U.S. Establishing Diplomatic Presence in Iran?

Here’s my theory:

A younger, well-read student of history disguises himself as an older, white male Republican. Imagine a light navy suit, white shirt with the collar that buttons down at the corners, bright-red tie, over-sized American flag lapel pin, light brown hair - slightly graying - that’s been calling for a clip for a week. Somehow, this Navy Suit gains audience with the president - the specifics aren’t important - and extracts a thin, hollow tube from his pants - no, not that tube! - a bamboo tube.

Without notice, a dart tipped with the Secret Serum of Logic (found at one of the oldest, unnoticed library’s in the U.S.) is loaded into the thin tube. The Navy Suit raises the tube to his lips and, much like we’ve seen on TV or even practiced ourselves with paper-wrapped straws, emits a sharp, intense breath into the elongated apparatus, forcing the dart from its launching position into the neck of the President of the United States of America, who unfortunately carries the name George W. Bush and dreams of spooning Dick Cheney in the nighttime.

Not-so-coincidentally, soon after the so-called “Dart Incident,” Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik says U.S. ground troops will be “mostly finished” in Iraq by mid-2009.

Most stunning of all, a week later The Guardian claims the U.S. will establish a diplomatic presence - “a halfway house to setting up a full embassy” - in the capital of Iran, Tehran. After 30 years of relatively cool relations between the U.S. and Iran, George W. Bush has chosen a bold strategy of reaching out to Tehran in an effort to slow the Middle East country’s development of nuclear technology.

Such out-of-character developments originating from the White House cause hopeful brows to furrow in consternation over the sharp 180 (can a 180 be sharp? anyway…) in U.S. foreign policy. Theories of all kinds have emerged to explain such an enigma:

• With a little less than 200 days left in office, Bush is grasping at straws - or logic, as we call it in the left-wing blogosphere - in a desperate effort to save the embers of his legacy after a tumultuous tenure at the helm of the American government.
• Bush no longer feels beholden to his voters, donors, supporters - most of whom suffer from chronic headupassness - and is grasping at all straws in sight to have a least one, true success before leaving office.
• Bush was kidnapped and water-boarded by former Secretary of State James Baker who convinces the current Executive to thank Iran for helping us with Afghanistan in the early days following 9/11.
• Bush will want to ride the coattails of potential positive policy utilized by the next president, Obama, and claim that the strategies this new president has found beneficial were actually introduced by Bush. No one will believe the failed oilman who duped a small majority of the country into believing he’d be the best leader to steer the U.S. into the next century.
• Presidential candidate John McCain has angered Bush by trying to forge a gap of reputation between the two old, white Republicans - prompting Bush to initiate policies that follow ideology spouted by Obama, not McCan’t.
• Or, conversely, Bush wants to initiate these more leftist strategies he mistakenly believes will fail, allowing McCain to distance himself from Bush and garner voter approval after these Democratic tactics fall short. First of all, too little too late for McCain and secondly - most surprising to Bush, these strategies actually WORK. Tally-ho!
• Bush wanted to plant a diplomatic effort in Iran to cover for a spy-team meant to infiltrate Iran’s confusing and secretive government hierarchy. Little did he know that President Obama would actually use the diplomatic team for diplomacy, goshdarnit.

Nevertheless, as the global population sits stunned over their morning coffee, reading rumors of the U.S. actively extending a diplomatic hand to Iran under the direction of W, the young, well-read student of history chuckles to himself in fond memory of his morning with the president and the dart that changed history.

Decreased Violence in Iraq - More to do with Money than the Surge

It is intensely irritating to hear McCain repeat again and again that he supported the “Surge” strategy and that this strategy is responsible for a reduction in violence in Iraq. Furthermore, Obama is now whistling this tune in an effort to endear uninformed Americans and convince them of his competence on national security.

In all this talk of surge success, very little is being mentioned of the immense amount of cash being handed over to many of Iraq’s violent tribes and militias - putting vast amounts of criminals on U.S. payroll to NOT reach for their automatic weapons and plant IEDs. You got it. We’re monetarily bribing down the violence. And we’ll likely continue to do so as we reduce troop numbers.

I’m not saying I oppose this strategy. Whatever works, right? But to continuously claim “The surge is a success” without acknowledging the effect of these payoffs is equivalent to presenting a facade to the American people. Of course, we should expect nothing less. How many lies were told to garner support for the war in the first place?

Yet we hear over and over that the surge’s success has proven McCain right. I know at some point I should develop a callous to the lies, but it seems nearly impossible and we’re all left with high blood pressure and anger over our leaders’ inabilities to prioritize truth over popularity.

Finally, CNN offered an interview with terrorism expert Peter Bergen on 360 last night in which he said,

I actually think both the Democrats and the Republicans have been overemphasizing the surge. If it was just about the surge, the violence would be back up again because the surge is over. There are some underlying factors that are much more important in Iraq in my view.

One — the fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq, they basically scored a series of own goals by its Taliban-style tactics, producing this wave of revulsion against and amongst the Sunnis. Now we put up a 100,000 Sunni militia on the American payroll, people who used to be shooting at the United States who are now on our payroll.

We also see the Prime Minister Maliki, no one could say a good thing about him a year and a half ago in Washington. Turning out to be a somewhat effective leader going into Basra, taking out the Shia militias there, going into Sadr City, taking out the Shia militias there.

We’ve also seen the Iraqi army which, Anderson, is really much larger than the Afghan army and much more effective in a country which is smaller and with a smaller population.

So there were some underlying factors that actually suggest that long- term success in Iraq is plausible. It’s possible the surge, of course, was one aspect of it. But to say that the surge caused all these changes is I think simply very simplistic essentially.

Also, Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films produced a video report entitled Uncovering the Truth Behind the Anbar Success Story showing Sunni leaders who had formerly been associated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and responsible for ethnic cleansing being paid off. In an interview with Katie Halper of Alternet.org last September, Rowley indicated,

There have been a lot of reports about the fact that the people who the U.S. is working with, the supposed “freedom fighters,” the “counter-insurgents” are former insurgents. They were Iraqi al Qaeda before they started working with the Americans. That is troubling because if they were fighting the Americans once, they’ll fight Americans again. And more troubling for the future of Iraq is the fact that many of the tribes that the U.S. is working with are war criminals who are directly responsible for ethnic cleansing and who are using American support to prepare for sectarian civil war. The U.S. is funding Sunni militias. They already funded the Shia militias. They’re now funding all sides of this sectarian war.

Here’s an NPR interview with British journalist Peter Cockburn discussing U.S. payments to Iraqi militiamen.

In an April 2008 report, The Christian Science Monitor stated,

He (Abu Abdullah of the Islamic Army of Iraq) also maintains that while the US has succeeded in driving a wedge between AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) and Sunnis in Anbar Province, many of the tribesmen there who are now on the American payroll are still aiding IAI and other insurgent groups.

Members of these US-backed militias now number almost 91,000 and are paid a total of $16 million a month in salaries by the US. They are often lauded by President Bush in his speeches on Iraq.

The US military now calls these Sunni militias “Sons of Iraq.” Iraqis simply refer to all these groups as sahwas. But the Shiite-led government is resisting US pressure to fold these groups, especially the ones in Baghdad and Diyala provinces, into the Army and police. “Trust me, the sahwas are ultimately with the resistance, heart and mind,” says Abu Abdullah.

There is no debating the fact that the drop in violence in Iraq is largely due in part to the payoffs - right or wrong - the U.S. is giving the militias. I am not squabbling with this strategy. I am merely raising my voice in protest of the campaign of misinformation of the surge’s success by the president, McCain and now Obama.

We cannot judge our approval or disapproval of these candidate’s ideas if they are not straightforward. I have little doubt the empty political rhetoric will continue, but at least those of us with a minute ability to apply research and information to our opinions and decision-making can help proliferate necessary evidence to support or refute the politicians’ shameful mumbo-jumbo.

Notes on Obama’s Speech on Iraq and McCain’s Rebuttal

Notes taken live during Obama’s speech this morning:

• I cringe every time Obama flubs a line - unlike giggling with glee when McCain trips up.
• Steady the camera, MSNBC.
• The repetition of points of interest is annoying.
• As he looks from teleprompter to teleprompter, you’d think he was watching a match at Wimbledon. I’m getting motion sickness.
• Is it (phonetically) Tal-e-ban or Tal-ee-ban? Obama says Tal-ee-ban.
• I’ve said this before, Obama needs to meet with a public speaking coach who can teach him not to clip the ends of his words.
• I feel very content that this speech will overshadow Bush’s ridiculous speech this morning.
• “Securing nuclear weapons from rogue states.” Will that include Pakistan once Musharraf is removed from power?
• “Senator McCain was one of the biggest supporters of the war.” That statement should be clarified to indicate he was a supporter of GOING to war. To indicate he supported the failed strategy afterward is a stretch and I hate when the Democrats take a page out of the Republicans’ play book.
• He just said Tal-ee-ban again.
• We need ribbons for our cars that say “Remember Afghanistan” and “Our Troops are Over-Taxed and Over-Burdened.”
• “Iraq is not going to be a perfect place and we do not have unlimited resources to try and make it one.” Excellent point.
• Residual forces left in Iraq to go after remnants of Al Qaeda. I find this acceptable. I think this force should be multi-national and under the authority of the U.N., however.
• With all the talk of getting our forces out, Obama needs to address the defense contractor’s presence as well as our government’s involvement in their oil production and war profiteering.
• Tal-ee-ban again. Is this going to be his nuke-u-lar? I just looked it up on dictionary.com and it indicates pronunciation as [tal-uh-ban].
• Tripling aid to Pakistan? Would this be in return for our ability to go in and get Bin Laden?
• Steady the cam, MSNBC or I might switch to CNN…
• Goal of 80 percent of global emissions by 2050. Preach it!
• America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners. Excellent point. W, are you listening? Oh, I forgot. You only listen to people who agree with you. Or Cheney.
• Chris Matthews’ Hardball Number today should be how many times Obama used the word “moment” in his speech. (UPDATE: the Hardball number was how many times Obama mentioned the word “Afghanistan” in a speech that was meant to be about Iraq.
  
• Obama should being referring to the Iraq War as a “war of choice” more. That will help raise voter ire toward Bush and McCain.
  
• Great speech, give that speech writer a promotion! But it doesn’t distract me from his FISA vote.

**McCain plans to criticize Obama for never having visited Afghanistan and not having visited Iraq recently, yet establishing a strategy for ending the Iraq War. Does this mean that McCain believes the Americans who have not visited Iraq should have no opinion on the Iraq War? If my tax dollars are being used to perpetuate an unnecessary war, do I still have an obligation to keep my mouth shut regarding the prosecution and strategy of said war? Of course not. How ’bout this? How ’bout I use a portion of my taxes to visit Iraq so that I may be empowered to formulate a credible opinion of the war. We could set up programs akin to those European tour groups old people join so that Americans everywhere can have a say in the decisions of our government.

McCain speaking immediately after Obama’s speech.

• He called again on Obama to participate in the town hall meetings. It’s an empty entreaty similar to his pander strategies.
• McCain gives Obama quotations that indicate he didn’t think the surge would have any effect and then later claimed he always knew the surge would reduce violence. “Flip-floppers all over the world are enraged?” So, you’re enraged, McCain?
• “The surge in Iraq shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan.” This seems naive. The situations on the ground in Iraq are extremely different than the situations on the ground in Afghanistan (and I’m not just talking topography). But what am I talking about, I’ve never been there. Those countries in the Middle East are all the same!
• “Iraq and Afghanistan are not disconnected. Success breeds success. Failure breeds failure.” What? What did our “failure” in Vietnam breed?
• “I know how to win wars.” Um…which wars have you won? I forget.
• Ooooh. McCain just said Tal-ee-ban as well.
• “The drug issue in Afghanistan is the world’s problem and the world should share its cost.” True. Alternative crops is a good idea, though it hasn’t worked in Colombia and hasn’t worked in Afghanistan previously. The whole supply and demand thing…
• McCain says that we must strengthen Pakistani tribes that are willing to fight terrorists in their region and this is what has worked in Iraq. This is true. But the U.S. has paid billions to Iraqi tribes to do this and they’ve also shelled out billions to the violent tribes, “bribing” them to stop their assaults. What will happen when we stop paying? And how long can we continue to pay when McCain and Bush won’t even increase college tuition for soldiers.
• “Defeat radical Islam.” What breeds radical Islam? Poverty. Just FYI.
• “When I am Commander in Chief, there will be no where the terrorists can run and no where they can hide.” Mkay, we’ll see. Does this mean you’re going to continue the “You’re either with us or against us” line.
• “I will bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. I will do that.” (Audience gives standing ovation.) And if Osama’s in Pakistan?
• The “galvanizing” factor of McCain’s speech cannot compare to that of Obama’s.

** While speaking with Andrea Mitchell, Trent Lott reiterated the claim that McCain “cornered” Obama into going to Iraq. These Republicans know fully well that, as the most probable presidential candidate, of course Obama would have visited before the election. He probably would have gone sooner had the Democratic primary not been so protracted.

Republicans are so comfortable in their cesspool of lies - whether it’s the China drilling off the U.S. Coast, Chuck Hagel going to Israel with Obama, Obama being Muslim and Racist, and many others. The Democrats are certainly not without their own political rhetoric, but an infestation of lies has not permeated Democrat strategies they way one has Republican strategies. Have they no honor, dignity or respect for the truth? They’re probably making Baby Jesus really, really angry.

Did Obama Just Lose My Vote?

This is serious. I’ve been saying for quite a while that Obama has not yet earned my vote and I am quite happy voting for Nader to help strengthen efforts toward a multi-party system. However, I voted for Obama in the primary here in Texas and was excited to vote for the first viable African-American candidate in the U.S.

Also, this is the most important election in years, if for no other reason than the necessity to populate the Supreme Court with judges who will protect civil liberties unlike those Bush has appointed or McCain would appoint.

While I have continuously lambasted the lack of character Hillary Clinton and her husband have shown during the primary season, I would not say I have been sipping “Obama Kool-Aid.” I understand that his “Change We Can Believe In” slogan is only as effective as his ability - to put it simply - to get things done. And politicians have to work together to accomplish progress. (Unless you’re President Bush, in which case you use the 9/11 attacks and existence of terrorism to scare Americans and politicians alike into marching behind your efforts to make the U.S. more of an authoritarian regime than ever before. Ugh, the thought makes it difficult to keep my coffee and chocolate granola cereal down.)

Obama is a politician first. With a degree in Government, I never lose sight of this. While Democrats fall in love (and Republicans fall in line) we must not forget that politicians must operate within the existing confines of the Washington Dance. This will inevitably lead to widespread disapointment with Obama, when he’s president, because he simply cannot please everyone and will have to compromise in order to accomplish certain goals. A president must make decisions when no option is the right one. It’s a hard gig - the hardest one in the world; I thoroughly recognize this.

However, much of my free time this week has been spent trolling the internet for a reasonable justification for Obama’s approval of the new FISA Act of 2008. Of course, I already have my fair share of underlying bitterness because the Democrats have performed disgracefully since taking control of the Congress. They are inexplicably banner ankle-grabbers again and again despite Bush’s record disapproval ratings. Yes, they do not want to seem weak on national security, but they are greatly underestimating the American people’s desire to have their civil liberties protected in this era of heightened danger.

Congressional members have far more concern with the length of their federal careers than casting the appropriate vote - rendering them impotent in the areas of war profiteering (Diane Feinstein’s husband is a defense contractor and why she still enjoys support in California, I have no idea. BTW, she vote AYE on FISA as well), criminal activity at the executive level (erasing emails, Karl Rove and Harriet Miers refusing to testify, Valerie Plame, fixing EPA reports and much, much more), reforming health care and national energy policy, policing unfair lending practices and allowing the establishment of a credit industry that works against the American people, not for them. It inexplicable that Congress has utterly failed to inhibit Bush’s harmful activities when the majority of Americans do not favor his policies in the slightest. It is frustrating and goddamned ridiculous.

So, Obama is Change personified, right?

Apparently, not so. Yes, I have read his blog on The Huffington Post regarding his FISA vote, which proffered no substantial logic for his approval of the bill. A few gems from the piece are:

Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as president — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have.

The problem with our agreement on the vast majority of issues is that his vote on the FISA bill illustrates his inherent weakness and willingness to compromise when no comprise is needed simply to prove (which he fails to do with this vote) that he is strong on national security. This “aye” was unnecessary, dangerous, wrong, hurtful and potentially, yes, a deal breaker. Especially when assessing the guts of the bill, along with those who voted against it. On The Huffpo website, David Bromwich provides a very concise, yet in-depth look at the governmental powers granted with this legislation. I strongly recommend reading the blog and the readers’ comments below.

Among the senators who opposed the vote are Biden, Boxer, Dodd, Clinton, Byrd, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and Levin.

The bottom line is that political agreements with a candidate are moot if the candidate does not have the political strength or fortitude to operate in accordance with that agreement.

Of course, Obama’s folding on FISA was a political calculation - that’s practically consensus. And I wish he could offer an honest defense of his vote; but, alas, this theater of election season would lead any such candor to damage the candidate.

Obama will be elected president barring any unforeseen, intensely damaging and highly unlikely circumstances. Though the media portrays the presidential race as close - it is a facade. McCain’s chances of succeeding in November, in my opinion, are around 1 in 5. Incumbent parties do not win when the economy is in the tank - mentally or not (and it’s not mental, Phil, when milk, bread, cereal, gas and all other necessities are more and more expensive and the dollar is weaker and weaker). McCain is not galvanizing and voter trust of most election issues points toward Obama. I wish Obama the best and will be hopeful as he takes his oath of office.

Furthermore, I applaud Obama’s willingness to work across the aisle and understand there will be areas in which he will break with Liberals. Support of faith-based community initiatives, for one (and this coming from an agnostic).

The FISA Act, however, is so detrimental to democracy itself, my respect for not just Obama himself, but the very idea of Obama has been irreparably damaged. I would encourage hardcore Obama supporters to keep this particular vote of his in mind when daydreaming of the days to come as he takes on the heavy mantle of President of the United States of America. Perfection at this level does not exist and any romance with a candidate will certainly abate over time.

I would never cast a vote for McFlip-Flop, nor would I ever stay home and waste a voting opportunity. Also, I am a thorough, complete supporter of a multi-party system. While I wanted to vote for Obama - and was excited to vote for him - my decision was not cast in stone. It still is not cemented. However, the odds I would pull the lever in support of him this November are greatly diminished. Truthfully, I am ever more looking in Nader’s direction.

If Obama’s political contributions continue to decline, I encourage him to address his FISA ‘08 support with increased seriousness. This is no small issue for those of us who follow politics and government activity.

This weekend, I plan on purchasing Obama’s two books and will begin reading them with a large grain of salt. Perhaps this will allow me some insight behind this recent mind-boggling decision of his.

As of this point, Obama is not Hope and he is not Change We Can Believe In. He is merely Better Than Bush, but isn’t everybody else?

Review: Maxed Out

Are documentaries getting better or is it just me? At least, they’re getting more interesting. Last night, I watched Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lending (2006) and must offer my highest recommendations to those considering adding to their rental “queue.”

While this documentary is certainly a biased vehicle through which writer, director, producer James Duncan Scurlock expresses his opinions on the unethical credit industry and the government’s collusion, it nevertheless provides an eye-opening paradigm behind the every-man’s everyday experience with credit card companies. If you think you have it bad, watch this documentary - for real - and you’ll feel like you’re living large and in charge. And happiness is all in the mind, which is why the Danish are on top of the world.

It’s easy to take away from Maxed Out the the significance of the lack of regulation of the unethical credit industry by the government. It’s so cute when the Republicans and Libertarians parade their free market ideals and forget that the human element prevents these theories from successfully materializing, despite all the good intentions and numerical data. And they want to open the health care industry in the same manner - unregulated, free market doctors, medicine, scalpels. Yeah, that will work out real well! Lack of regulation has proven so effective in the housing industry, which has resulted in mass foreclosures and helped initiate a recession, and global trade, which provides us Americans cheap consumer goods by taking advantage of poor working conditions outside of our borders. Don’t ask don’t tell and the like.

What we need is a combination of economics and anthropology. The human element - which differs from culture to culture - inhibits capitalism, socialism or communism in their pure forms. China has had to mix capitalism with their brand of communism. The U.S. will never fully achieve a free market system that does not victimize the lowest common denominator. Until economists and legislators alike realize this fundamental reality and Americans stop falling for the right-wing line that all their taxes and all the government regulation only benefit the undeserving over the hard worker, we’re going to have these economic meltdowns - most especially when a Republican Congress rubberstamps a Republican White House.

But I digress as I often do.

Maxed Out hit home for me especially as I am a poster-child for financial misunderstanding and irresponsibility. To put it mildly, I bit off more than I could chew when I was in college and partied like a rock star in my early twenties. And while it can take a week to ruin your credit, it can take a lifetime to repair it. The cards are stacked against you and the system is designed to squeeze every penny from your cold, dead hands. It’s grotesque.

As a wise, old 30-something (does 30 count as 30-something?), I have seen the light and rectified my ways. What I have taken from my experience, however, is the belief in the necessity of financial training for children - especially teens. We have typing class, calculus, electives, foreign languages and yet the very basics of money-management is exempt from regular school curricula. I’m very happy to have learned about STD’s and what PCP does to the human and mice brains. But the development of my adulthood would have been greatly improved had the Texas School Board of Education seen fit at some point to include information on CHECKING ACCOUNTS, OVERDRAFT FEES, FICO SCORES, etc., etc., etc…

Few other skills in life rank above that of money management and merely having a weekly allowance doesn’t cut it. I have no idea why there are not parents at every PTO meeting calling for the inclusion of such education. We are left to our own devices and my devices were fairly shitty. I’m improving bit by bit (my stepdad gives me a subscription to Money Magazine), but you know it’s a long, hard slog and watching college loan payments the size of luxury car payments head into the wind every month still stings.

Quality of life is determined by the quality of our decisions and the quality of our decisions is largely dependent on the quality of our training and education. I knew nothing of finance when I entered my twenties, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to let avoidable circumstances dictate the outcome of my financial existence.

So, be smart, get learned and watch Maxed Out. Cause that shit is crazy.

Freaky Friday: John Edwards & Karl Rove to Debate

Did anyone catch this last Friday? The Buffalo News has learned that the University of Buffalo intends to include in its Distinguished Speaker Series a debate between John Edwards and Karl Rove on September 26. John Edwards and Karl Rove. Naturally, my mind immediately searches for the nearest comparison to such an unpredictable and unlikely competition of the minds (I use that term loosely).

The fastest duo to surface is, of course, Dopey vs. Beelzebub. But that’s too easy. I’m looking for something more nuanced. More apropos. Barbie vs. Cobra Commander? No…. Nemo vs. Ursula? No…. Luke Sykwalker vs. Jabba the Hutt? No! Not even close. John Edwards has no Force.

Gumby vs. Squealer from Animal Farm. That’s it.

Yes, I remember that John Edwards is a former trial attorney, but the images of him getting smoked by Dick Cheney in 2004 are seared into my brain. And while Karl Rove may have the morality of a dung beetle, his ability to misrepresent facts with a straight face is supernatural and would require Edwards to acquire an encyclopedic knowledge of politically-related statistics and their sources to properly refute Rove’s machinations. My not-so-amateur prediction is that John ain’t got the stuff. And I’m being kind.

If the debate is televised, I will certainly perform the masochistic duty of viewing the event - with a fist firmly planted between my teeth. Naturally, I try to avoid having Rove’s visage offend my home from the television and relegate my involvement with him by reading his erroneous comments online. Blech.

In the meantime, I’m going to entertain myself with paint.net and make fun graphics with hopeful themes.

john edwards crushes rove's head

I made Rove’s eyes red, but they may be too small to tell.

And did you see the headline on The Huffington Post this morning that Rep. Henry Waxman is considering legislation that would prevent a White House employee from being paid by taxpayer money to work on political affairs? He might wait until Obama is elected to launch this legislative attempt.

I’m encouraged by the possibility that Obama will roll back a number of powers Bush and Cheney concentrated at the executive level. McCain, of course, would not. Checks and balances are so silly, aren’t they?!

And one last tidbit of morning news - let’s give Howard Wolfson a big round of applause and wish him good luck as he joins Fox News. In a way I get it - he wants to bring a democratic voice to the network. But I also think he’s selling his soul to do it. Although, he seemed comfortable bending the truth when he worked for Hillary, so maybe he’ll fit right in.

How Obama Can Beat McCain I: Use McCain’s Words Against Him

I have never been involved in a political campaign other than my successful run for National Junior Honor Society President and my unsuccessful shot at National Honor Society President.

Inside the Campaign?

I imagine it cannot be far from living in the eye of a hurricane 24/7, the unpredictability of embarrassing revelations or gaffes, the threat of darkening skies always looming off the horizon and the ethereal moments of clarified victory when poll numbers are favorable. The tantalizing possibilities behind voter psychology, the sea of wadded paper full of unrealized brainstorm sketches, unending analysis of electoral demographics, passionate debates, cultish ideology, coffee and Redbull, pizza and deli sandwiches, and the numbers - always the numbers. I saw War Room. I know what’s up.

Having a government degree, I’m sure I romanticize the goings on in a campaign headquarters and have considered applying my efforts to local organizations. Being in Texas, however, I’ve never quite found that candidate I could wholly support and the thought of working at a phone bank does not hit me in the sweet spot. Furthermore, I’m probably one of the least diplomatic people I know and would have a hard time maintaining that vaseline-required smile when speaking with dissenters.

So, I maintain my safe, self-indulged distance while I write commentary and opinion and shout at the television when necessary - which is a lot under the current circumstances. And I’m convinced, that an outsider’s opinion (including other outsiders, not just moi) could be a valuable asset were campaign strategists inclined to listen. The whole forest for the trees argument is applicable.

2004

I wanted to rip somebody’s arm off in 2004 when nary a Democratic ad used footage of Bush’s 2000 campaign promises - the majority of which the man reneged on, becoming the disastrous tragedy we now have before us. Need I remind anyone of the 1992 stroke of genius when Democratic strategists replayed “No New Taxes” over and over again? If speech writers comb through the archeology of presidential oratory for inspiration, why didn’t the 2004 strategists use the triumphant advertising maneuvers of yesteryear? I still believe W. could have been a one-termer had his broken campaign promises been used against him.

McCain

Now Obama must turn his focus to McCain. This should be an easy one, though no one on the inside can take anything for granted, lest they find themselves confetti-free November 5. I hate negative advertising, which normally doesn’t work on educated voters, so McCain is the gift that keeps on giving because the man has already produced a library of gaffes this primary season and there’s no end in sight. Now, I’m not sure where the boundaries are, but I think ads that simply use the candidate’s words (albeit, against him) are not necessarily negative enough to turn off voters.

Here’s a recount of a few verbal missteps of McCain:

• He asserted May 29 that American troop levels in Iraq had been reduced to pre-surge levels.
• Last month, he insisted to Joe Klein that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran.
• McCain claimed last year there were parts of neighborhoods in Baghdad where “you and I” could go for a walk - even though his walk was guarded by 100 soldiers, 3 Blackhawks and 2 Apache gunships.
• Humorously, on June 2, McCain said he will win in January, kinda forgetting the election and, thus, potential victory, occurs in November. The 5th, to be exact.
• He’s forever mistaking Sunni/Shiite and Iran/Al Qaeda.

His gaffes, while funny and likely effective should they be played on a loop closer to the election, do not compare in seriousness to his policy flip-flops, which are also quite numerous:

• Ethanol
• Tax Cuts
• Abortion
• Talking w/ Hamas
• Religious Right
• Immigration
• Torture
• English as the Official Language
• U.S. troops in Iraq 100 years
• Warrantless Wiretapping
• Social Security
• Foreclosure Crisis
• Ethics Reform

Now, I’m not good at math, but I think - I think that’s more flip-flops than I can count on two hands. McCain makes Romney look like a party-line loyalist.

It’s quite possible that Obama’s camp is allowing the blogging, online and YouTube universe to attack McCain for him and biding time until polls dictate the right moment to release the marketing big guns. Needless to say, McCain’s own words can easily cost him the election and should be used against him relentlessly.

McCain’s folks are already taking note of the hard times these flip-flops will bring. I haven’t heard his campaign use the term “Straight Talk Express” in a while, but that’s most likely because it’s being used against him:

• Double Talk Express
• McCain Straight Talk Express Loses Some Wheels
• Straight Talk Express Derailed?
• Straight Talk Express Stalls
• Not-So Straight Talk Express
• Straight Talk Express Takes Scenic Route to the Truth (Ann Coulter, by the way)
• Less-Than-Straight Talk Express
• “McCain’s ‘Green Straight Talk Express’ is actually the ‘Black Energy Twisted Action Delay Machine’” (personal fave)
• Straight Talk Express Veers into Mud
• McCain’s Straight Talk Express Takes Every Fork In The Road?
• No Free Rides on the Straight Talk Express
• Straight Talk Express blows a tire in Baton Rouge
• McCain’s Straight Talk Express Hits the Gravy Train
• Detours on the ‘Straight Talk Express’

Wow. The longer this blog goes on, the more I think, Obama - you sit this one out, we’ll take care of McCain.

I’m not saying this campaign is in the bag. Not at all. Crazy things happen in an election cycle and Obama has to be vigilant (ahem, guns-and-religion) while presenting a sincere and honest resume to the American people.

Yes, the Willie Horton ads are coming. In fact, the strategist behind the Swift Boat ads, Chris Lacivita, has already indicated he’s out for blood, saying, “We will attack Obama viciously on all fair issues, whether they are national security, whether they are taxes or the economy.”

But the Obama camp has to keep in mind: 1. The Rush Limbaugh zombies and the evangelical vote McCain is losing could cancel out any underlying racists and the bitter Hillary voters Obama could lose, 2. Democrats turned out in droves during the primaries to vote and will do so even more in the general, 3. The incumbent party has not won in recent history when the economy is in a recession, 4. Bush is an anathema across the country and McCain differs from him by about .0045 degrees.

When countering McCain, Obama should stick to the issues. Despite McCain’s questionable personal history (there’s a lot of meat there), do not launch personal attacks. Do not issue advertisements with some deep-throated, long-time smoker narrator hurling accusations at McCain and making me want to take a two-hour shower after each viewing. His camp ran an ad here in Texas with a guitar riff that was just amazing. I certainly didn’t mind seeing it over and over and over would suggest replaying it during the general. I can’t find it on Youtube, though, which really bites.

If Obama can stay positive, stay on message and build his credibility with voters by delivering specific solutions (specific being the operative word here), McCain’s words alone will do him in and the Obama camp should allow them to do so. Never has one candidate in history had so much video of his many 180’s, reneges, retreats, reversals and turnabouts. It’s a campaign goldmine.

Democrats, there should really be no excuse for a loss this year. Unless a freak, unpredictable political meteorite of untold proportions manages to sabotage this election, Obama should take this thing home handily. If it even looks questionable or like it’s slipping away, an unleashing of McCain flip-flop videos in torrential volumes will at least encourage Republicans to stay home rather than vote for a dishonorable liar. That’s right. I said it.

There’s a lot at stake here. This is the most significant election in modern history and it is of the utmost import that McCain not win. Luckily, he’s been helping us make the case against him - which I, at least, will continue to do. I will be on the lookout for the next gaffe, the next flip-flop and continue to update this post each time I spot one.

It’s our time people. With the primaries over, it’s time to get focused and get smart and get organized. We have to take our hijacked government back. This is still a representative democracy and it’s time to represent!!

UPDATE:

Latest Flip-flop: Offshore Oil Drilling

Hall of Shame II: Crazy Hillary Extremists

I have reached the conclusion that any extremist on any side of the political prism is harmful to the democratic process. Once a person reaches the conclusion that their ideals are the correct ones and solidifies the certainty of their philosophy, they no longer are capable of learning. And to make good decisions, one has to learn and be informed on a continual basis. A person incapable of learning, questioning or investigating has a paralyzed mentality and should excuse themselves from the participatory stage of elections and governing.

FRINGE ELEMENT

And every candidate, every party, every philosophy has their crazies. Whether they are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage OR the Ron Paul Nutters OR self-immolating monks OR rawtarians OR the Elvis Lives Fan Club, there are groups of people who have skirted the limitations of reason and become what we call “The Fringe Element.” Obama has them, too. In the footage of his rallies, you can spot those wily-eyed supporters who see nothing objectionable, offer no criticism and refuse to view the Democratic nominee through the lens of reality. They, however, never threatened to abandon the Democratic party if he did not receive the nomination.

And this is where we address another “Fringe Element” garnering media attention. A man named Ed Hale has launched a website, hcsfjm.com, which apparently represents The National Organization of Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain. He essentially wants to unify people who would do their utmost to keep Obama from reaching the White House. Hale claims to be “one of them bible thumping, gun toting red necks and dam [sic] proud of it” who wants his grandchildren to be free from the fear of being killed by a terrorist. Apparently, if Obama is elected, at the very least, our fear of a terrorist attack would skyrocket because his version of security would create another Baghdad here in the USA. Compelling, I know.

Now, I must suspect that Ed - who is a lifelong Democrat - is actually from that demographic element I wrote of in an earlier blog who is a remnant from the days before Democrats and Republicans swapped demographics. We have many of them here in Texas and they are a reason the Oklahoman governor is a Democrat. These are people who are fundamentally conservative and tend to vote Republican, but their pappy was a Democrat and their grandpappy was a Democrat and their grandpappy’s grandpappy was a Democrat, so they’re a Democrat, too.

Ed is also one of those petrified “fringe element” types. Non-negotiable. Security over liberty. Political promises over character and judgment. I support him in his swap to the McCain camp because he agrees with McCain’s politics more than Obama’s. I get it. Not really a big loss for us true lefties and probably should have been a Republican in the first place if he was more concerned with political philosophy than party loyalty and straight-ticket voting.

REVENGE VOTERS

However, there are many Hillary supporters who are promising to vote for McCain over Obama, not because of political philosophy, but for revenge. They want to see a 2008 McCain victory because they are sure Hillary would run again and win in 2012. These people should be shot.

Exhibit A: In this video, you will see a gay man on the far right, in a brown shirt with a turquoise Hillary signature.

***Currently having technical difficulties embedding the videos.

To view the first one, click here.

He was behind her at the Kentucky victory rally as well:

To view the second one here.

He was also interviewed on the Daily Show episode, which aired June 4, in which he told Aasif Mandvi that he is as gay as the day is long and he’s voting for McCain.

These are not people who disagree fundamentally with Obama, but are simply the sorest of losers. They turned a blind eye to Clinton’s slash-and-burn, flawed campaign which gave Obama a fair and square victory (Michigan and Florida seated or not) and they were not rewarded. Nor should they have been.

Now, they are willing to continue sending our troops to an unnecessary death in Iraq, they are willing to allow our government to continue using warrantless wiretaps, make tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, squash the idea of universal health care and give their vote to a monumental flipflopper all in the name of political revenge.

I have no respect for these people who would allow their emotions to dominate a decision that requires the most educated and informed of all logic. Bush has proven that the election of the U.S. president has global consequences. Yet these people prioritize their selfish, self-centered demands over funds for AIDS in Africa, preventing a war of choice on Iran, the increase in unfair trade, environmental protection, and the plethora of detrimental Bush policies McCain would either continue or worsen.

They will have blood on their hands if McCain wins. When polar bears go extinct and children sew soccer balls and the situation in the Middle East continues to devolve, it will be their fault.

Suggestion to all you revenge voters: Pull your heads out of your asses. Thems the breaks. Vote Nader. Vote Bob Barr. But don’t relegate the rest of us to four more years of inanity and tragically pandemic destruction just because your girl couldn’t get her shit together and cared more about her candidacy than unity of the Democratic party - you being the prime example of her political selfishness.

People died and gave their lives for our right to vote. It is no small matter. Obama is most politically similar to Hillary than any other candidate. If you are going to use your right to vote not to express your political opinion, but rather your spite, you are a morally reprehensible being and dishonoring all those who fought for our freedoms.

And if you vote for McCain, fine, you’ll just be a loser again. How’s them apples?

Hell No Hillary for VP!!

With all this talk of the possibility of Hillary as VP, Hillary demanding to be VP, Leni Davis and Robert Johnson (as in, the founder of BET) pushing for Obama to ask her to be VP, I just have to add my two cents. I had another blog in mind for today, but this topic begs - no demands! - a response. Even Jimmy Carter, the gold-medal diplomat of our time, can’t hold his tongue behind those big, mamba jamba lips.

Barack, for the love of everything holy, do not, under any circumstances or for any reason pick Hillary as your vice presidential candidate. Don’t even do it as an olive branch under the strident assurances that she will not accept. You don’t owe it to her. You don’t owe it to her voters.

I say this knowing you won’t pick her and knowing she wouldn’t accept. But, still, let’s have a little chatty-chat, let’s ruminate and ponder this little political gem that has all the pundit gums flapping.

Again, you don’t owe it her. In fact, she doesn’t even deserve the consideration - for more reasons than just the fact she’s being self-righteous even in loss. I’m going to tell my future children tales of her as an example of how not to comport yourself. “There once was this cackly old lady with a blond mullet who wanted to be a dictator, but - alas, she was born in a land of democracy. She claimed to want to save the children of the world and give them lollipops. But, there were these other adults who thought it would be better to give the children tootsie rolls. So she tried to poison the other adults with her pottymouth! Still, they were smarter than she was and erected a forcefield of cleverness called Change and Hope. People liked the other adults more, so the bad lady was mad and said mean things about speeches. She tried to cheat and even say everyone liked her more! It was a shameful lie in the light of day and, finally, the bad mullet lady was shunned to the gaol of no respect. It was the greatest and worst political theater of all time that threatened democratic possibilities in the most dire of circumstances. It’s why mommy has gray hair and a bad liver.”

Yeah, I’m the next Dr. Seuss. Moving on:

Hillary’s 18 million voters are not all die-hard women. First of all, it irks me to hear over and over again that women are one of her solid demographic supporters. I would urge commentators to specify OLD women as one of her solid demographics. Us young females are not. We’re happy to hold the exit door open for her, if you know what I mean. Also, while many voted for her, I submit that the majority have already embraced the Obama nomination. In other words, all this talk of her “assets” is so much like the Bush talk of “political capital.” It’s bullshit. Time heals all wounds and after everyone hears the policies of McFlipFlop, as well as his terrible speeches (which sound like he’s reading from a cereal box), as well as the debates, they will vote for Obama. As gas, milk and bread prices continue to shock, Hillary’s voters will abandon their little islands of bitterness and head for the mainland of political common sense.

She does not wield this power of the masses that is paramount to an Obama win in November. I disagree with the premise entirely. Her voters are not simple, mindless zombie followers. They’re democrats and most of them are reasonable.

Other reasons:

• She has expressed McCain is a better candidate for president than Obama. Won’t it be lovely to see the RNC play that clip over and over during the general campaign if he picks her?
• Governing with her would be pure hell. There’s a reason Spitzer chose blind ole adulterer Patterson as his lieutenant. You want the VP to be beneficial, but not powerful. (Remember, the Bush/Cheney dynamic is an anomaly)
• Worse than Bill as First Gentleman or whatever, would be Bill as Second Gentleman. Then he would really feel free to grab as much poon around NY and DC as the viagra popper can handle - while simultaneously lecturing on policy. Just look at the man.

I could go on and on, but really, he’s not going to pick her. Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg is on the committee to help chose the VP nominees and she’ll help Obama make the best decision.

Last comment reserved for Joan Walsh: You should be labeled “Clinton supporter” when you choose to air your opinions on television. Your commentary is one-sided as you see what you wish rather than assessing events as they are. It’s not a big deal. We all do that. But call a spade a spade. Your analysis is biased and should be labeled as such. Plus, quit tilting your head when you speak and getting all pissy when people disagree with you. It’s annoying.

Touchdown! Barack Obama Named Democratic Nominee

Jeeeeeeez. Sigh. Phew.

I think the gloriousness in my emotion is more directed at the fact that Hillary lost than that Barack won, in all truth. Most of my blogs on this issue have focused on her lacking rather than his qualities. I’m sure she won’t go quietly into the night but at least I’m not having heart palpitations with the intruding thought that the presidential contest will be between Hillary and McFlipflop. It’s a good night with a sentiment that will pass quickly as the real mudwrestling begins.

That being said, Obama still has not earned my vote. Now that he has clenched the nomination, it’s time to read up on his books - my mom said she received a right-wing email today that included shockingly racist quotations from his books. I told her to forward it to me so I can check it out, but I’m not holding my breath.

Another consideration upon which I now must focus is how strident Republican support and participation is this election and if it’s cemented that Texas will go red in November. Everyone I know says something different and I don’t even want to hope that TX can change gears. Remember, high gas prices are a GOOD thing here.

So, my preliminary thoughts are: if it’s close here in TX, I’ll vote Obama. If it’s not, I’ll vote Nader - which will really be a vote in support of the multi-party system. Only time will tell and with a primary season so cattywampus, who the hell knows what’s going to happen in the general?!

Used paperback copies of The Audacity of Hope are only $7.89 on Amazon right now. Score.

Puerto Rico Primary

In celebration of Hillary Clinton’s predictable win in Puerto Rico, I thought I’d remind everyone that Puerto Rico and Guam do not actually vote in the U.S. general election.

So, when Hillary Clinton tortures us with repeated, constant, never-ending claims that she won the popular vote, let’s take into account that Puerto Rico and Guam’s electorates matter not AND she’s discounting Obama’s caucus votes AND she’s counting Michigan, which is ludicrous because he wasn’t even on the ballot.

So, congratulations, Hillary. You still suck.

Reaction to DNC Rules Committee Meeting

Damn.

That was AWESOME! They should televise all these political committee meetings. Especially so we voters can see first-hand when we’re getting screwed. This time, however, I thought the DNC Rules Committee did a good job with the task they were given. Hell, it was better than the Super bowl for us political junkies.

Michigan/New Hampshire Squabble

Let me say first I learned an extremely important historical fact that altered my opinion of the Michigan Primary leapfrog and I wish I had known it sooner. Senator Levin, speaking on behalf of Michigan explained that back in 2004, the DNC Rules Committee decided that New Hampshire would go third in the primary schedule and the second spot would rotate among the states. According to Levin, New Hampshire decided they would not abide by these rules, as you can view here, and scheduled their primary in the second primary position. From what I have researched, in 2006, the DNC Rules Committee recommended New Hampshire hold their primary January 22, 2008 and Nevada take the number 2 spot by holding their caucus January 19. Obviously, New Hampshire decided it did not have to follow DNC recommendations and did whatever their politically privileged little hearts desired.

This is extremely important. New Hampshire received a waiver from the DNC and was allowed to sidestep the “rules” - which angered Michigan who then opted to advance their primary anyway. Well, obviously, with the machine politics that somehow inserts itself into our system and poisons the well of sincere democracy, the DNC - probably not wanting to encourage primary scheduling chaos - refused an egalitarian solution to the issue and banished Michigan to the netherworld of irrelevancy whilst grabbing their ankles and giving spoiled little New Hampshire their second place lest Concord pitch a grand mal and thrust the party into primary warfare that could allow the Republicans to ride the wave back into the White House.

Got it? Didn’t think so. It’s all very tawdry and shameful and undemocratic - which is what you get when you refuse to support a viable multi-party system and cede our government to big-government Democrats or Corporatocracy-Republicans.

In any case, I found myself having much more sympathy with Michigan today than I did yesterday. However, I still agree with the punishments meted out by the DNC Rules Committee to Michigan and Florida because one simply cannot have states running around willy-nilly, flotsam-jetsam setting their primaries whenever they may.

Primary Scheduling

Obviously, someone needs to be the voice of reason in this whole clusterf*#k and I kindly offer myself up for such a position - even though I am not a Democrat (I research all candidates and tend to vote all over the place and am, therefore, Independent).

1. Move all primaries back to March. It is ridiculous to have the primaries sneaking up every election season, lengthening the campaign season and wasting hundreds of millions of dollars when people should be saving for their retirement or their children’s college educations rather than donating to lost-cause campaigns. Some of you may think the Democrat Party would do themselves a disservice by moving their primaries back and allowing the Republicans to hold their primaries first. I disagree. Without doubt, this prolonged Democratic primary season has kept John McCain largely on the second-page of the news cycle. This would continue to happen as coverage follows the Democratic primaries, the lone Republican candidate is forgotten. Yay.

2. Rotate the schedule among the states so that each year, states take a different place of influence on the calendar. To give Iowa and New Hampshire the position of privilege every year is at most undemocratic and at the least illogical and beyond reason.

3. All primaries must be primaries. None of the caucus bullscheiβe! Old people, people who are working, etc. cannot attend caucuses and cannot have their voices heard through their presence. Either have a mail-in vote (sketchy) or have an ID-required vote. That is the best way to ensure democracy is actual and we are not hypocritical in our claim of having the best electoral system (although, we are anyway because of the presence of the electoral college).

Basic Reaction to the DNC Rules Committee Meeting Itself

Allow me to preface this section by saying that due to the Saturday designation of the meeting, I missed all that happened before 11:30 a.m. and didn’t catch any of the debate regarding the Florida situation. I heard it was good, though. Also, because they came back so late from lunch and I ate a huge one myself, I missed a bit of the debate before the Florida vote. Whatever.

Best line of the day: Carl Levin quoting Will Rogers, “I belong to no organized party. I’m a Democrat.” Hear! Hear! Well said.

Former Michigan Governor Blanchard, when addressing the rules committee on behalf of Sen. Clinton, was way annoying in his intro. I mean, here they are trying to decide how naughty Michigan was and he has to take up all this time talking about how he was raised by a single mother. What???? Exit stage left, guv. jeez.

Michigan and Florida peeps keep claiming the voters have been punished enough. How have they been punished? By having national media attention heaped on the ineptitude of their states’ party leadership? Give me a break. Now, if they had each been tasered when they entered the voting booth, we could talk about how they’ve been punished. Politically, I would equate the last four months as a day at the spa for those leap-froggers.

Um…Can anyone tell me why there aren’t young people on the rules committee? Yeah, yeah, I saw a few members that were probably in their 40’s. But, I’m 30, so 40 is old and if they want to be appropriately representative of the U.S. demographic, there definitely needed to be more Hispanics, more Asians, and more young people, yo! I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to find a young, deserving sprite with an intelligent opinion. For real!

Lastly, did anyone catch those Hillary protesters?! I’m embarrassed. I really am. Seriously, they were all white, female and over 50. It was ubiquitous jiggles as they raised their hands in the air and chanted “Denver! Denver!” First of all, yawn. Second of all, come up with a better slogan, like “The Committee Sucks!” or “Michigan Rules!” or, my personal favorite, “Your mother is a whore!” And, at the end, there were only about 25 of these menopausal renegades left standing at the base of the escalator shouting and watching as no one paid attention to them. Babes, you picked the wrong horse. You chose a candidate that matched your demographic rather than one with character and good judgement. Face the music and eat shit. Is that harsh? Hmmm. Somehow, I don’t care.

Really, though. Even if Clinton appeals the decision and takes it further, she will still lose. Even if hell freezes over and the DNC seats Michigan in full as the votes were cast in the primary - which they shouldn’t - she would still lose. But hey, way to divide the party and anger Democrat voters so they can’t rally around Obama the way they want. Way to distract Obama from his real task of kicking McCain’s ass. Way to place personal ambition over national progress. Way to go, Hillary. You’re hypocritical, dishonorable and, more than anything, you have a mullet. Go away. Really, just go.

Well, GREAT Saturday! One of the best Saturdays ever. They need to televise these meeting more often. It’s time for a margarita and, being from Texas, throwin some ribs on the grill! Yeeee-friggin-haw, people!

(and i don’t give a shit what my teacher-sister says, I am NOT checking my spelling on this blog. it’s party time)