Update to pffffft! and an announcement

Here are a few more reads worth noting — John pounded by the terrified Right, Dennis wins a big victory and … looky here, the other side of the pond “gets it” about our wicked voting system; too bad we don’t get their news!

As well, I’d best put you guys on notice that I may not be as chatty in the near future and there may even be days when this list/blog goes dark; subscribers will have noticed that besides the Weekly, I’ll be doing astrology on Tuesdays for Planet Waves so there’s that … and now I find that my Outlook appears to be corrupted; I’m going to have to do a big backup and then see about a reload and, techy that I’m NOT, that will suck up time.

Change is knocking on the door, it’s a daily dance to flow around the challenges and commitment’s without coming undone; and some days … you know … the dragon wins. But you guys are “family of the heart” and my peeps — I promise, I’ll be around as best I can.

Jude

John Edwards is pi$$ing off all the right people.
jedreport, Mydd
Jan 12, 2008

“…if anyone’s in doubt: yes, Edwards is pissing off the right people.”

~ grannyhelen

As the primary process continues, amidst the daily barrage of broadsides fired from one campaign onto another, it’s worth remembering that John Edwards is still talking about real issues.

John Edwards’ campaign isn’t about him. It’s about us. It’s about taking back power from the wealthy elites who want to run this country and putting it in our hands. It’s about finally taking on the corporations that dominate more and more of the American economy. It’s about challenging the system.

And it’s pissing off the all right people.

Let’s start with Rupert Murdoch. My, how John Edwards has pissed that man off.

Sure, Murdoch hates John Edwards because Edwards led the way amongst presidential candidates in pulling out of the Faux-news debates, helping expose his propaganda network for what it is.

But he hates John Edwards even more because John Edwards has spoken out publicly against the monopolization of America’s media outlets into the hands of a small number of plutocrats like Murdoch. Murdoch’s media empire fired back, calling Edwards a hypocrite, leaking confidential information, all in an attempt to smear John Edwards to avoid talking about the real issues.

Just look at the bile and vitriol spilling from these New York Post headlines. Two of the most savage attacks were directed as much as Nataline Sarkisyan and Elizabeth Edwards’ as they were at Edwards.

Of course, Rupert Murdoch isn’t the only right-wing corporatist to go after John Edwards with personal attacks.

Take the far-right Washington Times, for example. In the view of the editorial pages, Edwards is a “widely scorned” “sanctimonius hypocrite.” All in all, the Times says, “Mr. Edwards’s rank hypocrisy is boundless.” On the bright side, he’s “well-coifed” but “not ready for prime time.”

Then there’s that corporate wet dream, Mitt Romney, who apparently has quite a violent streak.

Every time I listen to someone like John Edwards get on TV and say there are two Americas I just want to throw something at the TV.

~ Willard

You see, the problem isn’t that there actually are two Americas — one populated by wealthy elites like Mitt Romney, the other by just about everybody else. The problem is that people like John Edwards talk about the inequity of it all, and some day, the American public might decide to shove a big fat FU right in Mitt Romney’s face.

Hell, even the Republican party can’t stand Mitt Romney, the corporate swine.

As jamess diaried, big business is putting John Edwards on notice.

With the nation’s economy increasingly becoming a volatile issue in the presidential campaign, the president of the United States Chamber of Commerce is about to issue one very tough promise to spend millions of dollars against candidates deemed to be anti-business. (Are you listening John Edwards?)

National Review, the rag read by the nation’s conservative elite, just absolutely can’t stand John Edwards. Byron York asks the probing question: “Is Edwards a phony?” Talk about expensive haircuts — York knows a thing or two about those, I might guess. Rich Lowry affectionately (sic) calls John Edwards “The Hater” and accuses him of “unbridled hostility.”

The grand-daddy of the entire crew of corporate warriors, one William F. Buckley, actually is an exception to the “if you fear, smear” rule of thumb. He understands that populism is a grave and serious danger to the plutocracy. So he does something almost unimaginable amongst these reactionaries: he actually engages Edwards on the issues. Sort of.

John Edwards Will Give You Free Health Care
By William F. Buckley Jr.

The word among professional Democrats is that John Edwards has set the stakes on the matter of health care, and no one who wants to be president can offer less than he is offering, which is — of course — guaranteed health. That is to say, guaranteed free health care.
…

Therefore, Mr. Edwards is doing nothing more than to call for increased taxes on the wealthy. They used to call that socialized medicine, when it was instituted by Great Britain after the war. It crossed the Atlantic into Canada, which is a tidy country in which to get sick, provided you can afford to travel across the border to an American doctor.

Perhaps a tad dishonest, but you’ve got to give Buckley this: the man is genuinely scared of populism.

George Will, the bow-tied pugilist, blathers on passionately about John Edwards, calling him “synthetic,” a “histrionic huckster” who is “delusional.” Edwards:

… overflows with and wallows in the pugnacity of the self-righteous who discern contemptible motives behind all disagreements with them and who therefore think that opponents are enemies and differences are unsplittable.

Will sees Barack Obama as the antidote to Edwards:

Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee — an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic “fights” against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.

In a bizarre article, The Weekly Standard picks up the same theme:

John Edwards and the Damsel in Distress
By William Tucker

IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND trial lawyers like John Edwards, you have to recognize their one enduring fantasy. They are knights in shining armor rescuing damsels in distress.

They’ll tell you they’re “standing up for the little guy” or “enforcing the Constitution” or “sending a message” or “teaching the big guys a lesson.” But at bottom there’s always that one image–a lonely woman, young, attractive, helpless, waiting to be rescued by some hero with a law degree.

The strange thing? The first half of the article focuses on John O’Quinn, a Houston attorney. Seems they had to work extra-hard to come up with material to fill out their laughably silly personall attack.

David Brooks plays the role of the whispering polemicist in contrast to George Will, the bow-tied pugilist. Like Will, Brooks hates John Edwards. Edwards is “old-fashioned” and thanks to Obama’s victory in Iowa, “Edwards’s political career is probably over.” (Don’t you wish, David, don’t you wish.)

David Brooks has disliked John Edwards for a long time.

In 2004, Brooks raged (emphasis added)

The problem is that he talks about poverty in an obsolete way, which suggests he has learned nothing from the past 40 years. … Edwards talks about poverty in economic terms.

This kind of talk is descended from Marxist theory, which holds that we live in the thrall of economic conditions. What the poor primarily need is more money, the theory goes.

We are moving toward a consensus on how to address the diverse problems that cause poverty. But when you go out on the campaign trail, you find politicians spreading polarizing disinformation. Edwards is right to talk about poverty, but by resorting to crude, populist rhetoric, he is leading in the wrong direction.

In 2007, David Brooks was still attacking John Edwards. When Hillary Clinton released her health care plan, Brooks questioned Edwards’ temperament:

the plan seems to have driven John Edwards around the bend. The statement he issued yesterday qualifies as the shrillest statement issued by a major presidential candidate this year.

And finally, my favorite example of John Edwards pissing of the right people: corporate lobbyists.

(A big h/t to TheShoveler for this one.)

U.S. corporate elite fear candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh

WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same — Democrat John Edwards.
…

“My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat … I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt,” said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group.

But Edwards, Valliere said, is seen as “an anti-business populist” and “a trade protectionist who is quite unabashed about raising taxes.”

“I think his regulatory policies, as well as his tax policies, would be viewed as a threat to business,” he said.

“The next scariest for business would be Huckabee because of his rhetoric and because he’s an unknown.”

He’s got them scared — not so much about him personally, but about the ideas he’s talking about.

That’s why we fight. ++

KUCINICH TIDE TURNS: Protest Becomes Celebration
Meryl Ann Butler, OpEdNews
January 15, 2008

A hastily planned activist event by grassroots Kucinich supporters at NBC Studios, set to protest the candidate’s sudden exclusion from the NBC’s Las Vegas debates, turned into celebration when the tables turned, today.

Kucinich has been locked out of previous debates by both AARP and ABC. But when NBC decided to follow suit, Uncle Sam finally put his foot down. In an unexpected, but stunning, display of American justice and democracy, a Las Vegas judge ruled that Kucinich must be allowed to participate in the Tuesday night presidential debate in Las Vegas.

Kucinich supporters turned in their debate protest signs for “Vote for Kucinich” signs and “Impeach” banners, and carried on, sharing the sidewalk with writers’ strikers, and eliciting shouts and honks of approval from passing cars. Several activists held Kucinich signs stating, “Give me your vote, and I’ll give you back your country.”

Activist Nina Hagen, the “mother of punk rock,” and Kucinich supporter Mary Jacobs, sang a sidewalk duet of “Amazing Grace” as people exited the NBC studios.

The Los Angeles Times reported that, “Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson vowed to issue an injunction halting the nationally televised debate if MSNBC failed to comply. Kucinich had filed a lawsuit seeking to be included just this morning.

“The judge ruled it was a matter of fairness, and Nevada voters would benefit from hearing from more than just Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. Kucinich had been invited to participate in the 6 p.m. Pacific debate Tuesday, but that invitation was rescinded last week …”

Will America now begin to wonder what it is that Kucinich stands for, that merits such extreme measures from mega-corporations like NBC, ABC, and AARP, to silence him? Because in that very question, lies the answer to who is the best candidate for the people. ++

European press: It wasn’t a miracle - Hillary won via a rigged vote
Michael Carmichael, Global Research
January 14, 2008

The mainstream Italian media are reporting both the rigging of the New Hampshire primary for Senator Hillary Clinton and the official demands for a swift, accurate and impartial recount. In an article written by Marcello Foa, one of Europe’s most respected journalists, it appears that vote tallies for all Democratic candidates as well as Republicans were reduced by Diebold vote-counting machines.

In an analysis of the hand-counted ballots, the influential Milanese newspaper - Il Giornale, reports that all Democratic candidates except Senator Hillary Clinton made gains when the New Hampshire ballots were manually tabulated, while Senator Clinton made inexplicably large gains where ballots were tabulated by computerized scanners.

According to the report, Ron Paul should have finished third in the Republican primary rather than fifth. Thus, it would appear that both Barack Obama and Ron Paul were the primary targets of vote-rigging operations in New Hampshire.

Il Giornale cites the Princeton study that alerted public attention to the vulnerability of computerized voting machines used throughout America to deliberate vote-tampering and election-rigging via manipulation of the memory cards.

The state of New Hampshire is equipped with computerized tabulation machines manufactured by Diebold, devices that have received a massive amount of negative publicity after the public awareness of vote-rigging surged dramatically following the presidential election scandal of 2000.

In previous statements, former President Jimmy Carter - who has a global reputation as one of the foremost authorities on election procedures - has frequently pointed out that the United States of America does not meet international criteria for electoral security. ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Add comment January 15th, 2008

Screaming on the slide

The race and gender cards have been played now, within the Democratic race … and everythings gone ugly and wonky. What? You didn’t think that would happen?? Get real. The two frontrunners don’t disagree on enough to fill a tea cup — of course it would come down to the obvious. The problem with all of this is we don’t know HOW we feel about race or gender; we don’t feel like we used to, but there are still taints of bygone social consciousness rippling through our brains and subtleties driving our emotions.

The idiot that held up a sign telling Hillary to “iron my shirts,” some say, should be lynched; ooooooo …. is that a racial slur? When Hil said a question about likability hurt her feelings, Barack gave her a backhanded, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” Wait … was that a black man disparaging a white woman — worse, was that a MAN disparaging a woman? The whole of this conversation is like revisiting a cesspool of old crap … and definitely not the “politics of change,” it’s a damned sideshow. The pundits don’t seem to notice the smell, though … they’re enthralled.

Meanwhile, our actual work [reviewing resumes] has gone to cower in the corner and wait until we finish playing with these old, dangerous diversions.

I never promised you political correctness, and I won’t start now. I love that a man of color and a woman are in this position; I just don’t trust either of them, and Obama less by the day. I’ve studied their votes, I’ve listened to their spiels, I’ve noted their shifting for position — I will vote for either if they win the nod, but I will NOT have my heart in it and I will NOT expect the change that they talk about endlessly.

Charlie Rose had a group on last night to respond to the race/gender issues — only one, Rep. James Clyburn from South Carolina, made it clear that there is a third party in the presidential race there and he is equally positioned to win votes and successfully lead the nation. At one point, Rose said it was clearly unfair to leave Edwards out of the conversation, but they were going to anyhow.

Welcome to the club, Charlie … everybody is leaving him out; he is, after all, a real hot potato and threat to the system. You’d think it’s a done deal; and maybe it is, with the help of the talking heads. Meanwhile, thinking people are still examining positions, propositions and promises … and, as usual, that’s a minority vote.

Here’s a collection including Ted Rall, David Sirota, Ralph Nader and news of Dennis K’s fight to be heard. There’s also a piece in here about how this nominating process actually works — I assume that you will be horrified at the convoluted mess and the notion that voters can be “corrected.” I was.

If I had a national voice, I would urge every American citizen to WRITE IN THEIR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. But I don’t, and it’s looking more likely every day that we’ll skid down this long slide to “same old, same old” bare-arsed and wondering what happened.

Which leaves me with my thought for the day — pfffffft!

Jude

THE POLITICS OF DOPES
Barack Obama, Empty Suit
Ted Rall, Yahoo
Mon Jan 14

CHICAGO–Barack Obama’s supporters compare him to John Kennedy, another great orator whose youth and short political resume opened him to complaints that he didn’t have enough experience to be president. But there’s no comparison. JFK served two terms in the House and won two terms in the Senate before asking us not to ask what he could do for us. If Obama wins, he will only have had four years in Congress, next to Kennedy’s fourteen. (Hillary Clinton, running as a grizzled veteran, would have eight.)

Ted Kennedy is a better analogy. At the start of his 1980 Democratic primary challenge to incumbent President Jimmy Carter, Kennedy was riding high in the polls. But when Roger Mudd of CBS News asked him why he wanted to be president, he fumbled. “Kennedy’s problem,” Paul Waldman wrote in The American Prospect in July 2007, “was not that he didn’t have a good reason to run–he had plenty of them.” His problem was the way he thought about that run. He thought about issues, he thought about the weaknesses of the president he was trying to supplant, he thought about the programs he wanted to institute. What he didn’t construct was a story that explained his candidacy to voters and offered a narrative structure for journalists to use when reporting on him.”

Successful presidential contenders, Waldman argues persuasively, answer Mudd’s classic question with a three-part story. First, the candidate “describes the state of the country and its government, clearly defining what is wrong.” Next comes “the place the candidate wants to take us, the better day being promised.” Then he tells us why he’s the person who can get us there.

Waldman is having a good week. Barack Obama, he predicted a full six months ago, had the best three-part campaign narrative of the major contenders. America’s biggest problem, Obama says, is “partisan bickering,” which he traces to the lingering ideological rifts of the 1960s protest era. His biracial heritage gives white voters a chance to prove they’re not racist. As a Gen Xer, he says he’s the guy to move us past the Boomers’ battles.

Of course, Obama’s three-part story ignores important issues that affect real people–jobs, college tuition costs, taxes, healthcare, Iraq. I’m 44, and I’ve never met anyone who thinks there’s “partisanship in Washington.” (Most voters complain that their party isn’t forceful enough.) It’s a lame sales pitch, though it may work.

What Obama has not done is answer the question: Why does he want to be president? The answer–that it would be a cool addition to his resume–is too unappealing to say out loud.

The night of the New Hampshire primary Obama declared (four times!): “There is something happening in America!” What’s happening? “Change,” he said, “is what’s happening in America.” Change to what? Obama didn’t say.

“Yes, we can,” Obama said (11 times). “Yes, we can, to justice and equality. Yes, we can, to opportunity and prosperity. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can repair this world. Yes, we can.” Great. How?

He cannot say.

All the candidates, except for John Edwards, want to be president because they want to be president. Winning the presidency is their goal. Like Robert Redford at the end of “The Candidate,” they have no idea what they’ll do if they get the gig.

In his memoirs Nixon chief of staff H.R. Haldeman described moving into the White House after the grueling 1968 campaign. Nearly a year passed, grinding thousands of Americans and Vietnamese to death and dismemberment, as the incoming administration learned to use the phones and master the inner workings of the federal bureaucracy. Defeating Hubert Humphrey hadn’t left enough time to develop a coherent domestic or foreign policy. Setting an agenda was done on the fly, as Nixon’s officials responded to events.

Among presidents in the modern political era, only FDR and LBJ entered the Oval Office knowing what they wanted to do. (George W. Bush–or rather Dick Cheney–knew what he/they wanted to do but didn’t deign to tell us.) It’s no accident that they were two of the most effective leaders of the 20th century, or that their legislative agendas remain cherished legacies of American progress.

If I received a call tonight informing me that I needed to come to Washington because I had somehow been selected president, I would be ready to work tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock. I already know who I’d choose as my secretaries of state, defense and other cabinet appointees. Guantánamo would be shut down. The Department of Homeland Security would be abolished. We’d pull out of NAFTA and the WTO. Torture would be banned; habeas corpus restored. I have tax reform ready to go (soak corporations and the rich, companies that outsource U.S. jobs and use offshore tax shelters would be barred from selling goods to U.S. consumers), a detailed education policy (federal control would replace local control and funding of public schools, colleges and universities would be nationalized and made free) and a plan for healthcare (fully socialized). My foreign policy would go into effect at once: immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, an address to the United Nations apologizing for the wars and the torture and offering reparations, normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran, North Korea and Cuba, and cutting off aid to oppressive dictatorships.

I’m just a writer and cartoonist, but I know exactly what I’d do if I became president. Why doesn’t Barack Obama?

We ought to expect nothing less from the men and women–all professional politicians–who seek the most important office in the country, and on earth. ++

For the Blowhards Who Insist It’s a Two-Way Race…
David Sirota, Credo Action
1/14/08

For those of you who think the Democratic presidential nomination fight is just a two-way race between Obama and Clinton, check out this brand new poll from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Yup, that’s right - it shows the Nevada caucus race a three-way, dead heat with John Edwards right in the mix.

Interestingly, this poll comes right on the heels of the Establishment viciously ratcheting up its angry attacks on the Edwards candidacy. Late last week, we saw a Reuters story headlined “Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards” detailing how Wall Street moneymen and K Street lobbyists are frightened about Edwards populist, power-challenging message against greed and corruption. We also saw self-anointed Democratic “expert” Lawrence O’Donnell pen a fulminating screed on the Huffington Post demanding Edwards get out of the race - not surprising coming from a man who made his name running the U.S. Senate Finance Committee - long the most corrupt, lobbyist-ravaged panel in all of Washington (somehow, running the U.S. Congress’s version of a pay-to-play casino now makes people credile “experts” in campaign strategy and political morality).

According to the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism, Edwards has long faced a media blackout - one that at least some honest media brokers like Keith Olbermann have noted. That blackout is, at some level, motivated by the same impulses that moves lobbyists to whine and cry to Reuters and self-important bloviators like O’Donnell to publicly burst a blood vessel on the Huffington Post - the people who have gotten used to the status quo are truly terrified by any candidates who they really believe will change things and threaten their power and status. Edwards is just such a candidate - one who threatens to muck up what the media and political elite want to be a race between two “nonthreatening,” Wall Street-approved candidates.

I have no idea if Edwards will win Nevada, or any other state. Unlike most reporters, I don’t spend my time covering the horse race, nor judging the candidates’ viability only on the grounds of how much corporate cash they’ve been able to vacuum in. I spend my time trying to figure out which of these candidates represent the most fundamental form of change. One of the ways to judge that is to see who these candidates make uncomfortable. And by that measure, here’s what I know: Edwards is generating hostility from precisely the kinds of people who are likely to be most averse to real, systemic change. And that speaks very well for the former senator from North Carolina. ++

Candidate Taboos
Ralph Nader, CommonDreams
Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Here is a short list of what you won’t hear much of from the front-runners in this presidential primary season. Call them the candidate taboos.

You won’t hear a call for a national crackdown on the corporate crime, fraud, and abuse that have robbed trillions of dollars from workers, investors, pension holders, taxpayers and consumers. Among the reforms that won’t be suggested are providing resources to prosecute executive crooks and laws to democratize corporate governance so shareholders have real power. Candidates will not shout for a payback of ill-gotten gains, to rein in executive pay, or to demand corporate sunshine laws.

You won’t hear a demand that workers receive a living wage instead of a minimum wage. There will be no backing for a repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which has blocked more than 40 million workers from forming or joining trade unions to improve wages and benefits above Wal-Mart or McDonald’s levels.

You won’t hear for a call for a withdrawal from the WTO and NAFTA. Renegotiated trade agreements should stick to trade while labor, environmental, and consumer rights are advanced by separate treaties without being subordinated to the dictates of international commerce.

You won’t hear a call for our income tax system to be substantially revamped so that workers can keep more of their wages while we tax the things we like least, such as pollution, stock speculation, addictive industries, and energy guzzling technologies. Nor will you hear that corporations should be required to pay their fair share; corporate tax contributions as a percent of the overall federal revenue stream have been declining for 50 years.

You won’t hear a call for a single payer health system. Almost sixty years after President Truman first proposed it, we still need health insurance for everyone, a program with quality and cost controls and an emphasis on prevention. Full Medicare for everyone will save thousands of lives a year while maintaining patient choice of doctors and hospitals within a competitive private health care delivery system.

There is no reason to believe that the candidates will stand up to the commercial interests profiting from our current energy situation. We need a major environmental health agenda that challenges these entrenched interests with major new initiatives in solar energy, doubling motor vehicle fuel efficiency, and other quantified sustainable and clean energy technologies. Nor will there be adequate recognition that current fossil fuels are producing not just global warming, but also cancer, respiratory diseases, and geopolitical entanglements. Finally, there will be no calls for ending environmental racism that leads to more contaminated water, air, and toxic dumps in poorer neighborhoods.

The candidates will not demand a reduction in the military budget that devours half the federal government’s operating expenditures at a time when there is no Soviet Union or other major state enemy in the world. Studies by the General Accounting Office and internal Pentagon assessments support the judgment of many retired admirals and generals that a wasteful defense weakens our country and distorts priorities at home.

You won’t hear a consistent clarion call for electoral reform. Both parties have shamelessly engaged in gerrymandering, a process that guarantees reelection of their candidates at the expense of frustrated voters. Nor will there be serious proposals that millions of law-abiding ex-felons be allowed to vote.

Other electoral reforms should include reducing barriers to candidates, same day registration, a voter verified paper record for electronic voting, run-off voting to insure winners receive a majority vote, binding none-of-the-above choices and most important, full public financing to guarantee clean elections.

You won’t hear much about a failed war on drugs that costs nearly $50 billion annually. And the major candidates will not argue that addicts should be treated rather than imprisoned. Nor should observers hope for any call to repeal the “three strikes and you’re out” laws that have needlessly filled our jails or to end mandatory sentencing that hamstrings our judges.

The candidates will ignore the diverse Israeli peace movement whose members have developed accords for a two state solution with their Palestinian and American counterparts. It is time to replace the Washington puppet show with a real Washington peace show for the security of the American, Palestinian, and Israeli people.

You won’t hear the candidates stand up to business interests that have backed changes to our civil justice system that restrict or close the courtroom to wrongfully injured and cheated individuals, but not to corporations. Where is the vocal campaign against fraud and injury upon innocent patients, consumers, and workers? We should make it easier for consumers to band together and defend themselves against harmful practices in the marketplace.

Voters should visit the webpages of the major party candidates. See what they say, and see what they do not say. Then email or send a letter to any or all the candidates and ask them why they are avoiding these issues. Breaking the taboos won’t start with the candidates. Maybe it can start with the voters. ++

The Real Delegate Count
Scott Galindez, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 14 January 2008

Barack Obama 9
Hillary Clinton 9
John Edwards 4

The Associated Press and other media outlets are trying to tell us they know how many delegates each candidate will get out of Iowa, just as I told you they would in a previous article. Florida and Michigan make the delegate count even more confusing.

David Redlawsk, an associate professor of political science at the University of Iowa, who teaches a course on the Iowa caucuses, confirmed the numbers the media is projecting for Iowa delegate allocation is nothing more than a prediction. He said it bothers him the media is reporting these numbers as if they are factual since it is very unlikely the final count will be the same after the district level conventions, where delegates to the national convention will be chosen. He also pointed out the super delegate count could also change dramatically since none of them are committed to remain with the candidates they now say they are supporting.

The Associated Press is reporting: “In the overall race for the nomination, Clinton leads with 187 delegates, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as super delegates. She is followed by Obama with 89 delegates and Edwards with 50.”

While there is some truth to this, the “super delegates,” like the Iowa county convention delegates, (which was all that was decided in Iowa), can change their minds anytime they want.

For example, Senator Kerry endorsed Obama yesterday, but if Hillary Clinton starts running the table, he will likely vote for Clinton at the convention to show party unity.

If the race remains neck and neck the super delegates could decide it. That is a scenario that favors Hillary, since she has the establishment Democrats on her side.

What Happened in 2004?

Howard Dean had amassed the most super delegates before the Iowa caucuses. But many had buyers’ remorse, and some abandoned him once he finished a weak third in Iowa.

Democratic powerbroker (and super delegate) Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, who had thrown his union behind Dean in November 2003, announced two weeks after Dean’s loss in New Hampshire that he was abandoning him. We will see the same thing after February 5. Super delegates will be jumping on the ship of the candidate with the momentum, and abandoning ship of the candidates who are not looking like the eventual nominee.

How Many Super Delegates Are There?

There are 852 super delegates, roughly 40 percent of the amount of delegates needed to win the nomination. The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired Congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt and all Democratic National Committee members, some of who are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean.

There are 3,515 pledged delegates that are selected by the primary and caucus system.

Why Super Delegates?

Many see the system as undemocratic. It was set up as a safety net for party leaders to correct a “mistake” by the voters. It was a reaction to the McGovern nomination in 1972, and partly the Carter nomination in 1976. McGovern was seen as someone outside the mainstream. Party leaders wanted a way to influence the nominating process and rescue the party from a nominee they didn’t think could win. They also felt Jimmy Carter didn’t have the name recognition or experience; so if they had the system, then they probably would have attempted to block his nomination.

What About Florida and Michigan?

Damien Lavera, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, confirmed Florida and Michigan have been stripped of all of their delegates. And when asked if that could change, he said he would not speculate on hypothetical situations, and they were focusing on nominating a candidate within the existing rules.

The Florida Democratic Party sent the following press release out in December: “No matter what anybody says, Florida Democrats will make the primary count by going to the polls and casting their votes on January 29th. The nation will be paying attention, and Florida Democrats will have a major impact on the race.

“Accordingly, the Florida Democratic Party will respect the voters’ choice on January 29th in determining the allocation of our delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. We are confident that the Democratic Presidential nominee will seat Florida’s delegation at the Convention.”

The key is the nominee, which might be the case if a candidate is so far out in front it won’t matter if they are seated. If the race is close, however, the situation in Michigan could complicate things.

Michigan voters are going to the polls on Tuesday, and they will not see the names of Barack Obama or John Edwards on the ballot. Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel will be on the ballot.

Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who led the effort for an early Michigan primary, defended the move on Friday as a way to break the lock Iowa and New Hampshire have as the first states where voters can make decisions. He and others say larger, more diverse states, such as Michigan, should have more influence with early primaries.

Levin urged Democrats to vote for either Clinton or uncommitted.

Levin said despite the national party’s threats to the contrary, Michigan’s 156 delegates will be seated at the Democratic National Convention in August. He said seating those delegates would open the door for states to challenge and change the national party rules that require Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to hold the earliest primaries.

Levin said it’s unimaginable the convention would deny seats to delegates from such large, politically important states as Florida and Michigan.

“Why would any convention say we’re not going to seat delegates from two critical states in order to protect the privileged position of New Hampshire and Iowa?” Levin said. “Why would a convention do anything to self-destruct?”

US Rep. John Conyers and his wife, Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, will begin airing radio ads this week urging voters to cast their ballots for uncommitted.

Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters, a group of mostly Obama supporters, wants to make sure people vote in the Democratic primary on Tuesday, even if their candidate isn’t on the ballot.

“We really want to educate people on what they should do,” said Edna Bell, a former Wayne County commissioner. “If Michigan voters want change, the uncommitted vote is their way to make their voices heard.”

It’s presumed most uncommitted delegates will favor Obama or Edwards, but, once at the convention, they can support any candidate in contention for the Democratic nomination.

But what if the uncommitted campaign is not successful? Could Clinton walk off with most of the delegates? While it is possible, Florida probably has it right. It will be the nominee who will have influence over the credentials committee at the convention. So if Michigan’s 156 delegates won’t affect the outcome, then the eventual nominee will likely tell his/her supporters to seat the delegates. If the race is extremely close, all bets are off. ++

NBC Blocks Kucinich From Debate
Christopher Kutruff, t r u t h o u t | Report
Monday 14 January 2008

Two days after inviting Dennis Kucinich to Tuesday’s January 15 presidential debates, NBC decided to change its previously announced criteria and exclude the Ohio congressman.

Friday morning, NBC political director Chuck Todd informed the Kucinich campaign that NBC would be “re-doing” the criteria for the debates and only Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards would be included.

Representative Kucinich said he had met the previous qualifications by ranking fourth in several national polls including a January 4-6 USA Today/Gallup poll.

In a Wednesday, January 9, email to the Kucinich campaign, NBC Democratic Party debates consultant Jenny Backus wrote, “Congratulations on another hard-fought contest. Now that New Hampshire is over, we are on to Nevada and our Presidential Debate on Tuesday, January 15. This letter serves as an official invitation for your candidate to participate in the Nevada Presidential Debate at Cashman Theatre in downtown Las Vegas. You have met the criteria set by NBC and the Debate.”

The Kucinich campaign filed an emergency complaint earlier with the Federal Communications Commission for being excluded from ABC’s coverage of the debates. The congressman said he is considering similar legal action against NBC for its policy reversal.

Despite his long-shot status, Kucinich continues to attract an audience on the campaign trail, which he attributes to “the emerging culture of information technology that’s Internet-based. And the other one is the more conventional TV technology which is coming to a clash. And I think they reflect some political trends in this country that maybe aren’t getting too much attention. But they are going to have an impact,” according to recent comments Kucinich made during an interview with newsman Bill Moyers.

In a recent Democracy for America online survey, Kucinich ranked first with about 32 percent of the vote. The survey, which was not a scientific poll, attracted about 150,000 participants. [emphasis added - j]

Kucinich won the December 23 Virginia Democratic Party’s online presidential straw poll, eclipsing Hillary Clinton and gaining about a third of the votes. He has also came out on top of a Washington State straw poll. But despite these signs of momentum, major networks have maintained a separate focus - limiting Kucinich’s exposure.

These factors, the Kucinich campaign contends, should allow the congressman to participate in prime-time debates. ++

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Add comment January 15th, 2008