gail collins is an idiot

gossip post

this is my gossip post so enjoy.

1st up, tacky, tacky, tacky. what else to expect from michelle obama but that dress last night? omg. she already suffers from huge hips, no waist and small breasts. wearing a black dress with read across the hips and boobs only emphasized her faults. without the red it would have been a fine dress. with the red, along with maximizing her flaws, it made the dress look like a cheap t-shirt.

we'll leave out what red might have meant just like we'll pretend closeted lesbian katharine hepburn wasn't making a political statement by wearing pink to decry mccarthyism.

we'll instead move onto another elderly actress.

8 of you e-mailed to ask why jane fonda is returning to broadway?

i got on the phone (and didn't call c.i. - to be clear, c.i. wouldn't have given me any dirt on jane).

fonda has no career. georgia rules flopped like a dying fish and she is as much responsible for that as crazy lindsay. equally true is that she was calling out lindsay when the film was debuting and it's thought that didn't help the box office.

she attacked hillary which irritated a number of people and this was after she was box office poison. as c.i. has noted, she took to hanging out with the wrong crowd and that only lowered her further.

there were no film offers and the only thing she had prospects of were t.v. roles (and not strong 1s). she's been insanely jealous of the praise estelle parsons has been receiving.

she's put some of her own money into the production which helped guarantee the role.

now for non-gossip i did call c.i. because i've read 800 different things. c.i. cleared up the numbered items.

1) jane was not a lead in strange interlude. it ran briefly on broadway as a benefit for the actor's studio. jane had the small role of madeline. the production starred geraldine page and others in the cast included franchot tone, ben gazzara, pat hingle, richard thomas and betty field (among others). jane is only in the last 2 acts and doesn't have much to do in those acts. she wasn't praised for her acting. that was her final broadway performance. (her only stage work since was reading monologues in eve ensler's laughable vagina monologues.) repeating, that was her last broadway appearance.

2) her 1st was there was a little girl. the press gets this wrong as well. c.i. says joshua logan directed and the playwright was daniel taradash and fonda was the lead, a woman who was raped. c.i. says jane got huge praise for her broadway debut. she won the new york drama critics award for this performance.

3) jane next did invitation to a march. c.i. says, 'i know too many people - some now dead - in that cast so you list every 1 or you don't list any.' fair enough. the cast was celeste holm, madeleine sherwood, jeffrey rowland, eileen heckart, tom hatcher, jane fonda, james macarthur and richard derr. and that was the order of the billing. it debuted on broadway oct. 29, 1960 at the music box theatre. arthur laurents directed and he was also the playwright. jane got strong reviews for this play as well (c.i. says the new yorker's kenneth tynan was among the strongest but also notes walter kerr) but jane wasn't the lead and was playing 'the girl' in a heavy cast.

4) jane's disaster that had her walk away from broadway is not mentioned. while 2) and 3) ran for a few months and 1) was a benefit performance that was not supposed to have a long run, jane signed for a comedy and it was an outright bomb. in fact, c.i. says it is 1 of the biggest bombs of its day and it's surprising that the press hasn't mentioned it: the fun couple. as part of the publicity for this expected broadway hit, the defense department named jane "miss army recruiting of 1962.' she was the female lead and ben piazza was the male lead, the supporting leads were a very young dyan cannon (a wonderful actress!) and bradford dillman. jane wanted the director to be her then boyfriend and drama coach, the bi-sexual andres voutsinas. the play was a bomb (dyan got some nice notices). the new york post said of the bomb: 'the most incredible thing about the play is that two such talented young performers as jane fonda and bradford dillman were willing to appear in the title roles.' they called it 'an epic bore.' ('they' is richard watts. had to call c.i. back because i didn't write down the reviewer's name.) the play was written by john haase and neil jansen. c.i. notes that there is a documentary entitled jane that was made during the lead-up to the fun couple. the new york herald tribune critic walter kerr appears in the documentary because his review of the fun couple included: 'i find it impossible to believe that the fun couple ever went out of town. if they'd gone out of town, they'd have closed it.' for the documentary, kerr told the camera, 'if you asked me for a list of the 5 worst plays of all time, the fun couple would be on it.' the lay opened october 26, 1962. its last performance was october 27, 1962. yes, it closed that quickly. it was a huge bomb. the only 1 who entertained the audience was dyan cannon. it was the end of andreas' directing career (and really of jane and andreas' relationship) and the end of jane's stage career. strange interlude, again, was a benefit performance and an ensemble cast.

so there's some gossip for you. i wasn't going to do a heavy post tonight. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snaphot:'

Wednesday, November 5, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the empire gets a new ruler, Nouri al-Maliki claims credit, the treaty remains stalled, Iraqis are far from overwhelmed and more.


Yesterday the US elected a new ruler for the empire, War Hawk Barack Obama. David A. G. Fischer (Dissident Voice) reports on an election night panel independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader took part in:

He goes on to contrast his campaign with that of Obama as not having any hoopla, hope or rhetoric; Ralph continues to campaign on the real issues affecting the people in spite of overwhelming odds -- he is a champion despite Obama's victory.
Along the same line and with applause, his lack of hoopla and rhetoric is still so out-of-sync with the media cartel's disinformation campaign that he was once again ignored by the mainstream. What we have here is a man who refuses to sell out and complacently surrender to the status quo, he is a man based on strong principle who perceives reality for what it is -- a sham directed by the controlling institutions of power, of which Obama is just another cog in their finely-tuned machine.
But what do we really know about Mr. Barack Obama? Here we have a candidate who received hundreds of millions in campaign donations by corporate America and Wall Street. Nader sensibly asks something I've pointed out many times, "Why are the corporations investing in Obama?" By looking at his voting record it is obvious who he supports with approbation for illegal surveillance, a permanent presence in Iraq with a potential spread to neighboring countries, offshore drilling which he used to be against, an economic bailout lacking oversight and transparency, and so forth. Where is this great change that he has been spewing forth to the public for the past twenty months? It is likely just more of what the public wants to hear, but it's apparent by voter turnout that they fail to feel the hot air blowing by them.
Part of the problem with Obama, as Nader points out, is that while Obama is pulled to the right by the corporate establishment, there are no demands being put on him by organized groups such as labor and unions to pull him the other direction and thus "make him better."

Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) notes this refusal to make demands on Barack as well:

We have learned that Black politicians and activist-poseurs have an infinite capacity to celebrate not having engaged in struggle with Power, and that the Black masses can be made drunk by the prospect of vicariously (through Obama) coming to power. Having failed to make even the mildest of demands on Obama in return for unquestioning support, Black misleadership vowed they would press for firm commitments on issues of importance to African Americans once Obama had passed the final hurdle. (White progressives who were similarly self-neutered during the campaign also promise to begin acting like real people's advocates, any day now...just you wait and see.) We have already learned that "Progressives for Obama" of all ethnicities, who failed to put pressure on the candidate early on, when it might have made a difference, are full of crap.

Yes, they are full of crap. Including the Agency-fronted political closet case who has already shown up with a pep-talk about how the economic crisis is a good thing, a really, really good thing! Those in the closet politically might want to check their language so they don't expose themselves by accident. But lets' move to the economy. The San Francisco Business Times observes, "A day after the United States made history by electing Barack Obama president, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 486 points Wednesday, ending at 9,139.27." The Phoenix Business Journal notes that news as well: "The election is over and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has taken a dive of nearly 500 points." No, there was no magical 'cure' nor was there going to be. Any zowie-wowie article on the election today notes in cautionary tales how things will have to be scaled back or dropped. That's your preparation for expecting nothing from the man who promised even less. Larry Pinkney (Information Clearing House) offers a list of things to expect:

In relative short order - inside the United States itself - under a Barack Obama presidency, the living conditions of the majority of Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow peoples will continue to steadily and massively deteriorate while the corporate Wall Street barons prolong their glut of the every day people's finances, resources, hopes, and dreams. Under an Obama presidency those non Blacks who stand in opposition to Barack Obama's de facto pro Wall Street backers and their blood-sucking policies will be branded as racists and traitors, while those Blacks who oppose Obama's policies will be ignored and/or branded as fringe radicals and traitors. Thus, the horrors of the U.S. Empire will continue unabated, and in many respects, under Barack Obama, actually worsen. The blame for the deteriorating economy and continued war will of course quickly be laid by the Obama / Biden regime and the Democratic Party Republicrats on the previous Bush / Cheney regime, despite the fact that it was the complicity of the Democratic Party itself with the Bush / Cheney Republican Republicrat regime that facilitated the despicable policies and practices of the Bush / Cheney regime. The fact is that the Democratic and Republican Parties are de facto Republicrats with the objective of exploiting the majority of people and maintaining U.S. Empire abroad.After the Democratic Party Republicrats so-called election euphoria and celebrating is over, the Obama / Biden Republicrat regime will get down to the business of placing the ongoing exploitation of the every day people of this nation on fast track. The masses of Black Americans, along with the oppressed and exploited Brown, Red, Yellow, and White peoples of this nation will learn first hand that, notwithstanding the deceptive Obama rhetoric, exploitation nationally and internationally will be intensified. The "clash between those who want freedom, justice, equality for everyone and those who want to continue the system of exploitation" about which Malcolm X referred, will be intensified under Barack Obama, with Obama representing the interests of the oppressors. The political contradictions in this regard will also be increasingly obvious.Those so-called leftist and progressives who were and are collaborators with U.S. Empire will, for a time, try to pretend that their support of Barack Obama was not a sell out, and that they simply need more time to persuade the U.S. Empire's colored corporate emperor to do the right thing. Meanwhile, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, and White peoples will be enduring an unprecedented rate of economic and social suffering. The anger of the people will ultimately peak and explode, as a result of having bought into false hope and raised expectations. This is precisely why the U.S. corporate government has already made military contingency plans to contain and massively quash dissention within the United States. Barack Obama will serve to provide his corporate / military masters with colored political cover for political repression in this nation; and he will have already provided a small respite of wiggling room for them in this regard. Nevertheless, as brutal reality forces the proverbial scales of blindness to drop from eyes of the masses, it will become crystal clear that the supposed "change" to which Barack Obama referred in his campaign rhetoric, was nothing more than a vicious ruse of double-speak by him, backed by his corporate and military handlers. Indeed, the emperor will be shown to "have no clothes." But what of the fate of millions of Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow peoples inside the U.S.? How many horrible sacrifices will have been, and will yet need to be made by the people in order to get the boot of economic blood-sucking and political repression off their / our necks?

Emperor Barack gave his victory speech in Chicago. Gary Leupp (Dissident Voice) decodes it:

"And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand."
In other words: Don't worry, world. The bad old days of George Bush are over.
"To those -- to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you."
In other words: Under my administration we Americans will continue to simplistically conceptualize the existence of an enemy that is pure evil and wants to destroy the world, and imagine we can "defeat" it through the War on Terror.


Exit polls demonstrate that the economy was the number one issue, ahead of the illegal war. Going unnoticed is how Iraq was taken off the table by All Things Media Big and Small. When the faux activists of CODESTINK are protesting Wall St. -- not for the war machinery they manufacture and sell but over the economic meltdown -- and Jodi's given everything but her uterus to Barack's campaign, don't pretend anyone's being encouraged to give a damn about ending the Iraq War. To really ensure that it be a non-issue, did someone else take it off the table? Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reports that Nouri al-Maliki is claiming to "close aides" that he gave the election to Barack because "he took the Iraqi issue 'off the table' for Obama by endorsing his timetable during his visit to Baghdad in July." Don't be too angry with al-Maliki, CIA assets tend to face very violent rub-outs when they've exhuasted their usefulness and al-Maliki's pretty much squeezed out. al-Maliki reportedly believes he can get further concessions from Barack on the treaty between the White House and the puppet government. At the US State Dept today, Sean McCormack was asked about the treaty and the spokesperson stated that the US has not yet responded (officially) to the amendments suggested by Iraq and that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will convey communications to al-Maliki. As for whether the amendments will fly or not, McCormack declared, "Well, again, I go back to what -- you know, what I've said and what Dana Perino has said over at the White House in terms of the bar for any changes. You know, it's a pretty high bar for any changes. But again, we'll take a look at what is suggested. We're formulating our responses. The Iraqis took some time to think through what they wanted to provide us by way of comments, and we're taking our time in providing that response back to them."

One thing Ambassador Crocker already conveyed to the Iraqi government was, "While this historic election has changed a great many things, we will also have full continuity of policy and purpose as we move through our transition." NPR's Corey Flintoff (All Things Considered) reported that today and on the reaction of Iraqis to the election results with Abu Osama stating, "We don't know whether he'll change now that he's elected" and
Rana Sa'ad Diyab stating she's not seen any improvements in six years and "she'll wait and see whether Obama's policies bring any changes in security or her family's standard of living, but she doubts that will happen." Hameed Kamil Hilal tells Leila Fadel and Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers), "We have seen nothing positive from any American president, and McCain and Obama are two faces of one coin, one policy." Meanwhile Demetri Sevastopulo (Financial Times of London) explains that it's not just Iraqis who are doubtful that any 'change' will take place, "On Iraq, the Illinois senator campaigned on a pledge to remove US combat troops within sixteen months, but some military officers privately argue that he will show more flexibility on timing after assuming responsibility for the war started by George W. Bush."

In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing where the driver killed him/herself and 4 people with nine more wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing where three people were wounded and a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed 1 life with three more wounded.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 police officers shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Mosul Tuesday night and, also Tuesday night, 2 corpses discovered outside of Kirkuk.

In peace news, Cindy Sheehan ran for the US Congress from California's 8th district. She lost to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday. While others tried to hop a bandwagon and refused to challenge Democrats, Cindy had the strength to stand up. At Information Clearing House she shares her thoughts:


This past month, I kept on saying to my supporters, staff, interns, volunteers and myself, that no matter what happened on November 4th that we could hold our heads up high and be very proud of our campaign. Until yesterday, I wasn't sure that what I said would be true, but I feel an incredibly sense of peace and pride in our accomplishments. There were so many victories over the last year that the American paradigm of "winner-take all" just doesn't fit.We moved into San Francisco a little over a year ago with less than nothing. We used savings and credit cards to open our office and sometimes to keep it open. We transformed a former "sex shop" to a fully functioning and vibrant campaign office. Our "natural base" never materialized, so we had to build a foundation in less than a few months.In August, we historically gained ballot access as only the 6th independent campaign in California history to do so. Our platform based on humane economics was in place long before the recent collapses and resultant bailouts. Our labor platform was hailed all over the world, while unions here in SF supported the corporate "rescuer" Nancy Pelosi.Cindy for Congress never once sold out our solid principles based campaign and would never sell out the voters of San Francisco like Nancy Pelosi has. Nancy Pelosi ran from my campaign and our demands to debate me and we persevered and did so amazingly well after a near total media black out and several attempts at political intimidation.We got to the end of this stage with a barrel full of integrity and a boatload of dedication and love. Dozens of activists came from all over the country to be here to help us spread our progressive, peace based message and thousands donated to help keep our campaign afloat.We have moved right through November 4th because this is a movement for peace and against corporate control of our political system. Movements can't stop, we must keep moving.

iraq
gary leupp
glen fordblack agenda report
larry pinkney
nprcorey flintoffdemetri sevastopulo
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
corinne reilly
damien mcelroy
cindy sheehan

nothing will change

today

remember what today is. and from team nader:

Breaking Point: For Posterity

I have never been able to identify with the Republican Party. I struggled with the Democratic party, identifying more with them - but still not feeling quite right about it. Even as a young teenager I had distrust for our politicians and our media. Some struck me as empty people, others seemed like outright liars to me. I never understood the whole concept of labeling people as either conservative or liberal. I have varying views on different topics - where do I fit in?

By 1997 when I was 18 years old, I realized that the labels were another way to manipulate and control the populace, a way of saying "Who do you hang with?" So the 2000 election came and I felt the need for change. It was the first time I got to vote! Al Gore seemed like a nice guy but I cast my vote for Nader feeling that he was honest and a man who could get things done. To my horror I watched our whole democratic process fall down around us as Gore won the popular vote but Bush still took the election. I had never felt so trapped in my life. Wasn’t this the country of choice and freedom? Where was the peoples’ voice? Why was no one doing anything? How could the Democrats sit back and let this happen?

I was living on Long Island, NY, when 9/11 happened, and like every other American I was glued to my TV. I was so shocked, angry and saddened. A few days went by and an overwhelming feeling of panic came over me as I realized something wasn’t right with our media. I just felt that something was being left out, something wasn’t right. Since then I have watched in disbelief as Bush has committed crime after crime.

Our representatives and media have let him get away with it with minimal protest, and so have many of our American Citizens. 2004 came and went, and again my vote went to Nader with many family and friends telling me that I was throwing my vote away. I took these arguments passively and still watched politics as an observer. I would raise awareness of issues, but always with a feeling of defeat and complacency.

2008 has been my breaking point. I am in my 29th year of life and in April I gave birth to a beautiful baby boy named Quentin Michael. I have never felt the need to protect our future the way I do now. I can’t have him grow up in a world where he is just another cog. He deserves freedom and a clean environment. I can’t just do my part at home and quietly stand by while others abuse this world and kill it for their own personal wealth and greed.

I have always felt that Nader was someone who truly stood for the people - but now I say it loud! We need to take our rights back and really change the course of this country. Our children deserve it. The theme of this election year has been about change and hope and that is why I am voting for Nader/Gonzalez for 2008. I am voting for my son. I am voting for the future. Thank you Ralph Nader for giving me a choice.

—Maureen Nicholson Schramm

I have been at my breaking point for several years now. I am 26. I graduated from college with a Bachelors of Music degree. Thanks to hefty student loans, I couldn’t afford to work an internship and live at the same time. The interest on my loans was 95% of my monthly payments and I had (have) to work dead end jobs just to break even. I feel myself further and further off the path I started down when I was in college, and I have a void inside. I am finding myself too depressed to listen to or write music. Add to this the fact that I have no health insurance. My wife and I can barely afford the bare necessities and I have to hear arguments on the semantics of the word "recession" on the radio. I can’t afford to get sick, or worse, hurt.

Now there are $700 billion dollars for bank bail outs? I have been dying to start my own business for years and I can’t come up with capital to start it, and now credit markets are dry. What am I supposed to do? Be depressed forever?

HELP!!!

—Zack Passman


Photo above provided by Tom Gibbons.

If you haven’t reached your breaking point, visit www.breakingpoint08.com.
Send me your Breaking Point story to share at loralynne@votenader.org, so the growing numbers of independent voters can join our voices, and together, we can change the system.

Loralynne Krobetzky
Communications Director
Nader for President 2008

ShareThisShareThis

nader

above is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Ms. Troll" and it made my day. i bet it made your day as well.

and remember you can make a point of letting robin morgan know how damn little she matters by voting for ralph nader whom robin loathes and was ripping apart not all that long ago. pull the lever for barack and you're saying, 'suck on it, robin!'

on ralph, c.i. slid this over. steven holmes' 'Nader Hoping To Bring In His Most Votes Ever' (washington post):

As the two major-party presidential candidates traveled the country with huge media entourages on the final day of the campaign, Ralph Nader was in his Washington headquarters, giving interviews by telephone and complaining about being ignored.
"I believe in a competitive democracy," he said after his staff quickly put him on the phone, "and a competitive democracy cannot occur without the Fourth Estate giving it a chance to have a chance."
Nader, 74, is making his third consecutive run for the presidency, and, according to his campaign, is hopeful that he will receive his largest number of votes ever. One campaign aide said that Nader is hoping to receive at least 1 million, and that he would not be surprised if he garnered 2 million.
Both totals would outpace Nader's tally of slightly less than 500,000 four years ago but would be less than the nearly 3 million votes he received in 2000, when some Democrats believed he cost then-Vice President Al Gore the election.
Toby Heaps, Nader's spokesman, said the campaign has been encouraged by several developments.

so hopefully that article will grab some attention and remember he is on the ballot in d.c.

in fact, for those who may not know, you can vote for ralph in any state except ohio. if he's not on the ballot, he is a write-in in all states except ohio. let's stick with ralph for this from team nader, 'The Election of 1844:'


Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Toby Heaps, 202-441-6795

Why Third Parties That Might Not Win Elections Still Matter:
The Crucial Role of Third Parties in the Abolishment of Slavery

An important third party candidacy for abolishing slavery took place in 1844. James G. Birney, of the Liberty party ran against James K. Polk of the Democratic Party and Henry Clay of the Republican Party.

The Democrats were running on a platform of immediate territorial expansion, war with Mexico, and the continuation of slavery. The Republicans, knowing the popularity of territorial expansion took a very nebulous stance. They were for territorial expansion, but only gradually. Slavery -- either abolishing it or maintaining its legality -- was not on their platform.

James G. Birney ran on the Liberty ticket with an anti-slavery platform. He’d run in the previous election, winning only 0.4% of the vote. But in 1844 he did significantly better with 2.3% of the vote.

The election was close:

Candidate James K. Polk Henry Clay James G. Birney
Party Democratic Whig Liberty
Platform Invade Mexico Now Invade Mexico later Anti-slavery
(Pro-Slavery) (More liberal slavery laws)
% of Pop. Vote 49.54% 48.09% 2.30%
Electoral Vote 170 105 0

The election is close. Some scholars charge that James G. Birney got enough votes in New York to tip the election for Polk. In that state, Polk beat Clay by little over one percent. James G. Birney had 3.25% of the vote there. Henry Clay would have won the election if he had New York’s 36 electoral votes by a margin of 7 electoral votes (141-134).

If the election happened today, Birney would have been lambasted as a "spoiler" for taking a principled stance on slavery and "stealing" votes from Clay.

As history shows, the strong third-party showing in the elections from 1844 through 1852 led to tumult in the Whig party that eventually broke it in two. The Whig party divided over the issue of slavery. The "Cotton" Whigs went to the pro-slavery Democrats. And the so-called "Conscience" Whigs went on to Free Soil, and eventually the newly formed Republican party.

If those who voted for Birney, instead decided to cast a "strategic" vote for the Whigs, the party may have held together longer than it did. Birney’s strong showing proved that the abolitionist movement was not something politicians could ignore if they wanted to stay in office.

Without the third party run that agitated the Whigs, who had become a party that was closely aligned with the Democrats, abolition may have taken much longer. Only 21 years after that, the 13th amendment, banning slavery, was added to the Constitution. A marginal candidate’s platform became the law of the land.

i went with that 1 because - as i've admitted here many times - in 2004, my attitude was 'ralph's a spoiler!' and c.i. really talked to me about that nonsense. c.i. voted for (and donated to) john kerry in 2004 and that was among the reasons her words registered. i knew she wasn't just sticking up for her candidate. i also know c.i. and how important fairness is to her.

i'm really excited to be voting for ralph this year. i hope you're excited by who you are voting for. that's what it should be. if some 1 doesn't excite you, if they don't really speak for you and share your issues, why are you voting for them?

that's the question you should ask barack supporters but they won't be able to answer so don't even bother with it. it will only confuse them. you really can't use logic with a cult member. their programming has prevented free thought.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, November 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty is still iffy, Syria still wants answers, Article 50 comes back . . . maybe, a Democrat 'explains' Barack's mentor, and more.

Starting with the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) quotes Iraqi news editors Ahmed Abdul-Majid ("Out coverage of the U.S. election is not heavy because we believe that the result of the elections will not have a direct impact on the future of Iraq") and Adbul-Halim Saleh ("In the end, strategic policies made in the United States will not be affected by the changing of the administrations") on the US election and explains, "The agreement, under negotiation for months, would keep American troops in Iraq for three more years but give Iraqis a greater role in deciding U.S. military operations." China's Xinhau notes al-Sabah (Baghdad newspaper) is reporting three of the five amendments have been agreed to by DC. Among the rejected are supposedly the issue of immunity for US troops and among the agreed to changes is that US forces would leave in 36 months and that the treaty will be called "agreement on withdrawal of US forces." Indo-Asian News Service adds, "British Ambassador in Iraq Christopher Prentice told the Kurdish newspaper al-Taakhi that Britain was keen on reaching an agreement with the Iraqi government since 'very little time remains until the end of this year'." The United Nations mandate allowing foreign forces to be on Iraqi soil expires December 31st. Without something in place, there is no legal authorization for foreign forces on Iraqi soil. This mandate covers the occupation, there was no mandate that allowed for the illegal invasion. The UN Wire notes the Washington Times story that "American officials are looking to the UN Security Council to extend the mandate for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq beyond Dec. 31 as direct negotiations with Iraqi officials on a deal remain plagued by 'numerous' differences." At the White House today, spokesperson Dana Perino addressed the negotiations and talk of seeking an extension on the UN mandate:

We are working towards responding to the Iraqis. Our negotiating team, led by Ambassador Crocker, is finalizing that and we expect to be talking with the Iraqis over the next week. And I think that their parliament is back in session starting next Tuesday, so hopefully we'll make some progress soon. And I think reports about us looking at an alternative are overwritten. We are focused on getting this agreement done. I think the Iraqis recognize that it is their interest, and it's certainly in America's national security interest for us to finalize it. So we're working through all the requested changes that they had, and there might be some that we can support, there might be some that we won't be able to support. I'll just let the negotiators work that out with them privately.

At the US State Dept today, spokesperson Robert Wood said of the SOFA, "Nothing new to report. We're taking a look at the material we got from the Iraqis last week, and we'll be replying in due course. But I don't have anything further than that." Iran's Press TV maintains the treaty allows for attacks on foreign countries: "Under the US -sought agreement, American military and civilians planes will be able to use Iraqi airspace without Baghdad's oversight." The treaty faces more hurdles as a result of the US creating a crisis two Sundays ago by attacking Syria, AP reports that Walid al-Moualem, Syria's Foreign Minister, has used the word "painful" to describe the responses from Syria to the US should the White House and its agencies continue to stonewall regarding the attack. Iran's Press TV quotes al-Moualem stating: "Syria may resort to more painful measures if the United States does not give an official explanation for the attack." Meanwhile AKI reports that the US Embassy in Syria reopened yesterday (it was closed Thursday due to protests and closed Friday as well although the State Dept maintained that was due to a holiday). The US school has been closed and Sami Moubayed (Asia Times) explains, "A belated victim of the United States raid on Syira on October 27 was the American school in Damascus. The institution has been a controversial satellite of US interests in Syria since its founding more than a half-century ago, and it has often been featured as political football during the two nations' turbulent, often bitter relationship." In the US, the White House, Defense Dept and State Dept have refused to speak publicly about the attack -- despite the fact that the US is supposed to be a democracy with leadership answerable to the people -- and Phil Sands (UAE's The National) explains that the stonewalling has taken place in Baghdad as well:


US officials would stand in the safety of the Green Zone and lecture journalists -- lecture Iraqis -- about all the progress that was being made even as, out there beyond the concrete barriers, the country collapsed and descended into a sectarian chaos that has claimed tens of thousands of lives. Regardless of what was actually said, however, the Americans were at least willing to stand up and publicly answer questions. It was something. Last week, however, they finally made a mockery of even that basic principle.
The usual press conference was held, as planned, on Wednesday afternoon and was attended, as always, by the dwindling Baghdad press corps. Brig Gen David Perkins, the US military spokesman for Iraq, sat down in front of an American flag and read out a bland statement. It mentioned the Status of Forces Agreement negotiations, interference by Iran and progress in training Iraq's security agencies.He failed to address just one small issue: the cross-border attack into Syria by US forces that took place on the Sunday before.
Given that the airborne assault, which left at least eight people dead, was carried out from Iraqi soil and supposedly targeted an al Qa'eda figure who was helping launch attacks inside Iraq, you might consider it worth talking about. In light of the fact that it was technically an act of war by both the US and Iraq on Syria and made international headlines, you might imagine something would be said. Instead, there was a deafening silence.
After reading his opening statement, Brig Gen Perkins asked if there were any questions. One of the Iraqi reporters duly asked about the attack on Syria. The officer's response was brief and to the point: "Umm," he said, "I've nothing to add on that." A few minutes later, another reporter, this time an American, asked about the poor quality of water supplies in Iraq and the US attack on Syria. Brig Gen Perkins entered into a lengthy treatise on the improving security situation and reconstruction efforts, before stating: "I have nothing to add on any other subjects."
In the course of the press conference, two more reporters asked about the raid inside Syria and Brig Gen Perkins simply pretended as if the questions had not been asked. He did not so much as acknowledge them.

The US Embassy in Syria remains the only US outlet issuing statements. Last week, it announced the Embassy would be closed due to protests (and later that day the State Dept refused to confirm that announcment). Today the Embassy's website displayed: "Public Announcement, November 3, 2008 In response to the Syrian government's request, the American Cultural Center is unavailable to the Syrian public as of October 30, 2008 until further notice, and classes at the American Language Center have been cancelled until further notice." Asked about it and if that meant that the Cultural and Language centers were only closed to Syrians, Robert Wood declared, "Well, that's right. It is closed to the Syrian public. But we still -- we have, you know, officers, officials there." Associated Press' Matthew Lee pursued this.

Matthew Lee: What if you're not Syrian? What if you're -- if you're not a Syrian citizen and you happen to be living in Damascus, can you still go to the American Cultural Center?

Robert A. Wood: Well, if -- it's closed to the general -- the Syrian general public and so --

Matthew Lee: Yeah, but I -- you know, I'm sorry. When the Syrian government came to you, they didn't just say to close it to the Syrian public, did they? They said to close it down.

Robert A. Wood: Well, it's -- let me just say, Matt, it is closed to the Syrian general public, as far as I know, to the general public at large. But our work continues. We have people who are there who work at the Cultural Center, and they'll continue to do their business. But it is closed to the public.

Matthew Lee: So your interpretation of their request is not that they told you to close the thing down, but rather they just told you to close it to the public.

Robert A. Wood: THe only thing I can say, Matt, is it is closed to the public.



Meanwhile IranVNC reports that country's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, visited Syria today for a meet up with Bashar al-Assad (Syrian President) and Faroq al-Shar'a (vice president) during which he declared, "Instead of being a show of American strength aiming to weaken Syria, this action demonstrates Washington's own weakness and desperation." Yesterday Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced: "Syrian Foreign Minister Waleed Al Moallem, made a phone call with His Excellency Foreign Hoshyar Zebari on Saturday 1st November, 2008. Both sides discussed the ways to encircle and contain the repercussions of U.S. military raid against the Syrian region Albu Kamal. The two sides stressed their joint keenness to support and strengthen the bilateral relations between both brotherly countries and peoples and the need to pass the tension on the relations after the raid. The understanding between both sides was discussed on the practical measures to correct the path of Syrian-Iraqi relations and placing those relations in its proper frame to serve the interests of both brotherly countries."

The unrest comes at a time when the puppet government tightens the economic belt (around the neck of the average Iraqi) and when the security situation grows more iffy internatlly. Yesterday the New York Times finds Suadad al-Salhy and Katherine Zoepf explained the price of oil per barrel going up and slightly down has Iraq's concerned about their budget for next year and have cut it by $13 billion dollars. And what do they plan on cutting? It's not detailed; however, Liz Sly (Chicago Tribune) reported: "The Iraqi government plans to cut salaries for the estimated 100,000 members of the Awakening movement whose revolt against Al Qaeda in Iraq played a key role in bringing about the sharp fall in violence in Iraq. The move is certain to aggravate building tensions between the Sunni volunteer force and the Shiite-led government, which assumed responsibility for the Awakening movement from the U.S. military earlier this month."Sly notes $300 is how much members were paid but leaders were paid $400 to $500 a month and that both are being cut. Gen David Petraeus (now over Centcom but until recently the top US commander in Iraq) has credited the "Awakening" movement with the fall in violence as has US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. October 1st, the central government in Baghdad took over payment of approximately 50,000 "Awakening"members and one month later (next checks go out November 10th), they can't even maintain the payment level. It's not as if they didn't know how much the US was spending. So obvioulsy, just as they never planned to absorb the "Awakening" into police, military and security forces, they never intended to pay them. Sly notes the hopes of one "Awakening" who believes the US will pick up the difference. However, that's not going to be the case according to the article. That, however, was supposed to be the case when the handover was made. That was one of the promises the US made to the "Awakenings." Not even a month later and the handpicked and handtrained "Awakenings" are seeing the US go back on their word.

Now might not be the best time for Iraq to monkey around with it's internal security. Iraqi Christians have been under attack since they protested the dropping of Article 50 in the provincial elections law. Hurriyet reports: "Iraq's parliament voted on Monday to guarantee religious minorities seats on provincial councils to be selected next year, but drew ire from Iraqi Christians by setting aside fewer spots than a U.N. proposal had urged." China's Xinhau provides the breakdown the vote (106 out of 150 MPs voted for it) and notes that it's six seats: "A seat will give to each Christians and Sabeans in Baghdad, and a seat for each Christians, Yazidies and Shabak in Nineveh, and a single seat for Christians in Basra." Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the religious minorities say the number is too small and quotes Yonadem Kanna (Assyrian Democratic Movement) stating, "They failed in the examination of democracy. . . . Getting nothing is better than this insult." On the topic of Iraq's Christians, CNN reports Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has promised $900,000 (US equivalent)will be spent in some manner on protecting Iraqi Christians and that the distribution of the money will be supervised. Saturday in London, there was a demonstration in support of Iraqi Christians. Independent Catholic News reports protestors marched to No 10 Downing St on behalf of Iraqi Christians. A petition was presented and citizens and residents of Great Britain who wish to sign the petition can click here.

In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing not far from Sahib Salman ("under secretary of the oil ministry") which wounded Salman and "one of his guards," 4 Baghdad roadside bombings that claimed 6 lives and left twenty-nine people wounded, 2 Baghdad sticky bombings that wounded five people, 2 Mosul roadside bombings that claimed 2 lives and left four wounded and a Baquba roadside bombing that wounded nine people.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 man shot dead in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 "tribal sheikh" shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 2 corpses discovered in Saadiya and 2 corpses in Mosul.


Turning to the US presidential election. To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe (US News & World Reports) notes, "The only prediction I have made, and with which I shall stick, is that Tuesday is going to be a long, long night." Erbe also notes, "If nothing else is obscene about this presidential election (and plenty is IMHO), then the fact that together the candidates will be spending $8 per vote to win the White House clearly meets and exceeds the obscenity descriptor." Erbe's referring to the Democratic presidential ticket and the Republican ticket only. There are other candidates. But starting with the Republican presidential ticket, John McCain is the nominee and Sarah Palin is his running mate. Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports Palin's agenda today was "six cities in five states" and that she flies late tonight back to Alaska to vote Tuesday morning only to fly to Phoenix later Tuesday. At the McCain - Palin '08 blog, Matt Lira offers:

This is a historic election and, because of your activism and support, we will achieve victory on Election Day. Our campaign has defied expectations, not because of beltway pundits, but because of people like you who have always been there when it mattered most.Click here to find your voting location and to get out the vote for John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin.

Cindy McCain (disclosure, I know and like Cindy) is John McCain's spouse and they have four children -- one of whom, Meghan McCain (McCainBloggette), wrote the following at her site yesterday:
"America is worth fighting for" is my favorite line of my father's speech. I think it is so poignant, and essentially, it captures the reason why I have always loved, supported and believed in my father. It is why I believe he would be the best President for our country now, at a point where we face many challenges abroad and also at home, where so many of our fellow Americans are going through difficult times. The fact that our country is and always will be worth for fighting for is the essence of why I have been so inspired to participate in this campaign, and throughout this process I have been even more inspired by the people and the places I have encountered along the way, around our great country.
We are truly the luckiest people in the world, and I have been very fortunate to be a part of this experience on the campaign, and to be able to share it with so many of you. The next three days will fly by and no doubt be pretty crazy, so let me just say thanks right now for getting involved too. This is what was at the heart of what I hoped to achieve with my blog, and it has gone beyond my expectations. Stay tuned for more from the trail tomorrow!

John and Cindy McCain issued a statement today: "We offer our deepest condolences to Barack Obama and his family as they grieve the loss of their beloved grandmother. Our thoughts and prayers go out to them as they remember and celebrate the life of someone who had such a profound impact in their lives." Meanwhile Brian Montopoli (CBS News) reports that Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama finally found an 'issue' he could sink his teeth into: "Having said that, brothers should pull up their pants. You are walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear showing. What's wrong with that? Come on." Come on, indeed. Barack with an issue that matters to him and finally a concrete plan for an issue. It only took until the day before the election for the fashionista and Men's Vogue cover boy to find an issue.

Harold Evans (at Guardian of London) notes the media's attempt to elect Barack:
But the press bias towards Obama doesn't represent a simple revulsion for the Republican party. It was on display in the Democratic primaries with the persecution of Hillary Clinton. Worst of all, in the primaries, the press let the Obama campaign get away with continuous insinuations below the radar that the Clintons were race-baiters. Instead of exposing that absurd defamation for what it was - a nasty smear - the media sedulously propagated it.
Clinton made the historically correct and uncontroversial remark that civil rights legislation came about from a fusion of the dreams of Dr Martin Luther King and the legislative follow-through by President Lyndon Johnson. The New York Times misrepresented that as a disparagement of King, twisting her remarks to imply that "a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change". This was one of a number of manipulations on race by the Obama campaign, amply documented by the leading Democratic historian, Princeton's Sean Wilentz. Clinton came close to tears in a coffee shop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which many thought helped her to win an upset victory there. MSNBC television gave a platform to the Chicago congressmen, Jesse Jackson Jr, where he questioned her tears and claimed that she'd not shed any tears for the black victims of Katrina, and that she'd pay for that in the South Carolina primary, where 45% of the electorate would be African-Americans.
In fact, MSNBC ran a non-stop campaign for Obama propelled by the misogyny of its anchors, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and David Shuster. Chelsea Clinton joining Clinton's campaign prompted Shuster to report she was "pimping" for her mother.

Meanwhile Democrat Jerry Nadler raised the issue of Jeremiah Wright in Florida. Jake Tapper (ABC News -- link has video) quotes Nadler stating, "Think of the history here. You have a guy who's half-white, half-black. He goes to an Ivy League school, comes to Chicago . . . to start a political career. Doesn't know anybody. Gets involved with community organizing -- why? Because that's how you form a base. OK. Joins the largest church in the neighborhood. About 8,000 members. . . . Why did he join the church? . . . Because that's how you get to know people. Now maybe it takes a couple years [before Barack's thinking] 'Jesus, the guy's a nut, the guy's a lunatic.' But you don't walk out of a church with 8,000 members in your district. . . He didn't have the political courage to make the statement of walking out."

Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Tomorrow Ralph will be holding a one-word response press conference:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Marc Abizeid, 202-471-5833, marcabizeid@votenader.orgTUESDAY, NOV. 4 - Nader to Hold One-Word Response Press Conference
*NOTE CHANGE OF DATE
Special questioning/interview opportunities for members of the foreign mediaIn deference to the sound bite journalism that dominates presidential political media coverage, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader will host a press conference at which he will only issue one-word responses to questions for the first 30 minutes.Who: Ralph NaderWhat: Special One-hour Press Conference. For the first half of the Press Conference, Mr. Nader will answer all questions with just a one-word response. For the second half of the press conference, foreign press credentialed media will be given priority.Where: National Press Club, Murrow Room, 13th Floor - National Press Building, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DCWhen: 12 Noon, Tuesday, November 4

Many people will be breaking the two-party strangle-hold. Team Nader periodically highlights voices who have made the break and here is the latest:
My name is Pat and I am a resident in Nutley, N.J. Today, I took my ten year old son to the Nutley Public Library, where a mock election was being held for all elementary school students. Over the last two weeks, flyers came home with my son's homework about the event. The flyer promoted the event to kids and told them they could have their photos taken with their favorite candidate.
My son, who is aware of my support for Mr. Nader, said me "Dad, I bet they don't have a picture of Mr. Nader there at the library." I agreed with him and he deceided he wanted to participate in the mock election on November first.
We left for the library with our camera in hope of seeing Mr. Nader. Upon arrival, we were directed to the Stockton Room, where the election was being held. As we entered the room, two life sized cardboard cutouts of Sen, Obama and Sen, McCain were in the center of the room. I laughed to myself when I saw that Sen. McCain was standing on the left and Sen. Obama on the right. Mr. Nader's cardboard cutout was nowhere to be found. We were greeted by two women and a young girl, who were poll workers.
They greeted us and asked my son his name. They had him sign his name in a book and proceeded to give him a ballot. This ballot contained only two names: John McCain and Barack Obama. Again, Mr. Nader's name was not on the ballot. The children were not even given a place for write in candidate. After giving my son the ballot , he was directed to one of three voting booths, where he could make his selection. From behind the cutrtain my son called to me, "Hey Dad, how do you spell independent." I told him I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T. He told me he wrote that below the other choices and placed a large check mark next to the word. He also wrote down Mr. Nader's name and placed his ballot in a collection box.
Upon emerging from the voting booth, my son was asked if he would like to have his picture taken with his candidate. He said he would and he stood off to the far left away from the two cardboard cutouts, next to an American flag standing in the corner. As, I flashed the picture, the two women said, "No, stand next to your candidate and take the picture" With that my son said, "But my candidate is not here" All we heard from the women was a puzzled "Oh!!"
Teach civics in the schools.
-- Pat Sweeney Nutley, NJ

Independent journalist John Pilger (Information Clearing House) speaks the harsh truth many so-called 'independent' journalists refuse to:

Obama's job is to present a benign, even progressive face that will revive America's democratic pretensions, internationally and domestically, while ensuring nothing of substance changes.Among ordinary Americans desperate for a secure life, his skin colour may help him regain this unjustified "trust", even though it is of a similar hue to that of Colin Powell, who lied to the United Nations for Bush and now endorses Obama. As for the rest of us, is it not time we opened our eyes and exercised our right not to be lied to, yet again?

And finally, Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential candidate and Rosa Clemente is her running mate. We'll again note Kimberly and Ian Wilder's "Vote Green Party On Tuesday!" (On The Wilder Side):November 1, 2008This is an exciting time for us! The Green Party has never been as relevant as it is today. As Congress offers trillion-dollar bailouts to Wall Street, people living on Main Street struggle to stay in their homes and pay for basic needs. Why is Congress bailing out corporations while the public slides into economic insecurity? Because the industries that will benefit from the bailout are some of the largest campaign contributors to political campaigns.But never fear because you can VOTE GREEN on Tuesday and choose People Power over corporate power. Support Cynthia McKinney for President andRosa Clemente for Vice President; and, support other Green candidates running in your community. Greens are running for office across the country for 60 types of office. Check them out! To find out who's running in your community, click here.Once elected, Greens will not betray the public interest for corporate cash. We accept no corporate money because we believe corporate influence is what's wrong with politics.If you believe healthcare is a right for all, not to be governed by the profit motive of insurance companies, support the Green Party and our campaign for Single Payer Healthcare.If you believe offshore drilling furthers our national addiction to fossil fuels; and want to see positive solutions like renewable energy, local food production, local businesses and better public transportation- Help elect Greens who will make it a reality.If you believe every vote must be counted, that higher education should be available to everyone, that climate change is real, that the war on drugs is racist, and that the privatization of public goods and services is wrong and that we need to BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW stand up and support the party that will stand up for you The Green Party.If you want to see a clean, healthy future for our children, make sure we have a strong Green Party today

iraqsameer n. yacoubsami moubayed
liz slythe new york timescnn
mcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
leila fadel
bonnie erbe
jake tapper
scott conroycbs news
brian montopoli
kimberly wilder
john pilger

the weekend

short

sexism, 1 panhandle fool and more

The sexism that I believed had been eradicated was lurking, like some creature from the black lagoon, just below the surface. Suddenly it erupted and in some unexpected places.
Instead of engaging Palin on the issues, critics attacked attributes that are specifically female. It is Hillary's pantsuit drama to the power of 10. Palin's hair, her voice, her motherhood, and her personal hygiene were substituted for substance. That's when it was nice.
The hatred escalated to performers advocating Palin be "gang raped," to suggestions that her husband had had sex with their young daughters, and reports that her Down syndrome child really was that of her teenage daughter. One columnist even called for her to submit to DNA testing to prove her virtue. Smells a little like Salem to me. I was present at an Obama rally at which the mention of Palin's name drew shouts of "stone her."
"Stone her"? How biblical.
All this is at a time when women are regularly being raped as they try to cross the border into the United States; bloody, broken women haunt the emergency rooms of hospitals; and abuse and disrespect for women and girls is rising faster than bank bailouts. That is the atmosphere in which people, including women, choose to attempt to destroy a woman who is a legitimate political leader.
Agreement on issues is not required, but Palin merits respect.
It is dismaying that misogyny and sexism are so excessively m
arbleized into our daily interactions that some of us cannot even recognize their existence when confronted with it or when staring at it directly in the mirror.

that's from helen mccaffrey's 'Palin deserves our respect' (philadelphia inquirer) and it comes when one of the airs of the nation proves just what a tiny-dicked ass he is. this is abc world news tonight thursday night broadcast:

VARGAS: But the point being that you haven't been so bruised by some of the double standard, the sexism on the campaign trail, to say, "I've had it. I'm going back to Alaska."
PALIN: Absolutely not. I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that ... that would ... bring this whole ... I'm not doin' this for naught.

from that ari mebler (the nation) starts insisting palin's declared she's focusing on 2012 - from the above exchange. then the tiny-dicked, no-nuts ari wants to hedge his bets by saying cnn jumped to that conclusion.

the exchange indicates no such thing. ari wanted to push the LIE because he's a SEXIST pig.

and isn't it cute how they smear sarah palin with 'ambition.' heaven forbid a woman is ever ambitious! only a man can be, right! a little nothing piece of chicago gutter trash, 1 the rumors just swirl around (yeah, we've all heard those rumors) can serve 2 years in the senate and announce he's running for the presidency? but that's cool.

just like it's cool the way the entire press knows various rumors about barack that they're happy to whisper about both loathe to report.

but the press will lie for barack, will cover for barack. over and over.

and there's punk ass ari mebler repeating a falsehood about palin and then trying to blame it on cnn. what a weasly ass f**ker.

no surprise the puny rag he hails from is a barack bible that ignores real candidates of change. ralph nader's the real deal. his running mate has written a very important & informative essay:

The Trail of Broken Promises
By MATT GONZALEZ
Watching the Democrats in the final weeks of the presidential election has been a lesson in revisionist history. While they lament the terrible crimes perpetrated against the American people by George Bush and vow to keep fighting for our rights, they conveniently gloss over the fact that they have no standing to make such claims. Indeed, the Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, have actually voted with President Bush’s agenda, making them complicit in his acts, not valiant opponents defending our liberties.
PELOSI’S PROMISE TO END THE WAR
Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi said that if she became the speaker of the House of Representatives she would end the war in Iraq. Remember that? The Boston Globe noted, "Pelosi vows no ‘blank check’ on Iraq funds.” (1/8/07). In her own words: "If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new to him, because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions.” Rick Klein of the Globe noted "Pelosi’s comments mark the first suggestion by a Democratic congressional leader that Congress could use its authority over the nation’s finances to hasten an end to the war. Her remarks point toward an aggressive stance on Iraq from Congressional Democrats in their opening days of control of the House and Senate.”
Yet after she became the speaker of the House in Jan 2007, war appropriations actually went up by $50 billion, with no strings attached and no date for the withdrawal of troops. This year, 2008, they’ve gone up by another $25 billion for a two-year total of $350 billion, with no end in sight. So what happened to the promise of "no blank check?”
REID’S FILIBUSTER RULE
Sen. Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, has complained that the Republicans have filibustered (a procedure used by the minority party to delay voting on legislation) more times in the last two years than in the entire history of the United States to explain why he can’t move forward a progressive agenda. First he said it was over 70 times, then adjusted it by saying it was 65 times (Las Vegas Sun 3/6/08); yet still the highest for any two-year period (the previous record was 57 filibusters) (Politico, 3/6/08; Gov.Track.us 4/15/08). But Sen. Reid’s frustration has proven to be a red-herring. Did you know that Reid lets the Republicans filibuster telephonically, meaning that he doesn’t require that they physically present themselves on the floor of the Senate? Why is he making it easy on them? Is this what an opposition party looks like?
REPUBLICAN CLASS ACTION REFORM
Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party nominee for president, has a long history of voting against the interest of the American people, and specifically, the working class. Before entering the presidential contest, he supported the Republican Class Action Reform Bill, which made it harder for class-action lawsuits to be brought in the state courts. State courts are exactly where consumer protection lawsuits and recent wage and hour claims have succeeded in improving the lives of workers and helped them obtain better wages and breaks during work hours have succeeded.
Progressive commentators at the time called it a thinly veiled special-interest extravaganza. Journalist David Sirota noted "Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop ‘frivolous’ lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill’s real objective was to protect corporate abusers.” (The Nation, 6/26/06). So why did Obama vote for it?
PATRIOT ACT & FISA AMENDMENT
Sen. Obama supported one of the worst attacks on civil liberties in recent history, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, which extended an earlier law granting law enforcement expanded powers to search telephone, e-mail, and financial and medical records, in addition to granting the federal government a host of other powers to combat so-called domestic terrorism. After saying he would oppose it if elected to the U.S. Senate (NOW questionnaire, 9/10/03), in July 2005, Obama voted for it.
But this wasn’t enough. After entering the presidential race and running on a "change” message, Obama vowed in February of 2008 to vote against—and filibuster if necessary—the FISA bill amendment (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) that gave immunities to telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. This eavesdropping program clearly violated the privacy of law-abiding Americans at the behest of the president, and made the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover seem tame by comparison. Those voting in favor of the bill didn’t even first require full disclosure to see how deep the illegal conduct extended and agreed to apply the law retroactively.
Despite his promises to the contrary, and despite the vehement protests of many of his supporters, when the FISA bill came to the Senate for a vote this past July, Sen. Obama voted for it without explaining how this vote fit in with his change message or reconciled with his repeated claims he was going to protect the American people from repeated assaults on civil liberties by President Bush. Here was his chance to lead and make good on his promise, and what did he do?
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the FISA bill "an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance" (ACLU press release, 7/9/08). Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office called the bill "a Constitutional nightmare” and noted "with one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant.”
Obama even voted to stop debate on the bill so he could get back to the campaign trail. How ironic is it that he was in a hurry to give more speeches about change and hope but couldn’t find the time or integrity to convert these ideas into action?
On the eve of the vote MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow noted "I’m betting that [Pres. Bush’s] wildest dreams did not include the prospect that Congress — a Democratic-led Congress — would help him cover up his crimes. Yet that is exactly what the US Senate is poised to do.” (Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 7/8/08).
OFF-SHORE DRILLING
As Sen. John McCain started to call for domestic drilling to ease our dependence on foreign oil, rather than debate the scientific and economic illogic of the position, Sen. Obama announced that he agreed with McCain. Reversing a 25-year ban on off-shore oil drilling, Sen. Obama led his party’s reversal, offering no explanation for how this would ease oil prices, particularly as experts noted that drilling would likely have an almost imperceptible impact on oil prices in the near future.
As Lester Brown and Jonathan Dorn of the Earth Policy Institute noted in "Drilling For Oil Is Not The Answer” (9/30/08) "The U.S. Department of Energy projects that lifting the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) moratorium [of the lower 48 states] would not increase production before 2017 and that by 2030 production would only amount to 0.2 million barrels per day—less than 1 percent of current consumption.”
Furthermore "The U.S. Department of Energy projects that opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would lower gasoline prices at the pump by a mere 2 cents per gallon.” Even if we combined the two regions in question, it wouldn’t amount to much of an impact on oil prices: "Lifting the moratoria on drilling in ANWR and the OCS would reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline by at most 6 cents—and this would not be seen for at least another decade.”
Proponents of drilling have also exaggerated theenvironmental safety of current off-shore drilling and oil production technology in general. There is widespread evidence that current drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is already leading to serious pollution and spills. After reviewing data from the National Response Center, the Houston Chronicle found there had been 595 oil spills across four state coastlines, totaling roughly 9 million gallons spilled in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ("Spills from hurricanes staining the coast” by Dina Cappiello, 11/13/05). So why is Sen. Obama, who claims to care about the environment, now advocating off-shore drilling?
DEATH PENALTY
In June of 2008, the conservative Supreme Court struck down the use of the death penalty in cases of child rape (Kennedy v. Louisiana held that states may not impose the death penalty for the commission of a crime that did not result in the death of the victim), a decision that surprised even death penalty opponents who hailed it as an important step toward full abolition of the death penalty. Sen. Obama’s response? He quickly called a press conference to denounce the decision. Obama stated that he agreed with the extreme conservative minority, comprised of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Despite the many known racial and class inequities inherent in the death penalty, a practice abolished and abhorred in most of the rest of the world, Obama celebrates that he has always been a supporter of it.
On the campaign trail, Sen. Obama likes to highlight death penalty legislation that he sponsored while a member of the Illinois legislature, to show his commitment to reform. But let’s be clear, he didn’t work on laws to address the disproportionate rate of death penalty convictions of African-Americans, but rather a law to require videotaped interrogations of death penalty suspects. Yes, something we can applaud, but something many critics have noted merely greases the wheels of this injustice.
Most disquieting of all, as a state legislator, Obama voted "to expand the list of death-eligible crimes” (Chicago Tribune, 5/2/07), despite admitting in his own allegedly soul-searching memoir that the death penalty "does little to deter crime.” (The Audacity of Hope, 2006).
AFGHANISTAN
On foreign policy, Sen. Obama’s approach is hawkish. He wants to deploy more soldiers to Afghanistan, which will only further destabilize the Afghan-Pakistani border. He simply ignores the historic reality that no invading army has ever managed to successfully win a war in this area or subjugate the Afghani people.
During its ill-fated 10-year war, between 1979 and 1989, the Soviet Union deployed 620,000 soldiers to Afghanistan and sustained 470,000 casualties (sick and wounded, including infectious diseases such as hepatitis and typhoid fever).
Why does Obama want to ignore these facts and risk further destabilizing the area and creating another Vietnam/Iraq occupation there?
IRAQ
With respect to Iraq, Sen. Obama has conceded the main argument of Sen. McCain’s campaign and said the so-called "surge” worked (despite significant evidence and analysis to the contrary). And he has vowed to keep soldiers in Iraq to fight counterterrorism. John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton who now leads the Center for American Progress, estimated this would take a 60,000 troop presence to achieve.
Moreover Obama "will not ‘rule out’ using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq” according to Democracy Now! Correspondent Jeremy Scahill. And Obama did not plan on signing on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of such forces by the U.S. government by January 2009, according to one of his senior foreign policy advisors. (Democracy Now! 2/28/08). (This is one promise Obama unfortunately has kept, refusing to sign onto the Stop Outsourcing Security Act, introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont).
In an interview with Amy Goodman, Sen. Obama stated his intention of leaving 140,000 private contractors in Iraq because "we don’t have the troops to replace them.” He also stated the need to keep an additional "strike force in the region … in order to not only protect them, but also potentially to protect their territorial integrity.” Summarizing the interview, Amy Goodman concluded that it sounded as if Obama "would leave more than 100,000 troops, close to 200,000 in Iraq. ‘Troops’ meaning U.S. soldiers and military contractors which some call mercenaries.” (4/1/08).
Even concerning a possible timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq, Obama has diminished his promises. He now is committing only to "reducing the number of combat troops within 16 months,” presumably to "bolster efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.” (Obama/McCain debate, 9/26/08).
What we know for certain, though, is when given a chance to commit to a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Obama said "no.” When Tim Russert asked him, during a debate in New Hampshire in September 2007, if he could promise having American troops out of Iraq by 2013, he would not do so.
MILITARY SPENDING
According to military policy analysts at the Arms Control Center, in their report "U.S. Defense Spending, since 2001” military spending has risen from $333 billion in 2001 to $696 in 2008 (including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). It’s expected to rise even more in 2009, to $706 billion.
Despite this, Sen. Obama has joined Sen. McCain and called for increased military spending. "I’ve said that we have to increase the size of our military,” Obama told ABC’s This Week (9/7/08). The details of which he has previously noted in a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs: "I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.” ("Obama surrenders on military spending” by Glen Ford, The Progressive, 1/15/08).
WALL STREET CRISIS
The current financial crisis has generated perhaps the most fascinating political rhetoric of all. Obama has blamed the Republicans for deregulation and in doing so, his poll numbers have given him a healthy lead as we approach the final days of the campaign. The only problem is that the economic crisis is not just the fault of the Republicans. It is the direct result of bipartisan bills enacted into law by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
In 1999 Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This repealed the last vestiges of an important Depression-era law, the Glass-Steagall Act (1933), which prohibited banking, brokerage, and insurance companies from merging together, thus compartmentalized the financial industry and protected it from future collapses.
Equally significant in 2000, President Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which repealed 20-year-old agreements between the Security and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, so that financial institutions could sell credit derivatives such as the now notorious "credit default swaps” without any oversight and with no regulation. Two of its cosponsors included Democratic Senators Tom Harkin of Iowa and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. The measure had such bipartisan support that it was never even debated in the Senate and was passed by unanimous consent.
This resulted in the repackaging of mortgages into securities and the failure to regulate institutions that then over-leveraged themselves as they sold credit derivatives to investors who wanted protection from risky investments. This is what led to this financial crisis whose ramifications we have only begun to understand.
Both Obama and McCain voted for the $700 billion taxpayer-funded bailout despite the plea of 200 economists (including Nobel Prize winners) urging them not to do so (Open Letter to Congress regarding Treasury bailout plan, 9/24/08). Obama keeps emphasizing that the mess was the fault of Republicans alone. But how is this argument credible when the law responsible for the financial meltdown enjoyed unanimous support from both parties?
NAFTA
It was quite emblematic of Sen. Obama that he has changed his position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to suit whatever situation he is in. First, while running for the Senate in 2004, he said he supported NAFTA and thought there should be more trade agreements like it. (AP story 2/26/08). Then, while running against Hillary Clinton he blamed her for NAFTA’s impact on workers in the "rustbelt” states of Wisconsin and Ohio. But once he won the primary things changed. When asked if he would truly invoke the six-month clause in NAFTA for unilateral withdrawal, Obama showed his signature political reversal.
NAFTA created a trilateral trade bloc encompassing the United States, Canada, and Mexico, which was meant to foster greater trade between its members. It primarily lifted tariffs on goods shipped between the three countries but has caused economic turmoil both among American and Mexican labor, with unexpected loss of jobs and negative environmental impacts.
Nina Easton, a Washington editor for Fortune, noted in a June 18, 2008 article that "the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA,” something he had promised to do when locked in a close primary race with Sen. Hillary Clinton. Asked directly about whether he would move the U.S. out of the trade agreement, Obama said "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.” Fortune magazine concluded that, despite once calling NAFTA "devastating” and "a big mistake,” Obama "was toning down his populist rhetoric” and had no intention of following through with his anti-NAFTA promises now that the primary battle was won.
In light of this evidence, can we believe any of the other commitments he‘s made?
THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY
Those who think Sen. Obama will appoint good Supreme Court justices should just take note of his long history of supporting some of the worst Bush appointees to the federal bench, including Thomas Griffith (D.C. Cir.), Susan Blake Neilson (6th Cir.), Milan Smith (9th Cir.), Sandra Segal Ikuta (9th Cir.), and Kent Jordan (3rd Cir.). The Neilson vote was particularly troubling as both senators from her own state "blue slipped” her for being "too extreme.”
And even when he does manage to muster the courage to vote against conservative appointees, he does it in a lukewarm and perfunctory manner, refusing to join Democratic Party filibuster efforts. This is deeply troubling. He voted cloture (to end any voting delay) on Priscilla Owen (5th Cir.) and Brett Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.) both extremely conservative jurists, thus ensuring they would be confirmed.
SEN. JOE BIDEN AS VICE-PRESIDENT
Obama’s selection of Sen. Joe Biden as a running mate is particularly troubling and does not bode well for the decisions Obama is likely to make if elected president. Obama has presented Biden as someone who never forgot his roots, is a working class, regular guy.
The only problem with this characterization is Sen. Biden’s voting record. He was one of the main supporters of the Republican Bankruptcy Reform Bill that Pres. Clinton vetoed twice, only to have it signed into law by Pres. Bush in 2005, with Sen. Biden’s ardent support.
Criticizing the Bankruptcy Reform Bill, Arianna Huffington noted that the bill "makes it harder for average people to file for bankruptcy protection [average annual income of Americans who file for bankruptcy is less than $30K]; it makes it easier for landlords to evict a bankrupt tenant; it endangers child-support payments by giving a wider array of creditors a shot at post-bankruptcy income; it allows millionaires to shield an unlimited amount of equity in homes and asset protection trusts; it makes it more difficult for small businesses to reorganize while opening new loopholes for the Enrons of the world; it allows creditors to provide misleading information; and it does nothing to rein in lending abuses.” (Salon.com, 3/05)
Jackson Williams noted, in "Joe Biden: No True Friend of Working Men and Women” (Huffington Post, 10/27/08), that Biden "didn’t just vote for it, he helped carry the water on it. Some Democrats tried to soften the bill with a series of amendments; for example, exempting military personnel at war in Iraq. Biden joined the majority of his colleagues—the Republicans and too many Democrats—in knocking down every possible change that was offered.”
Sen. Biden has built a reputation as someone who works tirelessly for credit card companies, with some critics even referring to him as the senator from Mastercard—rather than the senator from Delaware.
In addition, Biden voted for the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act, so it’s hard to understand how Sen. Biden is going to help bring about change in the new administration.
OTHER FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES
Obama called Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez an enemy of the United States and urged sanctions against him. (Interview with Jorge Ramos, El Mercurio, 6/11/08)
He heaped praise on the first George Bush saying, "You know, one of the things that I think George H.W. Bush doesn’t get enough credit for was his foreign policy team and the way that he helped negotiate the end of the Cold War and prosecuted the Gulf War. That cost us $20 billion dollars. That‘s all it cost. It was extremely successful. I think there were a lot of very wise people.” (Larry King Live 3/23/08).
And in a much-anticipated speech to America’s pro-Israeli government lobby, AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Obama towed the typical pro-Israel line. He urged that Jerusalem would belong to Israel, despite peace efforts currently underway which would allow the holy city to be shared among both Israelis and Palestinians. He unequivocally stated "Israel’s security is sacrosanct.” And "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” (AIPAC speech, 6/08).
MAKING A DEMAND
Before you vote for someone with such a checkered voting record, it might be worthwhile to make some demands on him, don’t you think? Or at the very least we should ask him to explain why he’s capitulated so many times.
I’m sure Sen. Obama would find such questions uncomfortable. In fact, even progressives find such inquiry bothersome: they are aware of Obama’s lamentable history of capitulation on votes that take away our civil rights, but nevertheless cling to their wish that Obama will be something other than what he has already proven himself to be.
But it’s not likely that he will be a transformative leader. He’s already announced economic advisors whose ideas are at the heart of the economic meltdown, like Austan Goolsbee, an aggressive free trader and subprime loan advocate, and former Clinton advisors, David Cutler and Jeffrey Liebman, supporters of market-oriented solutions to social welfare issues such as the partial privatization of Social Security. ("Subprime Obama” by Max Fraser, The Nation, 1/24/08).
He has foreign policy advisors who helped take us into war, like Colin Powell, who in 2003 addressed the United Nations on behalf of the Bush Administration, outlining the reasons the U.S. had to invade Iraq (he also disturbingly, as a young Army Major, worked to suppress key evidence about the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam).
But that’s not all. Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman spoke with journalists Allan Nairn and Kelley Beaucar Vlahos who discussed Obama’s foreign policy advisors (2/10/08). They noted that Obama proudly brought on to his team old cold warrior and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has boasted of having created the whole Afghan Jihadi movement; Anthony Lake, who was behind the U.S. invasion of Haiti during the Clinton years; General Merrill McPeak, who delivered U.S. fighter planes to Indonesia shortly after the Dili massacre in East Timor in 1991; and Dennis Ross who has pushed to subordinate the rights of Palestinians to the needs of the Israeli government.
What do you think the likelihood is that Obama will listen to us, once we’ve voted for him, without making any demands on him?
As Robert Scheer, a noted columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, noted on July 23, 2008, shortly after Obama voted for the FISA bill, "Barack Obama is betraying his promise of change and is in danger of becoming just another political hack.” And Scheer made these remarks before Obama decided to support off-shore drilling, denounce a Supreme Court death penalty decision, and before he voted for the Wall Street bailout.
CONCERNING RALPH NADER
But we don’t have to vote for either Senators Obama or McCain, do we? Ralph Nader has a more impressive legislative record as an outsider than do Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain combined. And he has a proven record of fighting the culture of Washington. Just think of the Freedom of Information Act, Clean Air, Clean Water, automotive safety, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Yet despite these accomplishments, Obama and McCain do not believe they should even have to debate him.
What they don’t tell you is that the so-called independent Commission on Presidential Debates is actually a private corporation run by former leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties. The Commission, which was formed in 1987, is currently led by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and Paul Kirk, the former head of the Democratic National Committee. No wonder they won’t debate Nader or anyone else.
Of course they justify this by saying Nader isn’t polling well enough to include him in the debates. Yet, interestingly, both McCain and Obama were losing their respective primary races until they were let into televised debates. And there are well-known examples of how letting a candidate debate "mainstream” candidates can lead to a different outcome. Jesse Ventura won the governor’s race in Minnesota in 1998 when he was allowed to debate the Republican and Democratic Party candidates, going from 9 or 10 percent in the polls to ultimately winning the contest.
Ralph Nader polled at five percent and above at least four different times this year in national polls, and he even reached 10 percent in one poll in the state of Michigan (conducted by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA, 4/15/08). This should have been sufficient to gain access to the presidential debates. Ross Perot got in the debates in 1992 even though he was polling below 10 percent. Perot went on to win 19 percent of the vote, and his warnings about NAFTA and deficit spending influenced Clinton policy and proved prescient. Afterwards, the two parties retaliated by creating a 15% threshold which ironically no candidate is likely to reach without being included in televised debates.
The worse part of the so-called presidential debates as they are currently produced is that two-party control ensures that the questions are not sufficiently hard-hitting. Isn’t it appalling that we saw three debates between Obama and McCain at a time our country is suffering its worst economic crisis, and no one asked these men "Why should Americans have any confidence either of you is the best choice to tackle these problems given that both of your political parties helped pass laws that made this crisis possible—or even inevitable?”
They also like to say that voting for Nader is throwing your vote away. The Democrats often cite the 2000 election to blame Nader for Bush’s victory. But they noticeably never mention the 1992 election, when Bill Clinton won because Ross Perot "spoiled” the race for George Bush’s father, an incumbent president. By the way, Clinton got only 43 percent of the vote in 1992 compared to 48 percent by Bush in 2000.
And they offer no explanation for why they haven’t worked on election reform since 2000. Imagine claiming your political party lost the presidency because the "winner” was declared even though he hadn’t won a majority of the votes cast? Then imagine doing nothing to make sure it wouldn’t happen again. Isn’t it odd that the Democrats haven’t worked on election reform in the past eight years?
They never will change the system because the way things are now, they can be assured that they will be in office roughly half the time. They also count on people to accept their arguments that Nader and other third parties aren’t polling high enough to get your vote; that the real contest is between just two candidates.
If all else fails, they argue that it’s the most important election of your lifetime. I’m 43 years old and I’ve heard this argument each time the presidential race has come up.
If you accept these arguments, you are in effect rewarding the two parties for not fixing how we do elections in this country. You reward them for creating the Commission on Debates. You guarantee that things will not change. And you ensure that candidates that support single-payer health care, decent wages and pensions for workers, controls on corporations and a foreign policy based on achieving peace rather than driven by self-interest, cannot ever be heard.
Nader wants a more humane and democratic society. He’s seen that you can’t get anything done in Washington because senators like Obama and McCain ignore what’s good for Americans in pursuit of their own interests. Sure McCain talks like a maverick and Obama talks like a revolutionary, but look closely and you will see repeatedcapitulations to the very entities our government needs to get away from if we are to build a more democratic society.
WOMAN’S SUFFRAGE & EUGENE DEBS
Eugene Debs ran for president several times in the early 20th century. He advocated the right of women to vote at a time when it was not popular to do so and while other more successful politicians openly argued against giving women the right to participate directly in elections.
The general attitude among men was exemplified by Elihu Root, a former cabinet secretary to presidents McKinley and Roosevelt and winner of the 1912 Nobel Peace prize who said: "Suffrage would be a loss for women. I think so because suffrage implies not merely the casting of the ballot, (…) but suffrage, if it means anything, means entering upon the field of political life, and politics is modified war. In politics there is a struggle, strife, contention, bitterness, heart-burning, excitement, agitation, everything which is adverse to the true character of woman. Woman in strife becomes hard, harsh, unlovable, repulsive…” (N.Y. Constitutional Convention, 1894).
President Theodore Roosevelt, himself, said "Personally I believe in woman’s suffrage, but I am not an enthusiastic advocate of it, because I do not regard it as a very important matter.” (Letter to Dr. Lyman Abbott, 11/10/1908). And President Grover Cleveland said, "Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote.” (1905).
Despite these sentiments Debs advocated this right. Yet he never obtained more than 6 percent of the vote. Let me ask you: Were the men who voted with Debs throwing their vote away? If you had lived in that era, would you have voted for him? Or would you have come up with an excuse for why it wasn’t important enough?
CONCLUSION
On the street when I am approached by an Obama/Biden volunteer or someone who tells me they’re voting for Obama, I usually ask "What about the FISA vote?” And each time I hear in return "What’s that?” Or if I say, "You know he supports the death penalty,” I usually hear in response, "No he doesn’t.”
At what point will there be intellectual honesty about what ishappening? People are voting for Obama because they find him to be an engaging public speaker and like his message regardless of his history of being part of the very problem he professes to want to fix. Most people don’t want the actual facts to interfere with the desperate hope that he is everything they want him to be.
Do you really want to vote for someone who has already voted to take away your civil liberties because of some vague wish that he’ll act differently as president? Obama himself, speaking of Sen. Hillary Clinton, made a remark that could just as easily apply to him, and, unwittingly makes the case for why no one should vote for him: "We can’t afford a president whose positions change with the politics of the moment. We need a president who knows that being ready on day one means getting it right from day one.” (Salem, OR, 3/21/08).
If voting for war appropriations and taking away civil liberties was bringing us closer to a more democratic and egalitarian society, well, I would advocate it. But it isn’t doing that.
What is your breaking point? At what point do you decide that you’ve had enough?
What do they have to do to lose your vote?
Matt Gonzalez is Ralph Nader’s Vice-Presidential running mate on an Independent ticket.
ShareThis


so that's going to be it from me. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, October 29, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the SOFA updates, Bully Boy's bored in the White House, Iraq launches an investigation into the attack on Syria, Palin talks energy, Gonzalez talks values, and more.

Yesterday US Secretary of State Condi Rice met in DC with Massud Barzani who is president of the Kurdish region of Iraq and he told the press that the main point stressed by Rice was the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. Today Barzani went to the White House to meet with the Bully Boy.

Seated side-by-side, the two provided an Oval Office photo op and Bully Boy declared, "We had a discussion today on uh on several major topics. We talked about the progress on the election law and on the hydrocarbon law, but we also talked about the strategi -- Status Of Forces Agreement, called the SOFA. President Barzani has been a very strong advocate of the Iraqi government passing the SOFA, and I appreciate that. I informed the President we received amendments today from the government. We're analyzing those amendments. We obviously want to be uh we want to be uh helpful and constructive without undermining basic principles. And I remain very hopeful and confident that the SOFA will get passed. And Mr. President, you get a lot of credit for your leadership on that issue." Barzani chose to speak through a translator. His final statement (other than "thank you") was translated into English as: "And in terms of SOFA, we do believe that it is in the interest of the Iraqi government, it's in the interest of this country, and we have been and we will continue to support it and support its ratification." That led to Barzani correcting the translator with "Iraqi people."

Translator: And in terms of SOFA, we do believe that it is in the interest of the Iraqi government --

Massud Barzani: Iraqi people.

Translator: -- it's in the interest of this country and we have been and we will continue to support it and support its ratification.

That is not a minor point especially considering the seperation impulses re: the Iraqi government on the part of the KRG. Dan Eggen (Washington Post) describes Bully Boy's remarks and attitude as "mild encouragement" which comes after "strong suggestions from other administration officials that a compromise is unlikely. White House press secretary Dana Perino said on Tuesday, for example, that the "door is pretty much shut" on further negotiations." "Mild encouragement" might be too strong. When speaking Bully Boy rarely looked at Barzani and when Barzani spoke (except during the "thank you" sentence), Bully Boy was looking everywhere else and making weird grimaces (most notable when Barzani referred to "some major problems").


Yesterday at the US State Dept, deputy spokesperson Robert Wood refused to comment on the amendments being reported stating he had no seen them: "But until the Iraqi government compiles these concerns into a, you know, onto a piece of paper and forward it to us officially I can't really respond." Today spokesperson Sean McCormack handled the press briefing and the amendments were the first thing raised by the press. We did we received some comments from the Iraqi government. . . . The SOFA, yes, indeed we did. However, you'll be disappointed, I suspect, in my response Matt [Matthew Lee, Associated Press]. Since we just received these today we're going to take a careful look at them, give it a thoughtful review and once we have had a chance to assess them we'll provide a reply to the Iraqi government. So the process continues." [This echoed Dana Perino's earlier comment at the White House today, "I've not seen them. Our negotiating team in Baghdad has them. It's possible somebody else here in the building has, but I have not seen them. And we're going to decline to comment on the content of them and our reaction to them until we have a little bit more time to look at them more closely.") Matthew Lee pointed out how little time was left ("you've got a two-month lifespan" before the UN mandate expires December 31st) and McCormack replied, "I'm not aware of any substantial work at all on any alternative." He then clarified that with, "I don't think anybody's put pen to paper on anything."


Unrelated to Iraq -- unless you ask a question about Iraq -- the US State Dept does take seriously those random polls. And they are trying to provide more video content. State Dept spokesperson Sean McCormack wants you to ask questions directly and to do so by video ("less than 60 seconds"). They're calling it "Briefing 2.0."

Sean McCormack: The idea is that you will be able to ask questions of me directly by posting a video on YouTube. So what you need to do in order to participate in this is go to the State Dept channel on YouTube, click on this video and follow the instructions after that. It's pretty easy. This should be a lot of fun. I know it's going to be fun for me. I get to hear from the press corps and their questions every single day and give them answers. This is opportunity for me to hear directly from you and for you to hear directly from me, whatever happens to be on your mind. So give it a try. We're going to try to get to as many of your questions as we possibly can. If we don't get to it first time around, keep trying. So go to www.youtube/statevideo and follow the instructions after that.


Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported this morning on the proposed amendments to the treaty which "would give Iraqi authorities the right to determine whether a U.S. service member was on- or off-duty when he or she committed an alleged crime outside American bases, where such an American would be tried. It also would allow authorities to inspect all U.S. cargo enterting the nation. Iraqi politicians see the changes as a way to preserve Iraqi sovereignty." Mary Beth Sheridan and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) explain al-Maliki's "cabinet now wants the agreement to include language to 'confirm that Iraqi land would not be the center for aggression' against its neighbors, said Planning Minister Ali Baban, who attended Tuesday's meeting. . . . The inspection demand, along with an explicit ban on attacks on neighboring countries, reflects concerns that the United States might launch an attack on Iran from Iraqi territory." Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) notes that the changes sought by Baghdad include killing the clause that allows Iraqis to ask the US to remain in their country past 2011. Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshya Zebari told the BBC today, "The Americans have accepted to look seriously into this amendment. Some of them, actually, are language-related formulations, not substantive, but some other amendments are substantive changes, which I personally doubt will go down well with the American side." Arash Parsa (Iran's Press TV) explains, "Iraqi groups have reacted to the security pact in different ways. For example, certain ultranationalist Kurdish leaders have welcomed SOFA and the US military presence, in line with their traditional policy, just because they believe it might lay the groundwork for realizing their dream of an 'independent Kurdish country'. However, Iraqi Sunni groups which mainly rely on an Arab nationalist ideology, see the US military presence in their country as a serious infringement on Iraq's sovereignty, hence they are reluctant to get too close to the Americans. Shia groups have also a clear picture of the situation in their mind; after the Shia clergy adopted an uncompromising stance against the pact, every Shia politician is aware that he or she must pay a heavy price for supporting such a humilating pact. Of course, that is, if there were any Shia politicians who are ready to sacrifice their country's sovereignty for short-term interests."


At the State Dept today, Sean McCormack also declared that despite the announcements by the Syrian government, the US school and cultural center remain open. That he knew or said he did. But will the US Embassy in Syria shut down today? He didn't know. Will the US Embassy close due to protests that were scheduled for today? He didn't know. He said that was something each embassy determines based on their own security assessment. Earlier at the White House, Dana Perino had directed the press to the State Dept for questions regarding "the possible closure of the embassy". Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) quotes al-Maliki's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh declaring, "The Iraqi government rejects the strike by the U.S. planes on Syrian territories as part of the policy of the Iraqi government and its constitution which does not allow the Iraqi land as a base to conduct such attacks on neighboring countries. The Iraqi government has initiated an investigation on this incident and called for the U.S. forces not to repeat such an act." Parker also notes Iraq's Parliament also condemned the US attack on Syria. Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) reported this morning on a letter to the United Nation and its Security Council that Syria delivered which "urged Iraq to investigate the U.S. raid and said the attack came as Syria had been increasing efforts to stem the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq." The Iraqis are going to investigate and Reuters reveals that Iraq's National Media Center declared today, "The Syrian side will be provided with all details and information when investigation is concluded."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 people working for the Ministry of Education, a Baquba roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left fifteen people wounded and a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer. Reuters notes six other police offiers were wounded in the Mosul car bombing and notes another Mosul bombing that wounded three Iraqi soldiers and another Mosul roadside bombing which left three police officers injured, a Ramadi roadside bombing claimed 1 life and wounded another person, and a Kirkuk sticky bomb resulted in two police officers being injured. Reuters also notes a roadside bombing near an ice cream shop claimed 5 lives and left seventeen people wounded.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Balad Ruz home invasion in which 3 people were murdered ("the father of the Sahwa leader, his daughter and her husband") and fourteen more ere wounded. Reuters notes 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in Mosul and 1 Iraqi police officer shot dead in Mosul.

Iraq doesn't have sovereignty currently, let's not assume it has justice. Two years ago three American service members were killed: Thomas Tucker, Kristian Menchaca and David Babineau. Tim Cocks and Peter Graff (Reuters) explain that two of the three accused in the attack "were found not guilty" yesterday but the third, Ibrahim Karim al-Qaraghuli, was judged to be guilty and sentenced to death by hanging. Whether he's guilty or not, who knows? Whether there's justice in Iraq is debatable. However, David Babineua was killed while Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker were spirited off and tortured before they were killed. So we'll note the conviction. Equally true is that statements were made connecting the assault to the gang-rape and murder of 14-year-old
Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, the murder of her 5-year-old sister and both parents by US soldiers (not Babineua, Menchaca or Tucker). In 2006, Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reported on how Justin Watt (who was not part of the conspiracy) came forward with what he had been hearing. This was while US soldiers Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker were missing and, though the two were not involved in the war crimes, they were the ones chosen for 'punishment' as The Sunday Telegraph revealed in December 2006. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) explains today, "The attack was one chapter in a brutal history of this army unit. Just four months earlier, American soldiers from the same unit raped a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and then killed her, her parents and sister, burning the bodies afterward.
Four soldiers were convicted and sentenced in the rape case and a fifth soldier was discharged from the military. A sixth had already left the military when the others were court-martialed; he is scheduled to be tried in federal court. None of the soldiers captured and killed on June 16 were among those implicated in the rape and murder case." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) also notes Abeer and explains that the trial involved testimony "from witnesses who were unwilling to show up in court." October 22nd, Mike wrote, "Abeer is the 14-year-old girl who was gang-raped while her parents and five-year-old sister were killed in the next room. Then Abeer was murdered. All the US soldiers involved in the war crimes have been punished except for Steven D. Green." Mike noted Brett Barrouquere (AP) reporting on what happened after Steven D. Green was taken into custody -- he became a "chatterbox" and was "voluntarily making nearly two dozen statements while in custody". Green, who was admitted in the military on one of their moral waivers, has been fingered by the other soldiers as the ring leader. He has maintained he is innocent in the past but his lawyers are now floating an insanity plea. Unlike the other soldiers, Green had already been discharged before the war crimes were revealed. For that reason, he will be tried in a civilian court.

Turning to the US presidential race. Julia Preston (New York Times) reports Democratic presidential nominee Barack "Obama embraces new law-and-order language adopted in the Democratic Party platform at the convention. Although Americans are 'welcoming and generous,' the platform states, 'those who enter our country's borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law.' Instead of the Democrats' emphasis, as recently as last year on integrating illegal immigrants into society, the platform says, 'We must require them to come out of the shadows and get right with the law.' Heather Higginbottom, the Obama campaign's director for policy, said Mr. Obama had not altered his basic views. If elected, Mr. Obama would insist that illegal immigrants pay back taxes and fines, learn English and go to the back of the immigration line to become legal." That is so offensive but not at all surprising. Latinos didn't favor Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party primary a 'little,' they favored her overwhelmingly and it was because there was a relationship and a record. It was ignored by the liars of Panhandle Media but Latinos can always be discarded and trashed by the likes of Amy Goodman, Laura Flanders, et al. (Phillip Rodriguez' Latinos '08 documentary told the truth the liars of Panhandle Media refused to.) So it's no surprise that the vindictive Obama political machine would create one of the most offensive party planks regarding undocumented workers as a form of punishment. Independent journalist David Bacon has long covered the challenges immigrants to the US face and his latest written report is "Silence on Immigration" (Foreign Policy In Focus) which notes of the next president, whomever he or she is, "Something is clearly wrong with the priorities of immigration enforcement. Hungry and desperate workers go to jail and get deported. The government protects employers and seeks to turn a family-based immigration system into a managed labor supply for business. Yet national political campaigns say less and less about it. Immigrant Latino and Asian communities feel increasingly afraid and frustrated. Politicians want their votes, but avoid talking about the rising wave of arrests, imprisonment, and deportations." Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) and it was published last month. Yesterday Dissident Voice featured Lance Selfa calling out PDA (Pathetic Democrats of America). Today Joshua Frank offers "Note to Progressives for Obama: What Happens After Election Day?" which includes the following:


Does [Norman] Solomon even understand what it means to "put up a fight"? And what's with the notion that progressives will "apply pressure" once Obama wins? They have no cash and he's already going to receive most of their votes. What are they going to do to pressure him, poke him in his ribs? Cause a stink by farting through the halls of Congress? Obama may actually listen to us if he thought progressives were considering to vote for a guy like Ralph Nader, which is the point Nader seems to be making by campaigning in swing states this week. Nader knows how to put up a real fight, one not mired in hypotheticals and fear-mongering, so he's pressuring Obama where it matters most.
Of course, such a direct confrontation to Obama's backward policies ruffles the slacks of many devout liberals. But that is the point. Progressives are not flush with cash and as we all should know, flashing the almighty buck is usually the best way to grab a politician's attention. But the only thing we have at our immediate disposal now is votes. These crooks need us to get elected. Obama already has the majority of left-wing support shored up despite his resistance to embrace our concerns. Imagine if he had to earn our votes instead of receiving our support without having to do a thing for it?
So let's prepare for what's ahead. Obama may win next Tuesday, but what will happen to the movements that have been sidelined in order to help get the Democrats elected? What will become of the environmental movement after January 20? Will it step up to oppose Obama's quest for nuclear power and clean coal? Will the antiwar movement work to force Obama to take a softer approach toward Iran? Will they stop the troop increase in Afghanistan?
These are but a few of the questions I'd like progressive supporters of Obama to answer. I've yet to hear exactly how they will pressure an Obama administration. In fact, I don't think they will. George W. Bush will be gone and that will be enough for most. Progressives faced a similar confrontation in 1992 when Bill Clinton took office, but without much of a fight we saw neoliberalism take hold in the form of NAFTA and we endured the Telecommunications Act, Welfare Reform, a forest plan written by the logging industry, the dismantling of Glass-Steagall, the Iraq Liberation Act, and much much more.
What makes the Democrats believe that they even deserve our support now? President Bush has indeed been bad, but his most egregious policies were upheld and supported by the majority of Democrats. They gave Bush the green light to whack Saddam while they controlled the Senate. They supported the PATRIOT Act (Obama voted for its reconfirmation), the War on Terror, Bush's increased Pentagon budget, a no-strings Wall Street bailout and two awful Supreme Court confirmations. You may also remember that two years ago we ushered Democrats back into office with the belief that they might actually fight Bush on Iraq. Instead we've had nothing but complicity, with Democrats time and again supporting increased war funds.

Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Staying on a the topic of the foolish such as Norman Solomon, we'll note this from Team Nader:

Donate $3 now to Nader/Gonzalez.
Why?
Three is the number of principled journalists who this week recognized the long term benefit behind Ralph's run for President. (That's a big number for the week before the election -- trust us.)
Before we get to the three, check out one Norman Solomon, who again this week makes the tired old argument that Obama is the least worst of the two major party candi