How bad do you want it?

How did I miss this?

Bill Clinton does the Limbaugh show

..Bill going on the Rush show the day of the Texas primaries, when Rush was exhorting Republicans to illegally vote as Democrats just to hurt the Democratic party- That's just... ..low. Damn, it's lower than low.

Then there's this- Scaife-Hillary

"I don't know just how this went down. But the idea Sen. Clinton and her staff went into an editorial board meeting with Scaife and his lackey reporters without a clear sense that they were going to get at least one choice Jeremiah Wright question just somehow doesn't ring true to me."

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is baaaaack... and apparently this time the Clintons are working with it.

Rush Limbaugh!? Richard Scaife?!

I can put up with a LOT from a presidential candidate as long as they are willing to fight for the constitution against the Bushbots. But I'll be damned if I support a candidate who panders to Rush Limbaugh's crowd and then works side by side with the people who worked so hard to attempt to destroy you. Hell, how can she even sit in the same room with that man? Unless...

Unless it's all been a goddamned sham from the get-go.

Any way you slice it, it's NOT what I want from a Democratic leader. And half of Progressive Democrats in America want Hillary to be the next President?

It's times like these that I come close to agreeing with Vlad Kalashnikov on the state of American politics: America is fucked beyond all repair.

I will leave you with Vlad's thoughts on Bear Stearns and the financial symmetry of the Russian collapse with the impending American one...

Everything about Bear Stearns collapse and bailout is a deja vu of collapse of Yeltsin-era banking system. Back then in the 1990s, American advisers created Russia's "market" system, and that ended in a total economic collapse in August of 1998. What is happening today in America is just a repeat. For example, the development this week of the Bear Stearns collapse reminds me so much of the same way Russian banks collapsed under American guidance in the 1990s. In Russia under Yeltsin, when a bank was close to collapse they always assured the public that everything was fine and they blamed "rumors" for causing problems; this week, the CEO of Bear Stearns and all the American journalists on Bear Stearns payroll blamed "rumors" and "irrational psychology" for causing a run on Bear Stearns' money during the week. The purpose of these lies is that it allows the insiders to cash out their money while the rest of the trusting American fools keep their money in, only to lose it later. Then after the insiders cash out, comes the supposed "panic" and "sudden" collapse, best to take place on a Friday of course. The "sudden collapse" and "panic" gives cover for the next even bigger transaction: the connected Bear Stearns banker calls the Central Bank Chief Bernanke, just as Khodorkovsky would call Dubinin or whoever was Central Bank chief then, and naturally Bernanke gives to Bear Stearns as many billions as the CEO asks for, and everyone thinks it's okay because the billions were necessary in this atmosphere of alleged "sudden panic," as if Bear Stearns and Bernanke had not been speaking to each other like phone sex addicts every day 24/7 the entire week. Reports Bloomberg:

The Fed is taking on the credit risk from collateral supplied by Bear Stearns, which approached the central bank for emergency funds, Fed staff officials said today.

The Fed, under Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, voted unanimously to lend the funds through JPMorgan because it would be operationally simpler than a direct loan to Bear Stearns, the staff said on condition of anonymity. The regulator invoked a little-used law that allows it to make loans to corporations and private partnerships, which required a Board vote, according to the staffers.

Yes, you read that correctly. In the exact replay of Yeltsin-oligarchs' strategy to steal and steal, the Central Bank bailout money is not directly from the government to Bear Stearns, because that makes it harder to steal those billions. Instead, it is funneled through another well-connected bank, J.P. Morgan, so that those corrupt bankers can also take a nice cut in the deal ("otkat" it's called). Essentially the "bailout" is a massive bribe from corrupt Bush to corrupt J.P. Morgan, and in return JP Morgan will buy the ruins of Bear Stearns with the government money (minus what they steal). Meanwhile plenty of billions make sure that major Bear Stearns principles all cash out well. Here comes the funny part. How does "free speech" America hide this outright corruption and thieving from the population? Let a Russian explain to your naive innocent little American eyes: stop all this bullshit about "transparency" because it is no longer convenient:

The senior [Central Bank] staffers declined to describe how large the loan to Bear Stearns was, and declined to say whether a private- sector bailout was attempted before the Fed extended credit through JPMorgan.

NO ONE KNOWS HOW MANY BILLIONS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT JUST GAVE TO BEAR STEARNS, AND HOW MANY MORE BILLIONS WILL FOLLOW. The ghost of Yeltsin lives in the Federal Reserve! We don't know anything, and we didn't know it was even legal, because American government and banks exploited "obscure never used" laws to justify outright corruption and fraud, according to Wall Street Journal:

The arrangement employs a little-used Depression-era provision of the Federal Reserve Act.

It is sad to see Americans imitating the very worst Russians 10 years late, what incredible fucking losers you are! And meanwhile the American masses have no fucking idea, free press or no free press, they just stand around like retarded jackasses with a sign on their backs that reads "ASS-FUCK ME", because they trust their leaders. Americans don't know anything about Iraq anymore except that they're winning, they don't know hundreds of billions being stolen in front of their fat stupid faces, they don't know anything except where to find a bargain on hamburger buns. I almost cannot blame Bush and the bankers for stealing from American fools, it's just too easy! Let the bloodthirsty corrupt elite steal from the bloodthirsty retarded masses, it will hasten the final collapse of this cruel and shameful empire called "America."

...

No, Americans have no fucking idea what is happening to them. We Russians were not such trusting dumbshits, even against all odds, we did understand when it happened to us in the 1990s. We are not trusting dumbshits Americans. We fought but we were too weak to fight against Yeltsin regime, supported with hundreds of billions of American "loan" money, sophisticated propaganda which we still didn't understand, and guns. Do not forget that the entire Yeltsin economy, including the notorious corrupt banking system, was forced upon us by United States government and the American investment bank advisers who were seated inside the Russian government at all times. That is why today's American banking collapse is so easy to understand for Russians. Russians tried as early as in 1993 to stop the vicious Yeltsin/American "shock therapy" economics that turned a proud nation into desperate paupers. I remember the dark time because even though I was just a student in 1993, my family suffered through this years together. First we lost all savings, and first my grandfather and then two uncles died quickly and brutally. Our democratically elected parliament tried to stop Yeltsin "shock therapy" and throw out American "free market advisers" to save what was left. Americans and Yeltsin decided democracy was not good anymore so Yeltsin, the democrat, ordered tanks to attack the opposition parliament in 1993. He killed several hundred brave Russian patriots, who died fighting against this corrupt ruinous American "shock therapy" economics. We were crushed with tanks, you see. Naturally President Clinton immediately supported Yeltsin, showing who was the real master of that putsch against Russian democracy. It meant something that Clinton immediately gave his support to Yeltsin. It was like a wartime defeat. I can tell you, back then we were in such awe of America, we had no choice but to accept defeat, it was hopeless. We lost the power to stop banks and government from stealing every last part of Russia, until the final collapse in 1998.

It took tanks to keep Russians down while they robbed the country. Tanks, and American money.

What is your excuse today, Americans? There are no tanks, no Russian interference to destroy you and demoralize you. Why do you let your leaders steal everything your country has? Why do you sit passively like slaves who mated with sheep, the sheep-slaves with a big stupid smile on your fat fucking faces? You are not even human beings, you deserve worse than a total collapse of you country, you deserve to be wiped off the face of this planet forever, as if you were just an embarrassing accident and it will never happen again, you sickening pussy sub-human dumbfucks!

Oh fuck, now ruined my good mood. I need to run back to my friends now to celebrate your collapse. There will be time for bitter memories of the 1990s.

And for me, I'm sure, time for bitter memories of the 2008 elections.

Perspective.

Maybe it's being on so many Republican's mass mail lists that allows me to keep the whole Hillary/Obama stuff in perspective... Unity. Get some.

Hillary or Obama would both be fine as President. And if they realize just how much they will owe to the American voter (who will elect the next President on Change and Ending the War) they will make strides to truly serve the American people. Especially if they desire that all-important second term in the White House.

Hillary or Obama is much better than McCain. Continuing to snipe irrationally at both of them for playing politics is a self-defeating endeavor. Slow your role, don't be chumps. Try not to act like a bunch of spastic chicken littles when your candidate of choice looks like they might lose. It's not the end of the world. Obama will not make slaves of all the white people. Hillary will not begin her Presidency by announcing WWIII. Don't fall prey to the Dan Abrams sniping at the Democratic candidates. Focus on the real problems and concentrate on asking YOUR candidate how they plan to address these issues. Don't fall prey to mindless bickering about Obama and Clinton- Rush Limbaugh is popping a viagra and beating off furiously with that big fat fucking smug grin on his dopey face over this shit. Let's not give him the satisfaction, okay?

But, as far as perspective goes- that's ALL Rush has to be happy over- the Dem on Dem violence. Seriously, the right wing is losing it's damn mind right now over its loss of prominence, respect, and power. 75% of the population realize that Republicans are simply full of shit hypocrites. The right wing has been burnt by their leaders. And they finally know it. Even the bushbots who forward all the misogynistic Hillary jokes and the racist Obama jokes are starting to taper off into nothingness. My in-box used to be full of that simple shit. Still the Republicans cling to the desperate notion that as bad as it has been that it would have been worse with a Democrat.

I don't know how.

They've got a President who couldn't protect them from terrorism, couldn't (or didn't want to) catch Osama Bin Ladin, lied them into war, completely screwed the pooch on Hurricane Katrina, who tripled their gas prices, who shot inflation into the sky, helped destroy what little healthcare they had, went on a radical government spending spree that makes me want to bring back Reagan and his $300 hammers and $500 toilet seats, sold out the EPA for corporate interests, helped expand NAFTA and outsource american jobs to other countries, cut benefits to our troops while pretending to support them, and has wiped his feet with our constitution with a system of government cronies that make Nixon's little helpers look like a phalanx of angels. They can't even whine about Global warming any more. Now all they can say about it is a weak splutter and some mumbling about "still haven't proved it's caused by man". Who the hell cares? Now that you admit it's there, dipshit- let's do something about it, mkay?

A Democrat couldn't have fucked up as bad and as consistently as Dubya, it's impossible. He's staying the course of sticking his head right up his ass . And no one, especially not the American people will tell him how, why or when to pull it out. He's the decider.

To put another Republican in office after the ALL THIS is pure retardation. The only thing worse than Der Shrubenfuhrer would be to continue this madness under McInsain. And even the Republican leadership understands this. They've got a candidate that they basically dislike. He's an idiot and a flip flopper. He has lost the christian coalition wingnuts And he STILL doesn't seem to know the difference between a Shia and Sunni. Not that it matters to the Republican voters in general, they don't know either. McCain doesn't even have a decent running mate who isn't hated just as much as he is. He'll basically have to bring up a second stringer who is an unknown. Face it, the Republicans are fucked.

They are so fucked, that the one Repub email I did receive this morning was a fricking Bob Hope clip. That's it?! Holy smoke, not even John Wayne or maybe a fake story about a soldier who beat up a hippie or shot an ay-rab for jesus? I got a clip of Bob Hope calling Democrats zombies....

wow.

How weak is that? It was entitled "Greatest Movie Line Ever." which shows the Republican talent for blowing miniscule bs completely out of proportion. This is all they can do right now, take their 80 year old asses and look for Bob Hope clips..? Fricking pathetic. Republicans don't believe in Evolution, they think the world is 6,000 years old. They are old dusty racist dinosaurs. They, in short, are the past. Every day another hundred or so of these old dumb bastards die off and America is that much better for it.

Bob Hope clips are the last gasp of the Republican party. It's really all they ever had, soundbite bluster, jingoistic flag-waving, and manly chest thumping bout War, dammit!

It's time to put this segment of uneducated hypocrites to bed for awhile. That means showing a little more tolerance. This means YOU SusanUnPc. This means YOU John Aravosis. This means everyone who has went off the deep end attacking our own side. Ranting about Republicans whose actions have hurt all Americans is fine. Ranting about how bad a Democrat - ANY Democrat at all- would be in the White House is just bullshit.

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.

Going Down?

CAPITALISM THREAT RED!!
(Ooogah! Ooogah!)



Carlyle Group's Mortgage bond fund collapsing - someone besides me will blog it better, I'm sure...

Retail sales decline because of High gas prices...

Dollar falls below 100 Yen...

Olbermann rips Clinton, justifiably.
I would beseech her to give up for the sake of the party and, uh, the country- but Amerka, apparently, has teh spoken. They are lackwits and popularity-chasing buffoons, even among the Progressives, and they are playing right into the hands of an extremely weak Right wing. And that right wing may walk away with this election because of our power hungry candidate. Hillary defers gracefully and she might be receiving long term gains for 2012. But, you know, my fellow Americans can't see past next fucking week, so I don't expect anyone with the foresight greater than that of a housefly to prevail.

ACLU reports that we are one minute closer to Midnight

And once again- Corporate corruption and LACK of REGULATION makes America unsafer

Today's investment tip: Stock up on Salvia and Ammo Now!

And remember kids- it could be worse- at least the Zombie assault hasn't begun!

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.

Edwards and Obama

Edwards Meets Obama - From John Nichols at Common Dreams (and The Nation)

EXCERPTS
So Barack Obama jetted out of Wisconsin, where he is battling for a big victory in Tuesday’s primary, for a Sunday meeting in Chapel Hill with John and Elizabeth Edwards. The Illinois senator left reporters behind to make what he hoped would be a secret trip, but a North Carolina television station was tipped off and got footage of Obama leaving the home where he met with the Edwardses.

Obama asked for an endorsement. But he also provided the former senator and his wife with detailed arguments about why he would be a stronger Democratic candidate in November, and an outline of how he would seek to implement progressive economic reforms as president.
A key part of the discussion focused on a priority of John Edwards: writing a Democratic platform that outlines a genuine change agenda.

“The meeting with John, we just wanted to talk about how we can move the party in a direction that focuses on middle-class issues, relieving poverty, reducing the influence of special interests in Washington,” Obama acknowledged Sunday night.
...
Obama has framed his Wisconsin campaign against Clinton as a fight over trade policy, but Obama’s record is not a whole lot better than Clinton’s on this issue. Edwards, who ran for the Democratic nomination this year as an ardent advocate for fair trade policies, has earned credibility with key unions — especially the United Steelworkers and to a lesser extent the United Auto Workers.

If an Edwards endorsement were to help break loose endorsements from those two unions, which remain powerful players in Ohio, it would be a dramatic boost for Obama.

Additionally, Edwards remains a particularly popular figure in rural and southern states. In Oklahoma, for instance, the former senator took more than 10 percent of the vote on February 5, after he had withdrawn from the race.

Parts of Oklahoma are a lot like parts of Texas, and Obama would love to have Edwards take a swing through the Lone Star state before the March 4 primary.

Will it happen?

Thoughts?

I notice my No-Civil-War post hasn't made anyone more civil by the way... More political name-calling by progressives on both sides. Bushbots, and Hillbots, and Obamabots, oh my! From Kos to No Quarter, there is some ugliness out there. I was going to link the specific posts, but I decided not to give the divisiveness any more publicity. Forward, not backward, guys and gals...

Again, progressive posts that viciously attack Obama OR Hillary and insult the people who support them with derogatory terms are just self-defeating. And to use the "Repubs will say this, too" defense is ignorant, as well. Watch where you guys are chucking those stones, after all, we all have to live in this big glass house in the end.

Keep your eye on the prize, people- Hillary AND Obama are both iffy candidates that could mean a close election in what should be a landslide. What makes either of them electable is that the Republicans have destroyed their credibility on the economy and the war (two matters intrinsically tied together, by the way...) and being all attack and no substance, time and again.

Namecalling Obama and Hillary supporters isn’t going to help your chosen candidate, it just demeans the Democratic side as a whole.

This is the only real chance Republicans have to win in 2008: that the Progressives fall into infighting. I hate to see this shit on No Quarter, from people who have seen firsthand just how bad the Repubs are, and what lengths they will go to. I can't say much about Kos, I rarely visit that site...

Hillary isn’t some super liberal, as you well know. Neither is Obama. But both are better than the alternative. The more attack posts there are among progressives, the closer we are to having McCain as a President. Please, PLEASE focus on the positives on the candidates, if you can, and refrain from attacking the Democrats who have thrown their support to 'the other side'.
If the only “support” you can dredge up for your candidate are these attacks - then you will end up helping another piece of shit Republican get elected. Please, take a minute before you go into attack mode. If you are just mudslinging on another Democrat, who you don't like as much as your candidate, - or worse, ridiculing progressives and liberals who support the other Dem, then maybe it's not worth posting.

What the Fisa?

Frederick

What the Fisa?

Crooks and Liars

Obama showed, Hillary didn’t.

Hillary didnt voice a word about this, and her silence is deafening.
She could have put her leverage to work. She didnt.

Any Hillary Progressives should hang their heads in shame. Any women who want better rights- will this woman sell you out the way she did Progressives?

Edwards is out, so she might as well run back to the right.

and almost 20 cowardly/bought and paid for Democrats joined the completely sold out Republicans.

Goddamn it all to hell, are you fucking fed up yet?

Actor212/Carl is way more in the know than some piddly ass Redneck liberal like me... He's backing Hillary, all the way. And I just want to know how blowing off our freedom helps us.

"Cuz I'm just a simple motherfucker, here, and I guess I don't get it"

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?) ...

Moving on...

Doc Biobrain takes notes on the sexist side of the sexist/racist feeding frenzy taking place with Hillary and Obama supporters....

Democratic Cannibalism

NOTE to Everyone:

The racists and the sexists are on the other side. They aren't at Obama rallies, or Clinton rallies or even John Edwards rallies (he's a white male! Egad!).

They are at Republican rallies. I might not know much, but I do know racism and sexism, and, as a partially white male, I've spread both from time to time. Mainly out of ignorance, but hey, I admit it, and I'm working on it. But I know how to recognize 'em and believe you me- they ain't Liberals. m'kay?

So chill the fuck out, people, just because the Democrats are currently winning doesn't mean they can't lose- especially now that 'the people' have spoken, and having spoken, have removed the strongest candidates who were speaking out against the real racists and sexists out there.
Well, we still have Gravel, right Old Hack?!

The Republican party has a fixed agenda: It goes something like this: Fuck minorities. Fuck Women. Fuck the poor. It's three things they ALL pretty much agree on. Liberals can pretty much agree that those three groups need to be treated equally, uplifted and supported where disparities rear their heads. But the minute we make some real gains against the truly bad people out there, I see us cannibalizing each other.

Hillary ain't a racist. Obama ain't a sexist. At least they're not any worse than anyone else out there on our side. We all have our issues to deal with. I would love to see the first woman President. I would love to see the first black President. Would it matter to NOW if that woman-elect was Ann Coulter? These achievements would be great to prove that America, as a country, is moving forward. But to vote for any woman or any minority, just to make the achievement and without regards to how this person would perform as a President is purely ignorant.

Now we are left with a black man and a white woman as our front runners, and honestly, beyond proving to the racists and sexists out there that it can be done, I don't give a damn what color our new president is or whether he/she pees standing up or sitting down. I want a liberal, progressive Democrat in office to help wipe out what remains of the crooked Republican Congress and the incumbent enabler Democrats who have allowed them to run our country into the ground.

And if we don't pull our heads out of each others asses while searching for racism and sexism - we will surely allow the REAL Racists and sexists to continue fucking over the country.

Hope is all that's left, unfortunately

Polishifter - on another 5 dead soldiers in Iraq

More kids die
More Women die
More Iraqis die
More of everyone dying

"Hillary is a fighter"
"Obama has a voice I can relate to"

Neither matters if they settle into office with all the faux tsunamic force of a Pelosi.

Damn it! Why in the flying fuck do today's progressives choose style, sex and race over a candidate who is promising to get our troops out of there?? Do you people believe that Edwards is a liar? Because Hillary and Obama aren't even TALKING about getting us out of Iraq.

Hillary with all of her AIPAC ties, and Obama "Everything's on the table" with starting NEW wars in Iran. What part of "WAKE THE FUCK UP!" Do you not understand?

Fucking Hell! I just can't understand it. Wake the Fuck up.
Please.

A vote for Hillary, a vote for Obama- is a vote for MORE DEATH in Iraq. There will 5000 dead troops and god knows how many civilians before Bush steps down from office. And after another 4 years of Hillary or Obama there will be 5,000 more.

Goddamnit, wake up.

UPDATE: MSNBC says Edwards is dropping out of the race...
My heart sinks-

Listening to NPR this morning, they had two soundbites of average joes talking about Obama. These voters in Florida explained their support for Obama as being tied to his ability to bring the country together. Well, pardon me, but the country is together, except for the insane 23% of the racist, sexist, Republican base who thinks that George Bush is the greatest person in the world.

They are wrong. And they have been wrong from the get-go. Most of those who supported Bush in the beginning now have seen the error of their way and have come to the light. This has been a dark time in American history and we have yet to see the full ramifications of the Bush presidency. The recession is just beginning and our foreign policy is in shambles. And guess what? I have NO Desire to move to the middle at this point!

We, the far left, have been right over and over. People want change from the ridiculousness of the present system. We were on the cusp of great change. Returning to the middle only serves the ignorance of the Republican base, who are completely happy with the system as is. As radical as real change might be, it is desperately needed. We don't need to shake the hand of our dumb ass Uncle the racist over dinner and say "Agree to disagree." We need to get in his face and say "You stupid fuck- how many soldiers died because you couldn't open your damn eyes? How much will OUR Family suffer because of this recession? How many times have you called ME a traitor as you worshipped at the altar of corporate oil?"

These stupid fuckers don't deserve to have us move closer to their ignorant mindset. Each and every one of them needs to be held down, choking, as we force feed them the truth, no matter how much they don't want to take their medicine. The Right has NO accountability. They are a full blown minority at this point, EXCEPT in the halls of Congress. But that is changing. And Republicans will become less and less powerful in the coming years as a direct result of how wrong they have been on EVERYTHING.

I HOPE Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton do not back down as so many other Democrats have done in recent days. I HOPE that they understand that this country is in dire straits and needs to implement some real change. I HOPE that they will reverse their mealy mouthed stance on Iraq as soon as they are elected and get our troops out of there, post-haste.

The thing is, I didn't HAVE to HOPE that Edwards understood these matters and would take action to correct them. I knew. It am glad he was able to move Hillary and Obama closer to the left on all these issues. I can only hope they ditch their pollsters and their popularity contests and show some real spine and perseverence. Hope, unfortunately, is what the American people are counting on. And now, with the best candidate out of the race, it's all I have as well.

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!

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)

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.

Damn Blogger layouts

Yeah, I screwed up the blogroll. Remind me to put you on my list...

Best Optical Illusion in the World

Photo Fun from the Old House

And from Empire Burlesque:

On the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY: did not vote.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill: did not vote.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn: did not vote.
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-RI: did not vote.

Do ANY of these immoral fuckers deserve your vote?! If you can't take a stand against fucking torture, what CAN You take a stand for?

Mirth Elaborates on this very point...

Hillary's enemies?

Anna Quindlen of Newsweek waxes ridiculous in this week's edition. She describes liberal Democrats as Hillary's worst enemies. I must admit, I don't support Hillary for President at all, even though I have heard she has done some really good things for New York. I don't believe she deserves the support of liberals as far as being the next President-elect. But for Quindlen to label progressives like me as Hillary's "enemies" is just more media chaff ejected to distract the American public.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15362334/site/newsweek/

Here is my reply to Ms.Quindlen:

RE: Hillary's biggest enemies.

Anna, Anna, Anna,

Where to start? Why don't you mention "Hillary Clinton" to the next 10 random people you run into. After you hear the outlandish vitriol from the Republicans who despise her from head to toe, then you can use the word "enemy" in its proper context. As it is, your article is just so much more tripe. Hillary is unelectable for two reasons. Number 1 is because, from my dear old Fox-news imbedded Grandmother to young Republicans everywhere, she is despised and blamed for everything from "Fake" Global warming to coddling terrorists. None of this has any basis in fact, but neither does listening to Dubya tell millions of Americans that we are winning in Iraq.... It is utter manure.

That said, Reason No.2 is that Hillary Clinton is like Republican Lite- She's a pure politician who, until she stood up against Rumsfeld recently, (after she sensed the political wind shifting) has not stood strong with the Democrat party enough. She had the power to stand up a LONG time ago and speak out openly against this Administration, against torture, against wiretaps, against renditions, against Bush's failure to take accountability for 9-11 AND the Katrina fiasco. Time and time again, she has not.

In short, she's failed every Democrat, and especially every liberal Democrat out there by failing to do so. Explore the blogosphere- few Progressives OR Liberals OR Democrats desire to see Hillary on a ticket or TALK INCESSANTLY about it, like you folks in the media. She's insincere. She's just another politician, and thats EXACTLY what we don't need.

Here's some things that Liberals know that it takes the Mainstream media 3 years to figure out, and will probably take Bush supporters another 3 years after that to figure out:

1. The Iraq war is a massive Mistake.
A. No WMD existed at the time we invaded, as we screamed and protested at the time.
B. It Increased Terror and Terrorist activities
C. It has resulted in a monumental loss of life for no, absolutely NO Measurable Benefit to the average American.
D. It has bankrupted our country.

2. Hillary Clinton WILL NEVER Be the Candidate in 2008.

3. Iran is NOT a threat, but if Bush has his way, he will begin Iraq Part Deux ASAP to distract voters. (Note the wargames going on?)

4. Impeachment and immediate THOROUGH investigations on Foleygate, Traitorgate, and the 9-11 commission are the Absolute Best Way to end Political Corruption and the Pork of the Century element of the Abramoff Republican Era.

Don't believe me? Well then, by all means- please, continue writing such inanity as Hillary's enemies being Democrats.