Just A Great News Day

There is no better champion for universal health care than John Edwards. Of all the candidates he came out first with the most comprehensive plan. Nobody can hold a candle to him on this issue -- except his wife.

Obama Says He's Partnering With Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care

Meanwhile, Gramppy McSame, in an effort to prove his learning curve is a flat line, is trotting out his gas tax holiday gimmick again, which was so roundly rejected by the public just a couple of weeks ago. McCain also added to his list of "senior moments" by referring to Putin as the President of Germany, not Russia. Chuck Todd nailed it when he said age doesn't matter for politicians -- unless it shows.

On McCain, it shows. He got busted busted on denying he said what he said about the news coverage of Hillary too. This guy's pathetic, but so are the press who are giving him a pass on this lie.

On the legal front, ScottBot McClerrator is being summoned to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, which should just add fuel to the fire to bolster Dennis Kucinich's 35 Articles of Impeachment he filed against our C+ Augustus.

On the campaign trail, Obama is up by six points over McCain, hot on the heels of what looks like a Hillary bump. McCain is facing real problems in Ohio too, and I for one am glad to add to his troubles.

No wonder Republicans are so grumpy and having no fun right now.

[Big Hat Tip to Memeorandum, without which we wouldn't have gotten all this good news.]

Wingnut Hackery At Obama Blog UPDATED

Suffice to say, BUSTED!

The Pajamahadeen has been insufferable ever since Ra^thergate, and have been desperately trying to recapture their past "glory" ever since. I think they want us to somehow believe that there is a noble purpose for their putrid existence and that the first time wasn't just a fluke.

This time they've taken their usual practice of rummaging around the comment sections of blogs to find some "proof" of moonbattery (nutpicking) and try to stick some disgruntled goofball's opinion to a candidate one better. They've "discovered" an anti-Semite piece that was lifted from a right-wing hate-site and ported the whole thing, complete with months old comments, into Barack Obama's blog -- a community site where anyone can register and post a diary.

Nice try assholes.

I mean, it's especially rich when a site like Little Green Footballs, notorious for it's deranged and intolerant Freepers lurking in the commentariate would try and imply that there's something very, very wrong with Obama if he attracts the same kind of bile that is the normal fare in Wingnuttia.

It certainly does take all kinds, but these kind of jerkwads I could do without.

Interestingly enough, it seems that open forum candidate blogs on the right can attract anti-Semitism as well. Shocking, no? John Aravosis has the goods on the pervasive hate speech at John McCain's blog where the big debate is whether Obama is or is not the anti-Christ since the anti-Christ must be a Jew according to these God-fearing freepers who inform us that Obama is a "Muslim fag," the "Devil," trying to represent the "United States of Africa," and of course we learn from the Jed Report that to McCainiacs at his YouTube Channel, Obama is just another nigger.

Discrimination

Now that Hillary Clinton has “suspended” her campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, millions of angry, white women are turning their disappointment-led ire toward Barack Obama and assuming that it is his responsibility to heal the party:

Obama is the victor, now let's see what he does. The burden is on him as it should be.

Now let's see if Obama can deliver. He has much to do and undo. Yes, his unfortunate comments "Hillary, you are likeable enough" spoke volumes. He was some work to do.

First, let’s get one thing straight: Barack Obama did nothing to Hillary Clinton or her supporters that he should or could undo.

• One Democratic candidate said that the Republican presidential candidate was obviously qualified to be president and suggested that the other Democratic candidate was not.

• One Democratic candidate repeatedly claimed that the other Democratic candidate might not be able to beat the Republican.

• One Democratic candidate derided the other Democratic candidate’s capabilities (and, by extension, that candidate’s supporters) as nothing more than empty rhetoric.

• One Democratic candidate’s campaign was dismissive of the other Democratic candidate’s numerous state primary/caucus wins.

• One Democratic candidate’s campaign implied that racial bias was behind their successes and failures.

• One Democratic candidate tried to change the party’s rules mid-race to boost their campaign.

• The other Democratic candidate said that candidate one was, “likable enough”.

In fact, Obama only brought up his opponent in response to the most unfair and divisive rhetoric (see above), rhetoric that is dangerous to the party and the country come November.

This TPM reader and Hillary supporter at least gets it half right:

She did so much "just right" and could have won it had she not had the rough treatment from the media.

This person at least understands who was unfair to Hillary. But it is a wild stretch of the imagination to say that she “could have won it” if not for the misogyny and Clinton-animus displayed by a number of prominent media gasbags. In fact, backlash against this unfair treatment may have been a driving force behind Clinton supporters and is widely credited for her late, come-from-behind victory in the New Hampshire primary. Her campaign might have been over many months ago had she not won that contest.

Finally, this Clinton supporter lobs one additional insult at Obama supporters:

If there are those Democrats who still feel it is necessary to denigrate Senator Clinton and her run for the Presidency, I would ask them to think about the change they advocate and the no more politics as usual. The only way to say no to the Washington politics of the past 20 years is to stop hating and start moving forward.

Every man that has lived with a woman knows about resentment built on perceived slights. And it isn’t surprising that this Clinton supporter should project her resentment on Obama supporters. But the truth of the matter is that most Obama supporters seem heartsick (perhaps I’m projecting somewhat here), not hateful, about what the Clinton campaign did to the Clintons and yearn for the party to unite against our common enemies.

And, incredibly, this last Clinton supporter seems to think that saying “no to the Washington politics of the past 20 years” requires Democrats to “stop hating” when it should be obvious, particularly to a Clinton supporter, that the politics of the past 20 years has been all about Republican hatred of liberals and Democrats and the abject failure of the corporate media. It will take everything liberal Democrats can do to overcome this deep ignorance and mass media turpitude and teach even many Democrats who our real enemies are.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

On Combat Experience

Forgive me if I'm wrong, or just can't talk coherently about military matters since I'm some kinda DFH ( I even scribbled "I am a conscientious objector" on my selective service registration card way back when I turned 18), but doesn't the idea that someone with military experience can translate that better into the qualities desired in a commander in chief mean that the candidate is a proven leader of men?

Not to disparage John McCain's service here (like John Kerry was disparaged ad nauseum despite his incontrovertible record as an heroic leader of men), but as a fighter pilot, just what kind of "leadership" experience did John McCain learn? It's not like he was leading the charge over a hill or anything, his comerades in arms following his to hell and back.

(Mind you, I "get it" that he went through considerable hell in Vietnam, but it's not like that's where he intended to end up, or was leading anyone there.)

It was quite apparent he wasn't going to follow in his father and grandfather's footsteps and become admiral material, a position requiring the highest form of leadership qualities. He didn't have what it took, evidently. He turned instead to politics and women, opting for opportunism instead of the family business -- command.

And now, like Bush before him, he wants to outdo his daddy. Oy!

Acceptance

Taylor Marsh is now readable again, taking Hillary Clinton at her word and supporting Barack Obama, pronouncing the primaries O-V-E-R.

Hillary Clinton has endorsed and thrown her full support behind Barack Obama. Howard Wolfson and Rep. Charlie Rangel on "Face the Nation" spoke perfectly about where Clinton supporters are today. We still believe in Hillary Clinton wholeheartedly. As I’ve said many times, any time, anywhere, any year, Hillary, I’ll be there for you again. But now we have another job to do, which is to defeat John McCain. Hillary knows this all too well.

There are others out there not quite as mature. Talk Left (or at least Armondo "speaking for himself" cuz Jerylin is too bitter about politics and has returned to law-blogging) has preconditions on his conditional support, namely that Hillary be selected Obama's VP running mate. But they really put the moron in oxymoron running "open threads" with comments closed -- I kid you not.

Larry Johnson and the rest of the McCarthyites at No Quarter are beyond redemption. I've unsubscribed to their feed and will be de-linking them from my blogroll if I ever get around to updating it. They have completely transformed themselves into a wingnut blog, waiting only for their induction into the Hot Air fraternity.

I Can't Go On Reading From The Muckety-Mucks

I can't read or blog about any more Clinton postmortems. And there's a ton of them today. Before I started blogging, if a columnist was a wanker, I just stopped reading their drivel. Now I feel an obligation to ingest the nonsense of the Versailles Villagers just to write about what's wrong about them.

I got as far as Broder's third paragraph before I realized I had been sucked in by the old codger, telling me that he too is weary of the Klinton Kabuki. The Crown Prince of comity and enforcer of decorum among the Village Elders is sporting a woody for 10, no-holds-barred free-for-all Town Hall style debates between McCain and Obama because they will somehow by-pass and undermine the "muckety-mucks" (his words, not mine) who rule the Potomac Courtiers without even a hint that he's aware just how Teh Suck his boy McSame does in traditional debates, and that there's no way, no how John "Ace" doesn't completely melt down in a spittle-flecked rage in at least one of them -- probably more. Moreover, the lack of self-awareness, that Broder himself is one of those despicable "muckety-mucks," enough is enough.

So don't read Broder. Your day will be just that more pleasant for it. And don't even have the stupidity of reading Maureen Dowd taking delight in Hillary's defeat either, reveling in the idea that she lost because she's too good. No really. Hillary is so good at acting, according to the Village's Queen of Mean, that she takes on too many roles, some of which are inconsistent. Thus those of us in "fly-over country" get confused, and really -- everything Hillary did was wrong, especially listening to Mark Penn.

Glutton for punishment that I am, I read Mark Penn's post-postmortem as well. Dumb move. Don't do it. The stupid burns, true. But Hillary's pet buffoon mixes stupid with strawmen scapegoating, failure to take any responsibility whatsoever, and blames (of all things) a lack of funding and not the strategy and resource allocation he himself was so exorbitantly paid to screw up, This microtrend polling expert mentions caucuses, but glosses it over, talking about Hillary winning the high turnout primaries but losing low turnout caucuses without noticing that he could poll the primary states easier than the caucus states and therefor probably gave her more accurate intelligence there but likewise passed on his ignorance about the caucus states, yet packaged it as information.

You get the feeling Penn wasn't writing an honest opinion piece designed to actually explore any real reason Obama won and Hillary lost. When one of the campaign's largest creditors blames her lost on not raising enough money, when she raised more money than anyone ever has before (except Obama), I think he just wants to get paid and is sending the message to any future clients that if you want to win, you better raise an exorbitant amount-- and give it to him. Nice work if you can get it, Mark (until you're exposed as the fraud you are,)

There are a bunch more Villagers weighing in on Hillary's last days as presidential candidate (this cycle), but I can't go on. Each one so far was worse that the one before. That and I'm certain my brain is being eaten alive by all the insipidities on display.

HEY HILLARY

Ya done good, darlin'.

You don't mind me calling you darlin', do you? It's a sincere term of affection. I still love ya. Like a lot of family members that sometime tick me off, we've had our moments. But you're still family. We're still on the same team.

Now let's go kick some GOP ass!

Obama, Large And In Charge

Absorb this. One day after clinching the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama informs Howard Dean can keep his job then tells the entire country that his rules against accepting lobbyist and PAC money will now be the policy for the entire Democratic Party.

Boom. He laid down the law. Have you ever seen a politician keep a campaign promise before he got elected.

You might wonder whether McCain will follow suit, literally putting his money where his mouth is despite hypocritically being up to his neck in lobbyist running virtually every aspect of his campaign. It certainly looks good from a PR standpoint anyway.

The real answer is that even if McCain wanted to tell the RNC to stop funding itself through lobbyist funds, he can't. He's not the head of his party.

McCain would have to get permission from George and Dick first -- and those two would probably laugh him out of the room.

From his late night meeting with Hillary, reaching out to his chief rival consistent with his reputation and ditching the press in the process impressed me as well. Taken together with organizing a 50 State grass-roots organization integrating traditional self-important high rollers, a true grass-roots presence and a buzz on every college campus, plus utilizing online folks better than anyone else (even though us Edwards supporters owned D-Kos up until February, the Obamacons gave us fits, and no one could match them on FaceBook and the other social networks) -- the guy's management abilities are exceptional.

I was at best a skeptic, but his fundraising prowess, unheard of numbers of doners, huge crowd that were never disappointed, all speak to one thing for me: if he can run his campaign this well, motivating so many people of all walks of life, the nation and the world will be in good hands if we elect this take-charge guy as our boss.

Truth Commission

Would you like Freedom Fries with that pound of flesh?

Now that it's official, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence finally releasing the last two reports of "Phase II" of its inquiry about the Administration lying about the pre-war threat from Iraq and the Fixing of Intelligence by Doug Feith's office at the Pentagon (PDF's here and here), and in light of the confessions of Scott McClellen confirming everything and more said by Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Thomas E. Ricks, and so many other men and women of conscious who raised the alarm that the Bush administration was committing grave crimes against the world and shredding the Constitution, what do we do about it.

From the moment Nancy Pelosi stated that impeachment was "off the table," we knew that the Democrats, even if they gain all the levers of power, are not interested in getting even, in justice, so much as they are interested in getting power for themselves, wresting it from the criminals now in charge (a good thing in and of itself) and fixing what is broken -- but have no stomach for making anyone pay for what they did.

Except for Dennis Kucinich and hints from John Edwards, I don't recall much along the lines of a desire to prosecute anyone from the presidential candidates either. And no doubt George W. Bush will issue blanket pardons for anyone remotely involved in his breathtaking racket before he leaves office, leaving only him as a possible defendant in American Courts. I seriously doubt President Obama will consider initiating such a politically charged prosecution in keeping with his mission to heal the nation and move forward, undoing the madness of the last eight years. It probably wouldn't seem something that would help his reelection prospects or help maintain and expand the Democratic majorities in Congress either.

I disagree, but then again they don't pay me millions of dollars as a political consultant giving bad advice to candidates. But that's another story.

Rachel Maddow speaks for many, myself included, insisting that there is a difference between relying on flawed intelligence and "deliberately telling the American People something you know is not accurate" (ie. lying us into war) is "worthy of a prosecution or two." However her boss at Air America, Mark Green has another idea. Four actually:

1. "Vote Big" giving the Democrats a large mandate and sending the GOP a clear message. Of course herding cats is an easier task, and probably more fun.


2. "Shame 'em" challenging the the media to do it's job. Good luck with that.


3. "Sue" "Hit them in the pocketbook." You can kinda tell Mr. Green isn't a lawyer. While going after Halliburton may be worthwhile, government officials have qualified immunity from prosecution when excercizing and acting within their legally defined areas of discresion. The Iraq war, for all the fraud involved in gaining permission to use force from Congress, that permission was granted by folks like John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton voting with the GOP majority for the AUMF back in 2002.


4. "Create a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)" In essence, this would be a national confessional, a catharsis for those of us who at least desire truth above consequences. Not quite the Nuremberg trials, but public acknowledgment that atrocities were committed even if no one is punished.

Richard Clarke expressed similar desires to see a Truth Commission modeled on post-Aparteid South Africa on Countdown last night. And some true optimists out there in blogtopia (y!sctp) believe that much like the example of post WWII Germany, the people of the United States would not be completely consumed by such a circus as parading all the perpetrators that have been involved in the litany of high crimes before cameras to confess their sins.

Somehow I doubt it. Our uniquly tabloid culture , where a minor celebrity's double-murder trial can take over the national consciousness and expose the tenuous seams that divide us more than unite us, would gorge itself on the spectacle. I know I wouldn't miss a minute of this show.

However, it would be cathartic. The alternative is to wait for history's verdict, which might then not even be the resolution we need. My Armenia friend Ara could enlighten you much further on why sometimes just waiting on history to decide who was wrong and who was right can fester instead of heal.

The government of Turkey continues to call for Truth and Reconciliation of the horrific events they still refuse to officially call the Armenian Genocide of 1915-23, yet critics argue that an Historian's Commission telling "both sides" (no better that the first drafters of history we have today on every talking head program) would amount to a whitewash, or worse -- elevating the lies and coverups to be valid viewpoints.

I don't think we can await history's verdict. I know I don't want to. But what I want is to see every son of a neocon creep locked up while they wait upon history.

Framing Flaw: War/Occupation Vs. Colonialization

What else would you call a perpetual occupation of Iraq, the "hundred years" presence John McCain envisions? Right now, contrary to the desires of the vast majority of Iraqi citizens, and quite different from the way both Senators McCain and Obama frame their positions on the "war," we are negotiating an agreement with our clients obstensibly governing Iraq that would require the US military to stay indefinitely in those permanent bases we've been building.

As observant folks have been warning from the get-go, that Billion Dollar "Fortress America" Embassy in the Green Zone as well as the 14 permanent bases are being built to last. [Oh, excuse me. The politically correct term is "temporary bases" which our aptly name Iraq Ambassador, Crocker says we intend to occupy "indefinitely."]

I think this is a framing issue. McCain and Obama will argue for the next five months about judgment and experience, rehashing who was right when about the start of the war and the "surge" and what to do, (if anything) about Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan, until we're just sick to death of it. However, disturbing as it may sound, their respective ideas for every Middle Eastern nation other than Iraq aren't all that different, never were.

But when Obama states, eloquently I might add, that "We must be as careful getting out as Bush was careless getting into Iraq," and speaks of the best case scenario for doing so, the idea that he represents the anti-imperial sentiment both here and abroad is somehow not emphasized enough. John McSame offers the failed dystopian dream of Pax Americana, a world where we enforce our dominance, just for the sake of continuing our world-wide domination, through aggression and war and cluster bombs and tanks and laser guided munitions, and a lot of our blood and treasure as we take and destroy a lot more of other people's blood and treasure.

On this issue more than any other, a nonchalant attitude about the length of our stay in Iraq, peacefully or otherwise, is the continuation of the Bush/Cheney brand of imperialism.

The choice between the two can be summed up in one question. Do you believe America should make Iraq a permanent colony?

There are honest arguments on both sides of that question, but in the end (as usual) the Republicans know that they can never win that debate if honestly presented -- which is of course why we were lied into this catastro-phuque in the first place.