Food for Thought

Obama's current policy on Iraq (as of today, it changes around a lot) is to withdraw our forces to nearby bases outside of the country and run missions into Iraq to aid the Iraqi forces when violence escalates.

As much as the DNC and his campaign are touting McCain's campaign as running for "Bush's 3rd Term" what kind of change is Obama selling here?

As the NY Times even pointed out:

"A rapid transfer of responsibility to Iraqi forces and withdrawal to large bases was attempted in 2005 and 2006, with disastrous results when the Iraqi units proved incapable of halting major attacks, and sectarian violence worsened."

Obama's policy on Iraq is what even left leaning media sources consider one of the Bush Admin's most disastrous tactics.

Obama's Iraq policy doesn't just include one of the Bush Admin's tactical mistakes... Obama's plan makes those tactical mistakes the entire strategy!

McCain may share some of Bush's policies on Iraq, but he shares the ones that worked. Unlike Obama he isn't pushing the failed policies as a grand new strategy and calling that "change."

You add that to Obama's repeated assertions that we would need UN, and thus Chinese/Russion permission, to take action on humanitarian issues, genocide, and regional conflicts he'd give the green light to China to take Taiwan by force, for the genocide in Sudan to continue, for Iran to renew its nuclear weapons program, etc with absolutely no real pressure or worry about it leading to a possible intervention...

Obama is the "change" that tyrants, oppressors, and America's enemies can believe in!

Fox: Tablet Proof We Can Exploit Christians!

From Fox and other irresponsible media outlets:

Researchers: Asteroid Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah

A clay tablet that has baffled scientists for 150 years has been identified as a witness's account of the asteroid suspected of being behind the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Researchers who cracked the cuneiform symbols on the Planisphere tablet believe that it recorded an asteroid thought to have been more than half a mile across.

The tablet, found by Henry Layard in the remains of the library in the royal place at Nineveh in the mid-19th century, is thought to be a 700 B.C. copy of notes made by a Sumerian astronomer watching the night sky.

...

Mark Hempsell, one of the researchers from Bristol University who cracked the tablet's code, said: "It's a wonderful piece of observation, an absolutely perfect piece of science."

He said the size and route of the asteroid meant that it was likely to have crashed into the Austrian Alps at Köfels. As it traveled close to the ground it would have left a trail of destruction from supersonic shock waves and then slammed into the Earth with a cataclysmic impact.

Wait, wait, wait... in Austria? Sodom and Gomorrah were believed to be near the Dead Sea, located between Israel and Jordon.

How is this an eyewitness account of a Bible story?

The article continues:

Dr Hempsall said that at least 20 ancient myths record devastation of the type and on the scale of the asteroid's impact, including the Old Testament tale of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the ancient Greek myth of how Phaeton, son of Helios, fell into the River Eridanus after losing control of his father's sun chariot.

So is it an eyewitness account to any of these other myths? Nope, just the one Fox viewers, with a large following of devout Christians, would want to believe.

The scientists themselves never called it an eyewitness account to any of the above, but rather a testament to an event that happened in a completely different location where some physical signs of such an event seem to make the description appear plausible.

Another knee-jerk reaction of a media outlet to satisfy the preconceived notions of its audience that, in the end, will make their audience sound ignorant for repeating. While this may sound overly critical to the devout who would love for this story to be true, it is actually a criticism of media outlets who are exploiting their audience's faith to sell a story that most people wouldn't have found all that interesting.

Just wrong.

Why McCain?

Two great "Why McCain?" arguments I've stumbled across recently.

The first is from an independently minded, but unabashedly liberal and self-described "peace loving hippy": JustKem:

I’ve been asked that a lot lately… I certainly don’t fit the model that the GOP traditionally targets when they build their ads. I’m pro-abortion, generally against religion (or at the very least, against the concept of faith in others to define what is inherently unknowable, particularly when that faith in others is used to drive policy or fused in any way with the military), anti-war, and pretty open-minded when it comes to love and the different ways that people choose to express it.
Why on Earth would I want to vote for someone who is “strong on terrorism”, pro-sanctity-of-marriage, has religious nutjob preachers endorsing him, and who probably sprinkles ground up hippy on his breakfast cereal? Why?!?

Well, for one thing, I’m thoroughly disillusioned with the Democratic nominees. Clinton and Obama both have policies on board that I don’t just disagree with, but I think are actually outright *dangerous* in the economic waters we’re surfing at the moment. Just because we have computers doesn’t mean that we’re immune to the possibility that China and India will wreck our economy. They have computers too, now, and they work for much less money. Some of them even speak English. Some of them have Masters degrees. A cheap, bright, and well-educated workforce is damned difficult to compete with, and I don’t think that either Obama or Hillary really sees this economic reality for the threat it is. McCain was the only candidate who had the balls to tell the people in Michigan, “Sorry, those jobs aren’t coming back.” I respect that.

...

And then, finally, there’s the war. Why would I support McCain, when I am– in all fairness– a peace loving hippy? Well, partially because I don’t trust Obama or Clinton to hire people who plan for worst case scenarios. I expect that they will hire people who do what the people want them to do and sell it well, as indicated by the opinon polls. My general opinion of the American public is not high enough for me to be happy with that option. McCain, on the other hand, seems pretty solid on his foreign policy. He gets it. The world is filled with assholes that do Bad Things, and some of those Bad Things are either potentially dangerous to American interests or so utterly deplorable that we cannot afford to look the other way and still expect to sleep well at night. (Hello, Darfur??)

Nothing would please me more than the secure knowledge that we could pull all of our troops out of Iraq today, and wind up with a better situation tomorrow than we have today. The very real possibility that we would wind up with a worse scenario tomorrow than we have today if we followed the opinion polls on our presence there (both at home and in Iraq) makes me want to leave this to experts who have a very nuanced and careful approach to the issue. I trust McCain to look for those individuals carefully, and not give a damn whether or not they look pretty or speak eloquently.

4,000 soldiers, and everyone else who is directly and indirectly impacted by America’s approach to the war on terror (roughly 6.6 billion people, in other words) deserve this from our next President. And that’s why I’m voting for John McCain.

Kem and I disagree quite a bit on domestic and foreign policy, which has made for some fun conversations given that we both seem to think we're right. I was pretty surprised when I found out that we might actually be voting for the same candidate this year.

The reason, as far as I can figure, is the priorities of the current Democratic Party seem to be particularly out of whack from what needs to be done and developing a pragmatic course in dealing with those issues. There seems to be a fairly significant segment of the population that align closer to the Democratic Party if one did a simple count of which issues they agree/disagree on... but when the various issues are weighted and/or prioritized they actually come closer to the moderate Republican who is the current presumptive nominee of the GOP.

The second example I stumbled across was Joe Lieberman. While his support isn't much of a surprise at this point, his argument on exactly why in light of the idealogical difference was telling.

Joe Lieberman, an independent now, but still a strong ideological opponent of John McCain on domestic issues, explains how the Democratic Party has veered so far left on foreign policy that it simply is not the Democratic party he knew. Further, that he apparently feels it is putting the party's interests ahead of America's interests.

He also notes that the hyper-partisanship of the current Democratic Party, including the current presidential candidates, is so fierce that they are making it difficult to impossible to actually work together to solve the domestic problems facing America. Whereas John McCain, in his opinion, is far more reminiscent of John F. Kennedy (from the era Lieberman joined the Democratic Party), than the current Democratic candidates. Strong on defense, strong on trade, and with a proven record on bipartisanship even when it created controversy and hurt his image among his fellow party members.

Here's Lieberman's comments in his own words:



Comments like this about his proven record of bipartisanship and sincere predictions of this continuing with a McCain administration often raise the ire of the far right who regularly viewed McCain's maverick moves as betrayals of his own Party and their view of conservative ideology. They, like the hyper-partisans running the Democratic party, are also hyper-partisans, and thanks to GOP primary voters have lost the opportunity to have a hyper-partisan devotee to run as their Party's candidate.

McCain is the real change America has been waiting for. An end to the hyper-partisanship, someone who will work with both sides of the aisle to do the right thing, and someone who is uniquely qualified for the times... instead of another shyster, promising the voters everything they want to hear, with little to no credentials to back up their ability to do so, and promising "change" that upon closer inspection is the status quo.

Probably the biggest change of all? A man nearly every American can respect, whether they agree or disagree with his views. A man who fought and nearly died for his country on more than one occasion. A man who continues to fight for what is right no matter how unpopular to this very day.

McCain could have abandoned his stance on Iraq when his primary run was declared dead last summer. He could have flip-flopped on many issues that were hurting him in the primary as one politician did famously in 2004. He could have tried to save his campaign that way. Instead he continued to talk to the voters in a unique way. He went to townhall meeting after townhall meeting, telling them his views and answering question bluntly... even when he had to give an answer he knew the questioner didn't want to hear. I don't think he's perfect, but compared to average-Joe-politician? He's about as genuine as they come.

I came out in support of him when his campaign appeared all but doomed last May... because I honestly believed he was the best candidate in the running from either party. It didn't win me any friends... though it did win me a lot of snickers and quite a few jeers from many of my die-hard conservative friends. But I listened to his policies, I listened to him bluntly answer questions in townhall after townhall, and avoiding the empty promises constantly being brought up by his peers in both parties.

A military man from a military family that has continued that tradition of honor, courage, and commitment as even his own kids have taken up the banner along with our other men and women in uniform.

A man who doesn't just talk the talk. He has literally walked the walk.

No matter how hard the hyper-partisans on both sides will attempt to paint him as a Democrat in disguise on the right, and as a war monger running for Bush's 3rd term on the left... the facts are evident: the respect he has earned from his ideological opponents is based on matters that transcend ideological differences and party lines... and absurd accusations from the hyper-partisans on the other side fall flat in light of his devotion to America and it's men and women in uniform that is so obvious and unwavering throughout his life that no one could objectively buy into the idea that he'd recklessly betray its interests... nor could they honestly put him in the same league as Bush, one of the least respected people these days due to his own hyper-partisanship, who had only ever talked the talk before given the opportunity to walk, only to stumble.

For many of us looking for a real change, we've found our candidate, and we've found our coalition... a diverse cross section of political views and ideologies that demand a genuine candidate, a proven leader, a man who loves his country more than himself, and will respect the fact that we may not agree on everything, but where we do agree we must work together to make it happen, or else nothing will ever change.

Let's put him to work!

Delegate Division

Going by the CNN count on delegates, delegates remaining, and the remaining pledged delegates left up for grabs in the upcoming primaries I made a quick and dirty Excel graphic showing the current delegate count, and what it would look like if Obama and Hillary split the remaining pledged and unpledged delegates exactly in half:



If they split both the pledged and super delegates right down the middle, Obama wins by 60 delegates going into the convention.

The big wrench in the gears for Obama is he is still way down in Pennsylvania polling, the biggest of the remaining States with 158 Delegates on the line.



If we apply the 50/50 remaining to the totals we get Obama with 2064 delegates, and Hillary with 1965 delegates. Obama is in tighter, but still reasonably safe shape going into the convention. A key part of his lead though was due to his successes in caucus states of which there is only one remaining, Guam, with 4 pledged delegates up for grabs.

His saving grace may be North Carolina, the 2nd largest remaining State with 115 pledged delegates, where he is currently polling a commanding lead, that may make up for a couple lower 2nd place finishes that may occur in the smaller States remaining.

He survived the Wright scandal well enough for the Primary -- how that'll play out in the general should be fairly interesting though -- but if another campaign problem pops up in the next month he could be facing an "October Surprise" in early April that would be absolutely devastating and absolutely throw this mess to the super delegates to decide on whether or not they'll drag it all the way out to the convention.

The last day of primaries is on June 3rd. After that, Dean has been suggesting a deadline of July 1st for super delegates to pledge themselves to a candidate so we can know who the winner is going into the convention on August 25th.

If that's how it works out, it'll give the Democrats a more reasonable start for the general campaign than a convention battle to decide the nominee. A roughly 4 month general election campaign instead of a painfully short 2 month campaign. The closer the super delegates come to deciding at the end of voting on June 3rd the closer the nominee will have to have a 5 month campaign window.

When compared to the McCain campaign time frame from becoming the presumptive nominee on March 4th to the election November 4th, or 8 months, his head start will vary depending on how the Democratic Primary plays out:

• Dem's Decide on June 3rd: 3 month head start
• Dem's Decide on July 1st: 4 month head start
• At the Convention: 6 month head start

Any which way you look at it, it's going to be a good thing for McCain. The longer it drags out the even better it'll be for McCain.

I'm rooting for the convention battle at this point. As much as I once respected and liked Obama in spite of his position on the issues and feeling he was just too inexperienced for the job, he's pretty well crushed one of the biggest reasons I respected and liked him. Being genuine. Over the last month he's really blown that out of the water and has sunk to the level of the typical politician. His only saving grace is that he's running against Hillary, the least genuine politician on the planet.

At this point I'd take a Hillary super delegate nomination swipe... just because I think it'd demoralize the Democratic Party and help get some small government rubber stamps into congress for McCain.

VA Dental Care Expansion

VA Watchdog.org put out a "Call To Action" on a bill in Congress that would expand dental benefits from only the highest rated VA patients to all disabled vets:

CALL TO ACTION: BILL WOULD GIVE DENTAL BENEFITS TO

ALL DISABLED VETS -- Have your elected Representative

support H.R. 5595 which would give dental coverage to

all vets with at least a 10% service-connected rating.

Time to get busy Brother and Sister veterans.

H.R. 5595 would give full dental benefits to any veteran with a service-connected disability of at least 10%.

It's about time!

Get hold of your Member of the House and make sure they support this bill.

If this doesn't pass...it's our fault for not pushing it.

I'm personally a bit torn on this issue since the bill doesn't seem to address funding to expand the dental services or require that such funding/expansion be addressed if passed. I honestly don't mind the idea of expanding dental care coverage to vets but here's my two big worries:

Currently at the local Danville VA hospital the wait times for a dental appointment is often one to two months at current levels.

This bill would multiply the number of eligible vets by a factor of 12... from 5,000 to over 60,000. Even if the actual result was only double the dental patients as opposed to 12 times the number of patients... how the heck is anyone going to get timely care? The bill doesn't appear to fund extra staff/equipment/facilities... nor does it expand the fee basis allowances to outsource the work to local dentists to cut back the backlog.

This seems to be an extremely well intentioned bill with some really big holes. Whether or not the funding/expansion can be done to do this is a whole other problem... or if this is even the appropriate place to start looking at expanding services versus making sure current services can at least run efficiently first.

Nationwide this bill would boost eligibility by a factor of 10, from roughly 250,000 vets to 2.5 million. For a VA consistently getting dogged for it's long wait times, both in claims, and at the hospitals themselves, this seems like really bad timing for an otherwise good idea. I'd rather fix the current problems than add more problems to the heap and hope that somehow those other problems with resolve themselves.

The VA needs better funding and management right now. Then add more services once you can meet the current demand for the current services.

If you disagree... call your representatives and let them know. What do I know anyways?

Here's the related news article:

More dental coverage sought for vets
March 28, 2008

Veterans with service-connected disabilities would get expanded dental coverage under bipartisan legislation introduced by U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Highland Park.

The "Make Our Veterans Smile Act" (House Resolution 5595) was co-introduced by Kirk and fellow Navy Reserve intelligence officer U.S. Rep. Chris Carney, D-Pa.

Currently, only 100 percent disabled, homeless or prisoner-of-war veterans are eligible for dental benefits. The bill, if signed into law, expands dental coverage to any service-connected disabled veteran, regardless of disability rating starting Jan. 1, 2009.

...

According to the Veterans Administration, 258,000 veterans currently are eligible for dental benefits. More than 2.5 million additional disabled veterans would receive coverage under the Kirk-Carney bill.

In Illinois, coverage would expand from nearly 5,000 veterans to more than 60,000 veterans, according to the Congressional Research Service.

You make the call.

The Audacity to Misrepresent King

Obama has been making it a habit to partially quote Martin Luther King, Jr. about the "fierce urgency of now" as an excuse that is supposed to make up for his lack of leadership, experience, etc. The problem, of course, is that King walked the walk. He didn't just talk the talk. King was a proven leader. And the fierce urgency of now was about the People doing something about the racial problems facing America, not excusing some inexperienced yahoo in his insanely ambitious attempt to lead the free world.

From that same speech:

"Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land."

Hope without leadership isn't what the nation needs. King didn't make his mark through rhetoric alone. He was a leader, a great one at that. He didn't just have the audacity to hope that this ungodly situation facing the nation would end... no matter how monumental or unfathomable such a victory would be in that era. He had the audacity to prove himself in the trenches and lead people to face the ugliness and do something about it. He didn't start out at Washington D.C. relying on hope and rhetoric alone to convince people to follow him.

Plenty of folks had hope that segregation would end someday back then. It required no audacity to do so. It did require leadership to make it become more than just a dream though. Obama's use of the expression is extremely irritating to me... as if he was running on some sort of significantly unique platform than any other Democrat up there (beyond Kucinich and Gravel, of course).

His campaign strategy of hope over action, change over experience, and ambition over common sense is pretty troubling. For him to justify such nonsense with "the fierce urgency of now" by stripping it of the context and misusing it for his personal gain is confounding.

As much as Obama supporters swear he's the best thing since sliced bread, it's just not adding up... and less so by the day. He's just another ambitious candidate doing anything and everything to acquire power.

The only differences between him and Hillary are that the distortions aren't as blatant and he sells it better.


The Speech:



Hard to blame him for wanting to be associated with this Reverend, as opposed to Wright who preached so oppositely in so many ways.

On Hypocrisy

In response to McCain's latest ad which highlights his military service, Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, issued a press release implying that doing so was opportunistic:

"While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist..."

Interestingly enough, he seemed to feel quite differently about highlighting military service back in 2004:

Today Dean praised Kerry, a man he had once denounced as a consummate Washington insider and hidebound politician, for his stands on several key issues.

...

Dean added, "The real issue is this: Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

Of course the hypocrisy wouldn't be so thick if it wasn't for the same nonsense when Bill Clinton was running against war heroes. This time we can quote Kerry himself defending Clinton in 1992:

“Mr. President, you and I know that if support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for leadership, America would never have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war. You and I know that if service or nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our Nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/08/92, p. S17709)

Yes we've come full circle from dismissing military service, to it being a valuable asset, to it being worthless again... depending if they or the Republicans have it.

Unfortunately for them, this year, the GOP has it, and they're going to use it:



(To all you "Red Dawn" fans out there, pay close attention to the narrator's voice.)

And what do the Democrats have? One guy who's on record as saying he lacked experience for the job... and a lady whose claim to experience turned out (like most things she says) to be a total fabrication. Is it any wonder their anti-McCain rhetoric can be summed up in one sentence? Lie about him wanting a 100 year war in Iraq and pray to god voters will be confused enough to think Bush is running again.

Meanwhile McCain continues to have smooth sailing to define himself to the voters before the DNC can promote its latest distortions while it engages in civil war with itself about which crappy candidate it is going to sacrifice to the big dog.

Grab your popcorn!

(hat tip to Red State for some of the links and quotes)

On Unity

I've heard time and time again that Obama will "unite the country" or that he is somehow a "uniting figure" or other such unity blather.

While some folks seem to truly believe this, it baffles the imagination exactly how he or anyone can claim anything of the sort.

Even Democrats can't even seem to agree he's the man for the job. In one of the most dragged out primaries I can ever remember the public has nearly forgotten the brief moment when the two remaining candidates appeared to be cozying up to one another at the debates. Now the race has devolved down to the usual ugliness of a general election campaign that some describe as a "civil war."

Looking at the results so far:

Hillary and Obama are nearly tied in the primary votes so far at roughly 47% each.

Obama is ahead in the caucus and total delegate counts.

Regional divides seem to be emerging as the results are filled in on the map (from Dave Leip's election atlas):



And with the current polling, this doesn't appear to be looking to improve any time soon (from Real Clear Politics):



Hillary is looking to pick up Pennsylvania, and Obama is looking to pick up North Carolina... and the Democratic Primary still seems to be on a crash course for a convention battle.

Surely this could change in the coming months, but so far, McCain is looking to have a fairly free ride for a while longer.

Perhaps this wouldn't discourage any unity believers if they felt that the Hillary supporters would unite around Obama if and when she drops out.

Unfortunately for them, that neither appears to be the case nor does the situation appear likely to improve since just as many Democrats polled think Obama should drop out as Hillary - 22%.

Even worse is that many Democrats are thinking about defecting and voting for McCain if their preferred candidate does not win. This is true for both Hillary and Obama supporters and spans the spectrum of Democratic voters:



Is this unity? A significant minority of Hillary supporters would rather vote for John McCain than Barack Obama. As Gallup notes:

The average "defection rate" of Clinton-supporting Democrats away from Obama and to McCain in the general-election matchup is 28%. The two groups of Clinton-supporting Democrats who are significantly above this average in defection to McCain are independents who lean Democratic and conservative Democrats.

Unity?

He can't even unite his own party, let alone the country.

His favorable/unfavorable ratings seem relatively unscathed after the Wright affair when the country learned that the unity candidate had a long time association with an extremely divisive figure.

His wobbles on defending then denouncing, and what exactly he was or wasn't denouncing and which rhetoric he found particularly versus only somewhat controversial... and why he would have maintained such a relationship when he realized long ago that it was probably going to cause problems... left many with questions on whether or not he was too green to run a smart campaign against the Republicans on the big stage.

And the Wright controversy, while mostly over in the media is still stewing in conservatives circles, waiting in the crock pot for the general campaign later with little tid bits like this:

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

This quote from the sermon "Audacity to Hope" can be found in Barack Obama's book "Dreams of my Father" which notes that this sermon is what led him to join the church and even became the basis of the book that would open up his Presidential campaign, "The Audacity of Hope."

While McCain may continue his good-guy campaign, the conservatives and others who oppose Obama's Hillary-cloned policies, are sure to keep reminding everyone that this guy is probably as big a fraud as Hillary is.

And what are the favorable/unfavorable ratings for the "unity" candidate among the general public?

Obama:
50% Favorable, 48% Unfavorable.

Of that Unfavorable: 29% is Very Unfavorable.

That's right, even with the Bush legacy, even with the all the effort to paint McCain has Bush 2.0 and lie about him supporting endless wars... even though he's older than dirt and has more scars than Frankenstein McCain is ahead here:

McCain:
53% Favorable, 44% Unfavorable.

Of that Unfavorable: 18% is Very Unfavorable.

More people detest the unity candidate than the guy his supporters are claiming is an evil war mongering menace!

If this is their idea of a uniter or unity I'd hate to see their definition of divisive. The last time I checked the "big change" Obama is pushing is the status quo Democratic platform... on the issues he's barely distinguishable from Hillary. How is he going to swoon the rest of us into following him? So we can brag that we worked to support a guy with less experience than Dan Quayle?

The only people Obama unites are Obama supporters. The rest think he's an overly ambitious newbie who couldn't pull off unity to save his life beyond his own rallies... according to Democrats and Republicans alike.

But but but, they hope he can!

Wrigley Rod

Well there may be some good out our current Dictatorship of the Prolegojevich of the PRC (People's Republic of Chicago):

CHICAGO -- Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich said Thursday he'll do all he can to keep the team playing at Wrigley Field as billionaire owner Sam Zell looks to sell both the team and the ballpark.

Zell has been interested in selling the 94-year-old landmark to the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, a state-city agency.

"I believe the Cubs ought to play baseball at Wrigley Field, and the Cubs ought to play baseball at Wrigley Field forever and that if there's anything that I can do in the role of governor to try to guarantee and assure that the Cubs stay at Wrigley Field -- as long as we don't use taxpayer dollars to make that happen -- then that's good for the people of Illinois," said Blagojevich, who returned from a trip to the Cubs' spring training home in Arizona.

I suppose that almost makes up for usurping democratic influence over Illinois government and for all intents and purposes denying us the republican form of government the U.S. Constitution supposedly grants us.

But I suppose if the people of Illinois would prefer to have a single party system similar to that of Communist China where only people with connections to the elite (Chicago) are granted permission to have influence or advance in rank... at least it can block one capitalist action that actually does bug me.

As the state's march to abandon free market principles in favor of nanny-statism and social controls... perhaps we can forcibly annex, oppress, and exploit Wisconsin and get on the short list of Olympic sites? There's gotta be more bright sides to this than just saving Wrigley. Maybe it won't be so bad...



Any other ideas, comrades?

Hillary Vindicated!

Dodging bullets... and even artillery... what CBS didn't show you in the video:



The truth comes out!

Obama's 3 AM Phonecall

In a bit of net humor someone modified a photo of Obama in an apparent attempt to capitalize on one of his statements on experience and Hillary's 3 AM argument:




Most have quickly figured out the time on the wall is just a bit too perfect, along with his apparent inability to figure out the phone. But it fits his own description from 2004 on his lack of experience for president:

"I was elected yesterday," Obama said. "I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I've never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I'm immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn't make sense.

"So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I'm the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois."

One day after the state senator from Hyde Park rewrote history by winning the most lopsided U.S. Senate contest ever in Illinois, Obama was doing his best to lower expectations -- about his roles as the nation's only black U.S. senator and a rising Democratic star.

"Look, I'm a state senator who hasn't even been sworn in yet," Obama said." My understanding is that I will be ranked 99th in seniority. ... I'm going to be spending the first several months of my career in the U.S. Senate looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work." - Obama 11/4/2004 Sun-Times (emphasis added)

Of course the photo fits the narrative too well to be true. Here's the photoshopped photo superimposed over the original at partial opacity:



You can see the clock and the wrong way phone cord were added with the original cord edited out.

Funny, but a fake.

Nancy Endorses McCain

The AP account pretty well summed it up:

Nancy Reagan Endorses McCain
By LIZ SIDOTI

BEL AIR, Calif. (AP) — Former first lady Nancy Reagan endorsed John McCain for president Tuesday as the Arizona senator continued to collect backing from leading Republicans who might help him unite the party and win over critical conservative voters.

The GOP nominee-in-waiting, in the midst of a West Coast fundraising swing, stopped by the Southern California home of President Reagan's widow to accept the endorsement from the Republican matriarch he called beloved and wonderful.

"I'm very pleased and honored to have the opportunity again to be with Mrs. Reagan and to receive her endorsement for the nomination of my party and for president of the United States," McCain said in a five-minute appearance with the former first lady in the driveway of her gated home. "President Reagan and Mrs. Reagan remain an inspiration to all of us, as an example of honorable and courageous service to the nation."

In turn, she said only, "Ronnie and I always waited until everything was decided and then we endorsed. Well, obviously, this is the nominee of the party."

In a written statement issued earlier in the day, she called McCain a good friend for more than 30 years.

"My husband and I first came to know him as a returning Vietnam War POW, and were impressed by the courage he had shown through his terrible ordeal. I believe John's record and experience have prepared him well to be our next president," she said.

She and McCain met privately in the Reagan home before they emerged, arm in arm, through the front door to meet reporters.

Her eventual support was expected, and she became the latest top Republican to fall in line behind McCain. The two have long been close.

Nancy made note that she was upholding Ronald and her general rule to avoid endorsement prior to the party choosing it's next nominee. Some may take this to be a qualification on the endorsement that weakens it. But the full story would lend one to believe that she favored McCain all along, particularly due to her strong support of stem cell research over the past several years and political activities along those lines which McCain has also agreed with.

Further her reactions as an audience member during the debates at the Reagan Library seemed to indicate some favoritism at that time, though no official/formal favor was given at that time. One thing that many Republicans noticed was that some candidates presumed to know who Reagan would have or would have not endorsed. As Nancy herself noted during her endorsement appearance neither she nor Ronald would be likely to endorse a candidate prior to the party deciding. She has, as the AP article cited above points out, noted her displeasure with the depiction of her husband's prior comments as some sort of endorsement.

Her endorsement today is the most blatant show of support for a candidate that I've ever seen. While she endorsed Bush in spite of his stem cell views in 2004, it was not done in such a blatant and public manner as far as I can remember.

Probably most importantly, though her image among Americans was a bit divided years ago due to being so obviously associated with a fairly controversial president at the time and being regularly lampooned for her infamous "Just Say No" campaign, Nancy worked her way back into the hearts of Americans generally by standing strongly along side Reagan as the politics faded into the background and history began trumping pundits in his legacy.

Probably most strikingly so at this moment:



Americans generally still recall the strength and humanity of this moment and it overwhelmingly tugged their heartstrings in understanding that Reagan, the man, was one of the most well respected presidents of our lifetime, regardless of differences in viewpoints.

Some may discount this endorsement as being less than what it appears to be. But in the battle of the hearts and minds of the voter... it's one of the strongest images out there.

Next Big Sex Scandal!

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse:

Washington (GNN) - President George W. Bush has become embroiled in a sex scandal so disturbing, so indescribable, so downright repugnant that even his historically low approval ratings took a hit and dropped even further this week. While Democrats have been able to successfully use their ties to the media to keep almost any mention of party affiliation out of news articles on Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer's prostitution scandal and even the Detroit Mayor, facing corruption charges, from having his Democratic Party affiliation from being mentioned... Bush, just as Larry Craig, has no such allegiances to save him from this:

I don't even wanna know the cigar stories behind this one!

ID: Philosophy or Science

The endless debate on evolution and/or intelligent design being taught in schools as part of science curriculum once again pulled me into some long discussions on the topic and in an attempt to organize my own thoughts and views on the subject, I submit the following:


Definintions:

In such discussions it seems to help to get the potential semantical disagreements out of the way first, otherwise one finds themselves into the frustrating circular discussions that keep coming right back to what a word or words mean... or in this case which meaning of the word is being used.

I'll be using the following definitions:

Philosophy:

2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs

Science:

3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

Scientific Method:

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Evolution:

a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Intelligent Design:

the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

Theory:

a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

All definitions I'm using here are from Merriam-Webster's On-line Dictionary as they are likely to be both generally accepted, easily verified, and of course scrutinized if need be.


Theories in Philosophy and Science:

Both philosophy and science have their theories. Some theories are used by both philosophers and scientists without much conflict at all while others create contradictions from one school of thought to another. The bigger difference is in the way such theories are vetted through either school of thought. Where philosophers tend to rely on speculative and logical processes of scrutinizing theories, scientists use the scientific method based on what we can observe and test in a manner that is repeatable and open to scrutiny.

To put it simply, a philosophical theory is only as good as its reasoning whereas a scientific theory is only as good as it fits observations throughout time.

A good analogy would be between a political philosophy and political science. The former stands on its reasoning and logic and will often be accepted with little to no available proof. Political science deals with how such theories play out in the real world with observable data such as voting results, polling results, criminal statistics, etc.


Evolution:

Like many other theories, evolution hypothesizes on something much larger than what can generally be observed or tested. As with the problem with being able to go back in time to observe the Big Bang or any means to replicate it, we cannot go back in time and observe if or how one species mutated over generations to become new species.

Doesn't this put all theories, including ID, on par with these generally accepted, so-called "scientific" theories?

The answer is, of course, yes!

Before evolution fans start grabbing their pitchforks and torches... yeah you, I see the torch... put it away. Thanks.

Before anyone gets too upset or happy over evolution and ID being put on par with one another, a pesky problem must be addressed, this is at the very beginning of the scientific process... which has a very systematic way of scrutinizing any theory before it is ever recognized as having any legitimacy. Without at least some observations that seem to fit the theory the theory is on par with a Lord Xenu explanation. The big moment for a scientific theory is when observations don't just fit the theory, but when the theory accurately predicts observations we haven't even made yet. Relativity being one of the greatest examples.

The more observations and tests that seem to confirm the theory, the far more accepted the theory becomes, even if there are parts of the theory that may or may not ever be confirmed. It's in the parts that haven't been confirmed that exists the possibility that further scrutiny could blow the whole theory out of the water or require modifications to it. This has happened time and time again with theories dealing with subatomic structure/energy, probably most notably with the black body observations that defied current theories... eventually giving birth to quantum theory.

Evolution theories have endured through similar observations, sticking points, corrections, etc. Not because every aspect has been vetted yet, but because our observations have generally fit within it. While scientists, philosophers, and others will scrutinize the yet unconfirmed portions of the theory and further scrutinize any observations that appear to conflict with the theory, that is all part of the scientific process.

As with many theories, finding holes in it typically necessitates adapting the theory or making the theory more comprehensive. It's rarely as dramatic as when the theory of Ether got tossed which got so blown full of holes to be almost completely relegated to the trash bin of scientific understanding.

While many young earth scientists believe there is ample evidence to do the same with Evolution, their conflict isn't just with evolutionists, whose theories depend on much larger time frames, but also geologists whose theories often require even longer time frames, astronomers with even longer time frames than them... right down to chemists and physicists with various theories with long time frames being needed for the substances we find on earth, space, etc.

Worse their proof tends to rely on observations that are in conflict with other observations, not simply the theory itself. With the development of quantum theory and the death knell of the theory of Ether as a medium for radiation in empty space... the observations made did not contradict other observations, but instead they merely showed the theory itself did not fit for all observations. It's one thing to say a theory isn't comprehensive enough or isn't an accurate description of how things work... it is a whole other ballgame to contradict the litany of prior observations themselves.

One example of this mentioned in my discussions was the alleged set of human footprints near dinosaur footprints in a highly weathered area of a dinosaur park. This of course would be a serious discovery if anyone could actually verify this to be the case, something the weathering prevented. Further it contradicts all other observations, outside of confirmed hoaxes, on top of being unverifiable. Unfortunately this particular example is typical of young earth "evidence" and as such most scientists pushing it come off more like conspiracy theorists than anyone credible. There are some out there who attempt to observe and test phenomenon that may back their theory who do not rely on such weak evidence as incontrovertible substantiation of the theory.

In my mind they're just as bad as scientists who push the yet unconfirmed and untested portions of any scientific theory as beyond scrutiny because it successfully explains other observations. Such an arrogant view of science comes closer to concepts of faith and religion most such proponents claim to despise as ignorant. Science, as a rule, demands scrutiny and doubt, especially of that which cannot be confirmed through observation... even within longstanding theories.


Intelligent Design:

As a philosophical theory, ID stands as a fairly credible and worthwhile topic. It can be argued in various ways and applications and with varying degrees of reliance on speculation versus logical argumentation. Similarly many scientific and even religious concepts can find a welcome home in the endless philosophical debates of our time.

But the big question here is whether or not it could also fit into a science curriculum. It's a theory that has some popularity in our society, but science isn't supposed to be about popularity (as much as many politicians seem to think otherwise on almost every issue). Science curriculum are based on theories that have had at least some confirmation through scientific testing. The exception to the rule seems to be advanced college courses specializing in topics where research is done towards confirming such things. And even then such research is based on observable phenomenon.

The central premise of ID is that everything was created by a designing intelligence... so how does one confirm that? In the realm of scientific testing, any observation/testing that can be repeated by other scientists would be a good start. Short of finding a "Made in Higher Plane" label on quarks, it's a rather puzzling problem. Humanity has been attempting to prove or disprove a higher intelligence forever and a day it seems with little luck. Neither side has much to sell scientifically as neither faith or the absence of evidence constitutes confirmation in science.

With the Big Bang theory there is at least astronomical observations that can be made today that seem to confirm what the aftereffects of such an incident would seem to be. Some may treat it as gospel inappropriately when other more comprehensive theories and alternative theories are still being debated and scrutinized (Super String Theories) to explain observed phenomenon and mathematical issues associated with Big Bang theory. Those folks would be misrepresenting the current scientific understanding of the theory. But this hurts the case of people who want to show the Big Bang to be indisputable fact, not that it isn't a valid scientific theory with some confirmation of observable phenomenon that seems to fit the theory and more comprehensive theories that also include the Big Bang concept.

ID is still left with its philosophical and logical arguments that are worth consideration in philosophical studies, but nothing to observe or test that would bring it into the realm of scientific credibility.

People will cry "No! No! Look at this proof geological theories are wrong!" or "No! No! Look at this proof that evolution is wrong!" and never provide any scientific testing/data that has anything to do with showing whether or not intelligent designer is behind the creation of everything. Worse, their evidence tends to be of the conspiracy theory sort... it directly contradicts numerous other observations as opposed to being something that hasn't been tested or observed before that makes the theories they're contradicting look wrong. If scientists are supposed to take their word that their theory is sound based on a few shreds how are you supposed to convince them other theories are wrong in spite of far more overwhelming evidence? It just doesn't make any sense.


The Compromise:

Keep ID in philosophy courses. Keep evolution in science courses as long as it withstands scientific scrutiny.

ID is a philosophical theory attempting to understand the underlying truth behind the universe based on speculation and logic.

Evolution is a scientific theory attempting to explain and predict how things work based on the things we can observe.

Keep them where they belong. If you want public schools to teach ID push to make philosophy required course for high school graduation.

Everybody wins.


The Rub:

With this compromise, people who want to teach young Earth theory as science will probably face an even bigger uphill challenge to do so. They will be fired for pushing the conspiracy theories that are supposed to make us believe that some intelligent designer set things in motion exactly right so that the light from distant objects was set into motion just right so that they seemed to be there long before the universe, according to them, even existed... instead of popping up over time.

For those who want to promote science as some sort of new religion, they're going to have to face the fact that philosophy is an important and complimentary part of human understanding and the contradictions between what may be and what may be observed can not, and will not ever necessarily negate the other.

People will either have to accept the fact that science is not religion and religion is not science, or they will have to accept that they will have to beat their heads against the brick wall of what both are.


And of course: The Disclaimer:

The writer is a liberal (classical, not neo-marxist, Democrat, etc) Constitutionalist with a strong belief in limited central government, federalism, and liberty... including a strong support of religious liberty to believe, not believe, and most importantly to do so as freely as possible. I don't need a nanny state overseeing how I live, let alone how or what I believe or choose not to believe.

Dem Party Civil War

The Democratic candidates are having fun tearing each other to pieces lately. Obama is accusing Hillary of being a lying, vindictive, and manipulative woman with numerous examples and evidence included!

Hillary is accusing Obama and his campaign of disenfranchising millions of voters and not caring about principles, using dirty tactics, and being nothing more than lofty words with nothing of substance to back it up.

Meanwhile McCain is working:





All in all, a good week to be a McCain supporter who appears to only be benefiting from what ABC and others are referring to as a "Civil War" in the Democratic Party:

In this civil war, Clinton supporters trash the "Obamabots" and Obama supporters bash the "Clintonistas."

Last week, a Clinton supporter was so upset by the venom toward Clinton on Daily Kos that she called for Clinton backers to boycott the site.
Story
Who Has the Power to End the Clinton-Obama Race?

Founder Markos Moulitsas was not moved.

"It is Clinton, with no chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate," he wrote. "As such, as far as I am concerned, she doesn't deserve fairness on this site."

Of course, Clinton supporters give as good as they get.

On the more Clinton-friendly site, mydd.com, posters yesterday said Obama's association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright made his candidacy untenable.

"Obama is ruined for the general election. The entire country is laughing at those who voted for an unvetted, unqualified candidate whose background is just now being explored," one said.

And that's just the web! The real problem is the same resentments are spilling over to the electorate generally:

Evidence is emerging of just how damaging the split might be to the Democrats.

Exit polling during the Ohio primary found that 51 percent of Obama voters would be disappointed if Clinton was the nominee. And 57 percent of Clinton supporters said they would be disappointed if Obama was the nominee.

The carryover to the general election? A survey by the Pew Research Center found that one in four Clinton voters said they would back Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., over Obama, while one in 10 Obama voters said they would vote for McCain if Clinton were the Democratic nominee.

Ouch!



The following are the press releases/memos sent out by the Obama and Clinton campaigns in their entirety, letting America know, in no uncertain terms, how badly both suck (and amazingly enough, not paid for by the Republican Party):

Obama tears Hillary a new one:

TO: Interested Parties
FR: Obama Campaign
RE: A history of misleading voters
DA: March 20, 2008
______________________________________________________________________________

Senator Clinton likes to claim that she’s been vetted. But there is a salient theme emerging that has not been examined at all in this race: Senator Clinton has consistently made political calculations to deliberately mislead the American people and the voters have noticed. A new Gallup poll shows a staggering figure: far fewer Americans think Clinton is trustworthy than think she isn’t, by a margin 44-53 percent. And in the exit polling from the most recent primary, Clinton was viewed as honest and trustworthy by only 52 percent of Democratic voters.

For too long, the media has failed to live up to its historic obligation of holding candidates accountable for their contradictions on the campaign trail, and it’s time that Senator Clinton be questioned aggressively about this pattern of misleading voters.

A general election liability

Honesty is a crucial metric in this race because the Democratic nominee is going to be running against John McCain, who is viewed by voters as one of the most trustworthy politicians in America. In the same Gallup poll, McCain scored 67-27 on honesty (with Obama’s honesty rating at 63-29). After eight years of an untrustworthy President, can we really expect that a candidate who is viewed as so much more dishonest than McCain will somehow be able to beat him?

A history of misleading voters

Senator Clinton’s newly released White House schedules—showing a lack of candor on her NAFTA Record, her role in passing FMLA, and her role in key foreign policy decisions—are just the latest in what has become a legacy of misleading voters. On issue after issue, Clinton says one thing while her record says another.

• Her Iraq vote. Clinton says she voted for diplomacy, while on the Senate floor at the time she said she was casting a “vote that might lead to war” and doing it “with conviction.”
• Foreign Policy Experience. Clinton claims that she’s been “tested” on foreign policy and that she’s experienced in handling foreign crises. But her White House records show that she was consistently absent when critical decisions were being made, and that her trips abroad were largely ceremonial.
• The Michigan and Florida primaries. Back when it suited her political purposes she said the Michigan primary “didn’t count for anything” and that she wasn’t leaving her name on the ballot to try to legitimize the results. But now that she desperately needs more votes, she’s doing just that. And despite her pledge not campaign in either state, she held two campaign events in Florida.
• Fully vetted. Clinton openly tells voters that she’s been fully “vetted,” choosing to obscure from them the fact that she won’t release her tax returns, earmark requests, or the donors to the Clinton library.
• Her position on NAFTA. Clinton tells Ohio voters that she has “been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning.” Yet her own schedules show that as First Lady she attended at least four meetings to advocate for its original passage.
• Her role in passing the Family and Medical Leave Act. Clinton credits herself with “helping to pass” the Family and Medical Leave Act as First Lady. But the 11,000 pages of schedules don’t contain a single mention of her involvement in the issue.
• Obama’s religion. In a “60 Minutes” interview, Senator Clinton refused to confirm that Senator Obama is a Christian, even though she knows the facts.
• Reverend Wright. Even though it has been reported yesterday that Clinton is pushing Senator Obama’s association with Reverend Wright in attempt to rattle superdelegates, Clinton refused to give a straight answer. She would only say that their campaign “has been making the case that I am the most electable” before shrugging and prompting the next question.
• 35 Years in Public Service. The oft-repeated Clinton claim that she has 35 years of public service experience is simply false. Fifteen of those years were spent at a law practice.

Lingering questions

It’s time for Hillary Clinton to explain these inconsistencies—and to put an end to the dishonesty. As she campaigns in working-class areas of Pennsylvania, will she finally admit to workers that she was one of the chief proponents of NAFTA? Will she admit to even a basic understanding of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002? Will she drop FMLA from her list of accomplishments?

And if she won’t, will the press call her on it?

IRAQ?

Washington Post Fact Checker Debunks Clinton Claim That She Voted Against Limiting The President’s Authority To Attack Iraq Because She Didn’t Want To Give The U.N. Veto Authority. Clinton, on why she voted against three other important votes during that time period to limit the President’s authority to attack Iraq said “Well, I also voted, Tim, to limit the president’s authority to a year. That was another one of Senator Byrd’s amendments which I strongly supported. It was not successful. I have seen, obviously now, what has occurred by this president’s use of the authority that he was given, and I regret the way that he used authority. But I think it’s important to recognize that the United Nations is a very important tool in international diplomacy, in peacekeeping to bring the world together. But I do not want to give the United Nations a veto over actions taken by any president.” Washington Post fact checker: “There are arguments on both sides about whether the Levin amendment ceded authority to the United Nations. But Clinton is also going too far when she claims that passage of the amendment would have had the effect of subordinating ‘whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council.’ There was always an escape clause.” [“Meet the Press,” 9/23/07; Washington Post, 2/1/08]

FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT?

There Are No Mentions Of The Family And Medical Leave Act On Clinton’s Schedule Before Bill Signing It Into Law Even Though She Gives Herself Credit For “Helping To Pass” The Bill. “One notable absence in the 11,000 pages of the former First Lady’s schedule from the National Archives released today — any mention on her schedules of the Family and Medical Leave Act before her husband signed the bill into law. That’s interesting, because in speeches and on her website, the Clinton campaign repeatedly gives Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, credit for “helping to pass” the Family and Medical Leave Act.” [ABC News, 3/19/08]

NAFTA?

Clinton Claimed That She Was A Critic Of NAFTA From The Beginning, But Clinton’s Schedules Show That On NAFTA She “Promoted Its Passage” And She Supported NAFTA In 2003. “Clinton now argues that the North American Free Trade Agreement needs to be renegotiated, but newly released records showed on Wednesday she promoted its passage.” Clinton, at the Cleveland debate, said “You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn’t have a public position on it because I was part of the (Clinton) administration. But when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic.” In her memoir, Clinton wrote: “Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once [NAFTA and health care]. I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances.” [Reuters, 3/20/08; AP, 2/26/08; Living History, 182]

COMPLIANCE WITH PARTY RULES?

Clinton Campaigned In Florida And Held Two Events After Signing A Pledge Not To Campaign In Florida. “Hundreds of thousands of people have already voted in Florida and I want them to know I will be there to be part of what they have tried to do to make sure their voices are heard,” said Clinton before jetting to Sarasota and Miami for events on Sunday. The Clinton campaign claims that the senator from New York is abiding by the no-campaigning pledge because Sunday’s two Florida events were technically closed to the public. But the stops were treated as major news events in a state where many Democrats have expressed anger over the absence of the party’s presidential candidates during a period when Florida is overrun by Republican contenders. The truth of the Clinton strategy was writ large in a memo from top strategist Howard Wolfson, who announced on the day of the campaign’s dismal showing in South Carolina that, “Regardless of today’s outcome, the race quickly shifts to Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Democrats will turn out to vote on Tuesday. Despite efforts by the Obama campaign to ignore Floridians, their voices will be heard loud and clear across the country, as the last state to vote before Super Tuesday on February 5.” Her arrival is Sarasota was timed so that she could be photographed with palm trees behind her. “It is a perfect day here in Florida,” declared a bemused candidate who officially was not campaigning in Florida as she posed for the classic Florida campaign photo. [The Nation, 1/28/08 ]

Clinton Said Michigan Results Were Fair And Should Be Honored—After Saying It Was Clear That The Michigan Primary Did Not Count For Anything. In March, Clinton Said The Results Of The Michigan Primary Were “Fair And They Should Be Honored.” “Sen. Hillary Clinton on Wednesday warned that millions of people in Florida and Michigan ‘are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process’ if their votes are not counted. … ‘The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored,’ Clinton told a breakfast gathering hosted by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Foundation in Washington.” In October, Clinton said “Well, you know, people in Michigan are flat on their backs. They have the highest unemployment rate in America. They are now grappling finally with what they are going to do with the auto industry. 1 in 10 jobs in America is tied to the auto industry which is – the American auto industry, which as we know is centered in Michigan. You know, it’s clear this election they’re having isn’t going to count for anything. But I just personally didn’t want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever. And then after the nomination we have to go in and repair the damage and be ready to win Michigan in November 2008.” [CNN, 3/12/08; NHPR Interview, 10/11/07]

FOREIGN POLICY?

FactCheck.org: “The Public Record Of Her Actions Shows That Many Of Clinton’s Foreign Policy Claims Are Exaggerated.” “On March 6 Hillary Clinton claimed that, unlike Barack Obama, she and likely Republican nominee John McCain have ‘cross[ed] the commander-in-chief threshold.’ In a CNN interview the day before, Clinton had listed five foreign policy accomplishments. We can’t determine how much behind-the-scenes work Clinton did while first lady, and she certainly took an active interest in foreign policy when her husband was president. Moreover, her time as first lady plus her longer Senate career do give Clinton more foreign policy experience than Obama. But the public record of her actions shows that many of Clinton’s foreign policy claims are exaggerated.” [FactCheck.org, 3/13/08]

FOREIGN TRIPS: Clinton’s “Sanitized, Ceremonial Trips Abroad” Were “Hardly Preparation” For Foreign Policy Duties Of Presidency. Hillary Clinton highlights her “extensive travel to more than 80 countries as First Lady and her 1995 women’s rights speech to the U.N. to demonstrate of her foreign policy experience. “But these sanitized, ceremonial trips abroad are hardly preparation for the middle-of-the-night call from the Situation Room.” [Newsweek, 8/6/07]

NORTHERN IRELAND: Irish Policymakers, Fact Checkers Debunk Clinton’s Exaggerations. FactCheck.org: Clinton’s activities ‘helped bring peace to Northern Ireland.’ Irish officials are divided as to how helpful Clinton’s actions were, and key players agree that she was not directly involved in any actual negotiations.” Politifact.com: “Clinton claimed that she ‘helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.’ That’s the kind of thing that Mitchell, Hume or Trimble could accurately say. But based on our interviews and research, it’s a stretch for Clinton to say so. Although she played a role, especially with women in Northern Ireland, her statement leaves the impression that she was more involved than she was. We find her statement to be Half True.” “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it,” says Brian Feeney, an author and former leading Belfast politician. “Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a ‘wee bit silly’ for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province. Washington Post fact checker: “Hillary is making a lot more of her Northern Ireland role on the campaign trail than she did in her memoir “Living History.” […] her stories of bringing Protestant and Catholic women together have become more dramatic with each retelling. The claim that she brought Catholics and Protestants together “for the first time” seems dubious. This would not be the first time that she has mixed up her chronology.” [Washington Post, Fact Checker, 1/10/08; AP, 3/8/08] [Politifact.com, 3/10/08; FactCheck.org, 3/13/08; Telegraph, 3/8/08]

KOSOVO: Washington Post, On Clinton’s Role In Kosovo: “The Record shows That [Clinton] Took An Intelligent Interest In All These Issues, Addressing Conferences And Meeting With Victims Of War, But Did Not Get Involved In Diplomatic Negotiations In An Meaningful Way. Her Role Was More Symbolic Than Substantive.” The Clinton campaign has provided various news clips to support Hillary Clinton’s claim during last night’s debate about “negotiating with governments like Macedonia to open their border again, to let Kosovar refugees in.” The news articles make clear that Clinton visited Albanian refugee camps in Macedonia on May 14, 1999, during the NATO bombing war against Serbia. Macedonia had closed its borders the previous week, in order to stem the flow of Albanian refugees from Kosovo. The Macedonian government reopened the border on May 13, the day before Clinton toured the camps. According to this CNN report, only a few stragglers crossed the border. Clearly, Clinton’s visit to Macedonia helped focus even more international attention on the country and the refugee crisis that resulted from the forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Albanians from Kosovo by the Serbian authorities. According to a May 16 Chicago Tribune report cited by the Clinton campaign, Clinton announced the “release of the first $ 2 million in a $ 21 million economic development package for Macedonia” at a meeting with Macedonian government leaders. The question is whether Clinton personally negotiated the deal with the Macedonian government–or U.S. diplomats used her forthcoming visit as an additional incentive to persuade the Macedonian authorities to re-open the border. The sequence of events–first the border reopening, followed by Clinton’s visit to the camps and her meeting with Macedonian government leaders–points to the second scenario…Her role was more symbolic than substantive. [Washington Post, 1/31/08]

RWANDA: NY Times Rebuts Bill And Hillary Clinton’s Claims That Hillary Clinton Asserted Herself On Rwanda. During a brief question and answer period with the audience [in Newton, Iowa], the former president was asked about times during his presidency in which the Clinton’s disagreed and which he now acknowledges she was right. One instance, he said, was in not moving quickly to send U.S. troops to fight the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. ‘I think she would have clearly done that,’ he said, noting at the time he had concerns about military activities in Bosnia and that no one knew how bad the situation in Rwanda would turn out to be.” On This Week, George Stephanopoulos asked Hillary Clinton if she had urged Bill Clinton to intervene in Rwanda and she agreed with her husband’s remarks. The New York Times reported, “During those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.” [NYT, 12/26/07] [Baltimore Sun, 12/10/07; ABC, This Week, 12/30/07]

FULLY VETTED?

Clinton Claims To Be Fully Vetted But Does Not Release Tax Returns And Cites Presidential Privilege On Information Related To Her White House Years, Drawing Criticism Even From Allies. Clinton’s “gates-drawn stance raised concerns that shadow her presidential bid today — that she reacts with a siege mentality under pressure, retreating behind a restrictive wall of presidential and attorney privilege. ‘There’s no question that her first instinct was to protect herself and the president,’ said former Clinton chief of staff Leon E. Panetta.” Roger Simon wrote, “Take the matter of her tax returns. Obama has released his, and Clinton won’t release hers, she says, until after she is the Democratic nominee. Why? She gives no reason. She says she files an ethics statement with the Senate, which is true, but so does Obama, and yet he also has released his tax returns. Clinton refuses to do so until after the Democratic convention. Does this make sense to anybody? If she is going to do it eventually, why not do it now, while Democrats are still voting on her? Keeping the returns secret just raises doubts and suspicions and kicks a hole in the case that she has been fully vetted.” The New York Times editorial board wrote, “Of the leading contenders, so far, only Senator Barack Obama has released his full income-tax returns — a level of disclosure once routine for candidates after the political corruption of Watergate. Release of the tax returns should not be made conditional on winning the nomination, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has made it.” [Los Angeles Times, 11/27/07; Politico, 12/14/08; Editorial, NYT, 2/15/08]

Hillary Clinton Won’t Release Her Earmark Requests, Says She’s Proud Of The Pork She’s Secured For New York. “Hillary Clinton, by contrast, often seems to operate by the maxim that silence is golden. When asked whether she would release a list of her earmarks, her spokesman dodged the question, while declaring that she is ‘proud of the investments in New York that she has secured.’ But for now, at least, not proud enough to let voters know what they are. This exercise in secrecy is part of a Clinton pattern that grows more worrisome all the time.” [Editorial, Chicago Tribune, 3/16/08]

15 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE?

Clinton Claims Of 35 Years Of Experience Omit 15 Years At Rose Law Firm, Repeatedly Emphasize Mere One Year At Children’s Defense Fund. “She routinely tells voters that she’s “been working to bring positive change to people’s lives for 35 years.” She told a voter in New Hampshire: “I’ve spent so much of my life in the nonprofit sector.” Speaking in South Carolina, Bill Clinton said his wife “could have taken a job with a firm … Instead she went to work with Marian Wright Edelman at the Children’s Defense Fund.” The overall portrait is of a lifelong, selfless do-gooder. The whole story is more complicated — and less flattering. Clinton worked at the Children’s Defense Fund for less than a year, and that’s the only full-time job in the nonprofit sector she’s ever had. She also worked briefly as a law professor. Clinton spent the bulk of her career — 15 of those 35 years — at one of Arkansas’ most prestigious corporate law firms, where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards. Neither she nor her surrogates, however, ever mention that on the campaign trail. Her campaign Web site biography devotes six paragraphs to her pro bono legal work for the poor but sums up the bulk of her experience in one sentence: “She also continued her legal career as a partner in a law firm.” [Matt Stearns, McClatchy, 2/3/08]

Hillary's Response:

MEMO: Obama Campaign: Just Words

To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: March 21, 2008
RE: Obama Campaign: Just Words

At this point, it’s no secret that the Obama campaign is in political hot water given the news stories of the last few weeks and is desperate to change the subject.

The ground is shifting away from them and their response?

First, disenfranchise voters - Prevent new votes in Florida and Michigan. Stop voting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana.

Second, peddle photos of President Clinton shaking hands with Reverend Wright less than 48 hours after calling for a high-minded conversation on race. Well, President Clinton took tens of thousands of photos during his eight years as president. Stop the presses.

Third, accuse our campaign of having something to do with Senator Obama’s passport file being breached, a reckless charge that has zero merit.

Fourth, continue attacks on Senator Clinton’s character in an effort to implement what the Chicago Tribune called a full assault on her ethics.

Fifth, stonewall the press: no tax returns, no state records, no answers about the inconsistencies in the Rezko story.

So it’s not a pretty sight - it’s all part of a pattern of just words.

Senator Obama talks about voter participation while actively disenfranchising millions.

He calls for high minded debates while practicing lowdown politics.

He promises a different kind of campaign while attacking Hillary’s character.

He promises transparency while hiding basic info and stonewalling the press.

It’s no wonder that Americans are coming to see that for all of his lofty rhetoric, Senator Obama’s candidacy is really just words.

It’s no surprise that Americans are expressing serious doubts about his ability to answer the 3am call.

It’s no wonder that top journalists are calling the Obama campaign desperate, saying that it’s amateur hour in Chicago.

McCain In Black

Can we call him Agent M?

Thumper Post

A rabbit once told me that if you can't say anything nice, you shouldn't say anything at all. It still didn't work out too well for the rabbit (Hey, I was hungry!), but he may have had a point.

I've been ripping on Obama for making political mistakes more than anything, but he still ranks up there as probably one of the more decent folks in the running in a long time. McCain too, in my opinion. But they're both still politicians and do the usual irritating and slimy crap to win.

Both have amazing stories that represent various aspects of the American experience in their background.



Obama comes from mixed roots with bits and pieces of American subcultural experiences tugging him back and forth... only to produce a guy whose successes read like a Horatio Alger rags-to-riches story. Going from a crazy angsty kid, like many I've known, to being near the top of his class at Harvard. His successes in climbing the ladder of politics has been so quick that it makes some, even in his own party, a bit nervous. He's just that good.



McCain comes from a long line of military big-wig ass kickers and continued that tradition. An intelligent but disobedient roughneck in school, he did well in subjects he was interested in, especially history, enough to get by in others, but with the Naval Academy such demerits count against your class rank... and he almost got booted out altogether. He goes on to serve with distinction with one hell of a war story to boot... comes back, straightens himself up (literally), and continues to serve, first by further training/education at the Naval War College and then by taking a new command, then becoming a political liaison for the military before taking the leap into the politics as part of the Reagan Revolution, before that was even a popular thing. Been serving as a feisty politician ever since who has always embraced the rebellious spirit tempered with getting the job done, whatever it takes.

I think it's probably two of the best our nation has to offer voters (hard to say in a long time) who both represent the priorities and desires of the current political climate/coalitions. In match-up polling people have been and continue to be pretty evenly divided between the two. My big beef with Obama has more to do with his timing (and in a related sense, his experience) for making a presidential run. Others think the timing is perfect and exactly what the nation needs. The same arguments can be used for McCain, a pro-war candidate when the electorate has been trending to the anti-war side? Others see his background and defense of doing what is necessary as exactly what we need given the current conflicts and the political climate surrounding them.

Though neither fits well within my own political philosophy (at least not without a hacksaw to take off some really irritating policies, and perhaps a sledge hammer to make others fit) but to me and many others, there is a clear choice of what they want... even if it may not be exactly what they want.

We now return to rants... already in progress: Battle of the Gaffes!

"Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and Al Qaeda," Obama said during a speech on Iraq Wednesday morning.

...

The Democratic National Committee immediately seized on the comment, saying the misstep raises question over whether McCain "can be trusted to offer a clear way forward." It also forwarded a transcript of a recent interview in which he appears to make the same mistake.

The McCain Campaign mostly shrugged it off given that Obama had a similar gaffe not too long ago where he appeared to forget that al Qaeda was in Iraq, which McCain and other pundits needled him over left and right:

"I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It's called al Qaeda in Iraq," McCain said.

"It's a remarkable statement to say that you would send troops back to a place where al Qaeda has established a base -- where they have already established a base."

About four and a half weeks until Pennsylvania. Grab your popcorn!