NBC's Tim Russert Has Passed Away

[Reposted from MSNBC:]

NBC's Tim Russert dead at 58
Washington bureau chief, ‘Meet the Press’ moderator collapsed on job
BREAKING NEWS
NBC News and MSNBC
updated 3:39 p.m. ET, Fri., June. 13, 2008

WASHINGTON - Tim Russert, NBC News’ Washington bureau chief and the moderator of “Meet the Press,” died Friday after a sudden heart attack at the bureau, NBC News said Friday. He was 58. Russert was recording voiceovers for Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program when he collapsed, the network said. He and his family had recently returned from Italy, where they celebrated the graduation of Russert’s son, Luke, from Boston College. No further details were immediately available.

Russert was best known as host of “Meet the Press,” which he took over in December 1991. Now in its 60th year, “Meet the Press” is the longest-running program in the history of television.

But he was also a vice president of NBC News and head of its overall Washington operations, a nearly round-the-clock presence on NBC and MSNBC on election nights.

He was “one of the premier political journalists and analysts of his time,” Tom Brokaw, the former longtime anchor of “NBC Nightly News,” said in announcing Russert’s death. “This news division will not be the same without his strong, clear voice.”

In 2008, Time Magazine named Russert him one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

Timothy John Russert Jr. was born in Buffalo, N.Y., on May 7, 1950. He was a graduate of Canisius High School, John Carroll University and the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. He was a member of the bar in New York and the District of Columbia.

Senate staffer before entering journalism

After graduating from law school, Russert went into politics as a staff operative. In 1976, he worked on the Senate campaign of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., and in 1982, he worked on Mario Cuomo’s campaign for governor of New York.

Russert joined NBC News in 1984. In April 1985, he supervised the live broadcasts of NBC’s TODAY show from Rome, negotiating and arranging an appearance by Pope John Paul II, a first for American television. In 1986 and 1987, Russert led NBC News’ weeklong broadcasts from South America, Australia and China.

Of his background as a Democratic political operative, Russert said, “My views are not important.”

“Lawrence Spivak, who founded ‘Meet the Press,’ told me before he died that the job of the host is to learn as much as you can about your guest’s positions and take the other side,” he said in a 2007 interview with Time magazine. “And to do that in a persistent and civil way. And that’s what I try to do every Sunday.”

Cuomo, Russert’s onetime boss, wrote of Russert: “Most candidates are not eager to present themselves for Tim’s incisive scrutiny, which is fed by his prodigious study and preparation. But they have little choice: appearing on ‘Meet the Press’ is today as vital to a serious candidate as being properly registered to vote.”

Russert wrote two books — “Big Russ and Me” in 2004 and “Wisdom of Our Fathers” in 2006 — both of which were New York Times best-sellers.

Emmy for Reagan funeral coverage

In 2005, Russert was awarded an Emmy for his role in the coverage of the funeral of President Ronald Reagan. His “Meet the Press” interviews with George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000 won the Radio and Television Correspondents’ highest honor, the Joan S. Barone Award, and the Annenberg Center’s Walter Cronkite Award.

Russert’s March 2000 interview of Sen. John McCain shared the 2001 Edward R. Murrow Award for Overall Excellence in Television Journalism. He was also the recipient of the John Peter Zenger Award, the American Legion Journalism Award, the Veterans of Foreign Wars News Media Award, the Congressional Medal of Honor Society Journalism Award, the Allen H. Neuharth Award for Excellence in Journalism, the David Brinkley Award for Excellence in Communication and the Catholic Academy for Communication’s Gabriel Award. He was a member of the Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame.

Russert was a trustee of the Freedom Forum’s Newseum and a member of the board of directors of the Greater Washington Boys and Girls Club, and America’s Promise — Alliance for Youth.

In 1995, the National Father’s Day Committee named him “Father of the Year,” Parents magazine honored him as “Dream Dad” in 1998, and in 2001 the National Fatherhood Initiative also recognized him as Father of the Year.

Irish America magazine named him one of the top 100 Irish Americans in the country, and he was selected as a Fellow of the Commission of European Communities.

Survivors include Russert’s wife, Maureen Orth, a writer for Vanity Fair magazine, whom he met at the 1976 Democratic National Convention; and their son, Luke.

Check back soon for more on this breaking story.



Tim, just ten days ago, commenting that the media ought to shape up their coverage of elections so we can focus on the important issues:

McCain's History Of Blow-Ups (Repost)

[I'm going to repost a diary from over at Eyes On Obama because I think it provides an important look into the character of John McCain. Granted, character is less important than policy, but I want to make it clear that McCain sucks in both areas. So here is a look at John McCain's true character, which you should juxtapose with Obama's calm, friendly and respectful character, that hasn't suffered a single ripple during the entire year and a half campaign, no matter if he was up or down, and no matter how many outrageous negative attacks Hillary threw at him (I would have freaked out on her months and months ago), he never stopped being calm, mature and collected. This isn't just about likability, this is about who has the level head, the maturity, the dignity to be Commander-in-Chief:]

McCain's History of Blow-Ups: The Top Ten
by jwilkes, Eyes On Obama

As former GOP Senator Rick Santorum put it, "Everybody has a McCain story." Over his tenure in Congress, McCain has had angry, expletive-laced exchanges with a number of his colleagues and peers,--both Democrat and Republican alike--many of which have been covered extensively by local Arizona and nationwide news sources. Below are the ten most notable among them.

10. Senator Ted Kennedy - On August 6, 1993, the Boston Globe ran a story detailing a heated verbal exchange between Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and McCain. Kennedy was at the lectern delivering remarks, when McCain began walking toward him from across the Senate floor, mocking the Massachusetts legislator. McCain shouted at Kennedy to "shut up." A stunned Kennedy fired back at McCain, telling him, "you shut up...and act like a Senator."

9. Democratic Rep. Marty Russo (D-IL) - In its December 1985 issue, Atlantic Monthly described an altercation that took place just a few years after McCain had been elected to the House for the first time. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) found himself in the crossfire between the two Congressman, who were angrily shouting "seven-letter and twelve-letter" epithets back and forth at one another, when the exchange became violent and they began pushing and shoving one another. The two were separated from their tangle by a few other legislators who were nearby.

8. Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson - Newsmax, the "conservative perspective" political publication run by Chris Ruddy, didn't cut McCain any partisan slack in a July 2006 article, in which it recounted a dust-up between McCain and some local government officials in his home state. Speaking at a luncheon at which McCain was in attendance, former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson was among a group of local mayors fielding questions from the Arizona Congressional delegation about local land issues. In the midst of one answer from Johnson, who helmed the city from 1990 to 1994, McCain blurted out, "Hold it a minute. Somebody write down everything this guy has to say. You know what, we need to record him. It's best to get a liar on tape."

Taken aback, Johnson offered the Senator a chance to speak privately, saying, "Senator, if you have a problem with me, why don't we go out in the hallway and talk about it."

McCain fired back: "You're God-damn right I have a problem with you! They've been treating you like a princess in Phoenix while they've been burning me over this damn deal, and I'm sick of it!"

7. Unidentified GOP Senator - Accounts of McCain's outburst at a Senate GOP policy lunch has reached near-epic proportion, having been written about by just about every blog and news site from Newsmax, to DailyKos, to the Huffington Post, to Wonkette, and so on. During a vitriolic exchange between McCain and another unnamed Senator who took a position contrary to that of his colleague from Arizona. McCain became infuriated, jumping from his chair and calling his fellow Republican a "shithead," prompting an immediate demand for an apology. McCain stood up again and issued it...sort of. "Okay, I apologize," he said. "But you're still a shithead."

6. Senator Pete Domenici - Newsweek's February 21, 2000 edition highlighted an exchange between McCain and Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Chairman of the Budget Committee. In staunch disagreement with a particular portion of a budget amendment, McCain exploded. "Only an asshole would put together a budget like that." Domenici, who'd been in the Senate nearly 30 years by that point, gave a restrained reply, noting that even in the most heated debated throughout his entire career, no one had ever used that kind of language toward him. McCain didn't back down. "I wouldn't call you an asshole unless you really were an asshole."

5. Unidentified GOP Senator - In 2006, Ron Kessler of Newsmax wrote that much of McCain's unpopularity in the Senate stems from his 2000 campaign, when the vast majority- in fact, all but four- of his colleagues backed George W. Bush in the GOP primary. One of McCain's top aides recounted a telephone conversation between McCain and another Senator, who was explaining that he'd already committed to supporting Bush. When he finished, McCain bristled. "Fuck you," he said, and hung up, never to speak to him again.

4. Senator Strom Thurmond - In an article titled "Senator Hothead," The Washingtonian recounted one particular encounter between McCain and then-92-year-old Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. McCain was giving an opening statement at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when Thurmond, the committee chairman, interrupted to inquire as to whether McCain was finished so that the proceedings could be moved along. McCain glared at Thurmond and thanked him for his "courtesy." McCain later confronted Thurmond on the Senate floor, and a "scuffle" ensued. "The two didn't part friends."

3. Senator Chuck Grassley - The same Newsweek article that outlined McCain's confrontation with Domenici pointed to a similar incident with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. The two were debating issues related to soldiers who had been reported Missing In Action in Vietnam. After a blistering commentary by McCain, Grassley took offense. "Are you calling me stupid?" he asked.

McCain didn't miss a beat. "No, I'm calling you a fucking jerk."

2. Senator John Cornyn - On May 18, 2007, The Washington Post reported that McCain had locked horns with another one of his GOP colleagues, this time Senator John Cornyn of Texas. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill of 2007 had caused an enormous rift among Republicans, and the two Senators found themselves on opposite sides. Cornyn objected to a provision of the bill that allowed for what he perceived as too many judicial appeals for illegal immigrants. McCain called his objections "chicken shit" and accused Cornyn of making petty tactics to sabotage the whole bill. Cornyn took immediate offense.

"Wait a second here. I've been sitting in here for all these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line."

Then McCain, who'd been spending a lot of time away from Washington on his presidential campaign, got a little more out of line. "Fuck you!" he shouted. "I know more about this than anyone in this room!" McCain apologized shortly afterword.

1. His Own Wife, Cindy McCain - In his new book, The Real McCain, Cliff Schecter, a journalist and frequent contributor at the Huffington Post related perhaps the most disturbing of McCain's tirades. During his 2000 White House bid, the Senator was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, his aides, and three journalists who spoke to Schecter on condition of anonymity, but independently confirmed each other's accounts of the incident. Cindy McCain playfully ran her fingers through the Senator's hair and teased, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain reddened and fired back, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollup, you cunt." After he'd cooled down, McCain apologized, saying he'd had a long day.

[I, for one, can't wait until Obama and McCain debate, and McCain screams "fuck you!!" at Obama after Obama calls him on supporting yet another failed policy of Bush, or being surrounded by lobbyists. That'll be golden.]

McCain Lies To Louisianans About Katrina

[I loved seeing "The Democratic Nominee: Barack Obama" at the top of my blog, but we gotta move on to the general election at some point, so let's start now with a look at McCain either lying again, or showing the symptoms of Alzheimer's--and I'm betting he is lying, and expecting people not to know any better:]

In Louisiana, McCain Claims He Voted For Every Katrina Investigation -- Except He Didn't
by Eric Kleefeld, Talking Points Memo

During his press conference today in Baton Rouge, John McCain declared in strong terms that he's voted for every investigation of Hurricane Katrina.

The only problem, as the DNC has been pointing out to reporters, is he voted twice against Democratic proposals to investigate the levy failures.

After a local reporter at his Baton Rouge press conference asked why he voted against forming a commission to investigate the levy failures in New Orleans, McCain insisted that he supported every investigation -- and added that he was "not familiar" with what the reporter was talking about:



McCain voted against establishing a commission to investigate the levy failures, in a September 2005 party-line vote in which all Republicans voted against the Democratic proposal. He then repeated that party-line GOP vote against a similar Dem proposal in February 2006.

Update: Obama's campaign responds:

Whether he simply wasn't aware of his voting record again or he was intentionally misleading the people of Louisiana, John McCain certainly isn't offering us 'leadership you can believe in'.

Update #2: Read this, it goes over much of the same:

The Shameful Irony of McCain's New Orleans Speech
by Greg Saunders, The Huffington Post

Is "He's a Muslim" a More Socially Acceptable Way of Saying "He's a N****R?" (Repost)

[I'm going to repost this only because it is short, and I think it is a thought provoking question, which is the kind of question I'm all about:]

Is "He's a Muslim" a More Socially Acceptable Way of Saying "He's a N****R?"
by DHinMI, Daily Kos

I heard yesterday of a focus group done in Charlottesville, VA—home of the University of Virginia, thus not a particularly isolated locale—in which several of the undecided voters claimed to believe that Barack Obama is Muslim.  We've all seen and heard the examples.  We can joke that you've got to be thick to simultaneously believe he's a Muslim and decry his choice of church--Christian Church—-but it's out there, this belief that Barack Obama is a Muslim.  One can imagine the thinking: "his name, I mean, it sounds Muslim, his father was from somewhere over there, where they're Muslims, I saw that photo of him in that garb, and there are all those emails that say he's Muslim, so..."

In America, maligning Muslims is still too easily ignored.  In most circles people know it's not socially acceptable to express anti-Semitism, or racism, or increasingly even homophobia.  But too many people still find it acceptable to malign all of Islam and every Muslim.

For the moment, let's set aside the problem of anti-Muslim bigotry.  The question I have is how many people who claim he's Muslim and offer that up as a reason why they are uncomfortable with Obama's candidacy.  How many of the people insinuating that they won't vote for Obama because he's a Muslim are simply substituting opposition to his supposed religion for opposition to him based on his race?

I assume the Obama campaign has done extensive research to get an idea of who thinks he's Muslim.  Some of these folks are just ill-informed.  The video "A Man From Hope" shown at the 1992 Democratic convention was in response to research that revealed that a sizable group of voters believed that Bill Clinton came from a privileged background.  Eventually folks figured out he didn't, and it helped burnish his populist credentials.  Some people are educable, and a good campaign educates.

The people today expressing apprehension toward Obama because "he's a Muslim" include many who will vote for him in the fall.  We need to figure out how to reach them, and in a way that doesn't validate anti-Muslim bigotry.

But for others, who are saying they won't vote for Obama because he's Muslim when they really won't vote for him because he's black, we just need to write them off as people who probably don't vote for Democrats in any circumstances, and who won't vote for Obama because they're racists.

[Or look at it this way, do you think a white person with a weird name and a Muslim step-father s/he's had barely anything to do with be plagued by this repeated question of "Is s/he a Muslim?" even after attending a Christian church for over 20 years? We already know white people aren't held to the same standard concerning crazy pastors who say outrageous things.]

5 Myths About Being 'Pro-Israel' (Repost)

[Last month I wrote about the formation of a new progressive pro-Israel group, J Street, which seeks to provide an alternative to the anti-peace neoconservative group AIPAC and other hardline American Jewish lobby/advocacy groups. Last Sunday the executive director of J Street wrote this in the Washington Post, which I'm reposting here because I think it is very important to get out, and I'm sure almost everyone missed the original publication. Essentially we can't hope to achieve peace in the Middle East, and reduce anti-American sentiment until we recognize the following:]

5 Myths About Being 'Pro-Israel'
by Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street

Six decades ago, my father fought alongside Menachem Begin for Israel's independence. If you'd have told him back then that politicians in the world's last superpower would be jockeying today to see who can be more "pro-Israel," he would have laughed at you. Grateful as I am for decades of U.S. friendship to Israel, I have to wonder, as the state my father helped found turns 60, just who is defining what it means to be pro-Israel in the United States these days.

Some purported keepers of that flame claim that supporting Israel means reflexively supporting every Israeli action and implacably opposing every Israeli foe -- adopting the talking points of neoconservatives and the most right-wing elements of the American Jewish and Christian Zionist communities. Criticize or question Israeli behavior and you're labeled "anti-Israel," or worse. But unquestioning encouragement for short-sighted Israeli policies such as expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank isn't real friendship. (Would a true friend not only let you drive home drunk but offer you their Porsche and a shot of tequila for the road?) Israel needs real friends, not enablers. And forging a healthy friendship with Israel requires bursting some myths about what it means to be pro-Israel.

1. American Jews choose to back candidates largely on the basis of their stance on Israel.

This urban legend has somehow become a tenet of American Politics 101, which is why politicians work so hard to earn the pro-Israel label in the first place. But it's a self-serving fable, cultivated by a tiny minority of politically conservative American Jews who actually are single-issue voters. Most Jewish voters make their political choices the way other Americans do: based on their views on the full spectrum of domestic and foreign policy issues.

Moreover, the American Jewish community still has a markedly progressive bent. Exit polls suggest that nearly 80 percent of Jewish Americans voted for John F. Kerry over George W. Bush in 2004; some 70 percent of them were opposed to the Iraq war in 2005, according to the American Jewish Committee; and polls show that most American Jews say they favor a more balanced U.S. Middle East policy that's aimed at achieving peace.

2. To be strong on Israel, you have to be harsh to the Palestinians.

Wrong, and counterproductive to boot. One popular way for members of Congress to earn their pro-Israel stripes is to come down as hard as possible on the Palestinians, by using economic and diplomatic pressure or giving the Israelis a freer hand for military strikes. That may satisfy some primal urge to lash out at Israel's foes, but it does Israel more harm than good.

As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has argued, Israel's survival depends on offering the Palestinians a more hopeful future built on political sovereignty and economic development. As long as Palestinians despair of a decent and dignified life, Israel will be at war. And as long as the only channel for the Palestinians' ingenuity is building better rockets, not even the Great Wall of China will protect Israel's cities from their wrath. Helping the Palestinians achieve a viable, prosperous state is one of the most pro-Israel things an American politician can do.

3. The Rev. John Hagee and his fellow Christian Zionists are good for the Jews.

Hardly. Are Israel and American Jewry really so desperate that we must cozy up to people whose messianic dreams entail having us all killed or converted to Christianity? Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel, and his ilk believe that Israel dare not cede any territory in the quest for peace, claiming that the Bible promised all of the holy land to the Jews. In other words, Christian Zionists look at the trade-offs that Israel must make to achieve peace -- and hope to thwart them. Then again, peace is not what these folks have in mind; they hope that Israel will seek to permanently expand its borders, thereby goading the Arabs into a war that will become the catalyst for Armageddon and the second coming of Christ. Do your ambitions for Israel extend beyond turning it into the fuel for the fire of the "End of Days"? Then Hagee and company are not -- repeat, not -- your friends.

4. Talking peace with your enemies demonstrates weakness.

You don't need an advanced degree in international relations to recognize that pursuing peace only with people you like is pointless. Most Israelis know this; a recent poll in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz found that two-thirds of Israelis favor cease-fire negotiations between their government and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that controls the Gaza Strip, exactly because Hamas is such a bitter foe. But in Washington, we self-righteously refuse to engage -- even indirectly -- with Hamas, Iran or Syria.

Hamas won the most recent Palestinian national elections in a landslide. Do we seriously think that it can be erased from the political landscape simply by assassinations and sanctions? Precisely because Hamas and Iran represent the most worrisome strategic challenges to Israel, responsible friends of Israel who'd like to see it live in security for its next 60 years should be engaging with them to search for alternatives to war.

5. George W. Bush is the best friend Israel has ever had.

Not even close. The president has acted as Israel's exclusive corner man when he should have been refereeing the fight. That choice weakened Israel's long-term security.

Israel needs U.S. help to maintain its military edge over its foes, but it also needs the United States to contain Arab-Israeli crises and broker peace. Israel's existing peace pacts owe much to Washington's ability to bridge the mistrust among parties in the Middle East. So when the United States abandons the role of effective broker and acts only as Israel's amen choir, as it has throughout Bush's tenure, the United States dims Israel's prospects of winning security through diplomacy. The best gift that Israel's friends here could give this gallant, embattled democracy on its milestone birthday would be returning the United States to its leading role in active diplomacy to end the conflicts in the Middle East -- and help a secure, thriving Israel find a permanent, accepted home among the community of nations.

jeremyb@jstreet.org

Jeremy Ben-Ami is executive director of J Street, a lobby and political action committee that promotes peace and security in the Middle East.

A Pro-Clinton Group's Illegal Voter Disenfranchisement Campaign

There have been reports of widespread deceptive robo-calls in North Carolina that seem to be targeting people likely to favor Obama, specifically African Americans, in order to make them think they aren't registered to vote, thus keeping them from going to the polls on election day. These calls have been reported in at least 11 states throughout the primary campaign. It turns out that these calls, which violate numerous election laws, are from an organization called "Women's Voices Women Vote", which not surprisingly has strong ties to none other than Hillary Clinton. These calls have caused mass confusion in state after state, and now they are at work again in the coming primaries. This is extremely serious, and with any luck (try miracle) it will be treated as such by the media, but of course that will necessitate the media taking a little sabbatical from its 24/7 Wright-watch to actually take a look at a real campaign issue. Read the story below, and please help get the word out! And visit DailyKos to take part in the discussion and rec this diary.

FACING SOUTH Reveals D.C. Nonprofit Aimed At Women Voters Behind Deceptive N.C. Robo-calls
By Chris Kromm, Facing South

Update: The group says it was an "honest mistake", but that is hard to believe give it has happened repeatedly over months in at least 11 states, even after being investigated for the illegal calls by the Virginia police over two and a half months ago. And over two and a half months later, the calls are still deceptive, still aimed at confusing voters, still targeted towards likely Obama supporters and NOT unmarried women, and still ILLEGAL. Oh, and the media still doesn't care. Read more here.

The Media Fails Us Every Day

[Here is a great blog about the media's racist double standard in going after Obama, and about all the REAL issues they are ignoring in favor of this continuing utter nonsense that is our media. Please digg this article.]

Have You Left No Sense Of Decency?
by Bob Cesca, The Huffington Post

If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it's very likely we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

If the corporate media had spent as much time exposing the obvious flaws and grotesque inequalities of Reaganomics throughout the last 30 years as they've spent on Wright, we wouldn't necessarily be staring into the maw of another depression.

If the corporate media were as diligent about debunking the lies surrounding Iran's so-called nuclear program as they've been about Wright, there wouldn't be such a sense of inevitability in terms of attacking -- or entirely obliterating -- Iran.

So what is the very serious corporate media, the only industry that is explicitly protected by the Constitution, doing to remedy their failures of the recent past? Rather than watchdogging the Bush administration and Senator McCain on Iraq, Iran, the economy and all the rest of it -- areas in which Senator McCain is laughably wrong and dangerously inconsistent -- what are we seeing instead?

All three major cable news networks are wasting valuable air time on Senator Obama's former pastor. Why? Is the story newsworthy? Sure. Is wall-to-wall Wright coverage more important than Iraq or gas prices or the climate crisis? No way. But Reverend Wright is a scary, shouting black man and scary shouting black men equal ratings-sweet-ratings.

We expect to see this sort of race-baiting behavior from Fox News Channel, but CNN and MSNBC have, once again, similarly crossed the tabloid threshold into the very same nefarious Roger Ailes realm by beating this nothing story to death.

MSNBC, for example, continues to invite Pat Buchanan onto their air -- a known race-baiter and author of a recent article in which he claims that, despite 300 years of slavery, America has been the best nation ever for black people (food stamps, for example). The article, by the way, totally ignores the reality that, had it not been for slavery and Jim Crow laws, Africans could very easily have immigrated to America as free people and enjoyed the benefits of our constitutional liberties; but the article also lords welfare and food stamps over the heads of African Americans -- as if Buchanan ever once supported such measures in the first place.

Yet Buchanan gets thawed out of his cryo-freeze chamber every time there's some race-baiting to be done. Of the thousands of Republicans at their disposal as a means of balancing out the brilliant Rachel and the equally brilliant Keith, MSNBC chooses the one Republican who's known as much for his racism as he is for his high pitch voice. This leads me to believe that MSNBC is knowingly stoking the racial fires of the Wright story, simply because they continue to invite Buchanan to speak for the angry white men who think they're God's gift to black people (food stamps, for example).

The reality is that only one of the candidates is being attacked for their connections when, in fact, all three candidates have controversial and embarrassing relationships. The difference, as near as I can tell, is that only one candidate has an angry, shouting black connection. And -- bonus! -- there's videotape of this angry, shouting black man suggesting that America is partly to blame for the attacks of September 11!

Wait, wait. That claim sounds familiar. Who else besides, you know, the 9/11 Commission has claimed that American foreign policy in the Middle East was partly to blame for the September 11 attacks? In other words, who else has basically said -- and repeatedly so -- that America's "chickens have come home to roost"?



That'd be Republican Congressman Ron Paul. So let's see here... Which Republicans must, by their own standards, be held accountable for their relationship with such an obvious America-hater? Who ought to be forced to repeatedly renounce and reject Congressman Paul?

"I think it's all up for grabs, and I don't think that anyone's emerging. I think these people who are racing to declare anyone the true frontrunner at this point -- I just don't see it. Although I am partial to Ron Paul..." --Laura Ingraham

"That's music to my ears, Laura." --Tucker Carlson responding to Ingraham's praise

"I like him personally, I know him personally... I will say that he is also the one candidate that everybody knows who fought against big government. He voted against unsure Medicare, the prescription drugs, and No Child Left Behind. He's consistent, he's courageous." --Pat Buchanan

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." --Ronald Reagan

"[Ron Paul] is the only candidate out there that's talking like a lot of us talked in 94. And that's what a lot of Americans want but no one will say anything anymore...I bet he's gonna shock a lot of people in New Hampshire." --Joe Scarborough

"He's a very engaging person... I'd like to see him as president."

"I think I'm fondest of Ron Paul... He's the only person I agree with on foreign policy."

"Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) continues to amaze on many levels, and he had finally started to register on the polls. In last Tuesday's Midwestern ice storm, almost every Iowa event was cancelled. The exception was a Paul rally, which drew hundreds. His crowds are regularly huge and enthusiastic. He chalked up another record fundraising day on Sunday's anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, with more than $6 million in online donations in a single day." --Bob Novak

"The most honest man in Congress." --Senator John McCain

With the exception of President Reagan of course, I expect all of these Republicans politicians and pundits will step forward and declare their intentions to sever all ties to Congressman Paul, and to subsequently retract all praise for the Congressman.

How about it, Joe Scarborough? Does Ron Paul really talk like you used to talk? And would you, Pat Buchanan, define blaming America for September 11 as "courageous." And do you still support Ron Paul, Tucker? If Ron Paul is the most honest man in Congress, Senator McCain, does that mean he's telling the truth about September 11?

Naturally, the difference here is that Congressman Paul is a white Republican, and Reverend Wright is crazy shouting black pastor. Many (too many) white Americans fear angry black people, even though, given the historical record, we all ought to fear old, white, powerful Republicans a little more than we do right now.

What about other white Republicans who have said equally crazy things? Pastor Hagee, who has endorsed Senator McCain, just recently claimed that God "damned" New Orleans. Add that statement to the anti-Semitic statements and the anti-Catholic statements and you've got yourself a controversy. But are the cable networks cutting to live coverage of Pastor Hagee for two hours at a stretch? Are ABC and Fox News going to question Senator McCain about his relationship with Hagee -- the same questions over and over again, backed with the same footage over and over again? Of course not.

In addition to Hagee's awful remarks about New Orleans, the networks, by-in-large, skimmed past the news that this month has been the deadliest month in Iraq since September 2007. The networks continue to ignore the root causes of the current recession and Senator McCain's promise to continue the Reaganomics of the current administration. The networks all but ignored Senator Clinton's promise to "obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons, even though hundreds of thousands of Iranian people, who held pro-American vigils after September 11, favor government reforms and disapprove of Ahmadinejad.

So I have to ask the appropriate network executives the familiar yet appropriate question: Have you no sense of decency at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

The constant, around-the-clock coverage has become a race-baiting spectacle far beyond the realms of journalistic decency, honor and integrity, especially given the slag heap through which most Americans are marching right now -- a march which truly deserves wall-to-wall news coverage. And if the cable news networks can't help but to prioritize their headlines with the same twisted fury as far-right talk show hosts or racist Republican strategists like Floyd Brown or Alex Castellanos, it's clear that the answer to that famous question is a resounding "nope."

U.S. Military Contractor Used Armored Cars To Transport Prostitutes (Repost)

[I think this one basically speaks for itself. You can thank the Republicans and their love of unfettered privatization and wars for this. On the bright side, at least they were willing participants, allegedly, instead of raped Iraqi civilians (or contractors) getting raped. I guess that is progress. There you have it, vote McCain to get more of the same.]

U.S. Military Contractor Used Armored Cars To Transport Prostitutes
by Jason Linkins, The Huffington Post

Over at Muckraked, we get news that "a panel of whistleblowers" testifying before a Senate committee yesterday dropped a dime on their employer, military contractor DynCorp (among others). The most explosive part of the testimony involved a contract manager, a misappropriated armored car, and prostitutes:

A contractor died when a DynCorp manager used an employee's armored car to transport prostitutes, according to Barry Halley, a Worldwide Network Services employee working under a DynCorp subcontract.

"DynCorp's site manager was involved in bringing prostitutes into hotels operated by DynCorp. A co-worker unrelated to the ring was killed when he was traveling in an unsecure car and shot performing a high-risk mission. I believe that my co-worker could have survived if he had been riding in an armored car. At the time, the armored car that he would otherwise have been riding in was being used by the contractor's manager to transport prostitutes from Kuwait to Baghdad."

Naturally, this will lead many to question whether its appropriate for DynCorp to be awarded with future military contracts, but the more fitting question is whether or not DynCorp should have been awarded a contract in Iraq in the first place. Because, you see, this is not the first time DynCorp employees have been implicated in running prostitution rings abroad. Let's flash back to August of 2002, and meet the DynCorp whistleblowers of yesteryear:

Two former employees of DynCorp, the government contracting powerhouse, have won legal victories after charging that the $2 billion-a-year firm fired them when they complained that co-workers were involved in a Bosnia sex-slave trade...

Because of a combination of international treaties, jurisdictional loopholes and bureaucratic confusion, employees of private military companies such as DynCorp can escape prosecution for crimes they commit overseas. Most common crimes committed outside the United States are beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, and the burgeoning local law enforcement systems in war-torn regions such as Bosnia are often insufficient or unwilling to police U.S. contractors.

Salon covered that story and its aftermath extensively throughout 2002. Among the lowlights are the predilection among DynCorp contractors for women between the ages of 12 and 15 ("My girl's not a day over 12," one brags), the ties to the Serbian mafia, and...oh yeah! The whole misprision of felony thing.

Who's Been Vetted?

[Hillary loves to run around and say she has been vetted, ignoring the fact that the Republicans have pretty much left her alone for the last 8 years, and even in the 90s she was a secondary target, one punchline in a never-ending string of Lewinsky jokes. What is amazingly not talked about (okay, it isn't amazing, our media is worthless) is her lack of vetting. And while Obama has been vetted up and down by a GOP-styled Clinton campaign and a servile media, he has refused to get his hands dirty by returning the favor to Hillary. The more ignorant you are, the more likely you are to take this for weakness. It isn't that Obama can't fight, because he can, Illinois politics is no joke, rather, it is the simple fact that Obama doesn't want to attack A FELLOW DEMOCRAT. And what is striking here is not that Obama doesn't want to stab his own party in the back with right-wing talking points virtually coordinated with John McCain, it is that Hillary is so comfortable doing so. Not only is she comfortable attacking her own Party, she has engaged in that destructive tactic with gusto. And that provides an excellent look at the character differences between Obama and Hillary (and Bill). What you should never forget is that there are two candidates, one of which is a former president, constantly attacking Obama, throwing every low blow they can at him, with the help of the right wing elements in the media, and Obama has committed to fighting back with one hand tied behind his back, he pulls his punches, because he values more than himself and his campaign, he cares about the Party, and he isn't willing to attack his own Party to become president. Luckily, he is such an amazing candidate that he can kick Hillary's (and Bill's) ass all over while pulling his punches. Obama's strength is generally vastly underappreciated because there is rarely any reflection over what he is up against and what he has overcome, and the honorable way he has gotten to where he is today. Juxtapose that with Hillary and you have reason #8917 I support Obama. Anyway, here is a repost related to that topic.]

After Pennsylvania
by Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker

During the contentious runup to the Pennsylvania primary, the polling numbers (national and statewide) hardly changed. A lot of commentators concluded that Obama’s Wright/Ayers/”bitter” troubles and the Clinton attacks based on them had had no effect, apart from driving Clinton’s negatives up faster than his. I’m no pollster—I have only the vaguest notion of what “internals” are—but I don’t believe it. I’m pretty sure that the onslaught levelled what otherwise would have been a steep upward curve for the big O.

The Times, in a surprisingly angry editorial (possibly reflecting the editorial board’s irritation at having been ordered to endorse Clinton), had this to say about what its headline called her “Low Road to Victory”:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

Amen. One may doubt, however, that the Clinton campaign will heed exhortations of this kind. Hillary and her lieutenants, many of them, have evidently persuaded themselves that (a) it is absolutely certain that Obama would lose in November and (b) they are courageously braving the squeamish disapproval of bien pensants such as the Times (and The New Yorker) by destroying him before he can lure the Democratic Party to disaster. To the extent that they sincerely believe this, they are acting in a kind of twisted good faith—the kind that often marks those who have got hold of an end they see as justifying almost any means.

Their backup justification is that they are performing a service to the Party and to Obama by toughening him up and giving him practice in parrying the Republican thrusts he would face as the nominee. And they are surely right that those thrusts would be nastier than the ones he has faced from the Clintons. The reasoning is that while Clinton is (to quote myself from this week’s Comment) “a seasoned survivor of the worst that the Republican attack machine can dish out,” Obama isn’t.

Or is she? Clinton has thrown her kitchen sink at him, but—for hardheaded as well as high-minded reasons—he has not thrown his at her. (I know—turning the other cheek got Jesus crucified. But it also got Montgomery’s buses integrated. And India liberated.)

Consider this.

In the Philadelphia debate, Clinton amplified ABC’s odious question about Bill Ayers by saying piously that Obama’s “relationship” with Ayers

continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they [the Weather Underground] hadn’t done more [bombing].

(I should note here that Ayers’s “comments” were not among the things that New Yorkers—this New Yorker, anyway—found “deeply hurtful” that day. To the extent that we paid attention to them at all, we—I—found them contemptible, and we were—I was—grimly pleased that his long-dodged karma had, in a small way, caught up with him: his book tour was ruined.)

Hillary has her own vulnerability in this general area, and it is larger than the fact, mentioned by Obama in his riposte to her, that her husband, on his last day in office, commuted the sentences of a couple of old Weather Underground jailbirds. (After a decade and a half in stir, they had been denied parole, apparently unfairly. Good for Bill.) What Obama did not mention was Hillary’s internship, back in the groovy summer of 1971, at the Oakland law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. Treuhaft (Robert Treuhaft, husband of Jessica Mitford) had left the Communist Party thirteen years earlier, but Walker (Doris Walker) was still a member, and the firm was a pillar of the Bay Area Old Left. I assume that Obama didn’t mention this because doing so would have rightly pissed off a lot of Democrats, because he is running as a non-kneecapping uniter, and because there is no evidence that Clinton has or has ever had the slightest sympathy with Communism. (Of course, there is no such evidence with respect to Obama and Weather Underground-ism, either, but that didn’t stop Hillary from twisting that particular knife.)

My point is that Hillary Clinton has not, in fact, survived the worst that the Republican attack machine (and its pilotless drones online and on talk radio) can dish out. We will learn what the worst really means if she is nominated. The Commie law firm will be only the beginning. Many tempting targets—from Bill’s little-examined fund-raising and business activities during the past seven years to the prospect of his hanging around the White House in some as yet undefined role for another four or eight years to whatever leftovers from the Clinton “scandals” of the nineteen-nineties can be retrieved from the dumpster and reheated—remain to be machine-gunned. The whole Clinton marital soap opera, obviously off limits within the Democratic fold, will offer ample material for what Obama calls “distractions.” To take the most obvious example, the former President’s social life since leaving the White House will become, if not “fair game,” big game—and some of these right-wing dirtbags are already hiring bearers and trying on pith helmets for the safari. Is this a “there” where the Democratic Party really wants to go?

Update: See this detailed diary for just one example of some unvetted Clinton baggage.

Elizabeth Edwards Takes On The Media (Repost)

[Elizabeth Edwards and I disagree on health care, but we do agree that the media is worthless. In this repost, Elizabeth Edwards takes a look at the pathetic coverage of this never-ending campaign. The most striking think to pick up from this article is that only 15% of campaign coverage dealt with substantive issues. 15%.]

Bowling 1, Health Care 0
by Elizabeth Edwards

FOR the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?

Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates’ priorities, policies and principles — information that voters will need to choose the next president — too often did not make the cut. After having spent more than a year on the campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I’m not surprised.

Why? Here’s my guess: The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to the public. And I know that serious newspapers and magazines run analytical articles, and public television broadcasts longer, more probing segments.

But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.

It is not a new phenomenon. In 1954, the Army-McCarthy hearings — an important if painful part of our history — were televised, but by only one network, ABC. NBC and CBS covered a few minutes, snippets on the evening news, but continued to broadcast soap operas in order, I suspect, not to invite complaints from those whose days centered on the drama of “The Guiding Light.”

The problem today unfortunately is that voters who take their responsibility to be informed seriously enough to search out information about the candidates are finding it harder and harder to do so, particularly if they do not have access to the Internet.

Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden’s health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama’s bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with primarily administrative duties.

What’s more, the news media cut candidates like Joe Biden out of the process even before they got started. Just to be clear: I’m not talking about my husband. I’m referring to other worthy Democratic contenders. Few people even had the chance to find out about Joe Biden’s health care plan before he was literally forced from the race by the news blackout that depressed his poll numbers, which in turn depressed his fund-raising.

And it’s not as if people didn’t want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: “I want to know more about Senator Biden,” participants would say.

But it was not to be. Indeed, the Biden campaign was covered more for its missteps than anything else. Chris Dodd, also a serious candidate with a distinguished record, received much the same treatment. I suspect that there was more coverage of the burglary at his campaign office in Hartford than of any other single event during his run other than his entering and leaving the campaign.

Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?

The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate. Articles purporting to be news spent thousands upon thousands of words contemplating whether he would enter the race, to the point that before he even entered, he was running second in the national polls for the Republican nomination. Second place! And he had not done or said anything that would allow anyone to conclude he was a serious candidate. A major weekly news magazine put Mr. Thompson on its cover, asking — honestly! — whether the absence of a serious campaign and commitment to raising money or getting his policies out was itself a strategy.

I’m not the only one who noticed this shallow news coverage. A report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy found that during the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of the campaign stories focused on political strategy while only 15 percent discussed the candidates’ ideas and proposals.

Watching the campaign unfold, I saw how the press gravitated toward a narrative template for the campaign, searching out characters as if for a novel: on one side, a self-described 9/11 hero with a colorful personal life, a former senator who had played a president in the movies, a genuine war hero with a stunning wife and an intriguing temperament, and a handsome governor with a beautiful family and a high school sweetheart as his bride. And on the other side, a senator who had been first lady, a young African-American senator with an Ivy League diploma, a Hispanic governor with a self-deprecating sense of humor and even a former senator from the South standing loyally beside his ill wife. Issues that could make a difference in the lives of Americans didn’t fit into the narrative template and, therefore, took a back seat to these superficialities.

News is different from other programming on television or other content in print. It is essential to an informed electorate. And an informed electorate is essential to freedom itself. But as long as corporations to which news gathering is not the primary source of income or expertise get to decide what information about the candidates “sells,” we are not functioning as well as we could if we had the engaged, skeptical press we deserve.

And the future of news is not bright. Indeed, we’ve heard that CBS may cut its news division, and media consolidation is leading to one-size-fits-all journalism. The state of political campaigning is no better: without a press to push them, candidates whose proposals are not workable avoid the tough questions. All of this leaves voters uncertain about what approach makes the most sense for them. Worse still, it gives us permission to ignore issues and concentrate on things that don’t matter. (Look, the press doesn’t even think there is a difference!)

I was lucky enough for a time to have a front-row seat in this campaign — to see all this, to get my information firsthand. But most Americans are not so lucky. As we move the contest to my home state, North Carolina, I want my neighbors to know as much as they possibly can about what these men and this woman would do as president.

If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will have to demand it. Not by screaming out our windows as in the movie “Network” but by talking calmly, repeatedly, constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted this enormous responsibility. Do your job, so we can — as voters — do ours.

Elitism? Really?

[I've taken to ignoring the MSM a bit recently, as I want to gag (read: throw a chair through the TV) every time I hear their shameless spreading of McCain/Hillary talking points, or right-wing smears from Fox News, and pass them off as legitimate questions or analysis. I pay attention enough, enough to know that the idiotic punditry is still working its ass off to make sure that not even a shred of journalistic integrity can squeak through (if you want to see the orgy of spin, check it out here). Luckily it seems that most of the voters are able to see through the bullshit and see Hillary, if not McCain, for the shameless fakes and opportunists they are. Anyway, I think it will soon be over, and it will be most notable for how Hillary desperately pounced, and then overplayed her hand, so in memory of this ridiculousness, here is a bit of a retrospective of sorts:]

Confessions of an Elitist
by Sherman Yellen, The Huffington Post

I'm an unrepentant elitist. I must report that I even read the New York Review of Books and the London Times Literary Supplement. No kidding. I enjoy them. Not bragging, just confessing. I should have been out more playing in the fresh air when I was a kid. And most of all I deeply admire literacy and rationality in others. See, I have enough guts to start a sentence with an and? Only an elitist would do that. It's the confidence that allows us (or is it we?) elitists to toss out the rules and live by our own notion of what makes a good life or a good sentence. But what I don't have this week is patience with those who have come down hard on Barack Obama by calling him an elitist (read: snob) for making a clumsy but rational and compassionate statement about those people who cannot escape the crushing misfortune of unemployment with its debt and despair; a statement of concern for people who lack health care, and who are forced to live by the first rule of George Bush's America which states, "get rich quick or get out of sight and die quietly."

If you don't believe that small-town America is suffering from despair take a drive through some of those quaint old New England villages with their iconic white churches and their moribund Main Streets that were killed years ago by some massive Kmart mall a few miles away, a mall in which almost nothing is sold with a "made in the USA" label. It's hard to find a town without a storefront that carries the ubiquitous sign "Drug Rehab Center." It's a sign more frequently seen than "Fresh Apple Cider and Maple Syrup sold here." Small-town America is hurting. And when Obama pointed that out it was a humane judgment about the cramped and desperate lives of so many people who live far from the more prosperous cities and their opportunities. His rivals, Clinton and McCain, have tried to turn his somewhat awkward observation into a fatal political blunder. And they are doing a good job of it, word twisting is a highly competitive Olympic sport in which Republicans excel, but a gal like Hillary can easily compete. The rip snortin' gun totin', beer guzzlin' Hillary Hell Raiser, trained to shoot straight during her heroic counter-insurgency exploits in Bosnia, also knows best what the poor feel and need. Didn't she go to Wellesley College and take Miss Witherspoon's Compassion 101 course? This elitist charge about Obama has been picked up and treated with the usual intellectual shabbiness by a mainstream press, and its right wing pundits. The conservative press really wants us to believe that the world is made up of the caring rich (Bush, and McCain) and the happy poor, so that nobody does anything to alter the way things are.

John McCain -- no elitist he -- but a world class opportunist -- has picked up Hillary's song and is singing it loud for all the world to hear. He once did a lousy imitation of Barbra Streisand, but his attempt to impersonate Hillary is far better, he gets the scolding, self-congratulating tone just right. Listen to his new commercial which attacks Obama for his elitism, so filled with the glee of gotcha politics, with the bully boy chuckle scarcely concealed underneath. McCain, who succeeded in financing his ambitions by divorcing one wife and marrying upwards to his rich Cindy doesn't think that Obama has a clue about the white, rural poor. After all, how can a poor black kid ever know what poor white people feel? Hunger, fear, and desperation obviously have different DNA in black and white folks.

Yes, I've had my own problem with Obama's cool demeanor in the past but I see it now for what it is; the careful manner of a man who occasionally puts up a protective shield between himself and the world. And well he should. Let's cut to the chase, as they used to say in Hollywood. What the elite-mongers are actually doing is calling Obama an uppity ni**er and he knows it. What they are saying is "How dare this black man who was raised by a single mother on food stamps and managed to make his way through Harvard pass judgment on those poor whites who didn't have his good fortune in being born black and poor?" Why can't he be more like that decent Colin Powell who took his orders from Bush and spread his lies before the United Nations and then went home to choke on them? Or more like Condi who does a little tap dance with the truth every time she is called before Congress to testify about her egregious failures of judgment? That's the way decent black folks are supposed to behave in government these days.

If elitist means that you were against the Iraq war from the start because you were informed enough to see the horror ahead, then I am an elitist, as were so many in this country, particularly Barack Obama. For me being elitist means making intelligent judgments and rational distinctions and trying to understand the dilemma and the concerns of those who haven't gotten the breaks. Okay, I'm an elitist. But I'll sock anyone in the nose who dares to call me a snob.

Bitter and Angry in Rural Pennsylvania: Obama's Reality vs. Hillary's Fantasy (Repost)

[This is an excellent response to McCain/Hillary's fake and patronizing feigned outrage over Obama's matter-of-fact observations of the plight of impoverished rural people who have been left behind and screwed over by Washington for decades. The writer of this is a Pennsylvanian, so they can speak to the truth of Obama's comments in a way that I cannot, and a way that McCain/Hillary doesn't want anyone to hear. Please forward this to friends and family, and please visit the original page and rec it if you like the diary.]

Bitter and Angry in Rural Pennsylvania: Obama's Reality vs. Hillary's Fantasy
by astral66, DailyKos

Maybe there aren't many Bubbas driving around in pickup trucks with the classic bumper sticker "God, Guns and Guts Made America Free"  where Obama's detractors live, but here in rural Pennsylvania that line may as well replace "e pluribus unum" as the motto on the national currency.

I live in western Pennsylvania, and I can tell you, people here are bitter and angry. Poverty is prevalent. People hunt squirrels and eat them, along with raccoon stew. People also hunt deer here, not for sport, but so they can put meat in their freezer so they can feed their families. They cut wood in the forests and heat their homes with wood stoves because they can't afford to pay the gas bill. I know a guy who goes to old landfills to dig up old milk and beer bottles to sell on eBay. He uses the proceeds to buy clothes for his family at the Salvation Army (and to pay for his dial-up connection).

Racism and prejudice are ever-present here. A friend of mine is part-owner of bar in a small rural town south of where I live. I meet up with him there occasionally and watch as down-and-out people come in with their disability and welfare check money and drink it away. It's a pretty depressing place, but it does serve as the social center for a town that has seen its few industries shut down and the local people's jobs eliminated or shipped off elsewhere.

I hear the usual rants there, that it's all the fault of gays and minorities and immigrants (although those aren't the terms used, but rather the usual, virulent slurs). A black man walked in the last time I was there, and a guy near me at the bar muttered in a not-so-quiet way, "What's he think he's doing in here?" When I brought up the presidential race and Obama with another man at the bar, his response was, "there ain't no way America is ever going to vote for a black guy." Later on my bar-owner friend told me about his experience talking about Obama with another woman at the bar, and her angry response was that "it's because of half-breed n*****s like him that America is in such bad shape today."

Prejudice, racism and fear do run rampant in areas like this. People are poor. They are in bad health, overweight from a deep-fried diet, and toothless from the lack of dental care. They are unemployed. They are uneducated. They do cling to their hunting rifles and to their religious beliefs. For many, it is about all that they have. The towns around here are full of decaying, boarded up buildings. People live in rundown old trailers with abandoned cars in the front yard. I have seen people using an old car as a stable, with their goat tied to and living in it. I could drive you by a least three old houses that have Confederate flags in the windows.

So go ahead and discount Obama's talk of how bitter and angry that some of the people of rural Pennsylvania are. Call him elitist for taking the time to pass through areas such as this to listen to what the people have to say, and to then relate what he has heard to people in more prosperous parts of the country when he is asked about it. I have lived in San Francisco, and let me tell you, there is a marked difference between the general attitude there and the attitude here in the "rust belt". Go ahead and dismiss everything that Obama said as political posturing. Let Hillary and McCain "pick him apart" and parse his words. But please keep in mind that when Obama said:

"it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

That he is 100% accurate in his assessment.

I know, because I live here, my family and my friends' families have lived here for generations, and we see it every day, all around this region. There is a very fine line between poverty and prosperity here, where making above $20,000 a year puts you in the realm of the "haves", but also knowing that you're one contract termination away from joining the ranks of the "have-nots".

I come from a family of dairy farmers. I know what it's like to spend up to 12-16 hours a day sitting on a tractor for three dollars an hour, which I did through high school and every summer until I was fortunate enough to head off to college. Many of my friends were also fortunate and went to school, and then relocated to other parts of the country. Some of us were able to come back under better circumstances, but the large majority of people here are not as fortunate.

Thirty years worth of the right wing dismantling our public education system has taken its toll. Thirty years worth of mismanagement of the economy, of shutting down factories and shipping jobs out of the country, of subsidizing corporate farms and taxing family farms out of business, has taken its toll.

Yes, people are angry, and bitter, but Obama never said that they aren't resilient, optimistic or hard-working. Those are Hillary and McCain's twisted words, and for them to stand up and suggest that rural Pennsylvanians aren't fed up with the way things are, only reveals how out of touch they really are with at least this part of the country.

Of course, all McCain has to do is suggest to poor rural folk that the party of gun-control, gay marriage, and NAFTA is going to take away what little they have left, and rural conservatives will vote for him, just as they did for Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. As for Hillary, the more she "takes apart" Obama's message, the more she does the GOP's work for free. If Hillary can't see that the people of rural Pennsylvania are bitter, and angry, and mad as hell about the way things are, then she needs to step down from that one hundred million dollar platform of hers and take a real look around.

In western Pennsylvania I hear two things: the "God, Guns and Guts" crowd see John McCain as the heir-apparent to the mantle of rural conservative values; and the people who hope for some kind of change see Barack Obama as the person who understands the situation that we are in, and maybe is the one who can lead us in a new direction. What I don't hear is anyone talking about whatever and whomever it is that Hillary claims to stand for.

In the end, I think this is all a "lost in translation" much ado about nothing episode.

Going back to Obama's statement, and keeping in mind that he was speaking to a specific group of supporters in San Francisco, and keeping in mind that he was discussing a variety of "talking points" in the previous paragraph, I think that it is the absence of the word "issue" in this particular portion of his response to one of the attendee's questions that is lost in translation from the actual event to the transcript spun in the media.

So let's break it down:

"'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

Obama is offering:
- closing tax loopholes
- roll back taxes for the top 1 percent
- tax breaks to the middle class
- health care for every American

But:

"But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them."

"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter" and "As a way to explain their frustrations...they cling to" issues that focus on:
- guns
- religion
- antipathy to people who aren't like them
- anti-immigrant sentiment
- anti-trade sentiment

It's the usual laundry list of GOP hot-button talking points.

What Obama was doing was contrasting his talking points, with the tradtional GOP talking points that he has to contend with if he is going to break through and reach these traditional blue-collar voters.

I can't imagine that anyone who was in the room with Obama misunderstood this. It's only when the transcript is removed from the context in which the information was delivered that the MSM begins to spin it into something that it's not.

Colombia Free Trade Agreement: A Bad Deal for Everyone Involved (Repost)

[Here is a look at the Colombia free trade deal that Bill (and Mark Penn) has been pimping himself out for, which Obama opposes, and which Hillary says she opposes, but she is also surrounded by people who are paid to support it, and she has shown she is okay with that, and she supported NAFTA in the past, and then lied about it repeatedly, so it is hard to say. Please also note that when the Colombian military breeched Ecuador's territorial sovereignty by crossing its border, Hillary responded in typical, hawkish, pro-Colombia/anti-Chavez, free market fundamentalist, just like Bush fashion:

Hugo Chavez's order yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is unwarranted and dangerous. The Colombian state has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By praising and supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Chavez is openly siding with terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and security of the region. Rather than criticizing Colombia's actions in combating terrorist groups in the border regions, Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist groups. After reviewing this situation, I am hopeful that the government of Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in closer cooperation with Colombia on this issue. Hugo Chavez must call a halt to this provocative action. As president, I will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to support democracy, promote an end to conflict, and to press Chavez to change course.

And all this because Venezuelan President Chavez bolstered border security on his side of the border. This completely one-sided, Manichean vision of the world is exactly what has cost us so dearly in foreign relations since Bush took office, and her response putting the blame solely on Chavez, accusing him of being in bed with terrorists, while painting Colombia as a model ally in the war on terror is a perfect example of Bush-style politics, as is her insistence on calling Chavez a dictator. That brand of rhetoric is unbelievably counter productive in foreign affairs, not to mention reckless and irresponsible. And now let's take a look at who these Colombian heroes of democracy are:]

Colombia Free Trade Agreement: A Bad Deal for Everyone Involved
by Rep. Phil Hare and Rep. Michael H. Michaud

If we had been born in Colombia, we would probably be dead.

That's right. As members of our respective labor unions, the fight for higher wages, better working conditions, and a secure pension could have cost us our lives.

Thirty nine trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007, and they are being killed at a rate of over one per week this year.

Of the more than 2,500 murders in that nation since 1986, only 68 cases -- around 3 percent -- have resulted in convictions. However, many of these criminals were convicted in absentia -- meaning they may still be at large and continuing to terrorize workers.

Yet inexplicably, President Bush and some Members of Congress want to reward Colombia with a free trade agreement.

Not on our watch. The right to organize and bargain collectively is essential to human freedom. We believe passage of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) would greatly diminish our nation's reputation as a leader in the fight to end human rights abuses worldwide.

Despite President Alvaro Uribe's claim that the Colombian government has cleaned up its act, signs of trouble continue to persist.

Colombia's chief federal prosecutor's office has a backlog of over 1,300 cases of murders, threats, and intimidation involving trade unionists.

Last month, the Colombian government removed a highly respected member of a three-judge panel tasked with reducing this backlog.

And Colombian intelligence officials have been linked to the paramilitaries known for carrying out these assassinations.

Are these the actions of a 'courageous ally in South America' or of a government that has something to hide?

Historic violence against trade unionists is just one of many problems with the Colombia FTA. Like the Peru FTA, an agreement we strongly opposed, the Colombia proposal is based on the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model which led to the outsourcing of millions of high-paying American jobs and virtually eliminated the U.S. manufacturing industry.

This comes at a time when we are in recession. The economy lost 80,000 jobs in March, the third consecutive month of rising unemployment. And the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program -- a safety net for displaced workers -- remains essentially dysfunctional. Passage of the Colombia FTA would add insult to injury for American workers.

President Bush and his allies in Congress have also been claiming that the Colombia FTA is a matter of national security. We couldn't agree more.

Let's review the facts. It has already been established that Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to be a union member. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Violence against Afro-Colombians is rampant. The Washington Post recently reported that Colombian troops are killing farmers and passing their bodies off as rebels. And three of our nation's military contractors remain hostage there.

We believe defeating the Colombia FTA, not passing it, is in the best interest of our national security.

We commend both major Democratic presidential candidates for opposing this agreement -- a testament to the will of the American people. Their interests -- not business groups or conservative think tanks -- should dictate our trade agenda.

President Bush's unprecedented decision to unilaterally submit the Colombia FTA is a slap in the face to Democratic leaders and constitutes a retreat from the bipartisan pact on trade agreed to last year -- something we were skeptical of from the outset given the President's record.

We urge House leadership to use all the tools in its arsenal to ensure this agreement's demise.

Chairman Mike Michaud (D-ME) and Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) are both members of the House Trade Working Group.

[I only wish more people cared about the costs of free trade abroad, which have been plainly visible for decades, instead of only caring about it when it hurt Americans in the pocketbooks. Pretty pathetic. And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us?]

Potty Mouth McCain

McCain has a bit of a reputation in politics as being a short-tempered hothead. Here is an article about that temper, and his tendency to be a bit of a potty mouth when unhappy. This is who the Republicans have picked as their best example of presidential material:

Book: McCain Temper Boiled Over In '92 Tirade, Called Wife A 'Cunt'
by Nick Juliano

Hillary Lies Like It Is Going Out Of Style

[Hillary is at it again, the lying that is. You'd think after being caught in so many lies r