Who is right and who is wrong?  Obama or Clinton?  What to make of the partisan wars in the left blogosphere?

There has been much angst, sturm un drang, and pulling of hair about the passions that people have for their candidate- Obama or Clinton.  

What I've seen is that the emotions each candidate invokes I believe is a good thing in that they can motivate their supporters.  However I do see that the danger is that the even thought approximately three out of four supporters for either candidate would support the general election nominee (even tepidly) there is the quantifiable party switch (like Reagan Democrats) in the November election which could play an even greater role than the "unaffiliated" voters.  AP reporter Charles Babington writes:

...a recent Gallup poll, in which 28 percent of Clinton's Democratic supporters said they would vote for McCain if Obama is the party's nominee. Nineteen percent of Obama's supporters said they would vote for McCain if Clinton gets the nod.

So is this nominee race over?  Will such sitting Senate Democrats like Leahy and Bob Casey, who just endorsed Obama, have any effect?  Or does the analysis on dailykos.com be the true indicator of how an election can be affected by the endorsement by a city's mayor (cannot find the link) due to the patronage machine?

What I do find disturbing is the fact that many commentators have written that they will not go to a blog/website due to the perception of partisanship.  For example many have commented on the excellent Talkleft.com that they will not visit Talkingpointsmemo.com because of "bias" against Clinton by Josh Marshall.  I would like to point them to this (Jared Bernstein's discussion on the differences between Obama and Clinton's economic plans vis a  vis  through Paul Krugman) because by cutting off your sources of information you are debilliatating yourself from meaningful debate on the issues. 

Even Clinton knows that it is important to support party above divisive partianship after the primaries and convention because it is Republicans that will lead America into third world status in our life time. 

First there was the 3am ad then there was the piling on about Rev. Wright. and now we can see the result of Clinton and her campaign "advisors".  Kos, Dailykos.com, writes:

Now let's look at how White Democratic voters see the two Democratic candidates:

             Obama  Clinton

Inspiring      80     65
Down-to-earth  78     63
Honest         79     66
Patriotic      78     90
Phony          16     30
Hard-to-like   13     43

Note the "phony" numbers, and that was before the Tuzla stuff exploded. This poll was finished last Saturday. So Clinton sort of walked into a trap, reinforcing a trait that people already harbored against her. I wouldn't have called her a "phony" a week ago, but now the evidence is mounting on that front. I suspect the next edition of this poll in a month will show a much larger spread on that question than 16-30.

That is, unless Clinton has a speech lined up to address those concerns.

If you want to see the details then check out the PEW polling here. 

DHinMI, Dailykos.com, writes:

Last night and this morning, DNC chair Howard Dean has been making the rounds declaring that he'd like to see the contest for the Democratic nomination end by July 1st:

Last night he gave an interview to the Associated Press:

``What I don't want to do is have the Democrats make a stupid mistake in April and then be sorry they said that in October and end up with some more right-wing extremists on the Supreme Court,'' he said....

What are chances of Clinton winning the nomination?  Even her closest advisors think it is at most a ten percent chance, and how would she go about it?

Johnation Chait, New Republic magazine, writes:

She needs to convince the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to split for her by about a 2-to-1 margin. The only way she can get a split like that is if she can persuasively argue that Obama is unelectable. And the only way she can do that is to make him unelectable. .. It's not true, but by the time the convention rolls around, it may well be.

DHinMI states:

Apparently I wasn't sufficiently explicit about the ramifications of Dean's declaration.  He is blocking Clinton's only remaining path to the nomination, which is to wait for Obama to self-destruct.

Is this the right thing to do?  I think that Clinton will utilize and reinforce the McCain talking points about Obama in order to have a pyrrhic victory.  There is no evidence that contradicts such a conclusion.

As other commentators have mentioned, it is time for Hillary supporters to save the candidate from herself and her advisors. As Reuters reporter James Whitesides writes:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won.

Why is Mike Gravel running for the fringe-winger party called The Libertarian Party?  Because he has the same "fair tax" ideas as the dropouts from the Republican race like Tom Tancredo.

Read this interview from 2007:

DORIAN DAVIS: Unlike the other candidates, you are advocating a Fair Tax, which would replace the income and payroll taxes with a national sales tax, among other things. Explain how that works.

SENATOR GRAVEL: Well, the biggest problem we have domestically is our tax system. Under the current system, if you’re poor and have no income, you get nothing. Average people carry the load, and the poor are unattended. So, I advocate a Fair Tax. What we’ll do under this plan is send you a check every month for the sales tax that you will pay on the essentials of life. This will protect the poor. It will cover their basic expenses. The rest of us will pay as we spend. The more you spend, the more you pay. If you don’t want to pay, don’t spend. So, this will create a cash flow to the poor, not only to the average citizen.

Say what?   What FactCheck.org says:

Sometimes sales taxes are called regressive, meaning that the poorest pay higher rates than the wealthy. Strictly speaking, sales taxes are flat, since everyone pays the same rate. But because the poor tend to spend a high percentage of their income on basic consumer goods such as food and clothing, sales taxes do require the poor to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes...

Of course, if the poorest Americans are paying less under the FairTax plan, then someone else pays more. As it turns out, according to the Treasury Department, “someone else” is everybody earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year. The chart below compares the share of the federal tax burden for different income groups under the current system and under the FairTax. Those in the highest and the lowest brackets will see their share decrease, while everyone else will see their share of taxes increase.

So guess who gets shafted- the middle class.

Mike Gravel has the same "fair tax" ideology as Mike Huckabee,  and Duncan Hunter. 

From Firedoglake.com, Jane Hamsher writes:

By his own admission, John McCain is breaking the law. His latest spending report has him $4 million over the limit he imposed on himself when he accepted public financing.

We're not about to let this stand, so on Tuesday we filed an FEC complaint against the McCain campaign (check out the video of delivery to the right). Now we're set for a second larger delivery, on behalf of the thousands of Americans who won't stand by while John McCain breaks the law.

Sign the petition here. 

The fall of Eliot Spitzer was marked by cheering on Wall Street.  It was necessary for Wall Street to have a "cop on the beat" because there were no "cops" by the Mr. Bush's Securities and Exchange Commission, nor by the cheerleading of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in his long and mismanaged tenure as chair.   America as a result of its "free market" is now losing jobs and having jobs outsourced and the subsequent machinations to create new financial vehicles to repackage debt has been shown to be an Emperor without clothes.

Why should people have confidence in a system that is a confidence game manned by sharks, con men, grifters, sociopaths?  When will Americans realize that the money that is given to Wall Street brokerage houses that have no stake in their lives because they hold no savings/checking accounts with them is throwing our tax dollars for their house of cards that has begun to blow down? 

So to be clear- the big financial house that Alan cheered on and Bush looked the other way is nothing more than a confidence game to swindle, cheat, and lie to you for your money now.  The house is folding and for the "captains of finance" its "heads I win and tails you lose".

There have been no takers in the sponsorship of a long standing Easter Service traditionally held in Garden of the Gods each year:

No Colorado Springs church or group has booked public land on Easter Sunday morning for the service, said Paul Butcher, director of the city's Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services.

OMG, and I friggin' mean it! No New Life Church, whose very name implies the rebirth of Christ? No way: they have a highly profitable schedule of shows to put on. Mega-Jesus doesn't live on faith alone.

From the 1920s till 2002, the Easter sunrise service was held in the Garden of the Gods. But parking problems and the cost of renting stages, shuttling in worshippers and supplying portable toilets became too expensive for sponsors.

Will the hurricanes, lighting bolts and floods of a wrathful God consume Colorado Springs for its lack of faith? Are we to believe all the self-righteous in Fort Dobson, who say they believe, yet can't be bothered?

(h/t to SquareState.net) 

I think that this is great for rural folk who are out of luck for broadband.  Intel has come up with a way for WiFi to reach 100km (60 miles) at a useable 6.5/mBps.  From Techworld.com (h/t to Dailykos.com) John E. Dunn writes:

This is to be more than a lab engineer’s daydream and has been field tested in India, Panama, Vietnam and South Africa.

The technology is innovative on a number of levels. It works using a point-to-point design, which automatically lowers cost to a quoted region of $500-$1,000 (£250-£500) for a single connection – way below rival systems such as cable broadband or satellite.

Once terminated at the remote location, the connectivity it provides could be distributed using off-the-shelf Wi-Fi hardware.

It is also low-power, using around five to six watts for a system with three radios in a link, making it possible to power it during the day from solar power or by battery during the night.

Now rural populations won't have to rely upon expensive satellite/cable delivery or slow dialup service.

The other item is that the conventional media narrative of presidential candidates Obama and Clinton is that it will go down to the convention because they are evenly divided.

(BTW-on a personal note- there was a very strong visual showing for Hillary at the Denver County Assemby that there were at least a hundred sign wavers for Clinton; yet the numbers did not bear out the visuals in the final tally- 68% Obama- 32% Clinton.)

Dailykos.com writer DHinMI:

It's been clear to some of us for over a month that the race was over.  The Politico article covers some of what we've been talking about for some time, that by just about any measure the race is decided, and that the only way Clinton can win is for Obama to be destroyed and for her to benefit from his destruction. 

Media must sell papers or viewers:

That's right, reporters and editors are unable--or unwilling--to report the race accurately because they're having too much fun, and maybe even making too much money.

For those who support Hillary this should be a sobering moment in the campaign cycle.  Why?  Politico reports that a number of Hillary campaign operatives believes that:  "One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives."

Johnathon Singer, MyDD.com, writes:

Now I'm not one to say that Clinton should drop out because it's nearly mathematically impossible for her to reach the magic number of 2,025. If she wants to stay in the race, I believe she certainly has the right. Yet at the same time, if her key campaign staff understands what the situation is -- that she has, at best, a 10 percent shot at the nomination now, as they put it -- is it really worth it to try to so tarnish the candidate who has the remaining 90 percent shot at the nomination while at the same time bolstering John McCain's national security credentials?

The people that I talked to at the multi-county assembly were appalled at the tactics of fear and race baiting that Clinton used, especially Ferraro's comments and the 3 A.M. ad. 

For the Wright "controversy" The Left Coaster writer Turkana, who is a Clinton supporter, states:

But Obama did know of Wright's views. And despite those views, Obama had a close personal relationship with Wright for twenty years. Wright married the Obamas. Wright baptized their children. Wright inspired the title of Obama's book. And I wouldn't be reminding you of any of this had the Obama campaign not made a stupid and sleazy attempt to spill some of their own political garbage onto the Clintons.

Talking with Afro Americans and what is the value of the church to their community and one aspect stands out:  From the day to day frustrations, insults and belittlement that the black Americans must take from white American power establishment can be vented in their church. 

Understand the ideas behind the words and know that Rev. Wright's words come from the reality of Two Americas- One Black and One White.

Remember that the "controversy" of Obama/Wright is seen by many as nothing more then another example fo the hypocrisy of White America with respect to the fact that Minister Huckabee was never challenged to show his sermons from the pulpit during his campaign.  Now why do you think that?  Is it because he was white and Republican?

It is time for the party leaders and elders to tell Senator Clinton to stop the politics of destruction for the good of this nation and the party. 

I find it odd that Rep. Schultz, co chair of the Red to Blue group which is part of the DCCC would support Republican Representatives.  Those Republicans Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart who support terrorists Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles stand firmly with Mr. Bush in having a "Selective War on Terror".

The same Republicans now want to free a terrorist Eduardo Arocena.  These terrorists want to kill and maim innocent civilians in their murderous plans. Sun-Sentinel newspaper reporter's Wayne S. Smith writes:

Eduardo Arocena, another terrorist, formerly the head of Omega-7, who has been described by the FBI as the "most dangerous in the United States."

This calls into question Rep. Schultz's judgement.  Isn't it time for her to step down from co-chairing Red to Blue?

If you need further evidence there is this:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel put forward an amendment to simplify the method of payment for U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba, it was expected to pass easily. After all, it would have facilitated sales and thus served the interests of the American farmer. It was estimated that sales, which were hovering at about $400 million a year...

But to the surprise of many, and to Rangel's chagrin, it was defeated, with some 66 Democrats crossing party lines and voting against it. Wasserman Schultz got much of the credit for bringing the 66 over. "I was about as active as you could be," she acknowledged. And her friend Ileana Ros gave Wasserman Schultz full credit for the amendment's defeat, calling her "a tiger."

Call now because Rep. Schultz lets her personal relationships interfere with the good of the Democratic Party:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (campaign office):
E-mail: AskDebbie@DWSforCongress.com
Phone: 202-741-7154

DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen (campaign office):
E-mail: chris@vanhollen.org
Phone: 301-942-3768

DCCC Headquarters:
Contact form
Phone: 202-863-1500

The slogan "Think Globally, Act Locally" was what I was thinking when I read this off HuffingtonPost.com:

First San Francisco banned it. Then Chicago started taxing it. Now, the city of Seattle is taking action against bottled water; last week, Mayor Greg Nickels signed an executive order to stop the city from buying bottled water.

How much does the city of Denver spend for bottled water?

That means no more bottled water at city [Seattle] facilities and events, which may sound like a small step, but it'll make a big difference; last year, the city spent $58,000 on the stuff (and that's not including the true cost and carbon footprint of bottled water).

How much do you spend for bottled water?  Do you know where that water comes from?

The move isn't just an issue of saving money, though that is a nice ancillary effect. It's also a strong vote of confidence in the city's municipal water supply and treatment systems... it's good to see the city [Seattle] standing behind its tap water and encouraging its employees and citizens to drink up.

Will Denver follow suit?  Will Denver stand up for it's own tap water system that the citizens pay for?   Did you know that Denver water is in the top 15 cities for taste, clarity, and aroma?

Call the mayor and ask him:

3-1-1 within the City and County of Denver or 720-865-9090
MileHighMayor@denvergov.org Fax: 720-865-8787 

"Bread and Circuses" for all of us.  Isn't that what Bush's media accomplices want in order to keep Mr. 19% Approval rate from being impeached, quartered and drawn, and not be given his last meal before the green mile?   Why else would this matter except to distract from the real dangers that beset our nation by the wilfull actions of Mr. Bush on Iraq and his "War on Terror"?

Brad Friedman, who was great at Roots Camp, links to this via Suburban Guerrilla:

By BRIAN ROSS and the ABC NEWS INVESTIGATIVE UNIT
March 19, 2008 Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky... An initial review by ABC News of the 17,481 pages of Sen. Hillary Clinton's schedule as first lady....

This was on the day of the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush under false pretenses.  Which is more important to ABC New's Brian Ross the invasion and subsequent destruction of American and Iraqi lives or about an ancient and forgotten "blue dress" affair?

It seems that the media is willing to distract the people of America with the hoary old story from the right wing "Bill, Bill , Bill" obsession rather than show the reality of what Mr. Bush has done to American lives in Iraq and to the lives of foreign nationals who are caught up in his fantasy "24" world played out in real.

Would it be too impolite to cover the Winter Soldiers Tribunal by the corporate media?  From The Smirking Chimp blog, Liz Milazzo writes:

Were presenting the truth and enlightening the populace the intent of corporate media, the March 13th through March 16th Winter Soldier Tribunal would have been televised. Instead, it was ignored...

Prior to this weekend's Winter Soldier, local and national media were informed the tribunal was taking place. However, none supported the troops enough to be present to broadcast their stories...

For over five years -- even before the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq -- there has been a blight on truth in corporate media. Rather than being an honest purveyor of the occupation, conglomerate media manipulates reality to align with the White House, and to increase its profits from its military subsidiaries.

There is a need for enforcement of the old rule of the FCC called "The Fairness Doctrine" and to divest local media from corporate ownership.

The balance between public service and private profit has been tipped towards private profit for way too long now.  It is time for corporate ownership of media across all types of delivery- newspapers, television, radio, and internet- be divested and returned to local control without private profit in mind to the detriment of having an informed citizenry.

Liz Milzzano ends with a plea and a complete telephone listing for the Senate Committee On Foreign Relations members to let their testimony be heard on CSPAN.   I would add that it is time for Congress to begin investigation into corporate media blackouts of significant news events and the corporate decisions not to fund investigative units of the major news networks.

Let us start with Liz's plea:

The Winter Soldier tribunal in 1971 led to an invitation to the veterans to testify before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1973, then chaired by Senator J. William Fulbright. The testimony before the Fulbright Committee was so powerful that it helped to expedite the end of the Vietnam War. A similar invitation to testify before the current Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, chaired by Joe Biden, should be extended to today's Winter Soldiers. Should that happen, as it should, C-SPAN would hopefully televise the event, which would increase the audience significantly. Conservatives, centrists and progressives are all devoted viewers of C-SPAN. One can only hope Senator Biden exercises his patriotism and "support for the troops" to extend them this invitation.

What say you, Senator Biden and the members of your committee? Will you invite the Winter Soldiers to be heard?

Below are the members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and their phone numbers. Please call them. Ask them to hear the Winter Soldiers. Our veterans deserve to be heard!!

U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6225
Majority Phone: (Biden) (202) 224-4651
Minority Phone: (Lugar) (202) 224-6797

Senator Biden's Office:
Phone: (202) 224-5042
Fax: (202) 224-0139
Email: http://biden.senate.gov/contact/emailjoe.cfm

Christopher J. Dodd (202) 224-2823
Connecticut

John F. Kerry (202) 224-2742
Massachusetts
(Especially you, Senator Kerry -- you testified before Senator Fulbright in 1973. Will you extend the same opportunity to our heroes of today?)

Russell D. Feingold (202) 224-5323
Wisconsin

Barbara Boxer (202) 224-3553
California

Bill Nelson (202) 224-5274
Florida

Barack Obama (202) 224-2854
Illinois

Robert Menendez (202) 224-4744
New Jersey

Benjamin L. Cardin (202) 224-4524
Maryland

Robert P. Casey Jr. (202) 224-6324
Pennsylvania

Jim Webb (202) 224-4024
Virginia

Richard Lugar (202) 224-6441
Indiana

Chuck Hagel (202) 224-4224
Nebraska

Norm Coleman (202) 224-5641
Minnesota

Bob Corker (202) 224-3344
Tennessee

George V. Voinovich (202) 224-3353
Ohio

Lisa Murkowski (202) 224-6665
Alaska

Jim DeMint (202) 224-6121
South Carolina

Johnny Isakson (202) 224-3643
Georgia

David Vitter (202) 224-4623
Louisiana

John Barrasso (202) 224-6441
Wyoming

For those who haven't seen the Winter Soldier testimonials, you can stream them directly from the Iraq Veterans Against the War website (ivaw.org). This is much too powerful and important an event for truth seeking patriots to miss!

Paul Krugman has written:

The B Word...

As Bear goes, so will go the rest of the financial system. And if history is any guide, the coming taxpayer-financed bailout will end up costing a lot of money.

The U.S. savings and loan crisis of the 1980s ended up costing taxpayers 3.2 percent of G.D.P., the equivalent of $450 billion today. Some estimates put the fiscal cost of Japan’s post-bubble cleanup at more than 20 percent of G.D.P. — the equivalent of $3 trillion for the United States...

As Krugman points out that the bailout should involve the financial system not the individuals in the system who caused this panic..."That means cleaning out the shareholders in failed institutions, making bondholders take a haircut, and canceling the stock options of executives who got rich playing heads I win, tails you lose."

The questions that I see are how can the federal government perform such a fiscal rescue because of the massive debt that has accured under Mr. Bush and Alan Greenspan's reckless fiscal and monetary policies?  

As the value of the dollar sinks which is reliant on both the psychology of "the greenback" and on the soundness of American financial institutions and government there is now a real crisis of confidence in the greenback.

This "perfect storm" was not a freak of nature but due to unsound financial principals being used by Mr. Bush and his economic team that was beholden to the Chicago school of economics as championed by Milton Friedman.  This reckless economic theory that has powered the politics of Mr. Bush is coming to fruition in America.

The bigger picture is to have a crisis in order to implement a "free market nirvana" on America.   This is not a crackpot scheme but has been well documented in Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine".

What is very bad for America is that Mr. Bush has systematically gone about to remove the checks and balances of our tripart power sharing of our government.  As Naomi Wolf's "The End of America" shows that the ten steps towards facism can happen here because of Mr. Bush's use of demagogery to pass legislation that is hostile to the concepts of "liberty" and "rule of law" embedded within the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Both authors show the sides of the same coin and cannot exist without the other in the remaking of America into something that our Founding Fathers fought against and had written the Constitution to stand against.

I would argue that Mr. Krugman doesn't see far and wide enough in his article on bailing out the financial system.  The crisis need not have happened but was allowed to happen for ulterior political purposes as shown by Klein and Wolf.

The false story of "welfare queens" that was peddled by Ronald Reagan is now true for Big Business welfare queens of Mr. Bush.  Why else would "Helicopter" Ben rescue Bear Stearns investment bank?

What is an investment bank? Investment bank - specialises in corporate finance activities (rather than banking services for individuals as in a retail bank).

If Republicans really believed in the "free market" then they would let Bear Stearns go bankrupt because that company was mismanaged and it should be on the shoulders of the stockholders who invested in such a company who must face "the music".  Why should taxpayers pay for this, Duncan Black, Eschaton blog, links to:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bear Stearns Cos Inc (BSC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Chairman Jimmy Cayne was playing cards in a tournament late last week while his company's future appeared to be at risk, according a published report.

Furthermore I agree with the fact that Bear Stearns should not be allowed any taxpayer money which is throwing our money down a rabbit hole.  Why should I be forced to pay for the bad investment decisions made by a financial securities company?  The shareholders should be made to pay for the lousy investments made by Bear Stearns not the tax payer.

Duncan Black, again, links to this:

Let us be clear: given its massive exposure to toxic MBS and ABS product Bear Stearns is insolvent; the decision by the NY Fed to try to bail out Bear Stearns would make sense if this firm was only illiquid; the trouble that it is insolvent and thus such attempted bailout is altogether inappropriate. It is true that Bear is a large broker dealer; but its systemic importance is much smaller than that of much larger institutions. The world and financial market can survive if Bear disappears.

So the only possible justification for such Fed action is to engineer an orderly rather than a disorderly shutdown of this institution. But unfortunately the Fed is behaving as if Bear Stearns is illiquid but solvent. That is delusional and the official sector support of an otherwise insolvent institution will end up - like many other recent Fed actions - being paid for by the US tax-payer.

Bear is only the tip of the iceberg:

And Bear is only the first broker dealer to go belly up. Rumors had been circulating in the market for days that the exposure of Lehman to toxic ABS/MBS securities is as bad as that of Bear: according to Fitch at the beginning of the turmoil Bear Stearns had the highest toxic waste ("residual balance") exposure as percent of adjusted equity on balance sheet; the exposure of Bear was 54.5% while that of Lehman was only marginally smaller at 53.3%; that of Goldman Sachs was only 21%.  And guess what? Today Lehman received a $2 billion unsecured credit line from 40 lenders. Here is another massively leveraged broker dealer that mismanaged its liquidity risk, had massive amount of toxic waste on its books and is now in trouble. Again here we have not only a situation of illiquidity but serious credit problems and losses given the reckless exposure of this second broker dealer to toxic investments.

If one fails and we have to save their asses then we have to save all their Armani suited asses?

Enough is enough.  Let the "free market" work and let only the strong survive without government handouts.  Mr. Bush and "Helicopter" Ben should not interfere with the actions of the free market.   Why reward failure with our money?

...this is another case where profits are privatized and losses are socialized.

Senator Salazar was booed at the Denver County Assembly.  Gee, I wonder why? Because he voted for Senator Jay Rockefeller's SIC bill which would grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that complied with the illegal orders from Mr. Bush to spy on Americans without a court order.  Because of his record to vote for people who are beholden to Mr. Bush rather then uphold the Constitution like "Abu" Gonzales, "Slick" Roberts, "Sammy" Alito and "No waterboarding for me" Mukasey.  Because he has forgotten that this government is governed by laws and the rule of law rather than have Mr. Bush leave for his successors an imperial presidency that turns the who concept of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" into "people must serve and obey the rule of one man". 

McJoan, DailyKos.com, writes:

Here are the Senators who voted yes on S. 2248, the bad Senate bill rejected by the House. If they're your Senator, find out where they'll be holding town meetings or other public events in the next two weeks, and go ask them.

Isn't it time for Senator Salazar to vote for the Constitution, rule of law, and most importantly to vote for the interests of those people who voted him into office?

At least send an email to his office (or phone call or even go down in person) and tell him that he should tell his gang of 14 that the Senate-House conference compromise should not have retroactive telecom immunity in any form. 

In all spheres of life it is a matter of who you know that greases the wheels.  However I question that "truism" when it interferes with progressive change in America.  Why is it that "progressives" and "Democrats" will place their personal relationships before a political agenda that will help and strengthen all Americans?

There are two examples currently being played out.  One is in Ohio's Bob Ney's conviction from the Jack Abramoff, scandal and the other in in Florida.  

Washington Post reporters Susan Schmidt and James Grimaldi write about Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio):

The former chairman of the House Administration Committee admitted that he performed official acts for Abramoff's lobbying clients between 2001 and 2004, receiving in exchange luxury vacation trips, skybox seats at sporting events, campaign contributions and expensive meals. Ney also admitted receiving tens of thousands of dollars in gambling chips from a businessman who sought his help with the State Department.

However, once Bob Ney is on parole he will have a cushy job.  The Hill's journalist Jackie Kucinich reports:

Former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) has landed his first job since being released from prison last month.
Ney is working in Columbus, Ohio, for the Talk Radio News Service (TRNS), thanks to his longtime friend Ellen Ratner.

Ratner, a self-described “proud liberal” who is the TRNS bureau chief, confirmed that  Ney is working for the communications company as the ex-lawmaker stays in a halfway house.

Bob Ney does not deserve a job with Talk Radio News Service because he is a Republican and his Republican pals can find him a job at a think tank like the American Enterprise Institute or the Hoover Institute.  Why should liberals support a man who sold himself for money and political favors?

Ellen Ratner has this as an explaination:

“He’ll be strong, and when all this is over, he’ll be a better man, a better husband and father — and he’ll still be my friend.”

So personal relationships trump hiring a liberal/progressive voice to be heard in Ohio?

Let's see what the DCCC's Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is co-chair of the Red to Blue program, has to say when it comes to her Republican friends:

"I can't say enough good things about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; she has been my friend since I was first elected to office," Wasserman Schultz said, noting she relied on Ros-Lehtinen's advice to help balance the demands of elected office and motherhood. (emphasis added)

So friendship trump's the good of the Democratic Party's drive to achieve a veto proof majority?  Friendship means that you will enable your Republican "friends" to continue to stop a progressive agenda that will strengthen the middle class of America and to continue to stop programs that help the poor of America (think SCHIP)?

DavidNYC from DailyKos.com writes:

This is a major conflict of interest, one which threatens to hurt not just our South Florida trio, but the fortunes of the Democratic Party as well. I also think it undermines the DCCC's broader efforts, too - for instance, which other potential recruits might shy away from running if they thought that the scales were tipped against them?

James L., senior editor at Swing State Projects, writes:

Debbie's behavior is tantamount to no-confidence in Joe Garcia, Raul Martinez, and Annette Taddeo, and a betrayal of her fellow Democrats everywhere.

I have a few suggestions for Debbie, if she's at all interested in saving her credibility within the DCCC, the caucus, grassroots Dems and pretty much everyone who cares about Team Blue: enthusiastically endorse all three of these candidates and organize a fundraiser for each of them.  It's the least she could do to help undo the damage that she's inflicted in South Florida.

Sure it is a matter of who you know in politics and business but should it interfere with achieving our progressive goals?

No.

The Republican and conservative machines can take care of their own failures by rewarding them with jobs.  Democrats and progressives should not. 

LOL! Talkingpointsmemo.com points to this article from The Politico about Republican Senator Wayne Dullard (R-Backbencher) is proposing for the Senate to consider on Senator Obama's economic platform as an amendment.

Martin Kady II writes:

Sen. Wayne Allard, a Republican from Colorado, has crafted a massive budget amendment that claims to fund every policy proposed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)... Allard is a prime candidate to sponsor the amendment _ he is retiring from the Senate and there's no political cost to actually sponsoring $1.4 trillion in Democratic policy proposals.

Of course it is "bread and circuses" for the Republicans.

Who could not be shocked that Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) is under a cloud of suspicion for cavorting with a prostitute?

Wall Street rejoicies that Spitzer is on the hot seat for consorting with a prostitute.  What do those paragons of morality know except to fleece America out of their earnings through stock manipulations and insider trading scams?   There has been ample evidence that those stock brokers do exactly the same in the night in the glittering steel and glass towers of Wall Street brokerage houses, abritrage houses, and mortage units of banks.  So it is like the pot calling the kettle black because they are just as guilty of committing immoral acts.

What is flying beneath the radar what Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine writes:

However, there is a second tier of questions that needs to be examined with respect to the Spitzer case. They go to prosecutorial motivation and direction. Note that this prosecution was managed with staffers from the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice. This section is now at the center of a major scandal concerning politically directed prosecutions.

Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake.com, asks:

3. Mike Garcia is a Chertoff crony. Sources familiar with the investigation say that he sent a prosecution memo to DC two months ago asking for authority to indict a public figure (Spitzer). Which means they had their case made long before the wire tap of February 13. Why did they then include this line from that conversation in the complaint?

LEWIS continued that from what she had been told "he" (believed to be a reference to Client-9) "would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe -- you know -- I mean that...very basic things...."Kristen" responded: "I have a way of dealing with that...I'd be like listen dude, you really want the sex?...You know what I mean."

This salacious detail does not seem like it's necessary to make their case, and appears to be added for no other purpose than to destroy Spitzer's career.

4. How did Spitzer's name get leaked to the media, and who did it? Didn't happen to Dave Vitter.

5. Why did Mike Bloomberg suddenly start talking about running for governor recently? And why did he give $500,000 to Joe Bruno? He's good buddies with Mike Mukasey. What did he know and how did he know it?

6. The Mann Act? Are you kidding?

This is to bring down another rising star in the Democratic Party by the Republican controlled DOJ.  You think not?  Then try this on for size: Don Siegelman. He is sitting in jail because of the fact that he was a rising Democratic Party star in the state of Alabama. 

There is no trust with the Department of Justice because Mr. Bush and his criminals have turned it into the legal arm of the Republican party. 

Anybody have any thoughts on their experience at the Denver County Democratic Convention and Assembly?

For me it was pretty good until the afternoon then the wheels fell off.

This is the second time that there was no time for discussion on resolutions to the party platform (we ran out of time for the precinct caucus).

By the time SD 35 finished up their business the HD meetings were over two hours late.

As I can attest to the fact that by the time HD candidates were allowed to speak they had to wait for hours then rushed to "get out" of the building by some deadline.

It is beyond belief that these candidates were treated so badly.

However, let me say that it was very heartening to see that so many new and young people were in attendence.  Also, it was a huge number of first time Democrats who participated in the party political process.

Does anybody on the other side (R) have had similiar experiences?  How about the Greens or Libertarians?

Senator Chris Dodd stood up for the Constitution and stopped the initial move by Harry "Don't Give'm Hell" Reid's action to submit the Rockefeller's Senate Intelligence Committee's bill for retroactive telecom immunity.

Now it is up to the people of America to stop the middle game that the House Democratic leadership, with the apparent blessing of Speaker Pelosi, is  engineering with regard to passing a bill without telecom immunity but the final House-Senate version will have reinserted into it for signing by Mr. Bush.  That kind of law would effectively shield Mr. Bush and his minons from Congressional investigations into the full extent of illegal spying programs on Americans is what the deal really means: