Michelle Obama introduced her husband in Iowa in August 2007. Like I've said before, I've never seen 'Angry Michelle'. I have seen 'Passionate Michelle'. She.is.fierce!
Showing posts with label Iowa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iowa. Show all posts
Friday, October 24, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Obama Requests Relief for Midwestern Flood Victims
From DailyKos:
Obama Campaign Organizes Flood Relief - Updated 2x w pics
by OIL GUY [Subscribe]
Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:28:26 AM PDT
Barack Obama and his campaign are using the power of their e-mail list and website to help organize relief efforts for people in the Midwest devastated by the intense floods. I recieved an e-mail from the campaign asking me to help by donating to the Red Cross relief effort. When I went to barackobama.com, I saw that the home page is dominated by an appeal for the flood victims uinder the banner:
YOUR HELP IS URGENTLY NEEDED
OIL GUY's diary :: ::
Not only is the Obama campaign helping to raise money for the relief effort, the websites Community Blogs are providing information on where volunteers who live in or near the affected areas are needed to assist local residents in building sandbag levees to protect peoples' homes. They had specific information on what towns needed help and where volunteers should go to offer their help. This included an appeal for volunteers to bring cold bottled water for the folks working at sandbagging - it is grueling hard work and the floods have contaminated many of the local water supplies.
For more about the Obama Campaign's Attempts to help the flood victims,GO HERE
Whatever you can give I'm sure will be appreciated.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Call your Senator and Congressman-Folks In Iowa Need Help
Hat tip Politicalinaction.com
From DailyKos:
Images are HERE
I've been watching cable, haven't seen anything on tv about this. I thought we said 'never again' after Katrina. Make a call, send emails, email the networks and ask them why they aren't on this story.
From DailyKos:
Darrell in Iowa writes:
I am in Mason City. Our levees broke Sunday morning. Flood stage is 7 foot and waters are now at 19 feet. Hundreds of homes and businesses are underwater. The City's water plant was flooded and the entire city of 30,000 is without potable water. A couple of hours ago the main electric substation flooded and failed and much of the city is without power. People remain in flooded homes. Early tonight I saw people wandering the streets not knowing where to go. There are entrie areas of the city with NO emergency personnel on hand.
NOBODY from the outside has come to help. Our local first responders are exhausted and overwhelmed. Small rural towns downstream tonight are being devasted. Levees everywhere are failing. Calls for help in these small towns have been unmet. Portions of our local guard are in Iraq.
The homeland has been left unprotected and people are suffering horribly.
And more of the story:
June 7, 2008 - Saturday
The Dike broke and flooding is Horrible
A quick post to let everyone know we are safe. I am at my parents house in Mason City, Iowa. The flooding rivers have now past a 75 year old record and will crest several feet higher later tonight. A few hours ago the dike on the main river broke. The City water plant is under water and soon this city of 30,000 people will be without drinking water. By this afternoon the last remaining bridge to the area we are in will be under water stranding about 10,000 people. We are high enough we won't flood although we will be cut off. I have the boat standing by in the back yard in case we need it. More later as I have time...need to see what I can do to help friends whose houses are under water.
Oh damn, thought the rain had stopped but it is starting again.
1:40 pm update....The rain continues to fall heavily and waters are rising fast again. The flood stage on the main river is 7 feet. We are now at 18 feeting and rising. The City is telling people we will be without water for at least two days and possibly all week. There must now be concern about contamination because people are being told not to use city water supply. I made it to the store before the bridge was closed and a semi load of water had just come in...as fast as it could be unloaded people were grabbing it. Its like chaos at the grocery stores. We are being told to expect much worse. I am in my RV, but need to soon abandon it. The water is about a foot deep around it and thats just urban flooding...its nowhere near a river.
10:00 pm update - I just got back a half hour ago from my brothers business where they are sand bagging. The rain has finally stopped and although on TV they report water is not longer rising...that's not what is happening. The street I took two hours to get out of our neighborhood is now under water. I was one of the last vehicles to get through the bumper deep water before it was closed. We are now completely isolated and cut off from the rest of the City.
Images are HERE
I've been watching cable, haven't seen anything on tv about this. I thought we said 'never again' after Katrina. Make a call, send emails, email the networks and ask them why they aren't on this story.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
A Look At the Media's Coverage of The Primaries- John Edwards Blackout Confirmed
The On The Media program ran a segment on the media's coverage of the race for President so far. They confirmed the media's virtual Blackout of John Edwards.
*********************
From the Program
Journalists covering the 2008 presidential race have spent the past year-and-a-half obsessing over every incremental development. But after Thursday's caucus in Iowa they can finally respond to actual voting. Mark Jurkowitz of the Project for Excellence in Journalism took a look at some of the coverage.
________________________________
See more on the media blackout of John Edwards, including the numbers.
Americans vote how they are told to vote.
The media sets the agenda.... not the people.
And the media decided months ago that John Edwards would not be President.
Obama and Clinton are the only two choices for Democrats.
Being the obedient sheep that they are known to be, Americans will vote as the media has instructed them to.
It's not a issue of Edwards being done. It's an issue of Edwards never being allowed in the game in the first place.
This is why we need fundamental changes in our electoral system....to allow candidates equal time and unbiased coverage (by law).
Other countries already do this.
The U.S. needs a strong independent election authority and new laws/policies so that the corporate media cannot hijack the process.
The media's motive here is ratings... They set the stage with the Obama/Clinton Show because it was the biggest ratings draw....not because they were the most electable candidates or the best candidates in the race.
And with so little time between Iowa and New Hampshire...and with the continuing media blackout... Edwards doesn't stand much of a chance to make up any ground. He was doomed from the start.
The media sets the agenda in this Country and has a greater role in choosing Presidents than voters do.
This is one of the big reasons why American elections are a complete farce.
From the Program
Journalists covering the 2008 presidential race have spent the past year-and-a-half obsessing over every incremental development. But after Thursday's caucus in Iowa they can finally respond to actual voting. Mark Jurkowitz of the Project for Excellence in Journalism took a look at some of the coverage.
________________________________
See more on the media blackout of John Edwards, including the numbers.
Americans vote how they are told to vote.
The media sets the agenda.... not the people.
And the media decided months ago that John Edwards would not be President.
Obama and Clinton are the only two choices for Democrats.
Being the obedient sheep that they are known to be, Americans will vote as the media has instructed them to.
It's not a issue of Edwards being done. It's an issue of Edwards never being allowed in the game in the first place.
This is why we need fundamental changes in our electoral system....to allow candidates equal time and unbiased coverage (by law).
Other countries already do this.
The U.S. needs a strong independent election authority and new laws/policies so that the corporate media cannot hijack the process.
The media's motive here is ratings... They set the stage with the Obama/Clinton Show because it was the biggest ratings draw....not because they were the most electable candidates or the best candidates in the race.
And with so little time between Iowa and New Hampshire...and with the continuing media blackout... Edwards doesn't stand much of a chance to make up any ground. He was doomed from the start.
The media sets the agenda in this Country and has a greater role in choosing Presidents than voters do.
This is one of the big reasons why American elections are a complete farce.
The Rise of Obama - Can He Win A General Election?
And Why I Supported John Edwards
None of the candidates were really a choice for me. However, out of the line-up that was presented, I would have preferred to see John Edwards get the nomination. But the corporate media decided over a year ago that John Edwards would not be President.
The Obama/Clinton Show represented the biggest ratings draw and the biggest money maker for the networks, and therefore the media set the agenda for voters and decided who the “favorite” candidates were going to be. The media clearly decided (for the people) who the favorites were, and have spent the last 18 months bombarding the American public with coverage….herding the public in the direction of the media’s choosing.
Americans vote how they are told to vote….always have. This year will be no different. Like obedient sheep, Americans will participate in the Obama/Clinton made for TV Movie. I will watch the movie, but i’m not participating in the production.
I have never participated in an American election ceremony, and never will. But I will remain an avid observer.
My cynicism has not gone anywhere. If anything, this election cycle is (so far) only making me more disgusted with the political system, and the electoral process in particular. This election is a sham to me…..as all recent elections have been. The media has more influence in choosing Presidents than voters do. THAT IS A PROBLEM.
In my case, John Edwards is (or “was” now…because he’ll be done here pretty soon) …but he was the only candidate with a message that resonated with me. He was the only candidate with poverty as a focus of his platform. He was the only candidate with Hurricane Katrina as a part of his platform…and he had a plan for Katrina… (how many of the other candidates went down to volunteer numerous times…when the cameras were not there?). He was the only candidate with a focus on the working poor… And in my view, he would have been more electable in a General Election. He’s a Southern Democrat…just what the Democratic Party needs for a nominee. It’s no coincidence that the last 2 Democratic Presidents were Southern Democrats… the last 3 if you count Gore. lol.
He’s not the perfect candidate… But he had “great” President potential… almost Kennedy-esqe (not that i’m a big fan of Kennedy).
But Black folks (as a whole)… are some of the most loyal Sheep in the electorate…. so it’s no surprise that folks would vote for someone who looks like them, but has not necessarily articulated a plan or platform that best represents their interests.
To me, Obama seems to be more along the lines of an elitist Wall Street corporate Democrat…. willing to negotiate with entrenched corporate interests….and “hope” that they come to their senses….rather than someone who will fight his ass off for my best interests (at least some of my interests) as a Black man struggling in the working class…and stuck in the working class. (See great commentary "I Don't Need A Candidate To Hope For Me, I Need One To Fight For Me"). His stump speeches and his message never really caught on for me. And being staunchly independent, I had no interest in jumping on his bandwagon just because he was Black. That whole idea is insulting to me…. I hate when people bring this up… assuming, in a roundabout way, that I should automatically back the man because of our shared skin pigment.
I recall Obama saying just last week at a rally that he helped put together legislation that prevented Senators from accepting meals from lobbyists… But who cares about a f—-ing meal when lobbyists are still buying members of Congress and literally writing the legislation. K Street is as strong as ever. In other words, he’s too superficial in his challenge of the Washington DC culture and corporate control of our government. He should be talking about closing K Street down… PERIOD. These lobbyists have all sorts of special access to elected officials…both in Congress and the White House. Yet the citizens have zero access. Ironically… the original meaning of “lobbyist” referred to a time when the average citizen would go to Congress to lobby their elected officials. Access was practically open at that time. Try reaching your elected official today. Good luck! Good luck even getting a response to a letter. If you are lucky…. IF you are lucky, you will get a form letter back, thanking you for your effort to contact Sen. or Congressman Joe Blow.
But the test now for Obama will be winning a General Election. That’s the true test… winning purple States. He will need more than “hope” and a smile to overcome the brutal beating that the Republican attack machine & Conservative corporate media is about to put on him. AND FOLKS… THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE PRETTY…. IT WILL NOT BE FOR THE FAINT OF HEART. I can’t stress that enough.
People say…well he won in 2 White States… well that was a Caucus and Primary, with mostly folks from his own Party participating. That will not necessarily translate into success in a General Election….even with some support from independents.
But if he wins the nomination… I will support him. Because the alternative is just unthinkable. Two of the Republi-CON candidates- Romney and Huckabee- want to turn the State into an Imperialist Theocracy, and the other two top candidates- Giuliani and McCain- are warmongering lunatics who will give us the Bush+ Plan… The same Bush administration policies on steroids. It will essentially be an extension of BushCo. Both McCain and Giuliani have the most prowar military and foreign policy teams and they have both expressed an interest in taking the nation into more wars. John McCain is the biggest warhawk in the U.S. Senate…has been for many years.
The problem with Obama is that I just don’t think he can beat a top Republican in a General Election. If McCain gets the nod… Obama will be in trouble.
And he could also struggle with any of the other top Republicans.
Obama as an ideal opponent for the Republicans, because they see him as one of the most beatable Democrats.
At any rate… this year will be interesting on many levels.
None of the candidates were really a choice for me. However, out of the line-up that was presented, I would have preferred to see John Edwards get the nomination. But the corporate media decided over a year ago that John Edwards would not be President.
The Obama/Clinton Show represented the biggest ratings draw and the biggest money maker for the networks, and therefore the media set the agenda for voters and decided who the “favorite” candidates were going to be. The media clearly decided (for the people) who the favorites were, and have spent the last 18 months bombarding the American public with coverage….herding the public in the direction of the media’s choosing.
Americans vote how they are told to vote….always have. This year will be no different. Like obedient sheep, Americans will participate in the Obama/Clinton made for TV Movie. I will watch the movie, but i’m not participating in the production.
I have never participated in an American election ceremony, and never will. But I will remain an avid observer.
My cynicism has not gone anywhere. If anything, this election cycle is (so far) only making me more disgusted with the political system, and the electoral process in particular. This election is a sham to me…..as all recent elections have been. The media has more influence in choosing Presidents than voters do. THAT IS A PROBLEM.
In my case, John Edwards is (or “was” now…because he’ll be done here pretty soon) …but he was the only candidate with a message that resonated with me. He was the only candidate with poverty as a focus of his platform. He was the only candidate with Hurricane Katrina as a part of his platform…and he had a plan for Katrina… (how many of the other candidates went down to volunteer numerous times…when the cameras were not there?). He was the only candidate with a focus on the working poor… And in my view, he would have been more electable in a General Election. He’s a Southern Democrat…just what the Democratic Party needs for a nominee. It’s no coincidence that the last 2 Democratic Presidents were Southern Democrats… the last 3 if you count Gore. lol.
He’s not the perfect candidate… But he had “great” President potential… almost Kennedy-esqe (not that i’m a big fan of Kennedy).
But Black folks (as a whole)… are some of the most loyal Sheep in the electorate…. so it’s no surprise that folks would vote for someone who looks like them, but has not necessarily articulated a plan or platform that best represents their interests.
To me, Obama seems to be more along the lines of an elitist Wall Street corporate Democrat…. willing to negotiate with entrenched corporate interests….and “hope” that they come to their senses….rather than someone who will fight his ass off for my best interests (at least some of my interests) as a Black man struggling in the working class…and stuck in the working class. (See great commentary "I Don't Need A Candidate To Hope For Me, I Need One To Fight For Me"). His stump speeches and his message never really caught on for me. And being staunchly independent, I had no interest in jumping on his bandwagon just because he was Black. That whole idea is insulting to me…. I hate when people bring this up… assuming, in a roundabout way, that I should automatically back the man because of our shared skin pigment.
I recall Obama saying just last week at a rally that he helped put together legislation that prevented Senators from accepting meals from lobbyists… But who cares about a f—-ing meal when lobbyists are still buying members of Congress and literally writing the legislation. K Street is as strong as ever. In other words, he’s too superficial in his challenge of the Washington DC culture and corporate control of our government. He should be talking about closing K Street down… PERIOD. These lobbyists have all sorts of special access to elected officials…both in Congress and the White House. Yet the citizens have zero access. Ironically… the original meaning of “lobbyist” referred to a time when the average citizen would go to Congress to lobby their elected officials. Access was practically open at that time. Try reaching your elected official today. Good luck! Good luck even getting a response to a letter. If you are lucky…. IF you are lucky, you will get a form letter back, thanking you for your effort to contact Sen. or Congressman Joe Blow.
But the test now for Obama will be winning a General Election. That’s the true test… winning purple States. He will need more than “hope” and a smile to overcome the brutal beating that the Republican attack machine & Conservative corporate media is about to put on him. AND FOLKS… THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE PRETTY…. IT WILL NOT BE FOR THE FAINT OF HEART. I can’t stress that enough.
People say…well he won in 2 White States… well that was a Caucus and Primary, with mostly folks from his own Party participating. That will not necessarily translate into success in a General Election….even with some support from independents.
But if he wins the nomination… I will support him. Because the alternative is just unthinkable. Two of the Republi-CON candidates- Romney and Huckabee- want to turn the State into an Imperialist Theocracy, and the other two top candidates- Giuliani and McCain- are warmongering lunatics who will give us the Bush+ Plan… The same Bush administration policies on steroids. It will essentially be an extension of BushCo. Both McCain and Giuliani have the most prowar military and foreign policy teams and they have both expressed an interest in taking the nation into more wars. John McCain is the biggest warhawk in the U.S. Senate…has been for many years.
The problem with Obama is that I just don’t think he can beat a top Republican in a General Election. If McCain gets the nod… Obama will be in trouble.
And he could also struggle with any of the other top Republicans.
Obama as an ideal opponent for the Republicans, because they see him as one of the most beatable Democrats.
At any rate… this year will be interesting on many levels.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Media Blackout Continues for John Edwards
There has clearly been a concerted effort on the part of the major media to take John Edwards out of the Presidential race. This has been going on for more than a year. They have successfully moved Edwards out of the way by sinking his campaign; allowing them to get the matchup that they want no matter what. And with so little time between Iowa and the New Hampshire Primary, Edwards has little chance of making up any ground.
All along, the networks wanted to see a matchup between Obama and Clinton because it would be the biggest ratings draw. Therefore, the networks proceeded to set the stage & set the agenda for what THEY wanted....(not what the people wanted), by giving disproportionate wall-to-wall coverage to the Obama and Clinton campaigns. In doing so, they set the agenda for voters...and established who the "favorites" were going to be...in order to get the matchup that they wanted.
Without the media hype, the Obama & Clinton campaigns would have gone nowhere... because neither candidate is the best that the Democrats had to offer, and neither candidate is the most electable.
What we are witnessing with John Edwards is one of the biggest travesties in American electoral history. And no one will do anything about it.... because there is no election authority in this Country that can regulate, enforce laws, recommend changes, or correct these kinds of injustices.
This is why fundamental electoral reform is so desperately needed...including the regulation of media coverage. Other Countries already regulate media coverage and public polling during campaigns.
Here are the latest examples of the media's Blackout effort against John Edwards... But this nonsense has been going on everyday for over a year.
Example with additional video
_____________________
Related Links
The Blackout of John Edwards and the Aftermath of Iowa
Other Candidates Banned from Participating in New Hampshire Debate
Iowa - A Test For American Democracy
All along, the networks wanted to see a matchup between Obama and Clinton because it would be the biggest ratings draw. Therefore, the networks proceeded to set the stage & set the agenda for what THEY wanted....(not what the people wanted), by giving disproportionate wall-to-wall coverage to the Obama and Clinton campaigns. In doing so, they set the agenda for voters...and established who the "favorites" were going to be...in order to get the matchup that they wanted.
Without the media hype, the Obama & Clinton campaigns would have gone nowhere... because neither candidate is the best that the Democrats had to offer, and neither candidate is the most electable.
What we are witnessing with John Edwards is one of the biggest travesties in American electoral history. And no one will do anything about it.... because there is no election authority in this Country that can regulate, enforce laws, recommend changes, or correct these kinds of injustices.
This is why fundamental electoral reform is so desperately needed...including the regulation of media coverage. Other Countries already regulate media coverage and public polling during campaigns.
Here are the latest examples of the media's Blackout effort against John Edwards... But this nonsense has been going on everyday for over a year.
Example with additional video
_____________________
Related Links
The Blackout of John Edwards and the Aftermath of Iowa
Other Candidates Banned from Participating in New Hampshire Debate
Iowa - A Test For American Democracy
Friday, January 04, 2008
The Aftermath of the Iowa Caucus - Americas Broken System
I see the Obama win in Iowa as the Democrats worst nightmare coming true. A Trainwreck in the making.
The corporate media will still act as if Edwards doesn't exist. He will continue to face a media Blackout. The networks will continue to spin the election as a Obama/Clinton contest. Why? Because it is good for their ratings. That has been one of the motivations behind the whole Obama/Clinton nonsense all along. This has been a media driven election for Obama and Clinton. Neither candidate belongs anywhere near the top tier. But they were placed there by corporations who decided that this was what the political landscape should look like.
The fact is... Obama & Clinton are 2 of the least electable candidates that Democrats have to offer (among the serious candidates/not counting Gravel or Kucinich).
Who owns the big media? The same kinds of corporations that John Edwards says he wants to stand up to. So that is another factor in this race.
There is no way that Obama can match a top Republican in a General election. He is not the best Democrat for winning Purple States. And he will get nothing in the South. Yes, he won in Iowa...but that does not translate into victory in a General Election where there will be 50 separate and unequal contests taking place. And keep in mind, this will be after the Republican political/media machine gets done with him.
In fact, Obama would struggle just to hold on to States that Democrats won in the last 2 elections...such as Pennsylvania.
In short, the Democrats are once again headed for a Trainwreck.... with either Obama or Clinton.
It's sad to see this happening to Edwards...who would make a great President. Edwards may be finished soon, because so much was riding on Iowa. His campaign may have been doomed before it had a chance to get started, because the media made a concerted effort to take him out of the mix from the beginning. He never got a fair shot. This fundamentally flawed American election system needs to be overhauled. The allocation of media time to candidates, etc all must be regulated if this Country wants to have anything resembling free and fair elections. Media steering should be stopped and public polling before elections should be regulated or eliminated altogether.
It is a miracle that this man was able to come in second place with 30% under the circumstances....with no media coverage to speak of (until very late), and without the big money. Such a good showing under those conditions is an sign of his strength.
But because of the media blackout, he will probably not be able to rise in the polls in New Hampshire in such a short period of time, at least not enough to be competitive there. This is why equal & balanced media coverage is so important for candidates.
This just reaffirms my disgust and disinchantment with the American election process.... the structure of the political system itself is undemocratic at its core.
And this also reaffirms my long held belief that the media is the most powerful institution in the Country and plays too large a role in influencing American Elections. For one thing, the media sets the agenda for the people, and frames the debate. It's supposed to be the other way around... the people are supposed to set the agenda and frame the debate in an election year. But in this Country the media decides these things. And it also decides who the favorite candidates are going to be (by favoring certain candidates over others)...steering Americans like sheep (because intellectually lazy Americans allow this to happen).
This is why I don't bother participating. I have always hated this undemocratic system of politics. The American Election system & political system itself are so fundamentally broken.
Obama's "victory" doesn't give me "hope" at all... It actually does a lot to confirm my beliefs about the flawed electoral system in this country. And it doesn't make me excited at all about ever participating in the American system. My cynicism & skepticism about American politics has only increased....not decreased. I see more of our so-called Democracy slipping away with each election cycle.
Until there is a serious move towards election reform- which will never happen in this Country- I will never be excited about American politics. I have never been inclined to even register to vote, let alone take part in the actual ceremony. The motivation is just not there. And this current election cycle is an example of why I don't participate. And I hate when imbeciles try to tell me to vote for the sake of voting, that I should vote because i'm Black and that I need to exercise the right....EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT??????? The "Black" reasoning is the dumbest of all... it usually makes me want to scream. Voting in this Country has become ceremonial. Because the system that people are voting in IS NOT Democratic. That's like telling a person in Russia or Pakistan that they should go and vote so that they can exercise their right to do so. That logic has never made sense to me and it never will.
I won't spend much time or effort covering the rest of the 2008 election ceremony.... I will only make a half-assed effort. Because the election is a farce (as usual). But I will cover it for info-tainment purposes.
__________________________
A Daily Kos Entry That Sums Up My View
Karl Rove Is Laughing His Ass Off Right Now
Previous Post
Iowa- A Test For American Democracy
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Analysis of the Race In Iowa
Hear one last discussion & analysis of the Republican and Democratic races in Iowa, courtesy of OnPointRadio. This was a very good discussion that got heated a couple of times.
LISTEN HERE
LISTEN HERE
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
The Iowa Caucus: A Test For American Democracy
....Well, a test of what little Democracy that this Country has left
When I think of U.S. Democracy and our system of voting, the concept of free and fair elections doesn’t come to mind. The fundamentally flawed U.S. political system with its 2 dominant parties limiting voter choice (often between bad and worse), and its culture of facilitating corruption, doesn’t inspire much confidence that the politicians will really be accountable to the people they are supposed to serve. We live in a political system where the corporate media often chooses the next President; playing the same role that State-Run media plays in less than Democratic regimes overseas. Even a former U.S. President has admitted that the U.S. voting system does not meet basic international standards for free and fair elections. Elections in this Country have been flawed, and heavily influenced by corporate interests for the last several decades.
When I think of U.S. Democracy and our system of voting, the concept of free and fair elections doesn’t come to mind. The fundamentally flawed U.S. political system with its 2 dominant parties limiting voter choice (often between bad and worse), and its culture of facilitating corruption, doesn’t inspire much confidence that the politicians will really be accountable to the people they are supposed to serve. We live in a political system where the corporate media often chooses the next President; playing the same role that State-Run media plays in less than Democratic regimes overseas. Even a former U.S. President has admitted that the U.S. voting system does not meet basic international standards for free and fair elections. Elections in this Country have been flawed, and heavily influenced by corporate interests for the last several decades.
But recently, the corruption of U.S. elections seems to have gotten worse.
Today, we are seeing the same fundamentally flawed election system at work- a system where a candidate can buy their way into the White House. A system where the major corporate media outlets attempt to choose the next President by directly and indirectly telling Americans who they should vote for, or at the very least, they suggest as much with their excessive coverage of one or two candidates while giving little if any coverage to other viable candidates. Today, politicians don’t even make an effort to hide the fact that they have been bought. And the big media outlets make it pretty plain to see that they are favoring one candidate over another, and it shows in their unbalanced coverage.
A free and fair election system would have all viable candidates receiving equal time. But unfortunately this is not a part of the U.S. system. The media has gotten so good at influencing the American electorate that people are willing to vote against their own best interests, time and time again.
Combine a flawed, often undemocratic election system, a corrupt 2 Party monopoly, a corporate media allied with the corrupt political establishment, and a citizenry that- for the most part- is not politically engaged, and you end up with the situation we have today. A political system where politicians are not accountable, and election victories depend more on how much money a candidate has than on the substance of a candidates platform, plan, message and track record.
We are once again seeing the same dynamics in the current Presidential campaign. The corporate media has not only framed the debate- determining what issues are important for the voters- but it is also attempting to tell Americans who to vote for. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney & Rudy Giuliani are the media’s chosen favorites. While on the Democratic side, the media’s chosen candidates are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama- motivated by the ratings that a white woman vs. a Black man would create for the networks. Clinton and Obama have dominated T.V. coverage, despite the fact that neither would represent the best candidate that the Democratic Party could bring forth for a General Election. Hillary Clinton is not the most electable candidate for a General Election contest. We have argued the case on this to exhaustion… But the facts are clear on that point. Hillary also does not represent the “change” that Democrats, and American voters as a whole, say that they want in a candidate. She represents the old Washington establishment.
Today, we are seeing the same fundamentally flawed election system at work- a system where a candidate can buy their way into the White House. A system where the major corporate media outlets attempt to choose the next President by directly and indirectly telling Americans who they should vote for, or at the very least, they suggest as much with their excessive coverage of one or two candidates while giving little if any coverage to other viable candidates. Today, politicians don’t even make an effort to hide the fact that they have been bought. And the big media outlets make it pretty plain to see that they are favoring one candidate over another, and it shows in their unbalanced coverage.
A free and fair election system would have all viable candidates receiving equal time. But unfortunately this is not a part of the U.S. system. The media has gotten so good at influencing the American electorate that people are willing to vote against their own best interests, time and time again.
Combine a flawed, often undemocratic election system, a corrupt 2 Party monopoly, a corporate media allied with the corrupt political establishment, and a citizenry that- for the most part- is not politically engaged, and you end up with the situation we have today. A political system where politicians are not accountable, and election victories depend more on how much money a candidate has than on the substance of a candidates platform, plan, message and track record.
We are once again seeing the same dynamics in the current Presidential campaign. The corporate media has not only framed the debate- determining what issues are important for the voters- but it is also attempting to tell Americans who to vote for. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney & Rudy Giuliani are the media’s chosen favorites. While on the Democratic side, the media’s chosen candidates are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama- motivated by the ratings that a white woman vs. a Black man would create for the networks. Clinton and Obama have dominated T.V. coverage, despite the fact that neither would represent the best candidate that the Democratic Party could bring forth for a General Election. Hillary Clinton is not the most electable candidate for a General Election contest. We have argued the case on this to exhaustion… But the facts are clear on that point. Hillary also does not represent the “change” that Democrats, and American voters as a whole, say that they want in a candidate. She represents the old Washington establishment.
If you want more of the same Washington politics, the same elitism, the same corruption, the same foreign policy wrapped in a different package, the same corporate stranglehold on the political leadership, a healthcare system that leaves the insurance companies and drug companies in charge, the same atmosphere where voters have no access to their elected officials (unless they can afford a $3500.00 per plate dinner), and if you want a candidate who will struggle to win moderates and independents in a General Election, then by all means, vote for Hillary.
Barack Obama? Obama would also be very vulnerable in a General Election. As great as Obama is and as good as his message might be, he cannot generate the broad support needed in a General Election to win (and flip) purple States over a wide geographical area. The Democrats must be able to win purple States like Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee & others. Obama is not the best candidate to get it done, especially against a well oiled, tested and proven Republican machine, that is licking its chops, hoping for an Obama nomination. The Republican machine would destroy Obama in a General Election, making the dismantling of John Kerry look like childs play by comparison.
But there is a Democrat who could get it done - John Edwards. But if you watch the news coverage, it is almost as if Edwards is not even running for President. I have been watching for Edwards coverage closely, especially over the last several weeks. Each night, Chris Matthews has talked about the matchup between Clinton & Obama, and has hardly mentioned John Edwards. The few times when Edwards has been mentioned, it has always been in the context of “Oh yeah…that guy… the loser”. There has clearly been an effort to take John Edwards out of the mix. There also seems to be a push to get Democrats to nominate an unelectable or less electable candidate. The Republicans would welcome (and greatly appreciate) Clinton or Obama as an opponent. There is no greater rallying tool for Republicans than a Clinton nomination. That would certainly stir the Republican grassroots, as Republican strategists have admitted themselves. In fact, Republican cheerleaders would not have to work nearly as hard to motivate the troops with Clinton as an opponent. Democrats would be doing the work for the Republicans with a Clinton nomination. But the Republicans fear John Edwards.
The Iowa Caucus will be the perfect test of the U.S. election process. The results will either be further confirmation of the broken & corrupt system, or a sign that Americans really do want change. Will Iowa Caucus goers choose the candidate who they have been told to choose by the media over the past several months, or will they make a choice based on their own best interests? Will Caucus goers choose the candidate who they have been told to choose by the media, or will they choose the candidate with the best chance to win the General Election? Will Caucus goers confirm the idea that a politician can buy his or her way into the White House or will they send the message that Iowans can't be bought? Will Caucus goers confirm that American media and corporate interests control the debate & the ballot box rather than the American people? Will Caucus goers confirm the worst about the American system or will they provide a flicker of hope that something different is possible?
All of these questions will be answered on January 3, 2008. I fully expect my view of American politics to be confirmed, but I am having a little prayer vigil in the back of my mind, hoping that I am wrong. I am hoping that Iowa Caucus goers will disappoint me in a good way and put some doubt in my theory. I hope they prove me very wrong.
Barack Obama? Obama would also be very vulnerable in a General Election. As great as Obama is and as good as his message might be, he cannot generate the broad support needed in a General Election to win (and flip) purple States over a wide geographical area. The Democrats must be able to win purple States like Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee & others. Obama is not the best candidate to get it done, especially against a well oiled, tested and proven Republican machine, that is licking its chops, hoping for an Obama nomination. The Republican machine would destroy Obama in a General Election, making the dismantling of John Kerry look like childs play by comparison.
But there is a Democrat who could get it done - John Edwards. But if you watch the news coverage, it is almost as if Edwards is not even running for President. I have been watching for Edwards coverage closely, especially over the last several weeks. Each night, Chris Matthews has talked about the matchup between Clinton & Obama, and has hardly mentioned John Edwards. The few times when Edwards has been mentioned, it has always been in the context of “Oh yeah…that guy… the loser”. There has clearly been an effort to take John Edwards out of the mix. There also seems to be a push to get Democrats to nominate an unelectable or less electable candidate. The Republicans would welcome (and greatly appreciate) Clinton or Obama as an opponent. There is no greater rallying tool for Republicans than a Clinton nomination. That would certainly stir the Republican grassroots, as Republican strategists have admitted themselves. In fact, Republican cheerleaders would not have to work nearly as hard to motivate the troops with Clinton as an opponent. Democrats would be doing the work for the Republicans with a Clinton nomination. But the Republicans fear John Edwards.
The Iowa Caucus will be the perfect test of the U.S. election process. The results will either be further confirmation of the broken & corrupt system, or a sign that Americans really do want change. Will Iowa Caucus goers choose the candidate who they have been told to choose by the media over the past several months, or will they make a choice based on their own best interests? Will Caucus goers choose the candidate who they have been told to choose by the media, or will they choose the candidate with the best chance to win the General Election? Will Caucus goers confirm the idea that a politician can buy his or her way into the White House or will they send the message that Iowans can't be bought? Will Caucus goers confirm that American media and corporate interests control the debate & the ballot box rather than the American people? Will Caucus goers confirm the worst about the American system or will they provide a flicker of hope that something different is possible?
All of these questions will be answered on January 3, 2008. I fully expect my view of American politics to be confirmed, but I am having a little prayer vigil in the back of my mind, hoping that I am wrong. I am hoping that Iowa Caucus goers will disappoint me in a good way and put some doubt in my theory. I hope they prove me very wrong.
But the Iowa Caucus is not free of flaws. There is the issue of Republicans possibly impacting the vote, since non-Democrats can participate. Could Republicans help to orchestrate a Clinton or Obama victory in order to boost Republican chances in a General Election? I wouldn't doubt that this might be a plan for Republican strategists. We've seen just about everything else from Republican strategists before....so this is not so far fetched.
But even with an Edwards win, the system has been rigged in such a way that a big money candidate can win the nomination on the “Super Tuesday“, when a huge number of States are decided at once. Once upon a time in this Country, before Democracy faded into almost complete obscurity, a candidate had to work at a more steady pace to win. Now it can all be decided in a very short amount of time… With the recent changes in the process, Iowa just doesn’t count like it used to.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
The Errington Thompson Show - Interview With Senatorial Candidate Jim Neal
Hear 2 great episodes of the Errington Thompson Show. The first, from December 15th, includes an interview with Jim Neal, a candidate for U.S. Senate -North Carolina.
And hear another great episode from December 22nd. In this program, Doc talks about phony Mitt Romney, and the lies about his father marching with MLK; and he also covers the Presidential campaign & the upcoming contests in Iowa.
John Edwards On NPR
John Edwards takes part in a radio discussion about his campaign and the issues facing voters. Listen Here
The program (onpoint) unfortunately devotes the first 15-20 minutes to pundits, clearly attempting to shape the discussion. They should have spent the entire hour speaking with the candidate. There are enough pundits on CNN and FOX distorting his message. But there seems to be filters and pundits everywhere these days.
Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama continue to get all of the attention.....(especially Clinton... the corporate media is clearly attempting to tell voters who to support).
Saturday, December 22, 2007
17 Year Old Girl Dies After Insurance Company Interferes With Doctors Care
Another Story of Legal Murder By An American Corporation
This comes just after Bush vetoed an expansion of S-Chip (twice).
This also comes at a time when Americans are close to crowning Hillary Clinton as their next leader...even though she is one of the top recipients of corrupt Lobbying money from the health insurance industry and the drug companies. And she is supposed to reform healthcare? She is supposed to be the "change" candidate?
This is why I believe American voters are politically/intellectually lazy. It's much easier for Americans to be told how to vote (by the Corporate media) than to do their homework and vote for their best interests. This kind of laziness is the reason why the Country is in the hole that it's in now. And with Clinton, the hole will only get deeper. She will sell you out to the Corporations completely....and send you right down the river with no paddle and no life jacket...
This comes just after Bush vetoed an expansion of S-Chip (twice).
This also comes at a time when Americans are close to crowning Hillary Clinton as their next leader...even though she is one of the top recipients of corrupt Lobbying money from the health insurance industry and the drug companies. And she is supposed to reform healthcare? She is supposed to be the "change" candidate?
This is why I believe American voters are politically/intellectually lazy. It's much easier for Americans to be told how to vote (by the Corporate media) than to do their homework and vote for their best interests. This kind of laziness is the reason why the Country is in the hole that it's in now. And with Clinton, the hole will only get deeper. She will sell you out to the Corporations completely....and send you right down the river with no paddle and no life jacket...
I just hope that the people of Iowa are paying attention....
Saturday December 22, 2007
The Guardian
The family of a California teenager plan to sue her health insurer which refused to pay for a liver transplant until hours before and she died on Thursday night.
Her family's lawyer, Mark Geragos, will ask the Los Angeles district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against Cigna HealthCare, arguing that the firm "maliciously killed" Nataline Sarkisyan by its reluctance to pay for her treatment. The company reversed its stance after protesters called for a rethink, but the decision came too late.
The 17-year-old from Glendale, California, had been in a coma for weeks after complications following a bone marrow transplant to counter leukaemia.
After the operation, her liver failed and doctors referred her for an emergency transplant. Although she was fully insured and had a matching donor, Cigna refused to pay on the grounds that her healthcare plan "does not cover experimental, investigational and unproven services".
Cigna's rejection on December 11 led Sarkisyan's doctors at UCLA medical centre, including the head of its transplant unit, to write a letter to protest that the treatment which they proposed was neither experimental nor unproven. They called on the firm to urgently review its decision.
In the absence of a response from Cigna, doctors told the Sarkisyan family that the only alternative would be for the family to pay. But they could not afford the immediate down payment of $75,000 (£38,000).
The family, backed by nurses, relatives and Sarkisyan's friends, mounted a protest of 150 people outside Cigna's Glendale offices. "Cigna cannot decide who is going to live and who is going to die," the teenager's mother, Hilda Sarkisyan, told the crowd.
The demo was amplified by an internet campaign orchestrated by the liberal Daily Kos website and other blogs that bombarded Cigna's HQ in Philadephia. In the middle of the rally, a note was handed to Mrs Sarkisyan saying that Cigna had decided to reverse its decision.
"Cigna HealthCare has decided to make an exception in this rare and unusual case and we will provide coverage should she proceed with the requested liver transplant," it said in a statement.
The news drew cheers from the crowd, but they quickly grew sombre when they heard Sarkisyan's condition had deteriorated. A few hours later, her life support was switched off.
"She passed away, and the insurance [company] is responsible for this," Mrs Sarkisyan told the Los Angeles Daily News.
"Why did it take public humiliation for a multibillion-dollar insurance company to force them to provide appropriate medical care?" asked Charles Idelson of the California Nurses Association.
"This is what's wrong with our health system - insurers decide treatment, not doctors."
The protests over Sarkisyan's case point to growing public disenchantment with the healthcare system in America.
Politicians vying to be the Democratic candidate for the presidential race next year have prepared plans for reform to bring the 47 million uninsured Americans into the healthcare net, and to improve terms for those already insured like Sarkisyan.
The subject was given an added boost this summer by Michael Moore's documentary on the state of the American health service, Sicko.
Moore refers to the case of Sarkisyan on his website, under the simple banner: "Justice delayed is justice denied."
Following the teenager's death, Cigna issued another statement yesterday.
"Their loss is immeasurable, and our thoughts and prayers are with them," it said. "We deeply hope that the outpouring of concern, care and love that are being expressed for Nataline's family help them at this time."
The company recently posted figures for its third-quarter performance this year, which showed profits up 22%. Next year it expects to earn an income of up to $1.2bn.
____________________________
Also See Coverage from Rawstory
Nurses Association Says Cigna Should Have Listened To Her Doctors and Approved The Transplant
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Support For Edwards Growing In Iowa
This supports what I have been saying all along. Now that we are getting close to Caucus night, Iowans are giving Edwards a closer look.
He now leads in the State according to a Poll released today.... although, as I stated, Polls don't mean much. However, it means a little more for Edwards, because he is the most viable candidate of the top three. The survey also indicates that he leads among "second choices".
Read more here.
He now leads in the State according to a Poll released today.... although, as I stated, Polls don't mean much. However, it means a little more for Edwards, because he is the most viable candidate of the top three. The survey also indicates that he leads among "second choices".
Read more here.
John Edwards Is In A Good Position To Take Iowa
You read it here first :)
Expanding on an earlier post...
I am glad Iowa is first in the election (or coronation) process.
I don't have much confidence in Iowa's voters necessarily.... American voters as a whole are a little lazy when it comes to politics, being aware of the actual issues, and when it comes to why they support certain candidates. I saw one e-mail that someone sent to CNN a few days ago which stated that they were supporting Hillary Clinton because they loved the Bill Clinton years. NOT because of her policy positions, actual experience, platform, campaigning, background, track record, honesty, etc. Go figure! I think I mentioned this idiocy before...about Americans having a habit of voting for symbols & last names instead of Candidates & policies. This is how we ended up with George W... people thought they were voting for George H.W. These are two different men, supported by different cadres of people, with different views of the world, and are men with VERY different experience levels. Talk about novice vs. Powerful Statesman/Master Politician.
In fact, I don't have much of a reason to feel confident about anything related to the corrupt and undemocratic American political system. Based on the facts about America's broken political system and all the nonsense that I have seen, I probably should not have any hope when it comes to John Edwards. But it is Iowa's system that gives me a little more confidence about Edwards's chances there. I don't like making predictions, but for months now I have been saying that Iowa was an opportunity for Edwards to make a good showing. Although, he believes that he is lagging and that he is not where he had planned to be in Iowa at this point. A guy named Obama ruined the show. But Edwards will probably be able to weather the challenge from Obama.
Why is Edwards still in the race? Because Polls mean little in the Iowa Caucus process. Throw the Polls out of the window.
I hate to use wikipedia for anything, but it provided the clearest, most succinct description of the Caucus process that I have found online. I was going to explain it myself, but I started to develop a headache about halfway through. So just how does the Iowa Caucus process work?
"The Iowa caucus operates very differently from the more common primary election used by most other states. The caucus is generally defined as a "gathering of neighbors." Rather than going to polls and casting ballots, Iowans gather at a set location in each of Iowa's 1784 precincts. Typically, these meetings occur in schools, churches, or public libraries. The caucuses are held every two years, but the ones that receive national attention are the presidential preference caucuses held every four years. In addition to the voting, caucus attendees propose planks for their party's platform, select members of the county committees, and discuss issues important to their local organizations.
Unlike the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, the Iowa caucus does not result directly in national delegates for each candidate. Instead, caucus-goers elect delegates to county conventions, who elect delegates to district and state conventions where the national convention delegates are selected.
The Republicans and Democrats each hold their own set of caucuses subject to their own particular rules that change from time to time. Participants in each party's caucuses must be registered with that party. Participants can change their registration at the caucus location. Additionally, 17-year-olds can participate, as long as they will be 18 years old by the date of the general election. Observers are allowed to attend, as long as they do not become actively involved in the debate and voting process.
The process used by the Democrats is more complicated than the Republican Party caucus process. Each precinct divides its delegate seats among the candidates in proportion to caucus goers' votes.
Participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a "preference group"). An area may also be designated for undecided participants. Then, for roughly 30 minutes, participants try to convince their neighbors to support their candidates. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups and, in particular, from among those undecided. Undecided participants might visit each preference group to ask its members about their candidate.
After 30 minutes, the electioneering is temporarily halted and the supporters for each candidate are counted. At this point, the caucus officials determine which candidates are "viable". Depending on the number of county delegates to be elected, the "viability threshold" can be anywhere from 15% to 25% of attendees. For a candidate to receive any delegates from a particular precinct, he or she must have the support of at least that many caucus participants in that precinct. Once viability is determined, participants have roughly another 30 minutes to "realign": the supporters of inviable candidates may find a viable candidate to support, join together with supporters of another inviable candidate to secure a delegate for one of the two, or choose to abstain. This "realignment" is a crucial distinction of caucuses in that (unlike a primary) being a voter's "second candidate of choice" can help a candidate.
When the voting is closed, a final head count is conducted, and each precinct apportions delegates to the county convention. These numbers are reported to the state party, which counts the total number of delegates for each candidate and reports the results to the media. Most of the participants go home, leaving a few to finish the business of the caucus: each preference group elects its delegates, and then the groups reconvene to elect local party officers and discuss the platform.
The delegates chosen by the precinct then go to a later caucus, the county convention, to choose delegates to the district convention and state convention. Most of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention are selected at the district convention, with the remaining ones selected at the state convention. Delegates to each level of convention are initially bound to support their chosen candidate but can later switch in a process very similar to what goes on at the precinct level; however, as major shifts in delegate support are rare, the media declares the candidate with the most delegates on the precinct caucus night the winner, and relatively little attention is paid to the later caucuses."
Here is a similar explanation from IowaCaucus.org
The Iowa Caucus is not a vote like you would see in a typical primary. The Caucus is a deliberative process that is very fluid. The January Caucus will probably be one of the most contentious Caucuses in years.
There are several things about the Caucus process that are in Edwards's favor:
#1. 17 year olds can participate (as long as they will be 18 by election time). Edwards has a strong following from young Iowans.... just like Obama. The media has counted on new, young Iowans to stay home. This is a mistake in my opinion. This Caucus will be different. A new generation is coming into its own. The war in Iraq, Climate change, and other issues have awaken young people. Young folks are now taking matters into their own hands. Edwards connected with young people early in his campaign. Edwards also has an impressive plan for dealing with Climate change. His advocacy for the poor and middle class is also appealing. Young people don't have the same connection to Clinton. She represents the "business as usual", "old guard" to many teens and 20 somethings. I believe young folks will shock the nation come Caucus night.
#2. In more ways than one, Iowans use "viability" as part of their process. From a technical point of view, each candidates group will have to garner at least 15% in the first round of the Caucus process in order to remain viable. This will almost surely make this a 3 way race early. Edwards has a chance to pick up support from the unviable groups... Richardson is close to the Clintons and may give his support to Hillary. But the others may go for Edwards. In addition to that support, he may also get support from undecideds.... which could be 10% or more of the total participants. When you add support from the undecided's and from the other candidates who didn't make the cut, Edwards could have enough to win.
Also, there is another viability test that is important to Iowans. That viability test has to do with who would be the strongest candidate in a general election. Hillary has too many negatives. And Obama....as great as he is, may be too vulnerable as a general election candidate. Although I would love to see him as a VP. The Republicans (and even some Democrats) are already starting to use dirty tricks against Obama. And the colorline is still very present in America....as much as some people would like to ignore it, or wish it away. Could Obama generate the kind of wide geographical support needed for a General election? Probably not. Iowans will figure this out very quickly and will go to an alternate choice. Many Obama supporters will likely switch to Edwards before the end of the night. They certainly won't support Hillary.
Edwards may not only win Iowa...but he may win in convincing fashion.
#3. From what I have read/heard, Edwards has a broader distribution of support throughout the State than the other candidates, especially from rural areas. Obama has support from more isolated pockets. Broad distribution of support is more important in the Caucus process than concentrated areas of support. Edward's campaigning in 2003 and 2004, as well as his early campaigning in 2007 may have paid off.
#4. Clinton is an establishment figure. I believe the people of Iowa are seeking a break from the establishment. They want a "change" candidate. Edwards and Obama are both stronger than Clinton when it comes to who represents change. Plus her support is moving down at the wrong time right time :)..., and her campaign has turned ugly in recent weeks. She had a few incidents that hurt her in Iowa.... her scolding of an Iowa voter who asked her a question was a bad move. Iowans don't like being lectured to from outsiders. They also probably didn't care for the planted questions from her staff.
#5. Edwards is polling strong against potential Republican opponents.
#6. Edwards may do better with independents in a general election... a crucial point that Iowans will be looking at. Independents are important for a Democratic victory.
#7. Edwards may be able to carry more purple States....or at least as many as Clinton could carry. Being able to carry purple States, like my home State of Missouri, will be crucial for Democrats. They have to flip (and are poised to flip) at least 3-4 States that they didn't flip in 2004. Democrats cannot afford to have another close election like 2000, and 2004. Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Nevada, New Mexico (and a few others) could go to the Democrats. Edwards may be the best candidate to do it.
I'm just afraid that during the deliberations... the other establishment candidates will throw their support behind the chosen "establishment" front-runner, Hillary Clinton...in order to make sure power stays in the hands of the establishment camp. In other words, Richardson, Dodd, & Biden may encourage their supporters to go for Clinton. But if Edwards and Obama put their heads together.... they can team up to prevent this from happening or at least prevent Clinton from winning if this does happen. I hope Obama will be willing to swallow his pride and take one for the people.... and that goes for Edwards as well if Iowans choose Obama as the strongest candidate...although I don't really see that happening.
Here is a video from the Edwards camp that explains the process.
Additional Reading About the Caucus Process
Friday, December 14, 2007
Final Democratic Debate In Iowa
The Democratic candidates squared off in Iowa for the last time last night.
I was a little disappointed about Dennis Kucinich not being there. It seems as though they designed the rules to specifically exclude certain people.... Kucinich had a tendancy to tell the truth about the other candidates (something that the powers that be in the DNC probably didn't want in the final Debate).
See Review of debate from Congressional Quarterly
Winners/Losers From the Washington Post
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Oprah on the Campaign Trail
Here is a portion of her speech from Iowa over the weekend.
I am still skeptical about the question of whether White Americans will really vote for Barack Obama.
Part I
Part II
I am still skeptical about the question of whether White Americans will really vote for Barack Obama.
Part I
Part II
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Hear The Democratic Radio Debate From NPR
NPR hosted a great Democratic radio Debate earlier today.
Hear the entire debate here. This was one of the best debates so far.
Sparks flew on the subject of Iran, in light of the recent NIE Report on Iran's so-called nuclear weapons program.
Clinton supported the Bush Administration's effort to label part of the Iranian Army as a terrorist group, providing the Neo-Conservatives with all the approval they need to launch an attack against that Country. But Clinton bought into the Bush Administrations disinformation campaign on Iran far too easily, with little skepticism, just as she did when she voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq. When you vote in favor of an ill advised war once, you may be able to get away with calling it a mistake. However, when you do it twice in a row, there is a thing called "judgement" that has to be called into question.
Watch The Iowa Heartland Presidential Forum
Watch the Iowa Heartland Presidential Forum which took place over the weekend in Des Moines. The forum included grassroots organizations from across the spectrum. Participants got the chance to pose important questions to the candidates. The forum was open to both Republicans and Democrats... But not one Republican bothered to show up.
The event was moderated by TVOne's Cathy Hughes.
Read an overview of the event here and here.
Apparently Hillary Clinton was booed at the event. See Video.
See John Edwards's Segment
One of the best candidates was Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately he went last and was rushed through with the little time that remained.
Watch Entire Event courtesty of C-Span
(the c-span video may only be available for approximately 2 weeks after it was posted)
If the c-span video is not available, you can watch video of the event here. (be patient through the delay.... fast forward past the music if you can)
The event was moderated by TVOne's Cathy Hughes.
Read an overview of the event here and here.
Apparently Hillary Clinton was booed at the event. See Video.
See John Edwards's Segment
One of the best candidates was Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately he went last and was rushed through with the little time that remained.
Watch Entire Event courtesty of C-Span
(the c-span video may only be available for approximately 2 weeks after it was posted)
If the c-span video is not available, you can watch video of the event here. (be patient through the delay.... fast forward past the music if you can)
Friday, November 30, 2007
Clinton Stacking Deck at Black/Brown Presidential Forum in Iowa?
Hat Tip: Think On These Things
Rest of article: HERE.
This bothers me for a couple of major reasons.
1. The Clintons pulled this 3-6-9 at an event in Nevada. But, this time, at least the people know about it beforehand.
2. Iowa is a state with such a small minority demographic, this is probably the lone event that even comes close to attempting to address issues of concerns to Blacks and Hispanics.
When I first heard about this event, I was so excited. So much is focused on Iowa and New Hampshire being two of the Whitest States in America. So, when I found out that there was a forum focused on Blacks and Hispanics, I was psyched. I thought that this might be a way to engage those communities, and also show the rest of the country that Iowa does have some diversity, though small.
Now, I get a sour feeling going into it; that the jig is rigged, and that the organizers would allow this event to be sullied and have a question mark thrown over it by dealing in such tactics, well, a pox on them for their lack of judgement. Because, don't think that folks won't remember this next time; their credibility will be questioned, and they are creating hard feelings when there didn't need to be any. Iowa is unlike many states; folks don't like anything that seems shady or underhanded. They actually frown on it, and when you do it, do expect for people to give the once over before they'll shake your hand.
I'll still follow this event, but I won't be trusting much of anything coming out of it.
I guess the only positive thing about it is that it's obvious how much the Obama Campaign is scaring them in Iowa.
Rumors and Accusations Cast Shadows on Brown and Black Presidential Forum
by: Chase Martyn
Thursday (11/29)
As Saturday night's Brown and Black Presidential Forum in Des Moines draws near, concerns have emerged about the way it is being organized. The forum, which is the oldest minority-focused presidential debate in the country, is one of the great traditions of the Iowa Caucuses, but local activists and campaigns have been frustrated by this year's planning and execution.
The core group helping to organize the forum has been shrunk from previous years, according to Des Moines Realtor and Latino activist Joe Henry, who was involved with the forum in its early years during the 1980s and became involved again during the 2000 election cycle. Henry, who supports Sen. Barack Obama, was not invited to participate in the planning this year.
"It's pretty evident at this point that both Wayne Ford and Mary Campos -- both old friends of mine -- have undoubtedly aligned themselves with the Clinton campaign," he said, "and the smaller, the better, for that." Campos and Ford, both respected and long-standing activists, founded the forum together in 1984 and continue to operate it as co-chairs. Ford also serves in the Iowa House.
Reached for comment Wednesday afternoon, the two organizers denied any allegations that they were favoring one candidate over others. "I don't think that question needs an answer," Ford said. "I am a little insulted that people would even think that," continued Campos.
Mark Daley, Iowa Communications Director for Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign, denied the accusations as well.
Still, concerns exist because of the uncharacteristic exclusivity of the planning for this year's forum.
Max Cardenas, a Hispanic entrepreneur from Des Moines, was involved in the 2004 Brown and Black Presidential Forum. He told Iowa Independent that he was invited to participate in the planning of that year's forum a month before it began. In the week preceding it, he was asked to organize one of several community-wide meetings focusing on specific issue areas that were of interest to the minority community. The meetings served as part of the build-up to to the Saturday forum, he said, and they helped to maximize the number of people involved in the discussion before questions were formulated and the forum took place. This year, he was not invited to participate, and there was no indication that any such meetings took place. "That's unfortunate," he said.
Although Cardenas admitted he had not seen "concrete evidence" that either Campos or Ford planned to endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton, he noted speculatively that "The guests of Mary Campos [who will be at the Forum with her] are co-chairs of the Clinton campaign.".......................
Aside from the concerns raised by past participants about who was included in the planning of the forum and who was excluded, three knowledgeable sources who asked to remain anonymous expressed frustration over the apparent secrecy with which tickets are being distributed.
Rest of article: HERE.
This bothers me for a couple of major reasons.
1. The Clintons pulled this 3-6-9 at an event in Nevada. But, this time, at least the people know about it beforehand.
2. Iowa is a state with such a small minority demographic, this is probably the lone event that even comes close to attempting to address issues of concerns to Blacks and Hispanics.
When I first heard about this event, I was so excited. So much is focused on Iowa and New Hampshire being two of the Whitest States in America. So, when I found out that there was a forum focused on Blacks and Hispanics, I was psyched. I thought that this might be a way to engage those communities, and also show the rest of the country that Iowa does have some diversity, though small.
Now, I get a sour feeling going into it; that the jig is rigged, and that the organizers would allow this event to be sullied and have a question mark thrown over it by dealing in such tactics, well, a pox on them for their lack of judgement. Because, don't think that folks won't remember this next time; their credibility will be questioned, and they are creating hard feelings when there didn't need to be any. Iowa is unlike many states; folks don't like anything that seems shady or underhanded. They actually frown on it, and when you do it, do expect for people to give the once over before they'll shake your hand.
I'll still follow this event, but I won't be trusting much of anything coming out of it.
I guess the only positive thing about it is that it's obvious how much the Obama Campaign is scaring them in Iowa.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Clinton Money Man In Trouble With the Feds
I guess this is the change that Democrats are hoping for with their support of Hillary Clinton. It's just more proof that Hillary represents business as usual... the same corrupt political machine. She is just the other side of the same coin. She's the status quo.... nothing even close to any kind of meaningful change. She is attached at the hip to the Washington D.C. establishment... Hillary Clinton personifies "establishment" or status quo politics more than just about any other candidate.
Hillary's coronation isn't even over yet, and we have already seen one scandal after another in this campaign cycle. First it was Norman Hsu...the fugitive donor... or "Our Friend Norman", as they like to call him.
Then she lies about what she would do regarding Iraq. Then her campaign is caught planting questions at events, and now there is Mr. Vin Gupta, another rich donor.
Her allies in the corporate media have done a good job so far in terms of playing down the stumbles and the skeletons that keep coming to light.
Hillary's coronation isn't even over yet, and we have already seen one scandal after another in this campaign cycle. First it was Norman Hsu...the fugitive donor... or "Our Friend Norman", as they like to call him.
Then she lies about what she would do regarding Iraq. Then her campaign is caught planting questions at events, and now there is Mr. Vin Gupta, another rich donor.
Her allies in the corporate media have done a good job so far in terms of playing down the stumbles and the skeletons that keep coming to light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
