Former Reddites And Indies Leap Onto Democratic Party

As I noted at All Things Democrat, I think there are a host of reasons so many former Republicans and thirdies/Indies have joined new voters flooding into the blue party, among them:

* excitement with the Dem candidates
* Bush - GOP scandals backlash
* that up to 80% of Americans feel the Bushies killed the economy and feel the country in all respects is headed 110 MPH in the wrong direction
* a desire to belong to the only party where they can even dream someone will listen to them
* absolute terror (and not of rogue bombers)
* fear for their children in Bush’s economy and Bush’s wars, given how John McCain praises his efforts

Alas, it will be up to the Dem Party leadership, itself not a single camp, to keep them through November and beyond. Feet to the fire, people; feet to the fire.

A Blogswarm To End All Swarms? Dream On!

However, the March 19th blogswarm commencing now is not to be taken lightly. Indeed, this war has never been a lightweight when it comes to brutality, sheer horror, the depths of human depravity, the ridiculously small amount of lying it took for Bush to get America to buy into a war that was not, nor was it ever, making torture sound like the most patriotic thing an American can do, anything to do with September 11th or al Qaeda, etc.

The race in November is, at its core, part of a much more fundamental competition against those who turn fascism into proud patriotism and bankrupted our nation at the same time securing record profit for banks who brought about the foreclosure crisis and energy companies demanding tax payers build them free refineries while we say thanks! for those $4/gallon at the umps.

We need a leader who can take us OUT of Iraq ASAP and not in the 100 years or so Republican presidential candidate John McCain recently proudly proclaimed it may take.

It's Getting Nasty Out There... And I'm Not Talking About Weather

(No, if I talked about weather, I'd use plenty of four-, six-, and even voluminously polysyllabic words as I curse. Vermont has actually had a 36-hour respite from our daily 12 inch dumps of snow and frozen rain BUT...)

What I'm talking about is the talk between some Democrats. And no, I'm not talking solely about Hillary Clinton and her entourage vs. Barack Obama and his Oprah machine. Every day in my travels, mostly online but also off, I see people beating up the other candidate in ways that would give the anti-Clinton elves like Ann Coulter jealousy that they didn't think of the nastiness first.

OK, true, neither Barack nor Hillary is Perfect, by whatever definition we choose to assign to that term. And as much as I have long lists of pros and cons for each of the two, I'm still feeling rather deadlocked, Vermont primary over aside.

But they're like soooooooo freaking much better than what the Republicans want to give us - John McCain, one of those rare men who is actually much more difficult to deal with when he thinks he's winning than he is petulant and tyrannical when he's not winning (see the leadup to how he quit the 2000 presidential race and his frequent meltdowns, usually in the media's face).

Some call McCain a war hero. I once did. But the first time he said it was worth it to stay in Iraq when he knew we have lost SO many soldiers and far more innocent Iraqi civilians meant he was no longer a hero, but another ambitious dickhead with a God complex who never minds leading lambs to slaughter "for a good enough cause" (read: his own).

And when I remember who I don't want to see in the White House next January, Hillary and Barack sure look pretty damned good by comparison. Maybe we can evolve them toward protection by getting them into office and then getting them to do the will of the people (for a change).

Is It Just Me Or Is Everyone Dead Tired Of The Political Partying?

Once more, the Republican Party figures it's the right one to choose WHO the Democratic presidential challenger in November must be. Meanwhile, idiots who tend to get this stuff very wrong - and with someone like CNN's Schneider rarely noted for the sake of fairness to be a major Republican type/American Enterprise Institute "fellow" when providing "non-partisan" analysis - insist that Barack has to be the candidate because John McCain and Hillary Clinton will tie each other up.

Uh, I'll ignore the BSDM implications of that last sentence - not because I'm a pussy but because I can't think anything sexual about either Hillary or John within the same week in which I want to be able to keep down my supper.

YET. What I think this all mostly amounts to, in all seriousness, is the GOP playing its usual game of "Dare Ya" with the Dems and - as happens all too often - the Democrats do exactly what Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, et al want them to do, which is usually the exact opposite of what the American people happen to tell them is needed.

The Loss of John Edwards Is The Loss of a Voice For Regular Americans

Yesterday was a very bad day for Americans who are not wealthy, don't own mega corporations, who don't have health care or job security or big political connections.

I won't pretend that I'm not bitter, sad, and very angry that Democratic presidential nominee candidate John Edwards suspended his campaign yesterday. I thought he and his wife, Elizabeth, and many fine Americans of all economic backgrounds, waged a brave and brilliant campaign that focused on something almost NO ONE else in this campaign, short of Dennis Kucinich who dropped out last week: the rising majority of Americans suffering at the bankrupting of America by Republican rule and Democrat-capitulation.

We ALL lost, regardless of your party or preferred candidate, when we let the media and the Republican party turn this race only into an Obama-Clinton slugfest, and let Edwards get pushed ever back and finally out of contention. Unlike most - virtually ALL - presidential candidates since I became eligible to vote in 1980, I really believe Edwards meant just about everything he said. And that Elizabeth, with incurable cancer, insisted he run AND participated with him, impressed the hell out of me.

As much as I can't imagine voting for ANYONE but a Democrat in November, I do not feel either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton speak for the majority of Americans. I think they, at another time, would be viewed as somewhat moderate Republicans. But, as I've said, if Republicans won't elect moderate Republicans to office, why the hell should the Democrats. All I can do is hope that we hold their feet to the fire if one of them wins Election 2008 and that they are just sounding "conservative" and ever so careful during the race, while they show less concern for millionaires and billionaires and corporations once they get to the Oval Office.

The South Carolina Democratic Debate: Who Won? Not Us

If I had to sum up my reaction to the South Carolina Democratic debate Monday night in just one sentence, I would paraphrase what contender John Edwards said, "Excuse me, there are three people in this debate, not TWO and with all this squabbling, how many kids will be able to get health care or go to college because of this meanness."

Not only did this become a Hillary-Barack slugfest with their behavior along with how debate host CNN's Wolf Blitzer handled it, but the media after the fact seemed to ignore that Edwards was even present. Most of the clips of it shown offered no glimpse, much less a soundbyte, from the former North Carolina senator.

The relatively few who DID notice Edwards was there, like Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown, noted that he came out as the soul of reason, the only one who realizes this isn't about Hillary or Barack or even himself, but a nation filled with hurting people who can no longer afford their mortgages, their health insurance, or to be guaranteed a decent education for their kids. As Newsweek's Howard Fineman pointed out with Keith, if Clinton-Obama fights like this continue for the next month, Edwards is almost guaranteed to come out ahead of both of them put together.

Finally, the media was far more focused on the arguments between the woman candidate and the black candidate, making it sound like it was just wrong. As a pacifist and as someone who rarely feels she learns much from arguing, I'd agree. However, the media ONLY looks at Clinton and Obama and the fighting, giving almost NO attention to harsh words exchanged between Republican candidates or many of the lies the GOP runners tell about the Democrats as well as their own voting/business history. Given how the media presents this stuff, how can we possibly trust their overall analysis? Hell, they didn't give Mike Huckabee this kind of heat when he came out a few times last week to declare that the U.S. Constitution must be completely rewritten to document the word and laws of His God - something that affects all of us a HELL of a lot more than whether Hillary and Barack love each other or engage in verbal smackdowns

John Edwards: Stay or Go?

Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report discusses the big question(s) before 2008 Dem presidential candidate (and John Kerry's VP choice in the 2004 race), John Edwards, regarding whether it's time for him to pack it in or continue on toward the Dem convention this summer which is what Edwards has said he will do.

As I've said, I'm undecided at this time. However, Edwards (along with Dennis Kucinich) comes closer to my "ideal" candidate than do Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who, IMHO, are too willing to make concessions I don't like, don't believe are good for the country in its current shape (which isn't all that good). To me, both represent the DLC approach to Democrats which I find too much like middle ground Republicanism to help Democrats as a whole. If the Republicans don't want to elect moderate Republicans, why should Dems do it for them?

Interestingly enough, I did NOT support Edwards in 2004 though I came to support the Kerry-Edwards' ticket simply because Edwards was on it and I saw a progressive-ism growing in him that seemed utterly absent from Kerry. The Edwards running today is a much-changed man, I believe, from 2004 and I do NOT believe this is an act. John Edwards' approach on universal health care, the working class, and so many other issues.

Right now, his campaign isn't doing super great. But what's strange is that he's got at least half the delegates of Obama and Clinton WHILE, where Republicans like Thompson and Giuliani barely have a handful of delegates BETWEEN them, pundits aren't shouting to push Fred and Rudy off the campaign trail as they are with Edwards. Why? What's the difference? Could it be that Edwards is simply not "corporate money" enough for the DLC crowd while among Repugs, Rudy and Fred will definitely sell their souls?

What's your take?

Chris Matthews, Hardball, Mea Culpas, And An Embarrassment of Rich (and Neverending) Embarrassments

Salon starts of this piece about how MSNBC's Hardball host, Chris Matthews, has caused the Internets (all of them!) to be agog about his terribly treatment of Hillary Clinton and goes on to say he's offering his mea culpas, which may or may not be because he could lose his job otherwise.

But let's be honest here: almost everything that comes out of Matthews unchecked and mealy mouth, usually about Democrats in particular, has been damned embarrassing.

Matthews started his very erratic slide - and this tool was never the most sharply calibrated instrument to begin with - when he went totally gaga about how MANLY Bush looked in May 2003 with his stunt landing on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln to announce "Mission Accomplished" and "all combat pretty much over in Iraq". Matthews literally noted Bush's (quite obviously) padded crotch and opined that every woman in America had fallen in love with the brainless wonder and every man was proud that, if they had to have a president who had a bigger codpiece than they did, at least it was "this MAN's MAN". (Geez, I want to retch just thinking about this.)

Thus, Matthews simple-minded diarrhea of the brain isn't something that started with this election cycle. It's just that he's getting exponentially worse. In addition to the Hillary remarks, he's said Obama was inspiring because he did so well in Iowa considering he's a true candidate of the third world. Uh, I know Chicago has problems, but when did Illinois join the third world? And it gets worse from there.

Sadly, the only thing MSNBC is doing in having Matthews plastered on EVERY presidential campaign focused broadcast is to render useless the little bit of better analysis they DO have (and considering their team, we're pretty much down to Keith Olbermann who shouldn't have to be paired with a fellow host so incompetent he could be named a major Bush appointee).

"Everything's PERFECT With New Hampshire Primary Vote Recount" - Unless You Bother to Read The Numbers

The stench wafting across the border is riper than Cabot Creamery's special blue cheese. Cough.

Bradblog is all over some of the irregularities already found with New Hampshire Democratic Primary votes recount (Republican recount to come after the Dems); I visited Brad AFTER I saw this happy horseshit on WMUR (a New Hampshire TV station's Web site). From WMUR (for MURky fact-gathering, perhaps?):

The continuing Democratic primary recount in New Hampshire has not found any voting problems.

As of yesterday, even TINY counties were noting that optical electronic scanners had reported HUNDREDS of ballots were blank (thus not counted) when they were indeed marked for a candidate.

Something really doesn't meet the stink test here. And Diebold may have changed its (bleeping) name, but it sure hasn't changed its rigged machinery.

Race and Gender NOT Just Dem Issues, IMHO

According to this MSNBC happy horseshit, race and gender are becoming big factors in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign. But that rather IGNORES the fact that race and gender have ALWAYS been big factors on the right - and the farther right you go, the bigger the factor - which have pretty much FORCED them to be issues for anyone who doesn't think blacks, women, and other minorities don't belong strictly doing the dirty work for the wealthier white so-called Christians.

BTW, I hate that in 2008, we're discussing gender and race as much as we are. When I was a wee child in the 60s, I envisioned a time when these would not be big issues. Apparently, I was wrong.

But it's just as wrong to pretend that race and gender are only issues for Dems when the Republicans have never put forth a serious candidate of color and one who doesn't have a penis. This speaks VOLUMES about their fears and dark desires, IMHO.

Was New Hampshire's Primary Vote Count ACCURATE? We Need To Know: Here's Why

Last week, I noted that Ohio Congressman - and still Democratic presidential hopeful - Dennis Kucinich (along with a Republican few know) demanded a recount in New Hampshire to carefully recount the votes cast there last Tuesday. But what's gone under the radar is the WHY: that in the Democratic primary alone, whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama won, on the surface, depends on how the votes were counted. Specifically, the hand-counted votes seemed to go to Obama; the electronic machine counted ones seemed to favor Hillary.

I very much applaud Kucinich for making the demand; we NEED to know if there is a problem and, if there is, whether it's willful or a deliberate cheat. While our (already, if not always so fairly or appropriately) elected leaders have already kissed away true voting reform until 2012 at the same time that those in the know indicate that, even if verified voting reform were enacted TODAY, we can't even be sure the 2012 vote will be who we actually elected.

As you might imagine, there is HUGE doubt as to this November's validity of vote. And if you aren't paying attention to this, you may deserve what YOU get, but I don't think the rest of us do.

Schizophrenic Iowa Caucus Candidate Results Math

With perhaps less than 25% of Iowa's precincts reporting in the big caucus today, NBC has already projected Mike "I put the suck in" Huckabee as the winner of the GOP race there and perhaps Barack Obama as the winner of the donkey lane. (As I type this, CBS News seems to be projecting the same). But there are some problems here, not the least of which is that 25% is a long way from 100% and that we already saw this kind of "jump the shark" math make a complete and utter mess out of the "easy Bush steal" of the 2000 Florida vote where all the networks went back and forth with who won.

Let's start with the Democrats. Though Obama is now projected as the Dem winner, the last numbers I saw actually put John Edwards ahead, followed by Obama and Clinton. Strangely enough, however, even when Edwards held a good percentage lead over the other two, NBC's and some of the other networks' pundits were making it sound like this was great for Obama and a big loss for Edwards. Uh.... huh?

Some of the same pundits were calling a vote for any Dem but Hillary an "anti-Clinton" vote. Gee, who knew that Democrats only had two choices: Hillary or NOT Hillary? They also saw the votes as broken down along specific lines: all blacks and those whites who happened not to like Hillary all voted for Obama, according to these puny pundits, while all women and those blacks who didn't like Barack handed their support to Hillary. Now this wouldn't explain how Edwards still comes out so strong, but this simplistic twit shit doesn't make much sense otherwise anyway. Earth to Pundits: not all blacks, not all women, not all "there is no such thing as evolution and mankind and the dinosaurs began to live contemporaneously with one another on Earth about 5 minutes ago" fundamentalist fruitcakes all think, act, and vote alike.

Another weird Punditry spin, this one espoused by MSNBC's Chris "I jump on board whichever ship isn't sinking quite as fast at the moment" Matthews, is that Obama is somehow more a child of Kenya than of the U.S. To hear Matthews talk, you'd think that Barack arrived in this country about 10 minutes before the caucus. Perhaps I've missed something, but I don't see Obama as anymore (and Matthews actually used this reference) "a child of the third world" than Mike Huckabee is the voice of intelligent Christians (of which I'm not sure Mike is one), or Rudy Giuliani is the voice of adulterers everywhere, or that Hillary is just another Bill.

Meanwhile, Matthews is rather "kind" in noting that Huckabee seems out of touch with what's going on in the world or even in this country. Huckabee, for example, is claiming he appeared on Jay Leno's "The Tonight Show" last night not knowing there was a writers' strike going on (and if you believe this one, than kindly believe I'm a 6 foot tall anorexic natural blonde 17 year old who wants someday to be as smart as the "so dumb she almost makes Paris Hilton seem like she has an IQ in the double digits" Miss South Carolina). But even if you buy (and you shouldn't) Huckabee's claim of ignorance on crossing picket lines, he's equally clueless about a number of other far more important points, such as Pakistan's politics and his repeated statements that religious freedom and true democracy in the US can only be achieved by forcing every American to be baptized into his evangelical faith and to rewrite the Constitution based on his version of the Bible.

To sum it up, if the media's coverage of the Iowa caucus tonight is any indication of how the rest of their reporting on the November's upcoming presidential vote will go, we're in even bigger trouble than we've been.

Think About Next Thanksgiving

When we approach Thanksgiving 2008, we _should_ already know who won the 2008 presidential race (but it's hard to exclude the possibility the Bushies will pull either a 2000 vote cheat/a 2001 "Rudy tells NY he must stay mayor after 9-11"/a Musharraf end-run around democratic vote this last month).

I suspect certain things will be true by then and while I'll tender some here, please keep in mind that what I predict does NOT mean what I necessarily want to have happen AND that I'd like to see what your predictions are for this time next year.

Mine:

* I don't think it's a given that the Democratic candidate WILL win the 2008 presidential race as much as some would like to believe it is; in fact, because we've allowed "fair election" policies to languish rather than get enacted, we've made it more likely there will be incredible shenanigans pulled in 2008

* IF a Dem wins, it will be Hillary - a choice that many Dems and Republicans will not embrace; if it's Hillary, we have ourselves to blame

* If a GOPeeuponus wins, it will be Rudy Giuliani, and that will be a disaster for the world as well as just us

* Before the 2008 race, we will be in a fight with Iran - whether it's full blown war which I expect it to be or not, it's still wrong

* A fight with Iran will make the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seem like child's play; it will further bankrupt us financially and militarily and will ensure that those who want to hurt us have more free rein to do so because our resources will be committed in Iran

* Iran's Ahmadinejad was RIGHT about one thing this week: the American dollar is worth almost nothing; the longer the current GOP policies prevail, the worse our dollar will get and more and more and more Americans will suffer

* ALL of the bad inherent here CAN be changed if WE get involved and give as much passion and energy to changing events as we do to carping about what is wrong; NOTE this: it's critical - we can affect a change but only if we DO something more than complain and blog and slog

What say you?

One Thing NOT To Be Thankful For This Week

Karl Rove's new "fair and balanced" column for Newsweek has debuted. Newsweek actually has the nerve to claim it gives balance to political issues. And - wonder of wonders - his first topic is "how to beat Hillary Clinton next November."

Excuse me?

Not even still-Bush-supporting Republicans can possibly believe that line of bull.

Of Catfights and Clintons and Cretins - Part 3

[Ed note: See Part I and Part II.]

Also as the holiday weekend revved came word of two Hillary Clinton books due out soon and another on the Clintons available long before the 2008 presidential election. Apparently ALL of these books "which have been touted as 'Hillary exposes".

And do you know what these scandal peddlers tell us BRAND SPANKING NEW about Bill and Hillary (which the right likes to call "Billary") Clinton? Here goes a list of items mentioned by mostly rightwing nutcases but also dim types like Chris Matthews:

That Hillary is calculating and competent. Really? Gee. How did that happen?

Oh wait... she went to good schools and was taught that critical thinking makes far more sense than "intelligent design." After all, MY GOD, what will we tell the children if they see a woman running for this nation's highest post is both calculating and competent? And remember the right's big cry during Monicagate? "What will we tell the children about blowjobs?!?

Is it much better to have a coke-addled dim bulb in the White House like Bush whose ONLY three skills are):

1. Smirk
2. Endanger America with every single act
3. Pass off any really important and respected parts of decision making and country-building to the most incompetent and corrupt people to walk this continent's soil?

As for the "resurgency" of the Hillary-Only-Stood-By-Her-Man-2-Win-Votes, puh-leez! After all those millions Ken Starr wasted of OUR money while keeping our attention onto Monica Lewinsky and blowjobs and some "anatomical oddity with CLENUS' penis (noted by rocket scientist Paula Jones) while OFF Al Qaeda and clear signs of danger, do we really have to sit through this crap again?

Just as with every other American, it is no one's business what decisions and deliberations and dilemmas these two mature, intelligent people make toward the present and future of their marriage. Neither of them owe an explanation.

If anything, I'd say a lot of parties should apologize to Billary for letting them be turned into a soap opera. Then these same folks need to apologize to ALL of America for keeping its attention on Gary Condit and Clinton's penis and the West Wing creator being stopped by airport security for traveling with psychedelic mushrooms RATHER than upon clear and present dangers on the horizon as Bush took over.

Carter Is Worth More Than A Stinking Bush With Root Rot Anyday

Over the weekend, there was much hooing and hawing in Washington and the media as a whole about remarks ventured forth by former President Jimmy Carter that touched on, among other things, foreign policy - how men like Nixon and even Reagan (to some degree) worked the idea while the current (Bush) administration is either "anything goes" kissing cousins or "we'll nuke ya if we don't like the set of your eyes".

Bush fired back with his dismissive smirk, in which he not only dismissed Carter as irrelevant but more than 7 out of 10 of his fellow Americans because they don't see the great Bush "vision". [I also hear Bush gets very ticked when any former president is addressed as "Mr President" when that is the proper address.]

Hey, Carter was not a perfect president, but he's probably the most intelligent, walks the walk as well as talks the talk, well reasoned, and American-and-world loving a former president we have... or have had. Carter's built homes, monitored voter fraud watches, and done so much more since he left office that it's not hard to day Jimmy became a great man only after he left the Oval Office. Compared to the "never will be a MAN" in office since January 2001, give me Jimmy anyday. Bill Clinton's gifts to America need another decade yet to see if any of his acts do more than for his memory and Hillary.

Cheerfully signed, one of only two thirds of all Americans whom Bush finds irrelevant.