Edwards on the money trail following their consultants' advice, Edwards is following policies, not rhetoric. Support the candidate who will do the most to repair our country.

Halfway through November

November's Casualties in Iraq

Life

They bruised my soul with a proverb,
They bruised my back with a rod,
And they bade me bow to my elders,
For that was the word of God.

They pent up my soul and bound me
Till life was a living death,
They struck the wine from my fingers,
The passion from my breath.

I reached my hands to living,
They hurled me back into school,
And they said, "Go learn your lessons,
"You innocent young fool."

They yowled till they woke the trumpets --
And the sword blade rent the plow,
And they said, "It is your duty
"To die for your elders now."

They cowered far from the battle
As I went into the strife,
And I spilled my guts in the trenches
In the red dawn of my life.

And the elders named me hero,
But more than their words and ire
Was the scent of a strange wild flower
There where I died in the mire.

Robert E. Howard

It has been a week since the elections and already ALL the news I see is Republicans talking about MORE Troops, More involvement, More "staying the course". And the Democrats snipe at each other and jockey for their own committee positions : "Whee! Let the lobbying begin!" The Democrats voted Steny Hoyer OVER Murtha. Who in the hell is Steny? Why are the ONLY times I have seen his name is when he's badmouthing other Democrats? And why is Carville attacking Dean, the man whose 50 state policy worked so well?

I don't think that some of the old-school Dem Dinosaurs get IT, exactly.

We voted out the bastards who got America where we are right now. We didn't kick those bastards out so you could merrily take their goddamn place taking kickbacks and sitting on your fat asses. Get our TROOPS out of Iraq. Fuck Bush I's and Bush II's "Study Groups". The only thing these cronies are studying is how to best separate oil from Iraqis. Redeployment plans IMMEDIATELY. Every minute that is wasted on the Republican's Failed plans is a minute that a new American soldier may die in.

If the Democratic party Fails in this, because they are too busy marketing themselves- WE WILL NOT FORGET. Do your damn jobs. The ones that Republicans HAVEN'T DONE For 12 damn years!

It's time to start fixing America.